Tactical Air War

[JG1_Pragr]

 

Hello TAW team, first thank you for developing an excellent server, I really enjoyed my time playing here 

Have to navigate, looking for targets, checking for threats (sometimes with wife speaking), do your thing and then navigate back home is a very thrilling and fun experience for me 

However I found that the race for tanks is a difficult one for the LW team, so i'd like to share few of my thoughts to solve this.

 

 - Make points system that count how much cities or airfields one team has at the end of the match, as well as tanks,pilots,aircraft, or other resource.

 - If the match ended without total domination, the system count how much cities/airfields one team has, added with remaining tanks/pilots/aircraft, and then determinate the winner with this number

 - Make destroying/damaging rear warehouse do something more than reduce the number of tank spawn, but also reduce the amount of max tanks

 

And since the main obj at this server is dominate the map, cities/airfields should nett more points than tanks/pilots/aircraft, so holding majority of the map will give more points. 

As for some people suggesting that tanks limit should be gone, IMO it still should be there, otherwise the map won't roll into the next one if the frontline keep going back and forth.

That's all i could think for now, and sorry if it's a half baked idea. Again, thanks for developing this server, looking forward for the next one!

 

I've had very similar idea. Stalemate of map can be avoid through fixed maximum length of each map. Something like if no side score decisive victory on particular map in five days, count number of cities/airfields each side holds and the side holding the bigger area is winner. If both sides hold equal number of cities/airfields the side with lower casualties win. 

[Scojo]

 - If the match ended without total domination, the system count how much cities/airfields one team has, added with remaining tanks/pilots/aircraft, and then determinate the winner with this number

I agree with your ideas except this one...

 

There should be no "Map winner" until one side moves the front line all the way off the map

[Geleitzug]

This pretty much corresponds to my ingame testing. The main reason why so many pilots complain about the "I-16 faster than E-7" case is that they do not use their radiators. Once radiators are set to some 60 percent the E-7 speed drops significantly and there's no way how it could outrun I-16. And for too many pilots it's easier to say the game is bugged in this regards than to start think of what they're doing wrong.

 

So what would you recommend to be the most optimum radiator settings for the E-7 under a) winter condition and b) summer condition ?

[FTC_DerSheriff]

So what would you recommend to be the most optimum radiator settings for the E-7 under a) winter condition and b) summer condition ?

that depends highly on the air temperature. But u can close the rads almost completely in winter. like 5%. In summer around 20%. Sometimes more or less.

[Roo5ter]

There should be no "Map winner" until one side moves the front line all the way off the map

Agreed.  

 

The map would be better off ending when other conditions are eventually met or it ends in draw because so much time passed and now we move up in year/aircraft available due to time passing.  

Edited March 6, 2017 by Roo5ter

[Monostripezebra]

Thanks for the Diploma, even if there is no Pe2 on it! ;=)

 

 

and I´m all for re-thinking the target effect balance.. giving some back targets more importance would be good, in my oppionen..Maybe even more trucks then tanks in the overall mix and less clear, concentrated targets??

 

Maybe think about having ground targets less concentrated. WHile in the real war, marching colums are tight and probably a good target, they could also only be attacked when formed. With the limitations of a flightsim engine (not possible to have thousands and thousands of independent acting units) and the gameplay limits of having not enough flak to represent everyone shooting  while having to accurately cover the targets  that should be attacked...  maybe dispersing and hiding more ground targets would be an option: If you have to search for them, you need to stay in the area longer and are more vulnerable to air action, that would counter the disparity in low-level flak damage resistancy between Il2 and Stuka/Jabos a bit. Off course the locations of hiding places would need to change with maps to not make it too easy, which sadly would mean either a lot of work or scripted placements.

 

But there is still the constant side imbalance, maybe haveing a mechanism, where you can only sign up for the war, but not a side, could really work...

 

Players get assigned sides randomly. This could even be bound to slots, so you could actually have historical numbers favoring one side or the other. You could even sell it as realism, as hardly any soldier hat a choice in what side he had to fight for...

On the bad side, this could rip groups apart,  but on the good side, this would get the comunity together as you would have to encounter new people. You could even go as far as having roles on the battlefield or units assigned... with limited player choice. You know, when you sign up for an armed forces branch the recruiter promises the world, but where you actually end up might or might not be something entirely different and you will allways have to cope with the people you are signed up with, not a unit of friends in the real word

Ok.ok.. that one would probably get hate because it would be too realistic.  ;=P

[Geleitzug]

that depends highly on the air temperature. But u can close the rads almost completely in winter. like 5%. In summer around 20%. Sometimes more or less.

 

Ok - good to know... I'll try that next time when I fly the "Emil"...

[Nosferatu87]

Agreed.  

 

The map would be better off ending when other conditions are eventually met or it ends in draw because so much time passed and now we move up in year/aircraft available due to time passing.  

 

 

I agree with your ideas except this one...

 

There should be no "Map winner" until one side moves the front line all the way off the map

 

 

This is a wonderful idea! make it more about territory and less about the 400 tanks the reds have such ease in killing. 

 

seems like it could help the overall balance of things. Blue never stood a chance in this last war. 

[JG1_Pragr]

Ok - good to know... I'll try that next time when I fly the "Emil"...

As Sheriff wrote. It depends on temperature on the map. Water radiators open for 20 to 25 percent on summer map should be enough. BUT it is enough for straight flight only! This is in general an "escape" setting. If you start maneuvering with closed or almost closed radiators you overheated your engine in matter of seconds or tens of seconds.

 

The oil radiator doesn't have so much significant impact. There's like 5 km/h difference between fully closed and fully open.

[hames123]

Can the next TAW have no amount of tanks killed before the map ends? It would make the maps much longer and much more enjoyable, as there would not be the feeling of uselessness as the enemy will definately kill all your tanks and win before you can. This way, maps will be won by actually advancing the frontlines, and not be bleeding out the enemy.

[=FEW=ayamoth89]

The =FEW= squadron will switch side in the next campaign. We hope that more russian squads/players will switch too so we could see if human user is a key factor in the LW defeat.

[[TWB]Elgonidas]

Problem is none of the aces with JG in their squad names will switch and we'll end up with ten times as many LW as VVS.

[JG1_Pragr]

As I wrote earlier, the main problem of balanced number of players under current (or last campaign) condition is that there is huge imbalance of how many sorties each side needs to fulfill their goals. Capturing airfield "by hand" require more pilots than column/defense destruction. And even the column case isn't comparable for LW and VVS CAS support is hardly balanced. Thus if there is the similar or same number of sortie each player can fly for his selected side the campaign result of balance number under current condition can be predicted. It ends by VVS victory.

 

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong of course.

 

I still hope that next campaign introduces some kind of "strategic" resources which destruction would be dependent on size of the bomb load rather than strafing and CAS capabilities. That could make the game interesting race between close support and more strategic aimed approach like "you're about to win the map but your side lost all fuel/ammo thus you loose". 

[Emuyen]

Dear TAW-Devs

 

Is it possible to let the TAW-Server run between the campaigns? Like Buddyspike does. The Server is between the campaigns open for testing. So the people can play and you can test everything. And if the server crashes, the mechanics don't work and so on, nobody can complain becaus it's in testing phase.

 

This would be a win-win-situation.

[Tuesday]

Problem is none of the aces with JG in their squad names will switch and we'll end up with ten times as many LW as VVS.

Only those of us who are non-aces seem to be willing to play both sides

[=LG/F=Kathon]

Ufff...... I have finally found free time and managed to read whole topic. A few conclusions:

 

1. Cheaters and anti-cheat system

Cheating in this game is possible by using memory hacking tools. The simple solution where Il2.exe periodically sends to the server info about it's own memory configuration (icons on/off, unlimited ammo ect) would in some way minimize possibility of cheating in my opinion.

 

I have no idea how current anti-cheat system works and how efficient it is. But I remember very good when during one of the campaign (with BoK gifts for the best pilots) there were accusations about cheating to TPAKTOPUCT (high AK in stats) and to =LG=Leon (there was video when 3 or 4 Laggs were shooting at him for a long time but his Ju-88 was undamaged). Then Devs wrote that the first isn't a cheater because they checked him. When [TWB]Pand asked "what exactly has been checked??" he was banned from the forum. There was no response about =LG=Leon. So I reported his issue to the devs. I received very short answer like "yes, he is a cheater". =LG=Leon is a older gay not very familiar with computers so I couldn't believe it was true. After some weeks I then received info from devs "well, there was a bug in game and planes could be invulnerable in some cases". I wrote it here because it's very easy to judge someone and very often we are wrong. 

 

In my opinion current anti-cheat system isn't sufficient and devs should introduce solution where server knows the memory configuration of the client or something similar. 

 

As developer of the TAW I may introduce automatic locking accounts which have extraordinary statistics, but you must send me formula how to define a cheater based on his statistics. 

 

 

 

A few answers for 19//Moach:

 - https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21029-tactical-air-war/page-76?do=findComment&comment=442640  the 0.005 damage constantly repeated to the pilot is the normal effect of the pilot's wound. (compare with this: http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=7647&name=19//p3zman). 

 

 - they have password on TAW TS because they asked for a channel with password. Anyone can have channel on TS with password if he needs it.

 

2. Problems with tanks and IL-2

 

The tank limit 400 will be turned off. I was thinking about increasing it to about 700 and when damage/destroy factory you also automatically destroy tanks in the factory so many tanks are destroyed and less are generate on the map. But turning it off is simpler. 

 

 

3. Suggestions to improve TAW

 

You have many suggestions and ideas to improve the server but I unfortunately I don't have much free time as before. Therefore there will not be many big changes in TAW campaigns in the future, where big means something completely new or requires too much coding in the script.  It's much faster to change existing features like: plane set, some limits, number of vehicles ect. 

 

I plan to use StG77_HvB plane set (https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21029-tactical-air-war/page-75?do=findComment&comment=442131) in the next campaign. There will be also a new map - Moscow South. Tank's limit will be off. Maybe fixed 7 maps (no condition of 5 wins). But more about it later.

 

 

I wanted to answer some questions you asked lately but this also later.

[Scojo]

Those quick changes you mentioned are the kind of changes most requested, so that's good to hear

[I./JG68_Sperber]

Thx for this Infos

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Thanks Kathon !

[HR_Tumu]

Nice planetset.

 

Without tank limit i think maps can be more longer..... the key for next campaign maybe will be on number of pilots i think.

 

thx for info.

[Geleitzug]

Good to hear that the tank limit has been removed - hope that will make the maps more "hard nut to crack"

 

Any idea when the next campaign will start ? can't wait...

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

Thanks for your time and effort! 

[Willy__]

Thx Kathon! Since they are not on that list, could you also add the 190 A-5 and 111 H-16 ?

Edited March 9, 2017 by JAGER_Staiger

[HR_Tumu]

Kathon.

 

What about eliminate numer of pilots ?? if pilots will be next key for win a map.... kill pilots on parachute will be a olympic sport.

 

In other editions... blue team  allways lost more pilots than red  tream( due % posibilities be captured ), and this can be considerated a unbalanced situation.

 

thx

Edited March 9, 2017 by RedEye_Tumu

[Roo5ter]

Thanks for the work Kathon.  Last patch was a big one and I really think the campaign is going in the right direction after reading your post even if updates are more incremental than revolutionary.

[StG77_Kondor]

Thank you Kathon. 

Let's see what the future holds. 

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Looking good Kathlon.  Little steps are good.  In the meantime we can fly!

[SDV_DecabrisT]

As developer of the TAW I may introduce automatic locking accounts which have extraordinary statistics, but you must send me formula how to define a cheater based on his statistics.

Nohow. Based on our analysis with chappi i can say you can not do this based on incomplete data. But even having access to the data for each sortie of each player (have you?), it will be very difficult to maintain objective criteria. Conclusions can only be made by the very obvious cases. How can you determine that the superiority of one player over another is not possible, if the first one flies for more than a decade in dense mode? Based on my little experience I can say that the difference between players can be tenfold or much more. In any case, a fair automatic analysis (and locking accounts) is not possible.

Edited March 10, 2017 by SDVr_DecabrisT

[SDV_DecabrisT]

I already said, I think the problem is not in the balance of the red and blue capabilities on the server. The problem is not the equality of the players themselves. If the blue side attracts more powerful players to its side - the Reds will lose. By infringing on the possibilities of the Reds, you do the opposite. Strong players go to the red side, or even leave the server.

Edited March 10, 2017 by SDVr_DecabrisT

[SDV_DecabrisT]

 

 

What about eliminate numer of pilots ?

  What about eliminate of Reds at all?

[HR_Tumu]

Before eliminate reds at all, I think it's better if reds play one edition flying empty ( no ammo ) , hahahahhahhaha. , now seriosly number of pilots and possibilities to be captured will be next point to change for the "balance", or maybe I'm wrong. Let's go play Sixth edition!!

[Emuyen]

 

Kathon.

 

What about eliminate numer of pilots ?? if pilots will be next key for win a map.... kill pilots on parachute will be a olympic sport.

 

In other editions... blue team  allways lost more pilots than red  tream( due % posibilities be captured ), and this can be considerated a unbalanced situation.

 

thx

 

 

I think this is not a good idea. The special feeling of TAW is that the life of a pilot and his plane has value.

 

As a LW pilot it is not reccommended to do a deep behind the line strike on a airfield. If life doesn't matter anymore, there will be much voulchering "just because they can" without any penalty.

Let's not forget that the purpose of TAW is to provide a "as realistic as possible" feeling. Turning every challenge off brings TAW nearer to a WOL experience. 

 

(Concerning WOL: I love WOL. It's great to play, the missions are good and you can have almost instantly actions in the terms of a sim game. But WOL is WOL and TAW should remain TAW for the sake of diversity)

 

Fly safe

 

Emu o7

Edited March 10, 2017 by ReDmuyen

[FTC_DerSheriff]

I think this is not a good idea. The special feeling of TAW is that the life of a pilot and his plane has value.

 

As a LW pilot it is not reccommended to do a deep behind the line strike on a airfield. If life doesn't matter anymore, there will be much voulchering "just because they can" without any penalty.

Let's not forget that the purpose of TAW is to provide a "as realistic as possible" feeling. Turning every challenge off brings TAW nearer to a WOL experience. 

 

(Concerning WOL: I love WOL. It's great to play, the missions are good and you can have almost instantly actions in the terms of a sim game. But WOL is WOL and TAW should remain TAW for the sake of diversity)

 

Fly safe

 

Emu o7

U will still lose your plane and your pilot. (streak and stuff)

 

I doubt that the pilot limit had a measurable effect on player behavior and risk acceptance. The risk to lose the plane and a streak had an impact however.

[I./JG68_Sperber]

I also think that it is better to remove the pilot limit also. Aircraft limitation is enough.

[666GIAP_Miji]

Just a question:

 

IA gunners death counts on pilots lose stats?

 

needed for adjust tactis.

[Scojo]

U will still lose your plane and your pilot. (streak and stuff)

 

I doubt that the pilot limit had a measurable effect on player behavior and risk acceptance. The risk to lose the plane and a streak had an impact however.

You mean just like Wings of Liberty?

What sets TAW apart from WoL isn't stats and streaks it's the loss of planes in your hangar

I also think that it is better to remove the pilot limit also. Aircraft limitation is enough.

Early war, Russians had an extreme lack of aircraft and an abundance of pilots. Late war that changed, obviously, but to what degree, I don't know. I also don't know anything about LW pilot and plane numbers, though I imagine both declined considerably

[JG1_Pragr]

I still think there is relatively easy "solution" to the issue. Just forbid the VYa canons for every plane since their tank-killing capabilities are without doubt beyond any real life hard data. I know there could be some dispute about this action but big SC bombs are forbidden too though their impact on campaign under current conditions is way less significant.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

The simplest solution is to have the Germans get all their planes and ordnance while the VVS only gets tanks. 

[A_radek]

The simplest solution is to have the Germans get all their planes and ordnance while the VVS only gets tanks.

But would that not help the VVS?

[Ktif]

The simplest solution is to have the Germans get all their planes and ordnance while the VVS only gets tanks.

Wouldn't work - Russians from World of Tanks will come and win the campaign...