Fighter Pilot Tips For Wings of Liberty (long freakin post)

[Fauster]

Disclaimer:

 

These tips and suggestions for fighter pilots are based purely on my experiences flying as both the VVS and LW in the Wings of Liberty (WoL) server. I am by no means an expert, but I believe my observations and experiences may be of help to new and possibly old pilots. I will describe the meta of Wings of Liberty in the most factual way I can. There will be no "this plane is OP" or "this side is bias" stated by me. I'm not perfect though, and fully expect to have my view of the meta and how a pilot should play it differently criticized. This is the point of an forum no? Also I'll be honest, this is more for the blue team as I feel they get the most new players but this is essentially for both sides.

 

The Meta

 

For those of you that are new to IL-2 BoX welcome. I encourage you to play some quick missions before hopping into the multiplayer. This game is most likely not like any flight sim you may have played before. But regardless of if you do this or not, you will likely find yourself at some point or another, playing on WoL. I have two spoilers for you that you may not like.

 

1. The Luftwaffe will generally be stacked: Maybe German planes appeal to more people? Maybe new players are told to fly the 109 as it is an "easy" plane to operate? Maybe some people are not as clued in on the VVS as the LW? I don't know. All I know is that usually the LW outnumbers the VVS.

 

2. The VVS will usually win: SURELY Russian))) bias? No not really. It's down to a number of factors that naturally occur given the meta of the game that I will go into more detail about.

 

So if not bias, what gives? Many many things young grasshopper, remember knowing is half the battle. I will split this bit into two categories for easy reading.

 

The Ground Attackers

What normally wins a map? Playing the objectives. Why do the reds seem to kill blue objectives faster? It is more difficult for the average LW pilot to shoot down a Pe2 or IL-2 than it is for an average VVS pilot to shoot down a 111, 88, 87, or 129. The VVS attackers have heavier defensive weaponry for the most part in a better firing arc than their German counterparts. It is also easier for a VVS fighter to get into the low 6 blind spot of most LW attackers and send some devastating armor piercing into the cockpit through the fuselage. Is it possible to one pass kill a Pe2 or IL-2? Absolutely. Is it possible for a 111 gunner to force an enemy to cease his attack? Also possible! But it is safe to say this isn't the majority of cases. The offensive weaponry on the VVS attackers is nothing to sneeze at either. Locked up your 109 diving on an IL-2 and overshot? Better not hold still for very long or burn your energy going straight vertical... or do let me know how it goes. 

 

Another factor is how each team covers their ground pounders. Being opted for lower altitude the VVS can and will stay closer in altitude to their attackers. It can also be expected that they will stack a few fighters at higher altitude as well to wait for the LW to go low for their attackers. Pe2's will dive from the clouds or be on the deck with their IL-2 sisters. AAA will usually be hit by fighters initially then a group with ground attackers will eventually arrive to attack the main targets. What is common is usually 1 or 2 Pe2's with a fighter cover of 2 or 3.

 

The LW will do a few different routines. They may amass a swarm of angry 500kg bomb laden 110s and wreck an objective relatively quickly with the 110s covering each other and the possibility of fighter cover as well. However it is not uncommon while patrolling a red objective to see a lone 87 or 111 flying straight and level at 1.5km from the most obvious route possible. Either it has no cover or it's cover is up at 4-6km staring at the bomber or the ground. When a VVS fighter finally renders into view on the bomber's 6 it is already too late.

 

The Fighters

This is the good part right? Well not juuust yet but none the less important. Here's the GIST of what you need to know in regards to how this pertains to the meta. Not surprisingly one of the most important aspects of this subject are the guns. Guns on both sides can feel very hit and miss (lol). Sometimes knocking a wing off is a breeze and sometimes you have no idea why this plane in front of you isn't disintegrated. Here is what is consistent. Guns will fire AP or HE. LW guns are more HE focused and VVS guns are more AP focused. There is some controversy over the modeling of High Explosive (HE) and Armor Piercing (AP) in BoX, but this is not about that. This is about how you play with the current deck we have.

 

Armor piercing from your dead 6 will kill your pilot. Armor plate or not a 20mm AP up your fuselage is going to kill your pilot. Almost any sized AP round into the top or your canopy will kill your pilot. AP is very good from the dead 6 position on an enemy. For this reason VVS pilots will play very hard to get in your blind spot and get close enough to have a salvo of 20mm end your pilot or engine instantly. 23mm toting LaGG-3s can do this at farther ranges. The 23mm is generally a one shot kill and has a very flat trajectory. LaGG-3s make up for their performance by allowing them to end a fight quickly with good gunnery. La5's can also pick an AP only belt with no tracers. This is an extremely good assassin load out has pilots may have no idea they are being shot at. The general VVS fighter strategy is to stay hidden until a LW fighter exposes himself in a low energy or tunnel visioned state. Doesn't matter what plane you are in, P40, I16, LaGG-3, all you have to do is sit in the clouds or just outside easy spotting range of an objective and wait for the 109s and 190s to put you into an advantageous position. Russian fighters also consistently fly near objectives so it is rare you are alone. However if you are alone, and a LW fighter spots you, you are in for a hard fight.

 

The LW has the much better performing fighters however a plane is but a tool. The pilot is the real weapon and he must know how to use his tools to win. Going back to guns the minengeschoss intensive belts have a hard time punching through the dead 6 of an enemy. It is possible for a few AP shells to fly through and kill the pilot or damage the engine or have the HE destroy the rear flight surfaces out right but it is not as quick or easy as with the AP focused belts. HE is devastating when hitting flat surfaces. Snap shots and deflection shots are what German guns love. The wings on a VVS fighter disappear real quick when they are perpendicular to the firing arc of an MG151. But this also changes the playing style of the LW fighters. If you fly like a Russian and dive out of a cloud onto a fighter on the deck and sneak up on his 6 you will lock up your 109 and have a harder time getting a gun solution. You will have a harder time ending his plane quickly as the minengeschoss bursts hide his plane while likely not doing all the damage you are anticipating. You will also likely be spotted before you get in range as VVS pilots tend to fly in teams more often (one sometimes as bait too) and with better situational awareness as they can not run when caught off guard.

 

The Tips

 

Okay so now that my self proclaimed meta has been established, how do you do well in these circumstances?

 

VVS

If you are in a VVS fighter, hunt like an alligator. Put yourself in a position where the enemy will expose himself in a weak state, and ambush. You can fly low or fly high. Just stay hidden. Your best trait is the fact that when you attack a German he will have an extremely difficult time shaking you. Clamp onto the six and (situation depending) do whatever is necessary to not overshoot and finish your enemy as quickly as possible. Shoot directly for the fuselage. You can generally expect back-up so don't be afraid to expend some energy to stay behind him. Easiest set ups are in the cloud base over an objective, a few km away from an objective with the target between you and the route the enemies will come in from, or right on the deck hidden by terrain. When attacked by 109s keep your speed up. Force an overshoot by making them go into their lock up speed (~475kph+). If a 190 is attacking a good pilot can and will out maneuver you at high speed so frustrate him into slowing down for you by turning under his dives.

 

Most of the time all you have to is use your better turn rate to avoid getting hit until a friendly sneaks up on your attacker. However, be VERY careful timing a flat horizontal turn to get a plane off your 6. It is all too easy for a LW fighter to cut your turn and hit you in a 90 degree snap shot when his guns are most effective. Doing a shallow dive to equalize energy with a last minute hard nose down maneuver is very effective at denying a shot and retaining enough energy to go back up after your attacker.

 

VVS aircraft are very durable and can afford to use bombers and other fighters as bait so long as they are in communication. This is a very common strategy used by groups of 3-4. Also open the cockpit. They LW already has a speed advantage for the most part so it's better to have the greater situational awareness. 

 

Luftwaffe

If you are in a LW fighter, first and foremost, humble yourself. Yeah you got the better plane but that doesn't mean a damn thing. So fly with some situational awareness. Never assume that you are in too high an energy state for someone to get you. Also stop flying above 4km. Are your bombers there? Are you going to see some lone 110 on the deck getting his teeth kicked in by 3 Yak-1bs up there? You know your 109 is gonna be locked up diving on someone only a few km below you right? Yeah I get it, you wanna feel safe and sometimes there are VVS at 6-7km. But guess what? They can't do anything to you if you're at 3km. You'll see their contrails from miles away, you can still dive away because they will have to kill their energy to get on your 6 without over speeding. You can have all the altitude and energy in the world but if your situational awareness is compromised for it you are of no help to your team. Here's the thing, the sooner you spot your enemy, regardless of his energy state, the sooner you can put together a strategy to win.

 

If you can spot an enemy beginning an attack on you a long way off the best strategy is to equalize the energy with a shallow dive then play to your plane's strengths to gain an advantage. Run level in a 190, climb in a 109. You will be surprised how much of an enemy advantage you can nullify just by spotting the danger early. If you end up with a VVS fighter 50m off your 6, you made your mistake long before then. Forcing a VVS fighter to overshoot is like removing a leech. They will burn all of their energy to not let you go, because they know you are screwed and that your team is at 6km and not coming to save you. The 190 and 109 aren't horrible at going defensive. In fact at 550Kph+ the 190 can pull amazing tricks. The 109 also has incredible low speed handling and the ability to accelerate and decelerate like a go kart. But the bottom line is you shouldn't be in that situation. Your pilot is more likely to be sniped and you are more likely to be overwhelmed. The best advice I can give LW pilots is fly with at least one wingman, stay at your aircraft's best energy state (fast and high but not so fast and high you'll lock up trying to get a shot), and value situational awareness above all else. A pair of any of the German fighters can hold off a horde of VVS if the pilots are in a decent energy state (say 2.5km alt at 450kph) and they spot the VVS from a long way off. Never assume an enemy is alone. It is the EXCEPTION to have a lone VVS fighter, not the NORM.

 

To use the animal analogies again, fight like a mongoose. You are born to kill the cobra, but all it takes is one careless mistake to end up dead. If you are attacking someone and he spots you and goes defensive, that's it. The jig is up. You are going to have to kill so much energy to force yourself into a firing solution now, which is when his buddy will arrive on your 6. Don't let him command the fight. Make him expose himself to take a shot at you. Remain untouchable. The death of most groups of LW fighters is when the bomber or a friend is under close attack on the deck and the enemy needs to be killed immediately. This is an extremely difficult situation and why it is important to not allow yourself to be caught off guard. The friendly fighter will  be maneuvering for his life making it difficult to get hits on his attacker. All it takes is one more VVS to sneak up behind all the fighters vying for a gun solution to kill an entire squad.  

 

Defending bombers for the LW is a hard topic to answer as well, and the best one I can come up with is don't let your bomber be bait. Have the VVS want to attack you instead then drag them away from your bomber. Also just get numbers on that bomber cover. If you can have at least one pair pull the initial VVS fighters off and another pair remain to attack any low alt ambushers waiting for the bomber at the target the chances of bombers getting through and hitting their targets is much higher.

 

In regards to attacking the VVS ground pounders, best thing you can do is intercept them before they reach the target. Patrol a route that you might take if you were flying from a VVS airfield to attack a LW target and you might actually find someone there. If an IL-2 has no gunner, be wary of overshooting because he likely choose the option of less weight so he can climb after you and nail you. If your target has a gunner, wait for it to turn. Russian gunners are too drunk to be firing under G load. But for God's sake, if a Pe2 has already hit the target and is in autolevel on the deck heading back to his base just let it go. There is a very high chance you will be damaged attacking him and even if you shoot him down, he now has a shorter wait time to get back in another bomber.

 

I could go on but this is already much too long. Here are some last quick tips for the luftwaffe.

 

Fire a little earlier than you think you should. The closer you get the more likely you'll get spotted and HE wrecks at any range. Just don't being trying to shoot from 1 km away.

 

Instead of going for dead six, shoot from under or over to maximize HE effectiveness.

 

Avoid headons. All it takes is one AP through your engine or cockpit.

 

Use the hell out of your stabilizer trim. Slight nose down for speed, slight nose up for maneuvering. Always anticipate what setting you're going to need to be at.

 

Center the slip ball. You'd be surprised how far that sucker goes flying straight and level.

 

Practice with the 109s that can't remove the headrest. Its WoL. You probably won't be able to remove it so get used to it. You can dump  the canopy too if you really want to. I actually recommend this for the M.C. 202

 

Don't always immediately take the best planes. 190s and Modified F4/G2s get eaten up way too fast. Plus flying in a less powerful plane is good practice.

 

Lastly, try committing a few sorties to the VVS. It'll really broaden your understanding of the meta. Worst thing you can do is demonize them and refuse to learn. Plus they could use the numbers sometimes. 

 

Feel free to throw in your own advice for new and old players as well.

 

 

[Finkeren]

Very, very good write-up. This should be required reading for anyone trying to go online for the first time. I don’t agree with every single point made but on the whole it’s really good information, so I’m not gonna nitpick.

 

Good job

[Wraithzlt]

Fantastic post there. I think you nailed pretty much all of it!

 

I fly Russian 95% of the time because of the team stack toward Axis during my gaming times. I hope some more pilots will fly VVS. Playing 10vvs-30axis or at best 20vvs-30 axis is not alot of fun when you have to fight F4s on every map. I want to fly axis too, but i just cant bring myself to stack a team like that 

 

Flying VVS will help you become a better pilot in all planes. It will help teach you when to engage and disengage from a fight at exactly the right time as there is no easy escape from axis fighters; no fast dive, hard climb or level speed to escape to safety. 

[FTC_DerSheriff]

pretty nice! And sums it up quite nicely. Here and there a few things I disagree with but nothing special.

[Fauster]

Whatever you guys disagree with I would very much like to hear. Like I said this is only my experience so any additional information to contribute for the benefit of other players is more than welcome.  

[Finkeren]

Whatever you guys disagree with I would very much like to hear. Like I said this is only my experience so any additional information to contribute for the benefit of other players is more than welcome.

The main thing that caught my eyes was the advice to start shooting early at a longer distance than you think you’ll be able to reliably hit. I disagree, the element of surprise is everything. Even if your target has spotted you, it’s not certain that he knows you’re gunning for him. The moment the tracers start flying, he knows for sure and will start evading and you will have given up the best shot you’re gonna get.

 

I say: Shoot at a distance where it’s not up to chance whether you’re gonna hit (of course you might still miss, but that would be due to shoddy marksmanship, not bad luck) For me that distance is <200m.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

Also stop flying above below 4km.

There, I fixed it.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Whatever you guys disagree with I would very much like to hear.

 

ok!

 

To use the animal analogies again, fight like a mongoose. You are born to kill the cobra, but all it takes is one careless mistake to end up dead. If you are attacking someone and he spots you and goes defensive, that's it. The jig is up.

 

I partially disagree here. Situationally it makes sense not to let off and hunt him down until he basically can't stay in the air anymore. For example if you are far beyond your own lines fighting a lone fighter with your 109. Its more dangerous to your team to let him go. I like to follow up attack after attack to rob him from the last bit of energy he has to use to evade.. until he can't anymore.

Better for the team and has the benefit of a nice dogfight. However you have to be profficient in dogfighting for that and good knowlege of russian aircraft helps here. If they are on the deck and slow, they need a lot of time to regain speed. The yaks acceleration is worse than people think.

 

Furthermore I like to get very close as a german fighter. To make sure I can put in a critcal amount of bullets. Like 5-10 Mineshells are usually enough to critically damage a fighter. Even from dead six. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by DerSheriff

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

Furthermore I like to get very close as a german fighter. To make sure I can put in a critcal amount of bullets. Like 5-10 Mineshells are usually enough to critically damage a fighter. Even from dead six.

 

Think this really depends on the situation. If I am in a situation where he doesn´t see me and/or he has friends nearby and I want to stay fast I go for the close shot and extend. If I think he is alone and our energy level is about equal, I might take some long range shots to damage him and make him maneuver and then gain the energy advantage and then finish him off.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Think this really depends on the situation. If I am in a situation where he doesn´t see me and/or he has friends nearby and I want to stay fast I go for the close shot and extend. If I think he is alone and our energy level is about equal, I might take some long range shots to damage him and make him maneuver and then gain the energy advantage and then finish him off.

I would just use the superior performance stats of the 109/190 get in close and shot him down. Even if he evades and is alone you can follow up in the same style you proposed. If you are successful you don't have a lenghy dogfight with the off chance that a second red appears. 

 

Anyway, I guess this topic isn't about df tactics. I just wanted to mention my thoughts on a few points. But I enjoy the discussion.

[Fauster]

I'm glad you brought up your response Sheriff. I agree in that situation it's better to press the attack hard. The context I was regarding for my scenario would be over or close to an objective where there is a high possibility of new fighters with altitude to come into the fight.

 

Even in that sense I don't mean let the guy go, I mean don't kill energy trying to latch onto his 6. Make sure he drops energy going defensive then look for the next guy. You can disengage and hide in a cloud to attempt another sneak attack, force him down in altitude without actually shooting, or pull him into a rope a dope.

 

In defense of my long range shooting it's more of a "Maybe you should shoot now instead of possibly losing the opportunity by inching 50m closer." Plus I personally find myself losing easy kills sometimes by getting too close and losing sight of an enemy after all the minengeschoss smoke but thats just me.

[JG27*Kornezov]

I think the jig is up, is what Fauster means for the action zone. The best advise is really dependant on a lot of factors. Many pilots ask online on chat what Dersheriff would do in this or that situation . Well it depends if you have the skills of DerSheriff or not and if you have Feraphic around you or not and where you are on the map and what is going on around you.

 

I understand that this post is used for people with not much experience. We are tired to see red aces with easy kills. So yes for a newcomer if he sees you that means.

 

1. He is good

2. Someone has given him a six call.

 

In both scenarios you have a hard time getting on his six. And even if you do you will deplete half of your ammo to kill him and in the process attracting a lot of attention. Really the answers are dependent mainly on how confident you are to make a fast kill.

 

So what DerSheriff does and what is the gold standard is that you climb as you are not interested anymore but keeping close look at him in the moment you think he is not looking anymore at you you attack again.

 

what is true in one situation maybe not true in other and there are many factors involved. This is what makes air-combat interesting. No matter how good you are there are always situations you cannot get out from.

On the contrary I would go for the six a clock position if I have a fighter cover and we want to kill fast the bandit before his friends arrive. Really you need to make a good judgement on the spot.

a. Either one is going to do passes and climbs, and 1 is covering.

b. Two are doing passes and repositionning

c. One is going offensively on six staying on his six the other is covering maintaining SA

d. One is going offensively on six staying on his six the other is trying to make passes as repositionning

e. Two are trying to stay on his 6 (Russian style)

 

So what?

Actually there is a trade off between SA (situational awareness) and a faster kill. You prioritize one or the other and this is a choice that need to be made.

Edited January 4, 2018 by JG27_Kornezov

[CUJO_1970]

 

I believe my observations and experiences may be of help to new and possibly old pilots.

 

I haven't read your very long (freakin) post yet, but I'm really looking forward to it.

 

Will you make another one about normal settings server? - like where you tell me my BnZ tactics are "not welcome there" like you said to me in chat online?

[Tomsk]

1. The Luftwaffe will generally be stacked: Maybe German planes appeal to more people? Maybe new players are told to fly the 109 as it is an "easy" plane to operate? Maybe some people are not as clued in on the VVS as the LW? I don't know. All I know is that usually the LW outnumbers the VVS.

 .

 

Depends a bit on when you fly. Haven't flown on WOL for a month or so, but when I was I mostly flew EU mornings ... At that time it's much more balanced, and if anything the VVS typically have the numbers advantage.

 

If you can spot an enemy beginning an attack on you a long way off the best strategy is to equalize the energy with a shallow dive then play to your plane's strengths to gain an advantage. Run level in a 190, climb in a 109. You will be surprised how much of an enemy advantage you can nullify just by spotting the danger early. If you end up with a VVS fighter 50m off your 6, you made your mistake long before then. Forcing a VVS fighter to overshoot is like removing a leech. They will burn all of their energy to not let you go, because they know you are screwed and that your team is at 6km and not coming to save you. The 190 and 109 aren't horrible at going defensive. In fact at 550Kph+ the 190 can pull amazing tricks.

 

This is all good advice. An additional tip for the FW 190 is that in the 190 diving away from trouble usually works very well, providing you've got a bit of altitude to play with. Kornezov is right on diving away being hard to do in the 109, but the 190 accelerates quickly in the dive, has a much higher VNE than most VVS aircraft, holds excess speed incredibly well, and is (currently) faster on the deck than any VVS aircraft. As you say it also handles well at 550Kph+, and if you are followed into a steep dive by a VVS aircraft in gun range then high-speed scissors very much favours the 190 as they'll have real trouble not locking up and overshooting at those kinds of speeds. Since the 190 can't out turn anything much at slow speeds, and doesn't climb as well as many VVS aircraft, diving away is a big part of the defensive strategy for the plane. As such I'm always very wary when below 1Km altitude in the 190 as it's often not enough to dive away successfully.

[JG27*Kornezov]

It is all true what Tomsk says. The FW 190 is different. However it is hard for FW 190 A3 to outrun the la5 on winter maps on deck. You need to play with manual settings. That is why the game is interesting. So seople prefer for that reason the FW 190 A5.

On winter map  the La 5 can close the radiators while in summer it cannot. I saw a Russian tutorial where there were a discussion that with the right engine management La 5 can catch FW 190 A3 on the deck during winter.

Edited January 4, 2018 by JG27_Kornezov

[Adj]

I don’t fly online, but found the thread really interesting.

 

Thank you.

[unreasonable]

The main thing that caught my eyes was the advice to start shooting early at a longer distance than you think you’ll be able to reliably hit. I disagree, the element of surprise is everything. Even if your target has spotted you, it’s not certain that he knows you’re gunning for him. The moment the tracers start flying, he knows for sure and will start evading and you will have given up the best shot you’re gonna get.

 

I say: Shoot at a distance where it’s not up to chance whether you’re gonna hit (of course you might still miss, but that would be due to shoddy marksmanship, not bad luck) For me that distance is <200m.

 

I would agree if you are doing a classic attack from six, where you are not closing with the target, but if you are doing a high deflection attack, attacking a target from beam on, going at 500kph, you will cover 200m in less than one and a half seconds.  Maybe you have good enough reflexes to do that.....

 

Given that beam attacks are the best way to shoot down IL-2s, to avoid the gunner if it has one and target the vulnerable cockpit area, I would be quite happy to fire from much further away.  (PB was 2 IL-2s in three passes this way: they catch fire nicely when hit from side and slightly above.) 

[Talisman]

Good read, but slightly shocked when you say the following:

 

"You can dump  the canopy too if you really want to. I actually recommend this for the M.C. 202".

 

​Is this for real?

 

​What would the real life consequences of this be?  Surely it would be rather uncomfortable for the pilot and performance would be reduced.  Have the developers built in a penalty for just ditching a canopy with no intention of bailing out?  I can understand for a crash landing, but for combat it sounds a bit off to me.  I would have thought it would make a mockery of the simulation to do this for combat.

 

​Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Finkeren]

Good read, but slightly shocked when you say the following:

 

"

You can dump the canopy too if you really want to. I actually recommend this for the M.C. 202".

 

​Is this for real?

 

​What would the real life consequences of this be? Surely it would be rather uncomfortable for the pilot and performance would be reduced. Have the developers built in a penalty for just ditching a canopy with no intention of bailing out? I can understand for a crash landing, but for combat it sounds a bit off to me. I would have thought it would make a mockery of the simulation to do this for combat.

 

​Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

It’s a stupid move to do IMHO. You pay with a reduced top speed around 15km/h and on the Bf 109 you also lose your armored headrest.

[Fauster]

Good read, but slightly shocked when you say the following:

 

"You can dump  the canopy too if you really want to. I actually recommend this for the M.C. 202".

 

​Is this for real?

 

​What would the real life consequences of this be?  Surely it would be rather uncomfortable for the pilot and performance would be reduced.  Have the developers built in a penalty for just ditching a canopy with no intention of bailing out?  I can understand for a crash landing, but for combat it sounds a bit off to me.  I would have thought it would make a mockery of the simulation to do this for combat.

 

 

It’s a stupid move to do IMHO. You pay with a reduced top speed around 15km/h and on the Bf 109 you also lose your armored headrest.

 

 

 

I said you can if you reeeeeaaally want to. Do I think this actually is a good idea in a 109? Nah. 202? Oh yes. As with the Russians the 202 isn't a plane you can generally run away with as easily as other LW planes so I think the increased visibility is a must. Plus you can still outrun a P40 and I16 on the deck with no canopy. Calling it a mockery of the sim sounds, no offense,  pretty fanatical to me. I don't go and put on warmer clothes when I fly open canopy in the LaGG-3 at 4km on a winter map. 

 

 

I haven't read your very long (freakin) post yet, but I'm really looking forward to it.

 

Will you make another one about normal settings server? - like where you tell me my BnZ tactics are "not welcome there" like you said to me in chat online?

 Sooooo have I finally provoked you into coming and flying on WoL with us? C'mon Cujo you know I like giving you crap. 

[TheArcher]

Brilliant post!

 

Here's my squadron illustrating some of your points:

[curiousGamblerr]

I don't go and put on warmer clothes when I fly open canopy in the LaGG-3 at 4km on a winter map. 

 

As a funny aside, I have a giant rabbit skin Ushanka from Moscow and a few months ago I tried in vain to get it to cooperate with my headset 

 

I still wish it worked 

[von-Luck]

Some good information here for new pilots. A lot of generalities but overall a good place to start. Having transitioned from WT a year ago I can definitely say there are vast differences in this ranging from flight models to the general culture of the players. Box has far fewer lone wolves and requires much more attention be made when exposing yourself trying to secure a kill. A mainstay of becoming a better pilot is learning from your mistakes as well as your successes. Spend a minute after each sortie to ruminate and reflect on things you could have done differently or why you feel you were successful.

 

von Luck

Edited January 4, 2018 by von-Luck

[CIA_Yankee_]

The Ground Attackers

What normally wins a map? Playing the objectives. Why do the reds seem to kill blue objectives faster? It is more difficult for the average LW pilot to shoot down a Pe2 or IL-2 than it is for an average VVS pilot to shoot down a 111, 88, 87, or 129. 

 

While this is an excellent and interesting thread, I will have to disagree with the above.

 

The reason Red tends to win the objectives has very little to do with the various ways weapons and damage works. While I'm sure it's possible one side or the other may have an edge in the arena, I very much doubt it play a major role in determining who wins and loses. After all, it's not like missions revolve around races between bombers who are juuuuust about to drop their bombs, and the fighters trying to shoot them down in time to stop the drop (in which case, yeah, ammo modeling _might_ matter).

 

In truth, if a fighter gets the drop on a bomber before it reaches its objective, odds are it's not going to make it there, regardless of whether or not it's VVS or LW. The _only_ time the above could make _any_ difference is when bombers are intercepted just short of their targets, and the vast majority of encounters occur outside those parameters (indeed, in those situations, the bombers tend to make it to their targets, and die shortly thereafter). To place the blame for the VVS' propensity to win the objectives on perceived mismodeling of AP vs HE ammo is likely missing the mark.

 

No, if there is to be a main cause as to why the VVS tends to win (on a gross average, to be clear: the LW wins plenty of missions too), it's to be found in perfectly understandable server population issues.

 

To keep it simple, the Luftwaffe tends to attract a greater proportion of players who prefer flying fighters and engage in air superiority combat. This is quite natural, given that the LW has better, more "pleasant" fighters to fly: if your goal is to enjoy shooting down other fighters, it's perfectly reasonable for you to be more attracted to the LW as it is the side that will allow you to do it best. Moreover, the very nature of the LW advantage (better fighters at high altitude, focus on BnZ tactics with superior E fighters) leads those played to operate in an arena that is less condusive to protecting (or shooting down) low level bombers. Indeed, LW fighter pilots have plenty of incentives to avoid going down to the treetops and provide close escorts: Up high, with plenty of energy, is where the LW fighters do best, whereas the VVS fighters tend to near parity at low level.

 

Conversely, VVS pilots know full well that they suffer up high, and that their best chance of success is to catch enemy fighters when they are down low and slow. And the best way to do that is to support their bombers closely, fight around objectives instead of prowling the skies at high altitude in "free hunt" missions. 

 

Now, to be clear, I'm not tarring the whole of LW and VVS with a brush here: these are population level tendencies, and don't mean that all LW pilots play Hartmann In Space, and all VVS pilots die gloriously ramming bombers For The Rodina (indeed, my squadron spends plenty of time on patrol at high alt, for example)... but these broad tendencies likely play a MUCH larger role in why the VVS tends to win the missions more often than any hardware/modeling imbalances. And from personal experience I think this is amply demonstrated by what happens when a good LW attack group actually logs on: it can be very difficult for the VVS to eke out a win in those instances.

 

Thank you. 

[von-Luck]

Yes ^^^^^

 

The manner in which the two sides fly has more to do with the very general trends concerning objectives. Also I would be inclined to say the reds fly in groups more often where the Germans tend to get more solo flyers. But these are very general observations.

 

von Luck

Edited January 4, 2018 by von-Luck

[Fauster]

In truth, if a fighter gets the drop on a bomber before it reaches its objective, odds are it's not going to make it there, regardless of whether or not it's VVS or LW. The _only_ time the above could make _any_ difference is when bombers are intercepted just short of their targets, and the vast majority of encounters occur outside those parameters (indeed, in those situations, the bombers tend to make it to their targets, and die shortly thereafter). To place the blame for the VVS' propensity to win the objectives on perceived mismodeling of AP vs HE ammo is likely missing the mark.

 

I think this bit is a misunderstanding. I'm not saying the modeling of ammo is the problem in this regard. All I'm saying is that it is easier to kill LW attackers than VVS attackers. As I explained this is for a number of good reasons and not implying some underlying bias. A 7.92 armed 111 with a large gunnery blind spot on the dead 6 is easier to shoot down then a 12.7 armed Pe2 with a better field of fire. In regards to the ammo its just easier sending AP up the fuselage into the pilot than using HE to trying to saw a wing off. I wouldn't expect it to be any different than in real life. 

 

However,

 

 

To keep it simple, the Luftwaffe tends to attract a greater proportion of players who prefer flying fighters and engage in air superiority combat. This is quite natural, given that the LW has better, more "pleasant" fighters to fly: if your goal is to enjoy shooting down other fighters, it's perfectly reasonable for you to be more attracted to the LW as it is the side that will allow you to do it best. Moreover, the very nature of the LW advantage (better fighters at high altitude, focus on BnZ tactics with superior E fighters) leads those played to operate in an arena that is less condusive to protecting (or shooting down) low level bombers. Indeed, LW fighter pilots have plenty of incentives to avoid going down to the treetops and provide close escorts: Up high, with plenty of energy, is where the LW fighters do best, whereas the VVS fighters tend to near parity at low level.

 

Conversely, VVS pilots know full well that they suffer up high, and that their best chance of success is to catch enemy fighters when they are down low and slow. And the best way to do that is to support their bombers closely, fight around objectives instead of prowling the skies at high altitude in "free hunt" missions. 

 

 

This is a message I definitely wanted to portray and I thank you for it.  

[=FI=Rambo]

Good read! Thanks!

[-SF-Disarray]

One thing I've noticed, as a general observation among LW pilots especially, that may account for some of the disparity of outcomes as it concerns targets being cleared is the unwillingness to engage in prolonged fighting at a target. While it cannot be disputed that the LW fighters are fantastic in the BnZ attack they are quite capable of close in and prolonged fighting; especially when you account for the superior low speed handling characteristics of a 109 as compared to a Yak, LaGG or Mig. They can make deadly use of rolling scissors, yo-yo maneuvers and barrel roll attacks while at high speeds that can quite efficiently counter the 'turn and burn' combat style found on the VVS side of the equation. Even a short, sharp high speed climb can when done properly and in the right circumstance put a 109 on the inside of a Yak's turn. This propensity for quitting the fight at the perception of it turning against you leaves your targets wide open for attacks and your bombers at the mercy of VVS fighters. The above mentioned weaknesses in the LW bomber fleet leave them ill equipped to deal with prolonged contact with fighters so they need someone to draw fire for them and the ground targets pose little real threat to well handled strike craft from either side so maintaining cover there is needed as well. This cover and support simply cannot be provided if you are falling back 40 or 50 km, I know you do this because I've chased you that far and further, so you can climb back up to reclaim your every advantage. Takes some risks. Get stuck in. You can always respawn if things go badly. Don't take this to mean I am advocating fighting to the death at all times, by all means withdraw if there is no conceivable path forward, say you take a bad hit or are looking at 5 or so coordinated enemies. But if you have Yak 1 on 1, or any other evenish odds you might as well fight it out. Doing so could save a target from destruction and turn the mission in your favor or provide that extra few minutes your bombers need to strike the target.

[=X51=VC_]

Biggest difference I've found is that reds know how to swarm. I have no problem patrolling at 2.5k then taking my 109 low and tangling with a Yak. I do have a problem with situations where I can see one guy, dive on him, fight him for a little only to find there were 5 others I didn't see now on my 6 and not another friendly in sight. There's definitely a lesson in situational awareness there for me but the spotting mechanics don't make it easy. As others have said, blues usually don't stick around long enough to get that critical mass of furball where the engagement is fair for a guy joining in later.

[Tomsk]

So I thought it'd be interesting to bring some data to this question, since the stats for WoL are available for all of 2017 here's the summary:

 

Tour Wins: Of the 12 montly tours in 2017, Red won 11 of them (91.7%).

Missions: Red won 61.8% of the missions (Blue 38.2%)

Air Kills: Red made 49.9% of the air kills (Blue 50.1%)

Ground Kills: Red made 49.9% of the ground kills (Blue 50.1%)

Score: Red scored 53.9% of the points (Blue 46.1%)

Flight hours: Red flew 46.8% of the total flight hours (Blue 53.2%)

 

Conclusions:

 

So disclaimer, I'm well known as being a Blue pilot, mostly just because I like to specialise and my favourite plane in the current line up is the FW 190. However, I'm going to try and stick to the data as much as possible, and where the data isn't there to draw conclusions I'll try and say so.

 

Blue does fly more hours, but the difference is not that much, a 3% swing from 50-50. Many people have observed that at certain times it is very much Blue dominated (much more than a 3% swing), however, this must mean that at other times it is not. My hypothesis here is that US players typically prefer to fly Blue, and Russian players more often prefer to fly Red. So at common gaming times in the US it is Blue dominated (US evenings), especially since most Russian players will have already gone to sleep. However I haven't actually got any data on that, it's more just my intuition and observations.

 

For air kills and ground kills there is virtually no difference. Perhaps it is the case that Blue struggles to shoot down Red bombers more than the reverse (due to armament or something else) ... but if it is the case it makes little difference to either the ground kills or the air kills of either side. It also could be the case that Blue prefers to fly fighters and engage in air combat over ground combat ... but that would imply that Blue fighters are less effective than Red's (more fighters but same air kills) and Blue bombers are more effective than Red's (less bombers but same ground kills). I think it more likely the balance of fighters / bombers for each side is probably similar, as is their ability to kill each other.

 

Where the big difference is is the number of missions won. Here Red has a clear advantage (11.8% swing). Since number of missions won determines who wins each monthly tour, this swing is enough to explain why Red wins almost every tour: much like first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting systems a small advantage here gets magnified immensely. The difference in score I would suggest is just due to the difference in missions, since (as I understand it) score is a combination of objectives completed, air kills and ground kills and the later two are the same for both sides.

 

So why does Red win more missions? Well it's hard to say for sure, however, it is clearly not because Red kills more ground targets. I think people would agree that killing ground targets is what wins missions, however, Red wins significantly more missions despite killing very slightly less ground targets. This could be because Red has better focus and coordination, and makes sure that the ground kills they do make go towards mission wins, whereas Blue spreads the kills around making more kills but with less focus. Or it could just be that (since the maps are not symmetrical) Red missions are often easier to complete with less ground kills. There isn't the data to say at this point.

 

Missions can be won for different reasons on WoL and it would be possible (but a lot of work) to work out what mission wins are down to what. However, looking at the mission logs the majority missions appear to be won from objectives completed. It's a shame there isn't data for how many objectives each side completes. For one it might help answer the question whether the number of objectives needed for Red to win a mission is the same as needed for Blue. However, even if it's the same then Red only needs about a 5% swing in total objectives completed to get an 11.8% swing in mission wins. This is because winning a mission from objectives is a "winner takes all" situation and so is subject to a FPTP effect. As stated above, this 11.8% mission swing then compounds (with another FPTP effect) to ensure that Red wins almost every single tour. Just proves that FPTP is a sucky voting system (EDIT: for political elections) 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Tomsk

[unreasonable]

Good analysis Tomsk. But I would just add that the point of military operations is to achieve your mission - inflicting casualties (ie "Kills") is just one of the ways of doing that.  So a system that encourages people to co-operate to achieve mission objectives rather than just go for inflicting casualties seems not too sucky to me. 

[Tomsk]

Good analysis Tomsk. But I would just add that the point of military operations is to achieve your mission - inflicting casualties (ie "Kills") is just one of the ways of doing that.  So a system that encourages people to co-operate to achieve mission objectives rather than just go for inflicting casualties seems not too sucky to me. 

 

Ha no I was only talking about my distaste for FPTP in political elections, since it tends to distort results. Of course for a combat flight sim winning should be based on completing the objectives But it is useful to understand that small differences in how well the two sides do at completing objectives can lead to very large discrepencies in who wins the tour.

[-SF-Disarray]

Is there a way to determine how many of each class of plane is being used per side? I haven't plaid much on the blue side but from what I have done I didn't notice much in the way of a bomber fleet. And when flying in opposition to them I don't notice many bombers that need killing, though that has changed somewhat of late. It may well be the case that there are more LW fighters on the server than VVS and conversely more VVS bombers than LW. This does not indicate that the Soviet fighter is more effective as a plane though, as you concluded Tomsk. I think it indicates that the players are more or less effective for their particular side, depending on how you prefer to look at it. This conclusion coincides with other observations, namely leaving LW bombers unescorted contributing to the kill count, and LW pilots flying far to high to be an effective threat except occasionally. Additionally if my observation proves true and consistent then it would also account for some of this disparity, as a plane is withdrawing from a fight, or being chased off the field, it is effectively useless. I think these factors combined could all account for the plane kill number difference.

 

Another factor, and this is entirely speculation here, could be the difficulty of VVS fighters with withdrawing from engagements. The lower top speed and acceleration of VVS fighters could mean they stay in the fight longer and eek out a few more kills as they are getting shot down. If you can't run you will fight and in fighting you will find more kills. I know that is my experience, once the fight starts there is little I can do to end it except kill the enemy or survive long enough for them to withdraw or get shot down. I learned a while back that running in a Yak is a losing prospect unless there is something to distract the enemy from my exit.

[curiousGamblerr]

Good points in the second paragraph Disarray. I know I've won a couple wild 2v1 engagements in an I-16 when I otherwise would have run the heck away if that was at all an option in the Rata.

[Tomsk]

Is there a way to determine how many of each class of plane is being used per side? 

 

Sadly there isn't an easy way to determine how many of each class of plane is being used by each side. Only that on both fighter kills and ground targets destroyed both the VVS and LW are essentially completely equal.

 

It may well be the case that there are more LW fighters on the server than VVS and conversely more VVS bombers than LW. This does not indicate that the Soviet fighter is more effective as a plane though, as you concluded Tomsk. 

 

I didn't actually actually say that the soviet fighters were more effective planes. I just did simple maths. Air kills are split 50-50 between VVS and LW. So if the LW is flying more fighters then there are less air kills per fighter for the LW, and more per fighter for the VVS. If that were the case then it would be reasonable to say that the VVS fighters (planes and/or pilots) were being more effective: more kills with fewer fighters. Similarly since ground kills are also split 50-50 between VVS and LW, if the LW is flying fewer bombers that means the LW bombers are making more ground kills per bomber, and the VVS are making less. As I say, it's just maths.

 

I don't actually believe this to be the case. As I say, I suspect the split of fighters vs bombers is very similar for both sides, but I don't have evidence.

 

I think these factors combined could all account for the plane kill number difference.

 

As I said, there is essentially no difference between the two sides in terms of total number of planes killed.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Tomsk

[-SF-Disarray]

I'm not saying that the lack of ability to withdraw from a fight results in more total kills for the VVS. I'm saying it could contribute to more kills per plane; it is still my opinion, based on experience, that there are fewer fighters on the VVS side as compared to LW. This fact consequently results in more losses among Soviet fighters, thus contributing to the balance in kill numbers between the two sides.

[Tomsk]

I'm not saying that the lack of ability to withdraw from a fight results in more total kills for the VVS. I'm saying it could contribute to more kills per plane; it is still my opinion, based on experience, that there are fewer fighters on the VVS side as compared to LW. This fact consequently results in more losses among Soviet fighters, thus contributing to the balance in kill numbers between the two sides.

 

Ah okay, I see. So yeah, this is perhaps one possible explanation. The more tricky one is then explaining why it is the LW bombers are more effective than the VVS ones ... since if the LW are flying more fighters, they are flying less bombers but making more ground kills per bomber.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Tomsk

[-SF-Disarray]

I suspect this has to do with the bomb loads the LW bombers have access to. On the top end a PE 2 is capable of holding 1000kg  of total bomb mass, be it 2 500kg bombs, 4 250kg bombs or 10 100kg bombs. German bombers like the HE 111 can carry, mission dependent, double that with just a single bomb or a pair of 1000kg bombs. The other smaller bomb loads are, I think, still heavier than the 1000kg capable of the PE 2. The JU 88 packs a heavy load as well and the 110 is no slouch either in this respect, though more similar to the PE 2 than the other German bombers. Dropping all these bombs results in lots of indiscriminate destruction, especially in crowded target areas like factories and train stations. But many of the targets have very specific parts that need to be killed in order to clear the target. This means that you can drop a 2800kg bomb on a target, kill a lot of stuff in the doing, and still not hit all the required parts of the target. More accurate bombing can result in hitting those parts of the target that need killing, clearing the target with a lower total gross weight of bombs and doing so with fewer total kills. I know I have bombed out targets using a PE 2 and still had little odds and ends left in the area that could be killed, and just left them there because the mission objective was done and scary bad men were coming with their guns to do me harm.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Disarray

[Tomsk]

I suspect this has to do with the bomb loads the LW bombers have access to. 

 

Seems plausible ... it's a shame we don't have the data to know for sure

[KingstonDE]

Hi gents,

 

as i wrote in my first post here i try to go more often for the groundtargets in my loved fighters to help to kill the groundtargets. Normaly i would do more aircover over own/enemy targets, or fly ecort, as this is the job of a fighterpilot if he is interestet in winning the maps. But here is the reson why i stop it. Its the flyingstyle of most of the  LW bomberpilots, going low ans slow on direkt way to the target. My first goal is that my virtual pilot survives

( even when i dont manage to survive more than 2 missions in the emoment, but is still my main goal ).  So whats happen if you ask a bomberpilot if he need escort? He says yes you start with him or try to meet him. Was you then find is a low flying bomber, that whant to get cover in the best fightingrange from th enemy, so good luck with your suiside mission. Would the bomber fly at least at 3000m, not direct cours to the target, the own fighterescort would have the cards in there hands, as at 3000m we start to get the upper hand. The other thing is you here a bomberpilot asking for cover in 5 minutes over x target, nice but cant help when i am on the other side of the map. On a mission start it is more stupid. you see lots of bombers without asking running as fast as they can to the targets and again low and slow, nice suiside mission. Why the hell nobody realy ask on a mission start for escort, wait till he gets the escort and than start together and fly as they did in RL? Go up to 3000m and than with 1 or 2 turnpoint to the target. I mean i have 400l fuel, this is eneough to stay for 2 hours in the air with combat!!!! If you know how to fly long time missions in a fighter. I dont care if it is a bomber, Stuka, 100t or the ugly Henschel, do it like they did it min alt. 3000m, even over clouds and from time to time go under clouds to look where you are and go up again. If the Stuka, 110 or Henschel need to go down over the target, no problem we can go lower with you to cover you. This lone wulf low bombermission where also in RL but this where single planes, but without escort!!!! It was called Bewaffnete Aufklärung ( Armed reconnaissance ).

On the other side i understand why the russuins fly more low with higher escort, they try to bring the enemy fighters into there playground. So why we dont use the same styl of flying, but at our playground? Works perfect in old 1946 or on other servers ( CoD). Also if you start as a bomber with no fighter on the ground next behind you, than ask and wait, even in place rounds over the base till you get an answer, if not then you are on your own or ask again, till you get an answer. But this in 5 minutes over target need cover is nothing that helps, as maby the main fighters do some other job and cover own/enemy targets. So this whining about bad escort or i ask for cover in 5 minutes by traget x, nobody responds and i get killed, fu... fighterpilots, take hold of your own nose and maby think a little bit more of tactikal flying than say all is the foult of fighterpilots if you as bomber gets shot down. So if you whant escort, than please fly as they did in RL. Also maby use the big bombers only for targets like

factories, defensive positions or airfields with high alt flights, yes this takes a long time but better to have a long flight and stay alive than get killed low and slow without escort, the other targets are normaly for stuka, 110 or hentschel, but till you reach the traget fly at 3000m

and than over the target get down and th escort will come with you, but make close escort at 1500m as the bomber is on the deck makes no sence at leats for me.

 

Sorry for the long text, but this are only my 2cents about this problem, and as i sayid it works perfect on other servers or games.

 

regards

 

Little_D