Jump to content
=LG=Blakhart

Historical planeset for TAW

Historical planeset for TAW  

186 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to play on historical based campaigns & planeset on TAW ?

    • Yes. I want to fly an as much realistic online war as it can be.
      152
    • No. I prefer semi realistic server without historical accuracy.
      34


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Dear TAWoholics!

Main idea of this project is to create a realistic simulation of WWII conflict from the pilot perspective.

We want to make you feel happy about success, stressed about the mission, worried about your virtual life.

We want to let you feel scared when making risky task and sad after loosing life.

We want to motivate you to follow the orders and care about the planes as the military pilots do.

 

Tactical Air War is frustrating. 
It`s hard.
It`s annoying.
It`s a pure joy and happiness when you achieved your goals and finished a mission.

 

If it would be easy you wouldnt enjoy it as much as you enjoy now.

 

Present TAW season is about to end.

 

With all the LG members we do the best to make every season better.
We have few new ideas, but first of all we would like to know what you think about historical accuracy.

[edited]

By historical acccuracy we also understand keeping speed, arnament limitations & keeping logical and fair quantity of planes.

 

So please leave your votes. 

 

Edited by =LG=Blakhart
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How this historical approach will be made, for example any plane in service no matter the area or trying to simulate the battles that we have in game (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kuban) or maybe approach some other battles that while we dont have the specific map the geography is similar and the planeset can work for it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, is this an attempt to make f-4s the Germans' +1 plane on early maps?

 

Without knowing exactly what changes are being made, I would not say yes to this.  I do prefer balanced gameplay, but I'm not opposed to gameplay changes that are something like historically accurate.  But there's limits to how realistic you can make this game anyway. There's no reason to not make this campaign fun because real war isn't fun.

 

The biggest change I'd like to see is better ground targets and a fixed paratrooper system.  If you want to keep flak so godlike that's fine, there's methods to deal with it, but having to eat flak again on a fresh mission because 2 hours passed is annoying.  And plenty has been said about the 52 para troop mechanic.  It needs fixing.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am for historical accuracy. However there could be some exceptions. For example the Ju87 model we have to to late for the moscow theater.
Same for the missing Bodenplatte map, which has to be substituted so long as it isn't available. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

I am for historical accuracy. However there could be some exceptions. For example the Ju87 model we have to to late for the moscow theater.

 

 

The issue with the Ju87 is primarily about not allowing the Bk cannons until they were actually deployed on the battlefield.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historical accuracy would be fine, but with the current versions of some planes, we have in this game, it's simply not possible to be historically accurate. Don't think it's a good idea to revive that old debate once again. In my opinion, the current TAW-planeset is quite a good solution, considering what the game has to offer. But who am i to judge, can't wait till certain people start tearing each other apart again about this topic. :biggrin:

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

How this historical approach will be made, for example any plane in service no matter the area or trying to simulate the battles that we have in game (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kuban) or maybe approach some other battles that while we dont have the specific map the geography is similar and the planeset can work for it? 

 

Good question!

Logic is the answer, ie.

We have Yak-1 s69 with PF engine. We can use the plan on early maps to keep balance, but we need to decrease the speed for 1941 maps
We have 109 F-4 1.42 ata which was available after producent publication in November-December 1941. We need to decrease the speed for 1941 maps

We have 1 version for Ju87. We can limit the loadout to keep historical accuracy and use this plane for early 1941 maps.
We have La-5. Cool, lets use it in late 1942 maps. But we need to keep that plane in service and later use M-82F engine as a La-5 F only after April-May 1943.
 

6 hours ago, CamusB455 said:

If I had to guess, is this an attempt to make f-4s the Germans' +1 plane on early maps?


No. First squadrons were equiped at autumn 1941 in 109 F-4.
763 F-4s were produced from May till Dec 1941. Split it for western & eastern front ( another 576 F-4 trop, 544 F-4Z and 240 F-4 R/1  were produced in 1942 ).
Count that 2 factories were producing those planes. Lets say 50/50. It means 380 planes for 8 months. Count some delay between production and operational use.

So. Yes. F-4s were in autumn 1941 at front line but not in big numbers. 

 

About F version.
For 22 LW gruppen 14 had Friedriech ( mostly F-2 with 15mm ) 7 had Emils, in use ( mixed E + F) in June 1941.
109 F-4 1.32 ata started operational service since autumn 1941. ( historical fact about F-4, only 4-5 planes were equiped in gunpods 20mm in 1942, tested in Rechlin May 1942 and then were sent for combat tests in JG52 since June 1942)

Of course similar story with 23 mm cannon for LaGG-3. No it was not common. Around 10-15% of planes were equiped with this cannon.

And I  have plenty more interesting facts :)


Also some interesting planeset logic change is in plans, stay tuned!

 

Edited by =LG=Blakhart
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm all for having the most realistic experience. The problem with this is simple - we lack too many planes and variants that are necessary to properly pull this off. In a funny way this poll is 'unrealistic' :)

It's not only just the Ju-87 that's a problem. We are missing so many 1941 = Early '42 planes that whatever is chosen is just as much a compromise as is currently available in TAW. At the same time I think tweaks can be made here and there (Blue shouldn't have the 109F-4 available for as long as it does - but it should be available Map #2 with F-2 Map #1 for example) but as a whole the current TAW planeset is a good mix of historical accuracy as well as balance. 

The lack of early Yaks, LaGGs, I-153s, and DB-3s/SB-2s means that a true 'realistic' 41/42 scenario will be incomplete and thus worthless. Is the solution really to lock rocket rails to the Yaks/LaGGs we do have to 'simulate' them being slower and more like their earlier models? Do we do the same with the Pe=2s? Lock rocket rails on them to simulate the slower DB-3s? 

Realism should  be the goal. But we don't have the planeset of '46 to work with.

Edited by StG77_Kondor
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its would be nice to have it realistic And not only planestewise so set the max blues players count to 30 And Red 54. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Carl_infar said:

Its would be nice to have it realistic And not only planestewise so set the max blues players count to 30 And Red 54. 

Then it should also be 50/54 rookie pilots for red.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted semi-historical, because given the plane set available, and the challenge of balancing participation, compromises must be made.

 

Even if the plane set was made very close to historical accuracy, the number of pilots and chosen planes could make it non historical.

 

For example, if most German pilots took a Bf-109F4 in map #3, and hardly anyone took an F2 or E7, it would not be realistic.  In reality, there would be a balance of numbers of aircraft types being flown as new versions were being introduced, etc.

 

Thus, a more realistic scenario would be to limit the spawning of certain newer aircraft types, to force some pilots to fly the older (e.g. core) aircraft.  This would be true for both sides of course - so for each map, the challenge for LG would be to determine/verify the core aircraft types vs the “new” versions being brought forward, and put limiters for the new types.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AKA_Relent said:

I voted semi-historical, because given the plane set available, and the challenge of balancing participation, compromises must be made.

 

Even if the plane set was made very close to historical accuracy, the number of pilots and chosen planes could make it non historical.

 

For example, if most German pilots took a Bf-109F4 in map #3, and hardly anyone took an F2 or E7, it would not be realistic.  In reality, there would be a balance of numbers of aircraft types being flown as new versions were being introduced, etc.

 

Thus, a more realistic scenario would be to limit the spawning of certain newer aircraft types, to force some pilots to fly the older (e.g. core) aircraft.  This would be true for both sides of course - so for each map, the challenge for LG would be to determine/verify the core aircraft types vs the “new” versions being brought forward, and put limiters for the new types.

The restriction of available aircraft can be made at the expense of a kind of "scissors", one part of which cuts off the most advanced machines for pilots with low ranks, the other part limits the total number of these advanced machines available on this map. for example, on the first map BF-109 E7 is the "base machine". BF-109 F2 - "advanced machine", BF-109F4" excellent machine " available only for pilots of the highest ranks .

 

The same with bomb loadings for shock planes. sergeants and non-commissioned officers have the ability to take the minimum load allowed for the aircraft available to them, with the growth of the title expands the number of available aircraft and variants of bomb loads.

Now the bombers dataout mostly with bombs of 500 K and above, although most were massive bombs caliber 50-100kg less, that unfortunately is not yet implemented in the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

The restriction of available aircraft can be made at the expense of a kind of "scissors", one part of which cuts off the most advanced machines for pilots with low ranks, the other part limits the total number of these advanced machines available on this map. for example, on the first map BF-109 E7 is the "base machine". BF-109 F2 - "advanced machine", BF-109F4" excellent machine " available only for pilots of the highest ranks .

 

The same with bomb loadings for shock planes. sergeants and non-commissioned officers have the ability to take the minimum load allowed for the aircraft available to them, with the growth of the title expands the number of available aircraft and variants of bomb loads.

Now the bombers dataout mostly with bombs of 500 K and above, although most were massive bombs caliber 50-100kg less, that unfortunately is not yet implemented in the game.


I would prefer not to have the server be full of I-16s vs 109K4s by Map #4 - or 109 E-7s vs Spit Mk IX just because the Spit or 109K-4 pilot has the ability to fly more hours than you do. That's a sure fire way to kill the server. 

Not to mention the current CM method already does this by limiting the # of the better and rarer plane for a particular map planeset.

Edited by StG77_Kondor
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StG77_Kondor said:


I would prefer not to have the server be full of I-16s vs 109K4s by Map #4 - or 109 E-7s vs Spit Mk IX just because the Spit or 109K-4 pilot has the ability to fly more hours than you do. That's a sure fire way to kill the server. 

Not to mention the current CM method already does this by limiting the # of the better and rarer plane for a particular map planeset.

If I am not mistaken, Katon voiced the idea of historical planeset.

 

This implies that I-16 not will to fight with G-14, and E7 not will to fight against Spit-9.

But for example, I-16 against G-2 on the map of Stalingrad - may well fight in the summer and autumn.

As well as remaining in the ranks of E7 can meet in the air in the autumn-winter map with the first La-5 and Yak-1B......:bye:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for historical, but I admit, I'm on the fence. 

 

I'd like to see 'hypothetical' campaigns mixed in to play once every 6 months or so.  

For example, putting on a "one-time-only"  campaign where Axis flies from the East and VVS comes from the west.  Or, another "one-off" campaign where planes from previous maps are not removed from the next maps' plane list and only the 109-E4, Ju87, I-16, IL2 '41, and transports are the ONLY +1 planes for the entirety. 

It would be nice to be able to log in to my stats page and be able to choose what I want to spend my CMs on. 

Let's say by map #8 I only have transports and an I-16 to work with but I get 3 CMs.  I could then log in, and spend my CMs on a Pe-2.87 or a La5FN or anything else I want to add to the list.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the planeset or the current TAW is a nearly perfect compromise between historic simulation and balance. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

Let's say by map #8 I only have transports and an I-16 to work with but I get 3 CMs.  I could then log in, and spend my CMs on a Pe-2.87 or a La5FN or anything else I want to add to the list.  

 

This is not a good idea because it completely contradicts the idea of limiting the availability of rare/powerful aircraft. In your example, you will never run out of La5 FNs or G-14s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

This is not a good idea because it completely contradicts the idea of limiting the availability of rare/powerful aircraft. In your example, you will never run out of La5 FNs or G-14s.

You assume that everybody would only spend their CM points on these two planes.  I'd be happy to spend my points on Mig-3's, Yak-1.127's, and Pe-2.35 and .87.  There are also other players that would prefer to fly with planes from previous mission sets, and would still be very effective with them too. 

 

If it's still that much of an issue, then a max number limit for each model can be set for how many per-map a player can buy.  For example, if a player wanted a La5 FN, then they could buy up to 10 of them with their points, but once they were used, could buy no more.  If ten buys per plane was too much it could be cut down more. God forbid people buy up too many LaGG-3's with VYA-23.  The LW would totally spaz.  :biggrin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, =LG=Blakhart said:

We have Yak-1 s69 with PF engine. We can use the plan on early maps to keep balance, but we need to decrease the speed for 1941 maps

We have 109 F-4 1.42 ata which was available after producent publication in November-December 1941. We need to decrease the speed for 1941 maps

 

 For example, how do you want to achieve this, how do you want to slow these planes? A agree that it is ok to have F-4 in some time period, but it is NOT ok to have F-4 with 1.42 ATA at this time!

 

How can we vote, when we don´t know, what changes and how you want to do???

Give us complete list of changes and then, i will vote...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer is

 

"No. I prefer semi realistic server without historical accuracy."

 

The guys, who want it more realistic will fly on an empty server. Right now we have a problem with the number of the red players. I have already played 2 rounds on the red side (because of that issue) and want to change the side.

 

As I can imagine the historical accuracy will reduce  the number of the red player dramatically for first 4 maps.

 

P.S: If it will improve the red features (for example the map N2 will provide Yak 1 with PS82) than I agree. But it has noting to do with historical accuracy .

P.S:2. I  saw some discussion about Ju87 +37mm before. Really, how many times did you see someone, who used 37mm on the TAW? It is just not useful enough (better to drop the bomb and run away).

 

 

Edited by Norz
P.S.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to do fully historical palneset, there must be point compensation for different planes. Principle is easy, I will make an example:

 

Lets say we challenge I-16 vs F-4. So far, there were 20 F-4 shotted down by I-16 and 100 I-16 shotted down by F-4 in current campaign. So it is 5 times easier to shot down i-16 with f-4 than vice versa.

 

So if i shot down now i-16 with F-4, i get 50 points

but if i shot down now F-4 with I-16, i get 5x50=250points!!!

 

In same time, the rate between theese two planes will change for another shot down.

 

This will motivate people to fly worse planes...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CSW_Hot_Dog said:

but if i shot down now F-4 with I-16, i get 5x50=250points!!!

 

 

...First you will lose 4x100 (at least) or 4x300 (depends).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, the question was Yes or No, do you want it 'based' on Historical campaigns and planeset.

Quite clearly they can only 'base' it on the planes available in the game.

And if people are moaning about only having transports left, i guess what they are saying is 'look after your virtual pilot' (not always easy with ground pounders i know)

The campaigns can be evened up through game play, as opposed to plane set. There are lots of different ways to do it, lets see what LG comes up with!

 

Looking forward to the next one already.........

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

The campaigns can be evened up through game play, as opposed to plane set.

Looking forward to the next one already.........

 

Really?

 

My Il2 experience (since 2002, a lot of virtual wars) says that you are wrong.

 

P.S. Please explain how do you want even it through game play:

 

prev TAW, Map N2, 109F4,109F2, 109E7, MC 202 vs i16,Mig3,P40.... 

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the current setup, it was nice to be able to use the entire planeset of the game, while keeping a decent balance even if not absolutely accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote for realistic. But is hard to do it. We lack a lot of planes. Some years would be easy but others are too difficult. I am thinking on the early years. With F2 or first variants of F4 against yak1 with 105PA, lagg3 with 105PA, E7 with N engine etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision is pretty much a no brainer for me :) . Accurate simulation of aerial battles includes accurate planesets, therefore I voted for those.

 

Advantages of realistic planesets

-              Helps giving you the pain and pride of fighting with odds against you or the joy of easily dominating

-              Better simulation – better immersion - more fun

-              More variety from between scenarios - more fun

-              experiencing the progress of aircraft and weaponry

-              Helps you feel like Hartmann, Kozhedub, Gabresky, Bader

-              You will dream of your favourite aircraft and/or the feared enemy Uber-plane :) 

 

 

On the other hand, we have a number of issues which cannot be influenced:

-              Ingame-quality of FM, DM etc

-              Engine-limitations prevent realistic missions setups, i.e. number of planes in one flight

-              Players are neither able nor willing to press themselves in such “Coop-style” missions, therefore we play more a “dogfight” style then real missions

-              Available planetypes and loadouts are limited, therefore some substitution is necessary

-              Russo-German war scenarios can be pretty frustrating for Red’s and vice versa. But this can also be interesting

-              It is pretty hard to get reliable data on some historical details like DB605’s 1,42ata, mass use of La5F and FN, glass armour in 109.

 

Therefore a bit of “tweaking” may help, especially with army equipment.

 

Overall I think we can do quite a lot via until mid 1944

-              Limitation of available planetypes per scenario

-              Numerical limitation of some types  per scenario

-              blocked loadout options

 

A different topic: What I think would be a real leap forward towards higher realism is “bigger flight sizes”. This should be possible at least for bombers/attackers. Players should be able to drag AI’s with them. Is this possible in a dogfight server?

 

Imagine eight Sturmoviks pounding an Axis artillery position in “death circle” style with a big dogfight evolving above that – and YOU are in the middle of that aerial battle!

 

PS: I worked for years on historically accurate planesets for the first IL-2 Sturmovik. The result can be found here http://yogysoft.de/downloads.htm as Excelfile: http://www.yogysoft.de/DL/pdt.xls

Edited by yogy
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 9:48 AM, yogy said:

The decision is pretty much a no brainer for me :) . Accurate simulation of aerial battles includes accurate planesets, therefore I voted for those.

 

Advantages of realistic planesets
...

-              Helps you feel like Hartmann, Kozhedub, Gabresky, Bader
...


Oh no...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 6:08 PM, =LG=Blakhart said:

No. First squadrons were equiped at autumn 1941 in 109 F-4.

763 F-4s were produced from May till Dec 1941. Split it for western & eastern front ( another 576 F-4 trop, 544 F-4Z and 240 F-4 R/1  were produced in 1942 ).
Count that 2 factories were producing those planes. Lets say 50/50. It means 380 planes for 8 months. Count some delay between production and operational use.

So. Yes. F-4s were in autumn 1941 at front line but not in big numbers. 

 

No need to guess.

 

Single engine fighters Date: 28.06.41

http://ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se28641.htm

 

F-4s are being delivered to units in June 1941. I count 74 F-4 on strenght at this time (would need to check which ones are on Russian front though)

 

Single engine fighters - Date: 27.09.41

http://ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se27941.htm

 

By late September, 320 F-4s with frontline Jagdgruppen (both East and West)

 

Single engine fighters Date: 27.12.41

http://ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se271241.htm

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

By late September, 320 F-4s with frontline Jagdgruppen (both East and West)

 

Of which 214 were serviceable (67%) and only one JG was at establishment strength of 40 a/c (II./JG27 with F-4 trop)

 

In Dec this dropped to 200 serviceable a/c.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

No need to guess.

 

Single engine fighters Date: 28.06.41

http://ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se28641.htm

 

F-4s are being delivered to units in June 1941. I count 74 F-4 on strenght at this time (would need to check which ones are on Russian front though)

 

Single engine fighters - Date: 27.09.41

http://ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se27941.htm

 

By late September, 320 F-4s with frontline Jagdgruppen (both East and West)

 

Single engine fighters Date: 27.12.41

http://ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se271241.htm

 

 

 

 

Thats why I checked units operating at Ostfront in 1941 and early 1942.

I strongly recomend to it, so we will be on the same page. 

No need to guess that we dont need total F-4 numbers on every battle area ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 10:28 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

And your findings are...?


Good. They are good. Math is simple :)

On 1/18/2019 at 3:48 PM, yogy said:

 

A different topic: What I think would be a real leap forward towards higher realism is “bigger flight sizes”. This should be possible at least for bombers/attackers. Players should be able to drag AI’s with them. Is this possible in a dogfight server?

 

Imagine eight Sturmoviks pounding an Axis artillery position in “death circle” style with a big dogfight evolving above that – and YOU are in the middle of that aerial battle!

 


Thx for the reply! Other users gave me links to your website. Great job. 

About AI.
Currently every moving object, AI is causing too much stress for the server. Its not 1946 m8, unfortunately... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, imo the current TAW planeset and conditions -if you add the Po-2- was perfect; but It's always good to evolve and test new things, so why not try the historical approach? My upvote would be because of that. 

 

I don't know how it's gonna work regarding playability honestly, cause we don´t have the wider planesets options  like the ones we had in il2 1946. Anyway, let's see. If we go historial i'd also like to see not only the plane type and performances applied, but also the pilots and planes numbers trying to represent what there was at the Eastern Front.

 

PS. and it would be great, if we go historical, to have a LW and VVS command/HQ, where squads + lonewolves fulfill the missions they are given depending on squad capacity and strength. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...