Jump to content

Tactical Air War issues


Tactical Air War issues  

177 members have voted

  1. 1. Airbase destroy issue. What do you think about solution with airbase closed only for 1 or 2 missions max?

    • Good. Attack is still possible but you cant endlessly keep base closed. ( closer distance to targets )
      90
    • Bad. I want to keep bases closed after bombing. ( I love flying long distance to targets)
      87
  2. 2. Night shift issue

    • Keep server runing 24hrs, change logic (slow down columns, decrease columns, etc ) at night to prevent wining maps by players flying without oposition.
      117
    • Keep it as it is. I dont care about the results.
      45
    • Keep server runing only at certain hours
      15
  3. 3. What do you think about AAA strenght over the defence lines ?

    • It`s too weak. Even single player can make alone attack and survive.
      52
    • It`s perfectly balanced. Keep it as it is
      107
    • It`s too strong. Please decrease the AAA
      18


Recommended Posts

=LG=Blakhart

Hi!

 

So we have few problems and want to know your opinion.

 

Please leave good critic with solid arguments if you have any good solutions on your mind!!!

Edited by =LG=Blakhart
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
CSW_FMF_Tommy544

Regarding the night shift issue. Since I don't believe that there are only European players taking part in TAW campaigns, I think it would be a bad solution to close the server down during hours that would fit those people. Instead, you should come up with some algorithm that takes into account the number of players on each side when the damage to ground objects is done and increase/decrease it if one team is greatly outnumbered. Maybe also decrease the damage if there are too few players online (flying with no opposition).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
41Sqn_Riksen
12 minutes ago, CSW_FMF_Tommy544 said:

Regarding the night shift issue. Since I don't believe that there are only European players taking part in TAW campaigns, I think it would be a bad solution to close the server down during hours that would fit those people. Instead, you should come up with some algorithm that takes into account the number of players on each side when the damage to ground objects is done and increase/decrease it if one team is greatly outnumbered. Maybe also decrease the damage if there are too few players online (flying with no opposition).

 

IMHO, @CSW_FMF_Tommy544hit the nail on the head here. Creating a system that accounts damage according to number of players will solve fast movements of the front. For example:

- For example, if a team flies 20 x 10 in a map, whatever damage that team inflicted is halved for the front line calculation;

- The individual kill still counts, for example, if player XYZ destoyed 10 tanks in the mission, he still registers those 10 tanks but the amoint of tanks that actually count to calculate the movement of the front would largely depend on the general balance of the mission;

- Make tank move distance slow at those less popular hours so it takes longer for the tanks to capture cities;

- Increase AA over the targets to inhibit lone wolf attacks even more.

 

My 2 cents! Love TAW either eay! Cheers

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
=TH=mincer

Yes, scaling the damage according to the overall number of players on the server or the ration is also a viable option.

Also, after the previous campaign we were discussing the possibility of balancing the teams with big squads during different time zones, a lot of folks felt it was a good idea. But the current campaign started out of the blue, so there was no way for doing so. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
dukethejuke

Thank you for all your hard work!

Link to post
Share on other sites
J2_Oelmann

According to the night shift, I would make the missions longer, maybe 4 hours and put up a mission at european, US and Asian/Russian prime time. If the campaign runs long enough you can plan your flight time accordingly.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Operatsiya_Ivy

Would it even be technically possible to let the server run 24 hours? I can imagine there will be lots of issues with stability?

 

Also I would be very much against some form of algorithm. That's a balancing nightmare!

Link to post
Share on other sites
[-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR

Next time Americans will fly blue, not to worry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
72AG_SerWolf
37 минут назад, [-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR сказал:

Next time Americans will fly blue, not to worry.

May be they can fly for both sides in one war (one squad for blue, another one for red side)?

Edited by 72AG_SerWolf
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
III/JG52_Gunrall

Something change this week, usually at EU morning blue side has 2:1 ratio over red side. At afternoon ratio decreased since night when it was near equal (it is not same be 40 vs 30 that 1 vs 14). At late EU night reds usually had a 5:1 ratio over blue side. But this week at morning red side has a 5:1 ratio, and over 8:1 ratio at night. It is a problem of numbers. It is funny  because same people entered and left server when red side was outnumbered 10 vs 5 last week, now is entering when they outnumber 15 vs 3 or 14 vs 1.

 

Only a tank column from a large distance when there are few people, strong AAA for outnumbered side, variable target value, but how do you stop they totally destroy depots?

Edited by III/JG52_Gunrall
Link to post
Share on other sites
BigGinger

I think it's important to consider how these proposals on the "night shift issue" might affect player count overall.  First, my own opinion: change nothing.  The fact that TAW is brutal is what makes it so great.  Life isn't fair, and neither is TAW; if you're upset about someone hitting targets unopposed, go oppose them.

 

Regarding server hours, I 100% agree with those who think it should remain a 24-hour campaign.  If the hours are limited (presumably to more-populous European evening times), you'll essentially cut out those of us in the Americas who really enjoy the server.  That's obviously your right as the server operators, but I think it would be better to focus on growing the player base.

 

As for changing mechanics, there have been a couple of ideas thrown out which I'd like to address:

1.  Damage scaling.  This seems to be brought up frequently, and I want the admins to know that I am strongly opposed.  If someone spends the time and energy to kill a tank column, or severely damage a depot, only to find out when the mission rolls that they only did a fraction of the damage shown, it provides a huge disincentive to play on the server.  If I know that a scaling mechanic is in place, and see an imbalance on TAW, I'm much more likely to skip it and go to another server rather than join TAW and increase the numbers.  I cannot overstate what a terrible idea I think this is.

2.  Decreased tank advance speed.  I don't think this is as potentially-server-breaking as damage scaling, but if triggered it would have to apply equally to both sides.  If a mission has a large imbalance, and the tank columns were only to advance at half speed (for example), it could not apply to only to the team with more players because that would also give players reason NOT to join the server under certain conditions.

 

In summation, I think chasing an idea of "fair" to appease upset people on the forum is a complete waste of time and almost certain to make the server worse.  Keep focusing on growing the player base and these imbalance issues will fix themselves.  Thanks for all your effort running the best IL-2 server!

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
JG4_Widukind

both Team have to learn to defend Airfields!

This help to have a shorter Way to Targets.But some of you will never learn and want change always.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
=OPFR=the_rooster
27 minutes ago, BigGinger said:

I think it's important to consider how these proposals on the "night shift issue" might affect player count overall.  First, my own opinion: change nothing.  The fact that TAW is brutal is what makes it so great.  Life isn't fair, and neither is TAW; if you're upset about someone hitting targets unopposed, go oppose them.

 

Regarding server hours, I 100% agree with those who think it should remain a 24-hour campaign.  If the hours are limited (presumably to more-populous European evening times), you'll essentially cut out those of us in the Americas who really enjoy the server.  That's obviously your right as the server operators, but I think it would be better to focus on growing the player base.

 

As for changing mechanics, there have been a couple of ideas thrown out which I'd like to address:

1.  Damage scaling.  This seems to be brought up frequently, and I want the admins to know that I am strongly opposed.  If someone spends the time and energy to kill a tank column, or severely damage a depot, only to find out when the mission rolls that they only did a fraction of the damage shown, it provides a huge disincentive to play on the server.  If I know that a scaling mechanic is in place, and see an imbalance on TAW, I'm much more likely to skip it and go to another server rather than join TAW and increase the numbers.  I cannot overstate what a terrible idea I think this is.

2.  Decreased tank advance speed.  I don't think this is as potentially-server-breaking as damage scaling, but if triggered it would have to apply equally to both sides.  If a mission has a large imbalance, and the tank columns were only to advance at half speed (for example), it could not apply to only to the team with more players because that would also give players reason NOT to join the server under certain conditions.

 

In summation, I think chasing an idea of "fair" to appease upset people on the forum is a complete waste of time and almost certain to make the server worse.  Keep focusing on growing the player base and these imbalance issues will fix themselves.  Thanks for all your effort running the best IL-2 server!

 

I agree 100% keep growing the player base we would absolutely love to see some opposition in the evening. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JG4_Deciman

Nice Idea.

 

But for the 'Night Shift Vote' I'd like to suggest something different...

Assuming the server 'knows' the match/mismatch in nations for the entire running mission

- calculate the match/mismatch ratio (average per entire mission time)

- let the ground unit speed (advancing/retreating) be relative to the calculated match/mismatch

 

That would mean:

Nation having numerous advantage (average for entire mission time) will have own ground forces advance more slowly when victorious

Nation having less player active in flight (average for entire mission time) will have own ground forces advance faster when victorious

 

Deci

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
=TH=mincer
12 minutes ago, =OPFR=the_rooster said:

I agree 100% keep growing the player base we would absolutely love to see some opposition in the evening. 

 

Solution: fly with SCG being on the opposite side. That is why we need pre-campaign discussion with squad leaders to balance things out.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_Wulfe

Just posted this on the TAW thread, but may as well put it here as well.

 

I think I speak for the majority, if not all of SCG... when I say: we do not like flying with minimal/no resistance.

It's not like we are trying to game the server. I literally have flown like 6 sorties this entire TAW because I simply can't bring myself to fly with the numbers so low during American prime-time. 

 

It is my personal opinion that many of the population curbing measures/rules that were designed to make it possible to get into server during peak European times, have made the server unappealing for many players during the relatively lower pop American times. This has served to create pitiful numbers during the evenings in North America. Frankly, I don't know how many players that have left would even come back at this point if those measures were reversed.

 

Furthermore, SCG is forbidden from switching sides once chosen. So, we aren't even able to switch and try to even things out like some of us used to do. 

 

I find it very sad because I really enjoy the TAW server when the numbers are there. 

Edited by SCG_Wulfe
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
=LG=Blakhart
2 minutes ago, SCG_Limboski said:

Great idea, Blackhart...make TAW for Europeans only. /s

 

Who said its my idea ? 😄 Missunderstaning, check my previous posts in main TAW topic

Link to post
Share on other sites
41Sqn_Riksen
2 hours ago, mincer said:

 

Solution: fly with SCG being on the opposite side. That is why we need pre-campaign discussion with squad leaders to balance things out.

 

@=LG=Blakhart Maybe you guys could let SCG or OPFR switch sides for this one? Or perhaps let them have 2 accounts as they once did? 

Edited by 41Sqn_Riksen
Link to post
Share on other sites
Enceladus

Add more targets to airbases for both SP and MP. There are so few targets other than AA guns that it's more of an AA strafing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
=FEW=Hauggy

We need the servers to keep running for other timezones. I think your solutions to those 2 first questions are a bit too radical, we need compromises.

Edited by =FEW=Hauggy
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_CoolWhip

This always seems to be a issue every time TAW starts. With us at SCG, we pick a side (we choose before TAW even starts with our leaders)  and it always turns out we have no competition after a few days . Hence majority of our squad stops flying in return.

The lack of SCG being able to switch sides to counter balance the sides (with an Allied and German accounts) has really created this mess .

Really only maybe 3 SCG members fly and mostly ground attackers average fly during the NA evenings. Our dedicated Fighters guys dont fly or very rarely do once they see they have no competition. We have to team up With OPFR just to tackle the AA strength at a enemy position . 

Yes SCG is a large Squadron but in fact we are just a few spread over many time zones from the middle east to Europe, west coast NA and even Asia.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
=2ndSS=Lawyer1
5 hours ago, BigGinger said:

As for changing mechanics, there have been a couple of ideas thrown out which I'd like to address:

1.  Damage scaling.  This seems to be brought up frequently, and I want the admins to know that I am strongly opposed.  If someone spends the time and energy to kill a tank column, or severely damage a depot, only to find out when the mission rolls that they only did a fraction of the damage shown, it provides a huge disincentive to play on the server.  If I know that a scaling mechanic is in place, and see an imbalance on TAW, I'm much more likely to skip it and go to another server rather than join TAW and increase the numbers.  I cannot overstate what a terrible idea I think this is.

2.  Decreased tank advance speed.  I don't think this is as potentially-server-breaking as damage scaling, but if triggered it would have to apply equally to both sides.  If a mission has a large imbalance, and the tank columns were only to advance at half speed (for example), it could not apply to only to the team with more players because that would also give players reason NOT to join the server under certain conditions.

Absolutely agree. If it is the victory of his side in the war that is important for the player, then he must interfere with the enemy by any means. If by connecting to the server he makes the conditions of winning for the enemy easier, and by disconnecting him complicates his task, then the player will not enter the server.
TAW has already gone through something similar in its history,
when it introduced a quorum. The server was empty pretty quickly.

And another couple of cents. I also really liked TAW because correct tactical actions really mattered on it. A team with fewer players, but with a winning strategy, had every chance of defeating a stronger, but not organized team.
The destruction of airfields made it possible to restrain enemy actions.
If airfields are repaired too quickly, then the war will be the same as on dog-fight servers. Short flight, fight, new flight.
When I want to spend time like this, I go to the Berloga. And I'm waiting for the new TAW campaign to enjoy the planning,
long flights and effective teamwork.
Sorry for possible mistakes, English is not my first language.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_NoBigDreams

One of the issues with TAW is the clone army of targets. All defense positions are the same, and in the same spots. All convoys are the same static targets. There is no dynamic gameplay whatsoever when it comes to ground targets. It gets really boring, only thing that keeps things interesting are of course other players.

 

Not to mention that the targets are actually very bad with regards to realism. It's no wonder that any squad that knows a bit what they are doing can rack up a 100 GK on a sortie, when the AAA is deployed in an extremely naive fashion and all the targets are presenting themselves like they want to be shot. I'd be happy to help with creating new target groups, as I do have some IRL experience on the matter.

 

Another thing is the spreading out of targets over a long, often 100km+ frontline. This drives players far away from each other, further inducing the passive and boring gameplay that drags TAW down. Ground targets are what draws players in afterall, air combat only exists to support the ground effort.

 

Also, why not use disabled spawn points as early warning sites? This way players could see on the map how many enemies are approaching a given target.

 

All in all, unless TAW starts finally developing in a positive direction, player numbers will dwindle further. Even as is, it's hard to find a reason why to play TAW over Finnish...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ITAF_Airone1989

Don't know if it's possible, but what about split the campaign in two map of 12 hours?

Something like European TAW and American TAW.

This should solve the "balance" problems cause European mission will play more or less during my day time, while during the night is running the American one.

 

Something like:

1 pm to 1 am CET -> European mission

1 am to 1 pm CET -> American mission

 

If I destroy a tank during the European time this will count just on the European map and so on

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_Limbo
On 1/20/2021 at 10:35 AM, =LG=Blakhart said:

 

Who said its my idea ? 😄 Missunderstaning, check my previous posts in main TAW topic

 

I was very alarmed to first learn that even the idea was even being considered which naturally upset me.  You're absolutely right...the idea may not have originated with you or you may not be personally espousing it. 

 

However, the wording of question #2 is clearly biased for generating a result that will shut down gameplay during North American evenings.  There are two options proposing changes and 1 that does not but it ends with "I don't care about the results" which discourages a response for this option.  I do not think making North Americans who enjoy TAW during their evenings second class citizens is a good direction to to go for the overall health of TAW.

 

Edited by SCG_Limboski
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
LordWukits

The clan I fly with likes to be a jack of all trades, and for the past few campaigns the bombing side is ridiculous. We enjoy climbing to high altitude and trying to pinpoint targets on the ground. The fact that we cannot see damaged building until we drop(at 5k) or never know if the buildings are destroyed and drop(6.5k and up) on what we think we did not hit last time is ridiculous. Now we have issues whereas we need 20% or more damage to keep them from repairing‽ It is bad enough that 1000K bombs are ineffective against tanks when the tank is 5 or more feet from impact, and that the 110's 37mm cannon is useless against tanks, but to remove the effect of round the clock bombing on an airfield makes it pointless to bomb nowadays. 

 

The problem with NA is that people avoid groups when they are on. Hell 3 hours or so ago blue outnumbered red 5 to 2 and red still killed off their objectives(tanks and defenses) because they went un opposed. A few nights ago we went up to stop one of the NA groups on red, and we shot down 2 aircraft and shortly after they all left the server. This gave the impression that the group only really flies NA at night for the sole purpose of going unopposed. 

The changed my clan, and those other clans I've flown with are of the opinion that TAW is becoming a more advanced dogfight simulator. Whereas long flights to the front are bad, so TAW paves more airfields to keep the dogfighting going. and let people take as little amount as fuel to make them great in fighting. back to back bombing missions are now useless as airfields are repaired quite easily,   as those darned fighters want to dogfight.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
=2ndSS=Lawyer1

As shown by the vote, half of the players like long flights to the goal.
Maybe it's worth finding a middle ground? For example, a broken airfield can be closed for 3-4 missions (this is almost 12 hours), and to support its closure, you need to inflict 10% damage on it.
In general, I believe that first of all it is necessary to encourage those pilots,
who fly in large bombers and bomb from a height. If such pilots disappear from the server, then TAW will turn into a regular dog fight.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_Wulfe

I got to thinking that maybe there is something that can be done with transport mechanics to provide more overall gameplay benefit for all involved. 

 

For example:

Implement temporary, front-line "supply/support airfields". These airfields would allow for pilots to land and refuel closer to the action without having to fly all the way back to open airfields. However, they would not provide the benefit of a logged sortie. This would continue to require the pilot to land and finish at a traditional open airfield.

 

Secondarily, I would suggest that these airfields would need to be supplied by transports in order to allow them to resupply/repair the planes that land at them. They could also be partially tied to the relative strength/repair rate of nearby defenses or tanks. This would promote transports needing to fly closer to the front lines in order to maintain these benefits and therefore present themselves as more susceptible targets. It would also give them a bit more of a strategic importance and therefore give people something to think about while they grind away sorties in them. 

 

Third, allow transports to lift off from closed traditional airfields near the front-lines at all times. This would allow them to start closer to the action and the "temporary airfields" but of course... at greater risk to themselves. 

 

Finally, do not tie deaths in a transport to a pilot's stats. Allow people to take on the higher risk to resupply in transports and gain CMs without the risk of losing lives/streak/rank if they die in a transport. (Essentially transports would be considered a grind to gain back planes or lives while providing the benefit of a more ready target for the opposition.)

 

edit* Even if these airfields did not allow for resupply/repair of aircraft and only increased the repair rate of nearby defense/tanks, or vice-versa... it would still achieve the overall intended effect. 

Edited by SCG_Wulfe
Link to post
Share on other sites
=TH=mincer

I would advocate running the server for certain hours. Let me explain.

TAW is one of the few servers (or maybe the single one?) where a lot of people do care about moving the front line and winning the map. I find it very exciting, because it adds one more layer of gameplay and strongly encourages people to coordinate. There is nothing more interesting than sitting in a chatroom with 10 other people laying out careful plans to change the course of the battle, and then executing them, facing a motivated and skillful opponent. This gameplay is especially interesting because you have people with the similar mindset on the other side, strategizing and organizing. The beauty of TAW is that sometimes a heavily outnumbered side can win by finding a non-trivial tactical moves and better organizing. Those are moments to remeber, at least for me personally. This experience is very different from random dumb dogfight over targets no one cares about, and where only few folks bother to do ground attack.

However, this strategy game has one "meta" that ruins the whole thing. It seems that the most effective strategy for a side that cares about winning is to stack the server when there is no opposition, and just wipe out everything. Unfortunately, this situation ruins the whole  gameplay for people who actually want to play the strategic game against a similar opponent, as opposed to flying co-op missions against helpless ground targets with no strategic intellect. Unfortunately, it is one of the negative side effect of running the server 24 hours: with the current IL-2 player base, it is impossible to keep populated for the most of the time, and it is unrealistic to expect that this situation will change in the near future. 

 

There is one more side effect of the 24hr server. There are players who are very skilful and experienced, but have busy lives. They can play regularly, but say, 2hrs every other day. We want to retain them and be relevant, because they are to joy to fly with, and compete against. At the same time, there are folks who can afford to fly all day and blast ground targets when no one is there. Unfortunately, many good players lose motivation when they see this situation. 

 

So I propose the following solution. Run the server during fixed timeslots everyday, with the length of a timeslot proportional to the number of players in a given timezone. For example, right now it seems that there are two peaks on the server: night European time and night North American time. So allocate 6 hours in the European time and 2 hour to North American evening because European timezones are much more populated and balanced, while NA is underpopulated and heavily skewed. This way, the server will be more or less populated when it is running, which will smoothen the balance issues. It will also help to retain good players and keep them motivated: even if you fly every now and then, they still can have impact and be relevant.

And please don't see this post as whine or whatever toxic label you want to put on it. I have been on the receiving end of "stack the empty server", I benefitted from it when our allies did it, and I executed it myself. But it is obvious to me, that this "meta" is fundamentally unfair and basically destroys the unique strategy game on TAW.

Edited by mincer
Link to post
Share on other sites
=LG=Blakhart
6 hours ago, mincer said:

I would advocate running the server for certain hours. Let me explain.

TAW is one of the few servers (or maybe the single one?) where a lot of people do care about moving the front line and winning the map. I find it very exciting, because it adds one more layer of gameplay and strongly encourages people to coordinate. There is nothing more interesting than sitting in a chatroom with 10 other people laying out careful plans to change the course of the battle, and then executing them, facing a motivated and skillful opponent. This gameplay is especially interesting because you have people with the similar mindset on the other side, strategizing and organizing. The beauty of TAW is that sometimes a heavily outnumbered side can win by finding a non-trivial tactical moves and better organizing. Those are moments to remeber, at least for me personally. This experience is very different from random dumb dogfight over targets no one cares about, and where only few folks bother to do ground attack.

However, this strategy game has one "meta" that ruins the whole thing. It seems that the most effective strategy for a side that cares about winning is to stack the server when there is no opposition, and just wipe out everything. Unfortunately, this situation ruins the whole  gameplay for people who actually want to play the strategic game against a similar opponent, as opposed to flying co-op missions against helpless ground targets with no strategic intellect. Unfortunately, it is one of the negative side effect of running the server 24 hours: with the current IL-2 player base, it is impossible to keep populated for the most of the time, and it is unrealistic to expect that this situation will change in the near future. 

 

There is one more side effect of the 24hr server. There are players who are very skilful and experienced, but have busy lives. They can play regularly, but say, 2hrs every other day. We want to retain them and be relevant, because they are to joy to fly with, and compete against. At the same time, there are folks who can afford to fly all day and blast ground targets when no one is there. Unfortunately, many good players lose motivation when they see this situation. 

 

So I propose the following solution. Run the server during fixed timeslots everyday, with the length of a timeslot proportional to the number of players in a given timezone. For example, right now it seems that there are two peaks on the server: night European time and night North American time. So allocate 6 hours in the European time and 2 hour to North American evening because European timezones are much more populated and balanced, while NA is underpopulated and heavily skewed. This way, the server will be more or less populated when it is running, which will smoothen the balance issues. It will also help to retain good players and keep them motivated: even if you fly every now and then, they still can have impact and be relevant.

And please don't see this post as whine or whatever toxic label you want to put on it. I have been on the receiving end of "stack the empty server", I benefitted from it when our allies did it, and I executed it myself. But it is obvious to me, that this "meta" is fundamentally unfair and basically destroys the unique strategy game on TAW.

 

1. Voting was done. This the will of the majority. We found initial solution which should work from today. Didnt you read about it ?

2. I never treat serious and logical opinion as whining.

    I completly understand you, your arguments and also dont like when there is 10-0 at some side,  but we are not alone here.

    Can you afford 400 euro for the server ? All users make donation. Me too.

But!!! There is always a solution and maybe community will accept your proposition :)

So:

Please meet with NA players and persuade them to agree with you. Then organize voting so we will all see the results and have clear situation.

 

Plz update me about results! :) 

 

Edited by =LG=Blakhart
Link to post
Share on other sites
=TH=mincer
26 minutes ago, =LG=Blakhart said:

Please meet with NA players and persuade them to agree with you. Then organize voting so we will all see the results and have clear situation.

 

Plz update me about results! :) 

 

Yeah, I am a bit late to the party, but let's see what they think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
=2ndSS=Lawyer1

Pay attention to the vote on the first item. The difference in voting is very small

Edited by =2ndSS=Lawyer1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JG606_Temp

This question is nonsense. No one is TAW problem. WESTERN TAW have balance problem in AIR. USAAF pilots dont like RAF planes and RAF pilots dont like USAAF planes. 
Germany superior in numbers in main time create killing area for attackers/bombers. Balancing system +-20 have no sense. 10 vs 30 is unplayable. Even Me-262 in this numbers. Attackers pilots have many risk life then fighter pilots, but less benefintc and profits. And worst if u are outnumbered.
And Blackharts opinion about no attackers on red side is sad offence. Argument 30%red and 70% blue is totaly invalid, becouse red had less pilots and less sorties. Be careful with your arrogance, if u want opponents on your server.

 

Edited by CSW_606_Temp
  • Sad 1
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...