How much would you pay for a flyable Ju 52?

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

If we get missions for transport planes and servers where supply missions are really important to keep war going on, this plane would be a great adition to series.

Or do you think your fighters fuel and ammo spawns from nowhere on your front line airfield on unlimited numbers ??? 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

BlackSix once said that very few people fly bombers comparatively, which is why they don't make stand-alone bomber sales. Transport would be even more niche.

 

That being said, if they include a Tante Ju into a new pack, mission designers would be able to add a whole new dynamic to missions. For example, to keep your side on the offensive you need 3X supplies. 1X supply is already at the front stockpiles, but 3X are in the rear. The necessary 2X can only be brought forth by aircraft or trains. The fighters then face the dilemma: if they only protect the front stockpiles from bomber attacks, enemy fighters will hunt down the transports and trains. If they only stick to the rear, then the front stockpiles will be gone. The attacking side will also be in the same situation, having to decide how to best employ its resources. A wise group would, for example, send an advanced party of fighters to sweep close the enemy's rear and trick the fighters into thinking the rear are the main target, prompting a response and leaving the front depots free for bomber attacks. Conversely, someone interested in keeping the supply lines open and the depots safe could orchestrate an attack at the enemy important areas to keep the fighters pinned down and the supply aircraft safe.

[Gambit21]

Yeah - niche for sure.

I'm firmly ensconced in that niche - nothing like flying a twin engine aircraft.

 

If troop transport/resupply were set as conditions for a field not being overcome...I'd be flying those missions.

My little ego devil on the shoulder wants being shot down not to count against my fighter kill/die stats.

Or maybe that's the case already with bombers? I have no idea - I've been absent from actually flying the sim for some months.

 

Need get some stick time in.

Not enough to warrant scarce development time or resources, or some developer would have modeled it long ago. 

 

 

I know that after a time flying online in the old sim, I was looking for new experiences.

Killed this person, killed that person, killed them again...after I time I was looking for new mission experiences and started concentrating on completing

objectives, be it in CoOps or the rare occasion I found myself in War Clouds or more often Zeke vs Wildcat.

 

There's more people that would love to fly resupply missions etc than you think.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Gambit21

[Gambit21]

Regardless, that`s my view and I`m sticking to it despite how many may feel hurt by my opinion.

 

I didn't see anyone get hurt, just challenging the appropriateness of the term in question given the big picture.

They can't keep adding things for free in a sim that you paid for just once. If we want new things, eventually we have to start paying for them.

 

The other option is no new aircraft aside from what comes in the 10 plane set - ever....and how many of those sets/releases will there be in the end for

a given theater?

[Rjel]

I've pointed out before, based on inflation compared to the glory days of the 1980's and '90s for flightsims, $80 is a pretty comparable price point based on what I paid back then.

 

I'm not sure how many remember or flew LucasArts SWOTL but they had a similar plane add on scheme as suggested in this thread. I bought the P-80, He-162, P-38 and it seems like the Do335 but I might be mistaken on that last one. I want to say each add on cost $20 with a few missions tossed in on each 3.5 floppy. I really think we've been spoiled by IL-2. Both the original and this version too. What I've paid is really no more than I paid way back when. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Rjel

[Gambit21]

I am. I'm in tears!    Remember, these days its my right  to be offended by other peoples opinions   

 

Oh yeah; for the OP - I'd be interested in buying plane-packs 'cause I have got more money than sense but it's really not a good idea in the long run.  Best way is planes + map and after the devs have recovered development costs they should be offering BoS/BoM as a single game in the $80 region 

 

Same goes for future expansions; recover development costs through EA and first year of release, then add to base game in the $80 region to encourage sales to casual players.

 

That makes sense on one hand.

On the other being limited only to that model hamstrings the possibility of ever getting other aircraft.

In comes down to return on investment I realize, and they know better than I do how this would or would not pay off for them.

 

Was just 'thinking out loud' as it were.

I see the advantage of the current model, but also it's limitations, and my thought is that maybe a hybrid might be viable.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

What many fighter guys dont seem to get is that with the 52 and people who actually likes it that flies in MP in well designed missions will give the fighter guys an actual mission. Instead of going solo and just hunting lone planes they will have a mission to defend these planes. Yes this already exist with planes like stuka, he-111 IL-2 etc... but giving us something refreshing and new, the planes in need for escort will become many, again giving the fighter guys something more to do.

 

216th_LuseKofte said something awesome. Mine hunting with a Ju-52 and possible with floats. Then maybe paratroopers/dropping supplies behind enemy lines and all this and meanwhile having long range escort possibly with fuel tanks if we get it in the future. Something new and refreshing for both bomber/transport pilots and the fighter guys.

 

 

Also I think adding the 52 to the next possible 10 planes + map is not a bad idea. Yes the axis will probably not get a new medium/big bomber but does it matter? The Russians/allies does not have a medium/big bomber at all. They have 2x IL-2s and 2x Pe-2s. Giving the axis a Ju-52 and the Russians/allies maybe the IL-4 would work in my opinion and since some work on the 52 is already completed, maybe they have time for new things like floats, mine-hunting dropping paratroopers/supplies or just simple official support for resupplying airfields.

 

Not just adding more planes to an airfield by landing on it, but more fuel, ammo, spare parts for damaged planes that has landed after a sortie. Imagine that if you dont land back at the airfield that plane is lost and if the plane is damaged the airfield need to have spare parts to be able to repair it.

 

Sorry if my English is broken atm

Edited June 17, 2016 by 6./ZG26_McKvack

[Gambit21]

Exactly - you get it.

[WokeUpDead]

I wouldn't pay much for a transport plane with maybe a couple of gunner stations and no good bomb-load. $5 maybe. I would be willing to pay $20 for a two-engined bomber like the IL-4 or a Do, or $30 for a 4-engined one like the Pe-8 or the FW-200

[Gambit21]

Well the point of a transport isn't guns or bombs - at all never-mind how many bombs or guns.

FW200 would be fun.

[SCG_Tzigy]

i would pay $30

[novicebutdeadly]

BlackSix once said that very few people fly bombers comparatively, which is why they don't make stand-alone bomber sales. Transport would be even more niche.

 

That being said, if they include a Tante Ju into a new pack, mission designers would be able to add a whole new dynamic to missions. For example, to keep your side on the offensive you need 3X supplies. 1X supply is already at the front stockpiles, but 3X are in the rear. The necessary 2X can only be brought forth by aircraft or trains. The fighters then face the dilemma: if they only protect the front stockpiles from bomber attacks, enemy fighters will hunt down the transports and trains. If they only stick to the rear, then the front stockpiles will be gone. The attacking side will also be in the same situation, having to decide how to best employ its resources. A wise group would, for example, send an advanced party of fighters to sweep close the enemy's rear and trick the fighters into thinking the rear are the main target, prompting a response and leaving the front depots free for bomber attacks. Conversely, someone interested in keeping the supply lines open and the depots safe could orchestrate an attack at the enemy important areas to keep the fighters pinned down and the supply aircraft safe.

 

This is actually a good idea, but I think that you will simply drive people away from servers.

 

 

The problem is that people who want to play this game for hours each night (whether MP or SP) don't have the time to do it. So they want to be able to jump on for about an hour while the kids are getting ready for bed etc/ when they just get home from work.

 

And if say for example there are no supplies at the forward base/ you are forced to fly the JU52 they will simply play QMB to get their fix.

 

The scope of battle that you are aiming for would require a minimum 50-60 people online, when you take into account each side would need transport aircraft for supplies, bombers to attack the ground targets including enemy bases, and fighters to shoot down anything that is the enemy that flies (and ground targets of opportunity),

 

And while that would be awesome and fun, I personally rarely see more than 30 people on line at any given point in time :-(

[gn728]

To answer the OP - in this hypothetical " a la carte" business model - depending on the AC

$15 for a single engine

$20 for a twin

$25 for a 4 engine

$450.00 for an IDRIS class Frigate (oh wait - wrong game)...

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

To answer the OP - in this hypothetical " a la carte" business model - depending on the AC

$15 for a single engine

$20 for a twin

$25 for a 4 engine

$450.00 for an IDRIS class Frigate (oh wait - wrong game)...

$22,5 for 3 engines? :D

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

This is actually a good idea, but I think that you will simply drive people away from servers.

 

 

The problem is that people who want to play this game for hours each night (whether MP or SP) don't have the time to do it. So they want to be able to jump on for about an hour while the kids are getting ready for bed etc/ when they just get home from work.

 

And if say for example there are no supplies at the forward base/ you are forced to fly the JU52 they will simply play QMB to get their fix.

 

The scope of battle that you are aiming for would require a minimum 50-60 people online, when you take into account each side would need transport aircraft for supplies, bombers to attack the ground targets including enemy bases, and fighters to shoot down anything that is the enemy that flies (and ground targets of opportunity),

 

And while that would be awesome and fun, I personally rarely see more than 30 people on line at any given point in time :-(

 

I don't think I explained it well enough - by offensive action I mean ground action, i.e. sending tanks rolling through the steppes kind of thing.

 

As it is now, DED already has a somewhat similar system in place and it works well by most means, with 40-60 players on daily at 1900 UTC and 20-30 at 1500 UTC. You can if you so wish ground the whole enemy air force in a way - a player can be shot down three times before having to fly one or two short supply runs. These can only be made from a rear airfield to a front one, which takes about 10 minutes at most. Obviously, most people ride the beeline at 300m without any escort, to get there faster.

 

Thereby, if you shoot down a significant number of enemy aircraft and have only a pair of fighters sitting in the middle of the main supply route at 500m, you will put the enemy at a crossroads: the 'aces' will have to stop their free hunt and go back to the rear to allow enough people to make their supply runs, or be selfish and deal with effectively 5:1 odds.

 

They also have player-controlled tanks which can lead offensive and defensive action, so if the aces of the universe don't help out they'll have tanks rolling through their airfields and pushing the front lines. A fun mission I had there with 10 people on was when I had to redirect from an armed recce to cut short an enemy tank which tried to capture our base. I was in an La-5 so I couldn't do much, but I dropped my bombs on the bastard and missed. I called for air/ground support and in the meantime kept the enemy tank pinned down by a bunker, coming to strafe it with 20mm fire until help came. Right when I ran out of ammo, a T-34 sneaked behind the Pz.III from building to building, then popped up right in front of it and blew it up from close range. With my fuel also running low, I went and landed on that very airfield after making a fly-by at the hero tanker.

 

coconut's server also has a lot of such work in place - destroying an enemy supply train affects the appearance of enemy ground and air assets, so even if you can't destroy all the enemy tanks you can stop them from sending more waves and let your AT guns deal with what's on the field.

[wtornado]

 

 

$450.00 for an IDRIS class Frigate (oh wait - wrong game)...

 

 

And what a game it is turning out to be.

 

 

 

 

after I time I was looking for new mission experiences and started concentrating on completing objectives, be it in CoOps

 

 

Fly any of my old 1946 modded co-ops ALL HAVE OBJECTIVES be it ground attack or escort.

 

More content to be content.

 

Nice play on words.

 

To stop the lone wolf fighter pilot I fly for hours hunting the poor sucker that takes bombers out generic mission game.

[xvii-Dietrich]

For comparison, the most recent Storm of War multiplayer campaign (CloD, not BoS) ran for 6.5 real-life weeks. During that time, there were 499 supply/transport sorties flown, and 223 reconnaissance photos successfully taken. These are missions with non-combat objectives (although no doubt some were intercepted by enemy forces during that time and forced to defend themselves). In total, there were 9108 sorties flown in that campaign, making transport approx 5% and recon approx 2% of the total operations. There were 56 online squads involved in the campaign, of which 1 was a dedicated recon group. Otherwise, it was regular units who were chipping in with transport and recon duties to sustain their campaign efforts.

 

 

On a separate note, getting transport, recon and other non-combat operations requires more than just the aeroplane. There needs to be a mechanism to recognise a transport flight, or to register that reconnaissance was carried out. These mechanisms do exist, but they need to be factored into the missions to provide the necessary infrastructure and statistics to make them inclusive. In principle transport can be carried out now with He-111s and recon with Bf 110s and Ju 88s. However, there are few ancillary mechanisms to support it.

 

 

Additionally, the challenge of transport means dealing with other issues. Navigation, weather, conditions, loads, fuel-optimisation, etc., are all part of those logistical challenges. These are often "nerfed" in missions (e.g. GPS-icons on maps) which removes these challenges. It makes it easier for the fighter pilots who don't care about that sort of thing, but it removes the appeal and challenge for the transport pilots.

 

 

Although some fighter pilots will dismiss transport with contempt and recommend FSX instead, what is missing is "transport under fire". FSX will not give you opposing interceptors, Flak, searchlights, and all the other things that make combat transport an appealing genre. Yes, we could campaign to have a complete war environment added to FSX. On the other hand, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest a transport option for a combat flight simulator either.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I'm excited to see what new mission types will be introduced to the game. Han mentioned here several months ago, and in the Russian forums last week, that they are going to add some to the campaign. A Ju-52 would be a great addition to the 8+2 plane set, as a non-premium aircraft, because then people will have it there and can try it out. Deploying paratroopers might not be very useful because airborne operations are a much more complex thing than choosing a loadout of 28 sorry asses to dump out of your plane and throwing them out wherever a pilot feels like. However, supply runs and light bombing missions (which the U-2, PS-84/Li-2 and Ju-52 did) would be very exciting.

[LLv24_Zami]

I'm excited to see what new mission types will be introduced to the game. Han mentioned here several months ago, and in the Russian forums last week, that they are going to add some to the campaign. A Ju-52 would be a great addition to the 8+2 plane set, as a non-premium aircraft, because then people will have it there and can try it out. Deploying paratroopers might not be very useful because airborne operations are a much more complex thing than choosing a loadout of 28 sorry asses to dump out of your plane and throwing them out wherever a pilot feels like. However, supply runs and light bombing missions (which the U-2, PS-84/Li-2 and Ju-52 did) would be very exciting.

+1

 

Thanks for the information, great to hear there is new mission types coming. I remember devs mentioning to add new mission types earlier in English forum but maybe we don`t have to wait very much longer .

[No601_Swallow]

On a separate note, getting transport, recon and other non-combat operations requires more than just the aeroplane. There needs to be a mechanism to recognise a transport flight, or to register that reconnaissance was carried out. These mechanisms do exist, but they need to be factored into the missions to provide the necessary infrastructure and statistics to make them inclusive. In principle transport can be carried out now with He-111s and recon with Bf 110s and Ju 88s. However, there are few ancillary mechanisms to support it.

 

 

 

Dietrich, how does CloD support these objectives? What's CloD's mechanism for "recognising" a transport flight or "registering" that reconnaissance has been carried out?

 

As far as I recall, CloD - the game I mean - does non of these things. At all. Niente. As far as I recall, there aren't even place-holders in the CloD FMB for this sort of thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for SOW to be a success, you need a stellar cast of mission designers and computer programmers to write the "scripts" that actually bind the mission elements (often placed in layered submissions) together. And by "scripts", I mean the full IT horror of, for example, something like this tiny excerpt from one of my sad efforts:

public class Mission : AMission
{
    int cRed = 0;
    int cBlue = 0;

    public override void OnActorDead(int missionNumber, string shortName, AiActor actor, List<DamagerScore> initiatorList)
    {
        if (actor is AiAircraft)
        {
            if (actor.Army() == 1)
            {
                cRed++;
                GamePlay.gpHUDLogCenter("Slagpussies " + cBlue.ToString() + ":" + cRed.ToString() + " Bigger Bytes ");
            }

            if (actor.Army() == 2)
            {
                cBlue++;
                GamePlay.gpHUDLogCenter("Slagpussies " + cBlue.ToString() + ":" + cRed.ToString() + " Bigger Bytes ");
            }
        }
    }

    public override void OnTrigger(int missionNumber, string shortName, bool active)
    {
        base.OnTrigger(missionNumber, shortName, active);

        AiAction Action = GamePlay.gpGetAction(shortName);

        if (Action != null)
            Action.Do();

        GamePlay.gpGetTrigger(shortName).Enable = false;
    }
    

Et cetera... (By the way, a SoW designer once told me one of his mission scripts had - I can't remember exactly - more than two thousand lines of code?)

 

Now SoW missions have these astonishingly dedicated coordinators and coordinators, but in all honesty (and unless things have changed over the past twelve or eighteen months) they are - quite literally - two or three heroes who've dedicated their free time to wringing the promise out of CloD's flawed prospectus.

 

It seems to me that the "take-away" from SoW is not that a sim has to give all these possibilities - because CloD offers non of this to people who aren't already IT experts, but that the community can - and will - triumph even where the poor developers left us a sow's ear instead of a silk purse. For me personally, the annoying thing is that for BoS, even thought there's a not-quite-silk purse, noone (or very few) seem to want to try to develop this purse into a - erm - running out of similies... even nicer silk purse.

 

But bearing in mind that most of the MP experience in CloD is provided by - at most - six or seven mission builders, there's no reason why similar things - that actually work   and are already designed into the sim  - can't be done in BoS!

 

[Edit: the first part of that script quoted above (which I cut and pasted and tweaked from others' genius work) was to try to get the game to display a running score on screen (in a silly muck-about deathmatch). The second bit - I've got no idea!]

Edited June 20, 2016 by No601_Swallow

[BlitzPig_EL]

A transport aircraft in this environment is a one way ticket to a smoking hole in the ground.   Period.  Ditto liasion and observation and artillery spotting aircraft.

 

I tried them all in various campaigns in '46 and all you do is die, and die quickly.

 

An L5 Stinson is no match for a Zeke.  Be sure.

[Gambit21]

   Period.  Ditto liasion and observation and artillery spotting aircraft.

I think it depends - I've spent hours and hours all told both in 46 and BoS both just flying around looking for targets.

I used to sometimes spend 40 minutes or more in War Clouds climbing to altitude and looking for someone to jump.

 

Similarly in BoS there's been plenty of times where I take off, spiral to grab some alt, fly high over enemy lines, mess around a bit, head home and land without incident.

In a mission oriented environment it should work - air quake rooms with a bunch of dweebs trying to feed their ego - not as much.

[Feathered_IV]

A transport aircraft in this environment is a one way ticket to a smoking hole in the ground.   Period.  Ditto liasion and observation and artillery spotting aircraft.

 

I tried them all in various campaigns in '46 and all you do is die, and die quickly.

 

 

I would disagree.  If you go trucking into the battle area like a sacrificial lamb you will die for sure.  But if you plan your moves and use the terrain and weather to your advantage you can get the job done and survive.  It's nerve wracking and stressful, but it can be done.  I've done many transport runs during BoS early access, both singly and in convoy of up to five or six other aircraft.  Most of the journey was spent flying a pre-planned route to avoid the opposing fighters.  Then use cloud and very careful navigation to approach the resupply airfield at an unexpected angle.  Several times we would have to orbit some distance away as enemy fighters strafed and bombed the airfield.  Then the moment it seemed clear come in fast and madly slip off the height and speed for hasty landings.  Before you can roll out the antiaircraft fire is already starting up again. 

[Mac_Messer]

A transport aircraft in this environment is a one way ticket to a smoking hole in the ground.   Period.  Ditto liasion and observation and artillery spotting aircraft.

 

I tried them all in various campaigns in '46 and all you do is die, and die quickly.

 

An L5 Stinson is no match for a Zeke.  Be sure.

Depends on many things. There were many ways to do recon/transport run in IL2 online wars and we had many of them. Either side had to try because without recon you couldn`t attack advancing ground units and without transports you could not replenish aircraft resources (aircraft pool). There also was this unwritten rule that after a hard days fight, when the servers weren`t densely populated, both sides would perform a series of recon and transport runs to develop strenght for another fighting day (which normally lasted from about 18:00GMT to 3:00GMT).

[BeastyBaiter]

I have no problem with the individual plane sale setup. It didn't bother me in RoF and doesn't bother me in DCS. Pricing can be an issue, but the $5-10 planes of RoF and the 10 planes for $80-100 here seems about right for WW1 and WW2 stuff. I would not buy the Ju-52 though. The plane simply doesn't interest me. It is of course possible to have supply missions in MP. But I have no interest in flying those even if I did do my share of recon and artillery spotting on New Wings in RoF.

Edited June 21, 2016 by King_Hrothgar

[Feathered_IV]

If a flyable Ju-52 did get included, I'd imagine online gameplay to be something like the following:

 

• Select aircraft and cargo.  Light, medium or heavy load for maximum points.
• Plan course to supply airfield, taking care to avoid a direct path and common navigational landmarks where enemies are likely to congregate.
• Enlist fighter cover if possible.  Inform them of your route and have them fly as scouts ahead of the transports.
• Fly a circular route, making use of terrain or cloud for concealment.
• Adjust course as necessary if enemy is spotted. 
• On approach locate airfield beacon and come down to low altitude.  Try to get within protective radius of friendly flak as soon as possible.
• Land immediately and taxi to unloading area.
• Remain in aircraft as unloading timer progresses.  If you quit before unloading, then no points for you.  If you are destroyed on the ground... again, no points for you.
• Mission complete.  Points awarded and you can exit.  Or go for broke and taxi to the loading area to take on cargo for the return journey.

[Mysticpuma]

I wouldn't pay for a Ju-52 as it holds no interest for me.

In terms lf laying for individual aircraft that's a difficult one for the developers (I would guess) because they would want to at-least see some return for their investment of time in creating a new model, fm,dm, etc, etc?

 

I would again guess that if they were to do an individual aircraft model they would test the waters by running a poll along the lines if "which if these 5 aircraft (one Poll for Axis, one for Allies) would you like to see next?"

 

After the poll had run they could see the two most popular for each side and work with that as their aim, as these would be the ones most likely to see a return on their investment?

Ike I said initially I have no interest in the Ju-52 and so wouldn't pay for it, but horses for courses, if there was a P-47 Razorback or Bubble canopy, I would pay $30+ in a heartbeat as long as it included all ordnance and gun varieties and not be a trickle of features that would cost extra (and it was built like a tank in the damage model that the the Thunderbolt is renowned for!!!)

 

Ju-52 - no, P-47 - damn straight!!!

[I./JG1_Deschain]

 

If a flyable Ju-52 did get included, I'd imagine online gameplay to be something like the following:

 

• Select aircraft and cargo.  Light, medium or heavy load for maximum points.
• Plan course to supply airfield, taking care to avoid a direct path and common navigational landmarks where enemies are likely to congregate.
• Enlist fighter cover if possible.  Inform them of your route and have them fly as scouts ahead of the transports.
• Fly a circular route, making use of terrain or cloud for concealment.
• Adjust course as necessary if enemy is spotted. 
• On approach locate airfield beacon and come down to low altitude.  Try to get within protective radius of friendly flak as soon as possible.
• Land immediately and taxi to unloading area.
• Remain in aircraft as unloading timer progresses.  If you quit before unloading, then no points for you.  If you are destroyed on the ground... again, no points for you.
• Mission complete.  Points awarded and you can exit.  Or go for broke and taxi to the loading area to take on cargo for the return journey.

 

I fixed that for you:

 

• Select aircraft and cargo.  Light, medium or heavy load for maximum points.
• Get shot down on take off by vulchers

[Geleitzug]

Why does so many people here complain about the lacking historical accuracy of the game, starting epic discussions regarding the correct positioning of canopy stringers or similar but do not want to accept that the Ju-52 as a supply plane played a decisive important role during the Battle of Stalingrad and hence should be definitely implemented in the game ?!

 

To be historically precise, it is a much more realistic thing to fly a "Tante Ju" in the winter scenario of BoS rather than dogfighting with Jaks and Migs in that period... and btw even much more authentic than flying the Focke in that scenario... !

[Trooper117]

They complain because they are only interested in expanding their dick extensions via their fighter pilot interest only egos... at a guess.

[Feathered_IV]

 

Ju-52 - no, P-47 - damn straight!!!

 

The role of the P-47 in the defence of Moscow and in the battle of Stalingrad is beyond dispute.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Spotting and transport are definitely not turkey shoot missions.

 

I fly recon all the time on DED because it's exciting - in a server with 40 people, going out alone at 500m sneaking around and looking for stuff to destroy and relaying the grids to the rest is fun. One if my best missions was in the 1942 heavy Il-2 (no gunner - never the gunner) and alone. I flew by two active airfields, destroyed two populated river crossings and then flew home and did a stellar landing, all without being spotted once since I went the long way around. On the way back I passed the coordinates for another two bridges and an artillery position. As a side-note, flying with the interface off for most of the mission is a lot more fun, judging a damaged engine by gauges is way more reasonable than RTBing the second "First engine damaged" shows up since many times - like in this mission - the engine lasts another 25 minutes without showing sign of trouble.

[wtornado]

Why does so many people here complain about the lacking historical accuracy of the game, starting epic discussions regarding the correct positioning of canopy stringers or similar but do not want to accept that the Ju-52 as a supply plane played a decisive important role during the Battle of Stalingrad and hence should be definitely implemented in the game ?!

 

To be historically precise, it is a much more realistic thing to fly a "Tante Ju" in the winter scenario of BoS rather than dogfighting with Jaks and Migs in that period... and btw even much more authentic than flying the Focke in that scenario... !

 

 

They complain because they are only interested in expanding their dick extensions via their fighter pilot interest only egos... at a guess.

Always said this is a dogfight based game the way it evolved.

 

No one has a clue what we will get.

 

Some will be happy others will be disappointed and that is the way the next beta patch will end this discussion.

[LukeFF]

 

 

To be historically precise, it is a much more realistic thing to fly a "Tante Ju" in the winter scenario of BoS rather than dogfighting with Jaks and Migs in that period

 

MiGs and Yaks were at Stalingrad during the winter months.  

[Dutchvdm]

MiGs and Yaks were at Stalingrad during the winter months.  

 

He probably knows that. I think the point he trying to make is that flying transport should be part of the sim as well.

 

Grt M

[Geleitzug]

He probably knows that. I think the point he trying to make is that flying transport should be part of the sim as well.

 

Grt M

 

 

MiGs and Yaks were at Stalingrad during the winter months.  

 

I know, but that's not what I meant - I just want to make clear that from the encirclement of the sixth army on the absolute majority of flight operations of the Luftwaffe in Stalingrad area certainly wasn't dogfighting with Soviet fighters but hundreds of supply flights of (mostly) Ju-52 and He-111 planes instead. Besides the operations of the Platzschutzstaffel Pitomnik (with just only 2 - 3 Bf-109's operational typically) and some sporadic escorts by a couple of fighters, the Ju/He supply flights were unescorted and nonetheless a considerable (and cruicial) part of the whole air operations of the German Luftwaffe at Stalingrad.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I feel a huge difference when playing on Wings of Liberty and DED. On the former if I fly near an objective there is a swarm of people sitting there waiting for an easy kill, or looking to start a furball.

 

Most people don't last long there - all of a sudden 20 aircraft show up and each shoots down two before going down in flames itself. Through the wall of fire comes a lone bomber hero who delivers the payload and then falls prey to the 10 aircraft that are left. On DED the pace is more strategic, and usually missions either have a) no encounters or b) several organised groups of enemy aircraft flying in pairs, flights and squadrons. The latter are the best, particularly when you jump 8 aircraft alone

[Gambit21]

I'm investigating Star Citizen lately - if buy in - I'll run cargo through the more dangerous systems.

There will be enough dork flying around trying to shoot everything in site.

 

Same sort of thrill flying a Ju 52 will give me.

 

I have no need to feed my ego these days. - although I'll still enjoy flying fighters now and then, I get more thrill of sneaking in flying

an IL2 or bombing and laying down some hurt and making it back home.

[curiousGamblerr]

I'm kind of surprised a fly able Ju-52 hasn't been implemented or mentioned as a future plan.

Now, I hate how often people claim "it should be easy" on these forums. Working in software myself, I'm keenly aware how seemingly easy things can be very difficult, so I avoid claiming anything is "easy" for the devs because I've never seen the code.

That said, the combo of 1) the plane already existing in AI form and 2) the amount of people talking about wanting that specific plane make it surprising they haven't made it flyable. I don't see any other single plane mentioned nearly as often.

As usual, it makes me wish this game was open source or at least able to be contributed to but I inderstand why that's impossible.

Stinks either way, because like Gambit and others a sneaky suspenseful supply flight sounds awesome to me! I would pay a couple tens of dollars easily, and would prefer it over a pack of fighters.

Edited June 22, 2016 by 19.G//curiousGamblerr

[xvii-Dietrich]

Dietrich, how does CloD support these objectives? What's CloD's mechanism for "recognising" a transport flight or "registering" that reconnaissance has been carried out?

 

As far as I recall, CloD - the game I mean - does non of these things. At all. Niente. As far as I recall, there aren't even place-holders in the CloD FMB for this sort of thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for SOW to be a success, you need a stellar cast of mission designers and computer programmers to write the "scripts" that actually bind the mission elements (often placed in layered submissions) together.

 

Yes, you are absolutely correct that it requires a "stellar cast of mission designers and computer programmers". In the SoW case, it is Reddog who has developed reams of code to parse the details and fill out databases to provide a comprehensive mission environment that rewards historical gameplay.

 

CloD does not have these tools, but the community has found ways around it (SoW are not the only group doing this sort of thing, but ACG, TWC, ATAG, DD, etc. are too).

 

However, it is in reach (albeit extremely difficult). Every new generation of sims takes that difficulty level one step further.

 

With BoS, I fear such modification is beyond the reach of the community.

 

 

My original point was not that it can be done with this-title or that-title, but that when it does exist it adds to the gameplay and improves the campaign availability. This is a reason to suggest to 1C/777 that adding these alternative mechanisms would be a Good Thing. I agree with you completely, that such tools need to be built into the mission editors to make their implementation easy.

 

 

 

A transport aircraft in this environment is a one way ticket to a smoking hole in the ground.   Period.  Ditto liasion and observation and artillery spotting aircraft.

 

Only if you fly it like a fighter.

 

There are certain game styles that require cunning, patience and perseverance, rather than fancy manoeuvres and sharp-shooting. In CloD, I can fly recon on a full server and, by being careful, avoid all the enemy activity and make it to target and back safely. Not s single shot is fired. Not a single contact is seen. But that is the whole point.

 

There are other games that rely on stealth, planning and avoidance rather than confrontation. Everything from Thief - the dark project first-person stealth to U-boat simulators like Silent Hunter 3.

 

However, by adding other types of gameplay, it helps build a richer environment and broadens the player-base.