Heavy Bomber DLC- Would You Pay ?

[Sokol1]

Instead a heavy bomber I prefer buy a bomber with "heavy detailed bombsight", this will  give (me) more fun than just drop 1000KG bombs... 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Sokol1

[1CAG_Panzergranate]

The Allied side is always hampered by the lack of a decent bomb load carrying bomber. The Pe-2 carries LESS than the Bf-110 E2 and is slower!!

 

The Ju-88 A4 carries close to 3 x the bomb load and the He-111 2.5 x the bomb load

 

I've flown all the Soviet bombers in IL-2 Stormovik, IL-2 Forgotten battles, IL-2 Peshkas over Manchuria, IL-2 1946, IL-2 Birds of Prey and other non franchise quality simulators (NOT War Thunder!!).

 

Anybody who's had these games knows what the VVS players are missing out on.

 

TB-3 = A four engined dinosaur carries a seriously heavy bomb load / light tanks / its own fighters (I-16 parasite fighter Zeveno version) but is extremely slow at 101 MPH flat out. (It is slower than the speed of darkness!!). Later versions had Pe-2 engines boosting the top speed to 170 KPH!! It can also carry a platoon of paratroopers camping out on each wing. 

 

SB-2 = A twin engined slow sitting duck with 6 x 100 Kg. pathetic bomb load that can't defend itself from rear attacks and can't dive bomb (props can't free wheel!!). SB-2M version has turret and Pe-2 engines..... but still has similar issues. Replaced by the Pe-2.   

 

The DB-3 = He-111 H6 with the IL-4 being more of a premium plane like the He-111 H16  having an equally nasty defensive armament.

 

SU-2 = A Douglas SBD-3/5 Dauntless lookalike dive bomber. The only competent dive bomber in the game currently is the P-40.

 

PO-2 = a very slow (88 MPH flat out) recon / grenade dropping bomber. Fun to fly in other simulators but tedious on distance flights.

 

Li-2 = DC-3 with a turret and external very light bomb racks. 

 

Pe-3 = Improved "super" Peshka with better forward guns and more engine power.

 

Pe-8 = A four engined B-17 sized bomber designed to carry just one 8,000 Kg. Tsar bomb!! (It should be in the game just for this alone). Controls in IL-2 1946 seemed to be so sluggish that there is a 2 to 3 second delay before the plane responds so tricky fly. Has gun turrets on wings between engines and everywhere else they could fit them. This makes it a very heavy plane to take off with before adding a bomb load. 

[RAY-EU]

Arado 234 C-3/N ( not too heavy . But fast )

 

https://es.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=Az_6xdmlIV1a42UANy4604lQ;_ylu=X3oDMTIzMTJoa2kxBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMzNWY0OWQ2OWRjN2ZiZDYyMGQ4NTRlNDhlNWNkNjM1ZARncG9zAzM4BGl0A2Jpbmc-?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fes.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Darado%2B234%26fr%3Dipad%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D38&w=500&h=344&imgurl=40.media.tumblr.com%2F28f8ada697a45155513175c2ae9b4839%2Ftumblr_nhrthipbQk1r94kvzo1_500.jpg&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tumblr.com%2Ftagged%2FArado-Ar-234&size=72.6KB&name=%3Cb%3Earado%3C%2Fb%3E+ar+%3Cb%3E234%3C%2Fb%3E+%7C+Tumblr&p=arado+234&oid=35f49d69dc7fbd620d854e48e5cd635d&fr2=piv-web&fr=ipad&tt=%3Cb%3Earado%3C%2Fb%3E+ar+%3Cb%3E234%3C%2Fb%3E+%7C+Tumblr&b=0&ni=21&no=38&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11apfb0hv&sigb=132am7hq5&sigi=12n9eu2vq&sigt=113ip7j1d&sign=113ip7j1d&.crumb=lQyEQtwh2Pr&fr=ipad&fr2=piv-web

Edited January 15, 2018 by RAY-EU

[CanadaOne]

I'd buy just about any plane built to BOX standards.

[Hirachi]

I would buy it i wouldn't seeing a Tu-2 in game also

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

 

Has gun turrets on wings between engines and everywhere else they could fit them. This makes it a very heavy plane to take off with before adding a bomb load. 

 

I have never seen a PE-8 with turrets between the engines.  Are you confusing it with something else?

[Hirachi]

I have never seen a PE-8 with turrets between the engines.  Are you confusing it with something else?

[AndyJWest]

The Pe-8 turrets are behind the inner engines.

[Oubaas]

Yes, I'd buy a heavy bomber. But more than likely, I'll buy every aircraft they offer for this sim, as well as any other content. I just really love this sim.

 

If they get to doing heavy bombers, though, a B-17 would be nice, and probably a big seller as well. But I'll take whatever the developers offer.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Sure, I'd be game but I'd want it to fit. I mean I'd want to be able to buy that bomber and then be able to use it operationally in at least a semi-realistic way and in a variety of scenarios across the game.

 

Part of the reason why I'm excited about the B-25 AI is, in part, because the thought behind it is to maybe (they did say maybe) do it one day as a flyable. It'd be expensive if it was on its own but it would be something that you could use for Kuban and Bodenplatte for sure. If they do the Pacific and New Guinea or Solomons... B-25 useful there too. So that would be good bang for the buck. If they picked something niche... It'd be fun but I'd want to be able to use it with other aircraft.

 

Right now there are no scenarios where a B-17, B-24, or Pe-8 would be truly useful historically. I'd love to fly any of them and interact with them online or off but I'd want them to make sense. The medium bombers are a little more flexible in that way. B-25, B-26, A-20, IL-4, Do217, etc.

[Oubaas]

Sure, I'd be game but I'd want it to fit. I mean I'd want to be able to buy that bomber and then be able to use it operationally in at least a semi-realistic way and in a variety of scenarios across the game.

 

Part of the reason why I'm excited about the B-25 AI is, in part, because the thought behind it is to maybe (they did say maybe) do it one day as a flyable. It'd be expensive if it was on its own but it would be something that you could use for Kuban and Bodenplatte for sure. If they do the Pacific and New Guinea or Solomons... B-25 useful there too. So that would be good bang for the buck. If they picked something niche... It'd be fun but I'd want to be able to use it with other aircraft.

 

Right now there are no scenarios where a B-17, B-24, or Pe-8 would be truly useful historically. I'd love to fly any of them and interact with them online or off but I'd want them to make sense. The medium bombers are a little more flexible in that way. B-25, B-26, A-20, IL-4, Do217, etc.

 

Yeah, there would have to be a reasonable context. I mentioned the B-17 and failed to note that it would have to be in a context where they were actually used, which would probably mean new campaigns and maps. I like that the aircraft fit the historic setting. If it wasn't done that way, we may as well introduce Tomcats in Flying Circus. And that would be a bit off-putting.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Yeah, there would have to be a reasonable context. I mentioned the B-17 and failed to note that it would have to be in a context where they were actually used, which would probably mean new campaigns and maps. I like that the aircraft fit the historic setting. If it wasn't done that way, we may as well introduce Tomcats in Flying Circus. And that would be a bit off-putting.

 

Exactly. The thing that IL-2 Great Battles does well is offer a complete package. If you buy Stalingrad or Moscow or Kuban you get 8 or 10 planes, a map, ground objects and vehicles, and everything is all historically and thematically linked together. It's a very good way to do things in my mind and it prevents everything from being piecemeal and not fitting together very well (like one of those other flight sims out there).

 

So if they ever went this route of offering a singular heavy bomber I'd want it to fit with other content we had. I mean if they said that the B-25 was going to be a thing, sure, easy call really. Even the IL-4 as that would fit at least Stalingrad and Kuban.

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

B-17 in Bodenplatte would fit. After all part of the plan of Operation Bodenplatte was to destroy Allied bombers on the ground. Besides, adding heavy bombers would help to round the game out. Even if they are not "useful" in MP maps many people play singleplayer and I for one would love to fly and/or  escort heavy bombers or attack heavy bombers in a campaign. The western front would not be complete without the legendary B-17.

[Rjel]

B-17 in Bodenplatte would fit. After all part of the plan of Operation Bodenplatte was to destroy Allied bombers on the ground. Besides, adding heavy bombers would help to round the game out. Even if they are not "useful" in MP maps many people play singleplayer and I for one would love to fly and/or  escort heavy bombers or attack heavy bombers in a campaign. The western front would not be complete without the legendary B-17.

Yeah but if a B-17 landed somewhere on the continent it was due to an emergency. None were based there.

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

B-17s and B-24s were based in Brussels area during operation Bodenplatte. To Win the Winter Sky by Danny S. Parker is all about Operation Bodenplatte. Don't have the book with me at the moment so I can't look up the specifics.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Cathal_Brugha

[Rjel]

With what air force? The Eighth was entirely in England at least as far as heavy bomber groups go. The 15th in Italy. I don't believe the 9th AF had strategic bombers in its numbers.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Rjel

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

According Manrho, John & Pütz, Ron. Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe's Last Hope-The Attack on Allied Airfields, New Year's Day 1945, it was 8th air force. Of about 60 losses to Luftwaffe attack 13 were four engine bombers.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Cathal_Brugha

[blitze]

Talking of medium bombers, what were the Germans thinking not including tail wheel lock on the Ju88???

 

I love to fly and bomb in that thing but getting it off the ground sucks.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I'm quite surprised everyone's talking about the Pe-8, when the Yer-2 would be so much better of a Choice, because it was actually produced in sufficient Numbers.

 

I personally would love to see the

1. SB-2-103 and SB-2-105, both of which could carry up to 1500kg of Bombs (only M-100 powered ones were limited to 600)
2. DB-3/Il-4 with up to 2500kg
3. Yer-2 with Diesel Engines and 3000kg Bombs and 300 produced (in Contrast to 34 Pe-8s)

Edited January 16, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

Talking of medium bombers, what were the Germans thinking not including tail wheel lock on the Ju88???

 

I love to fly and bomb in that thing but getting it off the ground sucks.

 

I don't have a problem with it. Just use generous amounts of differential braking until the rudder becomes effective. The Ju-88 is very forgiving, just a bit quirky until the relatively small rudder gets some air moving over it which usually doesn't take long.

[blitze]

I don't have a problem with it. Just use generous amounts of differential braking until the rudder becomes effective. The Ju-88 is very forgiving, just a bit quirky until the relatively small rudder gets some air moving over it which usually doesn't take long.

I understand but on a small screen with less than ideal controls it is a handful.  Love it when I get it airborne though.  She flies very well once off the ground and with a good payload.

 

Looking forward to the A-20 for the VVS.  Something that will pack a punch bombing wise for the VVS.  Would be lovely to see something of a VVS version of a Dakota as well for repairs, supply drops and troop drops.

Edited January 16, 2018 by blitze

[CrazyDuck]

As I already expressed in the "missing early period planes of eastern front", I'd spit the money for a well done Pe-8 this instant. This goes for a He 177 as well.

 

Wet dreams aside, due to historical impact of course twins like DB-3/IL-4, Tu-2, Ju 188 and Do (2)17 should have priority.

[EAF19_Marsh]

I would pay for many other things before I paid for this.

[56RAF_Roblex]

If you asked me what multi-engined aircraft we need *first*, it would be the LI-2 so we could finally have a match for the JU-52 and bring *both* aircraft into more servers and server missions.    Talking about things like B17s is pointless while we have a 9km visibility limit and 1C seem pretty pessimistic about the chances of increasing that limit any time soon.    The only way you could use it would be as a low level bomber which is not just unhistoric but pointless as its bomb load is pathetic and the A20 would do it better.

Edited January 16, 2018 by 56RAF_Roblex

[II./JG1_Kadin]

At the current level of quality and support,  I would pay for ANYTHING the team produces!!

[Pail]

Talking about things like B17s is pointless while we have a 9km visibility limit and 1C seem pretty pessimistic about the chances of increasing that limit any time soon. The only way you could use it would be as a low level bomber which is not just unhistoric but pointless as its bomb load is pathetic and the A20 would do it better.

 

They could take off in single player (or single player co-op) and join multiplayer when they got to the edge of the  of the multiplayer map.......

 

Of course I don't know if that would be slightly possible but it would be a shame for it to be impossible to incorporate a heavy bomber ever. I'm not that interested in Flying Fortresses but it would be great to see one done with an

 

amazing damage model that replicated some of the historical damage photographs. That would be cool. Even if it was a single player standalone module it should still be strongly considered at some point.

 

The Li-2 is essential for the set of planes but in reality is probably less exciting to most than the Ju-52 (I'd be surprised if that turned out to be incredibly untrue...) It may have to be anticipated to not break even and/or add them

 

(the transports or other utility aircraft) to one of the modules and up the price of the lot. I'm not sure what the solution is for that one.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Pail

[Rolling_Thunder]

I would pay for many other things before I paid for this.

Me too. Having played other games and seen it first hand, the average gamer just doesnt have the discipline to stay in formation. The average bomber player is more interested in their own score than the mission goals. They tear off on their own then expect fighters to scramble accross the map to cover them when they get in trouble. I'd much prefer to see a disciplined ai formation of strategic bombers following the mission plan than a bunch of lone b17s flying at low altitude trying to bomb a tank.

[OrLoK]

I'd like larger planes, even if the map is "too small" or if it's unrealistic.

[Blitzen]

I'd pay for medium bombers ,too  in particular the B-25 AI I coming up. I'd buy a Russian Heavy, but I 'd much rather have British & American heavy iron as part of an expansion of BoB coming this year .

[PatrickAWlson]

It's about two things. 

1. Resource consumption in game (especially CPU for all of those crew positions)

2. Resource consumption in the development process.

 

If those two were resolved then the sky would be the limit.  Some kind of "warp" a la Aces Over the Pacific to skip hours of ocean and eliminate the need to map all of Europe in mind numbing detail.  Then at least a box of 12 with an escort (currently possible with existing plane set).  The game already supports level bombing, already supports all of the mission elements to perform an intercept, and already has detailed ground elements.  Fact is that the series already supports strategic bombing and nighttime strategic bombing - just in RoF and not BoS.

[Ribbon]

I would buy it, expecially if it's allied bomber since now we don't have anything close to LW bombpower.

At least we're getting A-20 in next update!

 

Offtopic: next update with all those gfx updates we're getting 5 new planes, coop and career, i think many of us are not aware how big that update will be!

[Mac_Messer]

No.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I'd like to see more of the twin engine bombers now. Sure some day we will have to have the four engine one's, but I'm not sure this map is right for it.

[OrLoK]

No.

May I ask why?

[dburne]

I would pay for it if nothing else than to support the sim, whether or not I would fly it I am not sure. I am a fighter pilot at heart.

[Feathered_IV]

It really depends if there was the actual gameplay to go with it.   Specifically a Bomber Crew who do their jobs.  I want to take off in a heavy bomber, ask the AI navigator for a course to the first waypoint and fly there.  I want him to give me course corrections if I go astray.  I want the AI flight engineer to talk to me and tell me when the engines are running hot, cold or over revving.  I want to hear the AI crew doing an oxygen check, or reporting on what other aircraft in the formation are doing.  I want to turn on to the initial point and fly the bomb run with the AI bomb aimer telling me left, left, right... steady...  Bombs gone! 

 

I don't want to fly alone in a bomber like this guy anymore:

 

[Lusekofte]

Instead a heavy bomber I prefer buy a bomber with "heavy detailed bombsight", this will  give (me) more fun than just drop 1000KG bombs... 

 

This times a million. I rather have the bombers we have and a more realistic/ complex bombaimer interface . A more realistic autopilot to go with it. First thing first. Then we can talk other bombers

[Halon]

It really depends if there was the actual gameplay to go with it. Specifically a Bomber Crew who do their jobs. I want to take off in a heavy bomber, ask the AI navigator for a course to the first waypoint and fly there. I want him to give me course corrections if I go astray. I want the AI flight engineer to talk to me and tell me when the engines are running hot, cold or over revving. I want to hear the AI crew doing an oxygen check, or reporting on what other aircraft in the formation are doing. I want to turn on to the initial point and fly the bomb run with the AI bomb aimer telling me left, left, right... steady... Bombs gone!

+1, specifically I'd love to fly a TB-3 again, plus it can double up as the VVS paratrooper plane

[Danziger]

Of course I would buy it. If these guys announced tomorrow they're taking preorders for a Christen Eagle II I'd buy it no questions asked.

 

I would love a B17F module but obviously other things need to be worked out first. I'm also in agreement with those saying first flesh out the eastern front planes with light and medium bombers.

[CrazyDuck]

The Allied side is always hampered by the lack of a decent bomb load carrying bomber. The Pe-2 carries LESS than the Bf-110 E2 and is slower!!

 

SU-2 = A Douglas SBD-3/5 Dauntless lookalike dive bomber.

 

Pe-3 = Improved "super" Peshka with better forward guns and more engine power.

 

Allow me to elaborate on these two inaccuracies:

 

Actually, Su-2 was designed as a spotter/reconaissance aircraft with the ability to attack the discovered targets itself. It was never ment to be or used as a dive bomber.

 

The Pe-3 is a twin engined fighter, not a bomber. Let's not forget that the first Pe-2 prototype (VI-100) was designed as a twin engined fighter, which was then hastily redesigned into a dive bomber with WW2 approaching. Coming back to original design goals, Pe-3 was created as a twin engined fighter in 1941. (Which can also be deducted from Soviet number classification: Odd ones for fighters, even ones for the rest)

 

That said, I fully agree on your assesment on current state of affairs regarding the bombers - USSR side badly needs something more. Luckily A-20 is coming, I'm also rooting for the DB-3/IL-4 or Tu-2 in later years.