Jump to content
6./ZG26_McKvack

Would you rather have a new Battle of X that follows BOM and BOS(plane capabilities) or would you like something new?

Recommended Posts

Good option, "easy" to do map, winter, without big know cities... late war planeset - what make the previous years "obsolete" for MP, cutting down future "wishlist". :)

And thus make short the path for Korea. ;)

Yeah, Battle of the Bulge map is basically Velikie Lukie in terms of complexity, probably just bigger.

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BATTLE OF BULGE!!!! Operation Bodenplatte! Both sides have airbases close and it is in the mountains, interesting theatre. P-51D, P47D, P-38J vs Bf109G14, Fw190A8, Fw190D9! YEAH! Much fighting, many airplanes!

 

 
 
+1
 
This theater reminds me  an old  and classic simulator:  Jane's WWII Fighters :cool: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BATTLE OF BULGE!!!! Operation Bodenplatte! Both sides have airbases close and it is in the mountains, interesting theatre. P-51D, P47D, P-38J vs Bf109G14, Fw190A8, Fw190D9! YEAH! Much fighting, many airplanes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BATTLE OF BULGE!!!! Operation Bodenplatte! Both sides have airbases close and it is in the mountains, interesting theatre. P-51D, P47D, P-38J vs Bf109G14, Fw190A8, Fw190D9! YEAH! Much fighting, many airplanes!

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to stay in the East but it would be nice to have lend-lease aircraft for the Soviets: Spitfires, P-47s, P-39s, A20s, B-25s, and Romanian and Italian planes for the Axis: Macchis, IARs, did any of the tri-engined Italian bombers like the SM.79 serve on the Eastern front?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what DCS WW2 was supposed to do for their planeset,not Normandy where their LW a/cs are out of deployment date ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to stay in the East but it would be nice to have lend-lease aircraft for the Soviets: Spitfires, P-47s, P-39s, A20s, B-25s, and Romanian and Italian planes for the Axis: Macchis, IARs, did any of the tri-engined Italian bombers like the SM.79 serve on the Eastern front?

 

I'm hoping we see more lend lease types as well. The P-40E-1 was a nice start :)

 

Yes there were SM.79 derivatives used on the Eastern Front by the Romanian Air Force. The SM.79B (or IAR 79)... however its a twin engine aircraft powered by Romanian engines rather than the tri-motor.

 

That's what DCS WW2 was supposed to do for their planeset,not Normandy where their LW a/cs are out of deployment date ;)

 

DCS WW2's aircraft list and map selection makes absolutely no sense to me. When I saw what they had announced it was enough to make me wonder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to the battle of the bulge idea for the map,or even more precisely new years Bodeplatte operation.That map would fit perfectly with the plane set intended.But Normandy? Now they refer to it as map of "northern France" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being acused by some forum members as BoS fanboy,I still purchased all of DCS WW2 modules,full price,not discount. But....whatever :D I still have hope and I will support any game studio which tries to bring us at least the armchair experience of those roaring forties ;)

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to the battle of the bulge idea for the map,or even more precisely new years Bodeplatte operation.That map would fit perfectly with the plane set intended.But Normandy? Now they refer to it as map of "northern France" :D

 

An Ardennes map would make much more sense, definitely :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BATTLE OF BULGE!!!! Operation Bodenplatte! Both sides have airbases close and it is in the mountains, interesting theatre. P-51D, P47D, P-38J vs Bf109G14, Fw190A8, Fw190D9! YEAH! Much fighting, many airplanes!

 

The most stupid operation, Goering ever ordered. Germans were flying as target drones, lost almost all remaining Experts on that day, for nothing. After that day there was no more defense against the allied terror raids on german cities.

Not sure,wether this operation would be very interesting. Allied coop perhaps ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most stupid operation, Goering ever ordered. Germans were flying as target drones, lost almost all remaining Experts on that day, for nothing. After that day there was no more defense against the allied terror raids on german cities.

Not sure,wether this operation would be very interesting. Allied coop perhaps ;)

Just because Germans didn't win doesn't make it a "stupid" operation. It had potential to ground the allied airforces and make Operation Wacht am Rhein way easier. It failed, because lots of German airplanes were shot down by their own AAA and the fact that Allied pilots were well trained and experienced. The Legend of Y29 is one of the most interesting air battles of the war.

 

You can change the history yourself. Just as you can in BOS :D

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Germans didn't win doesn't make it a "stupid" operation. It had potential to ground the allied airforces and make Operation Wacht am Rhein way easier. It failed, because lots of German airplanes were shot down by their own AAA and the fact that Allied pilots were well trained and experienced. The Legend of Y29 is one of the most interesting air battles of the war.

 

You can change the history yourself. Just as you can in BOS :D

 

 

It was stupid because for every destroyed allied aircraft and every lost allied airman(experienced or not, no difference) there was the world's largest assembly line for men and machines to replace them exponentially, while the Luftwaffe had the recovery capacity of a chemotherapy patient.  Each and every loss was essentially irreplaceable.  And not only were those losses irreplaceable, but they put the final nail in the coffin for the defense of the German cities and towns.

 

The war was over a year before that operation.  I've never understood flight simmers who want to re-create this:   https://youtu.be/so5w-h7GFEc?t=20s

 

Where's the sense of simming the aircraft if you can't to some degree simulate the operational reality of the theatre?  For that matter, what's the point of basing a CFS around an execution?

Edited by Silas
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure whats exactly a problem here. Sounds like a game without Luftwaffe winning is not a good game ? I guess we should only play scenarios from 1939-1942 period ?

 

On a serious note, nobody said that history will be repeated. Its merely a selection of area and time, an late 1944 and early 1945 sound quite right since airfields were usually not that far from the front lines and machines themselves are fairly interesting. Regardless of actual events, the operations in multiplayer are not predestined to be always a failure for Luftwaffe and victory for Allies. Its up to the player-base to choose which aircraft they are willing to fly and how they affect the outcome. So in this case your post makes little to no sense. 

 

I am still more interested on PTO or even more in Burma, but Battle of Bulge or Operation Bodenplate are quite attractive as well. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a problem of the MP environment for such late war scenarios. 70 kurfirsts/doras/schwalbe against 30 mustangs/Tbolts would be an average server reality,which is ,at the end, ridiculous :biggrin:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Sounds like a game without Luftwaffe winning is not a good game ? I guess we should only play scenarios from 1939-1942 period ?

 

On a serious note, nobody said that history will be repeated. Its merely a selection of area and time, an late 1944 and early 1945 sound quite right since airfields were usually not that far from the front lines and machines themselves are fairly interesting. Regardless of actual events, the operations in multiplayer are not predestined to be always a failure for Luftwaffe and victory for Allies. Its up to the player-base to choose which aircraft they are willing to fly and how they affect the outcome. So in this case your post makes little to no sense. 

 

 

Sounds like a sim where the aircraft exist in a vacuum is only interesting for people who just want to fly those aircraft in a vacuum.  And for the record I only fly Soviet, and it's a bit... rough.  But that's alright, because it makes sense!

 

1945 is silly.

 

 

Where's the sense of simming the aircraft if you can't to some degree simulate the operational reality of the theatre?

 

 

EDIT:  I sympathize with anyone who wants something they aren't getting from IL-2, really.  But that doesn't mean it makes sense to me.

Edited by Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Germans didn't win doesn't make it a "stupid" operation. 

 

I'm not sure whats exactly a problem here. Sounds like a game without Luftwaffe winning is not a good game ? I guess we should only play scenarios from 1939-1942 period ?

No, the question is what is your problem? I can`t see anyone saying that. 

 

And it was a very stupid plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ekhem, but thats only assuming we would be exclusively flying fighters and only type of mission would be Team Deathmatch. But thats what War Thunder offers you with minimal immersion and lack of impact on whats happening below. The thing that I like in BoS is that I can actually take that Pe-2 or Ju-87, drop the bombs, attack some tanks and it may have impact on the mission. Its also nice that people tend to think more as a team, often when I take-off in Il-2 I get someone escorting me in his Yak. 

 

It's extreme simplification to only think that game would turn into team deathmatch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where's the sense of simming the aircraft if you can't to some degree simulate the operational reality of the theatre?  For that matter, what's the point of basing a CFS around an execution?

 

Battle of Moscow was the same "execution"..Stalingrad Summer as well..Russian air force has been butchered..it was a no-contest - and yet we are having fun simming in it, to a very very unhistoric degree (even the dynamic campaigns). Now what would be the difference with Ardennes again?

 

 

 

Its a problem of the MP environment for such late war scenarios. 70 kurfirsts/doras/schwalbe against 30 mustangs/Tbolts would be an average server reality,which is ,at the end, ridiculous

 

First of all, we have pretty balanced servers right now, so i guess it wouldn't be different with a late war scenario. Second of all, why should that be ridiculous? Luftwaffe fighters managed up till the end of 44 to outnumber allied fighters locally on multiple occasions. Seems someone has to take some history lessons

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure I would say Moscow or Stalingrad were the same turkey-shoot as Bodenplatte and the Ardennes. 6 IAK expedience in the former and the tactical regiment-level reforms combined with the wide-front improvements brought about by Aleksandr Novikov in the latter (which brought to life the full-on Soviet combined arms hammer) allowed the VVS to hold the Luftwaffe back in both campaigns, despite high losses (many of which to AAA, not fighters).

 

Bodenplatte followed the same recipe for disaster that gave the Wermacht the Barbarossa setback: overly optimistic plans that relied on everything working perfectly, without the resources to back it up, and against an enemy that could recover much faster than imagined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure I would say Moscow or Stalingrad were the same turkey-shoot as Bodenplatte and the Ardennes. 6 IAK expedience in the former and the tactical regiment-level reforms combined with the wide-front improvements brought about by Aleksandr Novikov in the latter (which brought to life the full-on Soviet combined arms hammer) allowed the VVS to hold the Luftwaffe back in both campaigns, despite high losses (many of which to AAA, not fighters).

 

Bodenplatte followed the same recipe for disaster that gave the Wermacht the Barbarossa setback: overly optimistic plans that relied on everything working perfectly, without the resources to back it up, and against an enemy that could recover much faster than imagined.

and still the Russians lost way more aircraft both relative and absolute in those 2 campaigns. The only reason it was not a total domination was that the Russians had more or less inexhaustible supply of new aircraft and pilots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet despite the debacle the 1941 summer was the Luftwaffe was only able to muster slightly over 500 aircraft of all types at the beginning of the Moscow campaign, while the VVS had about 900, and unlike before these were under centralised control of the Moscow region and they did not have to deal with constant retreat and poorly prepared airbases. It was not the kind of History Channel turkey shoot you read about, in short, but rather a hotly contested battle wherein the Soviet Air Force played a major role in the counter-attack that ensued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matter of nomenclature, most of the people never fall into such details. Japanese and Allied aircraft constitute PTO, even though its actually South-East Asian theater of operations. But details are details. 

 

 

 

As well as a matter of VAST distances, Command Structures that had no level of cooperation at any level, as well as being designated two completely separate Theaters by virtually all involved.  Saying that PTO is CBI, and CBI is PTO is like saying the WTO, ETO, and MTO were all the same.  Doesn't make much sense to say its the same thing when it clearly isn't.  I also think it relevant that the CBI doesn't physically contact the Pacific Ocean in any way, and that the USN never operated in the CBI in any appreciable way.

 

But I agree, details are details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bodeplatte they manage to destroy a lot of aircraft on the ground, witch was replaced on no time, and lost about everything they had of pilots. Most lost simply because they could not find their way. And for the virtual bit of it, no value for me. This is a scenario I would like to do in DCS. They concentrate on planes from that time period. And the plane is kind of challenging to fly. For this game however I would like something more interesting for a Bomberpilot perspective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah a big bomber. Maybe they could do a separate dlc Pe-8 similar to the Ilya Muromets project with RoF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep coming back to north Africa for the following reasons.

 

Big seas of desert and not many towns aka not a big graphical/cpu drag

 

Huge opportunity to expand tank warfare

 

Mostly new aircraft but alot that are already there or would just need a trop conversion

 

Possibilities to add costal warfare sector with significant in land warfare at the same time

 

All in all this engine could do say Tubruc very well performance and gameplay wise

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah a big bomber. Maybe they could do a separate dlc Pe-8 similar to the Ilya Muromets project with RoF.

 

I had that thought as well... Never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah a big bomber. Maybe they could do a separate dlc Pe-8 similar to the Ilya Muromets project with RoF.

Well, that was a separate free product for a while, then it got added to RoF for what ever reason. It's a shame they didn't integrate it a little better though. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the best large online wars I have ever had with the old IL2 game was on desert/Med maps... really outstanding, and those maps always drew large crowds wanting to take part... just a thought eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the best large online wars I have ever had with the old IL2 game was on desert/Med maps... really outstanding, and those maps always drew large crowds wanting to take part... just a thought eh?

 

I had some pretty good ones too. The trick would probably be finding the right mix of aircraft types to fit into the 8+2 model. A lot of the German types we already have... They would need some tropicalized options but otherwise we've got them. More Italian and British types probably would be next. Or American... depending on which part of the war in North Africa they want to represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think that we had enough early WW2 fighting. Both BOM and BOS are from period of 1941-1942. I would love to see some 1944-45 fights, and Battle of Bulge is good as Ardennes are very interesting terrain with hills and mountains everywhere and forests and small villages. Yet another place where the amazing snow that BOS has can be showcased to the fullest, but unlike the fields of Stalingrad, the theatre has very varied terain. There are plenty of airplanes that would be for multiple roles, leaving a space for flexibility.

 

Flyable planes for Allies:

P-47D30

P-51D20

P-38L

B25

Premium

Tempest MkV

 

Flyable planes for Axis

Bf109G14

Fw190D9

Fw190A8

Me410

Premium

Ta152H1

Edited by =LD=Solty
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you have a P-38J in a 44-45 plane list?

 

P-38L is way more appropriate.

 

And I would argue G-10 or K-4 instead of the G-14.

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a Me 262 in this scenario, even if it would probably not be the best idea

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you have a P-38J in a 44-45 plane list?

 

P-38L is way more appropriate.

 

And I would argue G-10 or K-4 instead of the G-14.

G14 is the most produced 109 model for the period. G10 was very limited. K4 was also quite limited in 1944 and early 45. G14 seems like the most natural plane to put here. I would be ok if we took Bf109K4 as a premium plane instead of Ta152, but not as a standard plane. Especially that I have a feeling that P-51D would have 67'hg as this is the easiest to model. If US gets 44-1 fuel and ratings then I am kinda ok for the K4. Without that? No way. I know a thing about that matchup and it hurts.

 

You are right about P-38L.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If to eventually entertain a late-war scenario, wouldn't it be sound to include a late-mark Spitfire in the mix? Not sure at the expense of whom though, I'm not well-versed into the USAAF operations  at that time, but from the RAF part there were both Merlin and Griffon powered variants being actively fielded until the end of the war, and I think one of those would make the plane set more diverse both in terms of nationality and performance since otherwise we have the P-47, P-51, Tempest and P-38 which are all fighters that gamble in speed more than anything, and carry very similar air-to-ground ordinance (rockets or a pair of underwing 100-500kg bombs). For the lack of a better term, the Spitfire brings more Spitfireness to it  :biggrin:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G14 is the most produced 109 model for the period. G10 was very limited. K4 was also quite limited in 1944 and early 45. G14 seems like the most natural plane to put here. I would be ok if we took Bf109K4 as a premium plane instead of Ta152, but not as a standard plane. Especially that I have a feeling that P-51D would have 67'hg as this is the easiest to model. If US gets 44-1 fuel and ratings then I am kinda ok for the K4. Without that? No way. I know a thing about that matchup and it hurts.

 

You are right about P-38L.

But if you are modelling during the Bondenplatte period, you kinda need to model 150 Octane for the P-51 at least, since 352nd Fighter Group took part in that battle, and they were running 150 Octane by then.

 

Same for the Tempest, since 2nd TAF had begun the switch to 150 Octane in that time period.

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an Ardennes/Bondenplatte scenario would work well in this sim. It really wouldn't all that much different from the winter maps we flew for well over a year. The missions themselves wouldn't be all that different either.  A lot of ground support, some smaller air engagements, foul weather. The only real change would be a completely different Allied planeset. It might do wonders to bring in more new pilots. More pilots = more cash flow towards further development.

  • Upvote 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...