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

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

If we get a Battle of France we should really get a ju-52 with paratroopers that can capture bridges, small towns and most important airfields. Same for Battle of Norway

Edited March 20, 2016 by 6./ZG26_McKvack

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Mac_Messer - I would really like to ask you to refrain from using words like : "Jap", "murican" ? It doesnt really add anything valuable to your posts.

 

 

 

If one is able of thinking, ETO can be one of the most varied theaters of them all. Just don`t be placing 5 different Yak types every release. Besides, what we want and what this engine can do is two different things.

It's hard not to release another Yak when releasing another Eastern Front expansion considering it was the most widely used type of aircraft along with Lavochkins. So there will always be a Yak-7, Yak-9, Yak-3 (not to mention different variants of those) or La-5FN, La-7 to add.

Surly you can add Spitfire or P-39 but basic aircraft will always be some Yakovlev or Lavochkin. 

 

 

 

Zeke guns sux royally, even MG/FF doesn`t sux that much.

 

I'd love to ask on what you base your knowledge. Because technically speaking Type 99-1 is exactly a copy of MG/FF. From a technical point of view they are almost the same, with a minor differences added by Japanese. It fired different ammunition, but I'd rather say it was superior to what MG/FF offered. 

 

 

 

Not really. Gradually when the Allied planeset expands, LW is going to need new stuff to be even remotely competitive.

More Bf 109s and FW-190s ? And someone was talking of too many Yak types ...

 

 

 

I think it should be said that developpers deserve credit for putting up with bomber/ground attack aircraft. Not easy to do and takes away resources but adds so much if one wants to create a good theatre of operations.

Not sure how is that related to what you quoted. But I agree with this, ground attackers and bombers require a lot more time to develop and their complexity is far beyond any fighter.  

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

I'd love to ask on what you base your knowledge. Because technically speaking Type 99-1 is exactly a copy of MG/FF. From a technical point of view they are almost the same, with a minor differences added by Japanese. It fired different ammunition, but I'd rather say it was superior to what MG/FF offered. 

 

shorter barrels, worse ballsitcs and penetration.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

How much shorter ? Because as far as I can see on the drawings both guns have very similar total length (133 cm for Type 99 vs 137 cm for MG/FF and difference in length of the whole gun =/= difference in length of the barrel) and difference can be easily explained by the usage of different type of cartridge - 20x72 vs 20x80 and few other things.

And in regard to ballistics and penetration it would actually be nice if you'd show some table or graph with height of trajectory and penetration.  

Edited March 19, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Mac_Messer]

So what? The next couple of theatres will only require variations on the Fw190A, later Bf109Gs, Bf110s, Ju-88s and so on. Visual and Flight models are all done and just need tweaking to create later models. Really the only new additions would be maybe a 410 and a Fw190D.

They can easily push out three german aircraft per month as they have shown. (BoM Il-2 1941, Pe-2 1941 and Bf109F-2)

Sure, I meant exactly what you said though it is obvious that once we hit high altitude fights LW is going to need high alt variants (I think it is G6A/S and FW190D). Let us be frank - every Luftwaffle is waiting for the Dora.

 

Also, it is doubtful for devs to make a Me410 if they can make FW190F8.

 

shorter barrels, worse ballsitcs and penetration.

 

Yes and now add another factor - targets that are sturdy murican planes.

[Fern]

ok, bye 

 

It's not goodbye. There's no point to waste my money on a pack if I dont like it. Especially if I only play multiplayer on Wings of Liberty. I dont need BoM to play on that server.

[Mac_Messer]

It's hard not to release another Yak when releasing another Eastern Front expansion considering it was the most widely used type of aircraft along with Lavochkins. So there will always be a Yak-7, Yak-9, Yak-3 (not to mention different variants of those) or La-5FN, La-7 to add.

Surly you can add Spitfire or P-39 but basic aircraft will always be some Yakovlev or Lavochkin. 

One Yak every addon doesn`t ruin it. Adding 3 Yaks every addon does. I will copy what was said earlier - put a Spitfire in it, you got a whole another fanbase in this sim.

 

More Bf 109s and FW-190s ? And someone was talking of too many Yak types ...

Every side has unique experience. LW didn`t have Lend Lease so no comparison can be made. And the only special variants were introduced into main LW aircraft. I am all for Macchi, IAR80 and maybe an Italian bomber but you can only go so far. Making LW more varied looks great for a Med threatre, much worse for Finland or France (from 1941 onwards).

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yes and now add another factor - targets that are sturdy murican planes.

Right, so not a trace of evidence but just more assumptions.

 

And again that "murican" ...

 

 

 

One Yak every addon doesn`t ruin it. Adding 3 Yaks every addon does. I will copy what was said earlier - put a Spitfire in it, you got a whole another fanbase in this sim.

Then so far you've got nothing to worry about since we have only one Yak available.

 

 

 

Every side has unique experience. LW didn`t have Lend Lease so no comparison can be made. And the only special variants were introduced into main LW aircraft. I am all for Macchi, IAR80 and maybe an Italian bomber but you can only go so far. Making LW more varied looks great for a Med threatre, much worse for Finland or France (from 1941 onwards).

Was just saying ...

The diversity is largely dependent on allies of Luftwaffe (Finland with MS 406 for instance, Romanian IAR-80, etc.) or Lend-Lease in case of VVS. Other than that its pretty monotonous.   

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Sure, I meant exactly what you said though it is obvious that once we hit high altitude fights LW is going to need high alt variants (I think it is G6A/S and FW190D). Let us be frank - every Luftwaffle is waiting for the Dora.

 

Also, it is doubtful for devs to make a Me410 if they can make FW190F8.

Yes and now add another factor - targets that are sturdy murican planes.

 

One Yak every addon doesn`t ruin it. Adding 3 Yaks every addon does. I will copy what was said earlier - put a Spitfire in it, you got a whole another fanbase in this sim.

 

Every side has unique experience. LW didn`t have Lend Lease so no comparison can be made. And the only special variants were introduced into main LW aircraft. I am all for Macchi, IAR80 and maybe an Italian bomber but you can only go so far. Making LW more varied looks great for a Med threatre, much worse for Finland or France (from 1941 onwards).

 

1. I'm a Luftwaffle I want muh Auntie Ju, don't care nuffin for em Doras, I like em old 'n' rippley. 

 

2. The F-8 is a thing of a week. They showed how quickly they can put out Mods that aren't new aircraft. I hope for one or two DLCs for nonfighter/bomber aircraft but Recons and dedicated Transports.

 

3. Fortunately I'm no longer allowed to agree with you on Muricans, so now you are a meany. 

 

4. A Spitfire is probably inevitable in the Kuban, and I'd like that as well. And if the Murmansk Map was completed at some point the Hurricane would come as well and then we can have the Med. The fighters that served in late 43 were: Yak-9D, Yak-9T (37mm), Yak-1B, LaGG-3-44 (amazing in every way), La-5F and FN and add to that P-40Ms, P-39s and Spitfires. It's just way too many for the current 3 fighters. 2 ground pounders model.

 

5. Agreed. Leningrad would still be nice though. 

 

Edited for grammar

Edited March 19, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Mac_Messer]

Was just saying ...

The diversity is largely dependent on allies of Luftwaffe (Finland with MS 406 for instance, Romanian IAR-80, etc.) or Lend-Lease in case of VVS. Other than that its pretty monotonous.   

Let me break it down for you so you understand.

 

In WWII main forces was 3rd Reich vs rest of the West, especially in the air war.

Italians, Romanians, Hungarians did fight on the 3rd Reich side but that does not translate to aircraft variety as much as US/GB/France/USSR on Allied side. Not even close.

 

So if you choose to fly LW you have mostly the same aircraft because it was like it was. If you want fly different ac every mission you fly Allied. It is that simple.

 

ETO in terms of variety is at least equal to any other theatre of operations in WWII. You make it Stalingrad, Moscow, Kursk, Berlin - you get similar experience. You make it Stalingrad, Crimea, Cuban, Manchuria you get varied experience.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Let me break it down for you so you understand.

 

In WWII main forces was 3rd Reich vs rest of the West, especially in the air war.

Italians, Romanians, Hungarians did fight on the 3rd Reich side but that does not translate to aircraft variety as much as US/GB/France/USSR on Allied side. Not even close.

 

So if you choose to fly LW you have mostly the same aircraft because it was like it was. If you want fly different ac every mission you fly Allied. It is that simple.

 

ETO in terms of variety is at least equal to any other theatre of operations in WWII. You make it Stalingrad, Moscow, Kursk, Berlin - you get similar experience. You make it Stalingrad, Crimea, Cuban, Manchuria you get varied experience.

Exactly right, quoting so no-one misses it by accident.

[Asgar]

i like my LW planes i don't care, and i don't think it's monotone or anything. G-6, G-10, G-14, K-4, Fw F-8 A-8, D-9 different engines, equipment. they all fly slightly different. they all have different capabilities. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Let me break it down for you so you understand.

Spare yourself  ...

 

 

 

In WWII main forces was 3rd Reich vs rest of the West, especially in the air war. Italians, Romanians, Hungarians did fight on the 3rd Reich side but that does not translate to aircraft variety as much as US/GB/France/USSR on Allied side. Not even close.  
So if you choose to fly LW you have mostly the same aircraft because it was like it was.
If you want fly different ac every mission you fly Allied. It is that simple.   ETO in terms of variety is at least equal to any other theatre of operations in WWII. You make it Stalingrad, Moscow, Kursk, Berlin - you get similar experience. You make it Stalingrad, Crimea, Cuban, Manchuria you get varied experience.

 

 

I'm well aware of this fact. It doesnt even contradict what I've said. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

i like my LW planes i don't care, and i don't think it's monotone or anything. G-6, G-10, G-14, K-4, Fw F-8 A-8, D-9 different engines, equipment. they all fly slightly different. they all have different capabilities. 

And the 1C/777 guys can now push out a whole lot of them in a month, while a Spit or Mosquite will take quite a bit longer.

[Asgar]

And the 1C/777 guys can now push out a whole lot of them in a month, while a Spit or Mosquite will take quite a bit longer.

yes!

[Caudron431]

i like my LW planes i don't care, and i don't think it's monotone or anything. G-6, G-10, G-14, K-4, Fw F-8 A-8, D-9 different engines, equipment. they all fly slightly different. they all have different capabilities. 

Definitely!

 

Moreover they all look slightly different. All the small modifications actually make a lot of difference visually, i love the badass look of the G6 with bulges and "birdcage" hood, just as i love the sleek look of the G10 (the most elegant Gustav of them all, love the long tailwheel, refined cowling and erla hood). And the Fw190A8/A9, with its brute force attitude (cowling bulges), weapons versatility, will always be my beloved ac when i fly late war Luftwaffe side.

[Lusekofte]

Too me there should be a playability in all this, it should be room for surviving in a bomber . When the gunners is too effective the majority witch fly 109 make a veto against it. And now the majority want all versions of the 109 up to ME 262 . to me it will be the same as DCS . A total dominance for fighters and dogfight.

If that is the game people want , fine. I still got COD to enjoy. I simply got other things to do than being a moving target.

I think the Developers have understood this, this is why some balance are put into the game. 

In COD a high flying JU 88 can escape from Hurricanes and Spits if you got advantage in altitude, and you can escape with help from friendlies in a HE 111. Due to the effectiveness of the MG you can glide back home if engines are out. 

Any addon should be considered for all interest

[Mac_Messer]

Don`t 20mm guns on the Heinkel solve this?

[Asgar]

 

 

and you can escape with help from friendlies in a HE 111

 

 

same in BoS

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yes, the majority of bomber crews on the DF servers fly suicide missions at >2000 m. It makes no sense. Climb away from the front, bomb rom altitude and survive the flight. It takes more time but landing your points helps your team more than just being fodder for the enemy.

 

On the other hand, they complain way less than newbie fighter pilots who do the same thing and get toasted repeatedly.

Edited March 19, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[kendo]

Regarding which theatre comes next, it seems to me that what has to be foremost in the devs mind are two closely related objectives.

 

Those are: to pull in new players (ie those who haven't already been tempted by either BOS or BOM) and to generate sales. Given this I think we get into diminishing returns by going for another Eastern front instalment.

 

People who haven't felt enough enthusiasm to buy into an Eastern front scenario already are not likely to do so for a third instalment either. And for those of us who have a more casual interest in the Russian Front than some here, the prospects of yet more minor variations of 109/190/Yak/Lagg/etc in another Russian context fails to keep generating enthusiasm and excitement after two instalments already.

 

The result is that the devs:

 

1. Fail to keep some of the player base they already have and

2. Fail to tempt in brand new players to expand the player base. 

 

Can those here who are genuinely excited with the prospect of exploring yet more variations of aircraft we already have realise that they represent a comparatively tiny segment of the potential customer base for this sim? Most people don't share that degree of commitment and fanaticism. The devs have to consider commercial aspects and not just take this series through a rather tedious (imo) chronological journey through the Russian Front up to 1945 (as some here seem to want). 

[Gunsmith86]

For all bomber pilots a Junkers 188 would be a interesting bomber for Late 1943-1945

Its fastet than older Ju 88 bombers

Is abble to carry a lot of diffrent losdouts and well armed.

It has a interesting cockpit design and flys well even with only one engine.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Gunsmith86

[Asgar]

I'm sure i would enjoy a good Do 217 E-4 with a max bomb load of 4000 kg just as much :D

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

For all bomber pilots a Junkers 188 would be a interesting bomber for Late 1943-1945

Its fastet than older Ju 88 bombers

Is abble to carry a lot of diffrent losdouts and well armed.

It has a interesting cockpit design and flys well even with only one engine.

Don't forget the Ju 388 - now thats a real beauty

 

Agree the 188 would be very interesting. It also seems to be underrepresented like the Do-217 and 317.

 

As for the bomber discussion, they work perfectly fine for me in BoS. Bombers are not meant to stand against fighters without help. They still could and definetly can ingame if you can manage to damage your enemy with defensive fire or he makes a mistake, but it's more based on luck rather than prediction. In BoS Flying a Heinkel starts to make sense with 5 machiens flying in tight formation. I've had a lot of crazy stuff happening to me too flying the Heinkel like getting shot by 2 enemy aircraft and crashed into by a Yak and was still able to fly. Other times your engines catch fire and you're surely done for. That's just how things work.

 

Talking about the Luftwaffe, the Ju-88 shoud have higher survivability and an easier time evading fighters thx to it's higher airspeed and manouvrebility.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

same in BoS

 

 

No the effective ness of the guns in BOS make survival pretty slim in BOS if detected . You have only the hope of gunners to rely on 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

You have only the hope of gunners to rely on 

Or the guys escorting you. When flying in Il-2 or Pe-2 I always find some Yak around who is willing to keep an eye on me and protect from any threat.  

[Gunsmith86]

A bomber pilot who flys alone has some options to improve his chance and stay alive.

1) use every cover you can get. Clouds give you a better chance to get to your target and attack it whitout geting spoted

2) if you spot any plane in the sky around you make sure you fly away from him use your greater range to fly near the target until there is no other plane around it

3) make your bombing run fast dont stay long over the target allways keep in mind that smoke clouds from targets hit will bring fighters to shoot down the bomber how hit the target

4) dont fly with max bombload it slows you down and you dont have any power reserves left when you need one

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The problem with the gunners being quite strong can be seen in War Thunder the Gun-Shipping Bomber-Noobs that would come in an score 6+kills per match on autopilot. They were generally more effective than fighters and American v Japanese Matches almost never happened because the Japs didn't want to be shot down at several KM distance by sniping B-25s. 

 

A formation of 3 He-111s in this game above 3500m can deal with a Yak or Lavochkin fighter most of the time, often enough not destroying but damaging their engines and such. 

A single He-111 is simply dead if it meets a fighter and that'S how it should be. 

[Lusekofte]

I would say , if you are stupid enough to attack from 6 , and do no evasive actions. You should have a 99 % chance of getting hurt and that drops by the amount of speed and maneuvers . And that was the way it was. I simply do not fly much public in this game anymore, I regard most servers equal to WT . There is absolutely no one on TS and no one to ask for escort. 

I think the way things evolve will decide if there is a point developing bombers in the future. In my point of view , the way it works. It gonna be dogfight only

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I would say , if you are stupid enough to attack from 6 , and do no evasive actions. You should have a 99 % chance of getting hurt and that drops by the amount of speed and maneuvers . And that was the way it was. I simply do not fly much public in this game anymore, I regard most servers equal to WT . There is absolutely no one on TS and no one to ask for escort. 

I think the way things evolve will decide if there is a point developing bombers in the future. In my point of view , the way it works. It gonna be dogfight only

Well, as a Ground Pounder you have to Organize. Find people that don't hate you within the first 5 Minutes and that fly regularly, open a ZG or STG or BG Or whatever you fancy, get in contact with some kind of JG or whatever the Russian Equivalent for Escort and you are set up for life. 

I return from most serious sorties, be it in Ju-87s, Bf110s or He-111s. We have developed tactics that prevent Flak-Kills etc. 

 

http://72ag-ded.ru/en/sorties/27/6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann/?tour=4

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It's been always about dogfights because of all wannabe Hartmanns. But I continuously find people doing ground attack missions on WoL, its a lot of fun to fly Ju-87, Il-2 or Pe-2. So its not like there is no interest in bombing. True, bombers have a hard time in the game but so they had in reality. My advice is just to fly with buddies, its not only practical but also fun. I rarely run the game alone, always need someone to keep me company. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

LuseKofte, check PM, I have an idea to increase bomber survivability and all that.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

I'd do anything for a Fw-200 C-4 with the 13mm ball turret

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The Condor is such an elegant aircraft! Its lines have always fascinated me

[Mac_Messer]

Regarding which theatre comes next, it seems to me that what has to be foremost in the devs mind are two closely related objectives.

 

(...)

Sry for slashing your post like that. Haven`t you been around for years now? I thought I know you from the orginal IL2 forum.

 

Well regardless if you`ve been around in 2003, I tell you that if one looked what has been wrote down back then at the ubi boards, your post is probably a direct copy of such a post. And look where we went and how IL2 was successful.

I would say , if you are stupid enough to attack from 6 , and do no evasive actions. You should have a 99 % chance of getting hurt and that drops by the amount of speed and maneuvers . And that was the way it was. I simply do not fly much public in this game anymore, I regard most servers equal to WT . There is absolutely no one on TS and no one to ask for escort. 

I think the way things evolve will decide if there is a point developing bombers in the future. In my point of view , the way it works. It gonna be dogfight only

Yes, some of us keep saying that but nah, people say that no coop is needed in BoS.

[Gambit21]

How much shorter ? Because as far as I can see on the drawings both guns have very similar total length (133 cm for Type 99 vs 137 cm for MG/FF and difference in length of the whole gun =/= difference in length of the barrel) and difference can be easily explained by the usage of different type of cartridge - 20x72 vs 20x80 and few other things.

And in regard to ballistics and penetration it would actually be nice if you'd show some table or graph with height of trajectory and penetration.  

The Japanese guns/cannons were of comparatively poor efficacy compared to their counterparts -  Low rate of fire, poor muzzle velocity.

The toughness of the opposing Grummans just exacerbated this problem.

If you haven't read "Fire in the Sky" by Eric Bergerud I strongly suggest you do - it's a fantastic read.

 

Anyway if you read Begerud's book you will find references/bibliography, further you can look to Saburo Sakai for reference.

The A6m2 was still the class of the air in 1942.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Gambit21

[Gambit21]

It's been always about dogfights because of all wannabe Hartmanns. But I continuously find people doing ground attack missions on WoL, its a lot of fun to fly Ju-87, Il-2 or Pe-2. So its not like there is no interest in bombing. True, bombers have a hard time in the game but so they had in reality. My advice is just to fly with buddies, its not only practical but also fun. I rarely run the game alone, always need someone to keep me company. 

It was so much easier to do that back in the days of the Hyperlobby CoOps.

I know some disagree - but that's just the realty. Everyone boots up and takes off at the same time for the mission and you have an organized

flight of bombers with escorts.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

These lines

[simplyjames]

IL-2: Whistling Death

https://youtu.be/IBUKiKvl29Q?t=73

[Dakpilot]

IL-2: Whistling Death

 

https://youtu.be/IBUKiKvl29Q?t=73

 

Nice! 

 

I do believe the Corsair would be a very good aircraft for "Bo?", it is very popular and there is a lot of available info on it, it is strange that no-one ever really mentions its roll rate as a standout feature as much as the FW190, because when tested they were pretty much identical 

 

It is iconic for many reasons but, probably would not be ideal as the first aircraft to start leaning Carrier operations with  it is interesting to note that of the 64,000 combat missions flown, 54,000 were from landbases, some would say that as a (pure) Naval fighter it was a failure, but it certainly was not as a combat aircraft, and has bags of character 

 

Would love to see a 'Cactus Air Force' scenario but the historic 1800km round trip for the Japanese will always be challenge in a gameplay situation vs historical reality/accurate map

 

Cheers Dakpilot