Too many Bf 109s in the game?

[Trooper117]

Apparently Mk IID's were used at Kursk and the Kuban...

 

 

 

[Cybermat47]

22 hours ago, Hellbender said:

 

-snip-

 

 

That made my day 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Crikey, they also got some Hurri IVs apparently. That is just...odd.

 

But excellent.

[Trooper117]

lol, Marsh, if we keep pestering, I'm sure the Dev's will give us a couple of variants eventually 

 

[sevenless]

I´d love to see them. May it be Leningrad, Krim or Kursk. Doesn´t matter but we need them (Hurries) in the game 

Edited March 23, 2018 by sevenless

[Trooper117]

We need the IIB's and a Murmansk map... I used to play the hell out of that on the old IL2

[sevenless]

1 minute ago, Trooper117 said:

We need the IIB's and a Murmansk map... I used to play the hell out of that on the old IL2

 

Yep I remember. It was Forgotten Battles was it ? Oh the memories, I still have the DVD case somewhere.

[PantsPilot]

LOL there'll always been "too many 109"'s" in any il-2 games IMO. The devs appear obsessed with them! Would have been much better to include some different aircraft in some of those releases, like a VVS Hurricane and a I-153 etc. But hey it's a lot cheaper in man hours to keep rehashing the same plane with minor modifications, and call it a new plane, than to build an actual new plane!

I suppose it's a business and they have to make money...I was hoping against hope that the upcoming 1945 module would include a Griffon engine Spitfire XIV which would go a long way to redressing the national balance in this game, but it seems not. I'm coming to the conclusion that the devs are using the aircraft that appeared in the original il-2 1946 game only. I believe the XIV was one of the first modded planes to go in that game and blew everything else away!

I've read Jason is wants to do the Pacific as a labour of love which is fair enough, but he should also remember his paying customers also have dreams as well.    

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Yeah why keep rehashing the singularly most important fighter on the Blue side in different versions....

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

It was the mainstay fighter of Germany so of course there is a lot of 109 variants.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Pfffttt.... too many?

 

The HSFX modded version of IL2 1946 has 42 different versions of the Bf 109.

 

The devs here have barely scratched the surface...

 

Just wait till they get to the Spitfires...

 

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

Let's get the He-112 and H-100 

[Cpt_Siddy]

E-7, F-4 and G-6 are as different from each other as Yak, Lagg and Mig, even tho they share similar air frame. 

 

You could argue that VVS get more modifications and iterations, but when only the best ones are usually used if not forced to do other vice, i dont see the problem with variety.

 

Saying that 109 have no variety is like saying vanilla ice cream is only flavor in the world. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

10 hours ago, PantsPilot said:

I've read Jason is wants to do the Pacific as a labour of love which is fair enough, but he should also remember his paying customers also have dreams as well.

I have a dream. I have a dream that one day we get to admire the Pacific. I have a dream that one day we get to fly the Zeros, Wildcats, Corsairs, Kates and Oscars. I have a dream that one day we get to see the green jungles of New Guinea, sands of Midway and cities of Japan. I have a dream today!

 

But seriously, I don't think Jason is forgetting of what you imply. The sole reason that some of the aircraft, career and gameplay features appeared is because he listened to customers requests, suggestions and dreams.

[Enceladus828]

On 2017-11-12 at 9:41 AM, LukeFF said:

 

F-2 vs F-4: different engines, different armament options

 

G-2: different engine than F series, different power settings, different canopy

 

 

Ehm, no, it was not a field mod. Besides the game's model lifting the DB605's boost restriction, it has larger mainwheels and thus a different wing surface. Those things were fitted at the factory.

 

 

No, just no. The versions of the Yak-1 and the LaGG-3 current modeled are wholly inappropriate to the BoM. Same with the G-2 and 190 A-3. 

What I mean by BOM listed as same, is that the list of aircraft in the BOM is okay.

?

[ShamrockOneFive]

5 minutes ago, Novice-Flyer said:

What I mean by BOM listed as same, is that the list of aircraft in the BOM is okay.

?

 

But the rest of the aircraft are not?

[Enceladus828]

On 4/29/2018 at 11:41 AM, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

But the rest of the aircraft are not?

No. Aircraft like the Yak-1, LaGG 3, P-39, etc. are okay. I'm just making a suggestion because the creators can only make 10 planes per battle pack!

[LukeFF]

Still trying to figure out what the point of all this is. If one cannot get around the very simple fact that the 109 was a mainstay of the German fighter force for the entirety of the conflict, then this conversation is going to go nowhere.

[ShamrockOneFive]

20 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Still trying to figure out what the point of all this is. If one cannot get around the very simple fact that the 109 was a mainstay of the German fighter force for the entirety of the conflict, then this conversation is going to go nowhere.

 

Exactly it.

 

4 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

No. Aircraft like the Yak-1, LaGG 3, P-39, etc. are okay. I'm just making a suggestion because the creators can only make 10 planes per battle pack!

 

The problem is that the Bf109 is THE fighter in the Luftwaffe from start to finish. So if the devs created Battle of Bodenplatte (for example) but then decided that they would not have the Bf109G-14 and Bf109K-4... well we're eliminating a 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe aircraft list right away. And replace them with what? There wouldn't be anything that would even approach being the equivalent.

 

I'm looking through the daily action reports for 2nd TAF units during Bodenplatte and its all Bf109s and FW190s. It's interesting when you see a Ju88, Do217 or a Fi156 show up on the list but some days the only action was against Bf109s or FW190s.

 

So, I can't figure this out at all.

[rodgerdavies]

And I hope one day we get a G10 (in an Italian or later Eastern front campaign) and an E3 and E4 with a Battle of Britain add-on. Bring them on!

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

16 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Still trying to figure out what the point of all this is. If one cannot get around the very simple fact that the 109 was a mainstay of the German fighter force for the entirety of the conflict, then this conversation is going to go nowhere.

 

I cannot agree more. 

[hames123]

On 14/11/2017 at 6:01 AM, Finkeren said:

Problem is: You generally want to avoid introducing completely new equipment into service during a war if you possibly can, especially if the war is of WW2 proportions and you don’t have the luxury of having a safe home base on a different continent, like the US has had in most of its wars.

 

Introducing new equipment slows down production, requires retraining of troops/pilots and brings a heap of teething problems that have to be solved before full scale deployment and full combat effectiveness can be attained.

 

Look at the Soviet Union: During their war with Germany they only introduced one major new aircraft design into service (Tu-2) and one new tank design (T-70). Everything else was a modification of something that was already in production.

 

Germany on the other hand actually got into a bad habit of trying to introduce completely new advanced equipment, weapons and vehicles into large scale production in the middle of the war. Sometimes it worked out pretty well (like the Fw 190) but often it resulted in a mess during the transition period, even when the new design turned out to be great, as was the case with the Panther tank. And sometimes the whole thing just turned out to be a big, expensive dud, like the He 177 and God knows how many other designs that kinda made it into production (and thus held back production of tried-and-true designs) but never became available in sufficient numbers and failed to make any real impact on the war. For aircraft alone the list is long: He 177, Me 210/410, Hs 129, He 219, Me 262, Me 163, Ar 234 etc etc.

 

Germany was going to lose the war regardsless, but their attempts at staying ahead in the arms race by trying out all these new designs did them more harm than good.

 

If the ISU-152 and IS-2s do not count as mostly new designs then I am not sure I follow your chain of thought. They evolved from the KV-1, for instance, but surely the end product was different enough to make them completely unique as a vehicle?

 

All the same, I still think this game needs Ju 87Rs for BOM.

[VesseL]

109 G-10 as a collector plane would be relative easy to build and might sell well.

 

[rodgerdavies]

1 hour ago, VesseL said:

109 G-10 as a collector plane would be relative easy to build and might sell well.

 

 

It would make it very difficult to potentially do another late war scenario in future though (unless maybe one focused on Italian aircraft). I've no issue if they 're-sell' a G-6 or G-14 later down the line but this would be the most popular variant remaining for any other '44/'45 European scenario. Hope to see it one way or another though.

Edited May 2, 2018 by rodgerdavies

[blitze]

18 hours ago, rodgerdavies said:

And I hope one day we get a G10 (in an Italian or later Eastern front campaign) and an E3 and E4 with a Battle of Britain add-on. Bring them on!

O - O, G10 in Hungarian / Romanian late war campaign encompassing ....

 

Drum Roll ....

 

Odessa

[VesseL]

Bodenplatte, was there quite many G-10 s

Edited May 2, 2018 by VesseL

[LukeFF]

1 minute ago, blitze said:

O - O, G10 in Hungarian / Romanian late war campaign encompassing ....

 

Might want to check your timeline to see why the Romanians never operated the G-10.

1 minute ago, VesseL said:

Kuban, was there quite many G-10 s

 

Ehm...no.

[blitze]

Just now, LukeFF said:

 

Might want to check your timeline to see why the Romanians never operated the G-10.

Not to worry, I just wan't the Pearl on the Black Sea there.  Can be used in early war scenarios as well as late.

[VesseL]

Damm you Luke, give me some time to correct my mistakes.

Edited May 2, 2018 by VesseL

[LukeFF]

6 minutes ago, VesseL said:

Damm you Luke, give me some time to correct my mistakes.

 

[MiloMorai]

4 hours ago, VesseL said:

Bodenplatte, was there quite many G-10 s

 

Serviceable (on hand) Bf109 type participating in Bodenplatte

G-14 - 141 (172)

G-14/AS - 118 (184)

G-10 -  52 (89)

K-4 - 91 (167)

 

A little less than 15% of the serviceable Bf109s were G-10s.

[Finkeren]

16 hours ago, hames123 said:

 

If the ISU-152 and IS-2s do not count as mostly new designs then I am not sure I follow your chain of thought. They evolved from the KV-1, for instance, but surely the end product was different enough to make them completely unique as a vehicle?

We are way off topic here, but anyway:

Same chassis, same engine and the evolution of these vehicles happened in incremental steps, changing as few design features as possible at a time in order to slow down production as little as possible. Of course ISU-152/122 and IS-2 were "unique" vehicles in the sense that they were very distinct from their ancestor the KV, but they were based on the KV design and evolved from there, and in that sense they weren't "new" designs, the way German AFVs often were. Just think about it: For the majority of the war Soviet tank production (the largest by far of any nation) was based almost exclusively on 3 basic chassis: Those of the T-70, T-34 and KV-1, where The German designers constantly churned out one completely new design after another, seriously slowing down the already ineffective production system and leading to a host of new designs with massive teething problems. By 1944 German tank production (and the supply lines of the army) had to deal with so many basic chassis designs: Pzkw 38(t), Pzkw II, Pzkw III, Pzkw IV, Pzkw V, Pzkw VI, and the horrid Elephant/King Tiger design by Henschel, all of which were completely different in every way. 

16 hours ago, hames123 said:

All the same, I still think this game needs Ju 87Rs for BOM.

 

Yep, agree completely on that part.

[Junjun_Nikurasu]

6 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

horrid Elephant

 

"Horrid"!!!

That em fighting words against the Porsche Tanks!

 

(BTW very passionate about the Tiger Ps and the Ferdinands.)

[VesseL]

On ‎3‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 2:36 AM, MiloMorai said:

 

Serviceable (on hand) Bf109 type participating in Bodenplatte

G-14 - 141 (172)

G-14/AS - 118 (184)

G-10 -  52 (89)

K-4 - 91 (167)

 

A little less than 15% of the serviceable Bf109s were G-10s.

 

So its possible, and IF the G-10 would some day become a collector plane it would need a VVS counterpart. Hawker Typhoon maybe?

[MiloMorai]

6 hours ago, VesseL said:

 

So its possible, and IF the G-10 would some day become a collector plane it would need a VVS counterpart. Hawker Typhoon maybe?

 

Don't think any Hawker Typhoons, an RAF a/c, flew with the VVS (Soviets).

[ShamrockOneFive]

As much as I've argued for the inclusion of multiple Bf109 variants, I'm a little stuck on the Bf109G-10 and the number of people who keep bringing it up. All of my reading suggests that the G-10 is a sort of halfway breed between the G-6/G-14 and the K-4. More engines available than airframes so they made a partial K-4 out of remaining G series airframes. Is there a unique combination of performance here that people want to see that they won't get with the G-14 or K-4? I am curious.

 

12 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Don't think any Hawker Typhoons, an RAF a/c, flew with the VVS (Soviets).

 

Hrmmm... I may be missing something here but as I'm sure you know, Bodenplatte is firmly in the West. Future Collector Planes such as the Typhoon and Spitfire XIV have been proposed.

 

[Custard]

25 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

As much as I've argued for the inclusion of multiple Bf109 variants, I'm a little stuck on the Bf109G-10 and the number of people who keep bringing it up. All of my reading suggests that the G-10 is a sort of halfway breed between the G-6/G-14 and the K-4. More engines available than airframes so they made a partial K-4 out of remaining G series airframes. Is there a unique combination of performance here that people want to see that they won't get with the G-14 or K-4? I am curious.

 

Indeed, it certainly seems odd, to me the G-10 seems like it is far more suited to being a regular Axis fighter in a future expansion than a standalone collector plane.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Custard

[VesseL]

Thanks Milo, im still learning the terminology. Allied I meant.

 

My suggestion is Typhoon. I dont know anything about it, or Tempest. Exept that they are fast, so im sure i will like them. And good turners too?, even better. Really looking forward to try both those new planes.

 

G-10 because it turns better than G-14 or K-4 but its allmost as fast and good climber as K-4. Its more versatile and fun i would expect.

[LukeFF]

The G-10 would also give the option between the MK 108 and MG 151/20, whereas the K-4 does not.

[ShamrockOneFive]

3 hours ago, VesseL said:

Thanks Milo, im still learning the terminology. Allied I meant.

 

My suggestion is Typhoon. I dont know anything about it, or Tempest. Exept that they are fast, so im sure i will like them. And good turners too?, even better. Really looking forward to try both those new planes.

 

G-10 because it turns better than G-14 or K-4 but its allmost as fast and good climber as K-4. Its more versatile and fun i would expect.

 

The Typhoon is indeed a fast aircraft. When introduced it was the RAF's low altitude interceptor that did fairly well against the "tip and run" raids of the channel war. Gradually Typhoons were used in low level recon sweeps targeting trains and vehicle convoys, done first as an experiment, and then formally later. Eventually all of the Typhoon squadrons were tasked with ground attack operations with squadrons specializing on 500lb or 1000lb bombs as one arrangement or eight RP-3 60lb (and 25lb armor piercing) rocket.

 

Typhoons are marginally better than FW190s in a turn fight but that's not saying much. The Typhoon also has a notoriously slow roll rate (the Tempest's revised wing and aileron design is much quicker).

 

What makes the G-10 a better turn aircraft than the G-14 or K-4. Colour me intrigued.

 

14 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

The G-10 would also give the option between the MK 108 and MG 151/20, whereas the K-4 does not.

Isn't that what the G-14 is though? I'm probably being thick here