So what's next? (talking about BoX)

[ShamrockOneFive]

44 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Is it confirmed that we get it? Shame that we don't have a single flyable bomber in BoBp

 

Yes it is, it was on the original announcement and no statement has since contradicted it. The B-25 is a smart choice to invest resources to build (AI now, they said they hope for flyable later).

 

I'd love to see an AI heavy. I disagree that the engine can't support it but what the engine can't do is support large numbers of it. On this too I'm willing to compromise. 6-8 bombers in a formation (assuming similar AI resource requirements to a He111 - maybe through some optimization or trickery on the gunners parts) at medium to high altitudes would be enough for me. It still comes down to resource time needed to make even the AI version happen.

[Uufflakke]

On 11/26/2018 at 9:14 PM, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

Not one mentioned the B-25.

My guess is that it will be the last plane made since it's only Ai, for now. 

 

The B-25 wil be AI indeed if it will be added in game at all.

And if so perhaps later on flyable.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/32270-make-b-25-flyable-please/?tab=comments#comment-533984

 

And some information about the B-25 here extracted from the Q&A session with Jason:

https://stormbirds.blog/2017/11/19/a-qa-with-jason-williams-on-il-2-battle-of-bodenplatte-and-so-much-more/

 

Briefly said: it is rather uncertain if there will be a B-25.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Uufflakke

[sevenless]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

, but are the devs?

 

If they would see any merit in that, they would have done it already. I would love to see a defense of the reich module also, but I am realistic enough not to expect it with the current engine.

[40plus]

I've cringed through all the P-47 hype as I simple couldn't give a toot about the bloated old girl. I'm super hyped for the P-38 but that is the one we've heard the least about. quietly hoping we get an update soon.

[pegg00]

Can someone explain to me what use is a P-47 or P-51, or any high-alt fighter in BoBp if there are no high-alt bombers? Wouldnt the Tempest and G-14/K-4 be the only viable and competitive planes? Low alt only engagements would not be even slightly historically accurate.

[Gambit21]

13 minutes ago, pegg00 said:

Can someone explain to me what use is a P-47 or P-51, or any high-alt fighter in BoBp if there are no high-alt bombers? Wouldnt the Tempest and G-14/K-4 be the only viable and competitive planes? Low alt only engagements would not be even slightly historically accurate.

 

Research 9th Air Force, and 2 TAC operations during this period as you seem to be entirely unaware of the history that this release is based on.

[pegg00]

57 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Research 9th Air Force, and 2 TAC operations during this period as you seem to be entirely unaware of the history that this release is based on.

You’re telling me that during the period this release is based on, Allies sent high-alt fighter/bombers to dogfight Axis low alt optimized fighters at low altitude? And that there were absolutely no bombers at all? I find that difficult to believe. And you realize that, as it stands now, this is what is going to happen in BoBp, right? Although, you’re right, I am not familiar with the specific operations BoBp is based on.

Edited November 28, 2018 by pegg00

[Gambit21]

3 minutes ago, pegg00 said:

You’re telling me that during the period this release is based on, Allies sent high-alt fighter/bombers to dogfight Axis low alt optimized fighters at low altitude? And that there were absolutely no bombers at all? I find that difficult to believe. Although, you’re right, I am not familiar with the specific operations BoBp is based on.

 

Don't put words in my mouth please, I didn’t say there were no bombers. 

 

The IX TAC flew low alt/on the deck CAS missions in France post D-Day through Belgium into Germany until wars end.

Yes using Jugs, P-38’s and even a few Mustangs.

 

The 352’nd (8th AF Mustangs) were “borrowed” for a time to help support these operations.(487th, 328th squadrons) They also escorted B-17’s into Germany from Y-29 in Belgium as well as Chievres. The 352nd did mix it up with the Germans down low on many occasions on days when they flew missions supporting the 9th.

 

Research

 

 

[pegg00]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Don't put words in my mouth please, I didn’t say there were no bombers. 

 

The IX TAC flew low alt/on the deck CAS missions in France post D-Day through Belgium into Germany until wars end.

Yes using Jugs, P-38’s and even a few Mustangs.

 

The 352’nd (8th AF Mustangs) were “borrowed” for a time to help support these operations.(487th, 328th squadrons) They also escorted B-17’s into Germany from Y-29 in Belgium as well as Chievres. The 352nd did mix it up with the Germans down low on many occasions on days when they flew missions supporting the 9th.

 

Research

 

 

My claim was not that low altitude engagements never happened. My claim was no high altitude engagements is wildly historically inaccurate. Now who’s putting words in others mouths? And as it is stands now, very rarely will high altitude enagements occur in BoBp.

Edited November 28, 2018 by pegg00

[Gambit21]

Just now, pegg00 said:

My claim was not that low altitude engagements never happened. My claim was no high altitude engagements is wildly historically inaccurate. Now who’s putting words in others mouths?

 

That is absolutely not what you said, (you do realize your post is visible right up there?) and I have better things to do than engage this.

 

Read a book

[Haza]

19 minutes ago, pegg00 said:

You’re telling me that during the period this release is based on, Allies sent high-alt fighter/bombers to dogfight Axis low alt optimized fighters? And that there were absolutely no bombers at all? I find that difficult to believe. Although, you’re right, I am not familiar with the specific operations BoBp is based on.

 

I think your question was very relevant. I asked a similar question regarding the 262 fighter as that thing low down will be wipped out. In saying that, I believe that Blacksix was possibly putting together a campaign to ensure that there was/is some high altitude engagements, although still only twin engine bombers.  That said, in MP I wouldnt expect any high altitude bomber action as you only have to look at the current game franchise to see that the majority of MP server bomber engagements occur at less than 1500ft. I'm so looking forward to Pacific as I'm sure that players expectations of waves of MP bombers attacking will be met with a few low level attackers, although I hope to be proven wrong. However, it just demonstrates that without true 4 engine bombers, perhaps the WW2 IL2 franchise has reached its limits and perhaps has shown its weakness! However, hopefully these limitations can be overcome with time as the heavy 4 engine bombers is an aspect of the game with the likes of the B-17 and Lancaster that might open this WW2 experience even further. 

 

Regards

Edited November 28, 2018 by Haza

[pegg00]

Just now, Gambit21 said:

 

That is absolutely not what you said, (you do realize your post is visible right up there?) and I have better things to do than engage this.

 

Read a book

“Low alt only enagements would not be even slightly historically accurate” ??????? Thats the only claim I made lmao, the rest of my post was questions. You're a weird one.

[Gambit21]

Just now, pegg00 said:

“Low alt only enagements would not be even slightly historically accurate” ??????? Thats the only claim I made lmao, the rest of my post was questions. You're a weird one.

 

It’s a tactical map and plane set - this isn’t that hard.

[pegg00]

6 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

It’s a tactical map and plane set - this isn’t that hard.

The only tactics I can forsee now is the same as any other release. My original question/point is that there is no reason for BoBp pilots to fly at altitude, where American planes excel. Therefor significantly reducing the use of a variety of tactics and planes. If there is a reason for people to fly at altitude please let me know, because I dont see it. If, however, high alt bombers were introduced, it would provide a reason for players to fly high, thus increasing the amount of tactics and different aircraft we can employ effectively.

Edited November 28, 2018 by pegg00

[Gambit21]

12 minutes ago, pegg00 said:

The only tactics I can forsee now is the same as any other release. My original question/point is that there is no reason for BoBp pilots to fly at altitude, where American planes excel. Therefor significantly reducing the use of a variety of tactics and planes. If there is a reason for people to fly at altitude please let me know, because I dont see it. If, however, high alt bombers were introduced, it would provide a reason for players to fly high, thus increasing the amount of tactics and different aircraft we can employ effectively.

 

Correct - for the most part there will be no reason to fly at altitude since this map does not accommodate strategic operations, nor are heavy bombers to be modeled.

 

This release deals with tactical operations (using aircraft historically involved in these operations) in Belgium and Germany after the Bulge collapsed and Germany was on the retreat.

 

I will make a few Mustang high alt escort missions using the B-25 as a stand-in just for grins, but this is a tactical map.

[sevenless]

10 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I'd love to see an AI heavy. I disagree that the engine can't support it but what the engine can't do is support large numbers of it. On this too I'm willing to compromise. 6-8 bombers in a formation (assuming similar AI resource requirements to a He111 - maybe through some optimization or trickery on the gunners parts) at medium to high altitudes would be enough for me. It still comes down to resource time needed to make even the AI version happen.

 

I would be completely satisfied if they would do a 1 on 1 import of the Il2-1946 heavies as AI-only planes. I don´t need no sophisticated four-engine target drones for shooting them down. It, however would only make sense if they would be able to model two or three combat boxes of heavies (24-36 plane) and multiple waves of them. However unless we see something alike I stay with IL-1946 to get my occasional bomber fix.

[Rattlesnake]

14 hours ago, pegg00 said:

The only tactics I can forsee now is the same as any other release. My original question/point is that there is no reason for BoBp pilots to fly at altitude, where American planes excel. Therefor significantly reducing the use of a variety of tactics and planes. If there is a reason for people to fly at altitude please let me know, because I dont see it. If, however, high alt bombers were introduced, it would provide a reason for players to fly high, thus increasing the amount of tactics and different aircraft we can employ effectively.

Technically speaking the P-51D was quite fast on the deck compared to most, especially with 150 octane. The fly in the ointment for good balance remains the 1.98 ATA K4 with endless WEP.

[Sunde]

26 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

Technically speaking the P-51D was quite fast on the deck compared to most, especially with 150 octane. The fly in the ointment for good balance remains the 1.98 ATA K4 with endless WEP.

Ahh yes, good balance.

What all flight sims should strive for. Just like the early days of BOS, right?

I think the planeset we are getting with BOBP is going to be awesome to be fair. 
If at some point high altitude bombers came to be (even in an AI state) this sim would be unbeatable. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Sunde

[Rattlesnake]

39 minutes ago, Sunde said:

Ahh yes, good balance.

What all flight sims should strive for. Just like the early days of BOS, right?
 

These are flight simulators. What we are doing is a game, played entirely for entertainment. In that paradigm you are correct, game balance should be striven for.

I wasn't here for the early days of BoS. I came in shortly before the "fix" to the 190 improved it and (completely unintentionally I'm sure) made it useful and competitive compared to its 109 stablemates. More balanced one might say.

My understanding of the Eastern front paradigm that BoX incarnations have focused on up until now is that generally speaking the Russian side gets maneuverability and the German side gets performance, especially at somewhat higher altitudes (but not so high that said performance is useless because no one goes there). That close to the mark?

[Mysticpuma]

On 11/28/2018 at 12:29 PM, Mysticpuma said:

I think a B-24 or B-17 would be very welcome and even at $20 it would be snapped up. 

 

Would love to see bomber streams in BoX

 

Would love to escorts a bomber stream like this in a P-47 as the enemy swoop in ?

 

 

[vadupleix7]

11 hours ago, CMBailey said:

These are flight simulators. What we are doing is a game, played entirely for entertainment. In that paradigm you are correct, game balance should be striven for.

For these kind of games each server can ban planes and engines/modifications so I'd say the balance is what each public server shall strive for.

It wouldn't be justified if the developer decides to make an F22 because it's wasting its resources to make a plane that every server will ban and it's unfair for MP folks who are paying for this game. However I don't see a problem with K4 since with its 1.8ata engine it's not anything being "OP" compared to tempest and mustang while adding the 1.98ata option does not incur much development cost.

(Not arguing for K4 and a spitfire Xiv is more than welcomed. Just my 2 cents on issue of "balance")

[334th_sputnik66]

Hopefully more early war eastern front stuff as it doesn't quite feel complete yet. Would love to see A forgotten battles type expansion on the unique planeset that the Finns and Soviets used early war plus a lovely Baltic/Leningrad map.

 

Early war planes are far more interesting IMO