Good Allies higher altitude bomber?

[Voyager]

Was just thinking, if the main issue with higher altitude work in multiplayer is that there isn't much reason to go up there, and the main reason the Allies flew that high was to perform strategic bombing, would a possible solution to that be to add one or more high altitude medium bombers to the mix of aircraft? 

 

Initial thought could be the de Havilland Mosquito? That one would have the advantage of higher marketability if it could be done as both a heavy fighter and medium bomber.

 

Was also thinking no-one seems to have done the B-26 Marauder, though that seems to be more mid altitude, though that may fit the online meta better? 

 

Another thought would be the B-25 Mitchell. It has many versions and roles that could be used in later modules? 

 

Other thoughts? 

[RedKestrel]

15 minutes ago, Voyager said:

Was just thinking, if the main issue with higher altitude work in multiplayer is that there isn't much reason to go up there, and the main reason the Allies flew that high was to perform strategic bombing, would a possible solution to that be to add one or more high altitude medium bombers to the mix of aircraft? 

 

Initial thought could be the de Havilland Mosquito? That one would have the advantage of higher marketability if it could be done as both a heavy fighter and medium bomber.

 

Was also thinking no-one seems to have done the B-26 Marauder, though that seems to be more mid altitude, though that may fit the online meta better? 

 

Another thought would be the B-25 Mitchell. It has many versions and roles that could be used in later modules? 

 

Other thoughts? 

There's rumblings that an AI only B-25 would be modeled in BoBP, and possibly become flyable at a later point. But I'm not sure that's official.

I would personally love to see the Mosquito! I loved it in Il-2 1846 and this sim would model it that much better. It was a great aircraft but was only used rarely (if ever) as an escorted high altitude daylight bomber. Their participation in the heavy bombing campaign was basically as pathfinders for RAF Bomber command, marking targets for the heavy night bombers. They did literally everything else...low level bombing raids, anti-shipping, pathfinding, recon, heavy fighter, night fighter, fighter bomber.

Of course the draw distance really handicaps true high altitude bombing. With the 10km rendering/draw distance 'bubble' limiting the drawing of objects, its extremely difficult to bomb from higher altitudes as you can't see the target until the last second (or not at all). With AI bombers this may not be an issue, but if we want player flown bombers its a serious limitation.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

15 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

 Il-2 1846 

 

IL-2: 1846 confirmed planeset.

Edited December 12, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr

[RedKestrel]

1 minute ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

IL-2: 1846 confirmed planeset.

LOL I can't type today, but Oh god can you imagine the forum debates?

"Devs have done a poor job modeling the heat dissipation from the hot air balloon torch. I can touch the screen without my hands scorching. Totally arcade. Ridiculous."
"The torch sound is too loud! Should be quieter" "Not loud enough! See!" (youtube video of balloon posted, with endless debates as to sound quality, modern vs. antique torches, etc)
"English balloons are too tough, lol Victorian Canvas is tougher than armor plate, please nerf!"
"Reduced smoke effects from musket fire make it too easy to shoot another player's balloon. Please add smoke effects and sulfur smell of powder."
Somebody needs to pitch this to Jason ASAP. I think we have a winner on our hands.

[ShamrockOneFive]

22 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

There's rumblings that an AI only B-25 would be modeled in BoBP, and possibly become flyable at a later point. But I'm not sure that's official.

 

It's not a rumour. The B-25 (AI only) is part of the Bodenplatte announcement:

Further, Jason addressed questions about the B-25 in the Q&A that he had with us. I've scribbled the notes here (or its in the fully Q&A): https://stormbirds.blog/2017/11/19/a-qa-with-jason-williams-on-il-2-battle-of-bodenplatte-and-so-much-more/

 

The B-25 works for Bodeplatte as the RAF was using them tactically and the same version was used two years earlier as well and across virtually every battle. Pacific? Yep. Eastern Front? Yep. North Africa? Yep. So the intention as I understand it is that they will hopefully make this B-25 into a flyable one day and when they do they add an aircraft that may have taken a lot of development time to build but it would be relevant and useful for a large number of products both past and future all at once. It's a smart move.

 

As for the OP and bombers in general. Yes, bombers are awesome and we want them but it will be a tough go to get more than a few due to the complexity and development time. The B-25 seems somewhat likely. The big heavies are less likely. Some of the unique ones like the Mosquito and Ar234 might happen sooner than later because you don't need to model all kinds of different stations. The B-25 needs 6 stations (the waist gunners are semi-shared) while the Mosquito and Ar234 need only a single station plus bomb sight. I'm all in favour... But if we do get a Mosquito bomber variant I also really want the fighter-bomber variant too ?

[RedKestrel]

7 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

It's not a rumour. The B-25 (AI only) is part of the Bodenplatte announcement:

Further, Jason addressed questions about the B-25 in the Q&A that he had with us. I've scribbled the notes here (or its in the fully Q&A): https://stormbirds.blog/2017/11/19/a-qa-with-jason-williams-on-il-2-battle-of-bodenplatte-and-so-much-more/

 

The B-25 works for Bodeplatte as the RAF was using them tactically and the same version was used two years earlier as well and across virtually every battle. Pacific? Yep. Eastern Front? Yep. North Africa? Yep. So the intention as I understand it is that they will hopefully make this B-25 into a flyable one day and when they do they add an aircraft that may have taken a lot of development time to build but it would be relevant and useful for a large number of products both past and future all at once. It's a smart move.

 

As for the OP and bombers in general. Yes, bombers are awesome and we want them but it will be a tough go to get more than a few due to the complexity and development time. The B-25 seems somewhat likely. The big heavies are less likely. Some of the unique ones like the Mosquito and Ar234 might happen sooner than later because you don't need to model all kinds of different stations. The B-25 needs 6 stations (the waist gunners are semi-shared) while the Mosquito and Ar234 need only a single station plus bomb sight. I'm all in favour... But if we do get a Mosquito bomber variant I also really want the fighter-bomber variant too ?

Ah Ok, I hadn't realized it was confirmed, its not mentioned in the store listing for the game. Thanks for the update.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

Was just thinking, if the main issue with higher altitude work in multiplayer is that there isn't much reason to go up there, and the main reason the Allies flew that high was to perform strategic bombing, would a possible solution to that be to add one or more high altitude medium bombers to the mix of aircraft? 

 

Initial thought could be the de Havilland Mosquito? That one would have the advantage of higher marketability if it could be done as both a heavy fighter and medium bomber.

 

Was also thinking no-one seems to have done the B-26 Marauder, though that seems to be more mid altitude, though that may fit the online meta better? 

 

Another thought would be the B-25 Mitchell. It has many versions and roles that could be used in later modules? 

 

Other thoughts? 

 

My view is that if you wont to see more human bombers attacking from altitude in online mission, mission makers need to make targets that are more revording if they are attacked from high alt.

 

On servers that i could see, all targets are better suted to be destroyed from low alt, and pinpoint type of attacks, drop 1 bomb on one hangar or house and so on even if target is af or factorys or ports instalations, so bombing from high alt will not be as effective as low alt pinpoint droping bombs one by one.

 

In 1946 mission maker had objects factory plates, it was invisable area that would be destroyed if certen amount of bombs hit it, in clod mission makers would use scripts to have some map tile areas in targets to detect how many bombs hit that area and when certen number of kg is reached target is destroyed, this is more realistic then what you have in box, and gives bombers better chance to bomb from high alt and in groups then one by one low alt bombing each house to finish objective like factory, port or airfields, ment to be carpet bombed from high alt.

 

Devs can make b-24 or 17 or Mosquito or what not, and if missions have same type of objectives most people will use them as they use bombers we have now in game, low alt bombing.

 

Ju88 or he111 guys would like to bomb from high alt in fancy formations and use their escorts effectivly where vvs cant operate that good, but when you need to bomb port/af/factory and do 10 runs from high alt, and no mather how precice you are you cant hit every building separatly but just carpet bomb (and targets are not build to be carpet bomb like you had option in 46 and clod), and still dont hit that one last building to finish objective even the most stubern bomber guy will get tired and see its better to just do 4-5 low alt attacks where your every bomb count and hits target one by one and finish it faster like vvs guys do in pe-2s, you can see that option of low alt is better for online and all fights are then at low alt, and new bomber will not change a thing untill targets ment for high alt guys are same as now.

 

  

Edited December 12, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

My view is that if you wont to see more human bombers attacking from altitude in online mission, mission makers need to make targets that are more revording if they are attacked from high alt.

 

On servers that i could see, all targets are better suted to be destroyed from low alt, and pinpoint type of attacks, drop 1 bomb on one hangar or house and so on even if target is af or factorys or ports instalations, so bombing from high alt will not be as effective as low alt pinpoint droping bombs one by one.

 

In 1946 mission maker had objects factory plates, it was invisable area that would be destroyed if certen amount of bombs hit it, in clod mission makers would use scripts to have some map tile areas in targets to detect how many bombs hit that area and when certen number of kg is reached target is destroyed, this is more realistic then what you have in box, and gives bombers better chance to bomb from high alt and in groups then one by one low alt bombing each house to finish objective like factory, port or airfields, ment to be carpet bombed from high alt.

 

Devs can make b-24 or 17 or Mosquito or what not, and if missions have same type of objectives most people will use them as they use bombers we have now in game, low alt bombing.

 

Ju88 or he111 guys would like to bomb from high alt in fancy formations and use their escorts effectivly where vvs cant operate that good, but when you need to bomb port/af/factory and do 10 runs from high alt, and no mather how precice you are you cant hit every building separatly but just carpet bomb (and targets are not build to be carpet bomb like you had option in 46 and clod), and still dont hit that one last building to finish objective even the most stubern bomber guy will get tired and see its better to just do 4-5 low alt attacks where your every bomb count and hits target one by one and finish it faster like vvs guys do in pe-2s, you can see that option of low alt is better for online and all fights are then at low alt, and new bomber will not change a thing untill targets ment for high alt guys are same as now.

 

  

I agree for the most part. Area bombing is what formations of bombers do, so a setup that rewards saturation rather than specific targets would do a lot more to incentivize level bombing at altitude.

Although I think a mosquito would work really well for tactical targets we usually see online. It was never really designed to be an escorted heavy bomber, it was a fast light strike bomber. It would be drool-worthy to have it in this sim and re-create some of the low-level raids they did on pinpoint targets.

 

[CountZero]

It would be nice to be able to do like in clod was done, that some objective is not visable or available to be bombed if recon airplanes first didnt fly over it, or also target/objective can not be confirmed destroy if recon airplane dont fly over it after its destroyed. That give real purpos to have recon airplanes and protect them offten until they land in clod online, it was all done with scripts, dont know if great battle mission builder has something like this already builed in game.

[RedKestrel]

14 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

It would be nice to be able to do like in clod was done, that some objective is not visable or available to be bombed if recon airplanes first didnt fly over it, or also target/objective can not be confirmed destroy if recon airplane dont fly over it after its destroyed. That give real purpos to have recon airplanes and protect them offten until they land in clod online, it was all done with scripts, dont know if great battle mission builder has something like this already builed in game.

I think Coconut's server does a bit of that, with depots not showing up unless someone flies within X distance on a scouting run. I could be wrong though.

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Il-2 1846

 

I'd buy it only if the Blanchard's Balloon has the option for 150 cc capacity. The fact that they added 1.98 ata for Montgolfier's Balloon is patently absurd, as it is well known that Joseph-Michel made only a handful of ascents from the garden of his chateau on days there was a full moon and the wind was blowing from 223 degrees at 2.12345 meters per second with 1.98 ata. Anything less is AirQuake. 

[RedKestrel]

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I'd buy it only if the Blanchard's Balloon has the option for 150 cc capacity. The fact that they added 1.98 ata for Montgolfier's Balloon is patently absurd, as it is well known that Joseph-Michel made only a handful of ascents from the garden of his chateau on days there was a full moon and the wind was blowing from 223 degrees at 2.12345 meters per second with 1.98 ata. Anything less is AirQuake. 

10,000 posts filled with out of context charts, dubious pilot accounts,  and documents of unknown provenance later, the thread is locked by ye olde moderatore who sayeth "forsooth, you People neede to get a Lyfe. Please Stoppe with the Personale Attacks. Do not call each other Deploradirigibles, it is a Slur of the Worst Kinde"