Possibility of AI B-17F/G and B-24H/J

[unreasonable]

14 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

In reading your comments - I think it's best to leave them out.

Also it's my opinion that a true combat box of  even 50 "Heavies" would validate the AI gunner hyper accuracy issue. I don't think anyone would be able to get through the barrage of fire.

 

 

I agree with your conclusion: having massed heavy bombers in the game is completely pointless unless you can have at least squadron strength fighters attacking them.  The Germans attempted to attack unbroken formations in Gruppe strength: which could be 50+ planes at late war establishment. Our little flights would only be able to attack stragglers.    

 

A night bomber stream with intruders and night-fighters would be a different matter, but I am not sure a night game would be popular. 

 

[Gretsch_Man]

18 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

A night bomber stream with intruders and night-fighters would be a different matter, but I am not sure a night game would be popular. 

I've been thinking along the same lines, but given the lack of response I've been seen so far, I also doubt that such a setup would be very popular.

[[I./JG62]steppa]

2 hours ago, Gretsch_Man said:

I've been thinking along the same lines, but given the lack of response I've been seen so far, I also doubt that such a setup would be very popular.

Nightfighting might be the part of eto air combat with heavies which requires the least AI work, but loads of other stuff like electronics, radar, lot more effects and lighting. Which are hard and expensive to do as well. 

I wouldn't be pessimistic about nightfighters tho. They came to 46 and to WT, and the VR experience with the Lancaster bombing raid a coulpe month ago generated some unexpected  (for me at least) exitement and comotion around the subject as well.

I find it hard to believe you couldn't sell the brits and germans a chance to screw over 'Bomber Harris' or rampage through a few of Ms Görings greenhouses during the night.

I would drop a months salery on a comprehensive expansion about nightfighting. 

 

As to the op, i would love to see all kinds of heavies, but i guess there are financial reasons why they don't do it now. But i suspect they will do it eventually, because beeing the game between dcs and wt where you can't shoot heavies isn't a wise business move either.  

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, [I./JG62]steppa said:

I find it hard to believe you couldn't sell the brits and germans a chance to screw over 'Bomber Harris' or rampage through a few of Ms Görings greenhouses during the night.

 

I think it is telling that even in the high times of flightsims some 20 years ago such a project never was realized. Today with an even smaller market it would be commercial suicide.

[Gretsch_Man]

15 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I think it is telling that even in the high times of flightsims some 20 years ago such a project never was realized. Today with an even smaller market it would be commercial suicide.

Yes, the chances of ever getting such a flight sim are looking slim indeed, but one possiblilty that I see to keep the commercial risk low would be to start with the early war night bombing campaign around 1941/1942. Search lights are already implemented, so only one or two ground based radar systems + GCI (gound control intercept) for the LW would have to be developed. Ju88 and Me110 are also already available, so basically only a few British planes would have to be build.

 

Yet I have to say that, unfortunately, I'm also very sceptical of whether such a game would sell well enough.

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, [I./JG62]steppa said:

As to the op, i would love to see all kinds of heavies, but i guess there are financial reasons why they don't do it now. But i suspect they will do it eventually, because beeing the game between dcs and wt where you can't shoot heavies isn't a wise business move either.  

 

Imo 1CGS already did business mistake by excluding flyable B-25/26 and naval variants of axis bombers (ju88a17/ju188e2 and he111) from BoN/BoBp, those two expansions lack gameplay and role variety and feels a bit sterile when it comes to ETO.

They should go with one flyable medium bomber per side in each expansion as they did with BoS/BoK (he111,a20) and maybe dummy AI heavies if possible.

 

I love il2 and it is my main pc occupation but regarding planeset i have a feeling that game is devolving into ww2 fighter combat sim only.

 

 

[cardboard_killer]

1 hour ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

They should go with one flyable medium bomber per side in each expansion

 

Which US/Brit plane would have been removed from the BoBp plane set and replaced with a medium bomber: P-51, P-47, Tempest, or Spit IX? How about the German plane set for BoBp?

 

Of course, that's done and past. So, the real question is what planes are you going to substitute in BoN? Get rid of the Mossy FB and replace it with the B-26? Replace the Me-410 with a  Fw-200? What are you willing to give up to get more level bombers?

 

I did some quick counts and here's what I come up with

 

            Fighter       Strike         Bomber

BoS        6                 2                   2

BoM       6                 2                   2

BoK        5                 3                   2

BoBp      8                 2                   1 (AI)

BoN        5                 4                   1

Coll         6          (and one transport)

--------------------------------------------------------

              36              13                     8

============================

 

If we concatenate the planes by major model (e.g. all Bf-109s count as one plane), we get this (

 

            Fighter       Strike         Bomber

GM           2                 7                  3

USSR       6                 1                   1

USA          5                 0                   2 (1 AI only)

GB            3                  2

Italy          1

--------------------------------------------------------

                 17                10                6 (1 AI only)

============================

 

a) I included the Fw-190 twice as it was both a fighter and the dedicated strike a/c from 1943 onward; of course, all these fighters were involved in ground attack strikes at some point, but the Fw-190 replaced the Ju-87 and was often piloted by single engine bomber pilots and not fighter pilots

b) The Yak is counted twice: once for the Yak-1/3 and once for the Yak 7/9.

c) I included the Ju-88 as both a level bomber and a Strike a/c. All the twin engine fighters except the P-38 were included as Strike a/c.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by cardboard_killer
Math error

[Yogiflight]

55 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

All the twin engine fighters except the P-38 were included as Strike a/c.

As far as I know, the Bf110 G2 was implemented purely as fighter in BOK.

[cardboard_killer]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

As far as I know, the Bf110 G2 was implemented purely as fighter in BOK.

 

Certainly, historically, the Bf-110 G was not intended as an air superiority fighter. Without strategic bombers, its role as a bomber interceptor isn't really relevant (which may be an argument against them being modeled at all, but that's water under the bridge). In any case, the difference between "strike" and "fighter" in my categories are certainly subjective. I did not want to add more categories but thought there should be distinction between, for example, a Ju-87 and a Bf-109 and a Ju-88. Fighter-Strike-Bomber seemed to fit the bill. I put the notes in to explain some of my decisions, but I agree the distinctions are somewhat arbitrary.

 

The main point is that we do have some level bombers in the game with many more "strike" a/c, and if we want more level bombers, we need to think about what we're willing to give up. Does we really want to give up the Fw-190D for the Fw-200? I don't.

Edited January 2, 2020 by cardboard_killer

[BlitzPig_EL]

Putting on my pedantic hat for a moment, only Germany currently has flyable medium bombers, the Ju88 and He111.

The Pe2 and A20 are light bombers and not mediums.

 

IMHO the best aircraft in the "strike" role are the A20, Bf110G2, and P38.  I will add the Mosquito to this when it arrives.  I won't count the Ju88 currently as a "strike" aircraft  because of it's lack of forward firing guns.  The Pe2 is OK at the "strike" role, but not as good, again IMHO, as the others I have mentioned.

[Antiguo]

Well, I would give up all my fighter and ground attack planes, if with that I managed to get 1-2 heavy bombers ( Lancaster -B17 -B24 ), or 2 medium bombers for the Allied side. ( B25 -B26 -Il4 -....)
Pilot, bomber-navigator and tail or dorsal gunner .....
Cheers

Edited January 2, 2020 by Ala13_Antiguo

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

I love il2 and it is my main pc occupation but regarding planeset i have a feeling that game is devolving into ww2 fighter combat sim only.

 

Considering that the Germans are receiving 2 new bombers in BoN, I can't agree with that (that's how the Me 410 was used in large part in 1944, by KG 51). Yes, the lack of a new Allied level bomber is disappointing, but I have confidence that either the B-25 or B-26 will be modeled as flyable at some point.

2 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

As far as I know, the Bf110 G2 was implemented purely as fighter in BOK.

 

It was an anti-tank aircraft at Kursk with the BK 3.7 cannon, which is a loadout we have in the game. Career mode, yes, it's "just" a fighter.

[PatrickAWlson]

@LukeFF Curious: are any gun turrets currently modeled in the game or are all of the player accessible gun positions ... what's the phrase for a gun sticking out of a window?  

[LukeFF]

2 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@LukeFF Curious: are any gun turrets currently modeled in the game or are all of the player accessible gun positions ... what's the phrase for a gun sticking out of a window?  

 

For which plane? The bombers? If so, all turrets on all planes are currently accessible.

[PatrickAWlson]

8 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

For which plane? The bombers? If so, all turrets on all planes are currently accessible.

 

For the bombers but with a more constrained definition of "turret".  Turret as in a mechanized housing that rotates as opposed to the game's definition of turret which is pretty much any gun sticking out of an aperture.  So the B25 has an actual dorsal turret.  The other bombers (as far as I am aware) just have gun positions.  

 

What I was asking was: are there any human playable turret positions in the game today or are they just all gun positions.  

[[I./JG62]steppa]

Jep, on the topic of intercepting bombing raids during nightime i guess it will come with reusing and remodeling parts of code which will come with future expansions. And i don't suspect this thing goes south before all major required pieces are in place(~5 years). The ease and cost of assembling this nightfighting package then will be the deciding factor imo. The new Yaks and hurricane show imo that the devs are willing to integrate new aircraft in existing box lineups to broaden thier scope. This could open the door to a 40 moneyxyz expansion with 2 or 3 aircraft and a few new systems which compliment an already existing map. 

 

Flyable allied medium bombers need love as well, one could argue they are/aren't more important than target drones for a more single engine fighter centric playerbase, but i haven't made up my mind about that.

 

Somebody win the lottery or become a international druglord and comission some jucy bombers please 

[Avimimus]

 

52 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Putting on my pedantic hat for a moment, only Germany currently has flyable medium bombers, the Ju88 and He111.

The Pe2 and A20 are light bombers and not mediums.

 

IMHO the best aircraft in the "strike" role are the A20, Bf110G2, and P38.  I will add the Mosquito to this when it arrives.  I won't count the Ju88 currently as a "strike" aircraft  because of it's lack of forward firing guns.  The Pe2 is OK at the "strike" role, but not as good, again IMHO, as the others I have mentioned.

 

I agree... breaking the list up into more categories would be a good idea... defining the boundary of those categories is a bit of a challenge... but it is interesting to note that the Pe-2 has the same bomb-load as an Il-2 if one looks at 100kg bombs (larger bombs allow it to carry a heavier load)... it certainly isn't an Il-4...

[Y-29.Silky]

On 1/1/2020 at 10:54 AM, Pict said:

 

Could you give some examples of this? I'd like to know more as your "tactical engagements on the ground" description, conjures up direct front line engagement like that of a dive bomber or rocket firing fighter-bomber.

 

The only "tactical engagements on the ground" application that heavy bombers were used for in the Normandy campaign that I can think of off the top of the head, was giving the 8th Air Force the responsibility to knock out defenses at Omaha beach. It was, as should have been predicted at the time, a total fiasco.

 

The only effective input that heavy bombers had to the Normandy campaign in my opinion, was the destruction of rail marshaling yards of which there were but a handful. You can argue that the rail bombing campaign was tactical rather than strategic, but then most of it was carried out by tactical air forces.

 

 

Have to remember the battle of Normandy lasted until August.

Have you ever read Ernie Pyles book, Brave Men? I'm reading comments on how maps aren't big enough, or it's not relevant because it's only frontline battle, but a couple days after D-Day, the US launched a massive bombardment of B-17's that actually killed a few friendlies, and almost Ernie himself, so they did bomb on the front line. 

 

I think it was called Operation Cobra. 

 

They carpet bombed to destroy mines, communication lines, and especially, the heavies bombed the rail yards. 

 

I don't know why everyone is so antagonized like it's a requirement to have 100 B-17's for a mission. Why can't it be a single formation of 6? Is that more odd than P-51's already escorting a 6 B-25's in 1944?

 

Personally, I would buy a Premium B-17 for the full price of a theater and I know a GoFundMe page would explode for the development of it. 

And for this AI lag bs... Nothing like this is impossible to fix when it comes to computer programming.

 

 

It is getting odd and immersive breaking that Americans are stuck with a bomber from 1941.

[cardboard_killer]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The Pe2 and A20 are light bombers and not mediums.

 

I don't care if they were "light" or "medium" as that's not the criteria I set.

16 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said:

It is getting odd and immersive breaking that Americans are stuck with a bomber from 1941.

 

The USSR beat the Germans using a rifle accepted into service in 1891.

[BlitzPig_EL]

With a little help from General Winter, and, General Mud, and an utter disregard for high casualty rates.

[danielprates]

3 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

Does we really want to give up the Fw-190D for the Fw-200? I don't

 

I would at any time of the day! But that's just me, and not the point.

 

Anyway, I think you are overthinking those numbers there a bit. I am sure they go for balance, but other factors play a big role too. Planes being iconic, historically relevant, and enough research material being available, for instance. They wouldn't throw in any I-15 on the ETO just to have an even number of planes (tho I would have loved to see that one).

[AndytotheD]

On 1/1/2020 at 12:07 PM, sevenless said:

 

Perhaps he means the carpet bombings in preparation of Operation Cobra, the bombing of Caen in preparation of Operation Charnwood, the bombing in preparation of Operation Goodwood, the bombing in preparation of Operation Totalize?

 

Those were the engagements I'm thinking of.

On 1/1/2020 at 3:27 PM, Pict said:

 

Perhaps he was, only he knows for now. That's why I asked him.

 

The unnecessary obliteration of Caen & almost all of it's civilian population by the allies doesn't quite fit the "tactical engagements on the ground" format, at least not in my view. They also used naval artillery, so it wasn't all aerial bombardment.

 

This kind of contentious use of airpower lingers around heavy bombers to this day and may well be yet another reason we don't see them in what is a tactical air warfare simulator, a very good one, if not the best.

 

You may be the first person I've met who considers the moral implications of strategic bombers in a combat flight simulator. I certainly haven't, so in that regard I commend you. However, please consider the following:

 

Normandy will be simulating the V-1 offensive, a very deliberate terror bombardment campaign. If we want to be especially contentious, there will be players on the German side who are going to be flying in support of these operations. Maybe not as an assigned mission set, but it's not hard to imagine what kind of target the flight of B-25/26/recon planes you've been sent to intercept is trying to reach if you're over northwestern France.

 

Speaking of the V-1 offensive, there are a variety of Operation Crossbow targets inside the map boundary that received attention from USAAF and RAF strategic bombers on numerous occasions (not limited to the tactical fighter action we will probably see against the bombs in the air and on the ground), that also don't involve razing a city. I consider this operation (including the tactical strikes and air defense against it) more of a strategic campaign then I do tactical, but it's being simulated all the same. The usage of strategic bombers here shouldn't be contentious. 

 

In regards to Caen, my research may be off, but I believe that was one of the few times a city was the target during one of the aforementioned operations. Indeed, it was razed by accident, the bombers were supposed to hit defenses outside the city, and the other bombing operations hit areas outside of towns (such as in Cobra or Goodwood)

 

Ultimately, my want for strategic bombers is not from any blood lust for collateral damage, its for historical accuracy.  We're finally in a theater that regularly included both strategic bombers and tactical fighter bombers on the same operations, and saying its a "tactical air war simulator" as an excuse doesn't fly anymore. 

[cardboard_killer]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

With a little help from General Winter, and, General Mud, and an utter disregard for high casualty rates.

 

Well, when a nation is busy murdering all your citizens it can, to the child, with the resources it has, regard for casualty rates tends to drop. And General Winter and General Mud were equal opportunity allies. The Germans benefited quite as much as the Russians when the time came.

2 hours ago, danielprates said:

But that's just me, and not the point.

 

But that's exactly the point, isn't it? The free market system is going to dictate, or at least heavily influence, what gets made.

[danielprates]

2 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

But that's exactly the point, isn't it? The free market system is going to dictate, or at least heavily influence, what gets made.

 

Well, yes and no.... in theory yes but in this particular case, I know my taste in planes is unpopular and would not result a profitable game. The point was, though and merely, that having a perfectly symetrical number of planes of each type per side has never been or never will be that much important, so imho those charts you made some posts above actually make little difference for this discussion. For instance, if we are to have allied heavies, would it be a requirement that a german heavy was also modeled?

 

And now for something completelly different, ( .....it's....!);

 

I agree totally with @Y-29.Silky. Is it that heavies are only worth having if there are 100s of planes on each side? Wouldn't people be happy with say 4 P51s escorting 10 B24s attacked by 6 D9s? Or something like that? 

 

 

[Lusekofte]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I will add the Mosquito to this when it arrives. 

Only if it have levelbomb capacity. 
Fact is the selling point for latest packs are hotrods that is cheaper to make and as it happens most popular. 
The idea was not getting any expensive cockpit building. And they managed that by offering Mossie and Arado. 
I just hope there follow a bomb aim device with the Mossie. Then we have a Medium bomber. With great potential on allied side

[BlitzPig_EL]

I was talking about attack or strike aircraft, not level bombers.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

8 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

What I was asking was: are there any human playable turret positions in the game today or are they just all gun positions.  

 

The Pe-2 series 87 in BoS has a modification that turns it's dorsal gunner position into a turret. It doesn't traverse 360º but it is a turret after all.

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

Only if it have levelbomb capacity. 

 

Nah - she’s wasted higher up level bombing. Throttle firewalled down in the weeds is where you want that bird.

 

If you’re not getting sea spray on the canopy or scraping the tree tops then you’re doing it wrong.

[Pict]

9 hours ago, AndytotheD said:

You may be the first person I've met who considers the moral implications of strategic bombers in a combat flight simulator.

 

I don't. Go back and read what I said, at no point did I say that was my opinion. It's just possibly one of the many reasons heavy bombers have not so far been implemented, that's all.

 

This board if full of threads like this wishing for heavy bombers to be included and there are many many explanations as to why they are not. I simply added one more.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Pict

[AndytotheD]

1 minute ago, Pict said:

 

I don't. Go back and read what I said, at no point did I say that was my opinion.

"This kind of contentious use of airpower lingers around heavy bombers...a very good one, if not the best".

"The unnecessary obliteration of Caen & almost all of it's civilian population..."

 

 Maybe I am putting words in your mouth but its awfully easy to infer.

[Pict]

10 hours ago, AndytotheD said:

However, please consider the following:...

 

Sure the heavy bombers were used against many different targets within the scope of the proposed Normandy map.

 

This list would be very long and starts way back in 1942 where the 8th Air-force B-17F's took part in the Dieppe fiasco by bombing Abbville in order to suppress Jg26 (I think) from getting too involved.

 

However none that is how I understood your comment "tactical engagements on the ground"

 

===============

 

Personally I would be stoked to see any aircraft that took part historically and significantly added to BOX series and I would happily pay for such content.

 

But I'm not keen on pressurizing the developers into producing my own personal favorite aircraft whatever that might be, as they have proven themselves time and again, well able to produce a quality product in a very small niche market.

 

This in my memory goes back to 2003 when I bought an addon to CFS3 called Firepower, which included many heavy bombers and was produced by none other than Jason Williams. So his track record of making good stuff happen is long and out of respect for that I think he should be left to get on with it in his own way and without constant pressure to do the stuff he himself would also like to see done.

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Pict

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Nah - she’s wasted higher up level bombing. Throttle firewalled down in the weeds is where you want that bird.

 

If you’re not getting sea spray on the canopy or scraping the tree tops then you’re doing it wrong.

Well then it is not a medium bomber. That was my point. Still hope for level bomb capabilities down low on MP it is just another big fat target

Edited January 3, 2020 by No.322_LuseKofte

[Pict]

22 minutes ago, AndytotheD said:

"This kind of contentious use of airpower lingers around heavy bombers...a very good one, if not the best".

"The unnecessary obliteration of Caen & almost all of it's civilian population..."

 

 Maybe I am putting words in your mouth but its awfully easy to infer.

 

The allied bombing of Caen is really not the best reason to include heavy bombers. In fact I would say it is possibly one of the worst, as Caen and most of it's civilian population was obliterated by people calling themselves allies & liberators. This is still a contentious subject now as it was at the time.

 

There are many other reasons to have big bombers. Battle of Dieppe, Battle of the Atlantic and so on.

[AndytotheD]

1 minute ago, Pict said:

 

The allied bombing of Caen is really not the best reason to include heavy bombers. In fact I would say it is possibly one of the worst, as Caen and most of it's civilian population was obliterated by people calling themselves allies & liberators. This is still a contentious subject now as it was at the time.

 

There are many other reasons to have big bombers. Battle of Dieppe, Battle of the Atlantic and so on.

I'm not saying it is a good reason. I just don't think that single tragedy shouldn't be used to decide their inclusion. I listed plenty of other operations where they were used in a tactical role, and plenty of strategic operations (Crossbow targets) that not only the strategic bombers took part in, but also our tactical fighters. Operations which will be simulated if the plane list for Normandy is accurate. 

[cardboard_killer]

8 hours ago, danielprates said:

The point was, though and merely, that having a perfectly symetrical number of planes of each type per side has never been or never will be that much important, so imho those charts you made some posts above actually make little difference for this discussion.

 

My charts were directed at the original comment, which was that BoX used to include more level bombers, but in BoBp doesn't, so now the game is headed towards only fighters. It's also good, I think to have some baseline of discussion so as to avoid unnecessary hyperbole.

 

Irregardless of the actual numbers, it is clear that adding more level bombers in BoBp would have meant removing other planes. Can you imagine a BoBp that didn't include the P-51 but did include the B-26? People's heads would have exploded.

[danielprates]

55 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

Can you imagine a BoBp that didn't include the P-51 but did include the B-26?

 

Oh, I sure would have expected both, and more too! As Oscar Wilde said, I have the simplest of tastes: I am happy with merely the best.

[Lusekofte]

If a combat flight sim developed to be fighters only. It will in my mind be a very shallow meaning to it. 
Look at Boobp. You have those bringing bombs and you have those bouncing them. 
Very repeatable scenario. 
I love flying in this game. But  my interest in aviation is more to it than eye candy and easy kills. So I advocate the fact that even for a hard core fighter pilot a good mix of every type of plane is needed, and the lack of medium bombers due to no production will make this in my opinion sidelined with DCS. 

[Bremspropeller]

6 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Nah - she’s wasted higher up level bombing. Throttle firewalled down in the weeds is where you want that bird.

 

If you’re not getting sea spray on the canopy or scraping the tree tops then you’re doing it wrong.

 

On a server, dropping a 4000lb cookie from the tropopause would actually be more valuable.

Except the opposite side is all 262s, in which case youre ducked any way...

[ww2fighter20]

4 hours ago, Pict said:

I don't. Go back and read what I said, at no point did I say that was my opinion. It's just possibly one of the many reasons heavy bombers have not so far been implemented, that's all.

 

This board if full of threads like this wishing for heavy bombers to be included and there are many many explanations as to why they are not. I simply added one more.

 

Moral implications has no influence on which aircraft are made for il2, if it had they wouldn't have made the he111 and ju88, especially release the he111 with stalingrad.

And this is still true as of today since they are going to include the V1.

[Eisenfaustus]

 

14 hours ago, AndytotheD said:

You may be the first person I've met who considers the moral implications of strategic bombers in a combat flight simulator.

I do. Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't consider anyone unethical if he enjoyed beating the difficulties of a lancaster pilot on a night raid - but I personally couldn't enjoy trying to to raise a city consuming fire as would be a historical correct mission for that scenario...

Same for a Blitz or Steinbock pilot btw. 

If a game told me to deliberately attack civilians I'd feel uncomfortable and I don't want that in my scarce free time.

Coleteral damage in a game is something completely different. So any bombing raid against a true military target wouldn't have that effect on me...

Maybe this is irrational as we are talking about a video game - but I can't control my feelings

hated that mission in call of duty as well where you had to slaughter innocents in an airport.

 

1 hour ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

If a combat flight sim developed to be fighters only. It will in my mind be a very shallow meaning to it. 

I like the BoBp planender very much as most tactical missions in that scenario were actually conducted by fighters.