What are you looking forward to the most in Battle of Normandy?

[CanadaOne]

5 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Gents, you can throw money at the sim all day long, and it still won't be able to deliver what you want. 

 

 

 

I'm not convinced that's the case. Look at the A2A situation in IL2, within the constraints of the present engine it's still freaking gorgeous and getting better. Throw in the 4K cockpits and the cloud mod and it looks stunning! and still performs well.

 

I don't see why a limited D-Day scenario is a problem. The tank action in the game shows that the ground aspect of IL2 is alive and well. I'll bet a bitchin' landing scenario could be built with what's available right now.

[danielprates]

8 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

On June 30th from 5km up over the beachhead, you'd see hundreds of ships spread out from the east coast of the Cotentin to the southern coast of England, weather permitting. You would have to in Pas-de-Calais not to see the amount of shipping near the beachhead. I know we are both saying the same thing, but why worry about the shipping not being there on 6-June when it's not going to be there on 30-June either?

 

You are of course right. Anyways we seem to agree: the closer to june 6th, more people will complain about beach traffic being too light for the time period, although it would be nitpicking in any case as heavy traffic one way or another could be expected all over the war.

 

Unless they want to give us a full D-day experience, which I doubt. So I am betting the time frame will be sometime after D-Day, say, a couple of weeks. 

 

Whats your guess btw?

6 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

don't see why a limited D-Day scenario is a problem. The tank action in the game shows that the ground aspect of IL2 is alive and well. I'll bet a bitchin' landing scenario could be built with what's available right now.

 

I think that too, but it also takes some people not being dumb to come here and say "why I only see 20 tanks and 20 landing craft when there should be thousands!", which you can bet will happen - and I am guessing, is something the dev team is taking into consideration when chosing a start date (specially so after some of the reactions to the Rheinland map).

Edited June 7, 2020 by danielprates

[cardboard_killer]

1 minute ago, danielprates said:

Whats your guess btw?

 

I don't know. I'll be happy no matter what, but as you say there will be vocal critics no matter what. Real problem is the quantity and quality of the AA over the beach head. There were 40mm AA guns on some of the smallest ships. I don't particularly want to fly over something at all realistic to that fact, not unless I'm over 3km high. Were proximity fuses used yet (I don't think so, but don't know for sure)? US Navy AA was ridiculously vicious in accuracy and volume by 1945.

[Wulfen]

3 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

I'm not convinced that's the case. Look at the A2A situation in IL2, within the constraints of the present engine it's still freaking gorgeous and getting better. Throw in the 4K cockpits and the cloud mod and it looks stunning! and still performs well.

 

I don't see why a limited D-Day scenario is a problem. The tank action in the game shows that the ground aspect of IL2 is alive and well. I'll bet a bitchin' landing scenario could be built with what's available right now.

In VR, much like DCS, when the number of objects increase the fps decrease. High density missions tank fps due to the CPU bottleneck due to poor game engine optimization for modern multi-threaded CPUs. I think we are all waiting for Vulkan implementation in both sims to hopefully allow dense missions in both sims.

[Pikestance]

34 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Gents, you can throw money at the sim all day long, and it still won't be able to deliver what you want.  An automotive example for you.  You could take an early 50's Porsche 356A, and I don't care how much you spent, it won't be able to turn in lap times with a current 911 GT2 RS.  Never happen.

 

The kind of capabilities you/we are asking for absolutely requires an all new game engine, there is simply no way around this.  The current sim is really good at what it was designed for, small unit tactical air ops.  Accept it for what it is, and hope that the people at 1C will loosen the purse strings and let Jason have the finances to build an even better, next generation sim.

 

I said this already; it isn't the engine that limiting. It is the machines we used. You have to have a pretty powerful computer to be able to handle all of the details. 

[CanadaOne]

12 minutes ago, Wulfen said:

In VR, much like DCS, when the number of objects increase the fps decrease. High density missions tank fps due to the CPU bottleneck due to poor game engine optimization for modern multi-threaded CPUs. I think we are all waiting for Vulkan implementation in both sims to hopefully allow dense missions in both sims.

 

I'm not a VR user, so I can't really speak to that other than to say "ya pays your dime and ya takes yer chances".

 

VR users get the benefit, so I am told, of increased immersion and a lot of fun. The downside is you have to spend a ton on hardware. On my side, I have a 27" 1080p screen, and though I don't have to spend as much on hardware as a VR user, I do get less immersion and maybe less fun.  Maybe in the end the requirements imagined in the design of a scenario have to be in the middle somewhat.

 

But also, what percentage of customers are VR users? I looked at the Steam database and it said: Steam users with VR Headsets 1.92%

 

If that's the case, would it be close to what is going on here?

[CountZero]

12 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

D-Day is not plausible - the end.

I can tell you this as a mission/campaign builder. Not possible. It was simply too big and anything even close in a mission will basically be a still image.

 

Who cares.

This map is about pre-D-Day and post D-Day operations.

Yes, its important to have realistic expectations, map area is what mathers. With bon and bobp map you have almost whole west front area covered to make all kined of missions and posibility to add new collector airplanes you could not add before. If map is build to same standard of bobp or kuban maps its good enough.  

[Wulfen]

48 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

I'm not a VR user, so I can't really speak to that other than to say "ya pays your dime and ya takes yer chances".

 

VR users get the benefit, so I am told, of increased immersion and a lot of fun. The downside is you have to spend a ton on hardware. On my side, I have a 27" 1080p screen, and though I don't have to spend as much on hardware as a VR user, I do get less immersion and maybe less fun.  Maybe in the end the requirements imagined in the design of a scenario have to be in the middle somewhat.

 

But also, what percentage of customers are VR users? I looked at the Steam database and it said: Steam users with VR Headsets 1.92%

 

If that's the case, would it be close to what is going on here?

I agree VR is a minor sport in the world of gaming, but amongst the flight/race sim cadre VR would make up a sizable group. Immersion wise, yes, it`s a bit of a come to Jesus moment. You should give a try at some point, but it is pricey. Although in IL2 quick mission I can keep at the 90fps mark in most IL2 maps even when ground pounding. DCS that`s a different story, a steady 45fps in the Reverb and I`m happy enough. That`s using a 2080, i7 4790k and 23gb ram all OC`ed.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Wulfen

[Gambit21]

8 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

 

That all seems a little... harsh.

 

There is no reason parts of the invasion could not be modeled. This sim, in all it's modules I think, scales things down to make partial representations possible. I can't see why D-Day would be an exception.

 

As for "who cares", well, maybe thousands of people who play the game do.

 

What’s harsh?

The engine lends itself beautifully to the days when the important fighter/fighter bomber operations actually took place.

 

Not so much to hundreds of ships, vehicles, tanks on the beach and when no significant fighter/fighter-bomber operations took place.

Thus my "who cares"

Nothing harsh about it - we're in good shape.

 

I’m looking forward to pre D-Day and post D-Day hammering of the German army.

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Gambit21

[MattS]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I’m looking forward to pre D-Day and post D-Day hammering of the German army.

 

 

 

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

What’s harsh?

The engine lends itself beautifully to the days when the important fighter/fighter bomber operations actually took place.

 

Not so much to hundreds of ships, vehicles, tanks on the beach and when no significant fighter/fighter-bomber operations took place.

Thus my "who cares"

Nothing harsh about it - we're in good shape.

 

I’m looking forward to pre D-Day and post D-Day hammering of the German army.

 

 

You said: "D-Day is not plausible - the end" & "Who cares."

.

You sounded a little... emphatic in your protestations.

 

The "who cares" part are the players who would like to fly in over a D-Day landing zone and deliver unto the beach bunkers a little love. That would make for a good mission(s). And I'm inclined to think it would be the minority of BoN flyers who would not care about that mission. I think most would be of the "F*** yeah!" variety. Sweep in with your Razorbacks and nuke the bunkers before they do in the landing craft? That sounds like a great mission to fly.

 

And I'll bet you could build it.

 

 

[Gambit21]

It’s simply a matter of resources (unit/AI budget) and what’s possible given those resources, simple as that.

 

Any D-Day representation that I built would be underwhelming.  This is especially true on larger maps such as this. 

 

Yes I could build a mission with some ships and vehicles, but it wouldn’t look anything like “D-Day”

 

D-Day plus 2 or 3 when things have calmed down on the beach, now we can talk.

Just the D-Day tracers alone...

 

I know I’ll be putting my efforts into pre D-Day Mosquito night intruder ops.

[Lusekofte]

There where planes over the ships during DDay. Plenty of photos proving that. 
I no longer really care, I reduced my flying to an occasional SP campaign and a finnish server mission a week. 
I really had the wrong ambitions all this time. This is for fur balls and low level action only. It is not going to change. And that means I am out of the ramp anyway. 
I am looking forward to ME 410, Mossie and Tiffy. P 47 if it get revised a bit more. 
Those will bring fun in to it

[danielprates]

6 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

I am looking forward to ME 410, Mossie and Tiffy. P 47 if it get revised

 

100% me too!

[Gambit21]

8 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

There where planes over the ships during DDay. Plenty of photos proving that. 

 

Yes there were many Allied planes in the air.

[Hoss]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

What’s harsh?

The engine lends itself beautifully to the days when the important fighter/fighter bomber operations actually took place.

 

Not so much to hundreds of ships, vehicles, tanks on the beach and when no significant fighter/fighter-bomber operations took place.

Thus my "who cares"

Nothing harsh about it - we're in good shape.

 

I’m looking forward to pre D-Day and post D-Day hammering of the German army.

 

Another P-47 campaign Gambit?..........  with mixed bag of Razorback and bubble tops?...........  Would really like to see you do a Mosquito campaign... hopefully we get railroad marshaling yards in the Normandy map.. and updated on the BoBP map. 

[Avimimus]

18 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

There where planes over the ships during DDay. Plenty of photos proving that. 

 

Air cover for the landings... and strikes behind the beachhead to hit logistics and communications. Were there any aircraft low flying close air support during the landings themselves? Or were attacks on the beaches ended prior to the landing craft arriving?

 

 

[Lusekofte]

Just now, Avimimus said:

 

Air cover for the landings... and strikes behind the beachhead to hit logistics and communications. Were there any aircraft low flying close air support during the landings themselves? Or were attacks on the beaches ended prior to the landing craft arriving?

 

 

No that is the point. I always wanted a more strategic ambition. And I hang on for that. I like ground attack planes aswell. 
I really believed we get bombers along the development. All though I look forward to many planes in BON , it just dawned to me 

this is a forever dogfight and low level sim. 
There is no ambition to improve bomb aim system, no medium bombers. This is throwing in goodies to the majority 

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, 361st_Hoss said:

Another P-47 campaign Gambit?..........  with mixed bag of Razorback and bubble tops?...........  Would really like to see you do a Mosquito campaign... hopefully we get railroad marshaling yards in the Normandy map.. and updated on the BoBP map. 

 

Done with Jugs for now.

I may add Razorbacks to the Hell Hawks campaign down the road.

 

I have a vision for the Mossie project - it will be based on the same “tech” as the A-20 Intruder project that’s nearing completion now...just a bit more extensive.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

 

this is a forever dogfight and low level sim. 
 

It’s a low level sim.  But it’s absolutely not a dogfight sim.  There are plenty of strike/bomber aircraft.

[sevenless]

11 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

it will be based on the same “tech” as the A-20 Intruder project 

 

Make that an A-26 Invader project and I´m sold ?

 

A-26B Invader 552nd BS, 386th BG, Beaumont, France 1944 “Stinky”

Edited June 8, 2020 by sevenless

[Avimimus]

16 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

There is no ambition to improve bomb aim system, no medium bombers. This is throwing in goodies to the majority 

 

Technically though, the He-111, Ju-87, Pe-2 are all classified as flyable Medium bombers. We also have an AI B-25 (soon a B-26 as well).

The A-20 is almost a medium bomber except for its attack designation, and the Mosquito almost is as well...

15 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Done with Jugs for now.

I may add Razorbacks to the Hell Hawks campaign down the road.

 

I have a vision for the Mossie project - it will be based on the same “tech” as the A-20 Intruder project that’s nearing completion now...just a bit more extensive.

 

Interesting! Have you thought of doing some Hurri IIB intruder missions? Considering you seem to be building up a repertoire!

 

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Mosquito almost is as well

Do not get me wrong. I want the mossie we get. But if we got the bomber version of it too I would not mention medium bombers any more. 
but the one we get is just as dead meat down liw with bombs as all others doing that. 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Do not get me wrong. I want the mossie we get. But if we got the bomber version of it too I would not mention medium bombers any more. 
but the one we get is just as dead meat down liw with bombs as all others doing that. 

 

I'm still a bit confused by this whole 'medium bomber' thing. Are you referring to medium bombers as only aircraft that use advanced Norden bombsights and release their bombs from >4000 metres?

 

Because the He-111, Ju-88, and Pe-2 were all classified as medium bombers... and they could bomb from higher altitude, just with limited accuracy (which is true of the Norden bombsight as well if we're being honest - it wasn't perfectly accurate).

[Lusekofte]

Pe 2 do not count in western Europe. A 20 is obsolete in western front late war. 
In reality so is JU 88. 
What we have to play with fir level bombing in west is Arado JU 88 a4 and HE 111 H16 and A 20 eastern front equipped. 
Rest is low level attack planes. 
What I am saying is, I have been blind, just now it dawned to me. This is what the game is about. Attack planes and fighters. 
It really never was planned for anything else. 
I guess that is fine for most people , and I am fine too. I can still have fun with it. 
And we get finnish map under way. And then pe 2 is relevant again. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[cardboard_killer]

2 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Pe 2 do not count in western Europe. A 20 is obsolete in western front late war. 
In reality so is JU 88. 
What we have to play with fir level bombing in west is Arado JU 88 a4 and HE 111 H16 and A 20 eastern front equipped. 
Rest is low level attack planes. 
What I am saying is, I have been blind, just now it dawned to me. This is what the game is about. Attack planes and fighters. 
It really never was anything else. 

 

Your post is contradictory. You begin by saying only in western Europe are there no medium bombers that are not "obsolete" (?). Then you take that position and say the entire system is about low level attack planes, as if you had not just bracketed out 3/4ths of the game system that do include medium bombers that are not "obsolete", where the Pe-2, A-20 and Ju-88 shine.

[Gambit21]

23 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Make that an A-26 Invader project and I´m sold ?

 

 

Trust me...this is thing is pretty cool with the A-20. 

I built it based on the below information as per @busdriver who inspired and advised on this project.

Basically an all night mission. Fly a sortie, land, refuel/rearm, take off again and bomb something else, repeat...as many times as you want.

 

Your AI squadron mates are doing the same thing...yes AI is landing, rearming/refueling and taking off again.

Enemy night fighters, trains, river traffic randomized. 

 

Version 1.0 is basically finished...just going through the final punch list and tightening things up.

The description of the project itself will be coming soon, but below is what it's based on.

Normandy version will be more robust, featuring the Mosquito, with multiple missions taking place at different hours, but every mission an "endless" mission file. Go where you want, bomb something, come home, refuel, repeat. Basically a bunch of these mission files put together into a scripted campaign format.

 

 

As December began the weather, which could change in a matter of minutes from clear to fog, was remarkably good, and the absence of the Luftwaffe was quite noticeable. Little did the 422nd night fighters realize that by mid-December they would be at the exact center of Gen. von Rundstedt's Ardennes Counter-offensive. With the decrease in enemy night air activity, the 422nd wanted to increase their offensive work against the Germans. In late November "Bomber Command" or the "422nd Air Force" was formed when the 422nd Night Fighter Squadron received a number of war-weary and barely flyable A-20s. The squadron's historical report describes these aircraft quite vividly. "When the seven wrecks did arrive, their condition gave food for some sober as well as somber thought. One was a veteran of 90 missions, none were equipped with oxygen and all were pretty well beaten up." For the first five days of the month crews checked out in these aircraft and worked out a system of radar bombing with Marmite (GCI) control. Their first operational mission was on 5 December, 1944, when a leaflet drop was made between Julich and Linnich, Germany. One of the "bomber pilots" was Jim Postlewaite. "Night bombing, leaflet drops, we did it all. We dropped some flares and then we were supposed to fly down underneath the flares looking for enemy troop concentrations. All of this, while we were locked in with the gun laying radar back at a big tent behind the lines . If you did find a target you were supposed to tell them you were over it. This would be marked on a map and then the artillery would serenade the spot. [snip]  Usually we would try to get on each target maybe three times a night. We had a versatile bomb load. There were only four 500 pounders because our runway wasn't too long, and we couldn't get off with a heavier load. Sometimes it wasn't long enough even with one ton. Our bomb load usually consisted of one instantaneous, one with a one-hour delay fuse, one with a two-hour delay fuse and one with a four-hour. "I've been over the same targets four hours later in time to see that last one go. What it was, was a harassing element to the Germans; and the results were real good. The bombs were hitting the crossroads and putting a hole in them which we wanted to do. We'd drop the last bombs about six in the morning, and they would go off at 10:00 a.m . Maybe the first one was dropped at 8:00 at night. This caused a lot of harassment, especially if the crossroads were in a small village or something like that. The inhabitants don't get too much sleep, because by morning the day fighters are over there beating them up. This was what we flew, a harassing type of mission."  [snip] By the 28th of December the weather became so severe that it was necessary to cancel nearly all air operations on both sides, German as well as Allied, for the rest of the year. Germany's grand offensive had been stopped, however, and harassed by Allied air power, the Germans were beginning to retreat. In the air the night fighters scored 17-1-1 during the offensive. Bad weather limited day operations of both the 422nd's P-61s and A-20s, but these aircraft did yeoman service in the ground attack operations that followed. The A-20s dropped nearly 12 tons of general purpose bombs and flew strafing missions as did the P-61s, concluding the month with the claim of 3 locomotives destroyed, 57 railroad cars damaged, and 8 motor transports destroyed or damaged. The weather was not the only natural enemy with which the night fighters had to contend. They had been in combat for five months when the "Bulge" offensive began, during which time they had received only one replacement aircraft. All their aircraft had over 300 combat hours, and the time was beginning to show on both the machines and their radar sets. Serviceability of their war weary aircraft was very low; and at times during the battle, the 422nd was able to operate with as few as four aircraft, each of these flying three to four missions in one night. They had lost five aircraft and one crew during the Ardennes battle, three of them being P-61s. Of the five, three were lost to weather. It was felt that if they had been equipped with the long range external fuel tanks, as had been requested many times, these aircraft would not have gone down.

 

[sevenless]

55 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Trust me...this is thing is pretty cool with the A-20. 

 

 Bad weather limited day operations of both the 422nd's P-61s and A-20s, but these aircraft did yeoman service in the ground attack operations that followed. The A-20s dropped nearly 12 tons of general purpose bombs and flew strafing missions as did the P-61s, concluding the month with the claim of 3 locomotives destroyed, 57 railroad cars damaged, and 8 motor transports destroyed or damaged. 

 

 

Damn you got me. You shouldn´t have mentioned 422nd. That one is of my favorites because of that beauty below. Would like to have that lady in the game. Looking forward to your concept. Sounds great! 

 

P-61A-5-NO, #42-5544, 422 NFS, Florennes, Belgica, 1944.

[Pikestance]

I don't know if it is a "conspiracy," but it seems fighters and ground assault planes are more cost effective to create then medium bombers based on what Jason had said about what is involved creating these larger planes. Add in the fact that most do not fly bombers, then it is not worth the effort to create too many of them. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Pe 2 do not count in western Europe. A 20 is obsolete in western front late war. 
In reality so is JU 88. 
What we have to play with fir level bombing in west is Arado JU 88 a4 and HE 111 H16 and A 20 eastern front equipped. 
Rest is low level attack planes. 
What I am saying is, I have been blind, just now it dawned to me. This is what the game is about. Attack planes and fighters. 
It really never was planned for anything else. 
I guess that is fine for most people , and I am fine too. I can still have fun with it. 
And we get finnish map under way. And then pe 2 is relevant again. 

 

So, your 'no medium bombers' statement is actually: 'there are no 1944-1945 Western Front player flyable medium bombers'?

 

Britain and the Commonwealth abandoned day bombing in Europe, except for low level attacks using the Typhoon.

 

Germany switched to night bombing by this time period (with the exception of the Arado Ar-234, which we are getting). Germany also employed the Ju-88A4 right until the end of the war. Furthermore, bomber production was phased out at the end of '44... and the Ju-188 and Do-217 were first delivered in the mid-war period. Similarly, the Russians kept using the Pe-2 until the end of the war (although you've stated that you are interested in the Western Front).

 

We're also getting two American medium bombers from near the end of the war (just not flyable).

 

So technically, instead of saying 'there are no medium bombers' you should be saying one of the following:

- I want a player flyable American medium bomber (B-25 or B-26)

- I want a mid-war German night bomber (Do-217 or Ju-188)

 

It would save a lot of confusion... if you did this. ?

[Cybermat47]

5 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

And we get finnish map under way. And then pe 2 is relevant again. 

How is the Pe-2 not relevant now?

[Feathered_IV]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Basically an all night mission. Fly a sortie, land, refuel/rearm, take off again and bomb something else, repeat...as many times as you want.

 

Your AI squadron mates are doing the same thing...yes AI is landing, rearming/refueling and taking off again.

Enemy night fighters, trains, river traffic randomized. 

 

Sounds like the ideal setup for the Po-2 if the ability to land in the field gets sorted out.

[BraveSirRobin]

6 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

What I am saying is, I have been blind, just now it dawned to me. This is what the game is about. Attack planes and fighters. 
 

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure that this "dawned" on you a few years ago.  You've been calling this a dogfight game for years, despite all the medium bombers that were included in the first three modules.

[Pikestance]

How many bombers do you want

 

BOS

Pe-2 Series 87

He 111 H-6

 

BOM

Pe-2 Series 35

Ju 88 A-4

 

BOK

A-20B

He 111 H-16

 

BOB

This was the first heavily fighter oriented game. But which two would you replace. 

 

BON

Ar 234

 

Additionally, Collector Plane: Ju 52/Зm

While not a bomber, it is probably the same type of player that would fly it more often. 

 

It is only recently that the number of bombers have decreased from 2 per game to 1 in two games. However, the voices asking for more bombers are much quieter than those asking for attack planes and fighters. Of the planes in the upcoming release how many people stated that they are looking forward to the Ar 234? 

 

I would imagine a poll would review that at least 50% would choose fighter, 40% would choose attack planes and about 10% would choose bombers. The numbers would vary depending on the question. For example, if you were to ask, which plane would you choose if you had only one choice or which type of plane would you pick more than 50% of the time. However, the number spread would be about the same. 

[41Sqn_Skipper]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Britain and the Commonwealth abandoned day bombing in Europe, except for low level attacks using the Typhoon.

 

RAF used light bombers throughout the war on day operations in Western Europe: Blenheims, Bostons and Mitchells to name the prominent ones.

[Field-Ops]

1 hour ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 Of the planes in the upcoming release how many people stated that they are looking forward to the Ar 234? 

Dude the Ar234 and Me410 are my most anticipated planes, and I know for a fact the Ar234 was hotly discussed on BoBP's development cycle both by players and internally. Thats why its being put into this Normandy scenario. Otherwise it doesnt really fit this timeframe just like the Spitfire XIV. 

[Pikestance]

29 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

Dude the Ar234 and Me410 are my most anticipated planes, and I know for a fact the Ar234 was hotly discussed on BoBP's development cycle both by players and internally. Thats why its being put into this Normandy scenario. Otherwise it doesnt really fit this timeframe just like the Spitfire XIV. 

 

I stated in y previous response that they have not been that many people who have commented on the Ar 234. The 410 is not a "bomber" 

 

Probably the most cited planes are;

Mosquito and Razerback

Some have mentioned 109 and 410. (but this is not a bomber).

The Ju 88 and Ar 234 probably the least cited.  

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure that this "dawned" on you a few years ago.  You've been calling this a dogfight game for years, despite all the medium bombers that were included in the first three modules.

Not quite true, it was expected ptoband we got bobp with fighters only. In that period I called it that. And look,  this is the third pack in a row. But that was a period of disappointment. Now not really, one adapt ones expectations. But my focus is what to do, not like your focus on otherS opinion

3 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

How is the Pe-2 not relevant now?

I am speaking of two latest packs. Bobp and Bon. And levelbombers. 
PE 2 is not relevant in them. I love it to death but it is not a effective medium levelbomber. It is ok but not 

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

So, your 'no medium bombers' statement is actually: 'there are no 1944-1945 Western Front player flyable medium bombers'?

Yes sorry might have been unclear on that part. It is one of the reason I like early war and eastfront in this series.  As I said my expectations is adjusted. And I am looking forward to many of the planes. But I stopped expecting level bombers of this era

[41Sqn_Skipper]

50 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

Otherwise it doesnt really fit this timeframe just like the Spitfire XIV. 

 

First production aircraft rolled out October 1943. First operational sortie on January 8th, 1944 by No 610 Squadron. So perfectly fine for Normandy, especially considering the importance in the Anti-Diver operations. 

 

Production of Ar 234 started in October 1944. Before that only prototypes and pre-production models. I'd argue that the Gloster Meteor has about the same (ir-)relevance which BTW flew operational in July 1944 again in anti-diver.

[sevenless]

6 hours ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

Add in the fact that most do not fly bombers, then it is not worth the effort to create too many of them. 

 

I am pretty sure they have statistics about that both for SP and MP usage. And I guess that was, amongst other things, one argument to "only" include the B-25 and B-26 as AI-planes.

 

I think it comes down to personal gaming tastes and how the majority plays this game. For my own gaming pleasure I´m only interested in the attack versions of those planes (B-25G, A20G, Mossie VI, A-26B, Ju-88C/G/P) and I would be willing to pay extra for those, but I have no idea how well those 2-engine attack planes or 2-engine level bombers would sell. For me personally level bombers of all kind, also the 4-engine heavies, are only target drones. But that is only me and my personal gaming interests.

Edited June 9, 2020 by sevenless