Jump to content
[Pb]Cybermat47

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

Recommended Posts

There is nothing that I would love more than 4 engine heavies. Since that isn't going to happen any time soon, I'll have to make do with medium bombers which i think need more variety.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

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.

 

I don't know what people mean by "drones." Bombers require fighter escort. They are not designed to fend off fighters by themselves despite the intention to be so. . 

Edited by [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

They are not designed to fend off fighters by themselves. 

 

B17s were intended to do exactly that, but they learned it the hard way in 1943 that it doesn´t work as desired (Schweinfurt, Regensburg, etc.). They even went operational with YB-40s and 92d Bombardment Group (Heavy), being assigned to the 327th Bombardment Squadron, stationed at RAF Alconbury (AAF-102) on 8 May 1943 and flew missions from 29 May 1943 until 29 July 1943.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sevenlessWell, yes, I mean the concept of a fast bomber was that they wouldn't be caught, but how did that work out. There has to be something wrong with you if you fly a bomber without escort and expect to live. You have 20/20 here. It ain't gonna work. Anyway, I think you misunderstood my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

Anyway, I think you misunderstood my point. 

I admit to not understanding either. Perhaps you could rephrase it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

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

 

Mea culpa... I read a lot about the Mediterranean and strategic night bombing over Europe when I was younger, but not about this. I knew Blenheims were largely withdrawn by 1941-1942, and some Bostons were in use... but I wasn't aware of the rest.

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

@sevenlessWell, yes, I mean the concept of a fast bomber was that they wouldn't be caught, but how did that work out. There has to be something wrong with you if you fly a bomber without escort and expect to live. You have 20/20 here. It ain't gonna work. Anyway, I think you misunderstood my point. 

 

It did work though - especially at night. Fast bombers at low altitude can be jumped by fighters, but a fast bomber at altitude can evade even slightly faster fighters - as they have to climb and then close on the bomber. If a Mosquito turned away and did its maximum turn of speed a lot of German fighters would run out of fuel before running it down.

9 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

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.

 

I like low level attack myself... but if I'm honest, the glaring omission of the Il-4 is enough for me to want it to be flyable (the Russians deserve a bomber with a heavier bombload... and it could give them a torpedo bomber). Also, the cockpit view out of a Ju-188 is beautiful... have you ever flown a sim with a Ju-188 and a 3d cockpit? Prettiest aircraft cockpit I've ever seen.

 

But I wouldn't mind if most bombers remained AI (including a Do-217E)... I'd rather have a flyable Fw-189 (as it would provide a very different gameplay experience).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

It did work though - especially at night. Fast bombers at low altitude can be jumped by fighters, but a fast bomber at altitude can evade even slightly faster fighters - as they have to climb and then close on the bomber. If a Mosquito turned away and did its maximum turn of speed a lot of German fighters would run out of fuel before running it down.

 

The point being made is that Medium bombers are drones. Well, they usually had fighter escorts for a reason. 

Good luck luck outrunning fighters in a A20 or He 111. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

The point being made is that Medium bombers are drones. Well, they usually had fighter escorts for a reason. 

Good luck luck outrunning fighters in a A20 or He 111. 

 

I guess you totally misunderstood what I said or put it out of context, so I try to rephrase that. Drones is what they are for me in any kind of flightsim. My pure personal perception / interest. I have no use for level bombers of any kind except for being there as target drones / clay pigeons for being shot down. I like shooting them down, but I don´t like flying them. This should make it clearer. I don´t mind everyone who likes flying them, it is just not for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sevenless said:

 

I guess you totally misunderstood what I said or put it out of context, so I try to rephrase that. Drones is what they are for me in any kind of flightsim. My pure personal perception / interest. I have no use for level bombers of any kind except for being there as target drones / clay pigeons for being shot down. I like shooting them down, but I don´t like flying them. This should make it clearer. I don´t mind everyone who likes flying them, it is just not for me.

 

LOL, For me, it is too much math. If I get pass my math phobia the idea of blowing up a lot of crap is appealing. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the OP, it's hard to say what I'm looking forward to the most. The Spit XIV for fun and the Typhoon for historical significance but I feel the map itself will offer the most to the game overall.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sevenless said:

I don´t mind everyone who likes flying them, it is just not for me

 

I like bombers a lot, but even I have my own reservations about the experience. This sim captures the work-load of fighter and ground attack pilots very well, that is to say the experience is front-loaded towards combat. But when you put bombers in the mix, where a significant portion of the workload and the experience is in the management of internal systems such as those relevant to navigation and targeting; the experience rather falls flat. 

 

I fly A-20s a lot and I enjoy them, but I can't deny that flying a C-47 in XP11 projects a far more intimate and perhaps more authentic experience; doubly so when comparing it with the other Junkers transport aircraft (of which I own and rarely fly).

 

This sim fully delivers on the promise of projecting the fighter and attacker experience, that's absolutely true and they've done a terrific job at it. But there are some aspects to the bomber experience that I feel would need to be addressed or improved, and I'm of the opinion that it would be better to expand on that experience before introducing new aircraft. 

 

There's so much more to bombers than this sim lets on, and I think it's only fair that it strives to capture those experiences the same way it does for fighters and attack aircraft. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

I look forward to get it. The whole shabang

there I said it

 

If the QMB gets some quality lovin', I'll buy it. Otherwise no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

 

If the QMB gets some quality lovin', I'll buy it. Otherwise no.


Now you just are being Stubborn

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

If the QMB gets some quality lovin'

 

I'm up for a grid-based QMB.

 

Would give Tank Crew a lot more single-player mileage in lieu of a Career too. Selecting a standard sized grid on the map and identifying objective zones within it would allow more quick access to the maps. The benefit I imagine would be more evident for Tank Crew, but then again selecting for unique places to fight over in QMB would also be a benefit for the air aspect I think. 

 

Something like this. Always free to dream 😄

 

gtmiussample.PNG.e2415c2238ef70ed0fe355200a783f40.PNG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:


Now you just are being Stubborn

 

As Lady Gaga said, "Born that way". :cool:

 

I fly through the QMB. I find the included missions and campaigns tedious, and I want to make my own flights without the prehistoric requirement of having to turn the game off each time to do it.  So that leaves the QMB. If it's brought up a level - more and better attack scenarios, more life on the maps, more options to customize the flight - I'll settle for that. I don't want to drop another $100 and still be stuck with the SP content creation in its present tepid state.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 7:09 PM, Avimimus said:

Mea culpa... I read a lot about the Mediterranean and strategic night bombing over Europe when I was younger, but not about this. I knew Blenheims were largely withdrawn by 1941-1942, and some Bostons were in use... but I wasn't aware of the rest.

look up operation oyster, just the variety of different attackers they used, or if you google "philips raid ww2" you even get film of them going over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

I don't want to drop another $100 and still be stuck with the SP content creation in its present tepid state.

They did explain it was not easy making ME to the masses. It was never designed for community work in the first place. 
But you are right, a old IL 2 full mission builder would make me fly more. I think everybody agree on that. It might even be 

a economical win fir their busyness in the long run. But as I said I read such things was difficult stated some years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Griffon

Griffon

Griffon

 

and erm...

 

Griffon! 😁

 

... and I guess razorback P-51.

 

EDIT:

 

Actually, are there any early rumours or indications whatsoever as to which flavour of Spitfire XIV we're getting? C or E wing armament? Razorback or bubbletop? Clipped or full wings? Maybe on option for the latter like the IXe has?

Edited by =X51=VC_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

They did explain it was not easy making ME to the masses. It was never designed for community work in the first place. 
But you are right, a old IL 2 full mission builder would make me fly more. I think everybody agree on that. It might even be 

a economical win fir their busyness in the long run. But as I said I read such things was difficult stated some years ago

 

I'll settle for a big fat juicy QMB. I've lost all hope for an in-game IL2 ME. It's a ridiculous omission on their part and it's unlikely to change.  

 

And I'm going to admit to my stunning ignorance on matters of programming, but until someone explains it to the contrary, I'm going to assume that populating a little bit of a QMB map is not a difficult thing to do. I mean, would it take actual minutes of effort? A whole hour? I will also assume that making the QMB juicer is basically not difficult either. This sort of stuff has been around for decades. I cannot understand why the improvements to it are so painfully glacial.

 

As it stands, if I buy Bon, and I load up what will undoubtedly be a gorgeous! model of a Mosquito in the QMB, I'll still get three tanks wayyyy over there, and one train wayyyyy over there, just like years ago and just like today. That's hardly a stripper at the door with a birthday cake and flowers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh - in order? B-Mustang, Mosquito, Typhoon, D-22, AR234, and not official BON, but the Hurricane as soon as it's ready....after that whatever comes.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

but until someone explains it to the contrary

 

I worked as a process analyst in the now sold-off financial and risk arm of Thomson Reuters years ago, dealing with automation and AI. I might be biased based on my experiences, but I always found tools to be the key challenge in any automation work. In this case, I suspect our Mission Editor is the critical junction in any effort to automate. It's just hostile to it given the amount of manual input required in not only building libraries of templates that a system could draw on, but also in maintaining sensible products. The act of having to curate its products manually stands as a venerable bulwark to automation; and it becomes ever so clear in the end results that even PWCG makes out: To this day you can find oddities such as guns over rivers or in-between forests where they shouldn't be; all of which appears to be the result of efforts in dynamically placing assets or templates over terrain that changes between generated missions. Fixing these issues yet requires more manual input, one that requires a significant amount of work still. 

 

If the objective here is to have a system that allows the end user to pick and choose exactly where they want to play and what with, then the developers would have to manually account for discrepancies in terrain and other variables, and then test the end product. And this has to be done for pretty much every grid square dedicated to QMB, or even any action involving the player. It's frustrating, but that I speculate is really just how the ME and the process of making missions for this sim was made out to be at the start all those years ago: The IBM way, i.e. "Its Better Manual". The only reason the Graviteam series in my example did it well was that it was designed to be automated from the start - a total opposite of what the process here is.

 

When I worked on process automation, workflow was the least of my concern. We sidestepped data tools and developed and deployed top level AI instead, writing straight to the database products that would have otherwise taken so much effort to process through our tools, and it was expensive. I'm sure Il-2 isn't on the same level as the financial big data stuff we had to contend with, but the challenges are the same. It's always the damned tools, and working to automate a tool is moot and expensive. If I had my way and the resources to boot, I'd do the same thing. Top level AI that self generates mission products on its own without going through the same tools. But that's neither here nor there.

 

We really need to start over in terms of mission generation, but I suspect the devs position on the ME is highly entrenched. Both from a practical and cost perspective.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MarderIV said:

 

I'm up for a grid-based QMB.

 

Would give Tank Crew a lot more single-player mileage in lieu of a Career too. Selecting a standard sized grid on the map and identifying objective zones within it would allow more quick access to the maps. The benefit I imagine would be more evident for Tank Crew, but then again selecting for unique places to fight over in QMB would also be a benefit for the air aspect I think. 

 

Something like this. Always free to dream 😄

 

gtmiussample.PNG.e2415c2238ef70ed0fe355200a783f40.PNG


looks interesting, but I don’t quite understand it. Care to elaborate? (Or PM  me as I don’t want to derail the thread). 
Interested from a mission generator creator perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MarderIV said:

 

 . . . but I suspect the devs position on the ME is highly entrenched.

 

 

In that deluge of tech pron I could barely understand, this (above) is the one thing that I could, and you are correct, sir. That was a helluva post though. It's like listening to my brother talk about racing engines. I catch the word "car" now and then, but the rest is a language I am unfamiliar with.

 

As said, I have lost hope in the ME. It will doubtlessly remain, in concept and execution, akin to a making long distance phone call during the era it states to cover.

 

But the QMB, where all hope now resides for at least a smidgen of ease-of-use SP content creation, how hard could it possibly be, certainly in the new BoN module, to at least populate the airfield you take off from with some static objects, and God forbid, something that actually moves? I'm still of the opinion that it can't be that difficult because it was being done years ago in other sims that were built using stone knives and bear skins. On one hand, this is a super high-tech flightsim with awesomely delicious eye candy and superb! planes, yet there seems to be a constraint, human or otherwise, that dooms the QMB maps to lifelessness. It is a curiosity.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/28/2020 at 11:00 PM, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

The late 44 "bubble canopy" version of P47 and P51 are slighlty slower than the early 1944 "Razorback" version due to higher drag. Spitfire XIV is obviously better than Spitfire IX. Typhoon is not really the earlier counterpart of Tempest, as Typhoon was a pure fighter bomber at that time and Tempest didn't carry bombs until May 1945. And Tempest was already available prior D-Day.

Today 150 octane is often unavailable as it was only available later on the continent. It was however available for squadrons based in UK in mid 1944, so basically the 150 octane situation is the same for Normandy and Bodenplatte scenarios: Sometimes it's available, sometimes not.

 

So a slightly better performance in the earlier scenario because of the "Razorback" and the fact that the Spitfire XIV is not yet available in the later scenario. Luftwaffe has no K-4, no D-9 and no G-14 available in the earlier scenario, so they certainly have a only lower performing aircraft available in the first half of 1944 compared to the second half of 1944.

 

 

Bf 109G-6 ~5000+ 1943 February-1943 August - October
Bf 109G-6 with Erla Hood ~2000+ 1943 August-October - 1944 January
Bf 109G-6 with Erla Hood,
larger tail, and MW-50
~5,000+ 1944 January - 1944 July
Bf 109G-6/AS with MW-50 226 produced + 460 converted 1944 April - 1944 August

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

 

10% of G-6 "Late" received AS engine and 5% of all G-6 Early and Late combined. 

 

@41Sqn_Skipper

 

Also, I completely forgot to mention.. the G-5 (the pressurised version of the G-6) which was fitted with GM-1 or AS engine was also purely for high altitudes. Something like 475 were built in same timeframe. For simplicity sake we'd only need a G-6/AS, but combination of G-5 and G-6/AS which are practically same airframe that's around 1,200 high altitude fighters in total so not an insignificant contribution.

 

G-5 (Pressurized fighter)

 

G-5/U2 (High-altitude fighter with GM-1 boost)

G-5/U2/R2 (High-altitude reconnaissance fighter with GM-1 boost)

G-5/AS (High-altitude fighter with DB 605AS engine)

G-5y (Command fighter)

 

 

Edited by Aurora_Stealth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

@41Sqn_Skipper

 

Also, completely forgot to mention.. the G-5 (the pressurised version of the G-6) which was fitted with GM-1 or AS engine was also purely for high altitudes. Something like 475 were built in same timeframe. For simplicity sake we'd only need a G-6/AS, but combination of G-5 and G-6/AS which are practically same airframe that's around 1,200 high altitude fighters in total so not an insignificant contribution.

 

G-5 (Pressurized fighter)

 

G-5/U2 (High-altitude fighter with GM-1 boost)

G-5/U2/R2 (High-altitude reconnaissance fighter with GM-1 boost)

G-5/AS (High-altitude fighter with DB 605AS engine)

G-5y (Command fighter)

 

 

They are saving Bf-109G5 as only 109 they can add for DLC Italy 1943 :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ha ha that'd be funny, its like Messerschmitt decided to have a summer and winter collection for each year... like at a clothes store but with all these different variants of '109. Or your local builder who says "oh yes.. funny you should say about that *insert obscure DIY task* we have a '109 variant specifically for that type of job'.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

looks interesting, but I don’t quite understand it. Care to elaborate?

 

PM sent, Vander. Hope you find the guides useful :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 2:09 PM, Avimimus said:

 

Mea culpa... I read a lot about the Mediterranean and strategic night bombing over Europe when I was younger, but not about this. I knew Blenheims were largely withdrawn by 1941-1942, and some Bostons were in use... but I wasn't aware of the rest.

 

It did work though - especially at night. Fast bombers at low altitude can be jumped by fighters, but a fast bomber at altitude can evade even slightly faster fighters - as they have to climb and then close on the bomber. If a Mosquito turned away and did its maximum turn of speed a lot of German fighters would run out of fuel before running it down.

 

I like low level attack myself... but if I'm honest, the glaring omission of the Il-4 is enough for me to want it to be flyable (the Russians deserve a bomber with a heavier bombload... and it could give them a torpedo bomber). Also, the cockpit view out of a Ju-188 is beautiful... have you ever flown a sim with a Ju-188 and a 3d cockpit? Prettiest aircraft cockpit I've ever seen.

 

But I wouldn't mind if most bombers remained AI (including a Do-217E)... I'd rather have a flyable Fw-189 (as it would provide a very different gameplay experience).

 

We definately need at least a AI only IL-4.

 

Also, when Barbarossa started, more than 90% of russian bombers were SB-2s so we need that one for BOM, especially at the beginning of this campaign, since so many of them were destroyed on the ground so the numbers available decreased rapidly.

 

I'd be more than happy to purchase a DLC that would simply add several AI only bombers/recon planes to improve variety and careers. IL-4, SB-2, DO-217, FW-189, FI-156 just to name a few.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

Actually, are there any early rumours or indications whatsoever as to which flavour of Spitfire XIV we're getting? C or E wing armament? Razorback or bubbletop? Clipped or full wings? Maybe on option for the latter like the IXe has?

not an expert, but wasn't the bubbletop only on Mk XVI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Asgar said:

not an expert, but wasn't the bubbletop only on Mk XVI?

 

XIVe bubble top clipped wings 😁

 

VS_Spitfire_FR.XIV_MV268_JE-J_(G-SPIT)_(

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

XIVe bubble top clipped wings 😁

 

VS_Spitfire_FR.XIV_MV268_JE-J_(G-SPIT)_(

 

This one will be almost unstoppable below 5000 meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

I'd be more than happy to purchase a DLC that would simply add several AI only bombers/recon planes to improve variety and careers. IL-4, SB-2, DO-217, FW-189, FI-156 just to name a few.

 

Second that. Add an Henschel 123 into the mix. Those things were used from 1941 up until 1944 with ground attack units on the eastern front.

 

 

Unbenannt.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

This one will be almost unstoppable below 5000 meters.

 

Why below 5000m? It has a two-speed supercharger, it's critical altitude is nearly 1km higher than the 109K-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've been wondering, in addition to the "early" Bf109 G-6 collector plane, and the "late" Bf109 G-6 plane in BoN,  will we at some point get an "on time" version of the Bf109 G-6? Or is that variant so square and nerdy that no one will talk to it at the party?

 

Edited by =[TIA]=Stoopy
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

Why below 5000m? It has a two-speed supercharger, it's critical altitude is nearly 1km higher than the 109K-4.

 

You are probably correct, I think the griffon engine was at first an answer for a powerful low alt engine request but later they added a two speed supercharger. But are clipped wings crippling the performances at high atl a bit in favor of a better roll rate? Not sure at all about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...