Fighters versus Bombers Population (On line)

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Hello guys !!

 

I would like to talk about a situation that we all face nowadays flying in online servers. The balance between fighters and bombers numbers.

 

It's pretty usual you log on in a server and have a 10 to 1 fighters to bombers ratio. Ok, fighters are cool but bomber pilots write history!!! Air superiority has no mean if there are no bombers attacking enemy ground positions and helping the army to conquer terrain. 

 

My point is there are always more bombers in the air at any moment than fighters in a real conflict.

 

How many times a server fight resume to a big furball always over the same point, for example Dover harbor in the channel maps. A couple of guys flying bombers alone, no wingman and no escort fighters. No tactics at all, only that big furball. 

 

If you like huge furballs, no problem there is a game called War Thunder for you.

 

IL2 is a simulator and in my opinion to be a successful simulator it has to offer more than beautiful modeled planes and maps, we need real WW2 missions and immersion.

 

We need a system online where we can encourage people to fly bombers and other tasks.

 

I know there are exceptions like Luftwaffe mostly building fighters in 1944. 

 

I hope we can write down here suggestions about how to have a close to reality order of battle on line without affecting freedom of choice and fun.

Edited April 28, 2013 by JG62Gielow

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

My first suggestion to balance numbers is to create AI wingman for bombers pilots.  Let me explain it. You can take your Stuka on a mission and you can select two more AI controlled planes to be your wingmen in a "V" formation of three planes.

 

If you have three real pilots, you could have a squadron formation of 3 "Vs" and a total of 9 planes.  Each pilot controlling 2 AI planes.

 

Lots of attacking planes around will make the servers life very interesting.

 

It could be a on/off option to be used by server admins.

 

No AI wingman for fighters heheheh 

[DD_Arthur]

I think thats a really interesting idea.  Obviously you can do it in a coop but in a dogfight server?  I suppose the only problem would be spawning for take-off but if the game was programmed to do this;  allow the selection of a bomber with the option to spawn with a.i. wingmen then I think that would be a pretty cool and unique feature and a real bonus to on-line play.

 

Nice idea!

[FlatSpinMan]

That sounds really sensible. The reality is that few online players do choose bombers, so giving those that do some support, albeit AI controlled, wold be great. Also great for the Op For fighters.

[Heywooood]

maybe the answer for this online dilemma is in the points / awards system.

 

If points are awarded at say a 10-1 ratio for successful bombing runs / target destroyed - vs - dogfighting points per air to air or air to ground successes AND if those points could be redeemed or exchanged for

discounts on addon maps and planes etc...you might encourage some players to fly bombers online

 

bomber pilot training on how to maintain formation discipline and use collective firepower as well as training missions for CORRECT bomber escort for fighter pilots might also help ( I know, everyones an expert already lol )

 

training missions on correct squadron bomber attack tactics for fighter / interceptor pilots would also be helpful... people might be surprised to learn it wasnt just a free for all -  but this is why I do not fly online - its so gamey looking 

like watching 4 year olds play football without refs or coaches - no one playing their position and all screaming about the cheaters lol

[=IRFC=Jorri]

A great subject.

 

Aces High2 has a nice system where you can spawn as a bomber and select to lead a whole formation of AI bombers. I think this is a great idea.

 

On the RoF forums there is currently a discussion about the new stats system, where it doesnt really reward anyone who isnb flying a fighter. Bombing wasnt big in WWI so this discussion is mostly about a complete lack of reward for recconaissance and artillery spotting, but the system is also a draft for the BoS stat system and I think that discussion should be extended to bombers (although there are slight rewards for destroying grohnd targets implemented)

Edited April 28, 2013 by hq_Jorri

[BlitzPig_EL]

Behavior modification is a tricky subject when it comes to something that people do for fun in their spare time.

 

You are going to need a really big, and desirable incentive to get fighter jocks out of their mounts and into an IL2 or He 111.

It has to be something they want to do, because if forced they will just take their fun money elsewhere.

 

Personally I prefer the attack role with a fast fighter/bomber.  Get in fast, do the deed, and get out of there ASAP.

[Bearcat]

Hello guys !!

 

I would like to talk about a situation that we all face nowadays flying in online servers. The balance between fighters and bombers numbers.

 

It's pretty usual you log on in a server and have a 10 to 1 fighters to bombers ratio. Ok, fighters are cool but bomber pilots write history!!! Air superiority has no mean if there are no bombers attacking enemy ground positions and helping the army to conquer terrain. 

 

My point is there are always more bombers in the air at any moment than fighters in a real conflict.

 

How many times a server fight resume to a big furball always over the same point, for example Dover harbor in the channel maps. A couple of guys flying bombers alone, no wingman and no escort fighters. No tactics at all, only that big furball. 

 

If you like huge furballs, no problem there is a game called War Thunder for you.

 

IL2 is a simulator and in my opinion to be a successful simulator it has to offer more than beautiful modeled planes and maps, we need real WW2 missions and immersion.

 

We need a system online where we can encourage people to fly bombers and other tasks.

 

I know there are exceptions like Luftwaffe mostly building fighters in 1944. 

 

I hope we can write down here suggestions about how to have a close to reality order of battle on line without affecting freedom of choice and fun.

 

We all may face it .. but it is less important to some as to others.. This was also the same problem that bomber groups faced in real life during WWII... but when real lives were on the line.. men stepped up. In the virtual world it may be more problematic.

 

My first suggestion to balance numbers is to create AI wingman for bombers pilots.  Let me explain it. You can take your Stuka on a mission and you can select two more AI controlled planes to be your wingmen in a "V" formation of three planes.

 

If you have three real pilots, you could have a squadron formation of 3 "Vs" and a total of 9 planes.  Each pilot controlling 2 AI planes.

 

Lots of attacking planes around will make the servers life very interesting.

 

It could be a on/off option to be used by server admins.

 

No AI wingman for fighters heheheh 

 

This can already be done in coops yes in IL2? If BoS' mission builder is as capable as the one in IL2 this would become a matter of mission design perhaps.

I think thats a really interesting idea.  Obviously you can do it in a coop but in a dogfight server?  I suppose the only problem would be spawning for take-off but if the game was programmed to do this;  allow the selection of a bomber with the option to spawn with a.i. wingmen then I think that would be a pretty cool and unique feature and a real bonus to on-line play.

 

Nice idea!

I am not sure but maybe this would be possible in the MDS in IL2? Dovetailing on what I said above I really hope that BoS' mission builder will have something like the MDS in it..

 

maybe the answer for this online dilemma is in the points / awards system.

 

If points are awarded at say a 10-1 ratio for successful bombing runs / target destroyed - vs - dogfighting points per air to air or air to ground successes AND if those points could be redeemed or exchanged for

discounts on addon maps and planes etc...you might encourage some players to fly bombers online

 

bomber pilot training on how to maintain formation discipline and use collective firepower as well as training missions for CORRECT bomber escort for fighter pilots might also help ( I know, everyones an expert already lol )

 

training missions on correct squadron bomber attack tactics for fighter / interceptor pilots would also be helpful... people might be surprised to learn it wasnt just a free for all -  but this is why I do not fly online - its so gamey looking 

like watching 4 year olds play football without refs or coaches - no one playing their position and all screaming about the cheaters lol

 

Or have a system of team scoring where mission completion is part of the total score of the side with a ground pounding mission.

 

Behavior modification is a tricky subject when it comes to something that people do for fun in their spare time.

 

You are going to need a really big, and desirable incentive to get fighter jocks out of their mounts and into an IL2 or He 111.

It has to be something they want to do, because if forced they will just take their fun money elsewhere.

 

Personally I prefer the attack role with a fast fighter/bomber.  Get in fast, do the deed, and get out of there ASAP.

 

Exactly..

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Behavior modification is a tricky subject when it comes to something that people do for fun in their spare time.

 

You are going to need a really big, and desirable incentive to get fighter jocks out of their mounts and into an IL2 or He 111.

It has to be something they want to do, because if forced they will just take their fun money elsewhere.

 

Personally I prefer the attack role with a fast fighter/bomber.  Get in fast, do the deed, and get out of there ASAP.

 

That is why I suggested AI wingmen

[theOden]

Very interesting subject, a true gameplay issue.

I really like the idea of bomber/attack pilots getting AI flights and to expand the gameplay possibility I'd even give the successful striker the access to AI escort as the mission proceeds (depending on success over target).

 

AI flights are most often despised online (just like in my home-territory of ArmA2) but they sure do low-paced action such as escort or CAP without complaining unlike most surely any online e-pilot (ok, I'm generalizing )

 

I'd even go as far as score is only given for bombs on targets putting fighters in the defensive role that they actually play.

Risk, as mentioned previously, is that score-searching-fighters will ignore the mission/server.

 

In general this setup ends up in what I in ArmA universe define as "Group Coop" where players support eachothers as teams rather than individuals - really really my preferred way to play a simgame (in ArmA we call it CTI).

 

Easily scripted in il2dover and only future will tell if at all possible in BoS.

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Another idea was that fighters receive points for escorting, when they are in a certain radius of bombers that complete their objectives.

[BlitzPig_EL]

An issue with AI flights is server load.

 

RoF has big problems with this.

 

BoS will have it's hands full with running proper numbers of ground objects alone, much less flights of

AI aircraft in multiplayer.

[=69.GIAP=MALYSH]

great topic. Although everyone is in this for fun and must be given maximum freedom, it's true that this is a simulator, and it makes sense to try to simulate an accurate battlefield. If online servers naturally developed into a vague image of a complete air war, surely that's both desirable and incredibly fun!

 

Fighters are "sexy" so new players gravitate to that fairly naturally, without knowing the history and nail-biting possibilities of a good bombing run. What's needed IMO is just to make bombing equally "sexy" and give people a more rounded choice.

 

Points, i.e. online score, is first and possibly most important. It's easy to implement, easy to ignore, doesn't put much pressure on pilots, but it's always nice to see bomber pilots on top of the score-sheet  Where they should be. CAS, for example, is often the point of the mission, rather than a fighter-bomber's bonus on the way to the furball, and the scores should perhaps reflect that. It's not why we fly, but having the top score is nevertheless nice, it's the game's (or server's) acknowledgement that you're helping to win the mission. (if it's not, it should be)

 

The issue of gunners is the second point, also easy to implement. In il2, Ace AI had great gunners but human pilots got the moron with a hangover. Simulating a solid crew, well trained, experienced, with hundreds of flight hours, would increase survivability and fun. On that note, a bit of "life" in a multi-crew plane would be nice. Some chatter from team members, etc. If a pilot got the feeling that he was leading a team, not just driving a bus, that would be so much more fun.

 

Harder to implement, but critical to recreating an accurate battlefield, would be the creation of accurate targets. In reality (especially early in the war) operational air forces (i.e. those forces tied to an active operation) used many tactical bombers, i.e. twins like the he111, on missions termed "battlefield interdiction". Those targets simply did not exist in il2, and no reward existed for a successful mission.

This is very hard of course, since we're dealing with huge maps and no server can work with the tens of thousands of units which would be necessary to flesh out a full ground war including the critical supply system (the most common target from the air) and the command/control system. For this reason, it seems crucial to implement some area target, some way for a bomber to "make less effective" a supply or command system without asking the server to model the creation and destruction of individual trucks and tents. That's really critical, as I see it. Both to encourage bomber pilots but also to create an accurate war.

 

A very good study which some of you may have read is "Battlefield Air Interdiction by the Luftwaffe at the Battle of Kursk", by Dalecky, which argues that an over-reliance on close air support (i.e. destroying tanks) is one major reason the Luftwaffe lost the battle. That's highly debatable of course, but it's an interesting argument for interdiction as the primary tool of an air force, to the exclusion (or reduction in priority) of close air support. The twin bombers of both sides play such a big role in any battle. I really hope our sim models that somehow.

 

Finally, AI, as already mentioned in this thread, would be great to "flesh out" the bomber numbers online.

 

I honestly don't think it's necessary to reward escort missions, they are always the most fun but fairly pointless unless the bomber force is big enough. As soon as a mission reaches a certain critical mass with bomber numbers, I tend to see escorts forming naturally, even on "airquake" servers.

Edited April 29, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MALYSH

[csThor]

Very good post, Malysh. This, in a nutshell, is part of the equation why bombers or dedicated ground-attack types (excluding fighter-bombers) aren't represented in accurate numbers. The other reason is the relative complexity and the totally different playing style these types present. And on top they don't score high on the survivability scale - especially with the fighter-infested environment pretty much all the servers offer.

[Furio]

Very good post, Malysh. This, in a nutshell, is part of the equation why bombers or dedicated ground-attack types (excluding fighter-bombers) aren't represented in accurate numbers. The other reason is the relative complexity and the totally different playing style these types present. And on top they don't score high on the survivability scale - especially with the fighter-infested environment pretty much all the servers offer.

 

 

The same was true during WWII. RAF???

[71st_AH_Hooves]

The same was true during WWII. RAF???

[DD_fruitbat]

Anyone who has ever been a commander in a SEOW or any other type of online war will tell you the same i would guess.

 

Ground attack pilots that are capable are worth much much more to me than pure fighter guys.

 

thats where you do the damage.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Great documentary about russian front. Around 33:14 minutes you can see a real battlefield situtation.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=IXZoCkN7Sr0&feature=endscreen

Edited May 3, 2013 by JG62Gielow

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Anyone who has ever been a commander in a SEOW or any other type of online war will tell you the same i would guess.

 

Ground attack pilots that are capable are worth much much more to me than pure fighter guys.

 

thats where you do the damage.

 

The Online War subject again I still insist that is the future of online simulation !!! I hope some game company can realize it.

 

Anyway, you are right !!! A good pilot bomber was worth a entire squadron of fighters in online wars because you need to complete air to ground tasks to win the campaign.

[csThor]

I disagree on being "the future", more like "part of the future". Why? Because, quite honestly, the main reason people play flight sims is to have fun. For most this simply means having it out with fighters at some point - and nothing you say, do or try is going to change it. But this also means that realism is not going to be found online, not unless you strictly limit access to like-minded people (which limits projects to small areas and timeframes). And even then there has been no attempt at a reasonably realistic battlefield simulation - no echelonment of forces, no believable simulation of supply lines and lines of communication (at best one gets "factories"  - yeah, in a tactical environment), not even static targets (supply dumps, no function for railway lines/stations, etc) and thusly no environment for medium bombers to do their main job: interdiction.

 

So IMO creating a realistic battlefield simulation is very difficult and time-consuming and that load of work doesn't really pay off since the majority of the players doesn't understand it and doesn't need it as their needs are being served at a very low level already.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I hope some attaention is given to advanced ground attack scenarios.

 

The BlitzPigs were pretty much always centered on ground attack and the hit and run

ground attack in the enemy's rear areas. I can see the Pe2 being used for this quite a bit,

as it has the speed and payload to work in the interdiction role.

 

We even have done it in RoF using the excellent Bristol Fighter.

[4Shades]

csThor wrote:

And even then there has been no attempt at a reasonably realistic battlefield simulation - no echelonment of forces, no believable simulation of supply lines and lines of communication (at best one gets "factories"  - yeah, in a tactical environment), not even static targets (supply dumps, no function for railway lines/stations, etc) and thusly no environment for medium bombers to do their main job: interdiction.

 

If you are referring to SEOW here csThor, then you are years out of date and most of your assertions do not apply. You ought to take a look at some of the campaigns that have been run with IL2/SEOW over the past 4 years - absolutely jam-packed with supply, freight, communication (command and control), morale, layered defences and attacks, involving thousands of ground/sea/air units of all types stretching over hundreds of kilometres of front lines and in depth to the rear too. This is the best IL2-based gaming environment for recon, rear-area interdiction, strategic bombing etc, as some of the guys in this thread have been trying to say.

 

But for the purposes of this discussion, people here are simply trying to suggest that BOS would benefit from a decent multiplayer campaign system. I think everyone would agree with that. It does worry me when I hear of the difficulties that ROF had with handling large numbers of planes, and with handling even a rudimentary ground OOB. I have never flown ROF but some of the guys who have tell me that it quickly gets pretty one-dimensional. If BOS is going to ship with similar fundamental characteristics then it would be disappointing. After all, the Stalingrad campaign was all about logistics, supply, interdictions, large-scale mobilizations so BOS must do a convincing job of portraying that context somehow to give purpose for the air operations.

 

Cheers,

4Shades

[DD_fruitbat]

Fuel and supply lines, the bane of my life at the moment!

[JG27_Chivas]

The only way it will be possible to simulate the Battle of Britain online is "one human bomber pilot" controlling a large number of AI bombers.  This is a subject brought up years ago on the COD forums.  The number of controllable AI bombers selected would have to be server optional depending on number of human bomber pilots and frame rates.   I'm sure a program could be developed to set the number of AI bombers that could be accessed on the fly during an online session.   The bomber pilot should also be able to set AI bombers target before takeoff, change target on route, an option for all bombers to drop bombs on his command,  the bomber element should continue to the target if the human pilot is killed,  and the human pilot should be able to select his position in the formation so other human pilots wouldn't be able to target the lead aircraft to kill the human commander.

[hiro]

lots of good points said . . . 

 

 

about game engines . . . if the designers of the engine or a good coding crew go at it, the limitations of the engines can be surpassed. 

 

If you look at Call of Duty series, the infinity ward's engine is based of a derivative of quake 3's engine. 

 

Half life 1 and 2 / counterstrike 1 n 2 use the source engine, but obviously the sequel is tweaked to include more advanced physics, game play, ballistics, damage models etc . . .

 

It is doable to out do what ROF limitations with the same engine. Maybe not for the first release, but upon subsequent ones. 

 

 

I like the point about bombers survive-ability is chance . . . i mean in the sky, they are prey. Few wants to be the cow, they want to be the wolf. Few want to be the lamb, but more want to be the lion. But to practical sense, the army needs much more cows and lambs (food n clothing), than many wolves and lions. 

 

Or bombing is like a traffic jam on a 3 lane freeway with hundreds of zombies picking at the canned humans,  and its slow, packed, lots of waiting and death. But fighters is like the 8 lane autobahn, with only dozens of packs of ghouls, and you got a nice sports car with spy hunter machine guns and flame throwers . . .

 

Fighters is more fun. So the dev's would have to make bombers more fun or emphasizing on things that is fun. Like mastering complexity of bomb drops via the bombsight, and a good bombardier can nail the pickel with that norden bombsight (within realism). 

 

But at the same edge of the double edged sword, if it's too realistic it gets boring, complicated, or the lack of any positive feed back (destruction of the target), they'll put down the bomber and pick up the fighter. 

 

 

a player goes with 10 AI B-17s and they go through the flak, the fighters, and make a perfect bomb run but due to realism, the factory is still there (due to scatter, winds, inaccuracy of the bombsight at the time) and have to fly several 4+ hour missions just to get it. They'll put down the bomber and pick up standard for fighters instead. 

 

vs a 30 minute mission with the same flight, and right after the drop, the close ups of the bombs crushing the factory roofs, sinking inside and the most excellent fireballs and debris with chasing smoke trails . . .  

 

The devs have to balance where it gives the realism aspect / learning curve, but also make it fun. 

 

 

 

that said, there are stories of bombers holding out, such as a B-17 fending off dozens of zeros, knocking off a few, and taking hundreds of rounds, and making it back home. Solo. Or the SBD dauntless pilot that held off a flight 5 zeros until the z's hit bingo fuel and left them alone. 

 

However bombers can be fun too. I think if the devs put emphasis on fast, twin engine or jabo type missions and planesets, it would help.

 

Strafing and rocketing moving trains is fun or watching a column of tanks creeping over a hill and crossing that bridge to be pounced on by diving attack planes. 

 

Or the ships trying to escape the harbor / river . . . Stalingrad has a lot going in for it. 

 

Missions would have lots of ground targets to pick and choose from, and objectives to win the game (mission by taking out ground objectives) is based on ground effects.

 

Scoreboards that showcases only mud moving scores (such as troops strafed by m guns or rocket that convoy . . .) that show weapon / plane used, pilot name, and what he / she killed or shot up. Attack / bomber planes can show kills of fighters they've downed but fighters can only show ground targets shot up (incentive to at least try out bomber)

 

 Also have cheering or ground troops / guys on the surface ships etc hollering over the radio for successful hits . 
 

I like the AI wings . ..  that's a good idea, and being able to select good crew. Like someone may just want  to fly a bomber, and skip the navigator or bombsight, so they can set the navigator or bombardier or gunners to a high level, so they do their job. Its satisfying to fly a bomber and watching the bombardier take down that factory.

 

Sniper gunners of IL-2 1946 isn't necessary but if a fighter comes straight at the tailguns or flies straight and level, well they should get shot up by the bomber formations.

 

 

I think complex scenarios like the fluid and roving battle field / supply lines, is too much for the first release, but I think the devs can put it on later games. 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Bombers were not exactly dead meat. Sometimes people only look to aircraft stats and forget about the rest.  

 

We can't forget that the Russian front was huge and flexible, so there was lots of targets everywhere and not enough fighters to cover them all.

 

So if the Stalingrad map in game is big enough and if there are targets available all around it like depots in small villages, factories, artillery batteries, moving supply columns, airfields, bridges (in other games, bridges are left aside), front line positions (where we can help to defend or attack ground forces), harbors, ships, troops concetrations, rail yards, etc...

 

Again If the map is big enough, the bombers can attack anywhere making fighters interception more difficult. If you have only a couple of targets they will be there waiting. With lots of targets the fighters need to go around in CAP using targets as waypoints to increase their chances of intercepting bombers.

 

If you read books from bombers pilots like Rudel, you will notice that most of the time there was no enemy fighters opposition. The real killer of bombers in eastern front was AAA.

 

So take note:

 

1- Bombers AI wingman.

 

2- A really big map filled with targets. 

[Furio]

As happened with other lively topics, this one is growing bigger with interesting thoughts. I would like to add some more.

 

What I don???

[DD_Arthur]

 

What I don???

[Furio]

Sorry to go slightly off-topic but isn't this a description of every well-known ace or experten from both WW1 and WW2, lol?

 

You???

[6S.Manu]

 

What I don???

Edited May 8, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[6S.Manu]

IMO a good way to plan the mission for a dogfight server in which the bombers can actually have fun is limiting the target and depleting the airbase planes. For example:

- Both Blue and Red has 3 possible airbase (A, B, C)
- At the start of the mission the bombers can attack only 2 targets (an easy one and the A target covered by the enemy airplanes of the opposing A)
- When an A plane is destroyed the number of that model in the A airbase is decreased until that version can't be taken anymore; so the enemy has to take off from B, a far base (at least 10 minutes away), and A bombers can do their task without problems (but B fighters can still hunt for them).
- When the target A is destroyed then bombers can attack target B (target positions is revealed to the winning side).

This should be fun and quite realistic, limiting the "one bomber" sneak runs on part of the map not covered exploiting of the lack of players (coverage).
- guys can hunt (over enemy territory, above all when the enemy have to start from a far airbase)
- guys can make escorts (if bomber want to attack before air superiority)
- fighter guys can switch to bombers to reach the main mission

Edited May 8, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

You???

[AX2]

I flew a lot is Spits vs 109, The best server !,

Everything was fine with the UP 3 modification  ammo, more Damage and Speed???

[nynek]

My 3 cents

 

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=455215&postcount=24

 

And I'll be repeating till I die. As long as there is no 300-500 flying things at ANY given time in the game there is no reason for developing another "niche","directed at a few","unpopular","sideshow" etc. title. Everything else could be done by awards or points system. I remember entering server populated by bunch of kids... one can tell right away looking at those 140,190 scores... after 10 minutes I got 500 pts and miracle had happend because EVERYBODY "suddenly" were trying to land after the kill. The way I see it the moment one enters a server one chooses a mission be that escort, ground attack and so on, rewards one gets will be ONLY if mission is completed. So in the escort mission You'll get points not for a kill but for how many bombers came back. For Gents who want to do this duel thing at thirty paces I see scoring points ONLY for shooting enemy fighers . In that system you need a lot of flying stuff in the air but this allows for three generation of pilots to have fun TOGETHER. Remember Developers POINTS are EVERYTHING.

[csThor]

You are aware that only a tiny fraction of the players gives a damn about points? Most are flying for their personal gratification ... Points mean nothing. And as for your numbers ... I'd rather have 50 dedicated (plus AI) than 300 brainless furballers. Nuff said.

[JtD]

Online I fly fighters to compete against other humans, it's something I can't do offline. Bombers, I by now usually fly offline, at least there's no silly teen age kid who can't hit me with his dual MK108 from 100m away and ends up ramming me. I used to fly bombers a lot online, for the satisfaction of winning the map, but somehow it got tiring. What would get me back in a bomber on a normal dogfight server now? I don't think there's anything short of guaranteed survival. Offline is just a lot more fun.

 

But what I read from the discussion - you need to separate game features from mission design. It is very well possible to built missions with current il-2 that in a halfway decent dogfight server will be OK for bomber pilots. The 'command a squadron' idea is not new and it is a good one, hope to see it one day with il-2 and certainly hope it is in BoS. If you still have 10 players in fighters for each 1 in a bomber, commanding a squadron at least changes the plane ratio to 10:4.

 

In il-2 I find it particularly annoying that shooting down a bomber actually gives you more points. Don't know who came up with that, but one of the worst ideas the dev's had for the initial release.

[BlitzPig_EL]

JtD,

 

As you know kill points in IL2/'46 are assigned to the number of engines an aircraft has.

 

This is how the Luftwaffe did it for real. Totally silly. I don't know why this has not been changed in the sim

after all these years.

 

Cheers!

[4Shades]

I'd rather have 50 dedicated (plus AI) than 300 brainless furballers

 

I agree Thor! In fact I'd rather have 5 dedicated pilots (plus 295 AI) than 300 furballers. But I reckon you and I are in a minority!!!

[BlitzPig_EL]

The sad truth is the 300 furballers pay the bills, 300 AIs don't spend any money on flight sims.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

The sad truth is the 300 furballers pay the bills, 300 AIs don't spend any money on flight sims.

That is really true !!!

 

I had that in my mind when I tought about the AI wingman and big maps options. Dogfighters can stay all day long over Stalingrad killing each other. That is why we need a big map (lots of targets) and AI wingman for bombers increasing survival rate and variety of missions. Dogfighter won't have a problem with that because they will be happy fighting over the same place all day long or patrolling the map searching for those 3 bombers formations  

Edited May 15, 2013 by JG62Gielow