This is not a suggestion

[Lusekofte]

Flying bombers is hard enough. Loud fighter jockey got their will, and gunners are utterly rubbish.

I am currently awaiting Cod getting VR and ditch this game. But why do you not at least take some lessons from old Oleg, 

1. Make targets render at high altitude in time or give us back zoom in the bomb aim interface.

2. Make them bloody gunners at least warn us about i incoming fighters. As for now you just go in black, dead in a Split second. Not knowing what happened.

This is not a bloody suggestion mister moderator. It got no place in suggest and forget bin. It is simply common sense

Edited March 28, 2022 by LuseKofte

[Zooropa_Fly]

It has occured to me that Gunners no doubt communicated with their pilots.

A simple warning of BANDIT - 5 O'CLOCK HIGH - 1KM OUT, or something like that would suffice.

Probably a big job, but if realism is the name of the game, then I think we should get some kind of warnings from those cross-eyed pillocks !

 

S!

[Lusekofte]

In C6 you got 3 pair of eyes, A4 you get 4 pair. In Mosquito 2 pair. 

And we have absolutely no advantage having them. They are only making the plane heavy.

In Cod They warn you, and in some cases you can actually hide in time.

It is if you take away the courtesy, down right a total fiasco.

Before they could actually hit something, even then I rather wanted them to warn me, rather than snipe.

[56RAF_Roblex]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Probably a big job,

 

Is it that big a job I wonder?   You can already adjust the range at which your gunners will open fire so that 'detection' code is already there and could presumably be extended out to at least 0.9km.  That just leaves code that says 'Don't shoot, just aim and say something.'  Whether they can easily add a direction and range to that message is something I do not know but if we know which gunner gave the message then we could at least hop to his position to see where he is aiming (or does that stop him aiming?)      I would not agree that we could just set the firing range to extreme range as there are occasions when the enemy has not spotted you below and you would rather keep it that way than open fire and show everyone where you are with no chance of hitting them so far away ?

Edited March 27, 2022 by 56RAF_Roblex

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Yes, in-flight communication needs a total overhaul. The player should also be able to warn the rest of the flight of incoming enemies even if he aint the leader! The other day I was in a flight of 4 Hurricanes, and we were chased by 4 109's. But the AI Hurricanes totally failed to spot the enemy at 6 oclock so I engaged them alone while the other Hurricanes continued on their path, totally clueless about what was going on behind.

 

You absolutely SHOULD be able to warn the rest of the flight about enemies even if you arent flight leader. And the AI also should warn you in the same fashion.

 

I'd like to remind the devs that games from the freaking 90's like European Air War had much more advanced in-flight comms than GB. Not even close. I think about it and I simply cant believe it.

[354thFG_Leifr]

Yes, to all of these.

I really wish that we could tell gunners to be 'active' and 'alert' so that they permanently man their stations, rather than switching 'off' and 'on' whenever an enemy fighter enters their zone. The rear gunner on the A-20, for example, infuriatingly has to unpack his table and gun every time. It would also be nice if they gave simple call-outs as to where the enemy is spotted (clock face high and low). The gunners in Cliffs are superior in pretty much every way, they're a dead-weight in BoX.

 

The rendering of building objects in the bombardier position is fairly pitiful. If you're deciding to fly at a safer altitude of 5K+, it leaves the player with precious little time to correct course and adjust when the buildings finally decide to render in. Anything above 6K really, and your chances of missing the target on the run up magnifies greatly.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Leifr

[Avimimus]

Gunners reporting threats more clearly would be a great addition.

 

It would also be nice if a co-pilot or gunner or wing-man would warn the player about anti-aircraft fire. Similarly, other aircraft in the flight reporting ground-targets (type/number/location) would be very beneficial - although the main element of warning about threats is definitely the highest priority if comms are ever reworked.

 

[cardboard_killer]

I just turn the volume off and pretend that comms don't work; pretty accurate for most of the time.

[Trooper117]

Yes, but when I pretend that I've told the ground staff that the internal comms on the aircraft still don't work for the 20th time it gets really old...

[Rothary]

Radio chatter in general I find quite lacking. The only form of reports about enemies you seem to get are your wingmen informing you that they've decided to engage an enemy they spotted, instead of just informing me they spotted an enemy without actually breaking formation and engaging them without permission.

 

During combat you rarely get actually useful reports about someone getting a kill (I don't know if "target destroyed" is referring to a plane or a ground target, or if it's just a repeat of the identical report I heard just a couple seconds ago), someone being in trouble and needing assistance, someone coming in to help, someone congratulating you on your kill, someone telling you he's bailing out or going down (I think they only do this if they're on fire?), someone warning you about an enemy on your tail etc. As far as I can tell, I cannot even order them to specifically focus on attacking bombers instead of their escorts (them being left behind as I engage the bombers alone by myself), unless that is the main objective of the mission. The radio chatter is probably what I miss the most about IL-2 1946. Here I'm watching my wingman get chased by an enemy, eventually ending up shot down before anyone can come in to help them and not once did I hear him requesting assistance or even indicating that he might be in trouble in the first place (not that I can tell them apart anyway until the identification numbers are fully implemented for all planes and actually used for all planes in a flight).

 

In general the voice messages themselves are quite lacking in emotion comparing to 1946, which both affects immersion as well as making all messages sound so similar that unless I actually read what the message was, I cannot tell if the message I'm hearing is a simple peaceful "follow me" order, or likely someone's final distressful words.

 

Really hope they get a complete overhaul at some point as I feel that makes the difference between feeling like I'm flying with people (1946) vs with robots (GB).

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, Rothary said:

Really hope they get a complete overhaul at some point as I feel that makes the difference between feeling like I'm flying with people (1946) vs with robots (GB).

This has been mentioned for 10 years now. All changes that has been done this time is adjusting gunners precision down to rubbish.

This post is just me finally giving up.

This game is for fighterpilots. It was never ment for anything else. Thank god for coop and some campaigns.

[Fritz_X]

14 hours ago, Rothary said:

In general the voice messages themselves are quite lacking in emotion comparing to 1946, which both affects immersion as well as making all messages sound so similar that unless I actually read what the message was, I cannot tell if the message I'm hearing is a simple peaceful "follow me" order, or likely someone's final distressful words.

 

Really hope they get a complete overhaul at some point as I feel that makes the difference between feeling like I'm flying with people (1946) vs with robots (GB).

 

I have to admit that I tend to feel guilty when criticising this great product we have, but... I have to agree, whole heartedly.

 

For my personal taste classic IL-2 (or 1946, if you prefer this designation) doesn't hold a candle compared to the GB series. But the one thing that it definitely did and still does alot better is the AI communication and voice system.

 

The information the AI pilots gave was actually helpful and the emotions that were conveyed felt believable, giving the player the impression to be part of an actual flying squad. Even though the 'mix-and-match' voice command system sometimes felt obviously artificial as well, especially in cases of emergency, creating voice lines like 'Hier Nummer 6... ICH BRENNE!!!!11111 ICH STEIG AUS!!!!!!!1111111', it overall felt rather natural. Especially because there was more than just the basic communication, but also heartfelt banter, like bomber crews giving thanks to escort fighters or your rear gunner complaining about too rough manouvers.

 

One of my favorite IL-2 moments still is from back in 2001, when I hopped into the BF-109 F2 for my very first mission, in which I had to escort a flight of Stukas on their mission just shortly after sunrise. When finally spotting them through the misty weather from afar, the pilot leading the flight of Stukas reached out to me by saying 'Holla! Die Jäger! Wir sind froh euch zu sehen! Danke für das Geleit, Ende!'. This felt so utterly genuine that it got stuck in my memory forever, with said voice reply being my favorite in the whole sim. Unfortunately none of the voice recordings in GB come anywhere close to this.

 

Another pet peeve of mine is that you, the player, is being audibly voiced in the GB series, which I found extremely irritating when I started playing years ago and it still manages to confuse me at times, especially when flying Axis, since seemingly every German voice line seems to be done by the same person. When I switched over from 1946 to GB it took me quite a while to understand that it was 'me' who was talking on the radio the whole time. I really wish they would have stuck to the player's character being mute and text only. Or at least give us a better insight about what the different call-signs mean and which one belongs to whom. Flying Axis in QMB still makes me wonder how these are being distributed (Am I 'Sturm' or am I 'Taifun'? And why do they switch to birds' names, like 'Fasan', at times?).

 

Well, this is the end of my 'rant', I guess. I hope I didn't sound too harsh there, for I really appreciate the hard work of the devs, especially under those heavy circumstances of the last years and present days. GB is by far my favorite sim and a gift that keeps getting better with each and every update. So lots of love from my side to the best dev team there is.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Fritz_X

[Lusekofte]

I have been grateful for 10 years.

Bought stuff I not even opened. Never sat in a BF 109 F or newer. I use very little in this Franchise. 

All this for getting hopefully a decent bomber and PTO. 

Yet I have kept away from MP as much as possible, so frustration do not overwhelm me.

No doubt this is a good game. But the money lies in keeping fighterboys happy. So I let them. I give this MP crap to those who want it. 

My advice however, will always be. You need it all if you want a sustainable community online. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by LuseKofte

[Feldgrun]

18 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

You need it all if you want a sustainable community online. 

 I'm concerned that, as with the inclusion of tanks, the devs are spreading themselves a little too thin in a flight sim game.

[Mewt]

I'd give co-ordinated multiplayer a try. Co-ordination and communication can bring the fun.

Finnish Virtual Pilots regularly has 2-10 people on discord communicating and working together to achieve an objective.

Combat Box has Friday Night flights that are very inclusive and well structured.

Various virtual squadrons get together and form go to groups for whenever a Tactical Air War campaign is up.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, Feldgrun said:

 I'm concerned that, as with the inclusion of tanks, the devs are spreading themselves a little too thin in a flight sim game.

At the same time, that is pretty awesome. But with the player limitation 

Intention will never be met. How can you ever have a "Kursk" battle with 41 players on each side manning planes and tank.

[kendo]

8 hours ago, Fritz_X said:

 

I have to admit that I tend to feel guilty when criticising this great product we have, but... I have to agree, whole heartedly.

 

For my personal taste classic IL-2 (or 1946, if you prefer this designation) doesn't hold a candle compared to the GB series. But the one thing that it definitely did and still does alot better is the AI communication and voice system.

 

The information the AI pilots gave was actually helpful and the emotions that were conveyed felt believable, giving the player the impression to be part of an actual flying squad. Even though the 'mix-and-match' voice command system sometimes felt obviously artificial as well, especially in cases of emergency, creating voice lines like 'Hier Nummer 6... ICH BRENNE!!!!11111 ICH STEIG AUS!!!!!!!1111111', it overall felt rather natural. Especially because there was more than just the basic communication, but also heartfelt banter, like bomber crews giving thanks to escort fighters or your rear gunner complaining about too rough manouvers.

 

One of my favorite IL-2 moments still is from back in 2001, when I hopped into the BF-109 F2 for my very first mission, in which I had to escort a flight of Stukas on their mission just shortly after sunrise. When finally spotting them through the misty weather from afar, the pilot leading the flight of Stukas reached out to me by saying 'Holla! Die Jäger! Wir sind froh euch zu sehen! Danke für das Geleit, Ende!'. This felt so utterly genuine that it got stuck in my memory forever, with said voice reply being my favorite in the whole sim. Unfortunately none of the voice recordings in GB come anywhere close to this.

 

Another pet peeve of mine is that you, the player, is being audibly voiced in the GB series, which I found extremely irritating when I started playing years ago and it still manages to confuse me at times, especially when flying Axis, since seemingly every German voice line seems to be done by the same person. When I switched over from 1946 to GB it took me quite a while to understand that it was 'me' who was talking on the radio the whole time. I really wish they would have stuck to the player's character being mute and text only. Or at least give us a better insight about what the different call-signs mean and which one belongs to whom. Flying Axis in QMB still makes me wonder how these are being distributed (Am I 'Sturm' or am I 'Taifun'? And why do they switch to birds' names, like 'Fasan', at times?).

 

Well, this is the end of my 'rant', I guess. I hope I didn't sound too harsh there, for I really appreciate the hard work of the devs, especially under those heavy circumstances of the last years and present days. GB is by far my favorite sim and a gift that keeps getting better with each and every update. So lots of love from my side to the best dev team there is.

 

Not a rant at all. I actually agree with everything you said.

 

Ages ago there was something posted that the AI programmer would start focusing on "tactical level AI", which I assumed meant issues like communications and flight command capabilities (rather than individual pilot/aircraft AI). But maybe i misunderstood what the plan was or what was happening? Would welcome an update if these issues are being worked on.

 

LoseKofte, try not to 'lose the faith' - hopefully there'll be fixes - at least a quick one to rebalance gunner effectiveness a little.

 

But I don't believe the gunners have been deliberately nerfed in an attempt to placate the fighter boys or because the devs are only interested in that side of the experience. It's all context - for years and years now the constant complaints were always about 'sniper' gunners and totally unrealistic kills from impossible angles against fast moving aircraft - that was the common perception anyway, and the volume of complaints about it was huge.

 

They have obviously tried to address that criticism, but coding an AI gunner that 'misses realistically' - ie misses the hard shots, while still nailing the easy ones, is not neceessarily as easy as one might think. Looks like the attempted fix has been flawed and gone too far the other way. They do listen to our feedback though, so I'm sure the comments here will be noticed.   

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by kendo

[6./ZG26_Custard]

18 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

This game is for fighterpilots.

It certainly seems to have become fighter "centric" one would hope more by accident than design. The gunners are now absolutely woeful. Where it really stands out just how terrible they are is in FC. The gunners struggle to hit slow moving aircraft that line up on their 6. It feels like ground attackers and bomber aircraft have been reduced to mere target drones. I for one don't want superhuman gunners but currently they seem almost pointless.  Added to this, as others have pointed out lack of awareness of crews. I've been flying online for a long time but it's now got to the point where its gone from ridiculous gunners to useless gunners. I hate to admit it but the enjoyment of flying ground attacker or bomber aircraft is rapidly beginning to fade. 

[Hoss]

6 hours ago, Mewt said:

I'd give co-ordinated multiplayer a try. Co-ordination and communication can bring the fun.

Finnish Virtual Pilots regularly has 2-10 people on discord communicating and working together to achieve an objective.

Combat Box has Friday Night flights that are very inclusive and well structured.

Various virtual squadrons get together and form go to groups for whenever a Tactical Air War campaign is up.

The thing about MP is once the pilots you have joined up with to fly a mission start getting shot down, they hit re-fly and start over. So that those who survive, and come back to organize a new mission are missing those who re-spawned and are now by themselves over the target, getting shot down. At times we would spawn in as a gunner, and if we survived, we would ride back home with them to re-spawn for another mission. I have had bad luck doing this with a very few players, some lock it to keep the 1 D 10 Ts out so they don't shoot their tail off. It would be great if your gunners told you there are bandits at 4:00 high and to break right, especially if they could judge distance to have you wait till the opportune time to turn. I used to love flying Ju-88s, Bf-110, Pe-2s, and especially the A-20, but if you fart in it the tail comes off. I've given up flying bombers and switched to Fighter bombers, where I have a better field of view, and a bit more survivability. Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots win wars. FOTI.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Hoss

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

. I hate to admit it but the enjoyment of flying ground attacker or bomber aircraft is rapidly beginning to fade.

And there Lies my only interest. I do not blame the fighters. They are the challange I like to have. 

This problem is pure priority based. I think multiplayer would suffer if no one fly general purpose aircraft. It simply is not seen that way.

 

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, Hoss said:

Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots win wars.

 

That's a little unfair.

 

Without fighters, there's no local air superiority; without air superiority, there's little/no bomber protection; with no bomber protection, bombers take unsustainable losses against enemy fighters.

 

Thus fighters must first succeed before bombers can. It's not historical fighter pilots' fault that media focused on them more than bombers. Yeah, being a fighter pilot's more glamorous. You're also totally on your own as a fighter pilot, and you die alone. There's the constant stress of knowing that if you can't take care of yourself, no one else will.

 

There's good and bad to everything.  

 

As to the point of the thread, I do think it's unfortunate bombers don't get more attention. Overall improvements to AI bomber crew behavior would be better for the entire sim, not just bomber players.

[FuriousMeow]

All MP arena based WWI and WWII air combat sims have boiled down to being fighter centric. Its just the way its been. WarBirds, Aces High, Red Baron II/3d, etc. Bombers would be in there, but fighters were pretty much what was encountered. Even in the Aces High arena, bombers were a rare sight despite the fact that players controlled a 3 bomber formation and could have a gunner that directed all 3 bomber's defensive armament at the same target but they were still fairly easy to down.

 

The only time bombers really came into play was in scenarios. There the bombers had escorts coordinated with them and there was a large formation of them which made them dangerous to attack, until some were damaged and became stragglers that were pretty easily picked off. Its not inaccurate that a single bomber is an easy target for a fighter.

 

Maybe the accuracy of the gunners could be upped a little, but to say this is fighter centric - yeah that's pretty much all arena style MPs basically are.

Edited March 29, 2022 by FuriousMeow
words

[taffy2jeffmorgan]

With all that this wonderful combat flight sim has to offer, beautiful graphics, game play, and such a marvelous array of different aircraft each with their own idiosyncrasies

It would be the icing on the cake if you as leader could communicate with other members in your flight and get them to carry out tasks i.e.  telling the flight members to attack the bombers and then telling your wingman to follow you and take on the escorts. [ ok gentlemen, there's plenty for everyone, good luck   Tally Ho ]

[357th_KW]

The typical MP experience is built to encourage air to air encounters, because the typical player doesn't want to spend their two hours of free time flying around an empty sky seeing nothing.  The players have a pretty good idea where the enemy are going to appear, often times there is some level of ground control to clue players in on where enemies can be found, and game play is almost entirely focused on daylight action.  Given that fighters were meant to shoot down bombers, and were generally pretty good at it, this makes things tough for the bombers.  Further, a majority of players want to fly fighters rather than bombers.  This is hardly a shock - historically the 8th Air Force saw that about 75% of fighter pilots volunteered for additional combat after completing their tour, while less then 25% of bomber pilots did the same.

 

Perhaps what we really need is to re-examine what MP gameplay should look like.  You could look into making a server that was just for bombers, with more focus being put into difficult targets, challenging navigation and weather, etc.  Provide a minimal AI fighter presence, setup so that fighters would withdraw and rtb if they took damage, as opposed to the typical hyper-aggressive human player.  Maybe there's an audience for a server like that?  And on the flip side, use AI to provide the bulk of the bomber presence on your more traditional air to air focused server, both for flavor and to provide some camo/distraction for bomber pilots who want to brave the shark infested waters.

[Hoss]

3 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

That's a little unfair.

 

Without fighters, there's no local air superiority; without air superiority, there's little/no bomber protection; with no bomber protection, bombers take unsustainable losses against enemy fighters.

 

Thus fighters must first succeed before bombers can. It's not historical fighter pilots' fault that media focused on them more than bombers. Yeah, being a fighter pilot's more glamorous. You're also totally on your own as a fighter pilot, and you die alone. There's the constant stress of knowing that if you can't take care of yourself, no one else will.

 

There's good and bad to everything.  

 

As to the point of the thread, I do think it's unfortunate bombers don't get more attention. Overall improvements to AI bomber crew behavior would be better for the entire sim, not just bomber players.

 

 

I guess you may not of seen Flight of the Intruder...................... it's what an A-6 pilot told an F-4 pilot....................... End of my post I put FOTI...............

 

Cheers

Hoss

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Hoss

[oc2209]

7 minutes ago, Hoss said:

 

 

I guess you may not of seen Flight of the Intruder...................... it's what an A-6 pilot told an F-4 pilot.......................

 

Cheers

Hoss

 

 

 

Nope, I haven't, and I was hoping whatever 'FOTI' stood for wouldn't make an ass of me.

 

Guess I lost that bet with myself.

 

No, seriously, I wasn't trying to be all uppity about it. But there is a general rivalry between the hotshot fighter jocks and the unsung bomber crews, and though fighters do get all the press, they also have a pretty heavy psychological burden to carry. One that's commonly overlooked amidst all the glamor.

[Eisenfaustus]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

and though fighters do get all the press, they also have a pretty heavy psychological burden to carry.

Yes - if you read fighter pilots memoirs they often seem to imply they got the toughest job of all. I don’t blame them personally - war is hell for anyone involved including fighter pilots. And yes - knowingly leaving the safety of your barracks to an environment where the slightest lack of attention can kill you is very stressful indeed. 
 

But if you compare it to the stress of the infantry grunt who can be under artillery fire for hours right before the brutality of close quarter combat starts - or the common submariner whose only hope against a destroyer would be to pray his commander has the right idea…

 

In the airwar Bomber crews have the same stress as fighter pilots PLUS they have nothing they really can do against enemy air defence. 
 

In conclusion - yes war is hell for fighter pilots as well yet hell is worse for other branches of service. 

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Nope, I haven't, and I was hoping whatever 'FOTI' stood for wouldn't make an ass of me.

 

Guess I lost that bet with myself.

 

No, seriously, I wasn't trying to be all uppity about it. But there is a general rivalry between the hotshot fighter jocks and the unsung bomber crews, and though fighters do get all the press, they also have a pretty heavy psychological burden to carry. One that's commonly overlooked amidst all the glamor.

You talk about being alone in the fighter plane. 

I talk about being alone in the bomber. 

There is absolutely no help in the crew.

And the one thing that can keep you alive, staying up high , the bombsight do not work due to render  problems.

Before it could be overcome by a zoom function. It was too taken away.

Flying a bomber in this game is flying a lazy unmaneouvreable balloon single seater.

I do not blame the fighters, but they have given nothing to the bombers. Not even the extra eyes it do have. People having two hours to fly will not waste them in a bomber?

I have less than that average in a week. I do not want to waste it on a fighter

Edited March 29, 2022 by LuseKofte

[fubar_2_niner]

Oh bring on the reboot of B-17 The Mighty Eighth !!

 

[Guest]

The one thing that put me completely off flying bombers is not being able to have another human operate the bomb sight.

[DD_Crash]

Having a human man the bomb sight would be a useful addition.

[150_GIAP-Red_Dragon]

Perhaps an AI navigator is also needed if he was in the crew in real life. A bomber does not have an advantage in a fight with a fighter, so at least let him have an advantage in navigation, which he should have

[56RAF_Roblex]

2 hours ago, fubar_2_niner said:

Oh bring on the reboot of B-17 The Mighty Eighth !!

 

 

It is going to be in VR which could be interesting.   

 

1 hour ago, -332FG-Red_Pilot said:

Perhaps an AI navigator is also needed if he was in the crew in real life. A bomber does not have an advantage in a fight with a fighter, so at least let him have an advantage in navigation, which he should have

 

Imagine if all aircraft that had navigators allowed you to set waypoints from the map-room, even in Expert Mode,  and your navigator gave you bearings to each one?  ?

 

I would also love to be able to join a bomber as a bomb aimer or at least have that position included in the 'Switch Seats' function.   Obviously that may depend on exactly how the bomb aimer worked in the real thing.

Edited March 29, 2022 by 56RAF_Roblex

[354thFG_Rails]

Do you wake up the gunners? I don’t know if it’s a placebo but it seems like if you tell them to fire at will and engage further out they will warn you sooner? Have not tested this but I still does this when I fly anything with a rear gunner. 

[BCI-Nazgul]

16 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

All MP arena based WWI and WWII air combat sims have boiled down to being fighter centric. Its just the way its been. WarBirds, Aces High, Red Baron II/3d, etc. Bombers would be in there, but fighters were pretty much what was encountered. Even in the Aces High arena, bombers were a rare sight despite the fact that players controlled a 3 bomber formation and could have a gunner that directed all 3 bomber's defensive armament at the same target but they were still fairly easy to down.

 

The only time bombers really came into play was in scenarios. There the bombers had escorts coordinated with them and there was a large formation of them which made them dangerous to attack, until some were damaged and became stragglers that were pretty easily picked off. Its not inaccurate that a single bomber is an easy target for a fighter.

 

Maybe the accuracy of the gunners could be upped a little, but to say this is fighter centric - yeah that's pretty much all arena style MPs basically are.

I agree with all you points.   It is sad that in the fourth generation of WWII combat sims we have yet to see one that allows players to fly formations of heavy bombers like the B-17, Lancaster, B-29, etc...  these were a huge part of the WW II air battle yet they've never been supported by any of the mainstream flight sims.  In the West the entire Luftwaffe was pretty much consumed with defending against heavy bombers after 1943.  All the US/British/German planes with their big superchargers never really get to do what they were designed for because of this lack of altitude fighting.

[oc2209]

10 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

In the airwar Bomber crews have the same stress as fighter pilots PLUS they have nothing they really can do against enemy air defence. 

 

In conclusion - yes war is hell for fighter pilots as well yet hell is worse for other branches of service. 

 

Bomber crew are subject to cosmic dice rolls in terms of their survivability. Nothing is really in their control. Flak is more of a mindless threat than fighters, in terms of having absolutely no control when your number is up.

 

While all of that does wear on the minds of crew, they do at least have two things fighter pilots don't: some level of camaraderie with your fellow crew; injury doesn't automatically mean death as it frequently does when you're flying alone. Secondly, there's some sense of protection (however illusory in practice) from bomber formations and mutual defense.

 

Infantry undeniably have it worse than any airman. All other factors removed, the simple matter of housing and living conditions in between fighting--that'll always be superior for airmen.

 

But, there is still some psychological connection with your fellow grunts. A fighter pilot is fundamentally more alone and psychologically isolated. All the group tactics and radio communication aside, none of it changes the fact that you hold your life in your hands, and whatever those hands can do with the stick is often the difference between living and dying. Whereas for bomber crew and infantry, your life is generally in someone else's hands. For good or for ill.

 

It reminds me of the psychology of baseball pitchers. Or, if you don't follow baseball, European football goal keepers. I've always been fascinated by watching pitchers implode from the pressures of having everything revolve around them--even though they're in a team sport. That's what fighter pilots remind me of.

 

8 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

You talk about being alone in the fighter plane. 

I talk about being alone in the bomber. 

There is absolutely no help in the crew.

And the one thing that can keep you alive, staying up high , the bombsight do not work due to render  problems.

Before it could be overcome by a zoom function. It was too taken away.

Flying a bomber in this game is flying a lazy unmaneouvreable balloon single seater.

 

I totally agree with you. A bomber player/pilot in this sim must have at least some AI help to simulate the impact crew would have, or he's always going to be at a severe disadvantage.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

I dont think there's worse than being part of a submarine crew.

 

Imagine being part of a type VII U-boat crew and being depth charged.

[Lusekofte]

7 hours ago, QB.Rails said:

Do you wake up the gunners? I don’t know if it’s a placebo but it seems like if you tell them to fire at will and engage further out they will warn you sooner? Have not tested this but I still does this when I fly anything with a rear gunner. 

I ask them to fire at long range, some times they talk before you get engage. But they spend up all their ammo. Letting them firering at will is a bad idea, the fighter might still not detected you

[6./ZG26_Loke]

In WW1, a fighter pilot would rather attack another fighter, than a 2-seater. Simply because the rear-gunner was so deadly. 

In FC, it is currently the opposite. Here the gunner is completely useless, which again make the 2-seater nothing but a target drone. 

[ATAG_Ezzie]

16 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

In WW1, a fighter pilot would rather attack another fighter, than a 2-seater. Simply because the rear-gunner was so deadly. 

In FC, it is currently the opposite. Here the gunner is completely useless, which again make the 2-seater nothing but a target drone. 

 Agree re AI gunners usually being not much better than useless, although they do give a degree of warning when they get up out of their seat and start blatting away.

 

However if there's a human gunner - either another player in MP or one player flying and gunning - then the Bristol can be reasonably effective if flown to its strengths and weaknesses.

 

I cant comment on the other 2 seaters though