The big bombs in FC don't have enough explosive power!

[J99_Himmelhund]

Please watch the video! I can say more with the pictures than I could describe with text!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbHa-Y3GJA

More than a year has passed since paying for FC Vol. II until the Gotha V was realized. Euphoric anticipation turned to deep disappointment when I saw that.

It's one of the reasons I continue to fly RoF and probably need to continue to fly.

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

I certainly agree with your assertions, well put together clips !

 

The only caveats I would add are, that the damage caused in RoF looks a little too much.

In the case of bombing towns - I would expect buildings on the periphery of the blast radius to sustain partial damage, not the complete destruction seen in RoF.

And, if explosions were any bigger in FC, you may well have blown your own wings off a few times !

But it may be an issue with damage modelling, rather than blast effect.

 

The damage caused by these big boys in FC does seem under-modelled, hopefully the devs will look at this.

 

As a side note, the clips once again demonstrate that RoF is a much more aesthetically pleasing product !

FC is a bit 'contrasty' and colours are over saturated.

 

S!

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I seem to recall there was a change a year or two ago that reduced the blast effect, and the WW2 guys got really grumpy about it. There may be a few threads on the forum about it from back then. Since there has been no change since then, I would bet that the devs consider the current model to be more correct. Since this game is meant to be a simulator, it is usually best to go with the most historically accurate model. Do you have any historical evidence, other than the previous game, to suggest a stronger blast effect is more accurate?

 

I have seen enemy and friendly planes blown up when flying over 50kg and 112lb bombs, although the distance may be much closer than it used to be in RoF.

In general, a single 50kg or 112lb bomb can destroy most factory buildings and fuel tanks in a single direct hit. There are a few warehouses that can survive, and the French 40kg bomb is less effective. Usually, 2x 12.5kg or 24lb cooper bombs can destroy a similar target building as the 50kg/112lb bomb, although there are some buildings that take 3 or even 4 little bombs.

Near misses do little to no damage to buildings.

Tanks are generally destroyed with a direct hit by a small 12.5kg/24lb cooper bomb. A very near miss with a 50kg/112lb bomb will also do the trick. Tanks don't normally explode when destroyed, but they may smoke, look damaged, or have the crew run away.

Unarmored vehicles and stationary guns can generally be destroyed with a near miss from a 12.5kg/24lb small bomb. They can also be strafed. Machine guns, artillery, and flak crews will run away when strafed, but the gun can be re-manned. It will explode when destroyed. Vehicles can explode when destroyed, but generally don't. Instead the crew will run away and will not re-man the vehicle.

[J99_Himmelhund]

Unfortunately, I have not found any meaningful photo documents for the explosive power of these bombs.

Historically, however, it is true that these bombers only flew to their target once, dropped their bombs and then searched the distance. Multiple turning manoeuvres and precise aiming were not possible. Especially not with high-altitude bombing.

But in order to still have an effect, the bombs had to have more explosive power, otherwise their use would be absurd.

You point out the historical correctness. Should some FM be corrected then?

For example, I've read some posts like "the Camel folds its wings too quickly..."

I'm a dedicated bomber pilot, but I've also gotten into a Camel for fun. I could easily fly missions with it, even though the Camel was known to be a pilot killer.

I've seen pictures of where a camel landed with no wings! Historically correct?

I hope I haven't poked in a wasp's nest! I just want to make you think!

[=IRFC=Gascan]

There are lots of things that the game doesn't get quite right. These inaccuracies should be addressed and corrected when possible. One mistake is not an excuse for another mistake. If the Camel doesn't fly right, there is still no reason for bombs to have more explosive power than they historically did, nor is it a reason for them to be weaker than they were. Whatever the correct model is for bombs is the most correct answer, regardless of the Camel's flight model, and whatever the correct flight model for the Camel is should also be used regardless of the damage model for bombs.

 

 

I have been reading Bloody Paralyzer by Rob Langham, about the HP O100 and O400, and before that I was reading Aces Falling by Peter Hart. Without looking for an exact page or chapter, I remember a bit about a British airfield that was bombed during the night. One of the hangars was hit, causing a huge fire and a number of planes were burned and a few bombs stored nearby were exploded by the fire. The fire also lit up the airfield and made it easier for other bombers to locate it and make their attacks. However, the rest of the bombs that hit nearby caused craters on the airfield, shattered a few windows, and otherwise did minor damage that was able to be repaired fairly easily. Asides from the fire caused by a direct hit, the attack mostly caused confusion and terror of being attacked from the air in the middle of the night.

Many of the British night bombers were sent after rail stations and junctions. I don't recall the exact chapter, but I recall the Germans reported that, if materiel and personnel were available and properly trained, a direct hit from a 112lb bomb on the actual rails could be repaired in just an hour or two. While the book did mention damage to rolling stock and to buildings, most of the pilots talk about the few direct hits and the fires that they caused. Sometimes ammunition was hit, causing huge explosions or towering infernos, and the pilots were sure to talk about that. Many of the other excerpts from pilots memoirs talk about how they "pounded" various cities, but don't talk much about the actual effects. Since they swapped from targeting factories and blast furnaces in 1917 and early 1918 towards rail yards and more tactical targets in mid to late 1918, a lot of the effect was causing disruption of supply and reinforcement by attacking both day and night.

While I think the bomb blast is probably historically accurate, I wish there were a way to measure the bombs dropped in an area, whether or not they hit a target/building. It is incredibly frustrating to line up a bombing run, and watch every bomb land right between the factory buildings and warehouses, knowing that the blast isn't enough to destroy the target. This way you could still complete a mission by dropping, say, 500kg of bombs on a target even if they all just barely miss. Historically, you could just come back the next day and try again, but there usually isn't as much time available in a 4 hour mission on the FlugPark to redo a bombing mission just because you missed by a meter or two.

[J99_Himmelhund]

I also care about equal treatment. If historically correct representation, please also for everyone and for everything!

It becomes unfair when one side successfully complains that, for example, an FM is too bad and therefore not fun to fly. However, the other side has a disadvantage because its FM is 'only' realistic.

Then the other side probably doesn't have fun anymore and considers whether it's still worth investing money in IL-2.

By the way, your landing looked very heroic! But is that physically possible at all? ?

But actually it is about the effectiveness of the bombs!

[Todt_Von_Oben]

In the past few weeks, I dropped some Coopers from an 0400 and hit the top left wing of a Gotha in flight; one did, anyway.  I saw that "puff" that represents impact; but no explosion and no damage.  The GV just kept right on flying unharmed.

 

An hour ago, I flew a fully-loaded Brisfit twice in QM and twice in MP using contact and two-second delay fuses.  Bombed a bridge twice; a ship once; and an aerodrome once.  No results.

 

I'm on target and seeing an impact dust cloud but no warhead detonation or secondary explosions, fires, etc.  No craters, no damage, Nada.  Duds, every one of 'em.

 

Yours are  underpowered?  Don't feel bad.  Mine don't even go off!  ?

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Try 5 second fuse timer?

[J99_Himmelhund]

I can confirm that. If you only see a small cloud of dust, the bomb has not detonated.

For the German bombers, fuse timer = standard is sufficient

At least 5s should be set for Entente!

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

On 6/5/2022 at 10:37 AM, J99_Himmelhund said:

Historically, however, it is true that these bombers only flew to their target once, dropped their bombs and then searched the distance. Multiple turning manoeuvres and precise aiming were not possible. Especially not with high-altitude bombing.

 

But in order to still have an effect, the bombs had to have more explosive power, otherwise their use would be absurd.

 

I think it's important to remember that many post-war analyses and histories settle on the general to complete ineffectiveness of these kinds of bombers. Their poor accuracy combined with relatively small payloads meant most damage done (with the exception of lucky hits like those Gascan describes and occasionally crop up in memoirs) was minor and quickly repaired. As Gascan mentioned, Ace's Falling notes that airfield bombing for example was only effective when done consistently and frequently over the course of weeks. I've also seen multiple claims to the effect that the German strategic bombing campaign on England cost Germany more to mount than they caused in damages to England. Certainly the main notable effect of strategic bombing in ww1 was not so much the damage caused, but forcing the enemy to redeploy aircraft to defend against attack. Aircraft which would otherwise have gone to the front. Not to mention the not uncommon justification of the time "well it may not be materially too effective, but imagine the morale effect!"  'Defeat of the Zeppelins' by Mick Powis is a good read if you're interested in the efficacy of strategic bombing of the time.

It's worth noting that the largest German bomb in game, the 300kg, isn't too much bigger in explosive content than average sized ordance in use in ww2, often dropped by fighters even. For ww1 it's quite large, but it's not that big. There was a documentary a while ago called Blitz street, where they tested multiple ww2 bombs (or their explosive equivalents) on a mockup London street. Here they detonate 250kg of TNT to represent the German SC500kg bomb. Somewhat more explosive filler than the ww1 300kg had, but its close enough to get the gist of how powerful these things were. (link should take you to the right timestamp) 

 

It's an expressive explosion, but note that it doesn't cause catastrophic damage to anything outside of the immediate detonation point. Rise of Flight's explosions look a bit over modelled in comparison. I think Il-2s bomb physics could use some work (or more accurately, the ground buildings damage models could do with some kind of intermediate 'damaged' state between totally destroyed and looking like they were built yesterday, to represent near misses), but by and large I suspect it's fairly accurate. 

 

[J99_Himmelhund]

If that's the case, you wouldn't have had to model the big bombers at all. Since using them is pointless, I won't fly them in IL-2 either!

It is only unfortunate that the realistic representation of some fighter FM is not taken so seriously, but wants to pay attention to realistic representation in the case of the big bombers.

I will therefore continue to fly Rise of Flight so that I can have fun. I will no longer spend my money on FC!

[IckyATLAS]

We have may be to make a difference between an ARCADE game and a Simulator game. Both can be fun but it depends what you are looking for. If you would like to drop a 100kg bomb and have a city block pulverized fine. In WWII to do that even a 10 ton bomb would not really do that. Playing with the real world constraints is for me a challenge that is fun. Except carpet bombing on large cities, bombing where often not effective at all, except for a lucky direct hit. To have some effectiveness you had to unload enormous amount of bombs and a significant percentage went duds. Arcade can be fun too but it is different.

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

One issue I have, is that when dropped all together - the bombs almost land on top of each other.

Presumably reducing their damage potential.

[J99Kobold]

On 6/18/2022 at 3:30 PM, IckyATLAS said:

We have may be to make a difference between an ARCADE game and a Simulator game. Both can be fun but it depends what you are looking for. If you would like to drop a 100kg bomb and have a city block pulverized fine. In WWII to do that even a 10 ton bomb would not really do that. Playing with the real world constraints is for me a challenge that is fun. Except carpet bombing on large cities, bombing where often not effective at all, except for a lucky direct hit. To have some effectiveness you had to unload enormous amount of bombs and a significant percentage went duds. Arcade can be fun too but it is different.

 

the Problem is the 300KG Bomb, because, the exploding power is too low. The 300KG Bomb makes the same damage like a 50KG Bomb and this is totally unrealistic

 

As long as the 300KG Bomb makes the same damage like a flea fart, i don´t see importance to buy Vol. 2

 

Edited June 19, 2022 by J99Kobold

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Yeah, I've noticed the bombs don't seem to wander very much, making them far more precise than they probably were historically. This makes them more capable of destroying precision targets like bridges. At the same time, making the bombs less precise makes the player's inputs to the bomb sight less important, meaning that a skilled player is less likely to produce the desired results due to random chance rather than skill. That probably isn't a good thing, so I don't recommend it.

 

The 50kg bombs mostly seem able to destroy factory buildings in a single direct hit, same as the 300kg bomb. However, there have been times when multiple 50kg bomb hits are required, while I have never had a 300kg or 100kg bomb fail to destroy a building with a direct hit. That said, since direct hits are required, I prefer to carry whatever bomb load gives me more bombs of 50kg or greater. That is, I take 16x 112lb bombs on the HP or 7x 100kg bombs for the Gotha. This provides the maximum number of chances to destroy buildings needed to complete the mission and roll the map.

 

I think an "area bombing target" should be made for the mission editor, which would provide mission designers more options for how bomber pilots complete missions. Right now, a bomb must directly hit a building or hit very close to it for the blast to cause damage. Detecting bombs in an arbitrary area would allow mission designers more flexibility in their mission design, and more reliable mission completion for bombers. Nothing is more frustrating for a bomber player than successfully evading enemy interceptors, lining up a good bomb run, then failing to destroy the target because you were at 122kph instead of 120kph so the bombs landed precisely in between buildings of a factory. An area target also means that 7x100kg bombs would be just as effective as 1x300kg bomb and 4x100kg bombs, making more loadouts viable for pilots to choose.

 

I recall reading that rail yards that were bombed often were disrupted for several hours (or even days during more extended bombardments), reducing their ability to move troops and supplies. Even if no trains, rails, or warehouses are directly hit, personnel need to stop work and take cover during the attack, inspect the area for damage and safety afterwards (unexploded bombs, unstable rubble, broken glass, damaged gas or water piping, downed electrical lines), and reorganize before resuming work (locate all workers/soldiers who took cover or ran away and may still be hiding, verify they are all safe or provide medical assistance, calm down after a terrifying, loud, dangerous experience where people may have been injured/killed). The same would be true for shipyards and factories.

 

This is also useful for some tactical missions, such as dropping a certain amount of ordnance on a target area before an attack is launched. I could easily imagine a mission to bomb a defensive position prior to commencing an attack. The mission designer could add machine guns, AA guns, artillery guns, and then launch a ground attack as soon as a certain amount of bombs are delivered.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, gascan said:

I think an "area bombing target" should be made for the mission editor, which would provide mission designers more options for how bomber pilots complete missions. Right now, a bomb must directly hit a building or hit very close to it for the blast to cause damage. Detecting bombs in an arbitrary area would allow mission designers more flexibility in their mission design, and more reliable mission completion for bombers. Nothing is more frustrating for a bomber player than successfully evading enemy interceptors, lining up a good bomb run, then failing to destroy the target because you were at 122kph instead of 120kph so the bombs landed precisely in between buildings of a factory. An area target also means that 7x100kg bombs would be just as effective as 1x300kg bomb and 4x100kg bombs, making more loadouts viable for pilots to choose.

 

That's how it already works in career mode on the WWII side - once the bombers have dropped their bombs in the target area, the mission is marked as Complete.

[J99_Himmelhund]

Check out the screenshots from my video. The hit with the 300kg bomb is between the two fuel tanks.

There is no secondary damage. Some fueltanks were not even destroyed. Now they don't claim that the fueltanks were empty!

As a map designer, I can put buildings in the environment and call them a fuel depot or a bomb factory. Therefore, these objects will not explode more violently and will not cause any secondary damage.

In order to generate an airfield, I only need the 'fakefield icon' and determine which aircraft, how many, etc. take off there.

 

I don't need ground crew, hangars, fuel tanks or ammo depots. The airfield just works like that. Isn't that an ARCADE?

Yes, I can position some hangars there for decoration and can also program that the airfield will be closed if they are destroyed. But it is not necessarily so.

In order for an airfield to be able to operate, you need fuel and ammunition. These things must be stored somewhere at the airfield. Those would be the potential bomber targets. When hit, these should then also cause the corresponding secondary damage. The airfield would then no longer be operational, or could only be used to a limited extent for landing aircraft.

Since it is unfortunately not so, this is ARCADE for me!

Even a service car that is supposed to refuel and ammunition landed aircraft must have loaded fuel/ammunition. That would also have to explode more violently when hit. These vehicles would also need supplies at some point …

[J99_Sizzlorr]

On 6/20/2022 at 4:40 PM, J99_Himmelhund said:

Check out the screenshots from my video. The hit with the 300kg bomb is between the two fuel tanks.

 

There is no secondary damage. Some fueltanks were not even destroyed. Now they don't claim that the fueltanks were empty!

As a map designer, I can put buildings in the environment and call them a fuel depot or a bomb factory. Therefore, these objects will not explode more violently and will not cause any secondary damage.

 

In order to generate an airfield, I only need the 'fakefield icon' and determine which aircraft, how many, etc. take off there.

 

 

 

I don't need ground crew, hangars, fuel tanks or ammo depots. The airfield just works like that. Isn't that an ARCADE?

 

Yes, I can position some hangars there for decoration and can also program that the airfield will be closed if they are destroyed. But it is not necessarily so.

 

In order for an airfield to be able to operate, you need fuel and ammunition. These things must be stored somewhere at the airfield. Those would be the potential bomber targets. When hit, these should then also cause the corresponding secondary damage. The airfield would then no longer be operational, or could only be used to a limited extent for landing aircraft.

 

Since it is unfortunately not so, this is ARCADE for me!

 

Even a service car that is supposed to refuel and ammunition landed aircraft must have loaded fuel/ammunition. That would also have to explode more violently when hit. These vehicles would also need supplies at some point …

 

 

 

You can add all those things to an airfield and you have the option to configure it the way you like but you are not forced to do it which I like. It is not arcarde it is what you make out of it.

[J99_Himmelhund]

Here are 2 screenshots from my video. Here you can clearly see that the pressure waves from the explosions of the bombs cannot impress the pursuer aircraft at all. A large amount of particles and fragments fly through the air, but the plane or the pilot don't get hit either?

The effect is visually recognizable, but it does not take place!

 

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I have certainly blown up planes flying low to the ground with 50kg and 112lb bombs. It is rare, but it does happen. As far back as 2020 during Bloody April, and as recent as a couple weeks ago. I have never successfully done it deliberately, but plenty of accidents (mostly involving friendlies, but occasionally an enemy plane). Usually the pilot is killed and the plane falls apart, but occasionally I've merely been wounded. I've even had my own gunner get wounded or even killed by my own bomb if I don't clear the area quickly enough.

Here are two screenshots of a Fokker getting blown up from December 2020. He attempted to intercept a raid deep behind German lines that was attacking a series of bombing targets. One of the Bristols (not pictured, off the camera) cleared out his remaining bombs (several 112lb bombs) so he could dogfight better. I guess the Fokker wasn't paying close attention and flew right over the top of it. Notice how close the Fokker is to the blast: his wing is partially obscured by the white part of the explosion in the first screenshot. The second screenshot shows his wings coming off.

[J99_Himmelhund]

Apparently the planes of the Centrals are easier to destroy?!?

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Not at all, both sides are vulnerable. I mostly fly Entente planes, with occasional forays into the Central planes. Most of the instances I have seen of airplanes getting blown up are friendly Bristols, Camels, or SE5a's getting blown up by 112lb bombs. I don't have my track recorder running all the time, and don't always go back to grab screenshots or video from the tracks that I get. This instance is one that I remember taking screenshots of and sharing them with the other pilots who were part of the large raid, so it was convenient to show an example of bombs blowing up a plane. Again, it doesn't happen often and is not a reliable way to clear someone off your tail. I just wanted to show that it does happen occasionally.

edit: Here is an example from the FlugPark parser where I was blown up by the ammo explosion of a 7.7 cm FlaK L/27 defending a bombing target. I strafed it first, then Gardimus followed up when I was too close and broke off. He destroyed it when I was directly over it, and the explosion wounded me and tore my wings off.

Gascan: http://stats.jasta5.org:8000/en/sortie/log/340021/?tour=49

Gardimus: http://stats.jasta5.org:8000/en/sortie/log/340017/?tour=49

Edited June 25, 2022 by gascan
Add link to parser

[ST_Catchov]

13 hours ago, J99_Himmelhund said:

Apparently the planes of the Centrals are easier to destroy?!?

 

No, it is merely what D7's deserve, as admirably demonstrated by gascan's evocative pic. ?

[J99_Himmelhund]

In summary, I am repeatedly pointed out in this discussion that IL-2 is very much about the most realistic representation possible and not about an ARCADE game.

So I sat down in a camel. I wanted to see how exactly the disadvantages of this machine were implemented. I was only concerned with the flight characteristics, not with the effectiveness of their weapons, nor with the stability of their structure. This video was made as a result:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O17zPMhyXC4

I have to say that the 'realistic implementation' of the Camel not only turned a blind eye, but both eyes must have been squeezed tightly together.

On the one hand you can see everything much more easily, on the other hand you don't want to give a millimeter!

Would we meet in real life, could we still look into each other's eyes openly?

The issue of the effectiveness of the big bombs is not yet over for me, but I wanted to show that the same standards should be applied everywhere!

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

How historically accurate is it that only Central pilots have parachutes, and every one of them functions properly 100 percent of the time?

 

 

[J99_Himmelhund]

I never used a parachute in FC, I didn't put them in and I never asked for it!

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

On 6/5/2022 at 6:50 PM, gascan said:

There are lots of things that the game doesn't get quite right. These inaccuracies should be addressed and corrected when possible. One mistake is not an excuse for another mistake. If the Camel doesn't fly right, there is still no reason for bombs to have more explosive power than they historically did, nor is it a reason for them to be weaker than they were. Whatever the correct model is for bombs is the most correct answer, regardless of the Camel's flight model, and whatever the correct flight model for the Camel is should also be used regardless of the damage model for bombs.

 

 

I have been reading Bloody Paralyzer by Rob Langham, about the HP O100 and O400, and before that I was reading Aces Falling by Peter Hart. Without looking for an exact page or chapter, I remember a bit about a British airfield that was bombed during the night. One of the hangars was hit, causing a huge fire and a number of planes were burned and a few bombs stored nearby were exploded by the fire. The fire also lit up the airfield and made it easier for other bombers to locate it and make their attacks. However, the rest of the bombs that hit nearby caused craters on the airfield, shattered a few windows, and otherwise did minor damage that was able to be repaired fairly easily. Asides from the fire caused by a direct hit, the attack mostly caused confusion and terror of being attacked from the air in the middle of the night.

Many of the British night bombers were sent after rail stations and junctions. I don't recall the exact chapter, but I recall the Germans reported that, if materiel and personnel were available and properly trained, a direct hit from a 112lb bomb on the actual rails could be repaired in just an hour or two. While the book did mention damage to rolling stock and to buildings, most of the pilots talk about the few direct hits and the fires that they caused. Sometimes ammunition was hit, causing huge explosions or towering infernos, and the pilots were sure to talk about that. Many of the other excerpts from pilots memoirs talk about how they "pounded" various cities, but don't talk much about the actual effects. Since they swapped from targeting factories and blast furnaces in 1917 and early 1918 towards rail yards and more tactical targets in mid to late 1918, a lot of the effect was causing disruption of supply and reinforcement by attacking both day and night.

While I think the bomb blast is probably historically accurate, I wish there were a way to measure the bombs dropped in an area, whether or not they hit a target/building. It is incredibly frustrating to line up a bombing run, and watch every bomb land right between the factory buildings and warehouses, knowing that the blast isn't enough to destroy the target. This way you could still complete a mission by dropping, say, 500kg of bombs on a target even if they all just barely miss. Historically, you could just come back the next day and try again, but there usually isn't as much time available in a 4 hour mission on the FlugPark to redo a bombing mission just because you missed by a meter or two.

I agree 100 percent.  In addition, I doubt in reality, those ww1 bombs would kill 3 horses in a similar grouping.  Certainly would not, could not, destroy 3 tanks spaced that far apart.   The ROF model is over modeled imo.  Using it as a basis for FC bomb damage models, would be a mistake.

10 hours ago, J99_Himmelhund said:

In summary, I am repeatedly pointed out in this discussion that IL-2 is very much about the most realistic representation possible and not about an ARCADE game.

 

So I sat down in a camel. I wanted to see how exactly the disadvantages of this machine were implemented. I was only concerned with the flight characteristics, not with the effectiveness of their weapons, nor with the stability of their structure. This video was made as a result:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O17zPMhyXC4

 

I have to say that the 'realistic implementation' of the Camel not only turned a blind eye, but both eyes must have been squeezed tightly together.

 

On the one hand you can see everything much more easily, on the other hand you don't want to give a millimeter!

 

Would we meet in real life, could we still look into each other's eyes openly?

 

The issue of the effectiveness of the big bombs is not yet over for me, but I wanted to show that the same standards should be applied everywhere!

 

You really should fly the Camel online at the flugpark against human opponents.   You will not have the same leisurely, casual, happy flight that you posted flying alone offline.

[J99_Himmelhund]

How many more times? I'm all about uniform standards, about equal treatment!

Take a look at the picture to see how one-sided the development of the multi-seater aircraft in FC has been so far. Who got their 'babies' first? On which side are the fighter planes also allowed to carry bombs? But we paid just as much!

My last hope for a little firepower and to have fun with the game was the Gotha G.V. This hope has been thoroughly destroyed.

If I had known in advance how to reduce the effectiveness of their bombs, I would never have bought FC Vol.2!

My lifetime is too important to me to keep arguing. In order not to be 'surprised' in such a negative way in the future, I have decided to no longer fly FC and also not to invest any more money in FC.

 

 

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

I know you said you're done with the game and the thread, but I think it important for me to respond, in case anyone sees your posts and draws ill-informed conclusions. 

 

 

I'm very confused by your train of thought here. The camel's flight model isn't really relevant to a discussion about bombing. And if you think the torque from the rotary isn't modelled properly I don't know what to tell you. Fly it in combat for any amount of time and you'll certainly experience the nose climbing in left turns. I can't say how accurate the effect is, whether it's too weak or too strong. (I've certainly seen it kill the unprepared pilot though) I've not flown a real camel myself, and I suspect you haven't either. So any argument on that front is, much like a greenhorn in a camel, going to spin around uselessly until someone gives up or hits the ground.

 

On 6/29/2022 at 4:24 PM, J99_Himmelhund said:

How many more times? I'm all about uniform standards, about equal treatment!

 

Take a look at the picture to see how one-sided the development of the multi-seater aircraft in FC has been so far. Who got their 'babies' first? On which side are the fighter planes also allowed to carry bombs? But we paid just as much!

 

My last hope for a little firepower and to have fun with the game was the Gotha G.V. This hope has been thoroughly destroyed.

 

If I had known in advance how to reduce the effectiveness of their bombs, I would never have bought FC Vol.2!

 

My lifetime is too important to me to keep arguing. In order not to be 'surprised' in such a negative way in the future, I have decided to no longer fly FC and also not to invest any more money in FC.

 

 

 

There's a lot to unpack here. Firstly, FC is a port of Rise of Flight, they can't include a plane in FC2 that wasn't in RoF. And considering FC2 seems designed to flesh out the 1917-1918 period, the DFW is the only German two seater option available. Neither the Roland nor the Hansa Brandenburg particularly fit the period, while the Breguet and the DH4 were very common types indeed that saw frequent use in that timeframe. Their inclusion is a no-brainer. It is sad that RoF doesn't have another German two-seater for parity, but that's not FC2's fault. You see a similar problem with the scouts, with Germany getting a pair of late war scouts against the Spad 7 and the tripehound. The less said about the neiuport the better. These are problems caused by RoF's eclectic aircraft roster. Hopefully we'll see a German bomber as a collector plane in the future to match the Breguet. My Kingdom for an AEG GIV. 

 

Entente scouts can carry bombs because it was a major part of Entente doctrine. In 1917 onwards they attached bombs to pretty much anything with wings and had them bomb, strafe and generally harass any and all ground targets. The Germans did not do this. Their close air support doctrine was focused around dedicated ground attack machines. They didn't attach bombs to their scouts, because the job of close air support and ground attack was that of schlactflieger squadrons almost exclusively. (represented in game by the Halberstadt) Certainly their scouts were used to harass and strafe ground targets. But to nowhere near the same extent as the Entente, where during multiple periods fighter squadrons were being sent on considerably more ground attack and bombing missions than they were standard patrols. If you want the game to be balanced in this regard, you'd be better off with a time machine and an appointment with the German general staff than clamouring here for balance.

 

The implication that the game shows a bias towards the entente is rather silly. Especially when you consider how the current damage model disproportionally punishes entente planes. The grass is always greener on the other side. Fly the dolphin for a while and I suspect you'll be a lot less likely to complain of bias.

 

As for earlier talk of bomb effectiveness against aircraft. Here's me in my halberstadt ripping the wings off a dolphin with the updraft of a 50kg bomb: https://gfycat.com/dimpledboringichthyosaurs It's pretty far from the explosion too. Bombs will mess you up, regardless of what side you fly for.

 

 

 

[J99_Himmelhund]

Hello Gorn_Captain,

You are right the thing with the Camel does not fit into this topic! In the post of QIckyATLAS I was suspected of wanting to fly ARCADE. That's why, for comparison, I was looking for an airplane with which I could show that it was overly easy to fly ...

I bought FC Vol.2 mainly because of the multi-seaters, but especially the Gotha G.V. You write yourself that FC is a port of Rise of Flight. So I also expected that the properties of the GV will be taken over in FC. I bought a fiery bull, a toro, and received an ox ready for slaughter. He's still missing the nose ring so I can take him to the slaughterhouse. That's what makes me so angry!

In Rise of Flight, for example, there were also the FE2b, the R.E.8 and the Roland CL.II. I also miss these machines at FC. As the first opponent for the Halberstadt CL, the RE8 would have been enough?!

As a map designer, you have the ability to select specific aircraft and determine their armament, etc. For example, you could also ban bombs under German fighter planes if you want to create historically authentic maps - just a thought if you want to show good will!

By the way, it's mostly Camels or SE5a that shot me down on recon missions. I saw Dolphins less often.

The GV could have moved me to fly more often FC. Now I remain with RoF. There I can fly my "Toro". In FC, however, only the castrated variation!