Two more collectors for early period

[357th_KW]

I’m hoping we’ll get an A-20G/J or and A-26B/C for one of them since the B-25/B-26 are apparently off the table for the moment - we literally don’t have a single playable bomber for the western Allies for BoBp or BoN.  This is such a huge gap in the planeset, given that the Allies deployed thousands of light, medium and heavy bombers in those battles.

[CountZero]

Just now, Feldgrun said:

 

With these and the Bf 109 E-4, you could do a more realistic Battle of Britain scenario.

And where do you see Battle of Britain carrier in game.

Its simple airplanes will be ones that fit existing carrier timelines, for BoS, BoM, BoK, BoBp, BoN, they can not be airplanes that dont fit official carrier timeline, like Spitfire I, Hurricane I, Blenheim, Re.2000... and if they said early, its either early ww2 airplane or early DLC... so its most likely airplane type that fit BoM or BoS timeline and map area.   

[FliegerAD]

On 11/10/2022 at 7:51 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

In cases like that, you just have to be a realist. We are a niche market and the team is a business that must make money. Give me what I want and I'll pay for it as well as some stuff I don't.

 

Indeed. And I do not mind paying for a variant with minor changes if the pricing is right. And if I like the aircraft I would pay more, of course.

 

There are enough easy-to-do variants which should be profitable. But we have to be realistic here as well. I mean, a 109 G-6/AS would obviously sell. My beloved Ju 88R-2, while quick to create, would not sell as well, I am afraid.

 

 

On 11/10/2022 at 8:55 PM, Avimimus said:

I do see the benefit of adding one though (especially as Russia lacks a larger medium - the Il-4 or Tu-2 would significantly increase bombing power).

 

Not exactly what you are saying but let me propose an alternative: the Pe-3. Basically a variant of the Pe-2, and interesting opponent for the Ju 88C-6, and capable of carrying bombs. ...albeit not many. It is a heavy fighter, after all.

[Lusekofte]

On 11/10/2022 at 12:05 AM, AndyJWest said:

I want a Ju-52 on floats. Probably not going to get it, but I want it...

You sir got good taste, I always said that. 
I might have only be thinking it. But I would have said it if topic ever came up

[MAJ_stug41]

3 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

Not exactly what you are saying but let me propose an alternative: the Pe-3. Basically a variant of the Pe-2, and interesting opponent for the Ju 88C-6, and capable of carrying bombs. ...albeit not many. It is a heavy fighter, after all.

I would be happy with at least the gondola of guns for the pe2, would make a fun addition.

[Cleo9]

I-153 and early JU87 version for BoM... I hope...

[Lusekofte]

9 hours ago, Cleo9 said:

I-153 and early JU87 version for BoM... I hope...

It would make sense, gosh I hope so. Or we getting another 109 version

[Avimimus]

18 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

Not exactly what you are saying but let me propose an alternative: the Pe-3. Basically a variant of the Pe-2, and interesting opponent for the Ju 88C-6, and capable of carrying bombs. ...albeit not many. It is a heavy fighter, after all.

 

Ah, well if one looks at the bomb-load of the Pe-2 it is typically about 500-600 kg. An Il-4 can raise the bomb-load to 1500 kg and the Tu-2 can raise the bomb-load to over 2000 kg. This would bring the bomb-loads closer into line with the 1500-2500 kg loads found on German bombers.

 

As for the Pe-3 - I agree entirely. It was used very aggressively at Moscow, and then a bit less aggressively (mainly recon) at Stalingrad and elsewhere. It'd be very interesting to have the Soviet equivalent of the Ju-88C-6 and Mosquito FB.VI. So it is a top pick for me.

[sevenless]

23 hours ago, Cleo9 said:

I-153 and early JU87 version for BoM... I hope...

 

Yes. Excellent choice. Never understood why Ju-87-B2/R2 was lacking from Moscow.

[ShamrockOneFive]

20 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Yes. Excellent choice. Never understood why Ju-87-B2/R2 was lacking from Moscow.

They gave us the Bf110E-2 instead. I think it was a good choice. Needed 11 airplanes to fit the earlier Stuka in there.

[DN308]

Hoping a Blenheim or a Beaufighter or a Boston III (or simply a UK/US version of the existing A-20)…

But all of that should be a « too much work » as usual with all the bombers we asked for.

[CSW_311_Mart]

I still wonder, why they did not choose A-20C. So wide spreaded version... Saw action in eastern front, western front, Africa, Asia...

[ITAF_Rani]

I 153- Mc 200

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, CSW_311_Mart said:

I still wonder, why they did not choose A-20C. So wide spreaded version... Saw action in eastern front, western front, Africa, Asia...

My guess is a more complex turret. 
And timeline for  its  introduction. Kuban map. 
I guess they got it right, they usually do. But a torpedo carrying DB 7/ Boston would be nice indeed. It is one of my favourites to date

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

Hs123 and I-15/153

[CountZero]

On 11/11/2022 at 7:38 PM, 357th_KW said:

I’m hoping we’ll get an A-20G/J or and A-26B/C for one of them since the B-25/B-26 are apparently off the table for the moment - we literally don’t have a single playable bomber for the western Allies for BoBp or BoN.  This is such a huge gap in the planeset, given that the Allies deployed thousands of light, medium and heavy bombers in those battles.

Next two airplanes are fighters, Han said so in stream video, they are to be modifications of existing fighters.  

Edited November 15, 2022 by CountZero

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

Next two airplanes are fighters, Han said so in stream video, they are to be modifications of existing fighters.  

 

Hmm... does that rule out a Pe-3 (given that the Pe-2 was derived from a fighter design and the Pe-3 is a fighter design)?

 

Recon variants of fighters are possible. Fw-190A4 is possible. P-39N or P-39Q. Early Spifire IX or Typhoon variants. Mustang I/Ia. Additional LaGG variants. Tomahawk or P-40M/N. Ju-88R.

 

Very unlikely: Two-seater spotter version of the Hurricane.

 

P.S. I suppose the night fighter field modifications of the He-111 would be out.

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

Could the I15/153 count as the previos I16?

[sevenless]

14 minutes ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

Could the I15/153 count as the previos I16?

 

Lets hope so. I'd love to see it in the game.

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

Could the I15/153 count as the previos I16?

 

I think they are sufficiently different airframes

 

But there is definitely hope for a 3rd party (Ivan Shirshov?) or as a collector plane that isn't a variant of an existing aircraft.

[Trooper117]

7 hours ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

Could the I15/153 count as the previos I16?

 

You could say that about the I-15 which led onto the bis variant and ultimately the I-153... but not the I-16.

I think I'm right in saying the I-16 was initially a private venture, not a project of the Soviet state like the two aircraft above.

[Bremspropeller]

It's going to be a Me 163 and a Lerche.

 

Deal with it!

[ShamrockOneFive]

7 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Lets hope so. I'd love to see it in the game.

Me too! I-153 would be really interesting to have.

[CountZero]

They are saving that for next DLC, Battle of Khalkhin Gol

[Bremspropeller]

I remember back in the old days in IL-2'46, some of the most fun you could have with your hands on throttle and stick had been dogfights between the I-153 and the J8 (swedish Gladiator).

 

I also loved the Fokker XXI. Coming to think of it, a FokkerXXI and a P-36 would be really cool, too!

 

 

[oc2209]

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I remember back in the old days in IL-2'46, some of the most fun you could have with your hands on throttle and stick had been dogfights between the I-153 and the J8 (swedish Gladiator).

 

I also loved the Fokker XXI. Coming to think of it, a FokkerXXI and a P-36 would be really cool, too!

 

Yes to the above, but oddly, the one plane that comes to mind when I think of what I miss from '46, is the I-185. For some reason that always stood out to me as a really great design.

[jojy47jojyrocks]

I-16 itself is too inadequate or tougher to even down a fighter bomber. I-153 would be a sitting duck....It is even slower than I-16.

 

I'd rather hope for some other plane than this immensely slow super early plane. The Italian C-200 is even better than the I-153. The Sukhoi-Su-2/Su-4 is also good addon as it is just an early bomber.

 

Perhaps they meant FC series...early PERIOD.

Edited November 16, 2022 by jojy47jojyrocks

[Hotaru_Ito]

1 hour ago, jojy47jojyrocks said:

I-16 itself is too inadequate or tougher to even down a fighter bomber. I-153 would be a sitting duck....It is even slower than I-16.

 

I'd rather hope for some other plane than this immensely slow super early plane. The Italian C-200 is even better than the I-153. The Sukhoi-Su-2/Su-4 is also good addon as it is just an early bomber.

 

Perhaps they meant FC series...early PERIOD.

 

For one thing, that's what would make the I-153 fun--the challenge! Shooting down a 109 in an I-16 is satisfying in a way downing an I-16 in a 109 will never be. For another, I believe it was used as a fighter-bomber after it was obsolete as a fighter, which could keep it relevant quite a ways into career mode. 

 

Not that I'd say no to a C.200 or Su-2 either mind you.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Hotaru_Ito

[76IAP-Black]

Don't forget the Li2 as a variation of an excisting plane... ?

[Trooper117]

18 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Me too! I-153 would be really interesting to have.

 

Yep... the little Polikarpovs are a must have. I've always liked them in the old IL2 and even bought the DCS I-16, even though there isn't much you can do with it.

[Lusekofte]

5 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Yep... the little Polikarpovs are a must have. I've always liked them in the old IL2 and even bought the DCS I-16, even though there isn't much you can do with it.

My longest running career started with I-153 and ended with me taxiing a IL 2  back to parking after my 154 th successful mission. The wingtip hit a static plane and it exploded and I died. I had taken this campaign a long time, started it 9 times and died before mission 10 until I managed to pass that. It was very hard to survive up to that wingtip collision. And I stopped flying careers in old il 2 of pure frustration. I 153 is a excellent toy in SP and as a ground pounder in MP

[CSW_311_Mart]

On 11/13/2022 at 8:08 PM, 216th_Lusekofte said:

My guess is a more complex turret. 
And timeline for  its  introduction. Kuban map. 
I guess they got it right, they usually do. But a torpedo carrying DB 7/ Boston would be nice indeed. It is one of my favourites to date

 

Well, C variant does not have a turret (from factory), but it has two flexible .30/.303 MGs. Turrets came with later variants. Howewer, soviet UTK-1 turret was quite often modification and I would definitely appreciate it. I think C variant has more important differencies - self sealing fuel tanks and armor. And that could make A-20 little bit less fragile in our sim.

C variant is little bit heavier, slower and has slightly lower ceilling but it can withstand more damage and is capable of carrying a torpedo.

So yes, it is more complex to create, but has more to offer.

Both B and C variants were used from 1942 at eastern front. So I still think that with only B variant they closed door to use proper A-20 anywhere else. If I had to choose only one variant of A-20, it would be definetely C. And with bombardier position modeled! ? 

[Lusekofte]

2 minutes ago, CSW_311_Mart said:

self sealing fuel tanks

Yes I googled that. Because I honestly believed we had self sealing tanks on ours. 
DM in this game is not optimal, at least not in the past. They say it has improved. 
P 38 was cut in two pieces no matter what hit it and so on. I am not sure self sealing tanks would improve survivability at all, but I am glad for any improvements on level bombers we have. Because it is not likely we see any new ones

[CSW_311_Mart]

Yes, self sealing tanks and additional armor would be probably only placebo, but still better than nothing ?

 

I would be satisfied, at least for a while, with new bomber with only pilot position and bombsight modeled ?

 

BTW, modeled positions in a bomber from my point of view in descending order of importance:

1) Pilot and bombsight - essential

2) Top/tail gunner

3) Bombardier

4) Ventral, waist and other gunners

 

I really miss bombardier position in A-20, due to great view ahead and below, that you can use to navigate easier or more comfy...

I quite often use top gunner position to check my 6 or to actually defend.

On the other hand, I use ventral gunner position rarely, mainly to check hits during level bombing, even less to check position or navigate and almost never to actually defend.

 

[Heliopause]

[DBFlyguy]

For those still confused what the term "variant" means:

 

var·i·ant

/ˈverēənt/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

noun: variant; plural noun: variants

1. a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

[CountZero]

4 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

For those still confused what the term "variant" means:

 

var·i·ant

/ˈverēənt/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

noun: variant; plural noun: variants

1. a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

So Blenheim ?

[zan64]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

So Blenheim ?

RAF mustang I/II

 

i assume the company wants to make money (at least I hope! because i wouldn't buy a blenheim, P-51A yes!)

Edited November 17, 2022 by zan64

[MAJ_stug41]

On 11/16/2022 at 1:40 AM, jojy47jojyrocks said:

itself is too inadequate or tougher to even down a fighter bomber. I-153 would be a sitting duck....It is even slower than I-16

Nonsense, I16 is unstoppable!

 

 

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

On 11/17/2022 at 1:30 PM, CountZero said:

So Blenheim ?

Uf! that's a hard one to pronounce ... some silent consonants in there