WWII Aircraft Suggested Plane List

[Jackfraser24]

Ju-88 G-6 (10 reasons why)

• Was used at Normandy in 1944. Needed for Pilot career.
• Was also used in Benelux in 1944. It would also enhance Bodenplatte Pilot career.
• Was built in substantial numbers.
• Would be useful in taking down B-25's and B-26's.
• Specially adapted night fighter.
• Could also be used for ground attack missions
• Featured radar systems, most notably the Lichtenstein radar.
• Typically carried 20 mm cannons and 7.92 mm machine guns (the latter was for engaging with enemy fighters).
• Had a top speed of 500 km/h and a service ceiling of 8,500 meters.
• Had an advantage over the Ju-88 C-6a in terms of being more versatile, being a better night fighter, being faster and having a better performance.

If I got any of my fact wrong, please tell me. I'm still learning.

[JG27_Abaster]

Exactly my words:

 

On 3/31/2024 at 1:28 AM, TempestV said:

First things Last.

We should have this. Then we can get a mess of Messerschmidts.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Edited April 3, 2024 by JG27_Abaster

[Jackfraser24]

Ju-188 A-2 (10 reasons why)

• We need more late war German bombers.
• Saw service in Benelux and Northern France in 1944. This would fill in gaps in pilot career.
• It would give us another plane to fly bombing missions or fight in advanced quick mission builder alongside the Ju-88, He-111 and Ar-234, making it more interesting.
• Would be a useful asset to have IF 1CGS or third party developers were to make late war Eastern Front or Mediterranean collector maps.
• Had many advantages over the Ju-88 in terms of speed, range, payload, defensive armament, aerodynamics, and came along with specialized variants tailored for specific roles.
• Would be useful in multiplayer if you were on the Axis's side because of it's speed (520 km/h), range (2,400 km) and payload (3,000 kg of bombs).
• Would appeal to bomber fans or those wanting the Ju-188. People would pay for it.
• Had powerful Junkers Jumo 213 A-1 engines with a maximum horse power of 1,166 hp.
• If they ever wanted to do an E version afterwards, this would make a great template, therefore they don't have to go back to making it from scratch.
• I think that this would be a well received plane.

[Jackfraser24]

Speaking of Collector planes, we do need more bombers.

• Do-217E
• Do-217K
• He-111 H-20 for Bodenplatte
• He-111 H-22 for Bodenplatte
• Ju-188A or E for Bodenplatte
• A-20C for Kuban and Normandy
• A-20G for Kuban, Normandy and Bodenplatte
• Wellington Mk.X for Normandy and Bodenplatte
• IL-4 for Stalingrad and Kuban
• SB-2 for Moscow and Stalingrad

I know they take 3-4x as long as the smaller fighter planes, but I think that they are really needed.

Edited April 8, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[Enceladus828]

On 4/8/2024 at 2:39 PM, Jackfraser24 said:

• Do-217E
• Do-217K
• He-111 H-20 for Bodenplatte
• He-111 H-22 for Bodenplatte
• Ju-188A or E for Bodenplatte
• A-20C for Kuban and Normandy
• A-20G for Kuban, Normandy and Bodenplatte
• Wellington Mk.X for Normandy and Bodenplatte
• IL-4 for Stalingrad and Kuban
• SBD-2 for Moscow and Stalingrad

I mainly disagree with this list. The Do-217, Ju-188, Wellington, IL-4 and SB 2M (I believe that’s what you meant as the SBD is the Dauntless) would be entirely new planes and at this point I’d rather see the B-25 be made flyable or an AI B-17 than one of those. I agree with the A-20G but with the He-111s, there would have to be considerable coding for them to carry V-1s and if not then no as well because I’m more interested in the Bf-110F, Pe-3, A-20G and Mosquito Mk.IV than another He-111, Fw-190 and Bf-109 variant. And how much action did the later He-111s see? There are some planes that have been done to death in this game and there is a bigger bang with those mentioned above than another subtle variant.

Edited April 10, 2024 by Enceladus828
Added Fw-190 as a done to death plane

[ZUGZulugwa]

4 engine bomber for each side. At least AI only B17 / B24 for Allies.

 

So I can double my fun making torches in Intercept Bombers missions with MK1108 cannons.

[Elem]

13 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

SB 2M (I believe that’s what you meant as the SBD is the Dauntless)

No, THIS SB-2...

[JG4_Moltke1871]

16 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Speaking of Collector planes, we do need more bombers.

• Do-217E
• Do-217K
• He-111 H-20 for Bodenplatte
• He-111 H-22 for Bodenplatte
• Ju-188A or E for Bodenplatte
• A-20C for Kuban and Normandy
• A-20G for Kuban, Normandy and Bodenplatte
• Wellington Mk.X for Normandy and Bodenplatte
• IL-4 for Stalingrad and Kuban
• SB-2 for Moscow and Stalingrad

I know they take 3-4x as long as the smaller fighter planes, but I think that they are really needed.

I couldn’t more agree with that!!

Especially for the 1944/45 western maps we need a more powerful German Bomber, online we only can use the 1940-43 models.

The Ju188 would be great for that, for the allies than would be great make the B26 flyable.

I remember the developers said the development of a twin engine requires 3 times more resources than a single engine. But it shouldn't stop them from developing these planes for Great Battles anyway as there is a huge gap in late maps for late, more powerful, bombers!!

[AEthelraedUnraed]

17 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Speaking of Collector planes, we do need more bombers.

• Do-217E
• Do-217K
• He-111 H-20 for Bodenplatte
• He-111 H-22 for Bodenplatte
• Ju-188A or E for Bodenplatte
• A-20C for Kuban and Normandy
• A-20G for Kuban, Normandy and Bodenplatte
• Wellington Mk.X for Normandy and Bodenplatte
• IL-4 for Stalingrad and Kuban
• SB-2 for Moscow and Stalingrad

I know they take 3-4x as long as the smaller fighter planes, but I think that they are really needed.

Like Enceladus, I don't agree at all with this list. The Germans already have a functional choice in bombers for most of the war. Especially given that the Luftwaffe bomber force after 1943 was pretty much non-existent. Adding more German bombers would also do little for gameplay purposes; the notion that a newer He-111, a Do-217 or a Ju-188 would be significantly less vulnerable to the overwhelming Allied air power of 1944-1945 than the already-existing He-111s and Ju-88s is simply absurd. As for the A-20; more playable types would be welcome but I think the current A-20 is a decent enough stand-in for AI bombers. The Wellington was mainly used as a night bomber, for which we mostly lack a proper map to fly it, or proper aircraft/radar to intercept them.

 

Which leaves the IL-4 and SB-2, both of which would be useful on the upcoming Karelia and Odessa maps.

[BubiHUN]

18 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Speaking of Collector planes, we do need more bombers.

• Do-217E
• Do-217K
• He-111 H-20 for Bodenplatte
• He-111 H-22 for Bodenplatte
• Ju-188A or E for Bodenplatte
• A-20C for Kuban and Normandy
• A-20G for Kuban, Normandy and Bodenplatte
• Wellington Mk.X for Normandy and Bodenplatte
• IL-4 for Stalingrad and Kuban
• SB-2 for Moscow and Stalingrad

I know they take 3-4x as long as the smaller fighter planes, but I think that they are really needed.

totally agree with this list!

17 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

And how much action did the later He-111s see?

is this "how much action yx plane saw" thing still relevant? we got the Spit14 bro...

[357th_KW]

I just don’t think it’s realistic that we’ll see more bombers added at this point.  If we do, something like an A-20G, B-25 or B-26 seems most likely as it fills a much bigger hole (not a single late war Allied playable bomber) and some work on them is already there.

 

Alternatively, I’d much rather see some aircraft that align with what we already have to open up some new possibilities:

 

Spitfire I/II & Hurricane I - just these two would be enough to open the door to some nice 1939/1940 scenarios using the Rhineland and Normandy maps.  And other versions already exist in game, data on them is plentiful, and they’ll sell like crazy.  Period versions of the 109, 110, He111, Ju87 and Ju88 would be nice if we could have them, but you can get by with the existing models.

 

 

A6M Zero and/or Ki-43 - Yep. We don’t have a map or any other Japanese planes, or any USN stuff etc.  But we do have a number of proper Allied opponents - we already see people making faux pacific scenarios with stand-in planes.  There’s a huge appetite for this, even if it just comes as a couple collectors.  These would sell like crazy, play completely differently to all other Axis birds, and probably inspire someone to build a small pacific map.

 

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, BubiHUN said:

totally agree with this list!

is this "how much action yx plane saw" thing still relevant? we got the Spit14 bro...

See AEtheIraedUnraed's post above. After 1943 and Operation Steinbock the Luftwaffe's bomber force was very much exhausted so a later He-111 wouldn't be profitable compared to other planes which saw a lot more action than Luftwaffe bombers in this timeframe and would add something new to gameplay and MP experience. If the devs could pump out almost 2 dozen or more planes every 2-3 years then an He-111 H-20 could be added but since they're only limited to 10 planes -- maybe a few more -- then priorities need to be set.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

16 hours ago, BubiHUN said:

is this "how much action yx plane saw" thing still relevant? we got the Spit14 bro...

Which I didn't buy. Neither did I buy the Ta-152 nor am I planning to buy either.

 

1CGS doesn't publish sales figures so we don't know how relevant it is whether or not an aircraft has seen much action. But given that one of the biggest selling points of IL2 compared to DCS or WarThunder is that it has coherent packages of aircraft and maps in order to historically re-create battles, I suspect there may be a not insignificant number of people for whom it is very relevant.

 

If 1CGS had an infinite amount of money and an infinite amount of time then sure, I would like to see all those aircraft. But especially given the current stage of development, any aircraft that is introduced effectively means another aircraft will not be added. Since we therefore have to choose, I'd much rather have an AI B-17 or flyable B-25 since those would open up additional gameplay possibilities, than a newer He-111 or a Ju-188 since those are just upgraded versions of planes we've already got.

[CountZero]

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Which I didn't buy. Neither did I buy the Ta-152 nor am I planning to buy either.

 

1CGS doesn't publish sales figures so we don't know how relevant it is whether or not an aircraft has seen much action. But given that one of the biggest selling points of IL2 compared to DCS or WarThunder is that it has coherent packages of aircraft and maps in order to historically re-create battles, I suspect there may be a not insignificant number of people for whom it is very relevant.

 

If 1CGS had an infinite amount of money and an infinite amount of time then sure, I would like to see all those aircraft. But especially given the current stage of development, any aircraft that is introduced effectively means another aircraft will not be added. Since we therefore have to choose, I'd much rather have an AI B-17 or flyable B-25 since those would open up additional gameplay possibilities, than a newer He-111 or a Ju-188 since those are just upgraded versions of planes we've already got.

sexy fighter that is proven to sell or bomber that is proven to not sell, and usealy guys who wont bomber end up buying anything devs make to suport them... so you end up where we are now, they clearly see if they make fighters they will be able to make more airplanes, if they make bombers they will end up making no more airplanes... ppl had to vote with their wallet and not jus minedlessly buy anything they put out wwhen they are vs fighters only players that are majority. 

 

its same like last few years of them saying just buy next dlc and well make pto next lol and even now they keep using same thing that works, guys guys next one after korea will be pto just you belive 😄

 

[Jackfraser24]

A-20G

• Was used in the Kuban Bridgeheads in 1943 - pilot career mode.
• Was present in the Benelux campaign in 1944 - again, pilot career mode.
• Had a number of improvements over the A-20B such as increased firepower, enhanced defensive armament, higher payload capacity, upgraded engines and increased armor protection.
• It had a better performance too in terms of speed, climb rate and maneuverability.
• Would complement the A-20B nicely.
• Was in the original 1946 plane list.
• Its a long wanted plane.
• It would give pilot career more historical accuracy.
• It would give you more of another plane to fly, fight or protect in AQMB.
• I think many IL-2 users would buy it. I think it would be very successful in the online market.

[Jackfraser24]

Beaufighter Mk VI (10 reasons why)

• Was used in the Normandy area in 1944 for ground strike missions. These gaps in pilot career should be a priority to fill in.
• Was also used in the Benelux region during 1944. Again, for the sake of pilot career.
• Had a heavy armament of machine guns and cannons, rockets and bombs, making it a valuable ground attack aircraft to have in our inventories.
• Would complement the Mosquito nicely.
• Would come in several sub-variants (Standard Mk.VI, Mk.VIc, Mk. VIf, and Mk VItf)
• It is on the Fw-190 D-9's kill list a long with the Mosquito, P-38 and P-51 to name a few.
• The Beaufighter Mk.VI was a versatile aircraft fit for multiple roles like ground attack, and anti shipping.
• Had a good range of 2,400+ km. Would be an excellent plane for long range missions.
• Could take quite a punishment from enemy fire. This is a kind of plane you would need for ground attack missions.
• Overall I think It would sell well as a collector plane because it will help achieve many victories on the virtual battlefield.

[Jackfraser24]

On 2/25/2024 at 12:22 AM, FlyingShark said:

In part Two of the video about the future of the series, they spoke about the Yak 3, La 7, JU88 D5 and, if I remember correctly, another version of the Bf 110.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Could another late eastern front dlc be in development then aside from the Odessa map that would be set for the Yak-3 and La-7? Even if it is just a collector map?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

2 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Could another late eastern front dlc be in development then aside from the Odessa map that would be set for the Yak-3 and La-7? Even if it is just a collector map?

I doubt there would be another one in the works, otherwise they would have talked about it too.

You never know what the future may bring but I'm afraid chances are slim, with a whole new project in the making.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Jackfraser24]

8 hours ago, FlyingShark said:

I doubt there would be another one in the works, otherwise they would have talked about it too.

You never know what the future may bring but I'm afraid chances are slim, with a whole new project in the making.

 

Have a nice day.

 

I guess what we can be expecting by the end of 2025 for Great Battles would be the

• IL-10
• La-7
• Tu-2
• Yak-3
• Bf-110 F-2
• Fw-190 A-9
• Ju-87 D-5

Edited April 22, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[Jackfraser24]

Does anybody want a P-51 D-20?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

1 hour ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Does anybody want a P-51 D-20?

Any plane they ad to the series I'd buy, so, yes.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Enceladus828]

Except for planes that are just subtle variants, can only fly it over like the Rhineland map in the last few months of the War in Europe, don’t really add anything new to the gameplay experience and or aren’t that appealing. There are some planes which have been done to death like the Fw-190 and Bf-109 and any new variants I’d rather see in a Battle of Berlin installment than just standalone. I don’t know why the devs prefer to make the A-9 than the Bf-110F when we can use the latter on the Eastern Front maps (Odessa included) and even on the Normandy map if one wants to simulate Channel Map Ops from 1941-42. 
 

As I’ve said before, if 20 or so planes could be released every 2-3 years then I wouldn’t mind having a P-51D-20, Spitfire Mk. XIV Teardrop Canopy, Bf-109G-6A/S, Ta-152, WACO glider, and La-5F but since resources are greatly limited that means the devs have to be quite selective with the planes they add. The A-20G, Pe-3, Bf-110F, Mosquito Mk. IV or cough…. cough… flyable B-25 would have been better choices than those listed above as they saw a lot of action in many places this game covers and would be more appealing to players.

 

Cheers

[Jackfraser24]

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

Except for planes that are just subtle variants, can only fly it over like the Rhineland map in the last few months of the War in Europe, don’t really add anything new to the gameplay experience and or aren’t that appealing. There are some planes which have been done to death like the Fw-190 and Bf-109 and any new variants I’d rather see in a Battle of Berlin installment than just standalone. I don’t know why the devs prefer to make the A-9 than the Bf-110F when we can use the latter on the Eastern Front maps (Odessa included) and even on the Normandy map if one wants to simulate Channel Map Ops from 1941-42. 
 

As I’ve said before, if 20 or so planes could be released every 2-3 years then I wouldn’t mind having a P-51D-20, Spitfire Mk. XIV Teardrop Canopy, Bf-109G-6A/S, Ta-152, WACO glider, and La-5F but since resources are greatly limited that means the devs have to be quite selective with the planes they add. The A-20G, Pe-3, Bf-110F, Mosquito Mk. IV or cough…. cough… flyable B-25 would have been better choices than those listed above as they saw a lot of action in many places this game covers and would be more appealing to players.

 

Cheers

I think we need planes like the Bf-109 G-10 and Fw-190 A-9 because they were indeed operating on the western front as of 1944-45. 

Edited April 23, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I think we need planes like the Bf-109 G-10 and Fw-190 A-9 because they were indeed operating on the western front as of 1944-45. 

But we already have the G-6A/S, G-14, K-4, A-8, D-9, what would the G-10 and A-9 add that we can't already get with the previous listed ones? With the exception of the Bf-110F, Ju-87B-2 and D-5, and Ju-88P-2, the Luftwaffe is very much covered.

 

At this point, in general, if an aircraft entered service in 1945, only did a handful of sorties in places currently covered, its intended use cannot be fully utilized e.g. due to a lack of heavy bombers, and or doesn't really add anything new then I'd put these at a lower priority.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Enceladus828

[Jackfraser24]

52 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

But we already have the G-6A/S, G-14, K-4, A-8, D-9, what would the G-10 and A-9 add that we can't already get with the previous listed ones?

 

Historical precision and accuracy. That’s what IL-2’s about. Plus the more products they put on the shelves the more money they get, therefore they can spend more money on their next projects. The more money the developers have the more likely IL-2 will be able to keep on bettering itself.

Edited April 24, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[AEthelraedUnraed]

16 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Historical precision and accuracy.

Not more historical precision and accuracy than a flyable B-25 or an AI B-17 would add (in fact, I would argue less precision/accuracy). Since we cannot have both because of limited resources, I'd rather have some more unique aircraft than just another Fw-190 or Bf-109 with minimal differences to the ones we've already got.

 

16 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Plus the more products they put on the shelves the more money they get, therefore they can spend more money on their next projects.

That is a very simplistic (and not very accurate) view of economics. Developing products also costs money. And it occupies valuable artists and engineers that then cannot be put to work on the new project.

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That is a very simplistic (and not very accurate) view of economics. Developing products also costs money. And it occupies valuable artists and engineers that then cannot be put to work on the new project.

Good point. However most IL-2 players would purchase the G-10 and the A-9 simply because it is there to buy. The developers would get their money back rather quickly. 

[Jackfraser24]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Not more historical precision and accuracy than a flyable B-25 or an AI B-17 would add (in fact, I would argue less precision/accuracy).

Bombers do take a long time to make for developers compared to fighter planes, as we all know. The reason why I am arguing that the Bf-109 G-10 and the Fw-190 A-9 should be included to the plane list is because making these two aircraft would be quicker and easier to make than a developing a whole new aircraft that is not already in the game. 

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I'd rather have some more unique aircraft than just another Fw-190 or Bf-109 with minimal differences to the ones we've already got.

Just out of curiosity would you like to see? 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

However most IL-2 players would purchase the G-10 and the A-9 simply because it is there to buy. The developers would get their money back rather quickly. 

Do you have any sources for that? I heavily doubt many - let alone most - IL-2 players buy any and all collector plane simply because they exist. I consider myself a fan of the series yet even I haven't got all collector aircraft. Now, the 109 and 190 have their fans. These will surely buy a G-10 and A-9. However for the rest of us, it's "just another" 109/190. I don't think a great many people would buy them.

 

2 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

The reason why I am arguing that the Bf-109 G-10 and the Fw-190 A-9 should be included to the plane list is because making these two aircraft would be quicker and easier to make than a developing a whole new aircraft that is not already in the game.

That's a good point. Making variations of planes already in the game is certainly faster/cheaper. However even then, I think there are better options than a G-10 or A-9. For example, a Boston Mk.III, Hurricane Mk. I, Ju-87B-1 and G-1, earlier Yak-1, LaGG-3 series 8.... or even earlier 109/190 variants such as the Bf-109E-1 and the Fw-190A-1 or A-4.

 

For people wanting to fly a late-war Messerschmitt or Focke-Wulf, there are already historical options in the G-14, K-4, A-8 and D-9. A G-10 or A-9 adds little in terms of gameplay. On the contrary, each of the aircraft I just mentioned would enable it to be flown (or fought) in different scenarios/campaigns than are currently possible.

 

3 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Just out of curiosity would you like to see? 

Well, I just mentioned a few Apart from these, considering the upcoming Finland map, I'd really love a Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 or Fokker D.XXI. If this were to be combined with a Bf-109E-1 (and perhaps a Hurricane Mk.I), it would enable Phoney War/Fall Gelb scenarios. Also I'd really like to see a B-25/B-26. I'm also pretty excited about the upcoming I-153 Chaika

 

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Do you have any sources for that?

No. I just thought it would be common sense that many would want a new plane simply due to experiencing the novelty of new aircraft. But one thing I do agree with you on is that it would definitely appeal to Bf-109 and Fw-190 fans. I also agree that there is a long line up of 109s and 190s in the game, and that whenever they announce a new variant/sub-variant even I am not that stoked that it is just another version. But still, its another source of income for 1CGS. 

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That's a good point. Making variations of planes already in the game is certainly faster/cheaper. However even then, I think there are better options than a G-10 or A-9. For example, a Boston Mk.III, Hurricane Mk. I, Ju-87B-1 and G-1, earlier Yak-1, LaGG-3 series 8.... or even earlier 109/190 variants such as the Bf-109E-1 and the Fw-190A-1 or A-4.

I think we definitely need more aircraft that are suited for Battle of Moscow. For example the Bf-109 E-4, He-111 H-2, Ju-87 B-2, Mc.200, IL-2 Model 1940, Pe-3bis, LaGG-3 series 4, Yak-1 series 1, to name a few. 

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Well, I just mentioned a few Apart from these, considering the upcoming Finland map, I'd really love a Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 or Fokker D.XXI. If this were to be combined with a Bf-109E-1 (and perhaps a Hurricane Mk.I), it would enable Phoney War/Fall Gelb scenarios. Also I'd really like to see a B-25/B-26. I'm also pretty excited about the upcoming I-153 Chaika

I'm excited about the Ta.152.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

8 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

No. I just thought it would be common sense that many would want a new plane simply due to experiencing the novelty of new aircraft.

There's so many things I'd want in this world, but unfortunately most of them cost money so I have to choose . Giving the fact that "just another" Bf-109 or Fw-190 would provide less novelty than a different collector plane, I'd probably decline buying it and spend my money elsewhere.

 

8 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

But still, its another source of income for 1CGS. 

In the long run, maybe. But if you take into consideration the fact that they'd have to move personnel over from other projects (Korea as well as other collector planes) thereby delaying those, it might well cost money all things considered.

 

7 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I think we definitely need more aircraft that are suited for Battle of Moscow. For example the Bf-109 E-4, He-111 H-2, Ju-87 B-2, Mc.200, IL-2 Model 1940, Pe-3bis, LaGG-3 series 4, Yak-1 series 1, to name a few.

The Bf-109E-7 we've got in the game is basically identical to the E-4 except for added bomb/droptank attachment points so IMO we can do without (or better, get an earlier variant such as the E-1). I agree about the rest though

 

8 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I'm excited about the Ta.152.

I can see how the Ta-152 would appeal to people, given how it's basically the pinnacle of the Fw-190 series and possibly German piston engined fighter aircraft in general. However, it is of relatively little interest to me personally. We don't have a map for it and its final score was a whopping total of 7-ish kills. But yeah, it all comes down to a preference of recreating historical air battles vs. flying historical planes. Nothing wrong with either of those, but in case of the Ta-152 they happen to be incompatible.

[FliegerAD]

There would not be too much space in terms of gameplay for the G-10, given the G-6AS, G-14 and K-4 exist. The case of the Fw 190 A-9 is somewhat different, though.

 

It is the latest and most powerful of the radial engined 190s with 2000 HP, not just faster and better protected than any other A model we got, but more manoeuvrable than our A-8 if it gets the option to remove the outer wing cannons (which it should). While little effort the bubble canopy gives it a new look, too.

 

Compared to the D-9 it fits a different profile, more durable and with more firepower plus better A2G capabilities, and compared to the A-8 it is a straight upgrade.

 

 

Anyway, it is reasonable assumption that 109s and 190s sell well. The G-6AS already was not terribly 'necessary' yet people seem to like it. People ask for the G-10 all the time. With how little effort it would actually take to create a G-10 or A-9 it is probably financially viable.

 

PS ...moreso than most planes I want, mind you. Even the Pe-3 I want would have a hard time despite not requiring much in terms of modelling.

[Jackfraser24]

6 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

There would not be too much space in terms of gameplay for the G-10, given the G-6AS, G-14 and K-4 exist. The case of the Fw 190 A-9 is somewhat different, though.

Still though, it would help make pilot career mode more accurate and give us another plane to fly around and dogfight in. Also, according to Wikipedia about 2,600 were built. 

[Jackfraser24]

8 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

It is the latest and most powerful of the radial engined 190s with 2000 HP, not just faster and better protected than any other A model we got, but more manoeuvrable than our A-8 if it gets the option to remove the outer wing cannons (which it should). While little effort the bubble canopy gives it a new look, too.

 

Compared to the D-9 it fits a different profile, more durable and with more firepower plus better A2G capabilities, and compared to the A-8 it is a straight upgrade.

Thanks for agreeing with me on the A-9. I think we need an A-4 as well though for Kuban, and any possible future eastern front maps done by 1CGS or third party developers like Kursk, Crimea or the Baltics, to name a few. 

8 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

Anyway, it is reasonable assumption that 109s and 190s sell well. The G-6AS already was not terribly 'necessary' yet people seem to like it. People ask for the G-10 all the time. With how little effort it would actually take to create a G-10 or A-9 it is probably financially viable.

Personally I think that the Bf-109 G-10 and Fw-190 A-9 will come to Great Battles. Reason being they’d be simple enough to make and they were significant variants of their families. The G-10 was numerically significant and the Fw-190 A-9 marked the end of an era for the Fw-190A variant (well that and the end of the war too).

Edited April 26, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[Jackfraser24]

8 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

PS ...moreso than most planes I want, mind you. Even the Pe-3 I want would have a hard time despite not requiring much in terms of modelling.

Would you like to see the A-20G in Great Battles? I think this sim needs it because in real life they were used in Europe between 1944-45 by the Americans. I know that the A-20B was used in Europe at that time too, but only seeing the A-20B variant in AQMB and in career mode makes the USAAF and the RAF look like they were using outdated equipment when in fact they were not. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

14 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

Anyway, it is reasonable assumption that 109s and 190s sell well. The G-6AS already was not terribly 'necessary' yet people seem to like it. People ask for the G-10 all the time. With how little effort it would actually take to create a G-10 or A-9 it is probably financially viable.

I'm not sure. I remember the reaction being rather mixed instead of people universally liking it. As they are quite legendary planes, the 109 and 190 have a large and dedicated fanbase. These "usual suspects" were rather enthusiastic about the G-6AS, yes, but I remember most others being kinda disappointed about another 109. Anyway, we don't have any sales data. Only 1CGS knows how well it sold. If it sold well enough, we might see another 109 or 190. If it didn't, then probably not.

 

I agree with you that it would probably make a profit anyhow on the long run, but then again, would that profit be enough to warrant moving artists and engineers away from their main project Korea, or even other collector aircraft?

 

7 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Still though, it would help make pilot career mode more accurate and give us another plane to fly around and dogfight in. Also, according to Wikipedia about 2,600 were built. 

I disagree about the "more accurate" part. It would add options (when flying German) and variety (when flying Allied - although I doubt you have the time in a dogfight and come close enough to identify the exact subtype of 109 you are fighting). But based on production numbers, there were around 2.5 times as many G-14s and K-4s than G-10s in use. I would argue that given the dismal state of the Luftwaffe in late 1944-early 1945, it's entirely plausible (i.e. "accurate") to only encounter G-14s and K-4s. Likewise, a G-10 doesn't add any different roles or mission types that would not have been flown by the other types so there's no "accuracy" to be gained there either.

 

5 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Would you like to see the A-20G in Great Battles? I think this sim needs it because in real life they were used in Europe between 1944-45 by the Americans. I know that the A-20B was used in Europe at that time too, but only seeing the A-20B variant in AQMB and in career mode makes the USAAF and the RAF look like they were using outdated equipment when in fact they were not. 

I think the A-20G would be an excellent choice for a collector aircraft. I don't think the A-20B was ever used much in Western Europe at all? From what I can find, it was only used by a single reconnaissance squadron in the ETO (besides its widespread use in the VVS of course). The A-20B is similar to the DB-7A (Havoc II) that the RAF did use however, albeit in a nightfighting role which is practically nonexistent in the game. So especially when talking about accuracy, we would definitely need another variant of the A-20. The G is a very good candidate, or perhaps a Boston III to fly 1942-1943 missions.

[Jackfraser24]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I think the A-20G would be an excellent choice for a collector aircraft. I don't think the A-20B was ever used much in Western Europe at all? From what I can find, it was only used by a single reconnaissance squadron in the ETO (besides its widespread use in the VVS of course). The A-20B is similar to the DB-7A (Havoc II) that the RAF did use however, albeit in a nightfighting role which is practically nonexistent in the game. So especially when talking about accuracy, we would definitely need another variant of the A-20. The G is a very good candidate, or perhaps a Boston III to fly 1942-1943 missions.

Would you like to see the IL-4 in Great Battles? I believe they were in the Kuban region, so it would be good for pilot career mode. They would also be handy to have in multiplayer because of their payload of 2,000 kgs of bombs, its range, and their ability to take a heap of punishment from enemy fire. And if in the future eastern front battle maps were made like Smolensk, Crimea or Kursk/Kharkov (to name a few), they would be useful there. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 minute ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Would you like to see the IL-4 in Great Battles? I believe they were in the Kuban region, so it would be good for pilot career mode. They would also be handy to have in multiplayer because of their payload of 2,000 kgs of bombs, its range, and their ability to take a heap of punishment from enemy fire. And if in the future eastern front battle maps were made like Smolensk, Crimea or Kursk/Kharkov (to name a few), they would be useful there. 

Absolutely! Personally, I care less about its payload as I don't play multiplayer. But if I'm not mistaken, it was widely used throughout the war. Besides the already existing maps, there's at least a Finland/Leningrad map as well as an Odessa map coming up, and for both it would be of real added value.

 

To some extent, the same goes for the SB2 and DB-3 bombers, although I agree that the IL-4 would probably be the better choice.

 

On another note, I would really like the oversized/underpowered TB-3 bomber. It was used for much longer than it should have been, with some aircraft apparently still being active in 1945.

[Jackfraser24]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Absolutely! Personally, I care less about its payload as I don't play multiplayer. But if I'm not mistaken, it was widely used throughout the war. Besides the already existing maps, there's at least a Finland/Leningrad map as well as an Odessa map coming up, and for both it would be of real added value.

 

To some extent, the same goes for the SB2 and DB-3 bombers, although I agree that the IL-4 would probably be the better choice.

 

On another note, I would really like the oversized/underpowered TB-3 bomber. It was used for much longer than it should have been, with some aircraft apparently still being active in 1945.

What about having more P-40sin the game? I think we need the Tomahawk Mk.IIa & b for Moscow and Stalingrad for one. I also think we need the P-40 K, M and N as well for the VVS. They would have a place in career mode for the Stalingrad, Kuban and the Finnish map. I know that the P-40 was inferior to contemporary Axis planes like the Bf-109, Fw-190 and A6M Zero, but I also know that it could be just as good as it's adversaries in the right hands.