PDA

View Full Version : Future updates need to include MORE BOMBERS!



the_captain77
03-14-2005, 11:31 AM
I just wanted to say that this game is excellent from a CFS stand-point.. but i thing what this games needs is MORE heavy bombers on either side (i'am not talking about the mosquito or any 2 engine medium bombers..)

I think the game needs the following..

- B-17 (your choice of make)
- B-29
- Lancaster Bomber
- Lincoln Bomber
- Betty Bomber
- Ike(i don't think the Japanees had a 4 eng, but more are needed!)

The game needs balance, and i think by putting in a wider variety of bombers (with 3d cockpits as well as full bombsight capability) would greatly increase interest..

3.JG51_BigBear
03-14-2005, 11:47 AM
There seems to be at most one or two more addons left to this game and the only bombers we're looking to get are the Betty and Ju-88. There is a Pe-2 in the works for a Russian only addon but rumours abound that it may find its way into other markets. Overall though the prospect for new bombers seems weak.

chris455
03-14-2005, 12:08 PM
That's too bad, BigBear. I was really hoping for some IJAAF bombers, without which meaningful missions in New Guinea and other areas will be lacking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

plumps_
03-14-2005, 12:17 PM
If the forum search would work you might find Oleg's post in his Ready Room where he explains why it's so much more difficult to model bombers rather than fighters. It was a sticky thread in ORR because many people were asking for more bombers without considering the implications.

goshikisen
03-14-2005, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
There is a Pe-2 in the works for a Russian only addon but rumours abound that it may find its way into other markets. Overall though the prospect for new bombers seems weak. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does anyone know why the Pe2 would be for the Russian market only? You'd think international sales would be one heck of a tasty gravy for 1C.

3.JG51_BigBear
03-14-2005, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
There is a Pe-2 in the works for a Russian only addon but rumours abound that it may find its way into other markets. Overall though the prospect for new bombers seems weak. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does anyone know why the Pe2 would be for the Russian market only? You'd think international sales would be one heck of a tasty gravy for 1C. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know when it will be released but Oleg said that these small addons wouldn't make much money outside the Russian market. He did drop hints that we might get our hands on some of the content, especially maps, after a Russian "beta test."

I forgot to put in my list the Mossie and possibly the Do-335 which was originally built as a bomber (this one seems tenuous at best). There were screenshots of a B-29 interior but in its original form it wasn't up to specs and roumors that its still being worked on seems sketchy. You never know.

Da_Godfatha
03-14-2005, 01:15 PM
Mr. Maddox`s reply about the bombers is real interesting. There has also been a comment by a cockpit modeler (I forget his name, but it had to do with the Hawk 75/P-36 pit) that I find typical of the whole pee-counter mentality here. His said to the fact that the hold up was because he did not know the color of a knob or button inside the cockpit!!!

Now, I for one do NOT give a hoot about if the knob is blue or red or how many rivets the 109 has on it`s cowling! (Does the over-kill about ammo belts for the MG151 come to mind?)

Yes, they do have a high standard, but IMHO, over doing it is really messing up the game. Knob color or rivets on the cowling, it is just a game! Please give us at least one heavy per side! (and the Hawk 75/p-36 flyable!)

No601_prangster
03-14-2005, 01:34 PM
Da_Godfatha

The trouble with producing bombers is that people do give a hoot. Look at what hapened with the Beaufighter. First people started threads saying give us bombers we don't care if they don't include gunner positions. Then the beau is released without a player manned navigators position and there have been a dozen thread saying give us a rear gunner position for the Beau. Seriously Oleg can't win either way.

the_captain77
03-14-2005, 01:46 PM
I understand that it's not easy to make the model, the 3d cockpit, and all positions.. but i thought that this would have been considered a smart move... I guess i would say that myself personally, wouldn't mind if a blinking light on the dash was missing.. I prefer the gameplay and love the game, but more heavy bombers are needed to even out the game..

Da_Godfatha
03-14-2005, 01:49 PM
Prangster m8, I do give a hoot about bombers!! It is just that when I hear about button colors I have to shake my head. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
About the Beau, you are right. But the posters should maybe open a HISTORY book first. Not all Beau marks or Squadrons used the rear gunner. It had a very limited field of fire.
To add a little gas the fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif the Mk.21 Beau had a autopilot, (that is the bump before the cockpit BTW).

I think the whole onwhine, (to a lesser part) offwhine game would vastly improve with the adding of MORE bombers......and a flyable Hawk75/P-36!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SaQSoN
03-14-2005, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> His said to the fact that the hold up was because he did not know the color of a knob or button inside the cockpit!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Complete bullsht. When you recall the name of this guy, tell him, he could find a better excuse for the lack of williness or skill to complete what he started. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

VW-IceFire
03-14-2005, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by the_captain77:
I just wanted to say that this game is excellent from a CFS stand-point.. but i thing what this games needs is MORE heavy bombers on either side (i'am not talking about the mosquito or any 2 engine medium bombers..)

I think the game needs the following..

- B-17 (your choice of make)
- B-29
- Lancaster Bomber
- Lincoln Bomber
- Betty Bomber
- Ike(i don't think the Japanees had a 4 eng, but more are needed!)

The game needs balance, and i think by putting in a wider variety of bombers (with 3d cockpits as well as full bombsight capability) would greatly increase interest.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Coming soon are the Betty, Mosquito Fighter-Bomber variant, Ju-88, and maybe the Pe-2. We've already got the A-20, B-25, He-111, and Beaufighter. Not a bad mix.

WTE_Grendal
03-14-2005, 03:55 PM
Gee, and I wonder why the game is called Pacific "FIGHTERS"!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Philipscdrw
03-14-2005, 04:20 PM
The game is called "Il-2 Sturmovik", and it's about the ground-attack warfare on the Eastern Front. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Why has no-one mentioned the TB-3? That's a truely heavy bomber. Sorry, what was that you just said? You mean you never fly it, because it's slow and boring and always gets shot down easily, you say? It's a heavy bomber, that's what they do! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I like flying bombers on online maps, because I'm no good at hitting fighters, but any aircraft can BnZ a tank...

SuperFudd
03-14-2005, 04:44 PM
I scrolled back to the top and it says Pacific Fighters.
Did the Japs use Ju-88s and He-111s?
I think not.
I suppose the Russians may have used Pe-2s against the Japs.

ImpStarDuece
03-14-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
To add a little gas the fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif the Mk.21 Beau had a autopilot, (that is the bump before the cockpit BTW).

I think the whole onwhine, (to a lesser part) offwhine game would vastly improve with the adding of MORE bombers......and a flyable Hawk75/P-36!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just might put a little flame ******ant out; The Mk.21 was designed for an autopilot but never flew with it operationally during the war.

AS for bombers. Multi engine/multi crew bombers are a royal pain in the aspadistra to research/model and implement in the game. A bomber with 4 or 5 crew stations takes (you guessed it) 4 or 5 times longer to implement than a fighter with a single cockpit.

I would love bombers but I don't feel that quads are applicable for the sim we have; there is insufficent map size for realistic strategic bombing and the game is geared towards low level ground attack and dogfighting. Its a tactical sim, not a strategic sim.

Personally I would like the Betty and maybe a IJAAF bomber in the game, to match the B-25 and the A-20. More twins would be preferable to a quad for me. If we could have a Ju-88 (and a few variants), a Pe-2, a Mosquito and a BEtty to go with our existing bombers they would complement the game nicely. 4 engined bombers would be a little out of place here, a la the TB3

norman888
03-14-2005, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:


AS for bombers. Multi engine/multi crew bombers are a royal pain in the aspadistra to research/model and implement in the game. A bomber with 4 or 5 crew stations takes (you guessed it) 4 or 5 times longer to implement than a fighter with a single cockpit.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really hope BOB does not get TOO advanced, so that we can eventually have flyable B-17's and B-24's etc. without all the excuses ie. lack of pics of the navigators station or no plans of the port cockpit wall or it will take the same time as 5 fighters.

That argument is really getting old to me!!

Sharkey888
03-14-2005, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:

Does anyone know why the Pe2 would be for the Russian market only? You'd think international sales would be one heck of a tasty gravy for 1C. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't I hear rumors that UBI is getting out of flight sims??!!

3.JG51_BigBear
03-14-2005, 05:52 PM
I think another problem with adding heavy bombers to this sim is the size of the maps. Il2 was meant to be a tactical ground attack game. The maps are too small and the high altitude modeling too incomplete to make high altitude bombers very useful in this sim. Light twin engine bombers and single engined fighter bombers make a lot more sense.

Philipscdrw
03-14-2005, 06:31 PM
By the way, who does fly the TB3 with any regularity?

I like the 400kph cruise Il-2 - the TB3 can manage about 150-200kph. Missions take longer!

3.JG51_BigBear
03-14-2005, 06:53 PM
That TB3 is one vicious SOB. I used to fly on the European Online war during its beta period. One night three of us went up in 109E models against a TB-3. We made a guess as to its likely target and circled the town at about 5000M. When we saw that lumbering piece of **** come into site we were fighting amongst each other as to who would get the first crack at the thing because we were sure it would only take one pass to knock it out of the sky.

We pulled out in front of the Tb3 and made frontal attacks. After the first pass the prop governor on our third plane was hit and the engine ran away. The pilot had to bail out after his engine siezed. My wing had a hole in it the size of a VW beatle and our leader's plane had had its throttle shot away.

On the second pass my other wing took a hit and I had so little control of the plane I had to bail and my leader's pilot was killed. The TB3 was belching fire from two engines and was losing oil and gas from the other two, was missing an elevator, had no rudder, and was missing a landing gear. After watching the track I saw that all but two of its crew was dead but that flying **** box managed to take out three top of the line German fighters before it went down. It was unreal.

jarink
03-14-2005, 08:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Coming soon are the Betty, Mosquito Fighter-Bomber variant, Ju-88, and maybe the Pe-2. We've already got the A-20, B-25, He-111, and Beaufighter. Not a bad mix. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really, really hope we can get a night-fighter variant of the Ju-88! (Especially if the oblique cannon were included...)

JunkoIfurita
03-14-2005, 09:33 PM
Yeah, the TB3 looks like paper, but it's a monster allright.

And it can put out so much bloody defensive fire from above or directly behind that you aren't gonna get two passes if you try from the 6.

In the 109s, it was straight vertical attacks that were the only thing that had a lot of success. Invert above, drop in firing, go below, rinse and repeat.

Still took a bloody long time in an F4 to drop one.

----

Charlie901
03-14-2005, 11:15 PM
I don't think the IL2 game engine (no pun intended) is able to model four engine flyable A/C. That's why you'll never see any real heavies until BoB.

llandaff
03-15-2005, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yeah, the TB3 looks like paper, but it's a monster allright. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TB3 was fully metal construction. Huge slow moving behemoth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
03-15-2005, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
I don't think the IL2 game engine (no pun intended) is able to model four engine flyable A/C. That's why you'll never see any real heavies until BoB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is already one in game. TB3

Scharnhorst1943
03-15-2005, 11:28 PM
granted, but it has open cockpits. There aren't any glassware or fancy crew compartments like the B25, He111, G4M (when we get it).