We Need Bomber Modules

[DefaultFace]

And how on earth do you know what makes financial sense for ED? I doubt you have any more of an Idea than anyone else here.

 

Playable Attack and Bomber aircraft would certainly help flesh out the experience that is DCS WWII atm. While I don't personally dislike the dogfight servers we have atm, many people do and want something more campaign/scenario like. I can't blame them for it as it would definitely be tons of fun to have missions like that. AI is usually by nature lacking in the I part. Letting humans do the striking/ground attack roles makes stuff more interesting and challenging for everyone. If you don't want to fly anything but fighters then thats fine, but assuming its disinteresting or pointless because of that is silly. I don't want to fly bombers either. Hell I don't think I'd get in anything bigger than a Bf 110. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like attacking a player controlled B-17 formation.

 

Also by the argument that 'it takes along time to develop' you could have most stuff in DCS not developed... Should ED quit working on the P-47 because we already have Fighter airplanes? It adds nothing new. Certainly less than a Bomber/Striker would.

 

Edit: Saying fighters only role is dealing with bombers mostly just reminds me of comments about Bomber Generals who don't understand how Fighters work/can be utilised and don't understand how Airpower works. However one of a Fighters many roles certainly does have alot to do with Bombers. If you had read this thread you would have seen how people tend to treat AI bombers that wander around at 25000 ft. Pretty much they are ignored...

Edited February 1, 2017 by DefaultFace

[exray]

A player controlled B17 formation is hugely impractical for a couple of reasons.

 

First you've got development time and cost for that module which would have to be quite a bit more than a single seater. If you charge the same price as other modules, it's a losing proposition. If you charge more, you might price some potential buyers out of it, especially those who aren't really interested in it.

 

Then you've got the technical aspect. Are you going to have multicrew for each position or lets say just pilot/bombardier/gunners? Just getting multicrew for that many would seem to be a hurdle, but assuming you did, you've just introduced a major stressor in terms of player count/netcode and what have you. How many B17s to a formation? Are you really going to have 60+ players in a bunch of B17's? I don't know what server is going to do that.

 

So lets forget multi-crew, and say it's just one person per bomber. You can fly the plane, or drop the bombs, or shoot from a turret. While you're doing that, an AI is doing the rest. Is that really so different than just a pure AI bomber? It doesn't seem like that to me.

 

Please ED, add glorious WWII ground attack / strike aircraft to help flesh out the WWII experience but keep them small 1/2 seaters, not large B17/B25/Lancaster etc.

[Krupi]

I don't expect ED to invest in something like a B-17 they have a lot already planned, however the third-party definitely could and if VEAO make a Lancaster I personally think it would sell quite well.

[Silver_Dragon]

Build or not bombers has out of discussion, Yo-Yo plans multi-crew bombers on a future. And the "1/2 seaters" only has a oversimplification.

 

- Helos require 2 or more multi-crews crews

- If ground and naval modules coming on a future (talk by wags), you require more multi-crew crews.

- Bombers has necessary to all ww2, cold war, actual scenery.

 

3rd parties require the 2 and more multicrew technology to build some modules. If not, that is only a "quake / WT" simulator

[DefaultFace]

1-2 players in a B-17 and a formation of 4 or 5 aircraft is easily achievable. No one said we need to have combat boxes of 80000000 aircraft flying around. And maybe it isn't that different diving on a player B-17 flying straight and level. But it is different for the P-51s flying escort. It is different for the guys flying the bomber. I'm sure there are more than enough people who would enjoy it that you wouldn't have any problem finding squads to fly them regularly.

 

As far as pricing people out I can't Imagine a B-17 is more complex to develop than an F/A-18 or any number of jets that have been developed. Secondly even if it was you are just guessing as to how ED would price and/or develop a module. You have no Idea what is and isn't realistic here, nor does anyone else apart from ED.

[SoW Reddog]

Having organised the Storm of War server for IL2 Cliffs of Dover for 2 years and run dynamic, 24/7 multisquad campaigns, I know for a fact that there are players who like nothing more than to fly a bomber to a difficult target in the face of stiff, organised opposition. (OK, they like being escorted too).

 

The lack of any light, medium or heavy bomber modules in DCS is a significant flaw IMO if ED are serious about making a coherent and credible WW2 Environment and not just a warbird dogfight simulator.

 

The players I mention above are, in the main, not interested in DCS because of the lack of these bombers.

 

I know that there are AI mods out there for some WW2 bombers, but haven't checked them out. If they're like the rest of the AI within DCS, then the accuracy/immersion of the DM and FM they use also calls into the question of exactly what ED are aiming for.

[Talisman_VR]

Having organised the Storm of War server for IL2 Cliffs of Dover for 2 years and run dynamic, 24/7 multisquad campaigns, I know for a fact that there are players who like nothing more than to fly a bomber to a difficult target in the face of stiff, organised opposition. (OK, they like being escorted too).

 

The lack of any light, medium or heavy bomber modules in DCS is a significant flaw IMO if ED are serious about making a coherent and credible WW2 Environment and not just a warbird dogfight simulator.

 

The players I mention above are, in the main, not interested in DCS because of the lack of these bombers.

 

I know that there are AI mods out there for some WW2 bombers, but haven't checked them out. If they're like the rest of the AI within DCS, then the accuracy/immersion of the DM and FM they use also calls into the question of exactly what ED are aiming for.

 

A reasonable point IMHO regarding lack of bomber modules for a WW2 environment.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Art-J]

Obviously there are people who love and specialize in flying bombers online, since first Warbirds, through Il-2FB/PF, till CloD. But they've always been a minority, even on non-airquake servers. It also obviously takes more resources and funds to build and code these planes, while I don't really think there are enough customers willing to go above 60$ pricetag, which is already quite high in itself nowadays for non-US-based players.

 

I'd like to fly some medium WWII DCS bomber myself, being hopeless in fighter combat and preferring ground pounding, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

@RedDog - these bomber mods share the same FM and DM issues as other AI warbirds, even more noticeable when it's difficult to make them fly in a somewhat realistic manner or attack ground targets. But with the game and mission editor code never intended for that kind of flying, there's only so much modders can do for the time being. We'll have to wait and see what improvements are planned with upcoming AI B-17.

[DieHard]

This is silly. You need player bombers because the OP is too snobby to shoot down AI? Why do you need a player to fly straight and level when you shoot them down when an AI can do that just as well? Come on get real.

 

Player bombers won't work without multicrew and if they can't manage that for the Huey, what makes you think they'll pull off anything with more crew slots?

 

Please, it takes years to get a plane into DCS this would really be a huge waste.

 

I would buy a B-17 with the ability to fly it and also man any gunner station like Aces High II used to do it in a minute, even for a $100.

 

But we would have to start way back at some air field in order to get to altitude.

 

Probably a medium altitude, smaller bomber would be more practical.

 

Guys, I just turned 65, if lucky, maybe I have 15 good years left. Don't wait too long developing the WWII bombers...

 

Reconsidering, an A.I. bomber would be just fine.

[Solty]

I think that ED could easily go for something like B25 or Ju88.

 

I also think we need twin engine fighters and attackers. Such as Me410, A20 or Mosquito.

IMHO they have to make some dedicated ground pounders. Without them, the game is going to remain an unbalanced air-quake.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Solty

[NeilWillis]

Can't fight the European theatre of WW2 without a full inventory of bombers. Totally agree, we need mediums and heavies. It looks like there are a few AI models in the works, and the B-17 looks amazingly good.

 

Flyable modules - not so sure at the moment, but at least one each of a medium and a heavy are high on my wish list. Mossie, and B-17 I hope, with a Marauder/Boston/Mitchell and definitely a Lancaster close on their coat tails.

[Tomsk]

The lack of any light, medium or heavy bomber modules in DCS is a significant flaw IMO if ED are serious about making a coherent and credible WW2 Environment and not just a warbird dogfight simulator.

 

+1

[TheJay15]

This is why I think it was a bad idea to pick 1944 France as the theater. With the current DCS engine there is just no way to accuratley depict the conflict. They can lovingly craft every side walk and street light in france into their map but none of it matters if they dont have any bombers or even attackers for that matter.

[Rangi]

This is why I think it was a bad idea to pick 1944 France as the theater. With the current DCS engine there is just no way to accuratley depict the conflict. They can lovingly craft every side walk and street light in france into their map but none of it matters if they dont have any bombers or even attackers for that matter.

 

So we should wait until everything is simulated before they release anything? I prefer to have something to play with while we wait for all the elements to be modelled and it looks like we will get at least one big bomber with Normandy release. Hopefully more will follow.

[dannyq8]

Having organised the Storm of War server for IL2 Cliffs of Dover for 2 years and run dynamic, 24/7 multisquad campaigns, I know for a fact that there are players who like nothing more than to fly a bomber to a difficult target in the face of stiff, organised opposition. (OK, they like being escorted too).

 

The lack of any light, medium or heavy bomber modules in DCS is a significant flaw IMO if ED are serious about making a coherent and credible WW2 Environment and not just a warbird dogfight simulator.

 

The players I mention above are, in the main, not interested in DCS because of the lack of these bombers.

 

I know that there are AI mods out there for some WW2 bombers, but haven't checked them out. If they're like the rest of the AI within DCS, then the accuracy/immersion of the DM and FM they use also calls into the question of exactly what ED are aiming for.

 

+1

 

Great post

[DieHard]

Having organised the Storm of War server for IL2 Cliffs of Dover for 2 years and run dynamic, 24/7 multisquad campaigns, I know for a fact that there are players who like nothing more than to fly a bomber to a difficult target in the face of stiff, organised opposition. (OK, they like being escorted too).

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~snipped~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

I am one of those guys.

 

In Aces High II, a typical big bomber to altitude, to target and back, and land, sometimes damaged, takes half a day real time!

[Kurfürst]

IMHO a light bomber along the lines of the Mossie XVI or VI, Me 410 or an A-20 would be the ideal compromise for most people. The best of both worlds that neither forces to player to just fly target to others, but still possess some marginal dogfighting capability, bomb sight etc, and could make some bomber missions that are fun for everyone.

[Pikey]

I'm sure ED would like nothing more than to litter the floor with millions of real to world high fidelity modules. They are clearly holding back because, you know, it's fun to annoy people!