Upcoming WW2 Asset Planes?

[dresoccer4]

Curious if there is a list of upcoming planes in the WW2 asset pack? Just the b-17 and ju-88 seems like not enough for missions so was seeing if there were more on the way. Thanks@!

[Ercoupe]

Just out of curiosity, what can't you do, mission wise, with those two airplanes? Mission makers and even campaign creators haven't been having any problems.

[JimBo*]

13 hours ago, Ercoupe said:

Just out of curiosity, what can't you do, mission wise, with those two airplanes? Mission makers and even campaign creators haven't been having any problems.

well for one, if your allied and you get the message intercept german bombers... and always knowing its a Ju-88. 

sorta hard to create a mission for I-16 with the AI plane set or find a server that includes it. some Ju-87 would be nice along with some early 109s.

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by JimBo*

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, JimBo* said:

well for one, if your allied and you get the message intercept german bombers... and always knowing its a Ju-88. 

sorta hard to create a mission for I-16 with the AI plane set or find a server that includes it. some Ju-87 would be nice along with some early 109s.

 

 

 

With how much Nick likes the Hellcat, I'm surprised we haven't heard anything on aircraft like the Betty, which saw quite a bit of action in the Pacific. It would also be nice to have the He111, Ju53, the C-47, B-25, and many, many more aircraft. But then again who knows, the WW2 team was pretty hard at work on the Mosquito, so maybe they'll release some new toys along side it.

[dresoccer4]

4 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

With how much Nick likes the Hellcat, I'm surprised we haven't heard anything on aircraft like the Betty, which saw quite a bit of action in the Pacific. It would also be nice to have the He111, Ju53, the C-47, B-25, and many, many more aircraft. But then again who knows, the WW2 team was pretty hard at work on the Mosquito, so maybe they'll release some new toys along side it.

 

yeah thats what i was just seeing if ED has mentioned anywhere what if any upcoming non-flyable WW2 assets would be more bombers and what type to give a little variety to the missions 

[StevanJ]

20 hours ago, Ercoupe said:

Just out of curiosity, what can't you do, mission wise, with those two airplanes? Mission makers and even campaign creators haven't been having any problems.

Ah yes
Mission 1, Shoot down Ju88..
Mission 2, Escort B17..
Mission 3 Pick either mission 1 or 2 and change the enemy fighters and the position in which that they attack player..
Mission 4 Repeat Mission 3 recurring..
Throw in a random 'ground attack mission' for good cause.

The problems with the limited Assets, are becoming much more worse now were starting to see new modules come through.
See helicopters-
This is echoed in the AI and the way they react to an attack.

What cant we do?
An incredibly huge amount compared to the things we want to do.

Its not that we struggle with mission building its that we lack the dexterity to create 'realistic' scenarios.
Which in turn is another argument towards the asset 'damage model', which limits the scenarios we build.

Id love to see a higher selection of infantry (with skins for each country), a higher selection of planes (including civilian planes 'to make scenarios historically accurate'), a higher selection of effects with an improved delivery system (see the new smoke effect vs the old one), and a vast selection of boats, buildings and bombers so that we can add variety to the mission.

There are quite alot of things we can do, but the optimisation towards the assets, and the way they work, means we often have to use statics. And i personally hate using them, as they cant be altered in a mission.
With Dynamic assets, we can have them activated late from a random flag value generator- which means each time you jump into a mission, if feels like youre playing something fresh.
You could be on an 'escort mission', but each time it could be a different airplane. You could have an intercept mission and each time fight something new.
You can even build a totally unique experience from the very airfield you takeoff from.
But right now, youve one choice for intercepting each country and its boring.
And thats the current problem with the Asset Pack, its gone a bit stale, and isnt updated often enough.
I appreciate new assets are always on the way. But then i just wish they'd complete it or tell us whats planned so we can understand wether or not to abandon it.
As so far, weve an asset pack thats paid for, where the assets arent being released as quickly as ED are releasing free modern ground Assets for the FA18 etc, and i think thats a limitation in itself.

[Callsign112]

On 8/16/2021 at 12:38 PM, StevanJ said:

Ah yes
Mission 1, Shoot down Ju88..
Mission 2, Escort B17..
Mission 3 Pick either mission 1 or 2 and change the enemy fighters and the position in which that they attack player..
Mission 4 Repeat Mission 3 recurring..
Throw in a random 'ground attack mission' for good cause.

The problems with the limited Assets, are becoming much more worse now were starting to see new modules come through.
See helicopters-
This is echoed in the AI and the way they react to an attack.

What cant we do?
An incredibly huge amount compared to the things we want to do.

Its not that we struggle with mission building its that we lack the dexterity to create 'realistic' scenarios.
Which in turn is another argument towards the asset 'damage model', which limits the scenarios we build.

Id love to see a higher selection of infantry (with skins for each country), a higher selection of planes (including civilian planes 'to make scenarios historically accurate'), a higher selection of effects with an improved delivery system (see the new smoke effect vs the old one), and a vast selection of boats, buildings and bombers so that we can add variety to the mission.

There are quite alot of things we can do, but the optimisation towards the assets, and the way they work, means we often have to use statics. And i personally hate using them, as they cant be altered in a mission.
With Dynamic assets, we can have them activated late from a random flag value generator- which means each time you jump into a mission, if feels like youre playing something fresh.
You could be on an 'escort mission', but each time it could be a different airplane. You could have an intercept mission and each time fight something new.
You can even build a totally unique experience from the very airfield you takeoff from.
But right now, youve one choice for intercepting each country and its boring.
And thats the current problem with the Asset Pack, its gone a bit stale, and isnt updated often enough.
I appreciate new assets are always on the way. But then i just wish they'd complete it or tell us whats planned so we can understand wether or not to abandon it.
As so far, weve an asset pack thats paid for, where the assets arent being released as quickly as ED are releasing free modern ground Assets for the FA18 etc, and i think thats a limitation in itself.

+1

[rkk01]

On 8/15/2021 at 8:29 PM, Ercoupe said:

Just out of curiosity, what can't you do, mission wise, with those two airplanes? Mission makers and even campaign creators haven't been having any problems.

 

It’s difficult to simulate night time bombing raids with the B-17…

 

Yes, the Fortress works as a stand in for the RAF 4-engined bombers, but it is massively over-gunned compared to a Lancaster, for example.  The ball turret also makes a typical NF approach very dangerous

[DD_Fenrir]

I find this argument somewhat redundant; after all, as a WW2 fighter pilot you had a fairly limited job dob description any way:

 

1. Interception/Combat Air Patrol

2. Bomber/Strike Escort

3. Ground attack

 

Ultimately the circumstances are going to be the major variables: location, numbers engaged, weather, time of day and altitude.

 

The type engaged has some tactical bearing I grant you, but is engaging, say, a Do-217 (a medium altitude twin engine bomber) really going to feel that different to engaging a Ju-88 (a medium altitude twin engine bomber).

 

And why have we forgotten the A-20?

 

B-17s should be bombing from 20,000ft+, whereas the A-20s tended to bomb in the 10,000-18,000ft range. This can change the tactical environment significantly; for example the Fw 190A-8 will perform far better at typical A-20 operational altitudes than at those used for the B-17 so will be a more dangerous opponent to the escort of a medium bomber raid than it would to those protecting B-17s.

 

Or you can get low and dirty and provide cover to some P-47s interdicting targets in France, dodging the flak with them.

 

The imminent arrival of the Mosquito will provide further opportunities to provide low level escort missions.

 

It boils down to this: real WW2 fighter pilot mission were repetitive; look through the Operational Record Books of any fighter squadron and you will see the same mission type again and again. For example, 132 Squadron of the RAF, equipped with Spitfire IXs, their ORBs throughout the winter of 1943 to D-Day are a veritable litany of "rendezvous with 76 x B-26 mid channel @ 12,000ft"; what changed was the time of day, the weather, and the target and also whether they even saw any enemy activity. On many of these shows not even the flak bothered, and to even see an enemy aircraft - let alone engage it - was something of a rarity.

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[StevanJ]

3 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

I find this argument somewhat redundant; after all, as a WW2 fighter pilot you had a fairly limited job dob description any way:

 

1. Interception/Combat Air Patrol

2. Bomber/Strike Escort

3. Ground attack

 

Ultimately the circumstances are going to be the major variables: location, numbers engaged, weather, time of day and altitude.

 

The type engaged has some tactical bearing I grant you, but is engaging, say, a Do-217 (a medium altitude twin engine bomber) really going to feel that different to engaging a Ju-88 (a medium altitude twin engine bomber).

 

And why have we forgotten the A-20?

 

B-17s should be bombing from 20,000ft+, whereas the A-20s tended to bomb in the 10,000-18,000ft range. This can change the tactical environment significantly; for example the Fw 190A-8 will perform far better at typical A-20 operational altitudes than at those used for the B-17 so will be a more dangerous opponent to the escort of a medium bomber raid than it would to those protecting B-17s.

 

Or you can get low and dirty and provide cover to some P-47s interdicting targets in France, dodging the flak with them.

 

The imminent arrival of the Mosquito will provide further opportunities to provide low level escort missions.

 

It boils down to this: real WW2 fighter pilot mission were repetitive; look through the Operational Record Books of any fighter squadron and you will see the same mission type again and again. For example, 132 Squadron of the RAF, equipped with Spitfire IXs, their ORBs throughout the winter of 1943 to D-Day are a veritable litany of "rendezvous with 76 x B-26 mid channel @ 12,000ft"; what changed was the time of day, the weather, and the target and also whether they even saw any enemy activity. On many of these shows not even the flak bothered, and to even see an enemy aircraft - let alone engage it - was something of a rarity.

 

 

 

It’s not an argument, it’s a discussion -

 

And you’re saying we’re missing the B26?

That would also be a welcome addition..

[DD_Fenrir]

43 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

 

It’s not an argument, it’s a discussion -

 

I'm using argument in it's second definition: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

 

One apparent position of the discussion is that more varied types brings greater enjoyment through variety; my point is that a don't wholly agree; an interception against medium bomber Type A versus an interception against medium bomber Type B might bring minor tactical decision changes (Type A has better defensive zones of fire here, Type B there) but ultimately in the long run will still be a medium bomber interception.

 

In these cases the environment and mission design will play a far greater factor; if you're bored of escorting B-17s at high altitude put a bunch of A-20s to bomb from medium altitude instead, then put a cloud layer above and below and get the AI to sneak attack through the cloud so they get in close before you're aware. Set randomizers through triggers so you don't know when you'll be attacked or from what altitude or angle. Build tension. This is what makes for interesting missions.

 

43 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

And you’re saying we’re missing the B26?

That would also be a welcome addition..

 

I'm not averse to the addition of ANY chronologically relevant AI aircraft (or ground) assets, and a B-26 is certainly one of them; it was the single most numerous Allied medium in the ETO in the late war and as such would be very welcome by me.  Equally P-38J and Typhoon Ib are noticeably absent and important types that deserve inclusion.

 

A Do-217 would also benefit Mosquito night intruder (codename: Flower) operations but on reflection the Ju-88 is a more than adequate stand in and at night do you really care? You'll barely see it anyway!

 

RAF heavies would be nice but DCS WW2 is a daytime endeavour currently and incomplete even in that regard; as noted there are some important AI aircraft types that could be usefully included but furthermore there are countless ships, both Allied and Axis that are nowhere to be seen (Liberty ship anyone?) as well as an array of towed artillery types, fuel bowsers, ambulances, self propelled AAA that would be far more susceptible to player air attack than the current crop of armoured units and provide more achievable mission goals.

 

If dev time is, as it seems, at a premium, I would argue lets get daytime DCS ETO fleshed out to a better degree then worry about elements that can be ported over to night ops.

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[StevanJ]

2 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

I'm using argument in it's second definition: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

 

One apparent position of the discussion is that more varied types brings greater enjoyment through variety; my point is that a don't wholly agree; an interception against medium bomber Type A versus an interception against medium bomber Type B might bring minor tactical decision changes (Type A has better defensive zones of fire here, Type B there) but ultimately in the long run will still be a medium bomber interception.

 

In these cases the environment and mission design will play a far greater factor; if you're bored of escorting B-17s at high altitude put a bunch of A-20s to bomb from medium altitude instead, then put a cloud layer above and below and get the AI to sneak attack through the cloud so they get in close before you're aware. Set randomizers through triggers so you don't know when you'll be attacked or from what altitude or angle. Build tension. This is what makes for interesting missions.

 

 

I'm not averse to the addition of ANY chronologically relevant AI aircraft (or ground) assets, and a B-26 is certainly one of them; it was the single most numerous Allied medium in the ETO in the late war and as such would be very welcome by me.  Equally P-38J and Typhoon Ib are noticeably absent and important types that deserve inclusion.

 

A Do-217 would also benefit Mosquito night intruder (codename: Flower) operations but on reflection the Ju-88 is a more than adequate stand in and at night do you really care? You'll barely see it anyway!

 

RAF heavies would be nice but DCS WW2 is a daytime endeavour currently and incomplete even in that regard; as noted there are some important AI aircraft types that could be usefully included but furthermore there are countless ships, both Allied and Axis that are nowhere to be seen (Liberty ship anyone?) as well as an array of towed artillery types, fuel bowsers, ambulances, self propelled AAA that would be far more susceptible to player air attack than the current crop of armoured units and provide more achievable mission goals.

 

If dev time is, as it seems, at a premium, I would argue lets get daytime DCS ETO fleshed out to a better degree then worry about elements that can be ported over to night ops.

 

 

 

 

 

I get what you’re saying, would definitely be nice to have a typhoon and especially nice to have RAF heavies.. 

 

i just wished the gameplay would be looked at before we had new modules brought in.

[DD_Fenrir]

2 hours ago, StevanJ said:

i just wished the gameplay would be looked at before we had new modules brought in.

 

Regular customer investment = ED financial viability = continued development/asset additions

[StevanJ]

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

Regular customer investment = ED financial viability = continued development/asset additions

Yes I 100% agree, this has never been so true of ED especially when you look at modules that dont sell- ie The Yak = Not Profitable = Discontinued Development.

Which is why i think so many people including OP, want the transparency with regards a list of upcoming planes in the asset pack.

When you look at how many free modern ground units we've had added vs (the paid Premium) WW2 Assets, I think youre formula about points out the investment from customers.

[Callsign112]

There is an awful lot still missing in the WWII Assets pack, so it will be interesting to see how ED handles further development, but 2021 has already seen some major updates to DCS that have no doubt occupied a lot of ED's resources.

 

As pointed out in another thread, some of the AI assets also need an update because of their age. So with all of that work, plus a WWII version of the Marianas still on the way, maybe we wont see anymore big additions to the Assets pack until 2021 Q4, or 2022.

 

 

[71st_AH Rob]

This is a self licking icecream cone.  DCS WWII sales are low so we need to charge for the assets→the assets pack is a barrier to entry to DCS WWII→they have to slow development or increase price of WWII ASSETS PACK→this becomes a barrier to entry to DCS WWII.

 

I hope they abandon the assets pack model and add AI assets to the base game which will increase the player base and therefore making DCS WWII more profitable so they can increase investment in it.

[LithiumR]

3 hours ago, 71st_AH Rob said:

This is a self licking icecream cone.  DCS WWII sales are low so we need to charge for the assets→the assets pack is a barrier to entry to DCS WWII→they have to slow development or increase price of WWII ASSETS PACK→this becomes a barrier to entry to DCS WWII.

 

I hope they abandon the assets pack model and add AI assets to the base game which will increase the player base and therefore making DCS WWII more profitable so they can increase investment in it.

Absolutely agree. Paid asset pack is strangling WWII. 

[Callsign112]

 

[Callsign112]

 

[Callsign112]