Ok Im convinced: The IL-2 is WAY too over spec.

[mattmanB182]

Seriously, its near impossible to take down. I play on "realistic" I have played three matches of team battle in a row in which the IL-2 has led everyone in kills.

In real life the rear gunner casualty rates on these things were appaling. There was ZERO armor to protect the gunner. Yet in the game it seems to have more armor than a King Tiger tank.

Just because its the games name sake doesnt mean it should be invincible.

[trk29]

People that use a rear gunner in a dogfight match aren't really dogfighting they are flying in a straight line.

They should put a over heat on the rear gunners like the main front guns of all the aircraft.

[Majictoast]

you sir, are talking about the aircraft i just talked about.

that aircraft is just all out of wack and im not here to point fingers or blame. or even say the developers screwed up. and im not going to call them racist like the one i will not speak of. but wait by speaking of which i dont speak of havnt i already spoken of that wich i dont speak? screw it..

so the IL2 is over powerd. that guy meangunner... its just insane. try hitting it with a rocket. see if it goes down. if not then there reall is not anything to hold against it (not) being speced wrong.


some one get a friend go into a set up game and launch a rocket ot two at it, and see what happens, shoot it right in the ass. haha

[gbtstr]

Seems to me performances for most of the Allied planes are padded a bit, and/or the reverse is true for most of the German planes.

Maybe this is a by-product of the Allied/Soviet-only single player campaign. Make the German planes a little lacking so you can stock a level full of them and still have it be beatable.

[Majictoast]

well i understand what u mean. but the plane does not have to suffer. just put a bunch of pilots in them like.. i dunno helen keller flying it or somthing. that would fix the whole (dificulty) and also keep the plane in good shape if you wanted to use it.

[Lexandro]

Hardly. The games Ive played online the BF109 is pretty damn tough and well armoured. The IL's are much much tougher but they are inline with what I would expect them to be, since they were called "the flying tank".

The problem seems to be that people expect them to be easy to kill and crap to fly because they are Russian, but in RL they were actually damn good aircraft and tough as nails to boot. Also people are not attacking them in the correct manner. You should never ever try and sit on an IL's 6, it will get you with its turret (as it should do). BnZ attacks, raking passes at speed, and belly attacks are all effective attacks against them. Hell I can take them out in 2 passes at most on Arcade, where the planes are super tough.

Last night I made a BnZ attack at an IL10 on my first pass I snapped its wing clean off with my Spit. Why? Because while the wings are tough, if you get some cannon shells in the right place it WILL disintegrate the same as any other plane.

[mattmanB182]

Hardly. The games Ive played online the BF109 is pretty damn tough and well armoured. The IL's are much much tougher but they are inline with what I would expect them to be, since they were called "the flying tank".

The problem seems to be that people expect them to be easy to kill and crap to fly because they are Russian, but in RL they were actually damn good aircraft and tough as nails to boot. Also people are not attacking them in the correct manner. You should never ever try and sit on an IL's 6, it will get you with its turret (as it should do). BnZ attacks, raking passes at speed, and belly attacks are all effective attacks against them. Hell I can take them out in 2 passes at most on Arcade, where the planes are super tough.

Last night I made a BnZ attack at an IL10 on my first pass I snapped its wing clean off with my Spit. Why? Because while the wings are tough, if you get some cannon shells in the right place it WILL disintegrate the same as any other plane.

Perhaps you misred my opening post? Im talking about the IL-2 NOT the IL-10. I am talking about the INVINCIBLE rear gunner on a plane that had NO protection for the rear gunner. You dont believe me...Look it up. And lay off the Kool Aid.

Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2#Il-2_Rear_gunners:_a_deliberate_sacrifice.3F check out the section on the rear gunner.

[Lexandro]

Perhaps you misred my opening post? Im talking about the IL-2 NOT the IL-10. I am talking about the INVINCIBLE rear gunner on a plane that had NO protection for the rear gunner. You dont believe me...Look it up. And lay off the Kool Aid.

So? All the IL's are the same to me, damn easy to kill when you use your noodle. I have played plenty of games against players who use the various IL's available. I had a real good game Friday vs 2 IL2/ 1 IL10, with me in the Spit, a friendly in a 109 and the 3rd player in a Hurricane. We won the round with ease, because we didnt get target fixation, attacked each target from multiple angles, and used our brains.

Frankly your manner suggests one of someone who got spanked by a good pilot in a IL2 and you cant take it. Plus wtf are you doing trying to kill the rear gunner? Its 10x harder to kill the pilot/gunner than it is to attack and destroy the aircrafts wings or even its engines.

And I dont need nor want any kind of "cool aid". And to be honest those kinds of moronic internet meme's dont even make me bat an eyelid since Im from the UK and I really dont care.

[gbtstr]

You're from the UK? I'd never have guessed.

[Lexandro]

You're from the UK? I'd never have guessed.

Was it the Spitfire picture, or was it my well reasoned and contructed argument that gave it away ? lol

[mattmanB182]

It actually says, in the link I posted earlier, that the thickest part of the armor could only withstand DEFLECTING blows from a larger round, not DIRECT impact.

Wouldnt my 109's 20mm be considered large?

Perhaps you are a darn good pilot who knows the perfect angle to take planes out....most are average. It is very tough for the average pilot to take these things out.

And FYI, one of my team mates attacked from the side in his Spit while I came from the rear. IL-2 Did not go down in that sequence.

Just because YOU can take them down with regularity doesnt mean they are not over spec. It is a known fact that they were vulnerable to attack from fighters.

[mattmanB182]

Was it the Spitfire picture, or was it my well reasoned and contructed argument that gave it away ? lol

So just because your from the UK, your opinions are superior to everyone elses? Shows a lot about your character.

[Lexandro]

So just because your from the UK, your opinions are superior to everyone elses? Shows a lot about your character.

You sir need to take some stress management classes and get a sense of humour. It was a JOKE, thats why I laughed at the end.

PS; Personal attacks wont get you very far, as you have simply confused me with someone who gives a ****.

[mattmanB182]

You sir need to take some stress management classes and get a sense of humour. It was a JOKE, thats why I laughed at the end.

I asked you a simple question. I am not stressed at all. I have provided sources to back my point and all you have provided is a little anecdote from your personal battles on this game.

I have every right to discuss faults in the game with the hope that they may be one day corrected. If you bothered to read all of the posts you would see that I am not the only person with this trouble.

[mattmanB182]

You sir need to take some stress management classes and get a sense of humour. It was a JOKE, thats why I laughed at the end.

PS; Personal attacks wont get you very far, as you have simply confused me with someone who gives a ****.

You speak of personal attacks? Didnt you call me....a meme? I have not called you anything nor attacked you. If me asking you to clarify a statement that turned out to be a joke was a personal attack, then I suggest you get over your paranoia. And yourself for that matter.

As I said before I have proven my point with links to articles.

[Lexandro]

I asked you a simple question. I am not stressed at all. I have provided sources to back my point and all you have provided is a little anecdote from your personal battles on this game.

I have every right to discuss faults in the game with the hope that they may be one day corrected. If you bothered to read all of the posts you would see that I am not the only person with this trouble.

You did not ask a simple question, you made a personal attack on my character because I made a quip. I have no problems with your intention of discussing aspects of the game.

All you have done is make a point about the real aircraft not having any rear gunner armouring. How is this actually relevant to your point that the aircraft is OP in BoP? Your stating that because someone you played was winning in the IL2 that somehow it was to good? Or that because in RL rear gunners had the life expectancy of a mayfly that in the game, the aircraft should stop shooting you?

You have done nothing yourself other than provide anecdotal evidence of an issue with the aircraft. And my point is that I find it completely contrary to what you describe. The simple fact is that no matter how good you are your not the best, neither am I. You simply got outplayed by a better gamer, pure and simple yet refuse to accept it and move on, and instead blame the aircraft for your failure.

[mattmanB182]

Its not about winning or losing. I was just frustrated because I got many hits on the aircraft and it did not go down. My team mates did also.

Why would facts about the actual aircraft not matter? Is this not a sim?

There are a few posters here having the same trouble as me, yet only you saying you have no trouble.

So just because You have no trouble with IL-2 in the game, it doesnt need to be fixed.

[Lexandro]

Its not about winning or losing. I was just frustrated because I got many hits on the aircraft and it did not go down. My team mates did also.

Why would facts about the actual aircraft not matter? Is this not a sim?

There are a few posters here having the same trouble as me, yet only you saying you have no trouble.

So just because You have no trouble with IL-2 in the game, it doesnt need to be fixed.

No what Im suggesting is that people like yourself having the trouble are not targetting the IL2 in the correct fashion. Facts about the aircraft do matter but I rather think the devs would be more clued up on the IL series of aircraft than you are ( no offence), and therefor the flight and damage model would be as close to correct as physically possible in the game.

If your constantly sitting in an aircrafts 6 when it has a rear turret firing at you, then you deserve to loose its that simple. Anyone who plays the game in an IL can figure out its lines of attack and adjust accordingly.

The example I gave about BnZ attacks shows the correct way to target and take out these aircraft. You couple that with a wingman who flank attacks or hits it in the belly and its good night vienna.

[mattmanB182]

No what Im suggesting is that people like yourself having the trouble are not targetting the IL2 in the correct fashion. Facts about the aircraft do matter but I rather think the devs would be more clued up on the IL series of aircraft than you are ( no offence), and therefor the flight and damage model would be as close to correct as physically possible in the game.

If your constantly sitting in an aircrafts 6 when it has a rear turret firing at you, then you deserve to loose its that simple. Anyone who plays the game in an IL can figure out its lines of attack and adjust accordingly.

The example I gave about BnZ attacks shows the correct way to target and take out these aircraft. You couple that with a wingman who flank attacks or hits it in the belly and its good night vienna.

I understand your point. And I do think your correct, but I still believe the plane has got to be fixed.

It can be taken down and you have proven that, but it still obsorbs way more damage then it should. Coupled with the fact that rear guns do not over-heat in the game, this plane dominates more often then not.

[Lexandro]

I understand your point. And I do think your correct, but I still believe the plane has got to be fixed.

It can be taken down and you have proven that, but it still obsorbs way more damage then it should. Coupled with the fact that rear guns do not over-heat in the game, this plane dominates more often then not.

NOW I believe you have hit the crux of the issue here, namely no overheat on turret guns. The planes damage model I believe is correct and fine, but this point that you now raise does indeed constitute an issue with the aircraft.

So the point is rather more simpler now, if these guns DID overheat wouldnt that be a much more balanced aspect of the combat? And would this alone alieviate the difficulty that some people have when fighting them?

[King Jareth]

Does the BoP damage model account for death of crew (besides the pilot)?

p.s. you 2 need to get a room and work out these tensions ;)

[Ancient Seraph]

Does the BoP damage model account for death of crew (besides the pilot)?

Not as far as I've noticed. This kind of sucks, although it's also understandable. If we would be able to kill all the gunners in a bomber this would destroy it's main defense, making it completely defenseless. You'd be able to destroy a bomber by just being on it's 6, this is not realistic either. Introducing overheating guns in the gunner position would be a good midway.
The reason any bomber with gunners works in DF/TB is because player do not know how to attack them, just like Lexandro pointed out. If there's a B17 in the opposite team in TB, I just ignore it, unless it crosses straight through my line of fire. Without anyone attacking a B17, it's fairly harmless. People don't understand this, hence a B17 gets kills.
Anyways, back to topic. I've never tried to shoot down an IL-2 in RL, hence I do not know how well it was or wasn't armored. I think I can safely assume you haven't either. Using Wikipedia as your main argument against a team of WWII sim developers might not be the way to go, no offense. If you adjust your tactics you'll see that bombers are not that effective, and can be taken down relatively easy. Just try out what Lexandro also pointed out, practice a bit, and you won't have any troubles with IL-2's anymore.

[Riceball]

You did'nt know? The IL-2 was the best aircraft in the war. And the Mustang was the worst. Where have you been?

Edit: Oh, wait......Sarcasm for you numbskulls.

[FOZ_1983]

The IL2 was a great ground attack aircraft so armour was usually needed. So giving them plenty of armour.... but they were fodder for fighters, hence the rear gunner.

Im in agreement with some of the things here, such as it does seem a bit hard to destroy, but i think to myslef that maybe because itd ground attack hen i'll just switch to a different target and save my ammo, BUT the rear gunner is ridiculous. He was armed with a pea shooter that did over heat!! yet in the game it doesn't. ALSO.... has anyone noticed the ammo capacity when playing with limited ammo? (ammo capacity for rear gunner?)

i find the stuka to be similar. Far to well armoured and not as easy to take down as it should be.

[Riceball]

I would bet the Typhoon was a much scarier sight. This bird ate armor colomns for breakfast.

[FOZ_1983]

I would bet the Typhoon was a much scarier sight.

It was for the wermacht.

But for anyone the sight of a few typhoons circling above must of been terryfying!!!

[FOZ_1983]

i do believe the wermacht had to move by night because of the typhoon. By day it would just tear armour to pieces.

Only one typhoon surives to this day and thats static display and the RAF museum in hendon. Its a lovely looking bird.

One more in france somewhere but its not authentic, i think it was made up of different parts.

[Riceball]

Too bad there is so few remaining. Maybe there are a few wrecks to be found and restored.

It really was THE ground attack aircraft of it's time.

[FOZ_1983]

Maybe, but finding them in a half decent condition would not be easy. For a near complete wreck you'd have to probably look in a lake (seems to be where most complete wrecks are located).

unless blueprints turn up.

would love to see one of these flying in the near future.

[Riceball]

Maybe, but finding them in a half decent condition would not be easy. For a near complete wreck you'd have to probably look in a lake (seems to be where most complete wrecks are located).

unless blueprints turn up.

would love to see one of these flying in the near future.

They would need to be in decent condition. The two airworthy P-40s, which were recovered somewhere toward the Pacific were raised up off the ground by the land owner, and sprayed with Desel fuel!!!

And one P-38 was recovered from 30 ft of ice.

[Lexandro]

Have you ever noticed that the "chinless" typhoon looks an awful lot like a Spitfire from certain angles?

[Riceball]

No doubt the Typhoon could have been a spin-off of the Spit.

They would need to be in decent condition. The two airworthy P-40s, which were recovered somewhere toward the Pacific were raised up off the ground by the land owner, and sprayed with Desel fuel!!!

And one P-38 was recovered from 30 ft of ice. "Glacier Girl"

[FOZ_1983]

Have you ever noticed that the "chinless" typhoon looks an awful lot like a Spitfire from certain angles?


It does have a few striknig features.


I like the step how it goes from typhoon to fury.


i was also reading up on some things and alot of 262 pilots said their biggest fear was actually the tempest, because at low altitude they were so fast and had incredibly powerful guns (4 hispano cannons) that they scared the living shit out of the 262 pilots.

I always though it was the p51 that mullered them. Guess a little bit of research goes a long way :)


i wasn't so keen on the tempest though, i much preffered the typhoon. It looked so much better, much more beefy.

[akuma]

Seriously, its near impossible to take down. I play on "realistic" I have played three matches of team battle in a row in which the IL-2 has led everyone in kills.

In real life the rear gunner casualty rates on these things were appaling. There was ZERO armor to protect the gunner. Yet in the game it seems to have more armor than a King Tiger tank.

Just because its the games name sake doesnt mean it should be invincible.

I find the best way to deal with IL's is to get underneath them, follow them though a turn slightly below and to the right or left, this leaves you out of the field of fire of the rear gunner and the under bellies are reasonably vunerable.

Agreed its a difficult angle to get to, but its better than getting on the 6 and getting shot down 10 times.

That said, I put well over 30+ cannon rounds through an IL-10's wing on realistic and it still flew straight and level, but the soviet planes were always going to get a hint of bias!

[FOZ_1983]

remember that B29 they found in the glacier, got it repaired etc only to destroy it while taxiing!!

******* idiots.

[Riceball]

remember that B29 they found in the glacier, got it repaired etc only to destroy it while taxiing!!

******* idiots.

I'm not sure how much damage you could do on the ground. I'm sure it is, or will be airworthy. But yeah, what the hell were they doing?

And I know a flight or P-51s would equal a bad day for any flight of German fighters.

[Flywest]

Don't know if it's of relevance or not, having not played the IL-2 in MP but in the "Pocket chapter" during the Campaign, I've found that the rear gun on the IL-2 was overdone, a couple of hits would send down a german fighters in flames. It's almost like I had a laser canon.

FWIW, I play on Sim.

[beaker126]

[QUOTE=Lexandro;105713]NOW I believe you have hit the crux of the issue here, namely no overheat on turret guns. The planes damage model I believe is correct and fine, but this point that you now raise does indeed constitute an issue with the aircraft.

So the point is rather more simpler now, if these guns DID overheat wouldnt that be a much more balanced aspect of the combat? And would this alone alieviate the difficulty that some people have when fighting them?[/QUOTE

I've mentioned this a time or two as well, the turret guns should have some limiter on the like a planes main guns. Especially when you consider in real life, some planes had ammo boxes for the guns that held only 100-250 rounds. That's not a lot of firing time. The flex guns on German planes were particularly bad about this, holding only 75 rounds. I'm really hoping for a patch. But the best defense is still don't stay on a bombers ass for more than a second or two.

[mdbuehler]

Lol, figured that out the hard way on realistic multiplayer. Was 1 v 1 against an IL2, me in my LA-7, and attacking that thing from the rear was a death wish! Off angle from beneath seemed safer, but I'd swear he could tag me from about any angle I came at him! That was an embarassing round! :-P