Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-01-2011, 05:19 AM
JG53Frankyboy JG53Frankyboy is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,162
Default

Just to ad: the additional headarmor and even the additional windscreen armour was also possible with the early, more rounded canopy...

IF the mineshells are available in the amunition selection of the E-3 i would be very surprised, not to say dissapointed...
And btw, who would fly without them!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-01-2011, 06:28 AM
TheGrunch's Avatar
TheGrunch TheGrunch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy View Post
And btw, who would fly without them!
Haha, that's true. Why would you be disappointed, though? Whether you'd call the aircraft E-3 or the E-4 in game would be dependent upon which ammo it was firing, it's not like the game considers alterations to the recoil system of the gun - it doesn't really matter in game since it's just a label for two aircraft with differences in the guns which have no practical difference in the game in terms of separating the two types. If mission builders are able to choose which ammo types are available in their mission to indirectly choose whether the player flies an aircraft with MG FF or MG FF/M - and they definitely should be able to - it's perfectly fine.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-01-2011, 12:32 PM
Matt255 Matt255 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy View Post
IF the mineshells are available in the amunition selection of the E-3 i would be very surprised, not to say dissapointed...
And btw, who would fly without them!
Well, basically everyone who knows the difference would then fly a E-4, which is probably more realistic anyway.

I don't think it would be that bad. Better than leaving the E-4 out entirely.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-01-2011, 01:31 PM
fruitbat's Avatar
fruitbat fruitbat is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S E England
Posts: 1,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt255 View Post
Well, basically everyone who knows the difference would then fly a E-4, which is probably more realistic anyway.

I don't think it would be that bad. Better than leaving the E-4 out entirely.
like the E1 you mean.

Its weird how the usual lufty whiners don't seem to be concerned about that, yet they are concerned about which type of 20mm cannon they get (and upset it's not the better of the two).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-01-2011, 01:45 PM
TUSA/TX-Gunslinger's Avatar
TUSA/TX-Gunslinger TUSA/TX-Gunslinger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 195
Default

Hey Mom, some kid at school called me a "Lufty Whiner".

Now's the point that I start thinking about if the Dedicated Server has restrictions on aircraft slots, ammo, types, etc... If I remember correctly, it does.

Simple enough for online mission builders to limit numbers, etc... Spit II and E4/N limited to a few per side, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy View Post
Just to ad: the additional headarmor and even the additional windscreen armour was also possible with the early, more rounded canopy...

IF the mineshells are available in the amunition selection of the E-3 i would be very surprised, not to say dissapointed...
And btw, who would fly without them!
Can you elaborate some more? If many E-3's were converted to MG FF/M's in BoB why wouldn't they get MG?

S!

Gunny

Last edited by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger; 03-01-2011 at 02:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2011, 02:10 PM
fruitbat's Avatar
fruitbat fruitbat is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S E England
Posts: 1,065
Default

my point is simple.

surely having a plane that fought in much larger numbers (the E1) in the Battle of Britain is more important than other sub types (E4N) which fought in much lesser numbers, if you want an as accurate as possible BoB (although having all the variants would be nice).

yes/no?

Last edited by fruitbat; 03-01-2011 at 02:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-01-2011, 02:46 PM
addman's Avatar
addman addman is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vasa, Finland
Posts: 1,593
Default

There are more than 1 version of the Bf109E? LOL! All look the same to me!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-02-2011, 06:15 AM
JG53Frankyboy JG53Frankyboy is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger View Post
....................................

Can you elaborate some more? If many E-3's were converted to MG FF/M's in BoB why wouldn't they get MG?

S!

Gunny
well, Maddox decided to put in the E-3. Than it should stay to be an E-3 ! And with a mineshell firing canon it becomes an E-4...


i guess we all here have the same opinion:
That the CoD 109 , at least at release, will be the E-3 is 'strange'.
It was there and had action but was by far not the most common variant. E-1 and E-4 would have been the much more logical choice. And perhaps more interesting for a Luftwaffe fighter campaign. First you have to fly the E-1 and later get the upgrade to the canon plane.
Even more strange is that 1C already have the MG-FF/M modelled for the Bf110C-4 & -7 ?!?!

my, very personal, wishlist for the 109 in CoD would have been:
E-1 & -/B with DB601A-1 old canopy , no headarmour
E-3 & -/B with DB601A-1 old canopy , no headarmour
E-4 & -/B with DB601Aa with newer canopy and headarmour
E-4/N with DB601N with newer canopy and headarmour

would have been from plane to plane a nice improvemnt in a pilotcareer. And for online, COOP designers have no proplems to restrict the numbers , and im actually sure that Dogfight designers will also be able to limit planenumbers and weapons.


But ok, the axis side will get a lot (in comparison to the RAF) of flyable bombers
and dont forgett , there will still be the mighty G.50
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-02-2011, 06:31 AM
TUSA/TX-Gunslinger's Avatar
TUSA/TX-Gunslinger TUSA/TX-Gunslinger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 195
Default

Thanks!

Great list. Understand all.

S!

Gunny
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-02-2011, 08:12 AM
Tvrdi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

maybe they left something for the payware addons (*wink*)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.