TBF Avenger and other planes

[ElAurens]

Because the US and the Fleet Air Arm operated the TBF/TBM, and the US has no viable torpedo bomber that is player flyable. These aircraft were widely deployed in the Pacific, and the Atlantic, and really are necessary for any kind of campaign that involves carrier operations.

Having the TBF/TBM and the Curtiss Helldiver BTW, would flesh out the compliment for the USN.

And true, we need more Japanese attack aircraft as flyable as well.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Because the US and the Fleet Air Arm operated the TBF/TBM, and the US has no viable torpedo bomber that is player flyable. These aircraft were widely deployed in the Pacific, and the Atlantic, and really are necessary for any kind of campaign that involves carrier operations.

Having the TBF/TBM and the Curtiss Helldiver BTW, would flesh out the compliment for the USN.

And true, we need more Japanese attack aircraft as flyable as well.

As sad as it is not to have Avengers, I think a Helldiver would make a fairly suitable replacement as it has similar capabilities - looks aside. And late war Japanese strike/torpedo aircraft would be a welcome addition, too - as the early war D3A/B5N really are totally obsolete by at least 1944.

[RPS69]

All "fair" battles were fought on 1942. After Midway, Japaneese were just overwhelmed. The amount of carriers the US deployed on the Pacific after that, almost required to put traffic lights on mid ocean!

[IceFire]

At this point having the SB2C and the B6N or D3Y flyable would probably round out the carrier aircraft fairly well. The TBF/TBM is super important and the key aircraft in the carrier strike wing but it will have to be what it is.

Honestly as time passes IL-2 1946 is slowly fading out. In a few years I hope that the new IL-2 series will catch up to the Pacific and start to have the kinds of features the we enjoy in IL-2 1946... and we can leave this legal stuff in the past. But we'll see. There's a lot of ground to cover between now and then so I suppose the Pacific portion in particular will be key for some time to come.

[ElAurens]

Sadly I think in a few years the new sim will be history.

I don't think they understand the market, or the needs of the player base.

On an up note, my new computer build has finally allowed me to play the Finnish Hawk Campaign in this sim.

Just got back into it, but enjoying it, even though I'm stuck in Fokkers and Hurries for the moment. As you know I'm not much of an off line guy, but a well crafted off line experience is well worth the time spent.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Sadly I think in a few years the new sim will be history.

El is right, I fear.

Even if not, there is a huge difference in development cost for each new plane type between the “New Game” and “Good Old Il2”. Ten to one? Twenty to one? Perhaps more, and I can’t even guess the ratio if we talk about carriers.

In short, I think the chances to have in the New Game a plane set comparable to Good Old Il2 are really slim.

[Fighterace]

Shame there's no P-61 either

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Fighterace

Shame there's no P-61 either

That’s another type under the Gxxxxxn-Nxxxxxxp ban. I would love to have it flyable, of course, but, giving the time and resources limitation faced by developers (read: TD), choices are unavoidable.

My preference would go to complete already existing scenarios, such as the already mentioned Pacific Theatre. To me, it makes more sense to complete what we have, than have more incomplete scenarios. And – don’t shoot at me – I would shelve the whole night bombers-night fighters lot. Flying night interceptors would be simply to follow a different kind of mini-map, and then fire on a black silhouette barely visible in the dark. Flying bombers, it would be simply sit and wait for invisible fighters coming out from nowhere.

That’s my opinion, of course.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

My preference would go to complete already existing scenarios, such as the already mentioned Pacific Theatre. To me, it makes more sense to complete what we have, than have more incomplete scenarios. And – don’t shoot at me – I would shelve the whole night bombers-night fighters lot. Flying night interceptors would be simply to follow a different kind of mini-map, and then fire on a black silhouette barely visible in the dark. Flying bombers, it would be simply sit and wait for invisible fighters coming out from nowhere.

That’s my opinion, of course.

Right with you there. Basically you'd either shoot at barely visible targets - and the bomber AI either is too good and guns you down the instant you open fire, or too bad and you shoot fish in a barrel. And as custom or selectable belting has been requested many times and has not been done, I'd suppose that it is not that easy to do. And with current tracers and muzzle flashes, night fighting is merely a joke - you are blind the instant you fire, and all of the enemies open up at you at once.

And having a flyable late war German bomber would definitley add to this sim - any of them.

[Buster_Dee]

Originally Posted by Furio

That’s another type under the Gxxxxxn-Nxxxxxxp ban. I would shelve the whole night bombers-night fighters lot. Flying night interceptors would be simply to follow a different kind of mini-map, and then fire on a black silhouette barely visible in the dark. Flying bombers, it would be simply sit and wait for invisible fighters coming out from nowhere.

That’s my opinion, of course.

There's at least one problem with your assumption. I started learning to model for Target for Tonight, I have a radar background and, even as a Yank, the only theaters that REALLY interest me are the Commonwealth night bomber offensive, and the North-Atlantic U-boat defense. The only reason I model at all is that, after 20 years of waiting, I still hope. So, the one problem: if you tell me I will NEVER have my night bomber/night fighters, I'm taking my ball and going home.