I agree with illo. After long meditations i've decided,that to us is necessary simply g10, instead of g10/r6. .And one more thing: on the eastern front it was both-109g10 and 109g10/r6.So we need them both or g10 first. ------------------ С уважением ---muz
Right after Gloster G.41 "Meteor" F.Mk.III, De-Havilland DH-100 "Vampire" F.Mk.I, Lockheed P-80A "Shooting Star", and Mikoyan&Gurevich MiG-9. Damn it!
109g10 will be replacement to 109g6/r6 so 109g10/r6 variant seems useful btw: i read that in Real Life 109G10 takes to front almoust always in variants, pure 109g10 number was wery little... - but i did both 109g10 and 109g10/r6 variants, & maybe will do 109g10/r1 ------------------ Roman aka rgreat from =Flying Barans=
"And how about Me-163? I think, golds need that interceptor in 44-45..." HAHAA.....109k/me262 isnt enoght for you??? actually i would prefer p-39q instead of that La-5 realy! or maybe B-51(p-51(?))
As i can see here, many of golds desire new kind of overclimber (such as 109f) which will be capable of good acceleration too (take that, runstang! )) ). Am i right? . Rgreat, give them such plane, i'am sure there will be more fun on FH ever c&b, c&b more c&b . Also, as consequence, we could see JG26 more often After all, then La5FN is out, we seldom see experienced fw190 (you know who about i'am talkin') in close maneuver combat .
We need hvy bomber! ------------------ Axis Foreign Volunteers Squadron "Nationalists of all countries - UNITE!" http://grobar.search.bg/volunteers Leader
Grobar! Luftwaffe - have only light and medium bombers.Luftwaffe bombers are TACTICAL. In WWII LW bombers must supporting infantry and tanks of wehrmacht(sorry if wrong typing).We don't need heavy bombers-it's not historically. ------------------ jagdflieger wolfer, Jagdgeschwader 52
actually.. this talk of realism has already taken place before, involving those icon tags. and we have come to the conclusion that they are best how they are (wich is definitly not realistic) because were talking about a game. and that argument comes in again. why do only reds have the hvy bombers? how do you expect us to capture large fields with those "ground supporting crafts"? there are no tanks, no infantry, nor any wehrmacht! ps: i was in favor of removing the icons before.. so let me know what you think.. all of you! that's what this forum is for! [This message has been edited by -nicae- (edited 23 December 2000).]
We are Luftwaffe.You dont forget it.Our life must be hard.Our personal skill must be leading us to victories. Yes this is the game.But the game about WWII aviation(historical)-not about Star Wars or something else.We don't need "research" "new" heavy bomber for golds.It's my opinion. Nearest icon range will be more interesting.If released,shure. ------------------ jagdflieger wolfer, Jagdgeschwader 52
PZL P11c Polish fighter. I know this plane would be totally obsolete in MA (well - maybe as the only early war allied plane that could turn with zeke and ki43 but twice as durable... ;-) ) but its implementation to WB would be very easy - we have complete 3d model with textures (made for another WB-like game) and full data about that aircraft. Just an idea --stec
Send it all to me it can be used at least in scenarios... ------------------ Roman aka rgreat from =Flying Barans=
I suggest all to propose real aircrafts with series not lesser that 1000 pieces. It may harm Mitsubishi J2M Raiden, an excellent japanese interceptor that I would be appreciated to see in WB. It numbered just 476 airplanes, when americans ceased its production. But I would prefer to sacrifice it for refusing Luftwaffe's miscellaneous ill chimeras of Vergeltungswaffe, Weapon Of Wengeance. By the way, He-177 Greif = Gryphon had 1170 exemplaires. ------------------ Luck Yedyge aka exec[228] aka Killer Crayon mail2duc@stones.com
Heh, wolfer, your point about hardships is fine , and it really is possible to close large field with 3-4 Ju-88 but reconsider then, why do you want more fighters? This will make your life easier in dogfights, ain`t it? The point about realism - well, reds are using Ju-52 and V-1, and it seems, lately also Me-262. And as exec says there was Fw-177 though in small numbers. We can limit it only to big fields, and delay its date for entering service to count this. And with I-16 our life became hard enough. ------------------ Axis Foreign Volunteers Squadron "Nationalists of all countries - UNITE!" http://grobar.search.bg/volunteers Leader
Yes, you're right on the Ki100, but it was a great plane, used only in the last few months of the war. It's armament isn't the best one, but that'll do A Ki100 would really be more dangerous to the P51 pilots than the Ki61... The Ki61 was a great plane... when it could fly ( the Japanese had problems with parts for those engines... as happened to the Ki44 ) The Ki100 shouldn't be very difficult to implement in FH, since it can use the Ki61 shape, just like Yak1-Yak9D... All the books I have here ( Bill Gunston's the authour ) says it should have a mk108... Yes, it might be inferior to Il-2... but remember that the Il-2 is an Allied plane, not an axis one... The Ju87G might be better than the Hs129, but it hasn't a 75mm gun for ship attack, like the b25... My idea was to use it only in ship-attacks ( liar ) mcosta Sturmtruppen
