East Front - Expansion

[Dan Verssen]

For the last few months, the DIF team has been preparing our first major expansion to the game, tentatively titled: "Down In Flames - East Front".

Based on player feedback, we have decided to add two new countries, Russia and Poland. Russia because it played a major role in WWII, Poland because it has always been a personal favorite of mine.

At present, the expansion is planned to add 29 new aircraft to the game's current roster of 44.

Also based on player feedback, we will add roughly 15 new skills to those already available. These will include Leader-only skills, Wingman-only skills, and skills that can be purchased for both.

We also plan on including roughly 12 new campaigns.

Many thanks to all the players who have sent in feedback on what we have designed so far. Please keep it coming!

Our goal is to have the expansion available by early summer.

[Mistura]

Hi all. I can't wait for it! Is it summer yet. I know it summer somewhere in the world.

[Sixxkiller]

And he forgot to tell you guys how handsome I am. This is like a 30th plane but better.

-Ray

[Kindred]

When you say early summer are thinkin June/July?

It will be hard to wait.

So i think when the expansion came out we are gonna be able to reset the pilots skills to introduce this new ones?

Keep up the good work.

Pedro

[Guest Mike]

Woot!

[Guest Mike]

It must be time to indulge in some idle speculation!!

29 new planes huh?

Let's see - PZL-11, PZL-23 and PZL-37 would have to be in there I guess.

IIRC someone said a while back that the expansion will include 2-3 new planes for each of the existing nations? So assume that's 10-12 of the slots, and 3 for the Poles leaves 14-16 for the Russians.

3 bombers - Il-2, Il-4, Pe-8? Not very imaginitive but they fit the current DiF system of play, which I think it inadequate for the eastern front but there was no mention of changing it so I'll assume it's staying.

Leaves 11-13 fighters??

Basic fighters:

I-153

I-16

Mig-3

Yak 1

Yak 3

Yak 9

LaGG 1

LaGG 3

Lag 5

Lag 7

Possibles:

Pe-2 or Tu-2 as a 2-engined fighter

Yak-7

Mig-1

Alternative versions of I-16 - 1 with 4 mg's, 1 with 20mm cannon

Il-2 as a "heavy fighter" rather than as a bomber

Alternative versions of Il-2 - early without gunner, later with gunner

Su-2 early war light bomber

SB-2 early war medium bomber

TB-3 - the huge 4 -engined open turret heavy bomber from the early war - some of these actually carried out raids with I-16 parasite divebombers slung under their wings

Il-10 late war "Sturmovik"

Alternative versions of Yak-9 - AT version with 37 or 45mm cannon

[Zanadu]

Well, the LaGG 1 and 3 would be fun -- for the Germans. Those were two of the worst fighter a/c ever produced. The Russians called them "Varnished coffins".

Would it be possible to allow a player to pick a country for his opponant, rather than it be simply random as now. German, for example, could pick from US, Brit or Sov., US between Jap & German, etc.??

[Zanadu]

One other thought. I forsee a REALLY long download coming. Any chance of setting it up in seperate blocks for those of us still on dial up??

[Zanadu]

Okay, guys. I just got your latest download which seems to include the set up for the Eastern front expansion, and I have a question.

How did my P38 pilots get back into P40s???

[Zanadu]

Ah-ha. At least for the moment, at lease, is seems that the only a/c available to US pilots is the P40N, only one for the Brits is Spitfire I and the only one for the Japanese is the Ki61.

[Guest Mike]

Have you just created some new pilots with hte default 1940 exp level? That just gets you the 1 a/c type IIRC - you need to earn more exp to get more types available.

Russian pilots were their own worst enemies with the early monoplanes - they'd fly with the cockpit open, full cowling flaps open, rich mixture and all sortsx of other mistakes costing them anything up to 80km/hr in top speed and conmesurate loss of climb & manouvreability.

[Zanadu]

No, these US pilots were in P38s and Brits in MkXIVs. 2000 plus xp. For the US pilots, a/c earlier than the P40N isn't available either. Just one ftr type of each of the three Nationalities I've been playing, is all I can access and their opposition is they same types. I've played twice with Japanese in Ki61s, once against P40Ns and once against SpitIs. The rest of the a/c just don't seem to be available.

At least one author considers the LaGG 1/3 to be one of the worst a/c in history. Claims that the actual production a/c were slower than the I16s they replaced. Pilots flew with cockpits open because of the poor quality of the glazing which distorted visibility very badly. Some took the canopys off altogether, although this further reduced speed. The LaGGs stalled with no warning at all, landing gear often collapsed, and they would often flip into a spin if suddenly put into a steep bank.

[bartbert]

Zanadu,

It sounds like you haven't registered the base game product yet, and that is resulting in your choice of aircraft being restricted to the 4 aircraft available to DEMO players (Spitfire I, P-40N, etc.).

If you go to the "Tools/Register products" menu item, does the resulting dialog show a serial number for the base game?

[Zanadu]

Have been playing game for some time without problem, and have a password issued: J3BTVX.

Was this registration or for access to this site?

Also now have spaces in a/c info for Soviet and Polish a/c, but are all blank as yet.

[Zanadu]

Have been playing on local and had no problems with access before latest update.

Now will have to find the box. Put is somewhere safe as plastic box was broken in shipment.

[bartbert]

Originally posted by Zanadu:

Have been playing on local and had no problems with access before latest update.

Now will have to find the box. Put is somewhere safe as plastic box was broken in shipment.

You won't be able to find the serial number on the CD because we just recently implemented serial number tracking. Send an e-mail to difadmin@battlefront.com and we'll get you fixed up.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Zanadu:

At least one author considers the LaGG 1/3 to be one of the worst a/c in history. Claims that the actual production a/c were slower than the I16s they replaced. Pilots flew with cockpits open because of the poor quality of the glazing which distorted visibility very badly. Some took the canopys off altogether, although this further reduced speed. The LaGGs stalled with no warning at all, landing gear often collapsed, and they would often flip into a spin if suddenly put into a steep bank.

Oops - I should add something to this!!

It was also referred to as "morticians mate"!!

Yes that is all true - although I'm not sure who it was considered them the worst a/c in the world - there are plenty of others that might fit that description!!

Despite all this 6528 of them were built in little more than a year - they were tough, and many of hte problems were due to inadequate training - they were unforgiving to pilots accustomed to the docile and manouvreable I-153, but still quite capable in experienced hands.

I think they might be comparable to Hurricane 1's in terms of performance - and of course hte Hurri 1 was obsolescent in mid 1941, which is when the LaGG-1 & -3 started becoming available in numbers!

Comments about it being underpowered seem exagerated given that it had roughly 1200 hp for 3380 kg up to 10,0000 feet (more or less), as compared with the 1280 hp and 3740 kg of the Hurri II

[ March 06, 2006, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Zanadu]

Stalin: Recently got a small book title: THE WORLD'S WORST AIRCRAFT. The LaGGs were there. Author was a Jim Winchester. Other entrys included (for WW2 period, more or less):

British:

Blackburn Roc (turret ftr) Burton-Paul Defiant (turret ftr) Fairy Fulmer (2seat, single engine heavy ftr) Avro Manchester (from which Lancaster was developed), Blackburn Firebrand (pilots said it was built like a battleship and flew nearly as well), Blackburn Botha and Bristal Buckmaster.

US: Convair B32, Bell FM Airacuda (a ftr with a crew of 5!!!) Fisher P75 (a ftr built from pieces of other a/c) Hughes H4 "Spruce Goose", Curtiss XP62 (one of the reasons the company went under), Brewster SB2A, Curtiss SB2C, Curtiss SO3C

Germany: Me210 (from which the '410 was developed) He177 (it does better in DiF than it ever did in WW2) Bachem BA349 rocket ftr, Blohm Und Voss BV 40 glider ftr (desperate people do weird things).

Soviets: Antonov KT Flying Tank (!!!!!)

Japanese: Yokosuka Ohka (manned rocket bomb).

[Guest Mike]

Ah...well quite frankly the author's choice of "worst" aircraft isnt' that hot itself and revelas some glaring biases - the Ohka was rather good for what it was intended to achieve, while the 177 was ultimately not nearly as bad as was claimed and was certainly a better aircraft than the Short Stirling!

If the 210 and Manchester were among the worst then he should really include the early Mustangs too, which were rather lack lustre, but like those 2 a/c were re-engined and further developed into something quite useful!

There was nothign particularly wrong with hte Spruce Goose IMO - except it wsa no longer needed, and ther are any number of US "X" aircraft that failed to meet expectations - some of them were produced in small numbers and sent to China such as the P43 Lancer, and the P66.

The firebrand was built to be a torpedo bomber as well as a fighter, and it's rugged construction was sometimes appreciated by pilots - although the weight that came with it was no, especially during accidents.

The Botha was underpowered, as were manuy aircraft at initial conceptoin, and there was no need to develop it further as Beaufighters and other a/c were doing the job it was supposed to do better than it ever could.

Not sure why the Buckmaster is in there for - it was an unarmed high performance trainer meant to bridge the gap between the basic rather low performance training twins such as the Anson and actual combat a/c and seems to have been quite successful in that role.

Perhaps he meant the Buckingham from which it was developed, and which suffered from a shortage of engines and poor handling characteristics - being supersceded before it came into service and being used mainly asa fast transport - but it wasn't THAT bad!!

All in all a list that is condemned by not having the Stirling!!

[Zanadu]

The list is not complete. The Stirling was on it.

The early Mustang was excellent as a ground attack a/c replacing the Curtiss P40s which was what it was intended to be. It was supposed to equal or exceed the P40 in all respects, and did.

The Author considered the Buckingham/Buckmaster to be one with different equipment.

Heinkle wanted to build the He177 with four engines, but the Luft had fallen in love with the coupled, buried engine idea -- besides, they wanted it to be able to dive bomb (!!!). They never completely dealt with the cooling problem and the tendency to catch fire.

The Me210 and Manchester both just had really bad handling characteristics. The Manchester's problem was lateral stability, which was often, quite literally, a killer, in an a/c with horribly unreliable engines.

[Guest Mike]

Ah...well having the Stirling in redeems him a little then.

The initial Mustangs were underpowered and considered unfit as fighters - it was put into the ground attack role because it was inadequate as an interceptor - having a climb to 20,000 feet of 11 minutes, vs 7 for the Spitfire V. It was faster than the Spitfire, but also about 50% heavier and was considered underpowered - although still faster than it's German opponents at sea level, allowing it to get away in a straight speed race.

The Brits loved it for ground attack and tactical recce - but that's not why they bought it initially!!

The A-36 Apache/Invader/Mustang divebomber was less susccessful - it was a good dive bomber, but totally outclassed by any Axis fighter above 10,000 feet, and the day of the dive bomber was pretty much over by teh time it entered service - none-the-less it served in Sicily/Italy with th 27th and 86th Fighter-Bomber groups, and China-Burma-India with the 311th Fighter Bomber Group. They claimed a total of 101 aerial victories.

The XP-62 is another strange choice - it never proceeded to construction, and was clearly a troubled specification in the first place - the armament was to get EIGHT 20mm cannon or 12 .50's.....and Curtiss is stil producing aviation components - the XP-62 was jsut one of many of its post war designs that never made production, and hte aircraft manufacturing division closed in 1951 - reopening briefly to construct "convertiplanes" and a single experimental a/c for the airforce until 1965.

The Brewser SB2A Buccaneer was too late for the war - being not as good as the Helldiver and arriving after it - not sure why it rates as the worst - I dont' recall it being a "killer"

While the B-26 had a reputation jsut as bad as the LaGG 1 & 3 until Pilots were properly trained for it......

The Me-410 was just a straightfoward development of the 210 - it was not a new aeroplane and was renamed solely to avoid the negative connotations that had accompanied its predecessor - although Hungarian produced 210C's with DB605 engines were considered perfectly satisfactory a/c by both them and the Luftwaffe - to whom they delivered 108 of 267 produced.

"Worst" is a highly subjective judgement, and as far as I can see the a/c in this list were mainly "worst" by being halted at a point of underdevelopment whereas many of their "successful" contemporaries went on to hhave the problems ironed out.

[ March 07, 2006, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Zanadu]

No: The Mustang was developed by North American for the British when they wanted NA to produce P40s for them on license from Curtiss. The 'hawks were being used in MTO for ground attack and as low level fighters. The Germans considered them (the 'hawks) better than the Hurricane (which was the only other fighter then available in numbers in the MTO prior to first arrival of Spitfires.

NA offered a new design that would be equal or better than the 'hawks in all respects, with the same engine. The Mustang was just that. As a 'dive bomber', the A36 wasn't really. The dive flaps were wired shut and never used. In practice it was just another designation for a P51A variant.

While the Me410 was externally similar to the '210, it was an entirely new design, but suffered from the bad reputation that the '210 had earned. The pilots never really seemed to trust it.

Martin B26 had problems somewhat similar to the Manchester early on. Engines were new and gave problems, and high wing and power loadings made engine out handling trickly, but it had much better lateral stability than the Manchester. Longer wings, and the fact that the R2800 rapidly became a very reliable engine, cured the problems. The Manchester went thru a series of tail changes trying to deal with the stability issue, and the Vulture engine remained a piece of utter crap!!

The SB2A wasn't 'too late'. Nobody wanted it. Many of those produced went straight from production to scrapping. The British evaluated the a/c and found it: "entirely unsuitable for combat". The polite description was 'overweitht and underpowered.'

[Guest Mike]

The A-36 dive brakes were never wired shut for ops - the a/c was a beautiful diver with them open - stable and very accurate. Soem US-based fighter comanders suggested they be wired shut 'cos they didn't see any use for them. Fortunately the operational squadrons had more sense, and they were commonly used as dive bombers.

The British were offered a REAL fighter by North American - the P40 was known to be outclassed.

The Mustangs were found to be very good at low altitude, but performance fell off markedly above 15,000 feet - which is where air combat was happening in Europe.

Sure they were better than P40's and Hurricanes - and even Spitfire V's at low level, but they had been promised as "real" fighters, and could not perform that role.

The Buccaneer started development in 1941, and wasn't ready for trials until 1943 - but which time the Helldiver was ready and perfectly adequate - hence it was too late. There was no incentive to develop it further as dive-bombers were on the way out, and the Helldiver was already well developed to where the Buccaneer could have been - so it was too late for further development.

none-the-less over 1000 were built and used for training and target towing - roles for which an adequate but unspectacular a/c were suited.

the Story of the Manchester/Lancaster and Me-210 and -410 are very similar - engine troubles were solved by a new engine, and relatively minor aerodynamic changes solved the handling problems.

the 410 was originally the 210D - not a n entirely new design at all!! the first prototype Lancaster was a Manchester III, having about 75% commality with the Manchester III - the main differences beign 2 new wing sections to carry 2 extra engines, and the engines themselves. The 2nd prototype had the familiar dual tails and other detail changes. Indeed the type was originally to be called the Manchester III!

4 Merlins fixed the 2 most serious problems with the Manchester - engine reliability, and lack of power - especially with 1 engine out - the 2-engined Manchester could not keep altitude at 10,000 feet - which was it's service ceiling (pretty pathetic!!)

So another case where a logical development of an a/c changed it from a poor performer into a war winner.

Yet the author chooses to "freeze" the status of the aircraft just at it's worst point.

Why not include the Westland Whirlwind, with it's unreliable Peregrine enges, or early B-17's sent on unescorted daylight raids without even the heavy armament of the later marks? Or the Fw-200 Condor - so badly constructed some of them broke their backs sitting on the tarmac!!??

[Guest Mike]

Was the Breda 88 in that list??

Apparently as a combat aircraft it was so bad that by the end of 1940 they had been stripped of guns, engines and anything else useful, and left scattered around airfields to serve as decoy targets!! :eek: :eek:

[Sixxkiller]

The 210 actually had most of its problems ironed out, it was just doomed by reputation by this time. The 410 was a decent plane in its roles, especially when its later versions cannon worked.

-Ray

Originally posted by Zanadu:

No: The Mustang was developed by North American for the British when they wanted NA to produce P40s for them on license from Curtiss. The 'hawks were being used in MTO for ground attack and as low level fighters. The Germans considered them (the 'hawks) better than the Hurricane (which was the only other fighter then available in numbers in the MTO prior to first arrival of Spitfires.

NA offered a new design that would be equal or better than the 'hawks in all respects, with the same engine. The Mustang was just that. As a 'dive bomber', the A36 wasn't really. The dive flaps were wired shut and never used. In practice it was just another designation for a P51A variant.

While the Me410 was externally similar to the '210, it was an entirely new design, but suffered from the bad reputation that the '210 had earned. The pilots never really seemed to trust it.

Martin B26 had problems somewhat similar to the Manchester early on. Engines were new and gave problems, and high wing and power loadings made engine out handling trickly, but it had much better lateral stability than the Manchester. Longer wings, and the fact that the R2800 rapidly became a very reliable engine, cured the problems. The Manchester went thru a series of tail changes trying to deal with the stability issue, and the Vulture engine remained a piece of utter crap!!

The SB2A wasn't 'too late'. Nobody wanted it. Many of those produced went straight from production to scrapping. The British evaluated the a/c and found it: "entirely unsuitable for combat". The polite description was 'overweitht and underpowered.'