6 replies to this topic

[SminagosNakos]

I think its about time to put ordonance on the legenadary Ju 87 Stuka. Its a big injustice for this historic plane to be without bombs. yes at the time the Stuka was introduced to this game bombs did not relaod but now its not an excuse for not having bombs. The "russian stuka" on the contrary the black death to the german troops is accurately depicted having rockets, bombs and 6 machine guns! I think its easy with the next update to fix this .

Thank you and hope to play next update with a fully flegded stuka...

[Gremundo]

Let's be honest -  Ju-87 Stuka in the anti-tank version without bombs are absolutely useless thing in this game. Gameplay on it causing only annoyance. Like many more things it` absolutely not interesting for developers.

[DuainHicks]

To me the current stuka as it is I like it.
And I think it is a good, slow, very slow attack aircraft, but with a powerful shot against ground targets.
But, I think it would be necessary to put more versions of stuka including one with bombs as the partner says.
I have only one plane left to develop, to have all the Germans developed, so any new aircraft that is incorporated into the development tree is appreciated.

Edited by DuainHicks, 17 August 2019 - 11:25 AM.

[RoyalFlyingCorps]

Apparently there's a historical, as in the history of the game, dating back to one of the v1 versions, as to why we have the tank destroyer Stuka.  Bombing was reserved for bombers at one time, or something like that.

[Frateras]

With bombs or not, there was just one advantage the Stuka got. When it was new developed there was no plane which could destroy a bridge e.g. The Legion Condor tried to do so in the Spanush civil war. They destroyed Guernica - the whole town, but not the bridge.The whole plane was directed onto the target so it could meet it much better than other planes did in the late 30s and early 40s. To introduce this advantage into  the game all the other planes with bombs would have to miss their targets almost.

Edited by Frateras, 11 October 2019 - 11:28 AM.

[zen_monk_]

Frateras, on 11 October 2019 - 10:57 AM, said:

With bombs or not, there was just one advantage the Stuka got. When it was new developed there was no plane which could destroy a bridge e.g. The Legion Condor tried to do so in the Spanush civil war. They destroyed Guernica - the whole town, but not the bridge.The whole plane was directed onto the target so it could meet it much better than other planes did in the late 30s and early 40s. To introduce this advantage into  the game all the other planes with bombs would have to miss their targets almost.

 

Good point

[apartclassic]

Frateras, on 11 October 2019 - 10:57 AM, said:

With bombs or not, there was just one advantage the Stuka got. When it was new developed there was no plane which could destroy a bridge e.g. The Legion Condor tried to do so in the Spanush civil war. They destroyed Guernica - the whole town, but not the bridge.The whole plane was directed onto the target so it could meet it much better than other planes did in the late 30s and early 40s. To introduce this advantage into  the game all the other planes with bombs would have to miss their targets almost.

 

Or the Stuka would have to retain the historical loadout - a single medium sized bomb, a cluster of 4 small bomblets, and a very long reload time. Also, Stuka was obsolete almost immediately - it was too slow, lightly armoured, reargunner was a laugh. You sure you want such a thing in the game, with bombers like A-26 or t5-6 Soviet bombers who would have an easy time both outbombing and shooting the Stuka down?

 

Edited by apartclassic, 11 October 2019 - 02:53 PM.