Maybe its because of the overall IL-2 reputation and the fact that Russians used it in great numbers against ground targets.
WfrGr 21 rockets on Bf110 were rather meant to destroy bombers, and they had some difficulties with that task.
1 Like
AA is very inconsistent. 10 round mag with AP shells, is enough for moderate damage AT MOST if the enemy does not maneuver on their attack run. Itās not a hard counter, itās an inconvenience.
Like this but longer say 2 minutes. This would be more realistic and stop the circling rubbish. The plane system is flawed and requires a great deal of refinement. However, Iād rather see time and effort being devoted to other aspects of the game for example, mine fields for defending against troops, planting of individual AT land mines and random booby trapped items? Pick up that weapon and Bang 
Honestly another thing Iāve thought of is that attackers come in a three plane wave, meaning you come in for an attack run, drop your payload, then return to what is currently the rearmament point. Upon reaching that point, the plane will leave the area and you will be put into the second plane. Repeat again for the third plane. Upon exfiling with the third plane you are sent back to the spawn screen. This would also allow you to have 3 pilots per attack squadron. If one of your planes is lost then the attack is ācalled offā which punishes the loss of a plane since you canāt bring in your other planes.
Fighters would only get one plane with current loadout but they cannot rearm. Obviously for this to work bombs and rockets need to be nerfed, probably back to the old levels.
1 Like
Two minutes are too much given that you have to loose speed, altitude, land, rearm, get back in the air, climb, and then get back to the fight. Not to mention, that auto-reload is too close to battlefield, airfield should be further away.
With two minutes rearming cooldown it would mean that plane is usable once per 5 minutes which is pretty damn long considering that matches usually take 15-25 minutes. With that you can already remove them from the game because they would be straight up useless. I think that 20-40 seconds of sitting on airfield is enough fo cooldown.
1 Like
Good argument and reasoning. For mine I love the infantry side of the game. I just hope they can find the right balance for us. See you on the battlefield some time 
1 Like
Personally just moving the spawn and rearm point further away seems like a good solution to me. Make players take an extra 30sec-1min to get into battle, and to rearm.
When it comes to the planes, there are more things needed to take into consideration.
One of them is speed, altitude and āenergyā (when it comes to fighting other aircraft). If you donĀ“t have to land, you have permanently all your strengths all the time unless you have brain of monkey and fly like suicidal japanese pilot.
Also having to land on airfield would feel more realistic, ability to control gears and landing flaps would at least have some purpose, and players would have to learn a little bit of how to control the plane without crashing on runway. This can also fix another problemā¦ that is planes bombing spawns soon after game startsā¦ Simply make them have to takeoff from airfield upon spawn instead of giving them airspawn that lets them have all the advantages they could ever want or need.
Of course all that while assuming render distance on ground targets for pilots will be increased to avoid unnecessary wasting of your now precious payload by wild guesses.I think that would be fair compromise between realism/limitations for pilots/advantages of pilots.
But we must also take into consideration the design of maps in Enlisted. This is a one big map so devs would have to put the airfield somewhere on it. That could cause problems with distances on the certain maps - they could be too close it to far to make it enjoyable. Another thing is DDay for example - I donāt know how realistic it would be for US to have an airfield on the enemy land.
I personally like TCats idea the most. Moving spawn and ressuply points further away could solve some of the problems with planet.
That is not the problem. Most terrain of the maps is actually unused placeholder with occasional hills and trees.
The entire point of this thread is to stop bombing spam that comes every 20 seconds so taking 2-3 minutes tops to return above battlefield for another bombing run does the job.
As for US in D day invasion, they could have low altitude airspawn more far away to compensate.
Thatās why I agree that ressuplying and getting to the fight should take more time than it takes now. I just donāt like the idea of airfields.
Maybe Iām just a bad player but Iāve never learn how to land properly in WT. That is why bringing this mechanic into Enlisted, where you are always in first person, would just kill all the fun I have with planes now.
Maybe the spawns could be moved further away and lowered so the plane would have to gain altitude back to attack?
Landing in first person is not as hard as I thought it is, that is why I suggested this.
I tried to land with damaged plane in Enlisted, and had no issues doing that even on first try. All you need to do is to watch your speed and donĀ“t literally smash the ground with gears. (Neither I managed to properly takeoff and land in simulator mode in WT because it is just clunky, only realistic with cockpit camera) The only problem is, that the environment barely supports emergency landings but that issue would go away with airfield.
Landing would take SIGNIFICANTLY longer than 2-3 minutes. All your arguments support the idea of moving back spawns much better than supporting the idea of landing on an airfield, so idk why you are holding onto the airfield idea
It takes at least 2 minutes just to get up to speed to start a low altitude attack run. Making the planes extremely vulnerable to AA as well.
This
Moving back the points would take 2-3 minutes. Airfields would take 5+ minutes.
Or just make it the same for everyone and just move the airspawns further away to not make things more complicated than they have to be.
Also this
So far I tried 10+ landings in Enlisted and I have yet to not break my landing gear.
Open fields on Normandy are excellent to supposedly land on but it just does not work.
Simple, because of the advantages that airspawn gives you, and most importantly because I find resuplying in air irritating in the game that does not present itself as simple arcade experience (and no offense, I find reloading in the air the most unrealistic thing I can imagineā¦ with no way around it). And no, landing on airfield wouldnĀ“t be simulator either, simply because of the brief time it takes to rearm.
For very same reason you could see me advocating in the past for removal of penetration markers.
Anyway, long arguments are not healthy for the threads as we already saw, so with that I wonĀ“t continue with this one for now. I believe I made my stance about this clear enough for everyone.
Developers take note!
Honestly it doesnāt look like they try to suicide for me, just like they get too low and canāt pull up at timeā¦
1 Like
Either way theyāre going to dump their rockets, wipe out the objective, and crash whether you shoot them or not.
Theyād only really decide to mass crash if you made the rearm time longer than the time needed to just suicide 2 squads and spawn back into a new plane
Ofc bad players will crash but thatās not necessarily āintendedā.
In which case itās a problem that bad players can easily wipe an objective with a 110
Of course, the Bf110 wasnāt even an attacker with this loadout. It was a bomber hunter. The loadout should be changed. Maybe a 50mm cannon? Have more staying power than the P-38ās rockets but less raw power.