US planes in the future?

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

One of the problems with the Eastern Front 41-45, its the same monotonous mission. Escort your bombers/ground attack aircraft to the end of the runway at low altitude turnaround repeat if necessary.

 

Why not "Prevent transport aircraft from resupplying the 6th Army" or "Prevent Russian armor from overrunning landing strips in the Kessel" or "Go shoot up that airfield/supply dump/convoy" or "intercept the VIP" or "drop paratroopers/supplies at 'x'" or "fly a recon mission to y".

 

It seems like because the Germans were so dependent on aerial supply, recon, air support and the Russians were dependent on getting troops and supplies across the Volga there will be lots of different mission types, including knocking out boats.

So we can  add Aliens and Tie fighters in middle for increased replayability ? 

 

Zombies are all the rage ;-)

[II./JG27_Rich]

So we can  add Aliens and Tie fighters in middle for increased replayability ? 

The Battle Of Britain is worse and over a tiny area..I'm tucking as the pots and pans are flying at my head. The Eastern Front has coasts, Crimea, Kuban etc and vast land mass although I can tell you a goofy story that happened before the release of "Ace Expansion Pack". You know how you hear these stories about German soldiers suffering from extreme melocholia, I swear to god when I knew the Western Front was coming up it was like, "I'm I going to make it out of this white hell alive"? Don't get me wrong, back then we were still going at least seven - eight hours a day but at times I was just staring blankly at the snow. hehehe    As long as it's not three or four years I'm sure I'll love Russia. I can only take the lenghth of the real Battle of The Battle Of Britain though.

Edited September 2, 2013 by II./JG27Richie

[Finkeren]

One of the problems with the Eastern Front 41-45, its the same monotonous mission. Escort your bombers/ground attack aircraft to the end of the runway at low altitude turnaround repeat if necessary.

Say what? Where did you get that?

 

Except for high altitude bombing raids with heavy bombers, exactly what types of missions are missing on the Eastern Front?

 

 

 

As a minimum we'd have:

 

 

Reconnaisance (photo and visual)

 

CAS

 

Level bombing (at all altitudes)

 

Dive bombing

 

Interdiction

 

Intruder missions

 

Anti-shipping (complete with torpedo runs)

 

Interception

 

Fighter sweeps

 

Escort (bombers, fighter bombers, recon etc.)

 

Air superiority patrols

 

Emergency scrambles

 

Lone patrols

 

Transfer/ferry flights

 

 

What's missing?

[Original_Uwe]

Say what? Where did you get that?

 

Except for high altitude bombing raids with heavy bombers, exactly what types of missions are missing on the Eastern Front?

....

 

What's missing?

Ahem:

The RAF

The USAAF

The RA

Italy

North Afrika.

 

Thats all

 

ETA: It matters not when or where the fight against the russians is always the same and utterly monotonous. In the west it quite a bit more fun.

 

ETA: Though I mostly fly the 109, (simply because it is an amazing and beautiful airplane) something else that has always bothered me about the ostfront is that there is no good guy to fly for.

In the west at least I can hop in a spit and fly for one of the western democracies, but in the east you either fly for one murderous totalitarian government...or the other. Both sides were evil, who anihilated innocent lives at the behest of evil men.

Honestly this is a big deal to some of us, who from time to time like to virtually fight the good virtual fight.

Edited September 2, 2013 by CWMV

[Heywooood]

I dont know if most of us agree or what, but I think a huge problem for original IL2 Maddox/Luthier was their attempt to please everyone by including everything that flew in WWII, regardless of whether it fit the base code.

 

that poor game engine was fractured and stretched beyond recognition soon after the original release, mostly to appease the west - had to hurry and get the lend lease planes involved...then the Brits wanted their Spits and Hurri's...

 

well then you gotta have Mustangs and what about the Pacific??

 

I hope that either 777 1CGS have prepared to do all theaters and all elemental aircraft of all involved WWII combatants OR they have prepared not to...and instead will keep the code clean and implement only those elements that fit properly

into the base software.

 

seems to me they have realised the mistakes of the original and planned accordingly but you never know - Zak did say the P40 would be coming sooner than you might expect...

the Thing about this genre of simulation is there are so many facets and everyone wants something a little different, whether it is the different regions or theaters of the conflict with their special orders of battle and missions

or some combination of them that are a "MUST HAVE" - to the way the simulator works beit clickable pits, Occulus, multi monitors, etc... - to the accessibility to the mods for repaints, custom missions and maps etc..

And it all has to work on my cheap PC and be smooth as glass with all settings maxed out...lets not forget.

 

its going to get interesting in here in the next few months...

"ETA: It matters not when or where the fight against the russians is always the same and utterly monotonous. In the west it quite a bit more fun."

 

this was always the core argument and rail against Maddox in the early days of Original IL2...its not accurate - infact - its ignorant - but it was the common argument and it was used to beat 1c Maddox into giving everyone everything they wanted - whether it worked or not.

I hope not to see that mess repeated but time will tell

Edited September 2, 2013 by Heywooood

[Vig]

MTO would suit me fine.  If I have a carrier to fly from, I'll be perfectly happy.  If I had a Blackburn Skua to play with, I would be overjoyed. (I know that these were not used after Norway but still...).

 

BTW P-51's do nothing for me.

 

Another thought:  if BOS uses the same business model as ROF, we will essentially be buying airplanes.  More aircraft in IL2 meant more expense; if the ROF business model is used in BOS, more aircraft will mean more revenue.  I imagine that this would be an incentive to specifically design the base code with an eye to further expansion.       

Edited September 2, 2013 by Vig

[Original_Uwe]

...

"ETA: It matters not when or where the fight against the russians is always the same and utterly monotonous. In the west it quite a bit more fun."

 

this was always the core argument and rail against Maddox in the early days of Original IL2...its not accurate - infact - its ignorant - but it was the common argument and it was used to beat 1c Maddox into giving everyone everything they wanted - whether it worked or not.

I hope not to see that mess repeated but time will tell

Thats exactly what the east was after stalingrad. Russians build up, push back the germans, take insane losses and come to a halt. Fortify position, rebuild forces, rinse and repeat all the way to Berlin.

 

But that aside from the game perspective it is just that boring. 

 

Although I do agree about engine limitations. There was NO PLACE for the fraking pacific war in IL2. Idiocy.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

 

The RAF

The USAAF

The RA

Italy

North Afrika.

 

 

 

I think those are air forces and theaters, not mission types.

[II./JG27_Rich]

MTO would suit me fine.  If I have a carrier to fly from, I'll be perfectly happy.  If I had a Blackburn Skua to play with, I would be overjoyed. (I know that these were not used after Norway but still...).

 

BTW P-51's do nothing for me.   

I love the Mediterranean North African desert theater. You have a great dog fighting plane set in my opinion and the 109 at it's zenith the F4 as far as comparing it to allied fighters. You have three very different scenes, sandy yellow - brown desert the Mediterranean sea and rocky hilly Italy all very pretty.

[Rjel]

I think in the flight sim world, it is almost avant-garde to rail against P-51s or Spits. You only have to look at the favorite WWII A/C thread here to see it. Some favorites list almost looked like the most obscure planes were chosen to illustrate how "knowledgeable" the poster was. If we get a Mustang down the road, I'll be thrilled and probably would fly it almost exclusively. Til then, I'll fly the plane I like best that fits whatever theater we are given.  

[Vig]

I think those are air forces and theaters, not mission types.

 

Carrier operations are a mission type.  One of my motivations for starting this thread was to find out if a carrier-ops expansion was a possibility.  It will make a difference to me, the difference between $49 and $89.

[Vig]

I think in the flight sim world, it is almost avant-garde to rail against P-51s or Spits. You only have to look at the favorite WWII A/C thread here to see it. Some favorites list almost looked like the most obscure planes were chosen to illustrate how "knowledgeable" the poster was. If we get a Mustang down the road, I'll be thrilled and probably would fly it almost exclusively. Til then, I'll fly the plane I like best that fits whatever theater we are given.  

  I personally have nothing against P-51s!  But I like quirky machines.  I respect a 1959 Cadillac, but I would rather have a 1959 BMW Isetta.  Go figure. 

[Finkeren]

ETA: It matters not when or where the fight against the russians is always the same and utterly monotonous. In the west it quite a bit more fun.

 

ETA: Though I mostly fly the 109, (simply because it is an amazing and beautiful airplane) something else that has always bothered me about the ostfront is that there is no good guy to fly for.

In the west at least I can hop in a spit and fly for one of the western democracies, but in the east you either fly for one murderous totalitarian government...or the other. Both sides were evil, who anihilated innocent lives at the behest of evil men.

Honestly this is a big deal to some of us, who from time to time like to virtually fight the good virtual fight.

Last things first: There is no "good virtual fight". We can all agree (I hope) that WW2 had the right outcome. We didn't really want to see the fascists win. Most of us will propably also agree, that the USSR under Stalin wasn't exactly a humanitarian paradise. But the US and the Brits being "good"? Give me a break. Without going into a political discussion about the reasons for the UK and US to fight the war, there was notning inherently "good" about the way that war was fought. Just looking at the air war we have the immense destruction, death and suffering brought on by the terror bombings of German and Japanese cities (something that was explicitly forbidden under the laws of war) including the first and only instances of attacks with nuclear weapons. It was propably necessary to win the war, but there was nothing "good" about it. It was dirty, monstrous and it killed over a million innocent civillians.

On the other hand you have the VVS, who spent most of the war defending their homeland against an invasion. Does that somehow make them "evil"?

 

If you think you can ever play as the "good guys" in a war game, you're kidding yourself.

 

As for the Eastern Front being "monoteneus", you're completely ignoring, that that theatre isn't just the Germans vs. the Russians. As far as the air war goes, there's the Finns, the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Italians and the Slovaks. That gives us 7 nations, and we're not even counting the many volunteers from other nations flying for both sides. Not to mention, that a broad selection of "Western" aircraft saw service on both sides, while the opposite didn't happen. In the western ETO, what have got? 4 nations with any kind of air power after 1940? In the MTO? 5? Unless you wanna add Iraq to the bunch (which I'm all for) Saying that ETO provides much more variety than the Eastern Front can only be based on ignorance about that war.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Finkeren

[Rjel]

  I personally have nothing against P-51s!  But I like quirky machines.  I respect a 1959 Cadillac, but I would rather have a 1959 BMW Isetta.  Go figure. 

 

Well that wasn't really directed towards you. But I know what you mean. Most every car buff loves a '57 Chevy. But I absolutely would love to have a souped up 2 doored '55 Chevy. Sweet looking street rod.

[Vig]

Last things first: There is no "good virtual fight". We can all agree (I hope) that WW2 had the right outcome. We didn't really want to see the fascists win. Most of us will propably also agree, that the USSR under Stalin wasn't exactly a humanitarian paradise. But the US and the Brits being "good"? Give me a break. Without going into a political discussion about the reasons for the UK and US to fight the war, there was notning inherently "good" about the way that war was fought. Just looking at the air war we have the immense destruction, death and suffering brought on by the terror bombings of German and Japanese cities (something that was explicitly forbidden under the laws of war) including the first and only instances of attacks with nuclear weapons. It was propably necessary to win the war, but there was nothing "good" about it. It was dirty, monstrous and it killed over a million innocent civillians.

On the other hand you have the VVS, who spent most of the war defending their homeland against an invasion. Does that somehow make them "evil"?

 

If you think you can evercplay as the "good guys" in a war game, you're kidding yourself.

 

As for the Eastern Front being "monoteneus", you're completely ignoring, that that theatre isn't just the Germans vs. the Russians. As far as the air war goes, there's the Finns, the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Italians and the Slovaks. That gives us 7 nations, and we're not even counting the many volunteers from other nations flying for both sides. In the western ETO, what have got? 4 nations with any kind of air power after 1940? In the MTO? 5? Unless you wanna add Iraq to the bunch (which I'm all for) Saying that ETO provides much more variety than the Eastern Front can only be based on ignorance about that war.

I like game forums but I hate the grognard arguments and political vitriol that is so often seen on flight sim forums.  IMHO it had a great deal to do with destroying the genre.  C'mon let's be polite and polite and positive, please?

[Freycinet]

Last things first: There is no "good virtual fight". We can all agree (I hope) that WW2 had the right outcome. We didn't really want to see the fascists win. Most of us will propably also agree, that the USSR under Stalin wasn't exactly a humanitarian paradise. But the US and the Brits being "good"? Give me a break. Without going into a political discussion about the reasons for the UK and US to fight the war, there was notning inherently "good" about the way that war was fought. Just looking at the air war we have the immense destruction, death and suffering brought on by the terror bombings of German and Japanese cities (something that was explicitly forbidden under the laws of war) including the first and only instances of attacks with nuclear weapons. It was propably necessary to win the war, but there was nothing "good" about it. It was dirty, monstrous and it killed over a million innocent civillians.

On the other hand you have the VVS, who spent most of the war defending their homeland against an invasion. Does that somehow make them "evil"?

 

If you think you can evercplay as the "good guys" in a war game, you're kidding yourself.

 

I totaly disagree with your points of view. There is only one reason why you have the privilege of speaking freely about these things as you do here, and that is because the US and the UK won the war, and the cold war following it. There most definitely was a good side in WWII. The Western Allies were attacked in WWII. Germany unleashed terror bombing in a grand scale on the UK and declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The Germans "sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind".

 

The way the war was fought? - You don't get the privilege of choosing your arms and methods in the real world...

 

You need to read some history. Start with Andrew Robert's WWII history for example... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/16/the-storm-of-war-by-andrew-roberts-best-history-of-world-war-two.html

[Rjel]

I like game forums but I hate the grognard arguments and political vitriol that is so often seen on flight sim forums.  IMHO it had a great deal to do with destroying the genre.  C'mon let's be polite and polite and positive, please?

 +1 to that. I hate revisionist history. In the end all that can be said good of WWII is that it was ended as quickly as it was. Quite remarkable I think.

[Finkeren]

Yeah sorry about that, but it pisses me off, when people start talking about "good guys" in war. Especially a war that was fought with such brutality as WW2.

[Bearcat]

I dont know if most of us agree or what, but I think a huge problem for original IL2 Maddox/Luthier was their attempt to please everyone by including everything that flew in WWII, regardless of whether it fit the base code.

that poor game engine was fractured and stretched beyond recognition soon after the original release, mostly to appease the west - had to hurry and get the lend lease planes involved...then the Brits wanted their Spits and Hurri's... well then you gotta have Mustangs and what about the Pacific??

 

I hope that either 777 1CGS have prepared to do all theaters and all elemental aircraft of all involved WWII combatants OR they have prepared not to...and instead will keep the code clean and implement only those elements that fit properly

into the base software.

 

seems to me they have realised the mistakes of the original and planned accordingly but you never know - Zak did say the P40 would be coming sooner than you might expect...

the Thing about this genre of simulation is there are so many facets and everyone wants something a little different, whether it is the different regions or theaters of the conflict with their special orders of battle and missions

or some combination of them that are a "MUST HAVE" - to the way the simulator works beit clickable pits, Occulus, multi monitors, etc... - to the accessibility to the mods for repaints, custom missions and maps etc..

And it all has to work on my cheap PC and be smooth as glass with all settings maxed out...lets not forget.

 

its going to get interesting in here in the next few months...

 

 

I don't know about all that.. I don't think it is as simple as trying to "appease" the west.. I think it is more trying to appeal to the west.. so they will buy the product.. and frankly I think the IL2 engine does .. repeat does.. as in still does.. a pretty good job of handling the variety of AC in the sim.. I think that this engine is going to be fine in tha regard.. I think that if it couldn't handle it then it would not have been chosen.. I doubt we will ever see the variety of aircraft in any WWII sim again that we see in IL2..  and that not even considering the mods... I also wonder what role piracy and the cracking of the sim played in the issues with CoD and what happened with IL2.. I do not think that the new series will suffer from those same issues..

[Heywooood]

Im remembering some pretty harsh posts by mostly US players that didn't understand the Forgotten Battles or the Great Patriotic War...all they wanted was to fly P51's  and why the hell werent there any in this boring ass broken down euro sim...of course the language was much worse than my example - but the gist is there...and it was relentless !

Brits were as adamant if less rude - about their rides and areas of conflict...

 

There was quite a bit of Nationalism on those boards...already seeing some here too and this bad boy is still in the can.

so whether you say please the west or appease the west - the outcome was the same. A perfectly good simulation of an entire war albeit unknown to US - was essentialy hijacked.

and say what you like about the software code being able to handle it - it was...as long as you flew innacurately low altitude and didn't care if any systems worked.

the third parties that hacked the code made it better...but it was still never designed to handle all the inflation.

 

so here is BoS - planned to be run like RoF with developer run servers and tight control over the content (as it should be) and with a much broader based core to handle more of the entire scope of WWII style combat - from the aircraft variety to armament variety to mission profiles to theaters of operation. (hopefully)

Also I hope these people are more prepared to delineate what can and cannot be done to preserve accuracy and fidelity of their software  - better anyway than 1c Maddox was able to do.

Yeah sorry about that, but it pisses me off, when people start talking about "good guys" in war. Especially a war that was fought with such brutality as WW2.

agreed - nothing really good about war, the same kinds of things that brought the world to war the last two times (and every other time before) are present today...in bulk

war doesn't make people understand anything...understanding does

[Capt_Hook]

I totaly disagree with your points of view. There is only one reason why you have the privilege of speaking freely about these things as you do here, and that is because the US and the UK won the war, and the cold war following it. There most definitely was a good side in WWII. The Western Allies were attacked in WWII. Germany unleashed terror bombing in a grand scale on the UK and declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The Germans "sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind".

 

The way the war was fought? - You don't get the privilege of choosing your arms and methods in the real world...

 

You need to read some history. Start with Andrew Robert's WWII history for example... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/16/the-storm-of-war-by-andrew-roberts-best-history-of-world-war-two.html

The 'cold war following it' is a statement I agree with, but not 'US and the UK won the war'.  I'm a US citizen, and of course had the same US-centric history of WWII tought to me as most of us here in the states did, but our participation has always seemed somewhat overblown.  Very important in sooooo many ways, of course, and absolutely pivotal in key areas, but from my study of the era WWII was fought and won on the cold, mercilless grounds of the Eastern Front.  The greatest clashes of men and machines in the history of the human race occured there, and hopefully they will always be the greatest and we will never witness anything like it again. 

 

On topic:  I hope we do move at least somewhat quickly into 1943 and the US and RAF planes represented there, and I'd also be a huge fan of the PTO.  I'd imagine the technical / graphical challenge of accurately (up to the standards of the rest of the sim) replicating the Yorktown or Enterprise and simulating flight operations off those decks would be pretty daunting, and cost a lot in terms of programming / art manhours. 

 

I'd pre-order the Deluxe PTO, Africa, or Med versions the day they're announced, however, just like I ordered BoS.  :-)

[Rjel]

The 'cold war following it' is a statement I agree with, but not 'US and the UK won the war'.  I'm a US citizen, and of course had the same US-centric history of WWII tought to me as most of us here in the states did, but our participation has always seemed somewhat overblown.  Very important in sooooo many ways, of course, and absolutely pivotal in key areas, but from my study of the era WWII was fought and won on the cold, mercilless grounds of the Eastern Front.  The greatest clashes of men and machines in the history of the human race occured there, and hopefully they will always be the greatest and we will never witness anything like it again. 

 

Check out this link to a 1944 newsreel about the four major war fronts in WWII. In it, it states the very things about the Russian Front you say were ignored or unknown to America. I have a 1960s era documentary called Battleline that had an episode with similar themes. This is not to mention one of the best WWII documentaries, The World at War, doing more of the same. The information has been there from the beginning in many forms if one is willing to look for it.

 

 

http://archive.org/d...hives.arc.39128

Edited September 2, 2013 by Rjel

[Frequent_Flyer]

Say what? Where did you get that?

 

Except for high altitude bombing raids with heavy bombers, exactly what types of missions are missing on the Eastern Front?

 

 

 

As a minimum we'd have:

 

 

Reconnaisance (photo and visual)

 

CAS

 

Level bombing (at all altitudes)

 

Dive bombing

 

Interdiction

 

Intruder missions

 

Anti-shipping (complete with torpedo runs)

 

Interception

 

Fighter sweeps

 

Escort (bombers, fighter bombers, recon etc.)

 

Air superiority patrols

 

Emergency scrambles

 

Lone patrols

 

Transfer/ferry flights

 

 

What's missing?

Just this : Taking off from a carrier with a full load of fuel ,ammunition, bomb load and rear gunner. Because of the in coming enemy we didn't have time to turn the carrier completely into the wind. It was very difficult to get air born , the dive bomber in front of me didn't make it. Once airborne I have to climb to allude and pray my fighter escort find's me this time, unlike the last mission. Now I have to rely on my navigational skills , good luck and eyesight to spot an enemy naval group in an endless sea of blue with no landmarks, made more difficult by the fact that darkness is approaching. I have to keep an eye on the compass, fuel gauge ,my flight and keep looking for enemy aircraft. All the while maintaining radio silence .Assuming I make it through the AAA put up by every capital ship in the carrier group, Nothing in any flight sim beats the rush of tipping over your dive bomber and seeing that enemy carrier, battleship etc. literarily filling up your bomb site and your crate lurch forward as you release the bomb load knowing full well it will be a direct hit. As I pull out of the dive I can feel the explosion and see the orange lite up the now dark sky. I am hoping the rest of my flight meets up at the rendezvous point , because alone I have little chance of returning safely. I hear the .30 of my rear gunner chattering away, this can't be good., he is screaming instructions on how to avoid the stream of incoming cannon and machine gun fire. Where the hell are the escort fighters ! I am twisting and turning and almost flying upside down when I Simultaneously hear the unmistakable sound of live ammunition hitting metal and my right wing dip. I corrected the plane but it does not feel right. We are losing fuel and with all of the desperate flying I have lost my bearings. In my head phones my rear gunner states he is injured and need medical attention. Its' dark I am separated from my flight and after correcting my heading I have no idea if my fuel will hold out, or if I can even find my carrier made infinitely more difficult now daylight is gone and a storm is kicking up. By the grace of God I have found a carrier, I do not know if is mine and I don't care. What I do care about is the fire on the landing deck, is that one of ours , misjudging the landing or is it battle damage ? I get the go ahead because of the injured crew, the deck is bobbing up and down like a floating cork , I have to hit the deck swing to the right to avoid adding to the burning metal and hope my hook catches

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Carrier operations are a mission type.  One of my motivations for starting this thread was to find out if a carrier-ops expansion was a possibility.  It will make a difference to me, the difference between $49 and $89.

 

I can accept that!  I would love to see torpedo bombers and carrier v. carrier combat done well.  We know 777 has some experience with ships, at least.

 

I would like to see a North Africa theater, just because I can't think of a game that has really done that, but I was thinking earlier that I would really like to see a Flying Tigers and Burmese campaign.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Yeah sorry about that, but it pisses me off, when people start talking about "good guys" in war. Especially a war that was fought with such brutality as WW2.

 

I was just wondering what a modern military sim would be like if it had to go through a propaganda minister for approval.  Of course, I guess we see that a little in games in the way certain national symbols can't be displayed in some markets.

[Vig]

I try to always fly as a "good" guy.  The kids doing the flying weren't the ones who started the war.  They were young and believed what they were taught.  To me a "good guy" in an aviation sim is someone on my side who has my back -  someone who will actually fly wingman instead of getting distracted and wandering off, or who will escort my limping bomber back to base when there is no way I could make it on my own.

 

And who never, ever, deliberately teamkills!

[Bearcat]

@ Heywood... well ethnocentricity is not a uniquely American trait.. but I understand what you are saying.. and I know people who chided and slandered me for flying in that "Russian" sim with Redtail La-5s.. but there was enough of that going around.. and for every American who didn't get it there were counterparts from across the water who insisted that everything American was total crap... Remember when the P-47 was first released in IL2 and it had a roll rate that was worse than the He-111 .... and what did we here most from many circles... "The P-47 was not a dogfighter anyway...!"

 

Eventually things were fixed.. and that is a good thing .. and while there were many folks from the U.S. who had that snotty attitude you mention I think that more Americans were pretty pleased with IL2 and were actually grateful that it opened up the Eastern front to them.. because that was what IL2 did for me... Before IL2 .. I knew about the Eastern front .. but after IL2 I actually did research and studied .. and gained an appreciation for the Russian contribution that was not as crystalized in my mind as before I got into IL2.

[Finkeren]

I was just wondering what a modern military sim would be like if it had to go through a propaganda minister for approval. Of course, I guess we see that a little in games in the way certain national symbols can't be displayed in some markets.

Well we know what certain war games and war movies are like, when they're pre-approved or co-produced by the military.

[Vig]

Before IL2 .. I knew about the Eastern front .. but after IL2 I actually did research and studied .. and gained an appreciation for the Russian contribution that was not as crystalized in my mind as before I got into IL2.

That was my experience, too.  I knew the scope of the Soviet contribution to victory in WW2, of the horrendous losses they suffered, and of the brutality of the conflict - Soviet POW survival rates and Soviet civilian casualties come immediately to mind - and admired the victory enough to hope that I would one day be able to go see the monument on Mamayev Kurgan.  But I had no feel at all for the machines.  I had read a bit about them, and seen a few photos - difficult to come by in the pre-internet age.  Plastic aircraft models were built by every kid on the block when I was a youngster, and served as "recognition models" for those of us with a budding interest in WW2 aviation.  But those Aurora models were of Mustangs, Corsairs, Spitfires, and Me-109s.  There might be a Zeke on the shelves occasionally, but the Italian and Soviet aircraft were not represented at all.    

 

As an adult, I was very excited when IL2 was first launched simply for the opportunity to examine the unfamiliar Soviet aircraft from different angles and learn their contours.  And, to the extent that the flight models were correct, to learn something about the relative performance of these aircraft.  It was a surprise to learn that, despite their resemblance to one another, the MiG-3 and the P-40 were different sorts of beast altogether! 

 

My point is, while there was a great deal of nationalistic chauvinism present on the original IL2 forums, these are very different times.  The flight sim is no longer the dominant genre in PC gaming, and those who remain in or are drawn to this genre today, I think, are more students than gamers.  There are not all that many of us, relatively speaking, and I hope that we can make the forums a friendly place to share our enthusiasms rather that to debate their relative merit.  I would like to see us all set an example of civility that latecomers will accept as the norm.  That's the way to make this game a success and to grow the hobby. 

[Finkeren]

Just want to clarify: I do not see this discussion as a product of "nationalism", I like to think that most American simmers are just as intrigued by theatres of war, that doesn't include the USAAF or USN, and the silly nationalism exists in individuals across the board amongst all nationalities.

 

My problem is solely with making one side of any war into "the good guys". In WW2 it's pretty easy to point out some of the "bad guys" (at least from our perspective), but that doesn't make the other side "good". War calls upon soldiers to do heinous things to other human beings. Sometimes it is necessary, even justified (WW2 especially so), but it's certainly not "good".

[Finkeren]

I try to always fly as a "good" guy. The kids doing the flying weren't the ones who started the war. They were young and believed what they were taught. To me a "good guy" in an aviation sim is someone on my side who has my back - someone who will actually fly wingman instead of getting distracted and wandering off, or who will escort my limping bomber back to base when there is no way I could make it on my own.

 

And who never, ever, deliberately teamkills!

In that sense, I guess "good guys" exist on every side in every war.

But it doesn't change the fact, that a soldiers job still is to kill and maim other human beings.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Finkeren

[Vig]

In that sense, I guess "good guys" exist on every side in every war.

But it doesn't change the fact, that a soldiers job still is to kill and maim other human beings.

 

There is the paradox - war is an abomination, especially a war of aggression, but it is nevertheless fascinating.  I would prefer that there never was another, but if there is, I will probably read about it.

 

"My argument is that War makes rattling good history; but Peace is poor reading." 

Thomas Hardy

Edited September 3, 2013 by Vig

[Finkeren]

There is the paradox - war is an abomination, especially a war of aggression, but it is nevertheless fascinating. I would prefer that there never was another, but if there is, I will probably read about it.

 

"My argument is that War makes rattling good history; but Peace is poor reading."

Thomas Hardy

Hear, hear. I completely agree. As much as I am a peace-nik hoping never to see another war, I can help being fascinated as a historian by the ones that have been.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

[VeryOldMan]

@ Heywood... well ethnocentricity is not a uniquely American trait.. but I understand what you are saying.. and I know people who chided and slandered me for flying in that "Russian" sim with Redtail La-5s.. but there was enough of that going around.. and for every American who didn't get it there were counterparts from across the water who insisted that everything American was total crap... Remember when the P-47 was first released in IL2 and it had a roll rate that was worse than the He-111 .... and what did we here most from many circles... "The P-47 was not a dogfighter anyway...!"

 

Eventually things were fixed.. and that is a good thing .. and while there were many folks from the U.S. who had that snotty attitude you mention I think that more Americans were pretty pleased with IL2 and were actually grateful that it opened up the Eastern front to them.. because that was what IL2 did for me... Before IL2 .. I knew about the Eastern front .. but after IL2 I actually did research and studied .. and gained an appreciation for the Russian contribution that was not as crystalized in my mind as before I got into IL2.

 

hell you remember the threads about  .50 machine guns.. that should be able to pierce King Tigers frontal armor ? Excessive belief in  the equipments and wodners  and conditiosn of your own side will always  exist

[6./ZG26_Emil]

hell you remember the threads about  .50 machine guns.. that should be able to pierce King Tigers frontal armor ? Excessive belief in  the equipments and wodners  and conditiosn of your own side will always  exist

 

 

Weren't those threads saying they believed that the .50 cal rounds could be bounced under the Tigers and penetrate the belly armour?

 

Either way a great laugh was had by all sane people :D

[VeryOldMan]

Weren't those threads saying they believed that the .50 cal rounds could be bounced under the Tigers and penetrate the belly armour?

 

Either way a great laugh was had by all sane people :D

 

 

Exactly that one...  I remember when  I wrote, "The  newtonian  laws of physics do not allow that to happen" when a  guy said that .50  could make  locomotives roll over. And the guy answered " You know that  US troops are not forced to follow   laws made  in other countries, specially in times of war".  

 

I think  I never saw a statement  of that level again in all the internet.

[Bearcat]

Just want to clarify: I do not see this discussion as a product of "nationalism", I like to think that most American simmers are just as intrigued by theatres of war, that doesn't include the USAAF or USN, and the silly nationalism exists in individuals across the board amongst all nationalities.

 

My problem is solely with making one side of any war into "the good guys". In WW2 it's pretty easy to point out some of the "bad guys" (at least from our perspective), but that doesn't make the other side "good". War calls upon soldiers to do heinous things to other human beings. Sometimes it is necessary, even justified (WW2 especially so), but it's certainly not "good".

In that sense, I guess "good guys" exist on every side in every war.

But it doesn't change the fact, that a soldiers job still is to kill and maim other human beings.

 

From a historic perspective I have to disagree with you. There were clearly good guys and bad guys in WWII. While both sides also had good guys and bad guys in their ranks and criminal acts were committed by both sides.. One side had an edge in the "evil deeds" dept.. clearly.. Now having said that .. that was then and this is now.. and that historic fact has nothing whatsoever to do with the simmer side of things as in determining a person's character based on which type of machine he prefers.. I think that people choose the machines they choose in sims because they either like the performance or there may be a sense of national pride.. and there is nothing wrong with that ..  because let's face it.. the term "German engineering"  did not just pop up out of thin air.. Germany has always been very innovative and just because a small group of men manipulated a nation into going along with unspeakable acts does not stain the entire nation for ever... For every Reinhart Heidrich I am certain there were thousands who just wanted to do their duty and go home back to their families.. That is one reason why I can have such respect for the Galland and Hartman and Sakai and the rest of the soldiers who handled themselves with dignity in war.. regardless to what side they were on . I understood this even better once I read "I Flew for the Furher".. so while nationalism in the most optimistic sense certainly plays a role in this kind of gaming, politics does not.. outside of discussing the political facts of the day as they were.. and sometimes the lines get blurry but it is up to us to bring it back to focus on what really matters.. which is the simming and the enjoyment of this hobby of ours that has brought the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the participants of WWII together in a virtual world that our ancestors never imagined.

 

My comments to you were specifically directed at the things I quoted and the well documented negativity directed towards just about anything American on many flight sim boards from folks across the pond.. and I just don't want to see that kind of stuff take root here because it detracts from the overall enjoyment of this thing we do.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Well we know what certain war games and war movies are like, when they're pre-approved or co-produced by the military.

Especially in certain time periods!

Exactly that one...  I remember when  I wrote, "The  newtonian  laws of physics do not allow that to happen" when a  guy said that .50  could make  locomotives roll over. And the guy answered " You know that  US troops are not forced to follow   laws made  in other countries, specially in times of war".  

 

I think  I never saw a statement  of that level again in all the internet.

 

THAT would be AWESOME!!!  

 

"All right gents; we are in a combat zone, so the LT has set the physics model too 'modified'.  Go get 'em!"

[Heywooood]

That was my experience, too.  I knew the scope of the Soviet contribution to victory in WW2, of the horrendous losses they suffered, and of the brutality of the conflict - Soviet POW survival rates and Soviet civilian casualties come immediately to mind - and admired the victory enough to hope that I would one day be able to go see the monument on Mamayev Kurgan.  But I had no feel at all for the machines.  I had read a bit about them, and seen a few photos - difficult to come by in the pre-internet age.  Plastic aircraft models were built by every kid on the block when I was a youngster, and served as "recognition models" for those of us with a budding interest in WW2 aviation.  But those Aurora models were of Mustangs, Corsairs, Spitfires, and Me-109s.  There might be a Zeke on the shelves occasionally, but the Italian and Soviet aircraft were not represented at all.    

 

As an adult, I was very excited when IL2 was first launched simply for the opportunity to examine the unfamiliar Soviet aircraft from different angles and learn their contours.  And, to the extent that the flight models were correct, to learn something about the relative performance of these aircraft.  It was a surprise to learn that, despite their resemblance to one another, the MiG-3 and the P-40 were different sorts of beast altogether! 

 

My point is, while there was a great deal of nationalistic chauvinism present on the original IL2 forums, these are very different times.  The flight sim is no longer the dominant genre in PC gaming, and those who remain in or are drawn to this genre today, I think, are more students than gamers.  There are not all that many of us, relatively speaking, and I hope that we can make the forums a friendly place to share our enthusiasms rather that to debate their relative merit.  I would like to see us all set an example of civility that latecomers will accept as the norm.  That's the way to make this game a success and to grow the hobby. 

same here - almost exactly my experience...and my hope is the same as in your last paragraph too

 

@ BC - yes I was generalizing sorry, but for the purpose of pointing out that original IL2 was deeply affected by the additional content that was unplanned or shoehorned in for 'whatever' reason - it had a negative overall impact on the quality

of that simulator that I hope is not repeated with BoS development

Edited September 3, 2013 by Heywooood