Jump to content
6./ZG26_McKvack

Would you rather have a new Battle of X that follows BOM and BOS(plane capabilities) or would you like something new?

Recommended Posts

Here's a scenario that's just bound to be a winner... ;)

 

The Epirus Front: 1941 Italian invasion of Greece from Albania. Sea, mountains, rough airstrips, biplanes, 'crap' planes and a fairly non-mechanised ground war.

 

Plane Set:

 

ITALY (RA)

 

Fiat CR.42

Fiat G.50

Junkers Ju87R

Cant Z.1007bis or Fiat BR.20

Savoia-Marchetti SM.79

 

Bonus: Macchi C.200

 

GREECE (HAF) and GREAT BRITAIN (RAF)

 

Gloster Gladiator

PZL P.24

Hawker Hurricane Mk.I

Fairey Battle

Bristol Blenheim Mk.I

 

Bonus: Bloch MB151.

 

Well, it's always fascinated me! :)

Cheers.

I would buy this in a heartbeat.  Great Idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a scenario that's just bound to be a winner... ;)

 

The Epirus Front: 1941 Italian invasion of Greece from Albania. Sea, mountains, rough airstrips, biplanes, 'crap' planes and a fairly non-mechanised ground war.

 

Plane Set:

 

ITALY (RA)

 

Fiat CR.42

Fiat G.50

Junkers Ju87R

Cant Z.1007bis or Fiat BR.20

Savoia-Marchetti SM.79

 

Bonus: Macchi C.200

 

GREECE (HAF) and GREAT BRITAIN (RAF)

 

Gloster Gladiator

PZL P.24

Hawker Hurricane Mk.I

Fairey Battle

Bristol Blenheim Mk.I

 

Bonus: Bloch MB151.

 

Well, it's always fascinated me! :)

Cheers.

At least I would have a Hurricane MK I.

 

Bi-planes are no fun I bought a few Rise of flight kits this Xmas and I can run

faster than the planes fly.NO BI-PLANES! :rolleyes:  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its important to consider the options for a future expansion while taking into account both the capabilities of both the game engine and the community.   A western front addon for example might seem ideal at first glance.  However the reality would translate to a trickle of B-17's taking off from Manston to skip bomb targets at Calais, while the Luftwaffe draws contrails overhead.  A theatre that saw action at low altitude with small formations might be more suitable.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they would like to make something not too difficult they could always make the Battle of Malta.

 

Small map easy to make with lots of water throw in a few ships 

 

In that case wheres put Luftwaffe/Regia Aeronautica bases? 

 

Italy is more than 120 KM away - or ~half hour of flight - one way, if map are 1:1... 

 

Do a shrunken map/or put Axis airfields in middle of the sea - like il-2'46 steel runways?

Or just a "what if" with Axis occupy Gozo (which spoils the purpose of historical scenarios, better goes straight for "Fantasy Island"...)?

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case wheres put Luftwaffe/Regia Aeronautica bases? 

 

Italy is more than 120 KM away - or ~half hour of flight - one way, if map are 1:1... 

 

Do a shrunken map/or put Axis airfields in middle of the sea - like il-2'46 steel runways?

Or just a "what if" with Axis occupy Gozo (which spoils the purpose of historical scenarios, better goes straight for "Fantasy Island"...)?

 

120 km of ocean may be not too difficult to map...  :P

 

There'd need to be a "Lapino" map for simmers (probably the same ones who whiiiiiiiiiine on and on about historical roll-rates, etc) who don't want to fly from Sicily. Easy stuff.  And don't forget: CARRIER OPS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A theatre that saw action at low altitude with small formations might be more suitable.

 

 

Completely agree. Right now, as it is, BoS is perfect for Eastern Front, and maybe for Libya or Tunisia. As much as I love the PTO, I think it wouldn´t be easy to organize strikes against carriers, and in the end we would see plenty of CAPs versus snoopers. Of course I can be wrong, and squadrons could make coordinated attacks.

 

 

 

Italy is more than 120 KM away - or ~half hour of flight - one way, if map are 1:1

 

 

This could change the current mindset. Longer flight times aren´t bad, but not everyone is willing to fly uneventfully for one hour or more. Using Guadalcanal as an example, flying from Bougainville (Rabaul would be even worse) to Henderson is a no go for many people. And I don´t even know if a map that large could be possible with this engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will need a following as robust as the FSX or '46 communities in their heyday to get to the fringe battles for any number of reasons. The top one is economics. The average consumer is not going to buy into those scenarios no matter how good, fun or interesting they are. The average consumer, for the most party, is not even tangentially aware those conflicts took place. When this series has a base of players broad enough to support such an expansion I would not be opposed but that player base clearly does not yet exist. I have hope though. Let's get through the well known air battles first, broaden the player base, make some money and then explore the early and periphery campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want POT, but the BoS engine may present some problems. An attack on a carrier could easily involve 30-40 planes. In SP the current engine can't do more than 16 at once. An attack on a fleet carrier would seem strangely empty with only 8 planes on a side. Not sure if this could be improved or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But please guys, really, wild speculation regarding complete no-hopers is a bit of a waste of time.

Haha, I caught a fish (see winking smiley on original post). Not that I wouldn't like to see Epirus, but some folks do get a bit serious.

It wouldn't be commercial suicide though if there was a little bit more imagination about. A planeset is a planeset, and as long as it's evenly matched who cares? I learnt SO much through the original Il-2; places, battles, people and even aircraft that I had never heard of before.

Plus this incarnation of IL-2 is pretty limited in scope. At the moment we don't have the facility for huge air battles like the PTO, BoB, Malta or even (dare I say) the Eastern Front.

The historical re-creators would be happy with Epirus or Khalkin Gol, and if the online aces can get over the complete absence of cannons and overall superiority of their plane of choice, and are prepared to put a bit more effort into it, so will they.

 

Never mind though, it won't happen, more's the pity.

Cheers.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say, "it won't happen," so much as, "it won't happen soon." If the game has good legs and remains financially viable anything is possible. Gonna take some time to fill the servers and the coffers first. Put the big rocks in the jar before filling it with sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are kind of inevitable though, in the sense that bit by bit these aircraft are needed and you end up having enough to market ab early war expansion. The Gladiator and G.50 for example fought in Finland, Greece, Northern Africa and so on. Once you do any of these, you have a few of these aircraft lying around - give them a map, campaign, any missing ground vehicles and another 2 aircraft to go with it and there's something you can sell as a Standard pack.

We're a long way off from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This could change the current mindset. Longer flight times aren´t bad, but not everyone is willing to fly uneventfully for one hour or more. Using Guadalcanal as an example, flying from Bougainville (Rabaul would be even worse) to Henderson is a no go for many people...

 

 

Green Island is about 20 minutes flying time to Rabaul.  Even less for strikes along the coast of New Ireland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green Island is about 20 minutes flying time to Rabaul. Even less for strikes along the coast of New Ireland.

Would work wonders to discourage all the vultures we have right now. Let them fly 25 minutes to get shot down by flack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~S~ Everyone,

 

How about they just tear this all up and start a new paradigm.

 

Instead of "making video games", make Software Development Kits that don't take a Phd to work with.

 

There is such a calling for a wide variety of interests, evident by this thread. That niche used to be sown up by user created content, as most of us know.

 

Those halcyon days are over, for now, for the most part.

 

The amount of user created content proffered by our end user base in the last two years was matched, "back then", every two weeks, in terms of volume.

 

Sad sad.

 

Anyway, there's my spill. I'm going back to my plow.

 

Peace,

 

!S -Jupp- :salute: 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would strongly prefer a third eastern front installment to expand the planeset we currently have to 43\44.

Once this is done, I would be perfectly fine with ether the Mediterranean or even better the pacific.

But spare us the Battle of Britain and the whole western front. It has been done to death.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would strongly prefer a third eastern front installment to expand the planeset we currently have to 43\44.

Once this is done, I would be perfectly fine with ether the Mediterranean or even better the pacific.

But spare us the Battle of Britain and the whole western front. It has been done to death.

Because the Eastern Front has not been done to death as well? Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a break... get away from the eastern front, you will all feel much better for it.

Move on, elsewhere, anywhere, you can always return to Stalingrad or Moscow if you get that Russian itch... 

 

Thanks devs' you know it will increase the profit margins :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the Eastern Front has not been done to death as well?

 

 

Once 1943 has been done(Kuban!!) I am ready to certify the Soviet-Axis front as filled out enough for something else to get done.  Given the comparative ease of doing that now compared to a totally different front, I'm confident I'll get my way.  But we'll see.

Edited by Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Kuban might actually be one of the most interesting eastern front scenarios I still look forward to sth competely different. Basicly from this point on all major aircrafts of the eastern front are implemented already and will continue to fill later eastern front scenarios as subvariants only. There's not going to be a great ammount of new aircraft despite some pecularities like the Hs-129 or P-39.

 

As hopeless as it is my biggest wish is still PTO. Not only for the great ammount of awesome aircraft but also for carrierops.

Edited by Stab/JG26_5tuka
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kuban, Kursk or an early war scenario allow for some more variety than you think. Perhaps the Luftwaffe is a little more confined to their Bf-109s and Fw-190s but the VVS in 1943 had P-39s, Spitfires, I-153s, Il-4s, A-20s for example which don't have any vaguely close aircraft in the current lineup. If to look across the front though there were IAR.81s, Hs-129s and Do-217s that would complete the Axis lineup nicely.

Edited by Lucas_From_Hell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 As much as I love the PTO, I think it wouldn´t be easy to organize strikes against carriers, and in the end we would see plenty of CAPs versus snoopers. Of course I can be wrong, and squadrons could make coordinated attacks.

Than you may start with something smaller and very low altitude in case of ground support or medium altitudes in case of bomber interceptions - that is Burma 1943/1944. You can have there A6Ms in some numbers, many many Hurricanes Mk IIc, Oscars II and III, Spitfires VIII. For bombers you have wide range - G4M, Ki-21-II, Ki-48, Blenheims, Wellington X and XIII, B-25s ...

And can top it as a premium like Ki-84 and P-51A (or if someone wants to go extreme Thunderbolt II - P-47 D-25). You got now Japanese, British, American, Australian stuff there to satisfy anyone. If devs would model Dakota just like we have Ju-52 than range of missions drastically raises as air supplies had a crucial roles in 1944 campaigns -  and we are talking of big campaigns like Imphal or Kohima. 

 

If the carriers are or engine would limit the possibilities than Burma is pretty much easiest and one of the most interesting but also largely unexplored theaters of war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it sounds to me man like :

a) We cant have the Pacific because people wouldnt be able to organize decent attacks against other carrier force and there are also engine limits (like someone mentioned) which could cause some problems. 

b) We cant have the Pacific because a decent campaign WITHOUT carriers would be like "a party without booze."

 

Sounds to me like we can never have Pacific  :wacko: 

 

Either way its not true. People had no problems forming a decent groups on Zero vs Wildcat server in Pacific fighters. Similarly I dont think whats the problem with Pacific without carriers, Pacific was not only about the carriers. There was little aircraft carrier activity around Burma until 1944 when British moved their ships with aircraft like Corsair or Hellcat on boards. There was little aircraft carrier activity throughout 1943 as major battles in New Guinea, S. Islands, Australia were fought by land based units. Since late 1944 there was 0 activity of Japanese aircraft carriers and all the fight was carried by land based units. 

 

There are enough places to provide a great theater and aircraft carriers are not needed, though I understand that people want them. Burma sounds reasonable to start especially when there is a need to work on the game engine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be pro-Kuban here but by all means flak is no excuse to deny an expansion. People still happily plunge against heavily defended airfields here, a carrier is just a smaller airfield surrounded by water and just as much AAA. It's pretty easy to just write up on chat 'erry1 who wants to sink that carrier at coordinates 123' and go for it.

 

Alternatively well-plotted sneak attacks by lone aircraft can deal damage too. On a 1946 server there was a mission to sink the Tirpitz, itself a flak party, surrounded by four smaller ships packing all kinds of fast and heavy AA you can name. To top it there was a small flak island nearby, an airfield and its flak inland and of course the fighters loitering there. It was still possible to take the long route around it, go through the clouds in a shallow dive and drop two FAB-1000 while gunning the engine and pulling away. Sure, an aileron or two may be missing but it's a price worth paying to sink a battleship. Most would do the same if there were carriers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burma would be great, Hiromachi, but a PTO installment without carriers would be like a party without booze.

 

Minor point, but the CBI (China/Burma/India) is not the PTO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

120 km of ocean may be not too difficult to map...  :P

 

There'd need to be a "Lapino" map for simmers (probably the same ones who whiiiiiiiiiine on and on about historical roll-rates, etc) who don't want to fly from Sicily. Easy stuff.  And don't forget: CARRIER OPS!

 

Is not about "difficult to map" is about fly 120 KM  from Italy out to Malta and 120 KM back.

 

Ah, that Luftwaffe and RAI...  carriers.  :good:

 

 And I don´t even know if a map that large could be possible with this engine.

 

It's said that "Crimea + Kuban (Novorossiysk) is too big map for the engine". Need be something with Stalingrad map area. 

 

 

 

(China/Burma/India) is not the PTO.

 

And involve big distances... 

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the only option then is a half scale map of Dover/Calais with an island or aircraft carrier in the middle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the only option then is a half scale map of Dover/Calais with an island or aircraft carrier in the middle...

 

Promote this man :)

At the moment I'd like to see a few more East Front installments. That may be because of my OCD but I would kind of like to see some level of completeness to the lineup. Something is very appealing to me from flying an IL-2 from the Battle of Moscow through to the Battle of Berlin. If it takes a few years to become that complete... I'm all for it.

 

And then I want Operation Overlord and Hawker Typhoon... please :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's said that "Crimea + Kuban (Novorossiysk) is too big map for the engine". Need be something with Stalingrad map area. 

 

 

 

Original IL-2 had separate maps for Kuban and Crimea am sure I read lots about them being 'joined' to make a larger map but AFAIK it never was done maybe because it would have made redundant all the campaigns/missions for each map

 

Does anyone have any real info on what the map limits are in DN engine other than the actual amount of work involved in a larger area

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor point, but the CBI (China/Burma/India) is not the PTO.

Matter of nomenclature, most of the people never fall into such details. Japanese and Allied aircraft constitute PTO, even though its actually South-East Asian theater of operations. But details are details. 

 

Is not about "difficult to map" is about fly 120 KM  from Italy out to Malta and 120 KM back.

Problem is that with current maps people got used to sort of a Quake Arena when one can throw a rock from German airfield and it lands on Soviet airfield. But for so many fronts and operations its not the case and some flying was involved.

It is something natural that flying took some time in Il 2 1946 when I was playing Rabaul 1944 or some Med maps. 

 

And involve big distances... 

Not actually, it can easily be a double of the size of incoming Battle of Moscow map (largely limited by a city of Moscow I assume) but you could close Arakan campaign or Battles of Imphal and Kohima in a map of a size of BoM (BoM is supposed to be according to the picture on the main website  270 x 290 km) or maybe slightly larger. But certainly a lot less than mentioned Kuban and Crimea.   

 

Sounds like the only option then is a half scale map of Dover/Calais with an island or aircraft carrier in the middle...

That would be sad if we would be stuck only to tiny areas :(

 

And then I want Operation Overlord and Hawker Typhoon... please :D

And what are you going to do there ? It was the largest aerial battle that never happened. Thousands of sorties flown against ground targets only.  

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BATTLE OF BULGE!!!! Operation Bodenplatte! Both sides have airbases close and it is in the mountains, interesting theatre. P-51D, P47D, P-38J vs Bf109G14, Fw190A8, Fw190D9! YEAH! Much fighting, many airplanes!

Edited by =LD=Solty
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And what are you going to do there ? It was the largest aerial battle that never happened. Thousands of sorties flown against ground targets only.  

 

Compared to the scale of the Kuban or Kursk battles... No, not the huge aerial engagement that those two were. However, if you think that the post D-Day operations were devoid of enemy air combat then I have a fantastic book series I would encourage you to read. Day to day operations for the RAF 2nd TAF only and the aerial combat was a daily occurrence.

 

Also thinking in terms of popularity - One of if not the most popular planesets on the old UK-Dedicated/Battlefields servers was our Overlord and post-Overlord scenarios. If the goal here is to find a tactical environment set somewhere than the East front... then I'd vote for that.

 

Or the Ardennes offensive. That one is a good tactical environment too.

 

Still... I'd be a happy camper with some more East Front scenarios. North Africa would be great too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BATTLE OF BULGE!!!! 

 

Good option, "easy" to do map, winter, without big know cities... late war planeset - what make the previous years "obsolete" for MP, cutting down future "wishlist". :)

And thus make short the path for Korea. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×