Jump to content
SYN_Luftwaffles

Battle of Berlin

Recommended Posts

Guys, (Finky, Lucas, et al)

 

I don't mean to be antagonistic when we debate the relative merits of the Devs ultimate course going forward.  I know they haven't even decided for themselves yet.  I know both sides have their own pros as well as cons, but someone has to speak up for the other crowds, else we'd have a autocracy that doesn't see a broader view than what the East-Front-Only crowd (EFOC) sees.

 

I also want an Hs-123, an Hs-129, the Yak-7b, FW-189 etc. as I see how their presence really fleshes out the amazing sim we already have.  I also want to see a sharp increase in the number of ground vehicles that are modeled for the BoS/BoM period, as that is severely lacking in its diversity and replay-ability.

 

My goal is ultimately we all get what we want, because at the end of the day I want the same things you all want, just as the result of a minor detour from time to time to build a solid foundation of 1940, 1941, and 1942 plane sets from a broader sampling of WWII.  I don't think we necessarily have to focus major release after major release (ie. BoS/BoM/Bo3/Bo4) to accomplish what we want.  I think much of what the EFOC wants could be added if the business model of the Franchise were modified to add small plane variant packs, and heck even new map packs complete with ground vehicle models.  The Eastern Front has some wind in its sails, it can continue to sail and grow with care and forethought.

 

Someone mentioned concurrent development.  I am all for that.  I hope the Devs are looking at ways to broaden their team so new content can be added for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think concurrent development and/or small instalments will come one way or another, it's hard to not overlap. In a way most if not all here agree that this franchise is the home of WW2 simulation in most aspects, which is a tremendously good sign - although we disagree on mostly minor matters regarding the immediate future we see a similar end result.

 

My guess is that the MTO will come next, not as a main addition but a desert side-map that will come with the Kuban or Kursk expansion, either of which will probably have the P-39 so that these can join the P-40 against the 109 and 190. If they do include a Spitfire in Kuban with a smoke filter added when flying in Africa then it's a perfect first step. Throw a Boston in the Soviet/Allied side and you have a 1942-1943 North Africa lite ready with only two additional planes and a relatively sparsely populated map :) Campaigns could come or not initially, but if PWCG was made functional it would close the gap a little. It would also connect the player base since people who buy it for Kuban would explore N. Africa while people who buy it for N. Africa would explore Kuban, thus peaking interest in expansion both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a theatre most are crazy about but the document itself is interesting: here is the Soviet order of battle for Operation Autumn Storm, the blow that combined with the atomic bombs made Japan surrender. http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/George_Mellinger/soviet_order_of_battle.htm

 

What a crazy mix, with everything from TB-3s and DB-3s to P-63s and Il-10s flying together!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pacific IMO is bland but I c why Americans would like it

American born and bred here, but I will actually vomit if we get pto before Italy and the med.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

An uninformed opinion.

 

Try Hellcat vs. A6M5, Ki-61 Tony, Ki-100 Tony, Ki-84 , Ki-44 Tojo, J3M3 Jack, N1K2 Shiden

 

Or substitute Corsair, P-51, P-38 for the F6F

 

However, any Pacific release should start with early war 1941/ 1942 plane sets to keep alignment with the two Eastern Front releases.

 

Of course the Ki-43 I, II, & III were all there as the US pushed toward Tokyo, but to say a PTO release would be suicidal is an uninformed opinion based on decades of Historical conclusions that would have no bearing on how a Flight sim played out.  The main difference being those of use with thousands of simulated combat hours would not be shot down in droves by Hellcats and Corsairs like the poor, untrained pilots the IJAAF and IJN Air forces put up in 1944 and 1945.

 

The US / Japan Match ups would be no different in balance than what we have not with superior Bf-109s and FWs against Yaks and LaGGs.

 

 

You want what you want.  We all do.  However ...

 

I have an uninformed opinion based on decades of historical conclusions that would have no bearing on how a Flight sim played out. ...  :rolleyes:

 

More than 90% of operational fighters in 43 and 44 were Zeroes and Oscars.  The Ki-61 was hardly a world beater either.  Yes, towards the end of the war the Japanese fielded some more competitive designs.  Too little too late.  Even in 45 there were more Zeroes and Oscars than anything else.

 

So if your point of view is an air quake dogfight server then sure, you can flood it with end of war designs to even the odds.  If you are looking for a historical campaign - single or multi player - it's going to be ugly for the Japanese side for much of the war.

 

As for wanting what we want ... did I mention that I want an Albatros C.III?  I think the odds of either of us getting what we want in the near future is about the same :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys and gals

 

I think that they should go Pacific.  There's going to be a lot of repetition as DCS begins to roll out their WWII options.  (I know it's very much a "believe it when I see it" type thing for many, but it's probably more likely than not.)  

 

The problem with going in any direction which would include the Americans or Brits (Assuming that they'll stay away from the old include-them-all format of years past like Pacific, Eastern bla bla bla) is the almost immediate transfer of advantage.  Now, I love the 109.  I've loved it and have flown it for years!  I adore it....most models actually.  It won't do well, for a long time against some of those other platforms that would come along with the Allies.  

     I know, I know, I know.....but this and but that, and all this and all that....etc, etc, etc....They just are not superior to many of the allied craft, in the way they are to the Soviet.  Not trying to start a war!  It's just historically accurate.  Veteran Pilots in those Spits, and Jugs will give the 109, 190 and 110's a whole new level of adversary.  And then....everyone gets mad at each other, we all start calling this one Uber, or that one over-modeled, and those versions inaccurate to the material....

     I say they remain on the course that they've set upon here, and leave it alone.  Continue research and improvement right here, and remain unique, providing the platform that we all waited to purchase for!

 

S! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah,

 

You just throw in a 109 K4, 190 D9, and 152 C0 as premium to keep parity. The better pilot still decides the winner in all of these matchups - just as they do now. The top aircraft are all pretty close in performance. The pilot who has the tactical advantage is usually going to win. The German pilot currently has the ability to alter the relative E state at the moment but it takes tactics and knowing your mount well. Later in the war the advantage goes slightly over to the Allied side. Numerical superiority is not modeled in the game so it is not as significant a factor as it was in real life.

 

Going West or Med will ensure I, and others, split time evenly between Axis and Allies as opposed to specializing as I am currently. Even if we stay East and bring in the Yak 9U, La 5FN and La 7 they should throw in those three Luftwaffe crates to keep parity.

 

No one wants to abandon the East. I have always advocated going Med for an installment to satiate the West and get our numbers up before concluding the Eastern chapters. It will increase the numbers in the East in the long run. I want the best of both for the good of the game and the community.

Edited by [LBS]HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it this one? :)http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/18938-aircraft-set/

 

Everyone raises interesting points here. I wonder when will things be clearer from the developer team, and who will have placed their bets right in the end. Whatever they choose I'm sure there will be lots of happy people one way or another.

Edited by Lucas_From_Hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it was a dreamers roadmap for fifteen (or so) expansions. I did it during BOS EA and fleshed it out with criticisms from other members. It was really balanced and fairly linear. Broke up all of the theaters and accounted for an overlap of AC types throughout. May have to re-think and re-post it. Christmas is over. Time to argue again ;)

Edited by [LBS]HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But did it ever stop being time to argue? :biggrin: The concept sounds interesting, if you need some help let me know. There's a lot of overlapping all the way from London through Smolensk to Hong Kong, so I'm curious about how the final result turns out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I do most of my really long posts in Word first. I found it. Some the observations are still pretty pertinent two and a half years later. Hindsight being 20/20, I'd move Med to position three and Kuban to position 4 now. Gonna rethink it and make a new thread in the morning.

 

Posted 30 July 2013 - 13:35

I, of course, am playing both the dreamer and devil's advocate here. One of the first premises, however, is that staying in any one theatre for too long will stagnate sales. That is ill advised to say the least in our niche market. Let's say each new release is on an accelerated time table and they get each done in 12 months. Some of you are staying in the east for four or five years. Mustang driver's aren't gonna wait around that long, BoB enthusiasts ain't gonna wait that long either. This list has already grown to 12+ years of development. To stay completely linear, mid-war aircraft won't even make it into the series for ten or more years. Mustangs and Dora's in fifteen?  I would expect a new engine and Il2 series 3 by then.

 

A new crowd is being courted; testosterone filled 20 somethings who will end up playing Battlefield or NCAA 14,15, 16, etc. if they lose interest. I totally welcome the potential new guys. A new generation to learn about this great history, get their feathers waxed a few times and likely develop some outstanding sim pilots to kick my @ down the road, later. The trailer was clearly aimed at drawing in a new crowd while wow'ing the rest of us.

 

The new progression:

  1. Stalingrad
  2. Kuban
  3. North Africa
  4. Battle of Britain
  5. War on the Periphery - AVG/Malta/Finland/Crete and maybe BoF or Spanish Civil War.
  6. Mediterranean
  7. Early Pacific - Pearl Harbor/Wake Island/Midway
  8. Bomber Offensive '42-43 - including night ops. I need me some Lancasters and night fighters.
  9. Kursk* (352nd Oscar)
  10. Pacific Push for the Home Islands - New Guinea to the Atomic Age (Maybe break this up into 2?)
  11. End of the Reich '44-45
  12. Secret Weapons of the (wait that's trademarked)
  13. Korea

My list tries to balance interests and profitability for the best of both worlds. It is semi-linear, the only real aside is War on the Periphery - which can include Crete for you Hood. (coldViPer - Finland is already in there.) There is a fork to get the Pacific Theatre rolling too but even that is semi-linear and comes back together as the series advances.  theOden has it right, until the pacific fork aircraft from earlier series move forward - Lend Lease get moved to primary spots (North Africa/Periphery/BOB) and makes room for additional aircraft development in future titles. For instance, Kursk gets an Hs129 instead of just dropping gun pods on the Ju87's, etc. Models take skill and time to produce. Moving established models forward opens doors for additional content.

 

I'm sure Jason and company already have both tactical and strategic plans for this series but they are also pretty good about reading the forums.  Remember, this is just a discussion and I'm still curious to see where you would go if you were in the driver's seat. But read the original premise and look for a balance. I already incorporated two new ideas into my alternate world 1C-777.

 

**I realize 5,12 and 13 are most likely pipe dreams but it is a dream list after all.

Edited by [LBS]HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

 

 

1.  You want what you want.  We all do.  However ...

 

2.  I have an uninformed opinion based on decades of historical conclusions that would have no bearing on how a Flight sim played out. ...  :rolleyes:

 

3.  More than 90% of operational fighters in 43 and 44 were Zeroes and Oscars.  The Ki-61 was hardly a world beater either.  Yes, towards the end of the war the Japanese fielded some more competitive designs.  Too little too late.  Even in 45 there were more Zeroes and Oscars than anything else.

 

4.  So if your point of view is an air quake dogfight server then sure, you can flood it with end of war designs to even the odds.  If you are looking for a historical campaign - single or multi player - it's going to be ugly for the Japanese side for much of the war.

 

5.  As for wanting what we want ... did I mention that I want an Albatros C.III?  I think the odds of either of us getting what we want in the near future is about the same :)

 

 

1.  Of Course, but I really don't care which theater comes next as long as it is fresh.  That is what is most important.  I can wait for the Pacific.

 

2.  Yes, you do.  You threw out a red herring argument with the F6F vs the Oscar = uninteresting.  The main antagonist of the F6F was the A6M3 and A6M5 Zero.  The Oscar was an IJAAF type and while it did see action against the Hellcat at times, the way Hellcats were employed from Carriers in the Central Pacific Campaign, meant that they rarely saw Oscars until the approach to the main islands.

 

3.  More than 70% of the fighting in WWII by the Luftwaffe was done with some variant of the Bf-109.  Of those 70% were the Bf-109G.  The FW-190 was hardly a world beater.  Yes, towards the end of the war the Germans fielded some more competitive designs.  Too little too late.  Even in 45 there were more 109s than anything else...see where I'm going with this?

 

4.  Don't be silly.  If you were informed, you would know I have no such view.  Ask anyone who knows me.  Actually you are dead wrong...If the Pacific theater were to start in 1941, like it should, it is quite ugly for the Allies, then it equalizes, then it shifts toward ugly for the Japanese.  JUST like it did in the East.  

 

Ergo most everything you have said still causes me to conclude you are uninformed on the relative merits of the PTO as content.   :P

Edited by TheElf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3.  More than 70% of the fighting in WWII by the Luftwaffe was done with some variant of the Bf-109.  Of those 70% were the Bf-109G.  The FW-190 was hardly a world beater.  Yes, towards the end of the war the Germans fielded some more competitive designs.  Too little too late.  Even in 45 there were more 109s than anything else...see where I'm going with this?

 

 

 

 

On debut, the 190 was the fastest operational fighter aircraft in the world and by early '42, it had the RAF on the ropes.  That situation equalized in the West with the introduction of the Mk 9 but the 190 was at no stage, a push-over.  Don't make the mistake of judging the real world aircraft against what you see modeled in a flying game. 

Edited by Wulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. Stalingrad
  2. [editor's note: Moscow]
  3. Kuban
  4. North Africa
  5. Battle of Britain
  6. War on the Periphery - AVG/Malta/Finland/Crete and maybe BoF or Spanish Civil War.
  7. Mediterranean
  8. Early Pacific - Pearl Harbor/Wake Island/Midway
  9. Bomber Offensive '42-43 - including night ops. I need me some Lancasters and night fighters.
  10. Kursk* (352nd Oscar)
  11. Pacific Push for the Home Islands - New Guinea to the Atomic Age (Maybe break this up into 2?)
  12. End of the Reich '44-45
  13. Secret Weapons of the (wait that's trademarked)
  14. Korea
**I realize 5,12 and 13 are most likely pipe dreams but it is a dream list after all.

 

Though I understand this is preliminary and pre-BoM, I see the concept.

 

One thing to be kept in mind here is that from what I see the maps are much more intensive to develop than the aircraft, and I think this can be substantiated by the team accepting new members to help design new maps. If the speed of map production increases (either by pushing each individual map faster or by developing maps concurrently, as was done with Stalingrad and Velikie Luki and would have been done with Moscow and Murmansk had a developer not had to withdraw from that project) then they can actually profit of the interchangeability of aircraft in most theatres.

 

For example, a scenario set in Spain and one in the Winter War with Finland could be done using the same aircraft, so it would be possible to create a big Leningrad-Finland map and a smaller Spanish one to kill two birds with one stone. The Leningrad map can last throughout the whole war.

 

Kuban or Kursk could also come with a desert warfare map (which has less cities, thus making it a little faster) to set its foot in the MTO for possible expansion.

 

From then on things get a little complicated: new European theatres have the same Luftwaffe aircraft but different Allied aircraft (particularly the American fleet); the Far East, particularly the early part, benefits from the same American aircraft as the lend-lease ones plus a couple of Soviet designs over China, but needs new Japanese aircraft. At this point it might make sense to release maps (and campaigns if possible) individually to complement the potential of the aircraft, together with one-sided aircraft packs. How to sell this is up to the devs since they have experimented with different sales models since RoF.

 

That way they can expand the Eastern Front while also getting a good start at different scenarios, and it gives them the flexibility to pick any given theatre and expand it as they see fit.

 

Limitations: I think large-scale bombing is made really complicated by the strain it would put on most computers, since it would involve complicated flight models and above all lots of AI. Outside of SP, it may lose its charm online because of a) ridiculously flight distances and b) mostly there won't be a bomber offensive but one or two bombers heading into battle while five Mustangs and 190s swirl about. Not everybody has the three hours to make the haul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prior nr.1 must be game engine update (separate physics and AI).Its allready clear that it limits further development.No additional plane or map will do the good.I guess its time to go back to basics.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could be the answer. Even if it doesn't create new instant sources of revenue like a new module, in the long run it maximises the sales of the current modules and therefore gets all the potential from them so that new additions are welcomed well.

 

Eagle Dynamics did that for 20 years and I believe it paid of enormously. They've been riding on the same map and aircraft since 1995, and the majority of their new releases until recently were engine upgrades (Su-27 Flanker, Squadron Commander's Edition, Flanker 2.0, Flanker 2.5, Lock On, Flaming Cliffs, Flaming Cliffs 2, DCS World). Being there since 2.5 I can say it definitely warranted each purchase.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't care that much about the actual setting or historical sequence of modules.

 

 

IMHO more diverse maps, even if just fictional for MP and some western planes would draw more attention to this brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prior nr.1 must be game engine update (separate physics and AI).Its allready clear that it limits further development.No additional plane or map will do the good.I guess its time to go back to basics.

 

That could be the answer. Even if it doesn't create new instant sources of revenue like a new module, in the long run it maximises the sales of the current modules and therefore gets all the potential from them so that new additions are welcomed well.

 

Eagle Dynamics did that for 20 years and I believe it paid of enormously. They've been riding on the same map and aircraft since 1995, and the majority of their new releases until recently were engine upgrades (Su-27 Flanker, Squadron Commander's Edition, Flanker 2.0, Flanker 2.5, Lock On, Flaming Cliffs, Flaming Cliffs 2, DCS World). Being there since 2.5 I can say it definitely warranted each purchase.

 

 

I´m glad you brough it up. 

 

What I WANT: Mediterranean map and planes.

What I think they SHOULD do: Upgrade the game engine.

 

The most sensible route in my opinion would be to release a third installment in the Eastern front (Kursk, Kuban, whatever) and then, before moving on to other areas, upgrade the engine.

You dont wanna build future expansions/games in an obsolete engine. Before moving forward with Mediterranean, Pacific, Eastern Europe etc, upgrade the engine to 64 bit and a newer DX version. It doesn't have to be DX12 necessarily although it might as well, once you start upgrading.

I believe this would get rid of some of the current bottlenecks, and possibly allow for more AI and multiplayer planes and tanks in the same servers.

Also,access to more memory and cache, which is already tight. Like loading plane skins and cockpit textures again every time you look around with trackIR.

The sooner you upgrade the engine, the less work you will have to do to upgrade the already released games.

Also, I´m pretty sure they are spending a lot of time optimizing the game to work with the little resources they have available, which takes time from other things they could do. Optimization will be less important once the game has access to more resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully support an upgraded game engine and change to newer DX12 (zero point in doing DX11 now)

 

But I truly believe the amount of work is under estimated, Maddox games struggled with updating IL-2 to DX10 CLoD for years and never got it to work right, and they were not novices in flight sims, and DCS has spent how many years updating to DX11?

 

Am all for it when the budget and time is there to do it right, but I don't feel it is quite that time yet..

 

Although  would be very happy to be proved wrong on that  :)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American born and bred here, but I will actually vomit if we get pto before Italy and the med.

 

Sorry to hear that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On debut, the 190 was the fastest operational fighter aircraft in the world and by early '42, it had the RAF on the ropes.  That situation equalized in the West with the introduction of the Mk 9 but the 190 was at no stage, a push-over.  Don't make the mistake of judging the real world aircraft against what you see modeled in a flying game. 

 

 

lol, ok Wulf, I'll be careful, but only cuz you   :salute:  said so...  ;)

 

But I do think you missed the purpose of my post.  It wasn't to disparage the FW, Real or simulated, just to point out that Pat's reasoning made no sense whatsoever.  And for the record, I was talking about the Real FW.  It was no world beater.  No one airplane was.  That was kinda the point, but it was also to draw parallels to the game we do have while debating the game we might have in the next release. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power shift was incrimental from about 1943 onwards. The tech moved back and forth between Axis and Allies for the rest of the war. The best pilot (or luckiest maybe) who started with the tactical advantage would probably win the 1v1 encounter regardless of the AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys think too small!!

 

We are getting Kursk AND first Afrika map on the next expansion.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, ok Wulf, I'll be careful, but only cuz you   :salute:  said so...  ;)

 

But I do think you missed the purpose of my post.  It wasn't to disparage the FW, Real or simulated, just to point out that Pat's reasoning made no sense whatsoever.  And for the record, I was talking about the Real FW.  It was no world beater.  No one airplane was.  That was kinda the point, but it was also to draw parallels to the game we do have while debating the game we might have in the next release. 

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting (and least of all me) that the 190 was unbeatable.  But for a time in '42 it was considered to have such a performance margin over the Spitfire 5 that Fighter Command actually suspended fighter sweeps over the continent.  Oddly, although the RAF had been contending with 'F series' 109s since the end of the BoB, it was the introduction of the 190 that forced Fighter Command to re-think it's offensive operations over France.

 

That state of affairs isn't just fanciful thinking by the way, it's a fact.  As far as the RAF was concerned, the 190 was a sensation.  Now remember; unlike the VVS, (which was actively collaborating with National Socialist Germany's assault on the western democracies till mid-'41) the RAF had been fighting the Luftwaffe for about two years at this point so as an institution it was hardly given to fits of panic.  And yet strangely, when we arrive in Russia, around this period, as sim fliers, we find that most of the available Russian fighter types (essentially un-blooded early Mks that would struggle against a Spit 5) can easily mix it up with the 190 - but somewhat less so than with the 109.   Gee....I mean, not looking for a fight or nothin, but go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is suggesting (and least of all me) that the 190 was unbeatable.  But for a time in '42 it was considered to have such a performance margin over the Spitfire 5 that Fighter Command actually suspended fighter sweeps over the continent.  Oddly, although the RAF had been contending with 'F series' 109s since the end of the BoB, it was the introduction of the 190 that forced Fighter Command to re-think it's offensive operations over France.

 

That state of affairs isn't just fanciful thinking by the way, it's a fact.  As far as the RAF was concerned, the 190 was a sensation.  Now remember; unlike the VVS, (which was actively collaborating with National Socialist Germany's assault on the western democracies till mid-'41) the RAF had been fighting the Luftwaffe for about two years at this point so as an institution it was hardly given to fits of panic.  And yet strangely, when we arrive in Russia, around this period, as sim fliers, we find that most of the available Russian fighter types (essentially un-blooded early Mks that would struggle against a Spit 5) can easily mix it up with the 190 - but somewhat less so than with the 109.   Gee....I mean, not looking for a fight or nothin, but go figure.

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF all that keep the interest of this game is new things and planes , I think we are in for a short trip here. Official statements are BOM and no more. The  202 made people think there was a Mediterranean map under way. But there has been no confirmation on this. And the more they develop in this game based on current Game engine the more massive a upgrade to DX 12 would be. Would it not?

I might be old, but I stuck with flight sims and things that tried to be one since 1996, Before that arcade games simulating some sort of flight. The right way to do this is make it worth while. Fly in groups and cooperate , make it a role play more than a game. Then it would not matter so much what new plane come next.

I still enjoy the  I-16 

But of course we are right in the middle of what I like best, the early ones, those overheating when you really need more power. Survive against all odds. Well I usually dont , but I try

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is suggesting (and least of all me) that the 190 was unbeatable.  But for a time in '42 it was considered to have such a performance margin over the Spitfire 5 that Fighter Command actually suspended fighter sweeps over the continent.  Oddly, although the RAF had been contending with 'F series' 109s since the end of the BoB, it was the introduction of the 190 that forced Fighter Command to re-think it's offensive operations over France.

 

That state of affairs isn't just fanciful thinking by the way, it's a fact.  As far as the RAF was concerned, the 190 was a sensation.  Now remember; unlike the VVS, (which was actively collaborating with National Socialist Germany's assault on the western democracies till mid-'41) the RAF had been fighting the Luftwaffe for about two years at this point so as an institution it was hardly given to fits of panic.  And yet strangely, when we arrive in Russia, around this period, as sim fliers, we find that most of the available Russian fighter types (essentially un-blooded early Mks that would struggle against a Spit 5) can easily mix it up with the 190 - but somewhat less so than with the 109.   Gee....I mean, not looking for a fight or nothin, but go figure.

You over rate the plane and underestimate the pilot and tactics . Countless of FW-190 pilots have told a slightly different story. It flight capabilities was pretty good at many aspects , but in other it was pretty lousy. I cannot remember the name on the last pilot. He said The FW did not really get it right until the Dora arrived. But tactically and strategic it was a very good plane. Able to carry more and bigger guns to the bombers flying over head and was a better multirole plane than the 109. But the 109 was always the pilot first choice. It will take forever finding those interviews on Youtube , but they are there. And I believe them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You over rate the plane and underestimate the pilot and tactics . Countless of FW-190 pilots have told a slightly different story. It flight capabilities was pretty good at many aspects , but in other it was pretty lousy. I cannot remember the name on the last pilot. He said The FW did not really get it right until the Dora arrived. But tactically and strategic it was a very good plane. Able to carry more and bigger guns to the bombers flying over head and was a better multirole plane than the 109. But the 109 was always the pilot first choice. It will take forever finding those interviews on Youtube , but they are there. And I believe them. 

 

 

The only real 'capability' difference between A and D series 190s is altitude.  The BMW radial in the A series wasn't much good above 6k because of supercharger issues.  The Junker Jumo unit, by contrast, was a 'proper' high altitude motor. 

 

Apart from the increased length of the fuselage, to address C of G issues, the airframe of the A and D series aircraft are essentially unchanged.  And as far as maneuverability and agility are concerned, the two aircraft are much the same. And while the D was somewhat faster, it is a 1944 period aircraft, not a 1941 -42 period machine so what do you expect.

 

The RAF considered the 190 to be a game changer.  They were much less impressed by the 109. 

Edited by Wulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fw190A vs Me109 up to G6 - FW190  had speed, roll, toughness, armor, firepower, visibility and dive.  Me109 had climb and sustained turn rate.  When it came out the 190 was better than the Spitfire in every aspect except sustained turn.

 

The FW190 had ease of operation, something that is not well modeled in any sim.  Read a Pirep from a German pilot flying a Lag 5.  He stated that acceleration was good as long as you could make it happen.  Making it happen took six different control adjustments.  So while in theory the Lag had great acceleration, in fact it took non trivial effort.  IMHO Soviet equipment is often better on paper than it is in reality, often due to inadequate attention to ergonomics.  If you're an octopus it's great, otherwise your head is down on your controls and not up where things are happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

 

 

You want what you want.  We all do.  However ...

 

I have an uninformed opinion based on decades of historical conclusions that would have no bearing on how a Flight sim played out. ...  :rolleyes:

 

More than 90% of operational fighters in 43 and 44 were Zeroes and Oscars.  The Ki-61 was hardly a world beater either.  Yes, towards the end of the war the Japanese fielded some more competitive designs.  Too little too late.  Even in 45 there were more Zeroes and Oscars than anything else.

 

So if your point of view is an air quake dogfight server then sure, you can flood it with end of war designs to even the odds.  If you are looking for a historical campaign - single or multi player - it's going to be ugly for the Japanese side for much of the war.

 

As for wanting what we want ... did I mention that I want an Albatros C.III?  I think the odds of either of us getting what we want in the near future is about the same :)

 

You're completely correct Pat but it never plays out like that does it? It's always the most competitive designs that get included irrespective of their historical prevalence due to the perceived need for this thing called "balance" (Which is basically dumbing things down to keep people from getting hurt feelings).

 

And yes, I do seem to recall you mentioning an Albatros C.III, you might have also mentioned a Be-2C, an Aviatik, Rumpler, Caudron, Morane Saulnier scout & two seater, Vickers Gunbus, Fokker D.IV and Taube. (Or is that taking things too far?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're completely correct Pat but it never plays out like that does it? It's always the most competitive designs that get included irrespective of their historical prevalence due to the perceived need for this thing called "balance" (Which is basically dumbing things down to keep people from getting hurt feelings).

 

And yes, I do seem to recall you mentioning an Albatros C.III, you might have also mentioned a Be-2C, an Aviatik, Rumpler, Caudron, Morane Saulnier scout & two seater, Vickers Gunbus, Fokker D.IV and Taube. (Or is that taking things too far?)

 

Not taking it nearly far enough ... :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wouldn't use the term "obligation", but I did buy into this sim whole-heartedly and have supported it with my money, and my time when the locals were storming the castle with pitch forks and torches to tear it down after launch.  So given the precedent that the name the Devs chose implies, and the commercial success that formula had, yes I think there is a measured belief that this title shouldn't be East-Front-Only.

 

Its unfortunate some people think otherwise...

The Pacific Fighters was the least sold IL2 title, even the devs said it was a mistake. Most of the aircraft were stayed unused, so did those huge maps. The PTO aircraft that could even resemble anything from Europe/USSR operations were used by coops/servers for Europe and USSR theatres of operations.

 

The PTO turned out to be largely a wasted effort and resources. Those who observed development life of IL2:Sturmovik series know well that you colored it all pink, yet the franchise history wasn`t all sunshine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A-20 (2 variants)

B-25J

Bf-109 (14 variants)

Bf-110G-2

Fiat CR.42

Il-4/DB-3F

F4F/Marlet (3 variants, fought a minor but important role during the Arctic Convoys alongside Soviet counterparts)

Fw-190 (10 variants)

Fiat G.50

Gladiator/J8A

He-111 (2 variants plus two specialised ones)

Hs-129 (2 variants)

Hurricane (4 variants)

I-15 (1 variant plus specialised versions, operated over China, Mongolia and Spain)

I-153 (2 variants, flew over Mongolia and China)

I-16 (originally 2, now 4 variants, plus specialised versions, flew over China, Mongolia, Spain)

IAR 80/81 (3 variants)

Il-2 (10 variants)

Il-10

Ju-87 (4 variants)

Ju-88 (originally 1, now 4 variants including anti-tank and torpedo bomber)

La-5 (3 variants)

La-7 (2 variants plus experimental)

LaGG-3 (5 variants plus experimental)

MC.200 (4 variants)

MC.202 (4 variants)

Me-262 (3 variants)

MiG-3 (6 variants)

P-36 (2 variants)

P-39 (6 variants)

P-40 (5 variants)

P-47 (4 variants, minor role)

P-63

Pe-2 (4 variants)

Pe-3 (2 variants)

Pe-8

Re.2000

Spitfire (2 variants that fought in the East)

SB (fought over China, Mongolia and Spain)

TB-3 (2 variants plus one specialised, fought in China and Mongolia)

Yak-1 (2 variants)

Yak-3 (3 variants plus 2 experimental)

Yak-7 (3 variants)

Yak-9 (8 variants)

 

The list of maps includes from what I see here 20 Eastern Front maps (plus summer/winter/big/small variations). We have three right now. :)

 

Of course, this list shows how easy it is to expand from one to the other, and I am confident we will see that eventually. We just want the East to not be forgotten, because outside of Il-2 nothing that is appreciated in the West really pays much respect to it these days, and we're talking about 27 million people who died. It's all about keeping that memory alive and also using their current position to complete a part of history they are very close to fleshing out already before using all that's done to jump to newer adventures.

The Lend Lease aircraft list alone justifies staying with ETO. It is easy to setup multiple mission variants there, you have both the Muricans, The Brits flying their planes.

 

The MTO I think will get a nice representation with CloD which still lives and is better in some aspects than BoS. Meanwhile the ETO is a great chance to recreate aircraft that Oleg Maddox failed to, because the ETO never got fully covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with going in any direction which would include the Americans or Brits (Assuming that they'll stay away from the old include-them-all format of years past like Pacific, Eastern bla bla bla) is the almost immediate transfer of advantage.  Now, I love the 109.  I've loved it and have flown it for years!  I adore it....most models actually.  It won't do well, for a long time against some of those other platforms that would come along with the Allies.  

     I know, I know, I know.....but this and but that, and all this and all that....etc, etc, etc....They just are not superior to many of the allied craft, in the way they are to the Soviet.  Not trying to start a war!  It's just historically accurate.  Veteran Pilots in those Spits, and Jugs will give the 109, 190 and 110's a whole new level of adversary.  And then....everyone gets mad at each other, we all start calling this one Uber, or that one over-modeled, and those versions inaccurate to the material....

 

I recall when the old IL2 was close to its vanilla death, I was in an online war covering ETO for the fourth cycle - so then the war reached 1943 and...the VVS players began complaining that they have a tough time flying their aicraft effectively because they fly 5-6 different crates while LW flies Bf109/FW190 on and on. What I mean is - anyone can complain about pretty much anything. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I do most of my really long posts in Word first. I found it. Some the observations are still pretty pertinent two and a half years later. Hindsight being 20/20, I'd move Med to position three and Kuban to position 4 now. Gonna rethink it and make a new thread in the morning.

That depends on sales they get right now. If ETO title sales are just ok, the risk of going PTO might be too much for the devs to take. Can they take one unsuccessful (sales-wise) release and keep going?The PTO/Finland is very high risk to take, especially when there are other safer theaters to cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAF considered the 190 to be a game changer.  They were much less impressed by the 109. 

Was 190 easier to fly than the 109? Or it was a lot more, let`s say...insidious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was 190 easier to fly than the 109? Or it was a lot more, let`s say...insidious?

 

I believe a bit of both.  The 190s wide track landing gear and generally more rugged construction made it safer on rough eastern front fields.  The 190 also was less cramped and generally considered to have a better instrument/control layout than the 109.  On the minus side I think it had a bit nastier spin characteristics, although neither the 190 nor 109 was bad.  

  • Upvote 1

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

×
×
  • Create New...