How Popular is Multiplayer?

[Chalax]

As far as I know, tanks are included for either Battle of Moscow or Battle of Stalingrad, so you're good to go with either. If you want to play tanks online, I would suggest getting Battle of Stalingrad simply because most servers that have player-controlled tanks use the Stalingrad map for their missions.

 

If you prefer single-player, go for the one with the aircraft that attract you the most.

 

In a short brief, here are the differences:

 

Battle of Moscow - different aircraft with different strengths and weaknesses

Soviet fighters: best high-altitude fighter in the game (MiG-3), most manoeuvrable fighter in the game (I-16), first American aircraft (P-40).

Soviet attack/bomber: fast and durable aircraft that can even take on fighters by themselves if needed (light early versions of Il-2 and Pe-2)

 

German fighters: versatile all-rounder that can take on anything from swirling dogfights to effective ground attack (Bf-109E-7), a hot rod that likes speed (Bf-109F-2), a nifty Italian fighter with many tricks up its sleeve (C.202)

German attack/bomber: two jacks-of-all trades workhorses, one that is a fighter but excels at strike missions (Bf-110), and another is a level bomber which can play dive, strike and whatever you ask from it (Ju-88)

 

Battle of Stalingrad - very closely matched fighter performance across the board, with a few advantages to each side

Soviet fighters: a light fighter that is very beginner-friendly and can do most things very well, even if it's not the best at anything (Yak-1), a heavy but sturdy fighter with great roll and firepower (LaGG-3), a specialist's fighter with heavy guns and an extremely powerful engine (La-5)

Soviet attack/bomber: a workhorse attacker that is slow but can deal a lot of damage and absorb quite a few hits (Il-2 with mixed wooden/metal construction), a fast bomber with heavy defensive power (Pe-2, 1942 variants)

 

German fighters: excellent performance across the board (Bf-109F-4), superb climb rate and high altitude performance (Bf-109G-2), the most speed and guns you can put on a fighters (Fw-190)

German attack/bombers: two new versions of older workhorse designs (the legendary He-111 and Ju-87). Both show their age with their slow speeds, but they can pack a good punch and if you make it to target the enemy better have shelter.

 

If you prefer bombers and can live with single player until most servers start including Battle of Moscow, go for Battle of Moscow. The Il-2 there is a work of art, the Pe-2 is very pleasant to fly and hard to catch ("not a machine, but a miracle - here is our bomber, our attacker and our escort, all in the Pe-2" -General Polbin, Soviet dive-bomber pilot), the Bf-110 can do just about everything you need to do and do it well, and the Ju-88 is an amazing combination of bomb load, speed and versatility.

 

The nice chaps at 6./ZG 26 are running a Battle of Moscow server so you can always go there and bomb stuff - there are plenty of targets, and they make a nice challenge.

Thank you for your well developed response.

I have read it over three times to make sure I understand everything.

I don't really like single player as I like to feel I am interacting with other people (multi player). According to your post, I understand that BoM is not quite active in Multiplayer and that I will find more players on BoS. Is this correct?

And yes, I am mostly interested in playing bombers.

[LLv24_Zami]

Thank you for your well developed response.

I have read it over three times to make sure I understand everything.

I don't really like single player as I like to feel I am interacting with other people (multi player). According to your post, I understand that BoM is not quite active in Multiplayer and that I will find more players on BoS. Is this correct?

And yes, I am mostly interested in playing bombers.

Lucas pretty much covered it. BoM is not yet present in MP very much, it hasn`t officially even released. 

 

Take a look of the planes on each of these and pick the one which have better setup for your purposes 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The major thing is that most servers are still running Battle of Stalingrad since it's been available since 2013 whereas Battle of Moscow only had its map released some two months ago. People simply had enough time to buy Stalingrad, while Moscow is still getting there. The best thing to do is get one now then get the second one as soon as you can really 

 

If you just get Stalingrad you will still have a great time, rest assured. A great way to enjoy it is participating in the community events which are very welcoming and beginner-friendly. They have different time zones available to accommodate for all players, so look for the one which suits you at the eSports and Events section. There you get a whole group of fighters tasked with escorting you and you can usually bomb undisturbed.

[wtornado]

What a royal pain in the ass it is just to get everything to work in co-op.

[wtornado]

No wonder there are many co-op servers out there.

[No601_Swallow]

What a royal pain in the ass it is just to get everything to work in co-op.

 

Tornado, mate, I refer you to the quote in your sig! 

 

Seriously, though: I feel your pain. But the good news is, once you've got it sorted out in your head what you've got to do, forgotten a tick box a couple of times, thrown your shoe at the monitor, etc, once it's all sorted, it's pretty easy and routine. Honest!...

[wtornado]

No I am too old to screw around with complex gaming setups anymore we are in 2016 and all

the games I play with in 2016 are user friendly for co-ops and like my friend says if it feels more like a job

and less like gaming let it go.

 

It is not worth all the work when in fact  I turn on this PC to play and enjoy myself.

 

Fighting with the IL-2 1946 mods getting missions to work every time a patch was released year after year burnt me out.

[BraveSirRobin]

No I am too old to screw around with complex gaming setups anymore we are in 2016 and all

the games I play with in 2016 are user friendly for co-ops

It looks like you have two options. Learn how to code. Or just go play those games.

[wtornado]

It looks like you have two options. Learn how to code. Or just go play those games.

you forgot to uninstall too.

[BraveSirRobin]

you forgot to uninstall too.

Yes, please don't forget to uninstall.

[SYN_Haashashin]

It looks like you have two options. Learn how to code. Or just go play those games.

 

This post is totally uncalled for. No need of such an agressiveness against others member/s. Please stop it since its not the first post of this kind you do.

 

Next time it will be deleted.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Ouch. Pull it back a little BSR. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

No I am too old to screw around with complex gaming setups anymore we are in 2016 and all

the games I play with in 2016 are user friendly for co-ops and like my friend says if it feels more like a job

and less like gaming let it go.

 

It is not worth all the work when in fact  I turn on this PC to play and enjoy myself.

 

Fighting with the IL-2 1946 mods getting missions to work every time a patch was released year after year burnt me out.

 

I agree and totally understand, WTornado.

 

Telling people to "learn how to code" is not a viable answer to getting enjoyment out of using this, or any other piece of entertainment software, at this point in the development of computer gaming.

Should we also be expected to have to load a dozen floppy discs to run the program, and dial up a connection for multiplayer?

 

The Mission Editor needs a lot of streamlining.  Which could have been done if this title had not had a truncated development timeline forced on it by 1C.

 

Maybe once it's really out of the beta stage things will be better for the majority of players that are not computer programmers or otherwise in the IT business.

 

I don't really blame the dev team in Russia, or Jason at 777 for this.  They were dealt a hand of cards by the financial backers at 1C, and had to play the hand they were dealt just to get out what we have now.

 

It's simply more of the aftermath of the tragic implosion of Cliffs of Dover.   The legions of loyal fans of the original IL2 had their hopes, expectations and trust in developers in general dashed, and I have to imagine that the people at 1C had to think long and hard about even trying to finance another flight sim, except for the fact that a market for one still remains.

 

1C is walking a razor's edge here.   Balancing their need to recoup the losses from Clod, and not wanting to lose money on this project, vs. the desires, demands, and expectations of the player base.

 

Sad times really.

Edited June 4, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[curiousGamblerr]

 

 

The Mission Editor needs a lot of streamlining. 

 

I really wish the game, or at least parts of it, were open source. No chance of it happening at this point, but small components like the Mission Editor could go a long way if those of us with the background could contribute. Things like the mission stats we all love on servers like WoL, campaigns, a better multiplayer server lobby, etc. could be actually baked into the game if there was some way to contribute.

 

A perfect example is Coconut's DServer scheduler application- If DServer/parts of it were open source, coconut could have built that tool right into DServer and it could ship with the game (as long as it met quality, etc. requirements of the devs). 

 

It just seems like the user base is so small, compared to other games, yet so vocal and passionate, letting us help make the game we love better would be no brainer. Easier said than done, of course 

[BraveSirRobin]

I agree and totally understand, WTornado.

 

Telling people to "learn how to code" is not a viable answer to getting enjoyment out of using this, or any other piece of entertainment software, at this point in the development of computer gaming.

Should we also be expected to have to load a dozen floppy discs to run the program, and dial up a connection for multiplayer?

 

The Mission Editor needs a lot of streamlining.  Which could have been done if this title had not had a truncated development timeline forced on it by 1C.

 

Maybe once it's really out of the beta stage things will be better for the majority of players that are not computer programmers or otherwise in the IT business.

 

I don't really blame the dev team in Russia, or Jason at 777 for this.  They were dealt a hand of cards by the financial backers at 1C, and had to play the hand they were dealt just to get out what we have now.

 

It's simply more of the aftermath of the tragic implosion of Cliffs of Dover.   The legions of loyal fans of the original IL2 had their hopes, expectations and trust in developers in general dashed, and I have to imagine that the people at 1C had to think long and hard about even trying to finance another flight sim, except for the fact that a market for one still remains.

 

1C is walking a razor's edge here.   Balancing their need to recoup the losses from Clod, and not wanting to lose money on this project, vs. the desires, demands, and expectations of the player base.

 

Sad times really.

Nothing you posted here contradicts "learn how to code". The developers appear to have extremely limited resources. That leads to a policy of "it is good enough" as opposed to "let's do the best possible thing we can think of". While that may be frustrating to some, it's better than no flight sim development at all.

[Sokol1]

BoS ME dont require "learn code" - CloD FMB advanced scripts is that need.

 

BoS ME are more awkward and require more work, but is not too different from ARMA3 or DCS mission editor.

 

I did 3/4 missions in Il-2:46 FMB for COOP,  and after some attempts to make a event in CloD mission give up due code scripts knowledge need - this thing is like in Linux world, the guys that know dont teach you, they give a vague information. 

 

In BoS ME in my second attempt I make a eventful mission including cut scene during mission, I am not TI or code expert, just common computer... "nerd".   

 

EDIT And about DServer - one guy of your squadron - a retired medic now in their 70's - set up in one of their spare computers, using help available in forum.

 

Is all "easy"? No, but feasible for common players.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Sokol1

[No601_Swallow]

The ME's cool...! You place objects, etc, on the mission map, but you also place behaviour or event "tiles" on the map that you link to the objects you want to do the "behaviour" or "event", and then you link the events or behaviours together in what I think of as flow diagrams... Mission start triggers a take-off order, which then triggers the first waypoint, as well as - after a timed pause - a form up order for the now airborne flight...  It's more or less a sort of visual programming without all that bothersome code! I can do pretty much everything I could do in CloD, but without all that Visual Basic count-the-brackets-and-check-the-semicolon programming hell! 

 

In our squadron, one boffin (Prangster, you know who you are) has come up with a large set of "groups" of mission elements - bomber flights, escort formations, flak emplacements, road conveys, etc, many of the elements you'd hope to meet on an action-filled sortie... Each of these groups comes accompanied by its own behaviour or event "flow charts", so all our mission builders need to do is pretty much just "import" the groups onto the map, drag the waypoints around a bit, change the height values, etc, add a personal touch, and ta-daaa! A cool MP coop is born!

 

Honestly, it's like mission building for lego addicts. Just click the blocks together!

 

Edit: I should remind us all that... There's a growing library of "groups" in the ME forum. Some of the groups are dazzlingly complex - e.g. randomizers for different whatevers in each mission,  or sets of airfield lights and flares that (in some cases) vary the colour of the flare depending on distance to the nearest enemy,  etc. Anyway, obviously the more people who contribute to the library, the more varied and easy mission building becomes!

 

Obviously (again), as with any game, many people just want to fire it up and get on with having fun, which is of course the main purpose of the game, and of course that's what the QMB and (arguably - but I've just returned to it and am having a lot of fun with it now I know what to expect) the "campaign",  as well as DF servers are there for. But of course the game comes with other tools (the ME, the skin viewer (skinning!) and so on) which can themselves be great time sinks. It's up to each person how much or how little he wants to put into the game. Natürlich!

Edited June 4, 2016 by No601_Swallow

[Pharoah]

just out of interest, what else does 1C produce?

 

Honestly I would prefer an online MP server which has the ability to use AI so that there's always a battle happening (or multiple battles). That way, even if the server is empty, there's always some sort of action. Not much fun flying on a dogfight server by yourself or with 1 other on the opposite team.

[Gambit21]

Obviously (again), as with any game, many people just want to fire it up and get on with having fun, which is of course the main purpose of the game, and of course that's what the QMB and (arguably - but I've just returned to it and am having a lot of fun with it now I know what to expect) the "campaign",  as well as DF servers are there for. But of course the game comes with other tools (the ME, the skin viewer (skinning!) and so on) which can themselves be great time sinks. It's up to each person how much or how little he wants to put into the game. Natürlich!

 

The better I got at building and choreographing missions in the old sim, the more it became a situation where I wanted to be doing that much more than flying.

Of course I would fly and test my own missions multiple times before hosting them online.

 

I'd love to really dive into this new ME and build a proper campaign, but I need something other than Eastern Front or I can't justify the time/learning curve.

[No601_Swallow]

The better I got at building and choreographing missions in the old sim, the more it became a situation where I wanted to be doing that much more than flying.

 

That's the untold secret: building missions is more fun than flying other people's!

 

(Actually, my main criticism of the ME we have with this game is that testing is very inefficient. You have to shut down the ME and open up the game to test, and then close the game right down again and fire up the ME to modify something.  Grrrrr...)

[wtornado]

We know the game is beta. and 1c used to put a ''b'' besides the patch number.

 

Well ME is no walk in the park with its timers and triggers and MCU I mean just look at the work involved to get a AAA battery to engage just one type of

aircraft with zones,triggers,timer,etc for just one example.They have to work on that they are the coders.

 

It is going to take a long time to make a historical non-generic co-op with true sqdns and plane sets and timeline.

 

I just had my right hand operated on again yesterday I have time now when the pain dies down.

 

I know some of you do make ARMA 3 missions do you see the difference with a 2016 mission builder?

 

For those of you who know and use the MCC Sandbox 4 in ARMA 3 you are god with that mission builder

and the ME'S and MFB evolved.

No wonder many of the servers are password protected with the work involved the mission builders should be proud

when they do accomplish a really good co-op with this mission builder.

 

I am curious just to how many planes and objects I will be able to put in so it can be immersive and less like a fighter dogfight server.

Edited June 8, 2016 by WTornado

[unreasonable]

That's the untold secret: building missions is more fun than flying other people's!

 

(Actually, my main criticism of the ME we have with this game is that testing is very inefficient. You have to shut down the ME and open up the game to test, and then close the game right down again and fire up the ME to modify something.  Grrrrr...)

 

Not sure I would call the mission editor "fun" but it is certainly immensely satisfying when, after thrashing around and a lot of help from other people, you eventually get a mission to work as intended. (But yes it would be much easier if the ME was embedded in the game structure itself). 

 

Same with making movies. 

[PatrickAWlson]

As a software developer I find the ME to be akin to "C".  Very powerful.  Does exactly what you tell it to do.  Frequently this is different from what you want it to do .

[beepee]

 

 

Honestly I would prefer an online MP server which has the ability to use AI so that there's always a battle happening (or multiple battles). That way, even if the server is empty, there's always some sort of action. Not much fun flying on a dogfight server by yourself or with 1 other on the opposite team.

 

There are a few servers around that have exactly what you would prefer to be happening.

 

The Menacing Ferrets server is based on The East coast of the U.S and often has missions running that have plenty of A.I action.

 

There is also Shooting Stars (based in Japan I think) that has the same.

 

Those are just two that I have some experience with.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

coconut's has AI and good ping from all over the world, as well.

[wtornado]

As a software developer I find the ME to be akin to "C".  Very powerful.  Does exactly what you tell it to do.  Frequently this is different from what you want it to do .

That is an understatement.I think it would probably format your hard drive if you asked it to.

 

The ME (not FMB because it is not) sure seems to swallow up a lot of the computers resources when you continue to add stuff too.

 

No wonder you have to group everything or it would look like a chicken with ink on its claws danced all over the damn map doing a tap dance.

 

This is really C and its not ++ but more --.

 

 

''akin to C'' for me means very basic and it is you have to tell the ME everything it is a very primitive program.

 

At least in the old FMB when you put a german AAA cannon somewhere the program design was intelligent

enough to shoot at enemy planes and vehicles on its own.

Edited June 12, 2016 by WTornado

[CUJO_1970]

Well I've been trying to fly online but it is truly dead. A barren wasteland of inactivity. Nobody flying.

 

Don't have Track IR so I can't stand "dull real" servers. I like normal settings but there isn't a single damned server that has anyone flying in it. DED server is a wasteland with no one ever playing on it. Go blow up stuff by yourself? Sure - get close to an airfield infested with aim-bot flak and you are direct hit within seconds every time, no matter what evasive tactics you take. Such fun!

 

And DED server tries to be a tank sim too. So the paltry amount of players that might trickle in are siphoned off further. Invincible T-34s impervious to damage and protected by aim- bot sniper flak that tracks you through 500 Meter altitude changes and 90 degree turns like its nothing.

 

Ridiculous. Online. Experience.

 

And the offline campaign got boring and repetitive really fast.

 

So what else is there?

[SYN_Mike77]

when are you trying to play cujo?  

[BraveSirRobin]

There are 30 on WoL right now.

[SYN_Mike77]

I mainly play DeD expert in the afternoon (EDT) it's always got at least 30 sometimes it's full.

[beepee]

So what else is there?

 

An attitude adjustment?

 

I have just finished flying on a server based on the East Coast of the U.S of [Edited][ and I had a blast.

 

There were no more than 5 players on at any one stage, but, we were on TS, and we flew together to complete objectives.

 

As for the talk of aim-bot flak I have not had the same experience, I have survived plenty of hits from ground fire.

 

Anyway, all these whingey posts are starting to annoy me, some people need to take a concrete pill, harden the [Edited] up, or go do something they enjoy.

 

I won't be wasting my time reading these kind of posts any more.

 

Good luck all.

 

Really?       

Edited June 14, 2016 by Bearcat

[AbortedMan]

I'm reading so much turmoil about BoS not having coop missions...why can't you people just make them? It's extremely easy...lobby/briefing/staging area type setup and all.

 

1. Create your mission with all the units and bells and whistles

2. Don't enable those units/bells/whistles at mission start, only have them start/spawn on a trigger

3. Create trigger with a counter that is something along the lines of "X number of players spawn at this base" or "X number of players enter this area"

4. Your group joins your server and you coordinate who's doing what at the briefing/spawn screen

5. Form up or spawn in at the trigger zone and the mission you created is set in motion when everyone is ready and accounted for

6. Mission starts and everyone rejoices

 

You can add as many AI as you want (in a plausible scenario for the time...no 100 aircraft bombing/dogfight sorties) and play with your little group of friends (4 to 8) with little effect on the game performance.

 

You can even make a giant map-wide network of missions so one mission can essentially be a span of an entire theater campaign with no loading/reloading (if you have the time to link it all, it's not complicated to do, just tedious).

 

What's the issue here?

Edited June 13, 2016 by AbortedMan

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

 the U.S of Anus

 

Really classy there.   You sir need the attitude adjustment.

 

Post was reported.

[wtornado]

I'm reading so much turmoil about BoS not having coop missions...why can't you people just make them? It's extremely easy...lobby/briefing/staging area type setup and all.

 

1. Create your mission with all the units and bells and whistles

2. Don't enable those units/bells/whistles at mission start, only have them start/spawn on a trigger

3. Create trigger with a counter that is something along the lines of "X number of players spawn at this base" or "X number of players enter this area"

4. Your group joins your server and you coordinate who's doing what at the briefing/spawn screen

5. Form up or spawn in at the trigger zone and the mission you created is set in motion when everyone is ready and accounted for

6. Mission starts and everyone rejoices

 

You can add as many AI as you want (in a plausible scenario for the time...no 100 aircraft bombing/dogfight sorties) and play with your little group of friends (4 to 8) with little effect on the game performance.

 

You can even make a giant map-wide network of missions so one mission can essentially be a span of an entire theater campaign with no loading/reloading (if you have the time to link it all, it's not complicated to do, just tedious).

 

What's the issue here?

Easy?

 

 

Throw me a few up there abortedman and if they are historical well scripted not too laggy and I will host them.

 

 

.Hell you can save me hours of learning this and I can fly instead.

 

 

No crappy missions please.

Edited June 13, 2016 by WTornado

[AbortedMan]

You're right. What was I thinking? You people are impossible. It's impossible.

[Sokol1]

Don't have Track IR so I can't stand "dull real" servers. I like normal settings but there isn't a single damned server that has anyone flying in it.

...airfield infested with aim-bot flak and you are direct hit within seconds every time,

Invincible T-34s impervious to damage

 

Reading "between the lines", looks like you are searching for a full  "EASY" server - all "aids" on, stuff easy to blow off, etc.

 

I have - but don't use, TrackIR, give me headaches - but in no way I go play in that kind of server, the people that like of this are playing - and having  "a ton of fun" - in... War Thunder, without need to expend 99$.

 

Please I am not criticizing your preference, just using to illustrate that most who still involved in "flight sim" want more that a "fun game", I play in these EASY servers when tanks arrive, because are the only option to play with then in MP, but two weeks after are "feed up". 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Sokol1

[coconut]

Sokol1, there's nothing wrong with playing with icons on. That mode seems just as important to the devs as the expert mode. People who enjoy it shouldn't feel rejected and sent to play some other game.

By the way, I don't think WT is a good alternative. SB doesn't really have icons (well, it has icons for friendlies when you are close), and RB has problems of its own that make it a no-go for many players (namely fly-by-wire mouse aim and assisted flight).

For a player who wants a realistic flight model but doesn't want to spend his time squinting at the screen, IL-2 is a very good option.

[wtornado]

You're right. What was I thinking? You people are impossible. It's impossible.

That is what I figured too .You made none.

Sokol1, there's nothing wrong with playing with icons on. That mode seems just as important to the devs as the expert mode. People who enjoy it shouldn't feel rejected and sent to play some other game.

By the way, I don't think WT is a good alternative. SB doesn't really have icons (well, it has icons for friendlies when you are close), and RB has problems of its own that make it a no-go for many players (namely fly-by-wire mouse aim and assisted flight).

For a player who wants a realistic flight model but doesn't want to spend his time squinting at the screen, IL-2 is a very good option.

Especially that WT like WOT can be played for free.

 

Not 200$

[Dakpilot]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22674-multiplayer-mission-community-bucket/

 

Place to find and share MP and Co-op missions

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited June 13, 2016 by Dakpilot

[DD_Arthur]

Judging from the numbers of people playing in MP, either the overwhelming majority of Il-2 customers are single players, or a huge amount of people have bought the game and are no longer using the software.  If the former, I'd be curious to know what the devs plan to do to capitalise on the SP user base.  If the latter, I wonder if they have done any research on why the players left and how to win them back.

 

I just thought I'd quote this as its as relevant now as it was six months ago.  Multiplayer is sparse, repetitive and simply lacking and the player numbers reflect this.  Single player?  Guess what....its sparse, repetitive, etc, etc.

 

Just a quick snap shot of multiplayer activity across popular flight sims at 11.30p.m. UK time on a Monday night - a tough time for all pc gaming I would imagine;

 

BoS/Bom  32 players

 

CLoD  34 players

 

RoF  27 players

 

DCS 154 (!!) players

 

IL2 1946 through crappy, outdated hyperlobby 47 players