What do you guys believe...

[DCAL4]

Good evening gents,

 

I wonder if the way forward is not so much which battle region next, but rather thinking outside the box.

 

In that maybe the devs should open to third parties the ability to make new maps, while they focus on new aircraft and targets... I mean land and sea units.

 

So instead of concentrating on doing specific battles (with all the thoughts and debates on where to go next), try to focus on bringing the war to life in less time then the war took.....

 

If third parties can make good maps (of where-ever they wanted, and preferably at a low one off charge to servers/ the community) and the devs perhaps concentrated on planes, instead of us continuing to fight on the eastern front till wars end before going anywhere else (worse case scenario), or forcing people who have no interest in certain regions to buy the game to support the franchise in the hope that one day they will get the region and time frame that they have been waiting for (almost as bad), the devs can sell planes (maybe discount for successive marks of the same plane, provided that you paid full amount for at least one of them).

 

This genre has always been niche, and it needs a way to attract more people.

 

I'm tired of playing QMB because there is no-one online in my region/ anywhere else in the world.

 

What people whether current of new want is not a game where you get to fly either German or Russian (with 2 aircraft exceptions.....), but a game that allows them to live out their dreams.

 

Whether the dreams were started after stumbling over the movie the Battle of Britain/ insert whatever your favorite movie is while channel surfing, or perhaps their grand parents talking about the war, or maybe even us talking to them.

 

If they don't find it in this game (when they research before buying...), they will go to games like WT (not trying to start a fight here...) and either stay there, or become disheartened and walk away.

 

The older generation that played this genre are walking away for many reasons, the simplest is that they couldn't be bothered anymore, so the devs need to find a way to become relevant to the world.

 

They must find away to draw in the crowds without dumbing down the game, they must find a way to make peoples dreams a reality.

 

 

Me personally I fly the LW and my favourite plane is the BF 109, so if it stays on the EF I will probably buy the game, if they move to the Med/ western Europe I will def buy the game, if they move to the Pacific I probably won't buy the game.

 

 

As much as I never thought I would say this, but I would rather buy planes and map packs if it meant getting more content faster.

 

 

Thoughts???

 

 

 

 

 

3rd party support important, you have a good point, it would probably allow for more content faster. I would not mind paying for additional quality content if it meant a broader expansion and greater longevity of the sim.

[Aap]

 

 

PTO is not only open ocean. If you have in mind Central Pacific area than yes, that will involve a lot of ocean. But Solomon Islands, New Guinea, Dutch East Indies or Philippines have as much ground as water, if not more. 

 

 

Very true and like I have said several times, I think Pacific could be very interesting theater. Now back to the point of variety, how many possible targets for tactical bombers are there on these locations? How many possible targets for logistical strikes, railroads etc. How many different battle locations for ground attacks? How many different airfields? I can see PTO offering lots of interesting things, but I can't really see how it can offer more variety in missions compared to Eastern Front.

[DD_Arthur]

Variety of missions, variety of scenery all very lovely but variety of theatre?  I really wish Jason had a lot more control over commercial decisions in this series.

 

Fact is this game is not attracting enough customers to reach a critical mass.  Russian customers amount to approx. one fifth of the purchasers but in terms of revenue it must be rather less.  We now have two main maps which require separate purchase.  Multiplayer in N. American prime time is a desert.  Look how quiet these forums become when there are no new developments on the horizon.

 

 We're down to what?  Three dozen regular posters arguing it out on this forum.  Theres nothing to discuss.  No movie making forum when this game offers more tools and opportunities to make fantastic video, a mission makers forum where the half - dozen guys competent with the mission editor can do their thing?

 

This series needs a western theatre as its next release as a matter of urgency and this game engine needs a lot of functionality added to it to provide long term interest.  Otherwise what have we got?  Beautiful graphics and a wonderful feeling of flight and.......thats it.

 

We have a QMB that is not as good as what was provided fifteen years ago, a campaign system that is...........  and multiplayer that is essentially dogfight server rinse and repeat.

 

Its just not enough.     

Edited June 9, 2016 by DD_Arthur

[xvii-Dietrich]

 

 

One thing the PTO could do very well would be nightfighter operations. It would not require all the extra gizmos and counter-gizmos the way a European theatre night operation would to be convincing. Cruising in the moonlight above Rabaul in a Nakajima J1N, searching for those pesky Black cats and with the radar operator calling out the bearings would be a nice way to spend my evenings.

 

Hmm... players already complain about lack of visibility, and we've had night-operations for a while now. But somehow they just don't catch on.

 

I really don't think that night-operations as you suggest are going to be particularly popular. Even less so, when held over thousands of square-kilometres of empty ocean.

 

 

 

 

We are asking for Pacific theatres etc but can this game motor actually model aircraft carriers etc. No one confirmed the devs can have they?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gElOamslE-s

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Now back to the point of variety, how many possible targets for tactical bombers are there on these locations? How many possible targets for logistical strikes, railroads etc.

Except for railroads which I have mentioned, you may not find there, there is a whole coastline of targets. There are roads like everywhere as well as foot tracks. I cant speak for every part of the PTO but I'm sure you cant for vast areas of Soviet Union as well

 

But can bring example of my proposition, so here is a map with roads and tracks :

 

 

 

And this is how extensively just the southern area was used by US: 

 

 

 

Point is that all along the operations there were created and existed supply depots, bays were used to unload the supplies for the troops, etc. Japanese around Buna-Gona created an extensive defense line including trenches and bunkers. And battle locations ? Whole campaign went along the coast :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many different airfields?

 

I can get you that in a few days, but to put on the map the whole list of military and civilian airfields in the area in given time will take some time. Though I have a list of them, so fear not, I can do it

 

Sidenote: I dont think anyone actually will dig into archives doing the missions for multiplayer to create exact positions where supply depots were located or defense lines. Mission makers will do what they want to make mission attractive, at least that was the case in old Il-2s. 

Edited June 9, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Aap]

 

 

Sidenote: I dont think anyone actually will dig into archives doing the missions for multiplayer to create exact positions where supply depots were located or defense lines. Mission makers will do what they want to make mission attractive, at least that was the case in old Il-2s. 

 

 

I also would not expect everything to be strictly historical, but even with imaginary dynamic campaigns, I just can't see the same possible variety. An online campaign, where both sides could strike production facilities or supply depots deep behind front lines, logistical strikes to prevent these supplies being carries to front lines, direct ground attack on front lines, capturing/evacuating airfields, moving front lines for next mission etc. What I have experienced in IL2 1946 Pacific campaigns was strikes on enemy fleet or island, flying CAP over own fleet - then doing that all over again. While campaigns with proper ground warfare, logistics, production etc could change a lot from mission to mission.

[LLv44_Damixu]

The Leningrad / Gulf of Finland expansion makes most sense in business wise. Some of the Russian planes could be used on the Finn side and there's opportunity to introduce new a bit more exotic planes like Brewster B-239 and other Allied planes to the Axis set.

The terrain provides lots of variety in terms of naval missions, big city operations (Leningrad, Helsinki, Tallin) and very distinguishable terrain to dead reckoning more easily than our existing landscape on BoS/BoM.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

The Leningrad / Gulf of Finland expansion makes most sense in business wise. Some of the Russian planes could be used on the Finn side and there's opportunity to introduce new a bit more exotic planes like Brewster B-239 and other Allied planes to the Axis set.

The terrain provides lots of variety in terms of naval missions, big city operations (Leningrad, Helsinki, Tallin) and very distinguishable terrain to dead reckoning more easily than our existing landscape on BoS/BoM.

 

 

Estonia/Courland would be really great.

[wtornado]

Sidenote: I dont think anyone actually will dig into archives doing the missions for multiplayer to create exact positions where supply depots were located or defense lines. Mission makers will do what they want to make mission attractive, at least that was the case in old Il-2s. 

 

 

I did as much as possible in the old IL-2 and mods helped me a lot.

 

I even set up the Pearl Harbour mission with the ships placed exactly like on the historical photo recon map

 

It takes more time to get all the info sometimes than making the old missions.

 

In my hundreds of magazines the missions in them were copied in detail as much as possible even the

mission time start in some cases when enemies met in the air.

 

Some did not like being in actual missions where you were historically out numbered but it was like that in the mission.

 

 

That is why I said I find DF servers generic..

Edited June 9, 2016 by WTornado

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

What I have experienced in IL2 1946 Pacific campaigns was strikes on enemy fleet or island, flying CAP over own fleet - then doing that all over again.

 

That rings a bell. I think you refer to the generic campaign in Il-2. But there were also scripted ones, like Japanese Glowing Glory where one had to defend Iwo-Jima from enemy attacks (3-4 missions I believe) in June-July 1944, dozen or more missions over Japan in J2M5 in 1944-1945 period involving interceptions against B-29s, escort of G4M3 bombers, interceptions of rescue aircraft PB4Y (or sth like that) and last few missions as a member of 343Ku flying N1K2-J and fighting naval strikes on Japanese mainland since late spring of 1945 where most of the combat was related to interceptions of SB2Cs or TBFs escorted by Corsairs and Hellcats.

That one was actually very well done, and while variety of missions was somewhat limited due to given time and place it still was very exciting. 

 

But generic campaign missions were dull, indeed. They were lot more primitive then what we have in BoS.

 

 

 

An online campaign, where both sides could strike production facilities or supply depots deep behind front lines, logistical strikes to prevent these supplies being carries to front lines, direct ground attack on front lines, capturing/evacuating airfields, moving front lines for next mission etc.

Oh please, that wont happen because most of the people wont be able to fly deep enough enemy territory (hundreds of kilometers) due to limited size of the maps we have and length of such mission. Bombings of western Germany from Britain wont happen. 

And we already have such missions to strike supply depots behind enemy lines, they obviously will exist in PTO. Logistical strikes as well. And direct ground support. Capturing/evacuating of airfields. It all happened on PTO so I honestly dont know what exactly you are pointing. That it did not happen in scale like during the Kursk battle ? Well, first we cant be even certain that Kursk could be pulled since thousands of tanks operating in a matter of days are something none has so far experienced in campaign. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

 

 

I also would not expect everything to be strictly historical, but even with imaginary dynamic campaigns, I just can't see the same possible variety. An online campaign, where both sides could strike production facilities or supply depots deep behind front lines, logistical strikes to prevent these supplies being carries to front lines, direct ground attack on front lines, capturing/evacuating airfields, moving front lines for next mission etc. What I have experienced in IL2 1946 Pacific campaigns was strikes on enemy fleet or island, flying CAP over own fleet - then doing that all over again. While campaigns with proper ground warfare, logistics, production etc could change a lot from mission to mission.

There would be a decrease in some types of hard targets but it would be more than made up for with transport ships, oilers, barges, capitol ships, wharfs, piers, armed trawlers, mtbs, etc, etc etc.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The solution is to make all targets look like Pacman dots. That way you have the same everywhere, and nobody complains.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I mentioned it as a positive.

[Gambit21]

It doesn't make sense comparing the eastern front to the pacific as it's 2 entirely different theatres (hence why I'd like to have it). Both have seen all types of combat missions during WW2 but their focus was quite different.

 

The Pacfic had it's focus on carrier battles and ground support during the landing operations in the "island hopping" campaing while on the eastern front the fighter's struggle for air superiority and strategic bombing played a more important role.

 

I'd also say rescue missions were more important in the PTO given their ammount of pilots was fairly limited and chances of survival in this unforgiving envirounment were pretty low. Would be awesome to eventually fly US Navy Black Cat's missions some day.

Ahhh...except during the Battle for Guadalcanal, which took place from about August 1942 through Feb of 1943, and saw the most furious daily air battles, the carriers on 

both sides were stashed out of harms way and did not play a real role in the campaign. Thus a fantastic and historic campaign/map could be released without the need

for Carriers immediately upon release.

 

There were carrier patrols and such, so but they were sporadic and action was minimal. 

The confrontation was between Henderson/Cactus Air Force on Guadalcanal and Rabaul.

 

The other great thing about The Slot/Solomons as I keep saying - float plane ops, and float plane bases to attack as the battle moves up the Slot.

Oh man...I depress myself every time I write about this because I know the likelihood of it coming to fruition is minuscule at best.

[Phantom-103]

Russia/Manchuria ??

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I know Murf, just kidding

 

Gambit, I wouldn't be so gloomy. It will come eventually, Han was babbling about Catalinas some time ago for example. The 'when' is the only question.

 

Phantom, Manchuria was a beautiful strategic operation executed well to the last detail, but it was also a complete turkey shoot for the Soviet Air Force and it lasted very little.

[Gambit21]

...ahhh, the Catalina.

We have an old PBY base, museum near me.

They're in the middle of restoring one. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Phantom, Manchuria was a beautiful strategic operation executed well to the last detail, but it was also a complete turkey shoot for the Soviet Air Force and it lasted very little.

Actually its worse, there wasnt much shooting at all. Soviet pilots overclaimed a lot and most of what they shot down were Army fighters with bombs attached, trying to make desperate attacks on those massive Soviet forces storming the country. I've somewhere had that calculated, if I remember correctly 2nd Air Army plus Manchukuo Air Force could put up no more then 250 modern fighters and less than 100 bombers, rest was made of attackers and old training machines. All of that had to face 3700 planes of VVS and additional 1500 from Soviet Pacific Fleet.  

I bet most of the VVS pilots didnt even see any Japanese aircraft in the air. 

 

So yeah, it doesnt seem to be a good idea for a scenario.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

On top of that I don't think the Japanese aircraft had sufficient fuel or ammunition supplies for proper resistance, but I could be mistaken.

 

For those interested, the Soviet Air Force OOB: http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/George_Mellinger/soviet_order_of_battle.htm

And a thread (started by Hiromachi, as I noticed now  ) with some detailed information on the Japanese air assets: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=201995

 

A map of the Soviet offensive, showing the huge scale of the front.

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

started by Hiromachi, as I noticed now 

I was there !

 

 

 

On top of that I don't think the Japanese aircraft had sufficient fuel or ammunition supplies for proper resistance, but I could be mistaken.

At least Ki-84s and Ki-45s had proper supplies, though I would assume all the other units were not lacking anything as well. Manchuria was important for Japan and a threat of Soviet invasion was always existing, hence why Japanese Army built their defenses there and kept big chunk of units. That of course had to change as war on the Pacific progressed and continuously various infantry units were moved elsewhere.

But still, the logistics should not be an issue there with all the years of preparations.   

 

I found operations in Kuril Islands a lot more interesting. And there was apparently a combat between Zeros and Yaks  

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Makes sense

 

When they have a Pacific set it will be great fun to create these scenarios, even if without their maps. Matchups of Soviet vs Japanese were very fun in the old Il-2.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

even if without their maps.

Custom made content ! I still think there should be tools for maps and simple 3d objects to be added.  

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Well, there are but there aren't. They do give specific people they trust the opportunity and resources to create maps to be officially included in the game (Velikiye Luki and Murmansk, for example) but not the general public.

 

Whatever comes next, if people with Rise of Flight map-making expertise rise to the challenge they might as well be open to it, so long as the community development doesn't intersect with future plans.

[actionhank1786]

For the East it's popular because it's iconic, above all. Kuban was when the Soviet air forces not only reached parity with the Luftwaffe, but actually started to beat it back. The pilots and generals in Kuban would hold conferences to discuss tactics and methods, then implemented them right away. It was a time for innovation and payback.

 

For the West, besides the iconic bit for those who take an interest in the Great Patriotic War, it brings a lot of variety in terms of terrain, aircraft and missions. It would be the first scenario to have an actual sea by it, beautiful mountain ranges and ports, meaning larger vessels would be there, and also the Axis would get their shipping as well. The aircraft would be a healthy mix of Soviet and foreign types on the Soviet side, while the Axis would get both completely new classes of aircraft like the Hs-129 (a perfect match to the Il-2) and possibly aircraft from other Axis nations.

 

We could even get some VVS Spitfires to round out the mix! I would love a P-39 in the game too...which segues into my next hopeful "different" theater if they leave the Eastern front, which would be the Pacific. 

 

I can't even imagine how good a carrier landing would look with the new engine. 

Makes sense

 

When they have a Pacific set it will be great fun to create these scenarios, even if without their maps. Matchups of Soviet vs Japanese were very fun in the old Il-2.

I always had a lot of fun bringing the Germans and Russians into the Pacific. 

 

Fighting Zeros and Shindens in the La-5 was fun, as was taking on Corsairs in the Bf-109. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The difference in design mentality between those aircraft, stemming from being made for different 'arms races' if you must, makes for a really cool mix.

 

By the way, not really a good contestant for the next theatre due to the advanced state of aircraft there but I saw this today and I must share it.

 

[Picchio]

Custom made content ! I still think there should be tools for maps and simple 3d objects to be added.  

 

Yes! And the possibility to mod cockpit textures too! My Macchi demands more love...

[ShamrockOneFive]

We could even get some VVS Spitfires to round out the mix! I would love a P-39 in the game too...which segues into my next hopeful "different" theater if they leave the Eastern front, which would be the Pacific. 

 

I can't even imagine how good a carrier landing would look with the new engine. 

I always had a lot of fun bringing the Germans and Russians into the Pacific. 

 

Fighting Zeros and Shindens in the La-5 was fun, as was taking on Corsairs in the Bf-109. 

 

We had this super fun setup on BattlefieldUK1 server back in the day where the Manchurian battle heated up instead of calming down and we had Zeros and Oscars fighting early Yaks and I-16s. It was so much fun! Though some players had difficulty adapting their combat styles to the unusual match-ups.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Whatever we get, I hope we get some torpedo action. Especially He-111 torpedo action :D

[xvii-Dietrich]

Whatever we get, I hope we get some torpedo action. Especially He-111 torpedo action :D

 

 

Or, better still... He-115

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

A Do-24 or Ju-52 on floats would fit nicely, plus torpedo loadouts for the He-111 and Ju-88

[Jade_Monkey]

Yeah hopefully adding torpedoes to the existing bombers is not very difficult. And it can be a regular loadout option.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I suppose it shouldn't be a problem so long as it's added as a default armament option.

[Gambit21]

Or, better still... He-115

Or better still a Betty and a Kate

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Take Betty !

 

[Gambit21]

I can't understand a word of it, but I'm enjoying it.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Check out rest of the videos, that guy has most likely largest collection of original Japanese ww2 footage. And with original and decent quality sounds. 

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Take Betty !

 

 

OT, Just wondering if that is the same Takahashi depicted in this Pearl Harbor painting?  He dropped the first bomb at Pearl Harbor.

 

http://www.aviatorart.com/pearl-harbor-0755-by-dru-blair/

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

No, absolutely not. Lt. Commander Kakuichi Takahashi was a dive bomber pilot. 

Betty pilot is Jun Takahashi, more here : https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/the-legendary-betty-pilot-is-alive.30835/

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Nice link, Hiromachi. I like the snippet about the crew having to hit the back of the aircraft in order to take-off and land properly, you don't hear of those often.

 

This kind of detail is something that is missed in flight sims, the slightest quirks of aircraft. Credits to Panzerbar for sharing the interview, this nice long read (use Google Translate) by pilot Ivan Gaidaenko for example mentioned the 'love' they had for Allison engines in the British Airacobra Is they flew.

 

"The power of the Airacobra's engine wasn't enough to fight on the vertical. The Messers significantly beat it in those manoeuvres. Besides that, during the battle you had to keep up with the manifold pressure at all times. In our [soviet] planes, during combat I would just hit the throttle all the way, even breaking the quadrant, and I would do it anyway. In the Cobra I couldn't do that. If I hit the throttle all the way, then the engine overboosts, the compression rate increases, detonations happen, and then the engine fails. Because of that on the Airacobra you had to fly carefully, always tracking the MP."

 

Some more torpedo bombers:

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: And for McKvack...

 

Edited June 12, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Nice link, Hiromachi. I like the snippet about the crew having to hit the back of the aircraft in order to take-off and land properly, you don't hear of those often.

They also had some convenience lol