What do you guys believe...

[Freycinet]

I'd love to see a scenario with an Italy map. Gorgeous landscapes and planes and four major warring powers, Germany, Italy, Great Britain and the US.   

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I am one that also would like them not to rush out a new BOX but spend a couple of months polishing up what we have now as to me a new map and extra planes does not mean much if the base game needs work.

 

 

Also to the guy that wanted an air race scenario in happy to tell u it is supported by the FMB and there used to be a dedicated race server.

 

U can create big yellow graphical gates that u have to fly through hence forming a course. The problem is as far as I'm aware there are no event triggers conected directly to the gates meaning you cant detect if players have flown through them or not making it impossible to give time penalties, detect if people have missed them, time the race, detect who won.........

 

But I suppose with a little creativity one could make use of other triggers.... to reach the same effect. And this is just a little example of what I'm talking about in my first paragraph. This sim like the gates is there and has potential but the last 10% or so is unfinished/not polished meaning that u have to have a bit of a headache to get full use of it. This is why I think they should not rush for BOX and really polish the game so we can get full intended use.

 

Thanks standind by for AAA

[Y-29.Silky]

I doubt Normandy, they'd have to make the B-17 which would bring in too much money.

 

I'm seriously hoping Italy and the USAAF for once. We already have half the plane set.

[LLv24_Zami]

I'd love to see a scenario with an Italy

map. Gorgeous landscapes and planes

and four major warring powers, Germany, Italy, Great Britain and the US.

That would be nice scenario.

I think the chances for PTO are not very good but something in the MTO could be possible.

[DCAL4]

I think Kuban is the best way they can balance out the East/West bases for now, mostly because the Americans and Brits can relate to the aircraft while the post-Soviet countries relate to the battle. Going elsewhere right now would probably alienate the player base at home, which is a disastrous move. With Kuban they can add all the major types which are missing and fill up the popular imagination.

I think this is a great idea. If there are one or two more Eastern Front expansions I hope Kuban is one of them.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I'm pretty positive that if they dish out a Kuban the Eastern community will settle down. The next move after that, if to go away from the Soviet Union, would probably have to be towards the Mediterranean of some sorts since those scenarios still get love in the .ru side of things.

 

On their poll thread people are discussing and even if a lot of people wouldn't mind a Pacific expansion sometime soon (mostly on the basis of scenery, then plane set), they know it would wreck online gameplay and cited the current Il-2:1946 Russian servers that are still full today as an example. The second you hit a Pacific map everyone enters "<vote" on the chat and soon enough it's gone. Alternatively, the population evaporates and the server only comes to life two hours later when the map rotates.

 

Mediterranean and Western Front maps get regular play, as do missions like Spain and make-believe missions like MiG-3/I-16/Il-4/TB-3 versus Ki-61/A6M2/G4M (extremely fun mission).

 

To keep online gameplay healthy, they need to make sure that whatever they add won't split the community in half. In other words, it needs to be something that, when added to a server's map rotation, won't cause highs and lows in playtime.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Lucas: We definitely noticed that with the Pacific scenarios on the Battlefield servers as well. We had a healthy 1/3rd mix of East/West/Pacific and we'd lose a ton of players when the Pacific scenarios came up. I enjoyed them but some players felt they couldn't be competitive and would just leave.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I enjoyed them but some players felt they couldn't be competitive and would just leave.

Was it due to balance reasons or wrong design choices ? In Red Orchestra 2 Rising Storm all pacific scenarios are very popular and can easily compete in numbers with original maps. The asymmetrical setup only adds to the challenge and enhances the experience.  

 

In whole honesty, such apocalypses scenarios  have been brought long ago. And yet I've enjoyed Zeke vs Wildcat server so much that I consider it my best virtual flying experience. Zeke vs Wildcat was quite alive server and dont see a reason why servers introducing Pacific have to be expected to be empty.  

[Jade_Monkey]

Ye, I've been watching closely the discussions on ru forums and its sort of one-sided. Only something from the eastern theater of operations will satisfy those guys, which to be honest is a bit disappointing considering last two games already took place in Soviet Union. I've even seen that arguments of sort like: "what about the western community" were negated.

m

 

That's a pity. We all know it will eventually have to move out the eastern front. The question is how much is too much eastern front and how little is too little.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I think the Pacific would sell through the roof in the United States, Australia, NZ and so on, but it wouldn't do as well elsewhere at this point. Which is sad, of course - no part of the war deserves to be neglected.

 

I assume a Pacific expansion would be perfect a couple of expansions down, then there will be enough of a player base to compensate for the down-time.

 

One way to do it would be to have sets of three Soviet scenarios, then two or three other, focusing in filling up a certain period. In this case for example you could have Moscow-41, Stalingrad-42, Kuban-43. Then N. Africa-41, N. Guinea-42/43, perhaps Italy-43. With that period filled up you could then start going closer to the war's end, starting over again.

[Pharoah]

unfortunately the EF satisfies more Russian players than the rest of the world.... not to say it shouldn't be created, and 1C have done a good job with what they've done, but TBH any further EF expansions will be more of the same...Russian aircraft vs german aircraft. just the map will be diff. The player base is small as it is....but anyway I don't make the decisions.

 

At least recreating the battle of the med or NA or (preferably) the battle of Europe would garner interest from the US/UK/Aust (and eastern Europe as well). Hell I'm sure they could just port the well made channel map from CloD into the new IL2 whilst it would compete with CloD, it would be a diff time set eg late '43 or early/mid '44 which would bring in a lot of awesome a/c like the Tempest, Typhoon, Spit Mk XV (I think) or Mk IX definitely, mossie, etc.

[beepee]

 

 

unfortunately the EF satisfies more Russian players than the rest of the world.... not to say it shouldn't be created, and 1C have done a good job with what they've done, but TBH any further EF expansions will be more of the same...Russian aircraft vs german aircraft. just the map will be diff

 

But that's just it. As Downunder people we are of course hoping for a scenario that our fore-fathers were involved in, that is EUROPE, MTO and PTO.

 

But, we are not making the game, it's a Russian company primarily (but not exclusively) making a game for the Russian market.

 

I would love to see other theatres covered too, but as you mentioned, the player base is small.

 

I have no information on the global spread of people that bought the game, but I would not be surprised if the majority of purchases of both titles were in Russia.

[LLv24_Zami]

But that's just it. As Downunder people

we are of course hoping for a scenario that our fore-fathers were involved in, that is EUROPE, MTO and PTO.

 

But, we are not making the game, it's a Russian company primarily (but not

exclusively) making a game for the Russian market.

 

I would love to see other theatres covered too, but as you mentioned, the player base is small.

 

I have no information on the global spread of people that bought the game,

but I would not be surprised if the majority of purchases of both titles were in Russia.

IIRC, it was 20-30% russian buyers.

[Sokol1]

And in that thread about cheaters, is mentioned that in MP is 17%...

[Requiem]

Believe - Another Eastern front expansion

 

Want - Africa or Med

[Pharoah]

But that's just it. As Downunder people we are of course hoping for a scenario that our fore-fathers were involved in, that is EUROPE, MTO and PTO.

 

But, we are not making the game, it's a Russian company primarily (but not exclusively) making a game for the Russian market.

 

I would love to see other theatres covered too, but as you mentioned, the player base is small.

 

I have no information on the global spread of people that bought the game, but I would not be surprised if the majority of purchases of both titles were in Russia.

 

true but that's what these forums are for - to voice our opinions/requests/etc so that the devs atleast know what we're after. Assuming the next battle will be on the EF, I will definitely be taking a hiatus from IL2 until it does (hopefully) make it to the west/med/NA. Unfortunately there's too many competing games (all vying for my hard earned $$) for me to play something that's not exactly what I want. That's just my opinion but I'm voting with my feet (and my $50). I happily support IL2 (and I have for two DLCs now) but I'd rather put my $$ into something that's in my interest 'zone'.

[Riderocket]

That guy in the main menu will continue to weld the #@*$! out of that piece of plywood or aluminium

 

[216th_Peterla]

I think the Pacific would sell through the roof in the United States, Australia, NZ and so on, but it wouldn't do as well elsewhere at this point. Which is sad, of course - no part of the war deserves to be neglected.

 

I assume a Pacific expansion would be perfect a couple of expansions down, then there will be enough of a player base to compensate for the down-time.

 

One way to do it would be to have sets of three Soviet scenarios, then two or three other, focusing in filling up a certain period. In this case for example you could have Moscow-41, Stalingrad-42, Kuban-43. Then N. Africa-41, N. Guinea-42/43, perhaps Italy-43. With that period filled up you could then start going closer to the war's end, starting over again.

This could be the most interesting idea Lucas. Whatever we get I don't want late war yet because it will turn all the previous planeset obsolete.

A pacific expansion will be amazing with whatever plane they choose but I will go first with an East 43 scenario.

[Dakpilot]

Whatever we get I don't want late war yet because it will turn all the previous planeset obsolete.

 

 

This is an important point, often not given enough consideration

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[CheeseGromit]

But that's just it. As Downunder people we are of course hoping for a scenario that our fore-fathers were involved in, that is EUROPE, MTO and PTO.

 

That's certainly true for me, my interest is in playing what I'm familiar with. It's probably a pretty common position for people to be in.

 

In terms of the Eastern Front, I know almost nothing about it or Russian aircraft in general. I wonder if this game might have been able to teach me something about both with a differently structured campaign and get me more interested in the theatre in general. As it stands I'm still quite looking forward to the announcement about the next step for the game even if it's perhaps not of direct interest to me.

Edited May 31, 2016 by cfnz

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

One way or another its the end of May, time for some announcements

[Guest deleted@50488]

But I would love to have a Bf109 K-4 and a Fw 190 D-9, and Spitifires too :-) Ah! And the Hurricane!!!!

[Asgar]

I would love to have a Fw 190 D but i'm scared what would happen to the FM discussion then...it would be released with an ok FM, then the fans complain, than it gets somewhat buffed, then the P-51 pilots complain and it gets nerfed and so on and so on :D

[Brano]

I believe it wont be raining late in the afternoon so I can go for a beer...or two   If devs will anounce smtg inbetween,it will be only welcome excuse to order few shots of vodka on top of those beers 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Was it due to balance reasons or wrong design choices ? In Red Orchestra 2 Rising Storm all pacific scenarios are very popular and can easily compete in numbers with original maps. The asymmetrical setup only adds to the challenge and enhances the experience.  

 

In whole honesty, such apocalypses scenarios  have been brought long ago. And yet I've enjoyed Zeke vs Wildcat server so much that I consider it my best virtual flying experience. Zeke vs Wildcat was quite alive server and dont see a reason why servers introducing Pacific have to be expected to be empty.  

 

I and the other mission designers worked very hard to create compelling Pacific scenarios that were just as interesting as our European and African scenarios. The balance, IMHO, was very good and we tried to make sure that there wasn't a overly dominating type on either side while also sticking fairly close to history on the aircraft sets (with some liberties).

 

It's hard to guess but there were always the same comments:

 

"I only fly 109s"

"Japanese planes are made of paper"

"I don't know the Japanese planes"

"American planes are too heavy"

 

There were more but you can read between the lines. We also had a lot of players that would just leave if the scenario didn't have the La-5FN or La-7. So the ultimate scenarios we had for these people was one where the 109G-2 and La-5F was present. But if a A6M5 and a F6F showed up... see ya! Infact we had a couple of desert scenarios where if the 109G-2 was there... the entire blue team (32 players sometimes!) would be flying the G-2s. That team would lose the map every time as they had no bombers or attack aircraft but they would score some high kill counts doing it.

 

Things improved when the N1K2 became flyable. We got a good selection of people sticking around for those.

 

People also hated our Slovakia/Hungary mission with Avia B.534s up against CR.42s (in place of CR.32s).

 

All of this was inherently frustrating for someone like myself who wants to fly everything and experience combat from low level turn fights in bi-planes (insanely fun!) to high speed bomber intercepts in Bf109K-4s.

Edited May 31, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[Feathered_IV]

Take a look at the various forums of flight sims over the years and see what kind of questions are asked most of the time. I think you will quickly find that people ask mostly about new aircraft and maps. Features are nice but they cant be foundation of any game, what you need is a solid set of aircraft and appealing to customers map (aka proper theater).

 

I would disagree there.  I think its no coincidence flight simulations saw their popularity go into decline during the years where the major developers dropped any immersive or narrative features in favour of a stripped down package of just aircraft and maps.

[Gambit21]

I and the other mission designers worked very hard to create compelling Pacific scenarios that were just as interesting as our European and African scenarios. The balance, IMHO, was very good and we tried to make sure that there wasn't a overly dominating type on either side while also sticking fairly close to history on the aircraft sets (with some liberties).

 

It's hard to guess but there were always the same comments:

 

"I only fly 109s"

"Japanese planes are made of paper"

"I don't know the Japanese planes"

"American planes are too heavy"

 

There were more but you can read between the lines. We also had a lot of players that would just leave if the scenario didn't have the La-5FN or La-7. So the ultimate scenarios we had for these people was one where the 109G-2 and La-5F was present. But if a A6M5 and a F6F showed up... see ya! Infact we had a couple of desert scenarios where if the 109G-2 was there... the entire blue team (32 players sometimes!) would be flying the G-2s. That team would lose the map every time as they had no bombers or attack aircraft but they would score some high kill counts doing it.

 

Things improved when the N1K2 became flyable. We got a good selection of people sticking around for those.

 

People also hated our Slovakia/Hungary mission with Avia B.534s up against CR.42s (in place of CR.32s).

 

All of this was inherently frustrating for someone like myself who wants to fly everything and experience combat from low level turn fights in bi-planes (insanely fun!) to high speed bomber intercepts in Bf109K-4s.

 

Sounds like you were surrounded by complete dweebs.

I didn't have that experience in the old 1946 - my Pacific missions (and Seahawks) were very popular.

I could fill Pacific missions for several hours while the peeps in my timezone were on and flying.

[Gambit21]

I would disagree there.  I think its no coincidence flight simulations saw their popularity go into decline during the years where the major developers dropped any immersive or narrative features in favour of a stripped down package of just aircraft and maps.

Yep

European Air War did it right, and after experiencing this was stunned and disappointed at first at how stripped down, bare bones and uninspired Oleg's effort was.

I stuck with it ultimately because of the better graphics and flight model, but I always missed that EAW immersion.

 

Planes and maps are where the rubber meets the road, but effort to immerse the player into the actual environment is critical to the single player experience.

Since EAW nobody has even tried to bring us back there.

[Jade_Monkey]

I would love to have a Fw 190 D but i'm scared what would happen to the FM discussion then...it would be released with an ok FM, then the fans complain, than it gets somewhat buffed, then the P-51 pilots complain and it gets nerfed and so on and so on :D

Complaints? You must be talking about a different forum

[unreasonable]

Yep

European Air War did it right, and after experiencing this was stunned and disappointed at first at how stripped down, bare bones and uninspired Oleg's effort was.

I stuck with it ultimately because of the better graphics and flight model, but I always missed that EAW immersion.

 

Planes and maps are where the rubber meets the road, but effort to immerse the player into the actual environment is critical to the single player experience.

Since EAW nobody has even tried to bring us back there.

 

EAW was fun, although the 1970s currency in the loading screens and the M24 London orbital motorway slightly reduced the immersion. I am sure there were others, though:

 

Rowan's BoB has an interesting method of playing out the operational game.

 

RoF also did it rather well - but as we know that part was ditched because "nobody played it".

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

I should keep working and you make me want to answer here. Dang it.

 

I would disagree there.  I think its no coincidence flight simulations saw their popularity go into decline during the years where the major developers dropped any immersive or narrative features in favour of a stripped down package of just aircraft and maps.

I think you misunderstood me Feathered.

That doesn't contradict what I have said. What I mean that every sim needs solid base in form of proper map and aircraft setup. Then it is obvious that features increasing the immersion and players experience are needed. However running only on features, without solid base is going nowhere. 

And again I could quote DCS as an example with 3 aircraft taken from various timeframes flying over Georgia. They have multiple features like advanced flight models, thermodynamics, tail radar, gyro gunsight, clickable cockpits. But they lack solid base in form of Normandy map and aircraft specific for it. There is also lack of ground and naval units. 

Proper set of aircraft flying over related theater doesnt negate the immersion. Its a base for it that then should be expanded with further features.

 

European Air War did it right, and after experiencing this was stunned and disappointed at first at how stripped down, bare bones and uninspired Oleg's effort was.

CFS 2 was for me the same. Immersive scenarios, exciting campaign, proper aircraft set and even a lovely booklet which I keep to this day as an example of well done development.

 

I and the other mission designers worked very hard to create compelling Pacific scenarios that were just as interesting as our European and African scenarios. The balance, IMHO, was very good and we tried to make sure that there wasn't a overly dominating type on either side while also sticking fairly close to history on the aircraft sets (with some liberties).

I remember the work on Target Rabaul modification and amount of interest it has attracted due to fact that actual specialists took the Il-2 and expanded it, working on aircraft flight models, weapon systems, maps and various objects to give a finest experience of the Pacific.

 

It's hard to guess but there were always the same comments:

 

"I only fly 109s"

"Japanese planes are made of paper"

"I don't know the Japanese planes"

"American planes are too heavy"

 

There will always be guys who will say "I only fly 109", "I only fly Yak". A closed mind cannot be helped. Its only problem of that guy that he does not want to open himself to a different experience and is actually restricting other people from enjoying things. We saw a lot of that "I only fly 109" on BoS servers. With that attitude we wont leave Europe/Soviet Union ever. 

 

And further complains come simply from the fact of insufficient time put into trying other machines. I didnt know how to fly Ju-88 and He-111 until I read something about them and started flying campaign. Then I tried Pe-2 and it was fun again.

 

There were more but you can read between the lines. We also had a lot of players that would just leave if the scenario didn't have the La-5FN or La-7. So the ultimate scenarios we had for these people was one where the 109G-2 and La-5F was present. But if a A6M5 and a F6F showed up... see ya! Infact we had a couple of desert scenarios where if the 109G-2 was there... the entire blue team (32 players sometimes!) would be flying the G-2s. That team would lose the map every time as they had no bombers or attack aircraft but they would score some high kill counts doing it.

 

 

 Again, close mind is a close mind. Shoganai.

 

Things improved when the N1K2 became flyable. We got a good selection of people sticking around for those.

I bet ya, its a fun aircraft to fly. 

 

 

People also hated our Slovakia/Hungary mission with Avia B.534s up against CR.42s (in place of CR.32s).

 

All of this was inherently frustrating for someone like myself who wants to fly everything and experience combat from low level turn fights in bi-planes (insanely fun!) to high speed bomber intercepts in Bf109K-4s.

To be fair me and few other guys used to organize a historical events in War Thunder. I believe they are still running, now organized by some other folks. And I know what people think of WT, but point was to skip dumb matchmaking and do a proper event. Those were popular, immersive and fun. There were tasks given, there were roles to be played. 

Edited May 31, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[BraveSirRobin]

I would disagree there.  I think its no coincidence flight simulations saw their popularity go into decline during the years where the major developers dropped any immersive or narrative features in favour of a stripped down package of just aircraft and maps.

What is so immersive about War Thunder?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It probably has to do with time-zones. The Pacific-only servers were always full in that window of time when American and Aussie players were online together, but servers which had a rotation didn't fare so well. My fear is that if they throw in a Pacific next, we'll have three populated servers - two Russian-based running only Eastern Front, and one US-based running only Pacific. Players will rarely exchange one for the other, and things will stay that way for the duration.

 

Between 2007-2009 I preferred to hang out at Spits vs 109, and though I was usually either shot up or didn't meet a single enemy, it was very fun. Then I spent some years on Flaming Cliffs 2 and DCS: Ka-50 (the living proof that an unknown design can garner attention), hit a slump for a while and in 2012 I returned to Flaming Cliffs. I only came back to the old Il-2 in 2015, on 9th May, after watching a good few documentaries and movies and thinking "why the hell did I stop?" And here I am now

[Gambit21]

It probably has to do with time-zones. The Pacific-only servers were always full in that window of time when American and Aussie players were online together, but servers which had a rotation didn't fare so well. My fear is that if they throw in a Pacific next, we'll have three populated servers - two Russian-based running only Eastern Front, and one US-based running only Pacific. Players will rarely exchange one for the other, and things will stay that way for the duration.

 

As much as a lot of us loved the Pacific maps and planes, we still rotated in quite a few Eastern Front missions on CoOp nights just to switch things up.

It's easy to want to fly an Eastern Front plane set when you have a chance to miss it - know what I mean?

[71st_AH_Gamecock]

it's going to be the next theatre ?

 

Pacific ?

 

Channel / Normandy ?

 

Africa ?

Anything that has some higher performance Allied aircraft. 

[Sokol1]

European Air War did it right, and after experiencing this was stunned and disappointed at first at how stripped down, bare bones and uninspired Oleg's effort was.

 

Very true, and what came after O.M. was even more uninspired...

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Funny in my years of flying in WOP spits vs 109 in the US time zone everytime a Russian map come up it was like cops at a party. Yeap would go to 0 vs 0.

 

In general terms most Americans don't like Russian planes and most Russians don't like American planes. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the history you grew up on. Nothing.

 

The good thing was back then you had planes both groups loved. I have a squad full of guys that don't fly because of this. They all bought BOS. About half bought BOM. God help us if another Russian map gets picked. It'll be a hard dession but I'll probaby keep my money too.

Maybe the devs are happy with mostly Russian money funding the game. It's their game and their jobs. They are welcome to it.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I remember hosting the BlitzPigs one night long ago, it was one of my Pacific scenarios, and a whole group of JGs came in and demanded that I add FW 190 Ds to the map.

 

I explained that this was a Pacific scenario, and no German planes took part in this theater.   The numpty in charge said we only fly FW 190s and demand you add them now.

 

The ban hammer fell after that. 

 

 

I always enjoyed the Pacific match ups, especially when I was in my Ki 61.

 

Oh yes.

 

 

My old sig pic from the UBI forum...

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

That's one for the books, El

 

I can see it happening in a few years down, servers with I-16, F4Fs, Spitfire, A6M and Fw-190 due to 'popular demand'.

 

As a side-note, who here played the Arctic Hunters campaign in the old Il-2?

 

One of the most memorable missions involved intercepting He-111s attacking a convoy arriving at Murmansk. There was a whole lot of them, escorted by Bf-109s, coming low for a torpedo run. The glorious bit was when our P-39s arrived over the area and the Royal Navy escort carrier scrambled FAA Marlets (Wildcats) to help the intercept. An epic battle raged with Airacobras, Marlets, Bf-109s and He-111s going crazy at each other skimming the water's surface, flying through extremely thick naval AA trying to stop the bombers. The radio exploded with Russian and English radio calls, and I remember having to RTB after shooting down a He-111 because a friendly flak gun landed some hits on me, ripping out my stabiliser.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Good points all around.

 

I think the reason I mostly fly single player these days is to just sidestep most of this stuff altogether. I'm likely going to be interested and happy with whatever they throw at us next. So long as they keep to their so far very good policy of picking a battle and selecting a bunch of planes and supporting objects to fill that scenario out properly... I'm in. I'll fly it and my AI compatriots will too :D