Ok, sell me the Pacific theatre planes.

[J2_Trupobaw]

After denial and anger comes bargaining, I guess. This thread tries to get to PTO controversy from constructive side, not by fighting between people who want and who don't care about Pacific Theatre, but attempting to allow latter to convince the former that the next three expansion are worth our interest after all. 

 

I'll start with list of things that won't work, because if they did I would not be writing this (anything by planes, really). Please no "True Scotsman" arguments ("If you were real aviation enthusiast, you would care" - I am, and I obviously don't (and if I'm not one, there is no point in me buying into PTO)). No "supporting the genre or it will die" either - a genre that's not going to see interesting releases in next five years might as well be dead already, and I bought into this fallancy once before, with Eastern Front. I want to let my peers convince me of merits of PTO, not invite them to try guilt tripping me.

 

These things about the theatre obviously don't work, either, or this thread would not be here: 

-I don't identify with participants. PTO was a separate conflict involving Japanese and Americans (and colonial forces of Europan powers/Commonwealth), that happened to run parallel to WW2, with little impact on other participants other than bringing US into the war on other theatres. It's little less abstract subject than, say, Samoan civil war of 1886. Or football. 

 

-I never gave second thought to carrier landings; like the fighter jets, they never attracted me and are part of sim niche best left to other people. So "dude, carriers!"  is not a selling point, or I'd be jumping up and down in joy already. No more than making Digital Nature A-10.

 

-The scenery is mostly ocean, I.e. whole lot of nothing in particular. Exciting for first few minutes, obviously didn't hook me either. If you can convince me in rational terms what's so great about it, the better.

-Which leaves the planes themselves. For reasons above, I know very little about PTO planes, and never bothered learning about them. If there is going to be any point of attraction, it will be planes themselves. So please, sell me your favourite PTO plane and let me know why I want to fly it over what I already have. For better picture, let me know what are your favourite BoS/BoM planes are?

Edited September 13, 2016 by Trupobaw

[unreasonable]

-The scenery is mostly ocean, I.e. whole lot of nothing in particular. Exciting for first few minutes, obviously didn't hook me either. If you can convince me in rational terms what's so great about it, the better.

 

 

It should be really cheap to make the maps. Will that translate into cheaper prices? Who knows.

 

And sharks. Sharks are exciting.

 

My favourite BoS plane? Lagg-3, since I had my most entertaining MP victory in it. No other reason: it is horrible.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

"sell me the Pacific theatre planes"

 

Do you like the Pacific along with its planes? Then buy it. You don't? Then don't buy it.

[Dutchvdm]

Maybe watch some documentaries about the PTO?... Learning more about something get's me interested most of the time. For me the lack of interest comes with the lack of knowledge. 

 

Grt M

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I dont know what exactly you are expecting Trupobaw, I can try to write something but its easier to talk about this than actually write since it would take quite a few articles to present any of this aircraft in detail. 

 

 

For the record, I'm flying mostly LaGG 3 and P-40, recently trying to switch to La-5 but its not easy aircraft to handle. Favorite aircraft ? BoS it will be LaGG 3, BoM probably P-40 for VVS and 109 E-7 for Luftwaffe. 

 

In regard to favorite PTO plane, its hard to answer because Japanese aircraft differ so much. It's not like Luftwaffe where you have a 109 which is a light interceptor or 190 which is heavier air superiority fighter (or at least thats how I imagine them, might be mistaken though) but you have two branches which have their needs that have to be satisfied in various ways. To give some picture, both Navy which obviously had its interest in Pacific and Army which was focused on China mainland, had their carriers. This dualism was pretty much visible in everything - different aircraft, different armament and even different fuel grades. 

So to at least try to answer your question in some manner:

My favorite Navy carrier borne fighter is A6M2 Zero, because of its combination of qualities and design. No matter how you look at it, this is a fighter that is powered by 950 HP engine which can reach a top speed near 300 knots, has greater range than any other fighter probably until arrival of P-51 (even though I still think A6M could extend it further, Saburo Sakai clocked a record of spending over 12 hours in the air in his A6M2), very good maneuverability and rate of climb. Aircraft also had a very good control-ability and stability that impressed NACA engineers, making it one of the most precious objects of their tests.

I have written some time ago a well received articles about Debut of A6M2 and can leave a link for anyone interested: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/175903-debut-of-zero-sen/

 

Favorite Navy land based fighter is N1K2-J for that it was a first mass produced Japanese aircraft with laminar airfoil, good maneuverability, very good firepower and its story. Despite all odds in 1945 Japanese managed to produce a modern fighter capable of tacking Corsairs and Hellcats on equal terms.

 

Favorite Army fighter is Ki-61 because its a Japanese idea of 109. Using the same engine as 109 E-4, Ki-61-I had much cleaner airframe allowing it to reach greater speeds, it still had good rate of climb but also had very good maneuverability and range. Tony also by the late 1943 had much better armament than 109 (two 12.7 mm in nose and two 20 mm MG 151/20 in wings). 

 

And what about the others ? Well, I also adore Navy dive bomber D4Y1 Judy and torpedo bomber is B5N.

 

But why would you want to fly Japanese aircraft (I didnt mention any American aircraft because probably someone else will do it and explain even better than I can)  ?

Probably because they are unique and different. Almost all Japanese aircraft were light weight constructions with clean airframe to reduce drag and large fuel carried, to extend the range. To give you a perspective in regard to Midway, Zeros were the first aircraft to take-off for the Midway strike early in the morning and yet had sufficient fuel to make the Midway strike, return and orbit their carriers while the American air strikes were in progress. In the case of a flight from Soryu they even climbed to a high altitude over the Japanese task force to oppose B-17s. After damaging of Japanese carriers, CAP Zeros had to stay aloft for long periods before landing on Hiryu, the only undamaged carrier. in contrast Wildcats (VF-6) orbiting above the Japanese task force could not afford to drop a low altitude lest their fuel was insufficient to allow them to climb to protect dive bombers once they arrive on the scene. Ten Wildcats from Hornet ditched after running out of fuel following a navigational error on the return flight to their carrier. Other qualities ? Japanese aircraft have a very good visibility in all directions in most of their aircraft, they were probably first nation to adopt sort of bubble canopy in their Ki-27b. 

 

Japanese aircraft are very different from what you have experienced with German and Soviet warbirds, they are also very different from US machines and even British lighter and more agile fighters are not exactly the same. 

 

If you remain unconvinced or unattracted I can try to add more later on, when I find time. Frankly, its middle of the day and work is calling

 

Also, if you would give me a chance to show you that points you've made are not exactly correct.

 

 

I don't identify with participants.

I dont identify with participants we have now, neither would I if we would go Med. Polish pilots were rather active during Battle of Britain and further combat over France. There were later on some units in Soviet Union too, but thats not the period we have in game. I think many people here coming from Australia, United States, Canada, China, etc. might have issue with identifying themselves with participants. Yet its not about either side in my opinion but pure appreciation of those unique designs that pilots had an opportunity to fly.

 

 

I never gave second thought to carrier landings

It's not that much about landings but possibility carriers grant. Aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield that can appear, send its machines from a long range to attack certain object and then retreat quickly before enemy will have a chance to respond. Bases on the Eastern Front are fixed, once position of enemy airfield is known it becomes a subject of attack. In regard to carriers there is also searching involved, radar operations and everything related to that.

 

 

The scenery is mostly ocean, I.e. whole lot of nothing in particular. Exciting for first few minutes, obviously didn't hook me either. If you can convince me in rational terms what's so great about it, the better.

Ocean is just a field of battle, but the goal is capture and hold of islands. That's what Pacific was about, securing bases allowing a further advance. Japanese imagined if they could quickly defeat Americans and build outer perimeter with strong defenses and set of airfields, this will make it very hard for Americans to penetrate and costly (both in industrial power and man power). Americans used islands to make small jumps, continuously advancing towards Japanese islands.

At the end of the day you cant "hold" Ocean, you can win battles but without any islands and bases its impossible to control the area around. And in this regard Pacific islands offer beautiful landscapes.

[Danziger]

I was already sold on it but that sold me even more.

[Feathered_IV]

The two combatants are pure opposites in aerial philosophies.  Agile rapier vs rushing broadsword.  So very different, but so finely balanced in their capabilities. 

Technique is everything. 

[seafireliv]

Well if we do see the Pacific I want to see them do the ground stuff RIGHT, or rather the sea stuff. I want to see battleships and carriers make the correct turning manouevers to avoid bombers, not just go in a straight line. I want to see them blow up realistically when hit and limp onwards or slowly sink below the waves, etc, etc.

 

Oh and the sea must be PERFECT. Add in a few seagulls  while you`re at it. It`s all about immersion, not just the aircraft, so many people get this wrong. It`s why in even this sim, the feel of a ground war isn`t there. I hope they make Kuban feel like there`s a war on the ground too.

 

IL2 had crappy ship mechanics for the most part.

Edited September 13, 2016 by seafireliv

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I think Jason addressed that on Q&A that ship behavior will be as realistic as its possible by the engine and he really considers ships as important as aircraft we have in game.

 

 

 

I want to see them blow up realistically when hit and limp onwards or slowly sink below the waves, etc, etc.

Good luck, because for the most part carriers just burned for hours until someone decided to put them out of their misery. I'd hope for realistic damage of various sections and systems, so that you can damage electricity generators or lock the rudder. That of course requires A LOT of work.  

[Sokol1]

... carrier landings; 

 

Only this is sufficient reason for me - since 1942-The Pacific Air War and Warbirds Online times.

[seafireliv]

I think Jason addressed that on Q&A that ship behavior will be as realistic as its possible by the engine and he really considers ships as important as aircraft we have in game.

 

 

 

Good luck, because for the most part carriers just burned for hours until someone decided to put them out of their misery. I'd hope for realistic damage of various sections and systems, so that you can damage electricity generators or lock the rudder. That of course requires A LOT of work.  

MOST ships. The Hood for one blew up instantly. I have no problem with them burning for hours.

 

The whole Pacific is going to be a lot of work- If they can`t do it, they shouldn`t bother. But oh wait, you`re not the Dev, so maybe they CAn do it and it won`t be as much work as you think! Whowudathunkit?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Great post, Hiromachi

 

Trupobaw, I'm not the world's biggest PTO fan by far. In fact, back in the old Il-2 I started some five plus careers in the PTO yet they always petered out after two or three missions. That being said, most of it can be attributed to the limited scope provided by a simulator which in the end was still 2000 tech meant to recreate aerial war with a little ground war here and there (a wonderful piece of software at that).

 

With a modern game engine to boot, a few things make a Pacific expansion attractive. The aircraft match-up is a complete departure from 1942-1943 Eastern Front where both sides were fielding multi-role bombers and the fastest fighters they could find in relatively equal footing. In the Pacific - particularly early on - both sides had design philosophies that were polar opposites. American fighters of the time were mostly heavy and good at most things, though not excellent at any of them. F2A, F4F, P-39, P-40, you name it. The sturdy construction and additional armour impaired manoeuvrability, climb rate and other aspects of performance but they could take a beating and bring the pilot home alive. Japanese aircraft on the other hand took the Bf-109 philosophy (light and fast) to extremes, leading to excellent offensive weapons that epitomised fighter aircraft: an offensive creation meant to attack enemy air assets, not a defensive one. Armament was generally very powerful on both sides, so whoever played the tactical game better and got a shot could reliably finish things quickly.

 

The ocean bit isn't much on its own, but you need to look at it from a different perspective. Over Stalingrad for example, you can scout farmlands and burnt-out fields for ages until you find an enemy emplacement by a bridge or something. Over open ocean, the deal is the same: finding needles in the haystack, an enemy asset hidden in the vast ocean, but this time a mobile and tougher one to destroy. Instead of looking at landmarks for navigation, you will have to rely on pure dead reckoning, which is exciting.

 

Also, you get an extra adrenaline rush from losing the feeling of safety you have over land. As it is now, all a pilot needs to do to feel safe when returning from a mission, damaged or not, is cross the Volga. If you're damaged, you can safely put it down on a field, village, or a nearby artillery position. You know that realistically speaking it was more than enough for a pilot, in dire circumstances, to put down the aircraft in a controlled crash landing and walk away from it alive with no consequences. There are also other nearby airfields, both active and inactive, where you can land. Over ocean, there are no factual front lines, and you are only actually safe if you land reasonably close to your fleet (ie within range of radio or SAR planes). Being on your last drops of fuel waiting for your aircraft to pick up on an NDB is good fun, and the desperation that comes once you don't get any signal when you should have been is exciting. One starts to wonder, did they sink the carrier, did the pilot screw up the navigation, did the fleet move? All are possibilities, but most of all the fact is that you don't have firm ground to land then walk home or be taken captive. You ditch, you die.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

 

Santa cruz but equivalent

[Trooper117]

Put all that design philosophy over Guadalcanal and I'd buy it no problem... but carriers and long expanses of ocean do jack for my mental state, sorry... can't really get excited about it.

But we will see, I might be singing a different tune in 18 months or so, but I doubt it

[Jade_Monkey]

 

-I don't identify with participants. PTO was a separate conflict involving Japanese and Americans (and colonial forces of Europan powers/Commonwealth), that happened to run parallel to WW2, with little impact on other participants other than bringing US into the war on other theatres.

 

It didnt run parallel to WWII, it was WWII.

 

Just dont buy it, nobody is forcing you.

 

BOK barely got announced, the pacific is really far away.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

indeed.. WWII is and abbrevation of World War.. Not European War

[VBF-12_Stele]

I encourage you to do the research on the planes; (ie-Osprey publications, online of course, and some accounts from pilots in the war). As for the Pacific being a separate conflict from WW2; I don't think that's entirely accurate. It still brought in multiple countries into a fight spanning over almost half the world and eventually resulting in the use of atomic bombs.

 

As for the planes themselves, the Japanese Zero will be an absolute joy to fly in the IL2BOX engine. Probably one of the best early fighters of the war with its climbing power and maneuverability, it will be a challenge for any Wildcat pilot who isn't teaming up with others. I look forward to that.

[AndyJWest]

I don't see any 'controversy' regarding the PTO: it is up to the developers to decide what products they create, based on their assessment of the potential market, of what is practical, and on what resources they have available. Clearly they aren't going to satisfy everyone, but that doesn't make a decision into a 'controversy' - as with any other commercial concern, they offer products, and it is up to individuals whether they purchase them or not. If neither the theatre of operations nor the plane set interests you enough to want to buy the product, then don't. Personally, I'm looking forward to the challenges of deck landings, and to flying in a whole different environment, with an entirely new plane set, but I don't feel under any obligation to 'sell' it to anyone else. 

[BeastyBaiter]

The biggest appeal is in the aircraft obviously. The European half of the war saw mostly pre-war planes updated repeatedly with bigger and bigger engines until the war ended. Germany started WW2 with the Bf-109, Bf-110 and the Fw-190 (in development) and ended the war with the Bf-109, Bf-110, Fw-190 and Me-262. Japan started with the A6M, Ki-27 and Ki-43 but ended with about a dozen totally different airframes. The variety in fighters is truly staggering when compared to Germany, and that's why I find them more interesting. BoK really drives home the issue of staying with Europe. We're getting a Bf-109G4, which feels an awful lot like a copy paste of a 109G2. We're getting the Fw-190A5, which is a nice improvement over the Fw-190A3, but it isn't going to be anything dramatic. We're getting another Yak, which is basically like any other Yak. We're getting another He-111, which is little more than an up armed model of what we have. Switching to the western front, MTO or anywhere else with Germany/Italy isn't going to change that. It's still going to be just another 109 and 190 marginally different from the ones we already have. There is a little more room on the allied side but not a lot tbh.

 

By going to the Pacific, we can get stuff that is totally different. The A6M, F4F, TBD/TBF and B5N are absolutely nothing like anything we have in the game atm. And as soon as you throw in the IJAAF, the potential variety is staggering. The IJN may have stuck with 1 carrier fighter for the whole war (with modest upgrades) but the IJAAF came up with about a dozen new fighter airframes and mass produced them over the course of 4 years. The link at the bottom is a list of Japanese aircraft from WW2. I suggest taking a look at the Ki-43, Ki-61, Ki-84 and J2M in particular.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_Japan_during_World_War_II

[Trooper117]

Can't see any controversy over the dev's choices... it's their train set.

It won't appeal to all, but that is ok, we are all different and have different ideas/favourites as to our  WWII aviation passions.

[No601_Swallow]

 

-I never gave second thought to carrier landings; ... they never attracted me and are part of sim niche best left to other people. So "dude, carriers!"  is not a selling point, or I'd be jumping up and down in joy already.

 

 

Each to his own... but dude! Carriers! 

 

[Almost my fondest memories of our pacific coops in '46 was getting back to the carrier and the hilarity of watching each other try to catch that wire...! Always hilarious.]

 

One of my first "missions" was a single player carrier practice mission. I had every carrier in the game sailing into the wind, with me spawned in a couple of kilometers behind, and then I could choose - the Lexington or the... memory going... a big Japanese carrier (these were always the easiest for me), or one of those American mini-carriers (with the exhaust stacks on both sides of the deck), or ... was the British carrier Intrepid? Or am I hallucinating?

 

Anyway - Carriers! If they get close to the visual quality of other objects in the game, they'll be great - especially combined with something Jason mentioned in the Q&A - visual guidance for the glide slope (e.g. that bloke waving his arms in CFS2)... Come on! What's not to love?

 

 

Edit: Oh and what about that last mission from the IL2 '46 "Castaways" campaign by Dubbo - always my favourite SP campaign (just a fun masterpiece) - when you've got to land your B25 (? I think...? Can't remember) on the deck of the passing carrier? Just brilliant fun.

 

(If you're still doing '46 and you haven't flown it, here it is. It's brilliant, and you'll never look at Aussies called Randy the same ever again.

 

Double Edit: Makes me want to fire up '46 again!...

Edited September 13, 2016 by No601_Swallow

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Here is basic trio of Midway:

 

 

 

 

I'm in particular looking forward to B5N since it had a 3-man crew, there was a pilot, navigator/bombardier and gunner/radioman (and later on this guy also operated radar, which I hope will be included even for the sake of later, post 1942 expansions). In reality pilot while landing was never looking at his control panel but instead navigator was shouting to him data on aircraft speed, etc. Same actually was for D3A where pilot was glued to scope sight and it was second crewman telling him altitude and speed and when to release "gifts". If this is going to work in any way close to reality (and it should) than certainly it will be fun for all squadrons. 

[Albino]

I understand that many Europeans don't identify with the Pacific War. I'm from Australia, and it is closer to home for me than any Western Front battle. I imagine many Americans feel the same.

 

It certainly wasn't a separate war for us.

 

Regards

Albino

[Rolling_Thunder]

One of the thing I like about the Pacific is the moving battlefield. If the devs can get the ai of the ships right it's going to take a lot of skill to get a bomb on target then land back on a moving airfield. That in itself makes it far more interesting for me. Another was the logistics of the war in the east, the movement of forces over huge distances. The different terrain and weather of the South East Asia campaign. The development of the B29. If one is just after air to air furballs it really shouldn't matter whether one is above the ocean or above ground.

I'm not going to try and sell you the aircraft. Nobody could convince me to buy what I don't want. You're either interested or you're not. In the old days when game developers released a "demo" you could try it before buying those days are gone now unfortunately. Maybe fire up il2 1946 and fly a few of the aircraft, land on a few carriers and see how it feels?

[HippyDruid]

As long as the planes and flight models are created to the same high standard as RoF/BoS/BoM, then I will buy it.

It's the planes that keep me interested in flight sims after all.

 

I'm not really bothered about a Pacific Theater of Operations, nor was I, for the Eastern Front. I am however, very excited at the prospect of just messing around in those aircraft that were involved.

 

To be clear, I'm not at all against any of these scenarios either.

Part of the enjoyment of this hobby is coming to these forums to learn some of the lesser known historical facts and figures. It never ceases to amaze me what you people know and find on WWII.

On a good day this place is like a fantastic WWII museum. (I'm not calling anyone old!) 

 

If I could have chosen what theater I wanted, The Western Front, Italy, North Africa or anything else that would allow me to get behind more of the Royal Air Force plane set would have been my preference.

Collector planes may hold the best hope for me in this regard, but we'll see.

 

So Trupobaw, I'm not the person to convince you. But I can tell you, the reason I will buy it is because I want to fly more and more planes over nice looking maps. And I look forward to the history lesson that will inevitably ensue.

[Scarecrow]

What the Pacific Theater will really bring is more players from the USA and more exposure for the series.

Pacific Fighters is what "blew up" the original IL2 series along with good marketing of that title.

 

Carrier borne aircraft are really interesting creatures and the joy of landing an aircraft on a moving target and catching a 1 wire cannot be overlooked. Also Kamikaze's.. huh.. huh dude?

 

As a flight simmer I'd like to see the lesser known theaters covered. Some people have been asking for Africa, Italy and Libya etc for the last 10 years and I want to see what all the noise is about

Edited September 14, 2016 by Scarecrow

[ShamrockOneFive]

These things about the theatre obviously don't work, either, or this thread would not be here: 

-I don't identify with participants. PTO was a separate conflict involving Japanese and Americans (and colonial forces of Europan powers/Commonwealth), that happened to run parallel to WW2, with little impact on other participants other than bringing US into the war on other theatres. It's little less abstract subject than, say, Samoan civil war of 1886. Or football. 

 

 

Do you need to directly identify with the participants? I'm Canadian. Technically in WWII we fell a lot of the time under British organization (Commonwealth and all) but we don't get represented anywhere for much of anything outside of that. When we do... its great. But it doesn't make the whole thing any less interesting to me.

 

The Pacific is interrelated with the other parts of the war in many ways. The Russian reinforcements in the later half of the Moscow battle came from the far east where they were making sure the Japanese didn't try anything (again). That changed when they attacked Pearl Harbor. The Germans sent weapons to the Japanese (mostly via submarine). Those weapons included 600 MG151/20 cannons which were installed on the Ki-61-I-Hei fighter. That same fighter was using a DB601 license built engine. The Ki-61 to Ki-100 engine retrofit (from inline to radial) was partially influenced by a FW190A-5 sent to the Japanese. They studied fitting a large radial to a slim body similar to the FW190. Lots of interesting connections. There are more but a few are aviation related.

 

-I never gave second thought to carrier landings; like the fighter jets, they never attracted me and are part of sim niche best left to other people. So "dude, carriers!"  is not a selling point, or I'd be jumping up and down in joy already. No more than making Digital Nature A-10.

 

 

 

Can't make you like something you don't want to. Carrier ops are very interesting. You have a fairly small space to land dozens of fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers. Some which are quite large aircraft themselves. Ever stood next to an Avenger? It's huge. They operated these things off of carriers on a regular basis. It's an interesting aviation challenge made all the more interesting by the fact that they went to war in these things and that entire parts of the war were determined by a small number of flat topped warships and their carrier air wings.

 

-The scenery is mostly ocean, I.e. whole lot of nothing in particular. Exciting for first few minutes, obviously didn't hook me either. If you can convince me in rational terms what's so great about it, the better.

 

 

Yeah the ocean can be boring. But the Pacific tended not to be fought exclusively over ocean. Its the stuff in the ocean that matters...strongholds like Midway that were strategic launching points. Ever heard of The Slot? A mass chain of islands running hundreds of kilometers and this was the site of some significant land/naval/air action over the course of 3 years. Or New Guinea? Lush jungles, mountain ranges (the Owen Stanley's for example), volcanoes, and again... the site of significant land/air/ (and some) naval action.

 

-Which leaves the planes themselves. For reasons above, I know very little about PTO planes, and never bothered learning about them. If there is going to be any point of attraction, it will be planes themselves. So please, sell me your favourite PTO plane and let me know why I want to fly it over what I already have. For better picture, let me know what are your favourite BoS/BoM planes are?

 

F4U Corsair. A bent wing oddity designed for carrier decks but with a nasty stall that kept it off of them for years. The USMC turned it into a magnificent fighter and a deadly foe. Its fast, its rugged, it can carry a ridiculous amount of bombs (max overload is 4000lbs - the same as the B-25 Mitchell bomber) and so can be used on bombing missions as well as front line fighter ops. Another is the A6M Zero. It's a legend... superb handling, extreme range, and very lightweight. It doesn't dive well and it doesn't take damage well. But its hard to hit.

 

The Pacific is just as interesting as the other theaters. If you haven't bothered to learn anything about it and you have a vague idea of some carriers fighting over endless expanses of ocean... well yeah that's pretty darn boring. A lot more happened here than you may know and it drew in a lot of nations. The US, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, India, Canada, Philippines, China, Japan and for about a month at the end... the USSR.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I'm interested in WWII in general so the more variety the better imho, I would accept any theater as long as any serious combat took place.

If I had to go with local influences then I wouldn't get very far in regards to WW2.

Just a few titles:

Scuttling the Graff Spee

Surrendering U-boats

 

Delivering and Hiding Hitler, tin foil hat edition

 

:lol:

[Feathered_IV]

I found flying over water ramps up the tension considerably.  Staring intently for that first sign of land or enemy fleet.  Or even more - engine failing and fuel running low, hoping for that first sign of a friendly carrier.  Coming out of a fight and trying hard to remember your last known position and climb back to altitude.  Trying to plot a course at the same time as you keep an eye out for hostile threats.  No forests rivers and towns as friendly signposts.  Pure airmanship and bird sense needed to get you home.  The final challenge of landing on and that first big exhalation of breath in relief as your hook catches the wire and you are safely home.  Then the big grin of satisfaction as you fold your wings and taxi to the forward elevator... 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

I found flying over water ramps up the tension considerably.  Staring intently for that first sign of land or enemy fleet.  Or even more - engine failing and fuel running low, hoping for that first sign of a friendly carrier.  Coming out of a fight and trying hard to remember your last known position and climb back to altitude.  Trying to plot a course at the same time as you keep an eye out for hostile threats.  No forests rivers and towns as friendly signposts.  Pure airmanship and bird sense needed to get you home.  The final challenge of landing on and that first big exhalation of breath in relief as your hook catches the wire and you are safely home.  Then the big grin of satisfaction as you fold your wings and taxi to the forward elevator... 

 

 

I'm having some serious flashbacks. Can't wait :D

[BSS_Sniper]

After denial and anger comes bargaining, I guess. This thread tries to get to PTO controversy from constructive side, not by fighting between people who want and who don't care about Pacific Theatre, but attempting to allow latter to convince the former that the next three expansion are worth our interest after all. 

 

I'll start with list of things that won't work, because if they did I would not be writing this (anything by planes, really). Please no "True Scotsman" arguments ("If you were real aviation enthusiast, you would care" - I am, and I obviously don't (and if I'm not one, there is no point in me buying into PTO)). No "supporting the genre or it will die" either - a genre that's not going to see interesting releases in next five years might as well be dead already, and I bought into this fallancy once before, with Eastern Front. I want to let my peers convince me of merits of PTO, not invite them to try guilt tripping me.

 

These things about the theatre obviously don't work, either, or this thread would not be here: 

 

-I don't identify with participants. PTO was a separate conflict involving Japanese and Americans (and colonial forces of Europan powers/Commonwealth), that happened to run parallel to WW2, with little impact on other participants other than bringing US into the war on other theatres. It's little less abstract subject than, say, Samoan civil war of 1886. Or football. 

 

-I never gave second thought to carrier landings; like the fighter jets, they never attracted me and are part of sim niche best left to other people. So "dude, carriers!"  is not a selling point, or I'd be jumping up and down in joy already. No more than making Digital Nature A-10.

 

-The scenery is mostly ocean, I.e. whole lot of nothing in particular. Exciting for first few minutes, obviously didn't hook me either. If you can convince me in rational terms what's so great about it, the better.

 

-Which leaves the planes themselves. For reasons above, I know very little about PTO planes, and never bothered learning about them. If there is going to be any point of attraction, it will be planes themselves. So please, sell me your favourite PTO plane and let me know why I want to fly it over what I already have. For better picture, let me know what are your favourite BoS/BoM planes are?

 

Then don't buy it. The way you feel about the PTO is the way myself and many others feel about the Russian theater, boring. There's a reason we only have one or two servers with 20+ people in them, occasionally. Only a small group of people actually like the theater we're in. The rest of us are just supporting IL2 and praying we move on soon. When we start getting the PTO and other theaters away from the Russian theater, people will start to come back to IL2. As it is, it's dead almost all the time when you go online to look at the servers.

[JG13_opcode]

People in this thread are forgetting that:

 

• carrier landings just don't happen online (and offline is a complete joke in this sim unless you're the type who enjoys playing against the random number generator instead of actual people) due to sheer numbers and lack of proper ATC.  In real air operations we have an air boss that controls movement.  Not so, (and no, not even with this "strategic mode" being proposed, because you can't enforce it).  Just like in IL2PF, everyone will either bail or ditch in the sea next to the carrier and hit refly.  Someone's going to spawn in front of you as you're on final anyways.
• The dominant experience of carrier attacks in PF was "laser gunners hit your engine -> limp home" every single sortie.
• All this "carrier attack then retreat" happened IRL over much longer time scales than anyone here has time to sit down after work and play.  You simply will not experience the "carrier skirmish" of advances and withdrawals.

Edited September 14, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[Cybermat47]

-I don't identify with participants. PTO was a separate conflict involving Japanese and Americans (and colonial forces of Europan powers/Commonwealth)

Australia and New Zealand are independant nations that are members of the Commonwealth, not colonies established by the Commonwealth.

[BSS_Sniper]

As long as the planes and flight models are created to the same high standard as RoF/BoS/BoM, then I will buy it.

It's the planes that keep me interested in flight sims after all.

 

I'm not really bothered about a Pacific Theater of Operations, nor was I, for the Eastern Front. I am however, very excited at the prospect of just messing around in those aircraft that were involved.

 

To be clear, I'm not at all against any of these scenarios either.

Part of the enjoyment of this hobby is coming to these forums to learn some of the lesser known historical facts and figures. It never ceases to amaze me what you people know and find on WWII.

On a good day this place is like a fantastic WWII museum. (I'm not calling anyone old!) 

 

If I could have chosen what theater I wanted, The Western Front, Italy, North Africa or anything else that would allow me to get behind more of the Royal Air Force plane set would have been my preference.

Collector planes may hold the best hope for me in this regard, but we'll see.

 

So Trupobaw, I'm not the person to convince you. But I can tell you, the reason I will buy it is because I want to fly more and more planes over nice looking maps. And I look forward to the history lesson that will inevitably ensue.

You're kidding about using "high standard" and FM in the same sentence aren't you? lol This probably isn't the place to get into it but I've yet to fly a plane IRL that oscillates, bounces around and generally behaves as it would in slow flight, while at any speed above slow flight, except in here. I won't even go into the ground handling and balloon like bounce you get when landing. I'll just say I hope they plan on taking a serious look at that stuff and not bend to the masses here and what they "think" it feels like to fly.

[JG13_opcode]

Australia and New Zealand are independant nations that are members of the Commonwealth, not colonies established by the Commonwealth.

Australia belonged to Britain until the 1930s

[ShamrockOneFive]

You're kidding about using "high standard" and FM in the same sentence aren't you? lol This probably isn't the place to get into it but I've yet to fly a plane IRL that oscillates, bounces around and generally behaves as it would in slow flight, while at any speed above slow flight, except in here. I won't even go into the ground handling and balloon like bounce you get when landing. I'll just say I hope they plan on taking a serious look at that stuff and not bend to the masses here and what they "think" it feels like to fly.

 

You might want to check out this: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=383394

 

And this: 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

 

Just like in IL2PF, everyone will either bail or ditch in the sea next to the carrier and hit refly.  Someone's going to spawn in front of you as you're on final anyways.

 

 

Well in some of the Pacific IL-2 1946 servers they dealt with this by having 4 or so carriers at the fleet, 2 exclusively for taking off, and 2 for landing (you couldn't select the landing ones as starting point), with the landing ones being at the outer rings of the fleet so people would land in those.

 

This may be inaccurate regarding fleet line ups but I would take it as a gameplay compromise to avoid chaos. It will be up to the guys building the missions for the servers.

[itsmecamille]

It's funny how I keep reading that people don't care about the PTU because it's not relevant to where they live, which nationality they are etc. I'm French and I always found the PTO fascinating, perhaps because it was so different from the things I knew where I was born. The planes looked totally different, the operations were completely different (always found a. carriers fascinating) to the ETO and the land was a contrast to the grey sky and brown mud (or snow) of Europe. The Paficic Islands constitute an amazing landscape for sure.

I still like how much of a contrast it is to go from a simulation of the European operations to the Pacific.

 

It also helped that I fell in love with aviation because of the Black Sheep and Pappy Boyington (back then in the form of that 80s tv show before I eventually read his memoirs). Now it's still imprinted. There's no plane that can come close to the F4U in my mind.

 

And regarding the impact of the PTO on ww2, I think the perception of it being a sideshow, its casualties reached around 36 million, which is around 50% of the total ww2. It's undeniable that the way things were going in the PTO had a huge impact on the US effort in the ww2, including their effort in Europe. And of course it was happening in the homelands of a huge population. I now call Australia home, and the PTO was certainly not a sideshow here.

[[CPT]milopugdog]

Then don't buy it. The way you feel about the PTO is the way myself and many others feel about the Russian theater, boring. There's a reason we only have one or two servers with 20+ people in them, occasionally. Only a small group of people actually like the theater we're in. The rest of us are just supporting IL2 and praying we move on soon. When we start getting the PTO and other theaters away from the Russian theater, people will start to come back to IL2. As it is, it's dead almost all the time when you go online to look at the servers.

Could be when you're on. I saw two with 50+ yesterday. 

[itsmecamille]

Regarding carrier ops, given Jason's statement about implementing some sort of intel/communication role, the control of carrier to/landing might very well become part of this role.