Ok, sell me the Pacific theatre planes.

[Cybermat47]

Australia belonged to Britain until the 1930s

We became independent in 1901.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia#Federal_Constitution

 

We've had our own Army since 1901.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Army

 

We've had our own Navy since 1911.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Navy

 

We've had our own Air Force since 1921.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Air_Force

[ShamrockOneFive]

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.

 

Indeed. I'm hoping that this time around they can do carriers in a much better way. Even with some sort of automated ATC so if a plane requests and is granted landing status then there is a temporary opportunity to land without someone spawning on the deck. Or they spawn on the elevator. Or something like that.

[Feathered_IV]

Indeed. I'm hoping that this time around they can do carriers in a much better way. Even with some sort of automated ATC so if a plane requests and is granted landing status then there is a temporary opportunity to land without someone spawning on the deck. Or they spawn on the elevator. Or something like that.

 

Spawning on an elevator and being lifted to the carrier deck would be pretty special.   A yawning elevator shaft would probably deter other people from trying to land on at the same time too.

[itsmecamille]

If I remember rightly Jason also mentioned that elevators on carriers is part of the things that they might do. 

[unreasonable]

Indeed. I'm hoping that this time around they can do carriers in a much better way. Even with some sort of automated ATC so if a plane requests and is granted landing status then there is a temporary opportunity to land without someone spawning on the deck. Or they spawn on the elevator. Or something like that.

 

The automation idea makes sense to me: having a live controller sounds great, but in practice who is going to spend their precious gaming time doing this every night, especially as some proportion of people will always ignore what they are told and just land willy-nilly. I know you can get the organized squadrons to play "in character" so to speak, but they seem to be a minority. An automated sytem could also do the bat waving to keep people on the landing path...

 

Same applies to the Field-Marshal idea - an AI routine sending out info would be less flexible than a human of course, but at least it would always be there. Maybe it should be set up for a human to ue if there is one, otherwise an AI routine to take over.

 

I fear that getting carrier operations up to the standard this customer base now expects may prove extremely challenging for the team.

[Gambit21]

The "carrier landings don't happen online" bull puckey is a joke. I made countless carrier landings online in the old sim. You land, taxi toward the rear of the carrier and make room for the next guy. This was in CoOps so no worries about someone spawning in front of you while on final. CoOps are on the way - no worries. I'm tired of trying to convince people of the reasons why we need them back, but Jason gets it and that's all that matters.

 

Landing on a carrier after completing a mission was one of the more rewarding things about the old IL2. Looking forward to getting that back.

The feared Warrant Officer Yamaha Kawasaki will fly again!!

Edited September 14, 2016 by Gambit21

[unreasonable]

The "carrier landings don't happen online" bull puckey is a joke. I made countless carrier landings online in the old sim. You land, taxi toward the rear of the carrier and make room for the next guy. This was in CoOps so no worries about someone spawning in front of you while on final. CoOps are on the way - no worries. I'm tired of trying to convince people of the reasons why we need them back, but Jason gets it and that's all that matters.

 

Landing on a carrier after completing a mission was one of the more rewarding things about the old IL2. Looking forward to getting that back.

The feared Warrant Officer Yamaha Kawasaki will fly again!!

 

Taxi towards the bow of the carrier I hope .  

[TheBlackPenguin]

Pacific is a huge area, here is a nice video on the Beaufighter, Whispering Death, Forgotten Workhorse:

 

 

Whilst some of the video mentions the Western Theater a lot covers Pacific region.

 

oh and it has some P-40's in action in the Pacific over New Guinea

Edited September 14, 2016 by TheBlackPenguin

[Quax]

 I won't even go into the ground handling and balloon like bounce you get when landing.

 

I never understood that point. I never bounced, except when I was unconcentrated and made a major mistake and ballooning is only possible with overspeed (stick not full back). You can´t be talking about BoS.

 

 

People in this thread are forgetting that:

 

•  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.

 

First point can easily be solved with mission design and the second point, I would guess, will be thought of by the devs. IL2PF is a few years old now - I expect some improvements.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Quax

[No601_Swallow]

 

People in this thread are forgetting that:

 

• carrier landings just don't happen online

 

 

Rubbish. They might not happen in dogfight/airquake servers, but there are plenty of other ways to fly a flightsim SP and MP. What a blinkered view of this game you seem to have.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Even today in the active Russian 1946 servers people take-off and land normally from carriers, including when under air attack. Conversely, others do get a kick from attacking a carrier so it's not much of a problem either. The people who ditch/crash and hit refly already do this over land, nothing to do with the theatre.

 

More than anything this will be a release that integrates both communities better. The first three instalments as we can see were huge hits with the European flight sim market, while enjoying moderate success in the American and AUS/NZ ones. With the Pacific, we'll probably have a decent European response but a huge one in the latter markets. On top of SP use, this will get the popular multiplayer servers close to full round the clock.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

For one thing, I dont think its ok to jump on Trupobaw like that. Noone can force anyone into buying anything but he actually asked to be shown if he can find something interesting. I tried to do so and so did others. But there is no need to jump on him and say straight that if he doesnt like it than he should not buy it. This is a forum and everyone has his own opinion and others may simply try to convince him to something. 

 

 

 

The dominant experience of carrier attacks in PF was "laser gunners hit your engine -> limp home" every single sortie.

 

This is something many already experience on various servers and I think it can be addressed by reducing Ai "skills". There is actually quite big documentation on naval anti aircraft guns and their effectivness which was relatively low, even for 1944 US Bofors guns with proximity fuse it didn't get better than few %.

 

 

 

• 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.

Depends on mission designers. But actual battles were rather quick if compared to week long aerial battles on other fronts. A quick projection of power leading to fatal damage of one or two sides. It's hard to knock out land base unless you can suppress it with continuous aerial action. But a single bomb into the middle of flight deck puts carrier out of action (not that it sinks, it just can continue aerial operations). 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Not a massive fan of PTO but I would purchase the module for this aircraft alone. 

 

 

 

[Asgar]

You can fly the Zero and shoot down Oil barrels. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

You can fly the Zero and shoot down Oil barrels.

or the oil barrels can shoot through the tissue paper thin skin of those zero''s

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

If you wont be careful, you can cut yourself with that paper

[216th_Jordan]

Not a massive fan of PTO but I would purchase the module for this aircraft alone. 

 

 

 

 

Now I know why it was called the whistling death

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

Now I know why it was called the whistling death

That's not the actual whistle.  The whistle in that video is mostly due to empty gun ports.

 

Here's a video better demonstrating the "whistle".

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

Thanks everyone for answers, especially Hiromachi, Feathered, Lucas and Shamrock.

 

Please, keep these coming.

 

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. 

 

 

I guess I'm expecting you'll convince me PTO is not end of the world, and stop me venting my frustration off on unrelated IRL people  . In broader sense, I'm hoping you'll convince people not interested in PTO of the same, using terms they are willing to listen to (rather than terms I've listed as not working ). 

 

I want to stick to this goal rather than going off topic, so I don't answer in detail many peoples valid points about things that don't make me want PTO. Two things, though:

 

By "PTO controversy" I mean split between Il-2 players themselves, those who want it, those who can live with it, those put off by it, like in thread discussing Jasons announcement. 

 

By PTO being separate conflict I mean, among other things, war against Japan saw use of separate plane types (except US Army and non-US Allies), mostly separate personnel, and battles fought in pacific had much less impact on war against Germany than, say, D-Day and Eastern Front had on each other. You can research learn of war against Germany without having to know or learning much about war against Japan, other than P-38 and B-17 was used there extensively, too. I should have said "can't relate to participants" raher than "can't identify", to, that's me thinking in Polish.

 

I'm not having problems relating because of Polish provincialism, BTW; I despise that. On contrary, I want to know how muchmerit PTO has left when we strip American provincialism (suspitious of this one, too).

 

If you remain unconvinced or unattracted I can try to add more later on, when I find time. 

 

 

Please continue if you have time, it is getting interesting. You got me reading about Japanese Army air service by now, these guys look really interesting (if overshadowed by navy - talk about interservice rivalry). Especially part that they were modelled on Luftstreitkräfte, service I have no problems relating to . Were they present on Midway, or do we have to wait till Okinawa for them? From what I see Midway was strictly naval affair, fought around islands just big enough to fit an airstrip and without much presence from either army? 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Trupobaw

[JG13_opcode]

We became independent in 1901.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia#Federal_Constitution

 

We've had our own Army since 1901.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Army

 

We've had our own Navy since 1911.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Navy

 

We've had our own Air Force since 1921.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Air_Force

 

Actually the UK had some vestigial power to legislate in Australia until 1986:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986

Edited September 14, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[JG13_opcode]

Rubbish. They might not happen in dogfight/airquake servers, but there are plenty of other ways to fly a flightsim SP and MP. What a blinkered view of this game you seem to have.

 

I prefer to think of it as lacking the rose-coloured glasses.  I'm an engineer; it's my job to be realistic, not idealistic and sometimes I can't help it.

Edited September 14, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Problem with Army and Navy is really deeper than military, it exists also in political and civil life. For many years Navy considered as a main enemy United States and its officers were sent to Washington as Military Attache (or other roles) which was supposed to give them perspective of potential enemy. At the same time Army considered as a main threat Soviet Union and sent officers to Moscow for observation and contact with Russians. Imagine that two branches considered completely opposite threats requiring approach and needs !

 

 

 

Especially part that they were modelled on Luftstreitkräfte, service I have no problems relating to .

 

Yes, and Army based some of its structure on Luftwaffe as well. In fact some pilots and commanders were sent to Germany to observe, coming quick to my mind is Tateo Kato, a very famous commander of 64th Sentai who has recommended some elements of training and tactics to be adopted in Army. But overall Army was always somewhat slow to adjust to this kind of issues.

Here is a movie about 64th Sentai, for a movie recorded during world war 2 its a very good stuff. Probably better than many post war movies

 

 

 

 

 

Navy on the other hand was more based on Royal Navy, including a very strict regulations and separation between officers and lower rank soldiers (Saburo Sakai and many others mentioned that general rule was that officers rarely visited pilots and were very reserved in their relations, though there were quite a few exceptions which Sakai also mentioned). Navy kept closer relations with Britain until latter one chose as a partner United States which many in Japan considered a betrayal.

 

 

 

Were they present on Midway, or do we have to wait till Okinawa for them?

To put it delicately, Army tried to win Pacific war in white gloves using for this purpose Navy. It has committed limited resources being already extensively occupied in China (a war they started without any government approval !) but still it took a major role in Malay offensive, conquest of Philippines and Dutch East Indies where for many times Army and Navy aircraft could be found attacking same targets (even though cooperation was really bad).

Army was present in Midway operation in limited role of providing soldiers to capture/occupy island. And it only happened after extensive negotiations. Other than that Army was not present in Central or South Pacific until November/December 1942 when based on agreement too stretched Navy would focus on Solomon islands while Army would take over New Guinea positions. Reality however was that Navy still had to continue bombing operations over New Guinea and Army proved very ineffective at the same task.

 

So if Jason and 1CGS will go directly as they said in latest news, than there wont be any Army aircraft until Okinawa. Personally I'd hope to have something between Midway and Okinawa, its too big step with little relation between two battles (and both sides were in completely different strategic situation). Unless of course something would be added as collectors aircraft which I dont think is best idea, there are plenty of very good options for Japanese collector plane coming from Navy rooster.

[CIA_Yankee_]

It didnt run parallel to WWII, it was WWII.

 

 

Amen. There's no way around that simple truth.

 

Indeed, the only WW2 participant who didn't actively fight in the PTO was Germany. Everyone else did, to various degrees, particularly the commonwealth and the USA. Saying that the PTO was a sideshow is pretty heretical in most allied countries.

 

Not to mention that the PTO is an extension of the conflict between Japan and China, which started years before WWII, involved pretty much all the world powers in one way or another, and played a large role in shaping the coming world war (among other things, by showing off the fragility and inaction of the League of Nation).

[Nil]

PTO would make me play on the allies! P-38 is one of the only allied 'non bomber' AC I'd fly with a smile on my lips. Water everywhere is really hard for me to to handle, (as I hardly find my own toilet without a GPS.) So if you don't play allies, you will have at least one easy target!

[J2_Trupobaw]

Problem with Army and Navy is really deeper than military, it exists also in political and civil life. For many years Navy considered as a main enemy United States and its officers were sent to Washington as Military Attache (or other roles) which was supposed to give them perspective of potential enemy. At the same time Army considered as a main threat Soviet Union and sent officers to Moscow for observation and contact with Russians. Imagine that two branches considered completely opposite threats requiring approach and needs !

 

Reading into this now, all new stuff for me. Interesting what Japanese did starting from Imperial German constitution of 1870s, but with different warrior ethics and expected role of Emperor, and where it got them. Food for thought.

 

 

 

Indeed, the only WW2 participant who didn't actively fight in the PTO was Germany.

 

Hungary? Romania? Yugoslavia? Greece? Norway? Finland? Bulgaria? (is Winter War/ Continuation War even part of WW2, or parallel conflict ? ). Iran? (are they considered participant, or just roadkill? Or Czechoslovakia for that matter?). Poland!??? Also, I'm pretty sure the Manchuria where Soviets fought wasn't technically PTO...

 

... all of this off topic of course.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Trupobaw

[Bearfoot]

Reading into this now, all new stuff for me. Interesting what Japanese did starting from Imperial German constitution of 1870s, but with different warrior ethics and expected role of Emperor, and where it got them. Food for thought.

 

This book has been recommended on another thread, as the definitive view of the Battle of Midway:

 

   https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Sword-Untold-Battle-Midway/dp/1574889249

 

Just got it yesterday, and have been riveted.

 

Fantastic.

 

While it promises to provide a modern anatomy of the battle with surgical minute-by-minute precision (and a revisionist one at that, replacing decades of misperception and misidentification of the Japanese view of things, thanks to every history relying on a famous by flawed and discredited account), the background it provides to the Japanese technology, equipment, training, people, doctrine, culture, and philosophy is fascinating.

 

The biggest eye-opener for me, so for, is the "fall of Yamamoto": brilliant, yes, but fatally flawed in pushing through his agenda overriding all opposition, resulting in a crazily overwrought and unworkable plan.

 

Love the descriptions in detail of how the IJN perceived, built-up, organized, and used their carriers, in distinction to the USN: more as a raiding/striking force rather than a heavy mobile air base, at least initially. Really puts into the perspective the early brilliance of the IJN vision and innovation for carrier warfare: while pioneered by the British and inspired by some US propaganda footage, the IJN was the one to transform naval aviation into what we think of it today: not just a scouting/support role, but a first-class strike force constituting the primary offensive clout of the navy. The IJN developed, organized and trained for operations that projected concentrated yet balanced masses of force, with coordinated strikes of fighters/dive bombers/torpedo bombers (in contrast, at this time USN launched their aircraft piecemeal). At the same time, this tactical brilliance was handicapped by abysmally unfocussed/conflicting/confused/catastrophically-bad strategic planning, a stunningly dedicated lack of adaptability, complacent underestimation of the USN and their people both at a tactical as well as economic/strategic level, and an undervaluation of their most important piece of technology: the humans in the cockpit and on the ground/decks.

 

All this, and I am not even a third of the way through!

 

I think it is foundational/definitive reading for the PTO as much as "To Command the Sky: The Battle for Air Superiority Over Germany" is for the Luftwaffe on the Western Front.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Bearfoot

[Lusekofte]

Pasific, for me it brought in a tad optimism from proclaimed "haters" . In my experience the term "haters" is wrong, it is more a kind of enthusiasm that go wrong and seen in all sites in this genre, anyway I now see a different point of view from tese people.

I think they , like I do for the first time see that the vision from the developers is a long term one. They plan for the future and they bring in new theaters like IL 2 got. People forget how long it took for old IL 2 to get PTO.

Pasific is a very wise and in my pow economical move. It will bring in more established players. Many in COD and DCS are now planning to try this sim out. It will bring all kind of multiplayer options and , yes too me it is a lifesaver of this genre. It took a long time for me to regain hope for a new game. And 777 have been the one doing it. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Actually, dont get surprised but both Italians and Germans were present, albeit to a small degree, on Pacific :

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

 

There was actually expansion to Silent Hunter IV about U-boot operations on Pacific and I loved it (it was better than original SH IV), was great fun to take U-boot and get into Pearl Harbor (to make it a Scapa Flow of Pacific !) and sink couple of BBs. 

 

After Italian and German surrender crews of U-boots were "arrested" and isolated but in a very friendly manner, and though I read few complains of U-boot crews that they were only fed with rice ... they were lucky as in 1945 Japanese population was simply starving and rice became very precious. Crews were used for training Japanese submarine crews until the end of the war.

 

 

 

The biggest eye-opener for me, so for, is the "fall of Yamamoto": brilliant, yes, but fatally flawed in pushing through his agenda overriding all opposition, resulting in a crazily overwrought and unworkable plan.

 

Precisely, Yamamoto was great commander but he was also responsible for major failures of Navy.

[CIA_Yankee_]

Hungary? Romania? Yugoslavia? Greece? Norway? Finland? Bulgaria? (is Winter War/ Continuation War even part of WW2, or parallel conflict ? ). Iran? (are they considered participant, or just roadkill? Or Czechoslovakia for that matter?). Poland!??? Also, I'm pretty sure the Manchuria where Soviets fought wasn't technically PTO...

 

... all of this off topic of course.

 

Aye, my apologies, completely didn't think about them, which is ironic given how much I love those theaters.

 

That being said, the same mistake is committed by saying the PTO is just a sideshow... it ignores a whole bunch of conflicts and participants of WWII, who could just as easily consider a lot of the european theater as a sideshow, as opposed to the PTO which would have been near and dear to their hearts and they would view as the main conflict of WWII.

 

Point is, though, that the PTO was never a sideshow, and it's as worthy of the IL-2 treatment as the Eastern Front was.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Yankee_

[Ace_Pilto]

Australia belonged to Britain until the 1930s

 

Federation was in 1901 cobber.

[Sokol1]

 

JG13_opcode, on 14 Sept 2016 - 00:59, said:

 

People in this thread are forgetting that:

 

• carrier landings just don't happen online

Rubbish. They might not happen in dogfight/airquake servers, but there are plenty of other ways to fly a flightsim SP and MP. What a blinkered view of this game you seem to have.

 

Well, my favorite IL-2:46 online server was Zeke x Wildcat - precisely because the Pacific. I leave the 1946 online scene when this (Sissy Rule  ) server became fragmented after the start of that...  "MOD" era.

 

And there we do lot of taking-off and landings in CV's  - I even manage to landing in a listen damaged CV.

 

BTW - In '46 taking-off with a heavy loaded F4U are more difficult than landing. 

 

Ah, dead reckoning navigation. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Sokol1

[J2_Trupobaw]

Aye, my apologies, completely didn't think about them, which is ironic given how much I love those theaters.

 

That being said, the same mistake is committed by saying the PTO is just a sideshow... it ignores a whole bunch of conflicts and participants of WWII, who could just as easily consider a lot of the european theater as a sideshow, as opposed to the PTO which would have been near and dear to their hearts and they would view as the main conflict of WWII.

 

Point is, though, that the PTO was never a sideshow, and it's as worthy of the IL-2 treatment as the Eastern Front was.

 

I never called it a sideshow (except for European colonial powers, which were rather busy with Germans in their homelands). I said it was separate and parallel, precisely because it involved a bunch of completely different people to whom Europe was secondary theater (and only because Germany was distant ally of Japan; same way non-colonial Europeans saw Japanese.). Combine that with completely different planes (even with US, emphasis in PTO is usually on naval types that were not prominent in Europe), different tactics and it's as easy to look at it as two separate operations (sometimes by same goverment) than facets of same war. 

[wtornado]

 

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.

 

Got get my Midway and Korean war co-ops for HSFX at M4T and you will be doing a ton of carrier

ops just start the co-op and play it like single player.

 

Word of advice make sure your catapult mod is activated for the Jets or you will be swimming.

 

The WWII planes are mixed depending on which country you are flying for.

[Sokol1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

In some ways the aerial scenes of this movie is better than in (1969) BoB, to not say that War era John Wayne stuff. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Sokol1

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That's probably because they could use original aircraft to a some degree, even though Oscar II had to represent Oscar I

 

Though there is one even better dogfight made at time :

 

 

 

 

 

Those Ki-27s fighting Ki-10s (which are supposed Chinese fighters) Even as it is only a movie those Ki-27s are just unbelievably nimble. 

Besides, its Tōhō Films, they made Godzilla in 1950s, one could not  expect anything less from them than good quality action scenes !

Edited September 15, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Pharoah]

ah yes, the days of flying a bombing mission and returning to the carrier only to smash into the edge of the flight deck *sigh* such memories! lol. my old squad used to have nights where we'd just do traps over and over. So much fun watching others screw it up until it was your turn. The problem was everyone always aimed for the edge of the deck whilst you're really supposed to aim for the #3 wire or something (ie. about 20m past the edge). Happy to do this again though.

 

the only issue with a midway battle is the distance to fly online.

 

I'd still prefer a Guadalcanal campaign to a midway battle.

[CIA_Yankee_]

I never called it a sideshow (except for European colonial powers, which were rather busy with Germans in their homelands). I said it was separate and parallel, precisely because it involved a bunch of completely different people to whom Europe was secondary theater (and only because Germany was distant ally of Japan; same way non-colonial Europeans saw Japanese.). Combine that with completely different planes (even with US, emphasis in PTO is usually on naval types that were not prominent in Europe), different tactics and it's as easy to look at it as two separate operations (sometimes by same goverment) than facets of same war. 

 

I'm fairly confident the british felt pretty serious about the PTO after the losses they incurred there... and of course the Americans were rather busy in the PTO, and they had a pretty significant impact in Europe.

[Bearfoot]

I'm fairly confident the british felt pretty serious about the PTO after the losses they incurred there... and of course the Americans were rather busy in the PTO, and they had a pretty significant impact in Europe.

 

Not to mention that small group of peoples and countries we might heard of, collectively called "Asia" for lack of a better term.

 

And, it was no unrelated event that colonial Asia transitioned to independent Asia after the wars, and the impact of this in the center-of-the-world/Europe was pretty significant. The insanely rapid and complete defeats of the colonial powers by the Japanese were conceptually earth-shattering, and the perception of the "natural order" of their rule was shaken irreversibly. Not to say that the Japanese should be seen as liberators. In most places, the brutality/savagery/oppression and outright racism of the Japanese regime were worse, sometimes orders of magnitude more, than any colonial power, so only the rabidly delusional would see them as liberators. But nonetheless one lasting consequence of the Japanese conquest is that it resulted in the destruction the old world colonial order in Asia, and this (eventually) had quite a big impact on the economies and politics of Europe, no? But all this is, I suppose, beyond the scope of why the PTO is so cool/interesting/compelling, whether or not you need to "identify" with the participants. Me? I consider myself a human being. Everything else, from geographic to political origin, is an accident. As such, I have no problem identifying with any other human participant in history

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bearfoot

[HippyDruid]

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.

 

No, no I am not kidding.

 

I am not a real life pilot, so obviously the only worthy comparison here would be other flight games.

I do enjoy playing the other flight games available, but they don't even come close to the feeling that RoF/BoS/BoM captures.

So, yeah. in my opinion I think this game and it's flight modelling is made to a very 'high standard' when I compare it to the other flight games I play.

 

Did you notice I said games? and not Flight Simulators. Because you have to remember, that's all they are. Games!

It will never be exactly like real life will it? Not until we get commercial qbits to play with.

 

Also, as I personally don't get involved in the FM discussions I highly doubt the developers have any interest in how I 'think' the planes in this game feel.

 

If you're so concerned about the will of the developers being bent by the masses, prehaps you should go and provide some constructive input in the FM section. Because clearly none of your comments in this thread have been particularly insightful or useful for that matter.

 

But I'm glad you posted anyway! 

[TheCheese]

For me, like many, a big draw of the Pacific is simply the Zero. This probably doesn't immediately interest anyone who has only heard vague references to mystique of the Zero's amazing combat abilities early in the war, and then it's sudden switch becoming mere cannon fodder to the newer generation of American aircraft, designed specifically to beat it. But this is an extreme generalization of the aircraft, and it actually has a very interesting story. (The whole of Japanese aviation during the war was quite interesting really, but the Zero is a great starting point to learn why.)

 

If you don't mind watching animated movies, The Wind Rises by Hayao Miyazaki is a beautiful film focused partially on the development of the aircraft, from the perspective of its lead designer, Jiro Horikoshi. The movie is not super informative, and it fictionalizes Horikoshi's personal life, but the depictions of the aircraft and the engineering that went into them is just gorgeous, and it provides a good jumping off point.

 

If you'd rather just read, Horikoshi actually wrote a book (which The Wind Rises is somewhat based on) about the design, development, and record of both the Zero and its predecessor, the A5m. The book is called Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter. It is translated into English, and it reads very well; I think paperback copies from the 1990s can still be purchased for not too much money, though if you send me a PM I could provide you with a pdf if you're interested. It's very informative, explaining the entire thought process about the concepts of the aircraft, telling the story of the entirety of development, the reasons why it was so successful, and also talking about the combat record in different situations. It even covers trials of the Zero against many Allied aircraft, as well as against other Japanese types. Also it contains some interesting insight into the workings of wartime Japan, from his view as an educated civilian engineer.

 

My interest in the Pacific had definitely waned for quite a while as the years passed; Pacific Fighters had been fun but it didn't really capture me the way the other fronts did. But once I watched The Wind Rises and read the book, I suddenly realized that I actually knew very little about Japan in WWII, other than outcomes of battles and broad generalizations. Learning about the Zero really effectively rekindled my interest in the subject, and now I find it all quite fascinating. Next on my reading list is Saburo Sakai's autobiography of his time in the war, which has already been mentioned, which should also be really engrossing. (Here's an interesting article by a Warthunder dev who got to meet him in 1997: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/328689-interview-with-saburo-sakai/ )

 

I hope you find some of this enjoyable 

Edited September 15, 2016 by TheCheese