In the BoS sim timeline when could the P-47 make an appearance?

[Mysticpuma]

Just wondering when in the Eastern Front the P-47 could make an appearance in the Sim should it be considered for inclusion?

 

Cheers, MP

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

It's more probable that it would come for Okinawa expansion rather than in a hypothetical Eastern Front one (as returning to that theatre isn't confirmed yet unlike the Pacific)

 

If it should come for the Eastern Front... I guess it would be a Collector Plane in a late war Leningrad scenario I guess (as they were used in PVO service AFAIK)

Edited May 24, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Jade_Monkey]

I would love to see a P47 in this game above any other plane.

 

I dont care if it's for the pacific or late eastern front, collector or default. I'd love to fly the P47.

[310_cibule]

asap pls :-)

[JG13_opcode]

I still say a tactical 1944-45 scenario, sans heavy bombers, would do more good for sales and longevity of this sim than any Pacific expansion.

 

Mustangs, 47s, 38s, Spitfires and Typhoons? Yes please.

Edited May 24, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[Herne]

I still say a tactical 1944-45 scenario, sans heavy bombers, would do more good for sales and longevity of this sim than any Pacific expansion.

 

Mustangs, 47s, 38s, Spitfires and Typhoons? Yes please.

 

Don't say that, I'm really looking forward to practicing some VR carrier landings.

[Lusekofte]

P 47 would even the odds quite a bit, it can  fight some of the FW 190 models

[dburne]

Nah. If history is any judge, the move to Pacific will boost sales tremendously. The Pacific theater offers so much variety which is one of the main reasons why it was so popular and also good for the longevity of the Original Il-2.

 

There are just so many interesting battles and aircraft. Honestly, looking at the available evidence, the best thing for the longevity of this sim would be to make 5 pacific expansion in a row, cover it all from Midway till Okinawa. 

 

Personally cannot wait for the move to the pacific. carrier ops will be amazing in VR.

 

I am with you there, I will Pre-Order the Pacific in a heartbeat if it does indeed end up being offered. I will be so looking forward to that one in VR.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I still say a tactical 1944-45 scenario, sans heavy bombers, would do more good for sales and longevity of this sim than any Pacific expansion.

 

Mustangs, 47s, 38s, Spitfires and Typhoons? Yes please.

Yes please, plus all of the twins - bombers and strike aircraft. Mosquitos, Beauforts, Beaufighters, A-26, B-26, B-25, P-38, and Single engine fighters Fw-190D, Bf109K, Tempest, P-51..................................

 

The tactical war is probably more interesting than waves of heavies anyway.

[Gambit21]

Yes please, plus all of the twins - bombers and strike aircraft. Mosquitos, Beauforts, Beaufighters, A-26, B-26, B-25, P-38, and Single engine fighters Fw-190D, Bf109K, Tempest, P-51..................................

 

The tactical war is probably more interesting than waves of heavies anyway.

I'd love to create another IX Tactical Air Force P-47 campaign. Falaise Gap etc.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Just watched that other sim's beta Normandy. I would love to fly these aircraft, in this engine, over that terrain and the Low Countries.

[Finkeren]

I'd say that the P-47 makes little sense for the Eastern Front.

 

But hey, if it means there'll be a 1944 Eastern Front installment at some point, I'd be all for it.

[Gambit21]

They have my support for life no matter where we go after PTO...either way I'm good. I'd love to get those 8 .50 cals back.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

You will but it will probably be in the nose of a B-25 ;) ;)

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I would love to see a Razorback, but I'm afraid it will end similarly to the P-40 in that without a Paddle Blade Prop it will be a REAL Dog and basically another Single Engine Bf110. 

[JG13_opcode]

Don't say that, I'm really looking forward to practicing some VR carrier landings.

 

Might be fun in SP if you like flying against a random number generator.  It will be a disaster in multiplayer for those of us who like flying against other humans.  You will quite simply not be able to land on a carrier on a busy server due to people spawning, just as it was in 1946.

 

Nah. If history is any judge, the move to Pacific will boost sales tremendously. The Pacific theater offers so much variety which is one of the main reasons why it was so popular and also good for the longevity of the Original Il-2.

 

There are just so many interesting battles and aircraft. Honestly, looking at the available evidence, the best thing for the longevity of this sim would be to make 5 pacific expansion in a row, cover it all from Midway till Okinawa. 

 

Personally cannot wait for the move to the pacific. carrier ops will be amazing in VR.

 

Hmm, IIRC history shows us there were plenty of players who wanted to fly ETO scenarios, and that every time a PTO mission came up on Spits/109s or F6 servers like Skies of Whatever, the server would rapidly empty out.  Spits/109s launched Zekes/Wildcats as a containment server for the minority of players who wanted PTO.

 

There were literally hundreds of ETO servers and only one dedicated PTO server that I can think of.  So, either there was this huge contingent of offline PTO players, or PTO wasn't as popular as some here would like to think it was.

 

5 pacific expansions in a row seems like a nightmare.

Edited May 24, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Might be fun in SP if you like flying against a random number generator.  It will be a disaster in multiplayer for those of us who like flying against other humans.  You will quite simply not be able to land on a carrier on a busy server due to people spawning, just as it was in 1946.

 

 

Hmm, IIRC history shows us there were plenty of players who wanted to fly ETO scenarios, and that every time a PTO mission came up on Spits/109s or F6 servers like Skies of Whatever, the server would rapidly empty out.  Spits/109s launched Zekes/Wildcats as a containment server for the minority of players who wanted PTO.

 

There were literally hundreds of ETO servers and only one dedicated PTO server that I can think of.  So, either there was this huge contingent of offline PTO players, or PTO wasn't as popular as some here would like to think it was.

 

5 pacific expansions in a row seems like a nightmare.

Just want three - Midway (+Pearl), Guadalcanal/Solomons, and Okinawa. Preferably in that order.

[Tomsk]

Might be fun in SP if you like flying against a random number generator.  It will be a disaster in multiplayer for those of us who like flying against other humans.  You will quite simply not be able to land on a carrier on a busy server due to people spawning, just as it was in 1946.

 

I'm inclined to agree. It's not that the PTO isn't an interesting theatre, I think it is. But whilst I'm sure carrier landings would make a fun challenge for SP, I'm pretty sceptical about how well they're going to work for competitive multiplayer (which is what I'm mostly interested in). If doing the PTO, personally I would have preferred something focused on the non-naval fighters (e.g. P-38, P-47, Ki-43, Ki-61 etc) for exactly this kind of reason. I also prefer those planes, but that's maybe just me :-)

Edited May 24, 2017 by Tomsk

[ShamrockOneFive]

The Russians didn't use the P-47 for much. PVO duties mostly and even then I don't think they saw any significant action. The Russians appreciated the high altitude capabilities but otherwise didn't regard the P-47 as being very useful. For low level tactical work they thought it was too big and heavy... one Russian test pilot infamously saying it was "Not a fighter." Its more comparable in weight to a Pe-2 than to a Yak-1 for example. All of that to say that its not really/ideally an East Front fighter despite being in active service with the Russians during the war.

 

The USAAF used the snot out the P-47 for all kinds of duties so I would hope to see a PTO or ETO related scenario where we can see the P-47 in action.

 

If we are doing Okinawa... I little bit of me hopes to see a P-47N. Not because its necessarily a better fighter (in some ways its less of one) but just to fly a version that I've never seen before.

Yes please, plus all of the twins - bombers and strike aircraft. Mosquitos, Beauforts, Beaufighters, A-26, B-26, B-25, P-38, and Single engine fighters Fw-190D, Bf109K, Tempest, P-51..................................

 

The tactical war is probably more interesting than waves of heavies anyway.

 

I'd love to see this too. Heavy bombers have their appeal but for me the ETO is most interesting during the Normandy campaign with all of the tactical operations. The Luftwaffe was still kicking too (despite what some will say) and we've got some greats on the Luftwaffe side like the FW190A-8, F-8 and Bf109G-6/14 variants with the revised canopy and some serious firepower. A Do227 would be great to see too! And of course the Typhoon, Spitfires, B-26, A-20, P-38, Mosquito... yeahhh that's a lot of great content there.

[Tomsk]

The Russians didn't use the P-47 for much. PVO duties mostly and even then I don't think they saw any significant action. The Russians appreciated the high altitude capabilities but otherwise didn't regard the P-47 as being very useful. For low level tactical work they thought it was too big and heavy... one Russian test pilot infamously saying it was "Not a fighter." Its more comparable in weight to a Pe-2 than to a Yak-1 for example. 

 

That's interesting I didn't know that. Not that I particularly agree with their assessment :-) In many ways it could be argued it was the P-47 (and not the P-51) that really broke the Luftwaffe. By the time the P-51 arrived in any serious numbers the LW were already very much on the back foot. 

 

Anyway, I'm a big fan of the P-47 and would love to see it represented in a BoX .. although I agree the Eastern front doesn't make a lot of sense :-)

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

That's interesting I didn't know that. Not that I particularly agree with their assessment :-) In many ways it could be argued it was the P-47 (and not the P-51) that really broke the Luftwaffe. By the time the P-51 arrived in any serious numbers the LW were already very much on the back foot. 

 

Anyway, I'm a big fan of the P-47 and would love to see it represented in a BoX .. although I agree the Eastern front doesn't make a lot of sense :-)

My Opinion as well. Together with the P-38.

[JG13_opcode]

My Opinion as well. Together with the P-38.

Two P-38s working together using energy tactics are extremely formidable. Such a stable gun platform with the nose-mounted armament. Yikes.

 

One can dream.

 

Maybe I'll have to go back to CLOD if they insist on wasting 6 years doing PTO expansions.

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

That's interesting I didn't know that. Not that I particularly agree with their assessment :-) In many ways it could be argued it was the P-47 (and not the P-51) that really broke the Luftwaffe. By the time the P-51 arrived in any serious numbers the LW were already very much on the back foot. 

 

Anyway, I'm a big fan of the P-47 and would love to see it represented in a BoX .. although I agree the Eastern front doesn't make a lot of sense :-)

 

I've read that statement and other comments by the Russians about the P-47 and its always fascinating the different tactics and thinking on the different fronts. In many ways the East front fighters and tactics are fairly similar to what we experience in the standard dogfight server. The P-47 was built for something different and it certainly did its job.

 

It's an absolutely solid fighter that could operate without difficulty at high altitudes that were common for USAAF bombers and I would agree with you - its the P-47 that really helped break the Luftwaffe's back. It was in operation in numbers and was effective before the P-51 came in for the coup de gras.

 

I'd love to see a BoX title release with a P-47 at some time. There will be folks who will struggle with it but I spent a lot of time making it into a fighter in IL-2: 1946 and I'd happily do it again. Something about that big radial engine and its smooth lines plus knowing that you had 8 .50cals which would melt any fighter in front of you. Yeah... that'd be great!

[Gambit21]

  It will be a disaster in multiplayer for those of us who like flying against other humans.  You will quite simply not be able to land on a carrier on a busy server due to people spawning, just as it was in 1946.

 

Since you felt the need to repeat this, I shall respond once again.

 

Landing on a carrier on multiplayer is/was only ever an issue if you defined "multiplayer" as an air-quake room.

For those of us flying CoOps, landing on a carrier in multiplayer was never a problem.

 

And frankly if you're entire point of reference for what multi-player was in 1946 is defined by the limited scope of what that type of server/room provides   ↓

 

 

 

Tongue-in-cheek joking aside Opy, I had my moments of "please don't spawn, please don't spawn please don't spawn" while landing on stationary carriers on those types

of servers, but I also understood that I had the option to host a CoOP or join one where this wasn't an issue.

 

Once I discovered CoOps, the types of servers where you're identifying this problem were visited much more rarely.

CoOps is where it's at for MP.

 

Fingers crossed we get BoX back in Hyperlobby or similar.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Multiple carriers plus maybe some better management/UI from the devs could solve the problems with carriers in dogfight servers.

 

More structured environments would be no problem even in IL-2: 1946. Not everything is an air quake server after all.

[Gambit21]

More structured environments would be no problem even in IL-2: 1946. Not everything is an air quake server after all.

 

True

Although I contend that even servers that are set up not be "air quake" rooms tend to devolve into just that...depending on who shows up on a given night.

Really...there's no beating CoOps =)

[ShamrockOneFive]

True

Although I contend that even servers that are set up not be "air quake" rooms tend to devolve into just that...depending on who shows up on a given night.

Really...there's no beating CoOps =)

 

That's fair

 

Possibly some better UI or ATC type management with the carrier would help. If a player requests landing clearance for example and the carrier clears that player for landing maybe spawns can be prevented, deferred or shifted to an airstart until landing is complete (timeout, or something more sophisticated). 

[Gambit21]

That's fair

 

Possibly some better UI or ATC type management with the carrier would help. If a player requests landing clearance for example and the carrier clears that player for landing maybe spawns can be prevented, deferred or shifted to an airstart until landing is complete (timeout, or something more sophisticated). 

 

That would work...and also a general understanding in a given room "land only only on moving carries, or carriers in north of a certain region on the map, or similar.

There would still be incidents, but they'd be less pervasive.

 

There were some nights where I just didn't have time to host, or it was an odd time and the usual suspects were not online, etc, or I just was in the mood for a Zekes vs Wilcats or similar and I'd find myself

on these servers. I don't remember landings/spawning being that much of a put-off.

 

One could easily build a map with moving and stationary carriers. Take-off's are from static carriers, landings are on moving carriers.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The P-47D and the 190D were my prefered aircraft depending on which side I found myself on a given night. I love the look of the P-51 but the 47 is a beast in the most positive way you can use that word. So much fun..........

That would work...and also a general understanding in a given room "land only only on moving carries, or carriers in north of a certain region on the map, or similar.

There would still be incidents, but they'd be less pervasive.

 

There were some nights where I just didn't have time to host, or it was an odd time and the usual suspects were not online, etc, or I just was in the mood for a Zekes vs Wilcats or similar and I'd find myself

on these servers. I don't remember landings/spawning being that much of a put-off.

 

One could easily build a map with moving and stationary carriers. Take-off's are from static carriers, landings are on moving carriers.

I seem to recall they want working elevators. Perhaps that could be a limiting factor for ATC. The elevator doesn't bring you up when someone has a landing clearance.

[Gambit21]

I seem to recall they want working elevators. Perhaps that could be a limiting factor for ATC. The elevator doesn't bring you up when someone has a landing clearance.

 

That would be fantastic, if somewhat unrealistic.

I'd be into that for MP rooms though where realism wasn't my priority.

 

Reading about how long it took to spot and launch AC, on the Japanese side at least, I'm curious about how elevators would work on the sim in general.

[ShamrockOneFive]

That would work...and also a general understanding in a given room "land only only on moving carries, or carriers in north of a certain region on the map, or similar.

There would still be incidents, but they'd be less pervasive.

 

There were some nights where I just didn't have time to host, or it was an odd time and the usual suspects were not online, etc, or I just was in the mood for a Zekes vs Wilcats or similar and I'd find myself

on these servers. I don't remember landings/spawning being that much of a put-off.

 

One could easily build a map with moving and stationary carriers. Take-off's are from static carriers, landings are on moving carriers.

 

The way I was doing it on the Battlefields1 server maps was to setup a typical arrangement of 3 carriers (plus a couple of destroyer escorts) where the two outer carriers were spawn points while the inner carrier was a landing ship with no spawning allowed. Before that when we had static only carriers we would sometimes place red and green lights to indicate which ones were safe to land on.

 

IMHO, it'd be easier for the devs to setup landing lights or a LSO of some sort on carriers accepting a landing than static/moving carriers. The fleet gets all separated in that kind of setup and that can make for unhappy gameplay experiences in my experience (we tried that sort of thing too). Also you definitely want takeoffs on a moving carrier. That extra momentum is huge in getting the heavier aircraft off the deck.

[Gambit21]

All sounds good to me.

[CIA_Windhawk]

LOL - P47s would unbalance this game so badly.  Better give the axis some TA-152s while you're at it.

[Gambit21]

LOL - P47s would unbalance this game so badly.  Better give the axis some TA-152s while you're at it.

 

Nah...you just drag them to the deck.

[ShamrockOneFive]

LOL - P47s would unbalance this game so badly.  Better give the axis some TA-152s while you're at it.

 

Umm why would they?

[JG13_opcode]

Since you felt the need to repeat this, I shall respond once again.

 

Landing on a carrier on multiplayer is/was only ever an issue if you defined "multiplayer" as an air-quake room.

For those of us flying CoOps, landing on a carrier in multiplayer was never a problem.

 

And frankly if you're entire point of reference for what multi-player was in 1946 is defined by the limited scope of what that type of server/room provides ↓

 

 

 

Tongue-in-cheek joking aside Opy, I had my moments of "please don't spawn, please don't spawn please don't spawn" while landing on stationary carriers on those types

of servers, but I also understood that I had the option to host a CoOP or join one where this wasn't an issue.

 

Once I discovered CoOps, the types of servers where you're identifying this problem were visited much more rarely.

CoOps is where it's at for MP.

 

Fingers crossed we get BoX back in Hyperlobby or similar.

Co ops are suboptimal for people like me. I have maybe a few precious hours a week to fly, and in co-ops you couldn't respawn if you messed up your takeoff or taxi, etc.

 

I flew in plenty of "dead is dead" online wars and IMHO that is where the real game is. Dogfight servers are a good second choice for when you don't have time to wait for a co-op to fill.

 

In the meantime, you know where to shove that smug superiority you ooze in most of your posts, right?

[Gambit21]

I like my smug superiority. 

 

Edit: ...and I hear you about time etc.

I'm in the same boat right now truth be told, but then I'm not motivated so much with Eastern Front only and no CoOps yet.

That will change.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Gambit21

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The carrier spawning problem can be easily solved by mission designers, by having dedicated take off carriers (the only ones you can spawn from) and dedicated landing ones (bases with no planes available for take off). At least that's how it was done when I played carrier missions in 1946 servers around 4 years ago (Battlefields 1, Skies of Valor)

 

LOL - P47s would unbalance this game so badly.  Better give the axis some TA-152s while you're at it.

 

With a Leningrad late war scenario there would come late 109 Gs and late 190 As (maybe even Ds?) along with it ofc

Edited May 25, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Tomsk]

The P-47D and the 190D were my prefered aircraft depending on which side I found myself on a given night. I love the look of the P-51 but the 47 is a beast in the most positive way you can use that word. So much fun..........

I see we have similar tastes. My favourites were definitely the FW 190, P-47, P-51 and P-38. Love that BnZ I have a special love for the P-47 because it's generally so underrated, and yet can be devastating in the right hands.

 

As for carrier ops .. I guess we'll see. I really do hope they do a BoX in the Pacific that features the P-38 though.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Tomsk

[senseispcc]

2022 ?