Jump to content
Wolf8312

Be specific about why you want the pacific?

Recommended Posts

My guess is that the OP started this thread because he was dying for the chance to use the words "Specific" and "Pacific" in the same sentence.

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

Maybe I should put a sock on it to protect myself from the AIDS that is the PTO.

 

Support and patience has paid off for those of us afflicted with eastern front malaise.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Space_Ghost said:

 

Do they make a cream for that?

 

I looked suppositories and creams - nothing :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who are now saying they haven't any interest in the PTO, remember how many also claimed to have little interest in the Eastern Front and its plane set when IL-2 came along? I think the battle cry was something like "*#¥&@$ P-51s, ETO been done to death, something new, try and learn about the Eastern Front". Yada ,yada, yada.

 

Guess the Pacific is the other side to that coin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good planeset and the ability to sink ships. 

Perfect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planes, just planes. Possibly "ship crew" dlc some day. 😉

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Support and patience has paid off for those of us afflicted with eastern front malaise.

Ekhem, maybe I missed something but PTO wasn't exactly delivered yet and is at least delayed. As far as I'm concerned more support and more patience is still required :) 

 

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

Those who are now saying they haven't any interest in the PTO, remember how many also claimed to have little interest in the Eastern Front and its plane set when IL-2 came along? I think the battle cry was something like "*#¥&@$ P-51s, ETO been done to death, something new, try and learn about the Eastern Front". Yada ,yada, yada.

 

Guess the Pacific is the other side to that coin. 

Well, popularity of Soviet aircraft is lesser than that of German. And Pacific means no German aircraft :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Well, popularity of Soviet aircraft is lesser than that of German. And Pacific means no German aircraft :) 

 

I would love that. I can't be excited for another round of 109s after BP.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pacific front has a big problem like Oleg's IL-2, the permits and approvals of aeronautical companies that still exist to give the approval to use material (Aircraft) in a commercial simulator that still belong to companies and brands . Oleg had a very big legal problem.

 

If I'm not mistaken, brands such as Grumman, Lockheed, North American, brand that nowadays Boeing ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1/JSpan_Guerrero said:

The Pacific front has a big problem like Oleg's IL-2, the permits and approvals of aeronautical companies that still exist to give the approval to use material (Aircraft) in a commercial simulator that still belong to companies and brands . Oleg had a very big legal problem.

 

If I'm not mistaken, brands such as Grumman, Lockheed, North American, brand that nowadays Boeing ...

Pretty sure this has all been addressed previously and its not likely to be a problem this time. 

The biggest problem has been finding information on the Japanese planes. The more detailed flight model and the higher-fidelity modeling demand more information than was required by Il-2 1946. Presumably data gathering continues at this point.

If Bodenplatte, Tank Crew and Flying Circus do well, the resources and time available for the pacific expansion might be quite a bit better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 1/JSpan_Guerrero said:

The Pacific front has a big problem like Oleg's IL-2, the permits and approvals of aeronautical companies that still exist to give the approval to use material (Aircraft) in a commercial simulator that still belong to companies and brands . Oleg had a very big legal problem.

 

If I'm not mistaken, brands such as Grumman, Lockheed, North American, brand that nowadays Boeing ...

 

Wrong, Jason has said that is no longer an issue... good news for Pacific fans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Well, popularity of Soviet aircraft is lesser than that of German. And Pacific means no German aircraft :) 

 

Yeah but popularity of japanese aircraft is greater than of german :P

 

To answer the author

I'm really looking forward to the PTO  even though I'm not american because it brings a lot of new things : a totally different landscape (beautiful ocean), it means ship battles with carrier t/o and landings, it means different planes for the US (F4F, F4F, F6F, dauntless and avenger) and japanese planes.

 

So we can't do more different from what we have now and to be honest it was quite unique since they were no carrier battles like those afterward.

 

But I also admit that I'm 100% biased since one of my first plane game was "heroes of the pacific" which was terrific for it's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

So be specific why does everyone care so much about the pacific?

 

Because, sadly, the F4F in the old sim doesn't cut it anymore....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

I think dogfighting over the shark infested pacific ocean must have been the most terrifying thing a pilot could have imagined so lonely and far from home.

 

Actually, from what I’ve read, most pilots preferred making emegency landings in the ocean rather than the jungle. They had more chances of survival. Whereas, it almost always meant certain death if they did so in the jungle.

Edited by BP_Lizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BP_Lizard said:

 

Actually, from what I’ve read, most pilots preferred making emegency landings in the ocean rather than the jungle. They had more chances of survival. Whereas, it almost always meant certain death if they did so in the jungle.

 

Even 2 or 3 miles away from a friendly base sometimes. Even if the pilot survived the crash, he would often perish. The jungle was that brutal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it seems that every bullet fired over the ocean is far more important than a bullet fired anywhere else in the war, because it can set in motion a chain of events, that may ultimately lead to victory/defeat/prolonging of war. 

A dive-bomber can release a bomb, penetrating the flight deck of a carrier, blowing up the magazine, which causes a fire, that forces the crew to abandon ship; thereby tipping the balance of power in a battle, which leads to a further sinking of carriers/ships in that battle; having won a decisive battle in the pacific means larger freedom of movement or uncontested landings on islands etc. One bullet at the right time, which kills that dive-bomber pilot may prevent that from happening. 

 

- Every carrier based sortie holds far more significance not only for the outcome of the war, but also for the pilot, who might have to take a decision between carrying out an attack or returning to his carrier, which might have been destroyed etc. 

- Then there is the attacking into heavy flak as a torpedo or a dive-bomber, which is specifically frightening. 

- Many planes look cool, but none look as elegant as japanese Zekes and Kates. 

- Big Ships are involved, which are awesome

- Why would you land on land, if you can land on a ship

- Beautiful sea, instead of brown fields 

and so on...

 

For me personally, every other theater of war or time is extremely 'boring' (which means still interesting, but far less than pacific) in comparison to engagements in the pacific involving carriers. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoopass ships with tons of Arty of all sorts - Cleveland class, Brooklyn Class, clemson, Fletcher, Sims class all that. And then the Japanese side too. And then the Big boats.
(Naval Battles i suppose are graphics PORN)

Carriers. Same as above but for my Favorite Planes. Lexingtons are Beautiful, Essexes are brutal, Jeep carriers are a Challenge to operate from.

SBD, Corsair in the USN stable, a Mitchell with a shipload of improvised Guns in the nose a la Pappy Gunn, maybe a B Mustang and a G Havoc.

Islands and cargo convoys, skipbombing, torp runs, strafing Axis airfields...
Pacific sunsets are the best.
Palms and hammocks and sandy beaches - it´s Summer goddammit, take me away from the daily grind at work!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Even 2 or 3 miles away from a friendly base sometimes. Even if the pilot survived the crash, he would often perish. The jungle was that brutal.

 

Jesus yeah. I went to malaysia and singapore a few years ago, and was often over, or standing on the outskirts of the jungle, and just looking into it was terrifying! Like what the hell is in there? And what if I got lost in there alone?

 

The things that some human beings have experienced!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specific Pacific reasons:

  • New Axis Planes: A problem the series will have if it stays in Europe is the dearth of Axis planes, particularly fighters. If you are talking Axis fighters in Europe you are basically talking about Germany (apologies to Italy). You have the 109 and the 190, and the 262, and that's about it. And really it's mostly all 109's and 190's. Introducing Japan would inject some badly needed variety to the Axis plane set. The Japanese plane set is so varied, unique, and diverse. Getting my hands on Japanese planes is the most exciting thing I can think of for the IL2 series.  
  • Naval Aviation: After 4 excellent games covering army aviation (5 if you count CLoD), it's time for a game that focuses on the unique aspects of naval aviation. Carrier ops would add a whole new dimension to IL-2. Takeoffs, landings, and navigation. Missions that involve not just blowing up a few tanks, but sinking an enormous fleet carrier or battleship, dive bomber runs, hammer and anvil tactics with Long Lance torpedoes. Allied planes that you would never see in an Army air game like the Buffalo, Wildcat, Hellcat, Avenger, Devastator, etc... 
  • New Mission Types: Not just carrier battles, but how about ASW missions? Scouting missions to find a fleet? Rescuing a downed pilot in the ocean with a float plane? 
  • The Jungle: Green jungles and blue oceans are pretty. 
  • The PBY Catalina. Nuff said!

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And playable submarines like Silent Hunter V :

 

 

Edited by RAY-EU
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it hasn´t been done right since Aces of the Pacific by Dynamix in 1992. It´s about time to get back to this theatre, which offers a lot of new gear compared to the european theatres we already have in Great Battles.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

I'm Australian, not American and I would welcome the Pacific.  Not for the forlorn hope of RAAF, RNZAF or RAF content.  It would be a cold day in hell before we saw that.  But rather for the Japanese aircraft and the uniquely skewed matchup with US aircraft that would make the theatre so interesting.  The vulnerable Japanese aircraft owned the low speed manoeuvring combat, and the US aircraft brought the high speed heavily armoured energy attacks.  The two forces are a study in opposites, but at the same time so closely matched. 

+1 and then some.

 

the tactical analysis in that theatre is unique for that very reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of these...

 

7ZRyT6.jpg

 

hj2jB9.jpg

 

VV9ZOK.jpg

 

x7evqY.jpg

 

9rsusL.jpg

 

iS3goT.jpg

 

 

jl3UfD.jpg

 

70k5.jpg

 

petebase.jpg

 

pbyf.jpg

 

20040205image0092.jpg

 

p40n23rdpk4.jpg

 

any questions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
More reasons.
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrier ops for me........ Different scenarios and aircraft. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my favourite planes are there for one.

 

Ki-61, Ki-43, F4U.

 

And its largely unrepresented in many games and even advanced history courses at High schools (in the US that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Jesus yeah. I went to malaysia and singapore a few years ago, and was often over, or standing on the outskirts of the jungle, and just looking into it was terrifying! Like what the hell is in there? And what if I got lost in there alone?

 

The things that some human beings have experienced!

 
Hahey. I hiked up into the mountains in Malaysia last year. The Jungle is amazing, the diversity and amount of animals was mindblowing - easily 10x more animals than the most populated zoo. I never thought a forest could be so busy.


Anyway, why do I want the pacific?

The planes: Zero mainly. Oh boy its a good one.
The battles: Huge amounts of flak, focused battles on ship convoys with everybody in one place. AA fire, chaos, dive bombers trying to break through

The t/o and landings, enough said. 

The scenery: Little island chains, clear water (hopefully better water physics, like have you tried ditching on kuban? Jeeze) 

The risk: Flying out into hard to navigate areas like open ocean, where if you crash that's probably it. You're gone. If you do find the enemy fleet you have to punch through that AA. No matter what it's challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pacific air wars have an interest, but just remark that I put a "s" at air war because in the Pacific there was not one war but many fronts, same in Europe, with the Eastern, Western, Desert, Atlantic and Northern fronts. In the Pacific, there are different periods and type of fronts, India/Burma/China (one or two fronts?) The Island hoping campaigns of the Navy or the US Army? Early war campaigns or late war campaigns, Japanese or Allied dominated? And then when you speak of dominated it is really dominated like the air battle for Poland, Holland and Belgium in the European theater and we do not see a lot of games about those air campaigns in games, do we?! So in conclusion the Pacific theater air battles where rarely very equilibrated or did give a fighting chance on both side and that is why we do not see a lot of real simulations of end or beginning of air campaigns/war on the east or west front in Europe only of air battles of small amplitude. One last question: is it fun when one side is wiped out each and every time without any chance of Victory even a small one? In the Pacific war that is what happened more than not.:salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, senseispcc said:

The pacific air wars have an interest, but just remark that I put a "s" at air war because in the Pacific there was not one war but many fronts, same in Europe, with the Eastern, Western, Desert, Atlantic and Northern fronts. In the Pacific, there are different periods and type of fronts, India/Burma/China (one or two fronts?) The Island hoping campaigns of the Navy or the US Army? Early war campaigns or late war campaigns, Japanese or Allied dominated? And then when you speak of dominated it is really dominated like the air battle for Poland, Holland and Belgium in the European theater and we do not see a lot of games about those air campaigns in games, do we?! So in conclusion the Pacific theater air battles where rarely very equilibrated or did give a fighting chance on both side and that is why we do not see a lot of real simulations of end or beginning of air campaigns/war on the east or west front in Europe only of air battles of small amplitude. One last question: is it fun when one side is wiped out each and every time without any chance of Victory even a small one? In the Pacific war that is what happened more than not.:salute:

 

Two for two today.

Your Korea post didn’t make any sense, and neither does this one.

 

Might want to read a few books - start with    Guadalcanal by Richard B. Frank.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm from Europe (never visited USA either) and still PTO is my no.1 on my list, why;

Naval operations!

-Takeoff/land on a carrier

-sinking ships with torpedos

-flying over the vast sea looking for ship trails

-Much more rewarding to sink a big ship or a carrier than destroying few tanks.

-much more challenge in navigation

-those warm waters and islands

It's just unique!

 

I don't think it's related to nationality, rather it's different kind of scenario providing variety in il2.

And variety is highly recommended in any game or sim.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I have a good reason for Pacific expansion... to see movies of Doctor Zebra land Tante Ju on a carrier :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Actually, I have a good reason for Pacific expansion... to see movies of Doctor Zebra land Tante Ju on a carrier :D.

Maybe someday we will be able to fly B-25's off a carrier.:)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound like Pacific war was always watery abyss, long flights etc. whereas it featured all kinds of combat engagements, including fast tactical strikes. The theatre is so vast that one can virtually do anything a player`s heart desires : CAP, escorts, mudmoving, carrier strikes etc. you name it. Also, the airplane combat there was very different from what went on in Normandy or even Stalingrad, so you get a specific, remarkable experience.

 

Now how one feels about the PTO depends on many things, including nationality and types of aircraft serving in combat. While I adore most USAF aircraft of WWII, I don`t care much for IJAAF hardware. If I was to play PTO, I`d probably drive the P38 as I`m not very interested in the Zeke vs. Corsair bit, let alone the early war engagements that are slow and have weak guns.

9 hours ago, RAY-EU said:

And playable submarines like Silent Hunter V :

 

 

Well then, let us go for carrier artillery and those cutie jap tanks aswell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me PTO and CBI are great part of my life, figuratively. I'm collecting technical literature about it's ships, aircrafts, events, etc. So, I would like to see such theater of operations. 

But... Not in this game. Because this game can't sustain large formations of aircrafts; I do not want to see ugly ships with mistakes in 3D-models. And I'm not sure that landscapes will look decent.

It is just only my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to dive bomb on a ship in a Dauntless or a Helldiver. There is no where to get that experience outside of the old IL2 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, =FEW=Herne said:

 

Didn't the carriers have a homing beacon though ? I can already imagine my despair, when my instruments get shot up and lose my compass and radio direction instrument at the same time.

The carriers wouldn't have transmitted all the time though would they ?

 

This is a great question that has always bothered me. I am sure there must have been some radio navigation, but I ignore the specifics. I would love to see the top  brass historical experts in this forum like  @Finkeren and others give a detailed answer on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kawasaki Ki-45 & Nakajima J1N

Edited by Godspeed
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...