Be specific about why you want the pacific?

[sniperton]

25 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Still, Pacific can be started with land based scenario, giving time for ships to arrive.

Yep, that seems reasonable, as was suggested by @unreasonable as well (pun not intended )

Still a question is how attractive it would be for all those guys who want the Pacific for the Wildcat/Hellcat and the carrier battles.

One can speculate that once we get to the Pacific, it has to be a fully-fledged Pacific, with all the features it is generally associated with by the majority, else it could be a disappointment for many and not a commercial success consequently.

As to game-economics (if it means anything), I would opt for an interim late Med scenario first (Sicily/Italy 1943/44), where some allied types (both planes and ships) could already be added and the related techs developed, so that the final move to the Pacific would only require filling up the empty Japanese slots. This would provide two development cycles while both being enjoyable on its own. Dunno, just an idea.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

PTO is apparently a dream. Thus one would keep paying for his dreams, for as you say two further development cycles. A steep price for dream if you ask me. I'd very much prefer to stop paying for a dream but to pay for the actual project.  

[sniperton]

1 minute ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

I'd very much prefer to stop paying for a dream but to pay for the actual project.  

As to me, I'd readily and happily pay for an actual MTO followed by and actual PTO. I know you want the Jap planes and ships, but we'd be a tad closer to them if we actually had their allied counterparts already before.

[Cunctator]

Let's not forget that there is already Med/North Africa theater in development for Il2:CloD. A Salomons 1943  scenario can come first and carriers later. Better than waiting for a "perfect" Pacific game sometime in the distant future.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Cunctator

[sniperton]

22 minutes ago, Cunctator said:

Let's not forget that there is already Med/North Africa theater in development for Il2:CloD. A Salomons 1943  scenario can come first and carriers later. Better than waiting for a "perfect" Pacific game sometime in the distant future.

That's why I suggested Sicily/Italy 43/44 (we already have 2/3 of the required planeset). Otherwise I'd be happy with New Guinea or the Solomons, just I doubt it can be done in one year in a way that no one can say it's not what I expected.

Edited July 27, 2018 by sniperton

[LeeHarvey]

I want to intercept Kamikaze attacks in an F6F amid a hailstorm of naval anti-aircraft fire.

[Cloyd]

Just give me a Wildcat, Henderson Field, and a flock of Bettys to shoot at and I'll be a happy man.

[dkoor]

Without looking at a single reply to your original post, here is my take.

 

I had a blast with CFS 2. Really enjoyed the theatre.

 

I had a blast with IL-2 Pacific Fighters in multiplayer. And single player mode. In fact, I enjoyed flying Hellcats probably the most of all other fighters in that theatre, which may to this date be the fact that I can't admit even to myself. Up to that time, Ki-43 Oscar would be the ride of my choice by quite a big margin... after IL-2 Pacific Fighters that changed. For some reason, in Hellcat's pit I feel almost invincible, that fighter and me just 'click'... it appears that the HCat just loves the combat tactic I prefer to employ. In mutiplayer Zeke vs Wildcat server I found myself very often in cockpit of either Wildcat or Hellcat... had for my standards nice success flying those types, still have some track where I down couple of Zeroes then I got jumped by one, simply opened the throttle in shallow dive and escaped, while receiving couple of 20mms from angered Zero pilot Hellcat still had so much life in her to bring me safely on carriers deck... So in the end it doesn't really matter if the ride isn't the 'prettiest' one or has the biggest guns or most nimble etc. for me that 'click' is all that matters ? . I also liked Ki-100, that one would probably be lovely ride if it makes into the new IL-2 Pacific incarnation.

 

Islands. For heavens' sake, is there anyone out there who doesn't like to fly over big water mass just to find some little tropical island filled with palm trees? Yeah, didn't think so.

 

Carrier ops. Well, you will find them here and probably the only meaningful carrier ops in all history. Before and after.

 

Flying torpedo attackers. There is nothing like approaching heavy armoured destroyer that fills the air with curtain of lead which you need to penetrate at super low speed at about sea level... yeah, nothing like it. It's so kamikaze that in fact we can look at those pilot attempts as kamikaze v.1. Those guys that later deliberately rammed objects with their planes are v.2.

 

Actually dealing massive blows to enemy and making all the difference, one plane in one mission. You probably don't have so much chances to deal such a devastating blows to enemy like in Pacific. Even if we skip atomic bombs, which certainly wont make it in the game (and have absolutely no reason to make it in the first place) , sinking big enemy vessel really makes the difference. It just isn't your another strafing enemy column run.

 

For the masochist in me, flying multi hour sorties to see nothing but the sea. In Pacific there was serious danger that the sea will claim you due to bad navigation. You run outta fuel - you die. Simple as that... there is no farm girl somewhere that will offer you a sandwich and glass of wine. In fact, it just may be that you will become a snack to some random big fish there after you land on sea surface.

 

Etc. there are many other reasons which doesn't come to my mind right now. These above are written in like 5 mins .

[SCG_Tzigy]

Torpedoes 

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

I thinks we will 'eventually' see the game expanding into the Pacific War Theatre. I remember carrier landings being a real challenge in IL2 1946.

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

I thinks we will 'eventually' see the game expanding into the Pacific War Theatre. 

 

Ya think?

You do know that’s the plan yes?

[Thad]

Yes. If I remember correctly they were finding it difficult to obtain reliable Japanese equipment data or Japanese interpreters. 

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, Thad said:

Yes. If I remember correctly they were finding it difficult to obtain reliable Japanese equipment data or Japanese interpreters. 

 

Thus the delay, (not cancellation) and producing Bodenplatte while PTO research is lined up. There’s a sticky thread on the main page.

 

[=27=Davesteu]

13 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

New Guinea would be my preference too

I'd be highly interested in Burma or China (pre- and WWII) as well, but New Guinea has the edge. Unfortunately I can't see them doing former two anyways.
As stated previously in this thread, I don't think we can hope for more than two Asiatic-Pacific scenarios right now and New Guinea offers pretty much everything, so it's perfect.
 

 

3 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

5 hours ago, sniperton said:

I too am in the opinion that carrier operations are at least 3 development cycles away, unless some very serious work on naval techs and related issues is being done behind the scenes, but this we can only learn when we see them tested e.g. on Kuban shipping.

Possibly. There is also a lot of work that has to be done in relation to ship Ai, how they manouver individually and how they interact as a group. Not to mention AA on board of all those ships. Still, Pacific can be started with land based scenario, giving time for ships to arrive. 

I agree with you guys, it really should be started with land based aviation (which doesn't exclude naval aircraft).

They would have to do quite some research to accurately model the ships, let alone already mentioned AI, which should be rather smart, and an in-depth damage model.

Evasive maneuvers, decentralised AAA fire control, damage control, armour models, realistic launch and recovery of aircraft, ...

[Rjel]

 

If this doesn't make you want a Pacific addon, nothing will.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Who's the artist? I can't read it on this little monitor at work

 

NVM: found him; Mark Karvon

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[BraveSirRobin]

I get the impression that people who think that carrier operations are imminent have not actually played any of the BoX modules.  We get a slide show with a few bombs exploding, a target on fire, and a few AAA guns firing.  Can you imagine an attack on a carrier group?  It will look just like that photo.  Literally. Then the the server will crash.

[Rjel]

18 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I get the impression that people who think that carrier operations are imminent have not actually played any of the BoX modules.  We get a slide show with a few bombs exploding, a target on fire, and a few AAA guns firing.  Can you imagine an attack on a carrier group?  It will look just like that photo.  Literally. Then the the server will crash.

I doubt anyone thinks they're imminent. Still we all can dream.

[angus26]

Was there a mention of an “avenger” in the planeset? 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Planeset has not been announced and a Pacific module is on hold. Even when Midway seemed imminent we were guessing. Most of the AC are pretty obvious but there is a little wiggle room outside of those. Avenger was hotly discussed among the community. As much as I'd like to see an Avenger eventually, the Devastator makes more sense if we start PTO at Midway as per the original plan.

[Danziger]

On 7/24/2018 at 1:25 PM, Wolf8312 said:

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

 

Why not?

[CountZero]

9 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I get the impression that people who think that carrier operations are imminent have not actually played any of the BoX modules.  We get a slide show with a few bombs exploding, a target on fire, and a few AAA guns firing.  Can you imagine an attack on a carrier group?  It will look just like that photo.  Literally. Then the the server will crash.

 

Yes to me thats main problem with any DLC that would have big ships involved, and i dont see it working in this game for some time. So im realy interested on what they will change to get PTO dlc out next as promised, probably it will be PTO dlc area without BB and CVs involved in it.

[Trooper117]

I can see TC and FC getting fleshed out for the foreseeable future after Bodenplate... as to the Pacific, I'd be quite amazed if it comes directly after those two.

Jason wants to do it justice and will get to it when the time is right to do so I'm sure. 

[Gamington]

No opinion one way or the other Im actually having alot of fun learning about the russian side of the war as an american. Though od imagine people want the japanese planes to play with.

[Gambit21]

On 7/28/2018 at 3:49 AM, Trooper117 said:

I can see TC and FC getting fleshed out for the foreseeable future after Bodenplate...

 

Yes but not at the expense of the next release, which at this time is PTO

[RNAS10_Oliver]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 2:01 PM, Trooper117 said:

I would buy a Pacific option if it involved the RAF or Royal Navy involvement.

 

My thoughts go somewhere along those lines. I would purchase if there was RAF/FAA involvement (even just land based). However should it just focus on American efforts then I might purchase in order to obtain the types that we also used, but that would be an bit of an waste. When it comes to aviation what I am most interested in is the FAA. If a Pacific module could obtain me a RN carrier (even just an escort one) and some suitable aircraft then I would be rather eager for it. But I would be just as eager to have that in any other suitable theatre, does not have to be Pacific for me.

[Mac_Messer]

On 7/28/2018 at 1:09 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

I get the impression that people who think that carrier operations are imminent have not actually played any of the BoX modules.  We get a slide show with a few bombs exploding, a target on fire, and a few AAA guns firing.  Can you imagine an attack on a carrier group?  It will look just like that photo.  Literally. Then the the server will crash.

Are you saying the game engine can`t handle few bombs, explosions and AAA?

 

People always can dream about carrier ops. Tough if that is not feasible with IL2 Great Battles then I`d imagine the devs would make such a message as clear as possible.

[spamRoast]

On 7/24/2018 at 4:25 AM, Wolf8312 said:

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

 

There's just not enough Pacific WWII content out there. The majority of WWII flight sims focus on Europe or Soviet Union and not all of us played the older Pacific games back in the day. I want to fly or fight some Japanese planes and thinking of playing a "great battles" version in the Pacific seems fun to me. It would open up entirely different types of battles and planes that have different characteristics meant for torpedoes and carrier landings.

 

I'm also open to Africa or some Mediterranean stuff, but Pacific just sounds cool. To be honest, I want every theater done/redone in "great battles" series! Even the played out Battle of Britain, but that will take several years, so until then, some variety would be nice and the Pacific would provide that... for me at least.

Edited July 29, 2018 by obit

[ShamrockOneFive]

7 hours ago, Oliver88 said:

 

My thoughts go somewhere along those lines. I would purchase if there was RAF/FAA involvement (even just land based). However should it just focus on American efforts then I might purchase in order to obtain the types that we also used, but that would be an bit of an waste. When it comes to aviation what I am most interested in is the FAA. If a Pacific module could obtain me a RN carrier (even just an escort one) and some suitable aircraft then I would be rather eager for it. But I would be just as eager to have that in any other suitable theatre, does not have to be Pacific for me.

 

Depending on the aircraft set... the Okinawa battle could, if suitably expanded on, have the British Pacific Fleet and their aircraft are largely types that would probably already be done for the American navy. The Avenger and Corsair (hopefully with the FAA specific clipped wings) plus some sort of FAA specific type like the Seafire III (the last air combat victory of the war was a Seafire III if I remember right) or the Firefly would go a long way to making this happen. We'd just need the Illustrious and preferably an escort ship of some class and it would be "done" without having to go too crazy with FAA specific content.

 

I feel like this has a decent chance of being a thing.

[Royal_Flight]

13 hours ago, Oliver88 said:

 

My thoughts go somewhere along those lines. I would purchase if there was RAF/FAA involvement (even just land based). However should it just focus on American efforts then I might purchase in order to obtain the types that we also used, but that would be an bit of an waste. When it comes to aviation what I am most interested in is the FAA. If a Pacific module could obtain me a RN carrier (even just an escort one) and some suitable aircraft then I would be rather eager for it. But I would be just as eager to have that in any other suitable theatre, does not have to be Pacific for me.

 

In the short-term, the Wildcat should be released with a FAA skin, same goes if we get an Avenger or a Hellcat at some point.

It’ll be nowhere near comprehensive but seeing them in the right colours will be a start.

 

And the Spit Vb and Kittyhawk can both get RAAF skins, so not British forces but the Conmonwealth will get a look in. At least they’ll have roundels. 

[=27=Davesteu]

17 hours ago, Oliver88 said:

My thoughts go somewhere along those lines. I would purchase if there was RAF/FAA involvement (even just land based).
[...]
If a Pacific module could obtain me a RN carrier (even just an escort one) and some suitable aircraft then I would be rather eager for it. But I would be just as eager to have that in any other suitable theatre, does not have to be Pacific for me. 

As Shamrock already mentioned, an Okinawa package could potentially include some FAA assets if the map would be large enough to include the Sakishima-Islands & Formosa.
There are only few other scenarios including the FAA in the Pacific Ocean Theatre and I personally don't hope they are going to do the Okinawa Campaign. It has many drawbacks scenario-wise. Much better I think would be Burma (RAF, RIAF, FAA (limited)) and especially New Guinea (RAAF).

Edited July 30, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[Jorge_S]

How would the game deal with the super long cruising hours?

 

I would like the idea of some kind of "teleport"; so you need to take off normally, go to a specific altitude, then lean your fuel, get into some for of "Cruise to heading xxx" or "follow specific plane", then you can "autopilot" at "x" times normal speed. This will remain automatic until there is an enemy close enough, then you get back to normal speed,  until you either deal with the threat or it is out of range. Maybe you can set additional rules for going back to normal speed, like "if I see land" or "after xx minutes/ hours"

 

This way it would be possible to realistically play the very long missions typical of the Pacific

[Gambit21]

Maps can be/should be scaled down.

That’s the easy problem to solve frankly.

[Jorge_S]

Also, in my view, the game needs to start with some early Coral Sea/ Midway to be commercially successful. Lots of people looking for that Zero-Val-Kate vs Wildcat-Dauntless-Devastator fight

[Gambit21]

That describes the Solomons/Guadalcanal as well.

[=27=Davesteu]

Ironically the early Solomon Island Campaign is synonymous for long-distance flights as the forward bases weren't completed by then. Exception being some seaplane bases.

 

As described on page three, I doubt a carrier battle being a good choice for the first Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre pack. Very monotonous, long-distance flights as well and easily scaring away those without specialized interest in the theatre.

 

Scaled down maps are a very bad idea I think. Simply use the "accelerate time" command in singleplayer or select forward bases in multiplayer.

[Gambit21]

No - scaling is the way go - it's the only practical solution - for a few reasons.

Time acceleration won't do crap.

At least not by itself.

[=27=Davesteu]

What's wrong about time-acceleration? Scaled maps naturally have a very ugly "out of proportion look". This would really destroy the immersion for me.

[Gambit21]

9 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

What's wrong about time-acceleration? Scaled maps naturally have a very ugly "out of proportion look". This would really destroy the immersion for me.

 

I'm not talking scaled down so that you can see the entire Solomon chain from 3000 feet...I mean half scale or something, which is still HUGE.

There won't be any "look" to it all other, other than really cool.

 

As far as time accell goes, 2X is all we functionally get in a fully fleshed out mission, so in practical terms that's not gong to make your life easier on a full

size Solomon's map. You're not going to sit there for 4 hours escorting an AI Betty from Rabaul to Henderson.

 

So in practical terms, even smaller than half scale might be in order.

I think the 1946 Solomons map (added years later...and too late for me)  is 3/4 scale.

So how much to scale it is debatable, whether or not to scale it is not IMO.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Gambit21

[sevenless]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

No - scaling is the way go - it's the only practical solution - for a few reasons.

Time acceleration won't do crap.

At least not by itself.

 

I admit I still have not fully understood what might be the problem with time acceleration here. Why don´t they code it that way that every time time-acceleration is introduced the sim simply roles dices? Spares a lot of CPU cycles and the user outcome would be just fine. With the current system in place we might need 12 or 24 core CPUs multithreaded to calculate all this stuff in real time, is this really necessary? Does the end-user really has a benefit from that?