Jump to content
Novice-Flyer

Does IL-2 GB need to return to the Eastern Front?

Recommended Posts

On 1/5/2019 at 11:12 AM, ST_ami7b5 said:

 

... and on the contrary, I will not buy any post-war (WW2) theaters ...

 

I'm not sure if I wouldn't buy it, but I certainly would be a lot less enthousiastic about it. It just does not grip me in any way like WW2 warbirds do.

 

And there's still so much more left to cover in WW2. PTO. MTO, BoB, BoF, Overlord, Bagration, you name it. Any of these would likely draw more interest than Korea IMO, not only personally but overall. WW2 is just a much more popular topic than Korea. 

4 hours ago, 15[Span.]/JG51Spartan said:

IMHO the priority should be in developing the torpedoes. They are essential in the Pacific and can be used in the Kuban map as well. I really miss the aeronaval warfare like in the old IL2 1946.

 

Plus it'd be easy to create the american ones! You don't even need to bother making them explode! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

I'm not sure if I wouldn't buy it, but I certainly would be a lot less enthousiastic about it. It just does not grip me in any way like WW2 warbirds do.

 

And there's still so much more left to cover in WW2. PTO. MTO, BoB, BoF, Overlord, Bagration, you name it. Any of these would likely draw more interest than Korea IMO, not only personally but overall. WW2 is just a much more popular topic than Korea. 

 

Plus it'd be easy to create the american ones! You don't even need to bother making them explode! :)


American air launched torpedoes were actually pretty good...it was the ship and submarine versions that suffered. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 8thFWDoggo said:


American air launched torpedoes were actually pretty good...it was the ship and submarine versions that suffered. 

 

 

I thought the early air torpedoes sucked just as bad as the sub launched ones.  Compared to Japanese models you had to fly lower and slower or they failed.  Of course, flying very slow was probably not too much of a problem for the Devastator, but that's another issue entirely.  If they did start swimming on target the detonator issues would be the same as their sub launched brethren, wouldn't they?  Anyhow, I'm not an expert and I don't have sources on hand, but I'm pretty sure that I have read less than glowing reports on US early war air launched torpedoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

PTO is a  dead horse because of Japanese manuals issue vs BoX high quality standards. Unless Devs have it now. 

 

I would bet on Mediterranean theater to fulfill western planes demand, including here aircraft carriers operations,  or even Korea before seeing  any coconut tree around here 🌴🌴🌴:rofl:

 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I thought the early air torpedoes sucked just as bad as the sub launched ones.  Compared to Japanese models you had to fly lower and slower or they failed.  Of course, flying very slow was probably not too much of a problem for the Devastator, but that's another issue entirely.  If they did start swimming on target the detonator issues would be the same as their sub launched brethren, wouldn't they?  Anyhow, I'm not an expert and I don't have sources on hand, but I'm pretty sure that I have read less than glowing reports on US early war air launched torpedoes.

 

They were pretty delicate beasts, aye, and prone to failure, at least according to all the books I've read.

4 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

PTO is a  dead horse because of Japanese manuals issue vs BoX high quality standards. Unless Devs have it now. 

 

I would bet on Mediterranean theater to fulfill western planes demand or even Korea before seeing  any coconut tree around here 🌴🌴🌴:rofl:

 

 

It's more of a language issue rather than the documentation not meeting standards of quality. If that issue can be resolved, I imagine PTO becomes much more likely.

 

Commercially, PTO makes a lot more sense than pretty much any other theatre. I certainly hope they overcome their obstacles or otherwise make do so they can offer us the opportunity to fly over the pacific. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I thought the early air torpedoes sucked just as bad as the sub launched ones.  Compared to Japanese models you had to fly lower and slower or they failed.  Of course, flying very slow was probably not too much of a problem for the Devastator, but that's another issue entirely.  If they did start swimming on target the detonator issues would be the same as their sub launched brethren, wouldn't they?  Anyhow, I'm not an expert and I don't have sources on hand, but I'm pretty sure that I have read less than glowing reports on US early war air launched torpedoes.

 

Early USN air-launched torpedoes were just as horrid as the Mark 14, yes. It wasn't until September 1943 that the detonator issue was finally fixed, once and for all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

It's more of a language issue rather than the documentation not meeting standards of quality. If that issue can be resolved, I imagine PTO becomes much more likely.

 

I remember some talking about some main planes not having manuals available at all. 

 

Any updates about the availability of these manuals??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

I remember some talking about some main planes not having manuals available at all. 

 

Any updates about the availability of these manuals??

 

All speculation. Patience is a virtue. They´ll tell us when they are ready. I don´t expect anything about new theatre(s) before end of Q1/2019.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Haza said:

I would be interested to understand how carrier ops (landings/crashes on decks) would be controlled in MP to ensure that everybody got to do both!

This to me, perhaps might be one of the biggest draw-backs in carrier Ops for MP.

 

It is bad enough on some servers as it is like wacky races and that is on a large bit of real-estate!

 

 

In IL-2 1946 servers it was done in a way that there were landing and take off carriers. You couldnt select the "landing carriers" for take off.  And those carriers were closer to the frontline so players landed on them when returning to the fleet as they were the first ones on sight. I think there was also an auto despawning timer for broken/crashed planes on the flight deck, but I'm not 100% sure about that. 

 

 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do not even have destroyers or cruisers in Kuban, I wouldn't go overboard with my hopes for any naval theatre, certainly not where naval operations were the focus

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

We do not even have destroyers or cruisers in Kuban, I wouldn't go overboard with my hopes for any naval theatre, certainly not where naval operations were the focus

Ideally the focus would switch from creating a map to creating naval assets. When your map is mostly ocean you can be done with that easily. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

Ideally the focus would switch from creating a map to creating naval assets. When your map is mostly ocean you can be done with that easily. 

 

I don't know, a couple of years ago the word was, that it's not that easy to make big ships with the current technology. It would be the way better/safer method to test big ships in Kuban and complete the theatre this way at the same time. If everything works fine, then you could start to think about making a naval based theatre, but surely not before..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

Ideally the focus would switch from creating a map to creating naval assets. When your map is mostly ocean you can be done with that easily. 

 

I used to have a similar view, although one of the devs pointed out that they need to keep their map makers busy.  Otherwise they will starve or have to get new jobs.

They said they can train some for secondary tasks, but for the most part it doesn't work that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

I used to have a similar view, although one of the devs pointed out that they need to keep their map makers busy.  Otherwise they will starve or have to get new jobs.

They said they can train some for secondary tasks, but for the most part it doesn't work that way.

That makes sense, I suppose its a field of specialty. So land mass is almost certainly a must... Perhaps it does not necessarily have to be for the main IL-2 product line (say Midway) and products like Tank Crew and Flying Circus could benefit from the extra freed hands for larger and more detailed maps. That still leaves ship building out in the wind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

PTO is a  dead horse because of Japanese manuals issue vs BoX high quality standards. Unless Devs have it now. 

 

I think the challenges with the current rendering distance (e.g. of ships) play a part in this too. I do hope they go PTO. It would mean they need to increase the rendering distance :)

Edited by LLv34_Temuri
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

We do not even have destroyers or cruisers in Kuban, I wouldn't go overboard with my hopes for any naval theatre, certainly not where naval operations were the focus

 

There is a destroyer in Battle of Kuban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's summarize 15 pages:

 

PTO

Med

Malta

Italy

Normandy

Channel Front

Russia 1943 (Kursk)

Russia 1944 (Bagration)

Eastern Germany/Hungary/Austria/Czechoslovakia 1945

Korea

Battle of France 1940

Battle of Britain

Spain

Finland

Night Bombing

Strategic Daylight bombing

 

and everybody has a different opinion.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

I used to have a similar view, although one of the devs pointed out that they need to keep their map makers busy.  Otherwise they will starve or have to get new jobs.

They said they can train some for secondary tasks, but for the most part it doesn't work that way.

 

This is when you put them to work creating add-on maps instead of full on "Battle Of X" expansions. As the planeset fills out, there's plenty of opportunities for adding maps that cover scenarios that use the existing hardware (Normandy, for example, or various eastern front areas). Not to mention new maps for Tank Crew.

Share this post


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

Let's summarize 15 pages:

 

PTO

Med

Malta

Italy

Normandy

Channel Front

Russia 1943 (Kursk)

Russia 1944 (Bagration)

Eastern Germany/Hungary/Austria/Czechoslovakia 1945

Korea

Battle of France 1940

Battle of Britain

Spain

Finland

Night Bombing

Strategic Daylight bombing

 

and everybody has a different opinion.  

 

Just maybe Barbarossa ... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Africa or Pacific for me next.

 

There could be a bridge option between land based and carrier/naval based campaign for the PTO. I am talking about Papua/New Guinea. Operations from airfields and use of already existing or soon to be developed for Il2 BOX US aircraft (their versions) P-38, P-39, P-40, and maybe a light bomber which would allow for more time and effort to develop Zero and one Japanese bomber.  After that, in a later stage a full carrier ops with Wildcats, Hellcats, etc. The textures and objects for sea / islands would have already been developed together with some ships and base aircrafts for a full blown Midway campaign or similar. 

 

I believe the community would understand that and nobody would complain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget 'Nam. I want a Hun, Thud, Farmer, Fishbed... 

 

Plus some Hueys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not sure if it was mentioned prior, so sry if it was, but a Bbattle of Berlin would be neat. La7 and the such :)

Edited by E4GLEyE
typo

Share this post


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

 

I used to have a similar view, although one of the devs pointed out that they need to keep their map makers busy.  Otherwise they will starve or have to get new jobs.

They said they can train some for secondary tasks, but for the most part it doesn't work that way.

 

 

The map makers can spend their time making towering volcanoes, limestone formations and vast flat plains, and populate it all with the appropriate flora.

 

Then we flood the whole thing with 642 million cubic km of salt water.  Tank Crew becomes Sub Crew.  

 

🏄‍♂️

 

 

But if PTO's not going to happen ... Korea will definitely need a map or two.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or...

 

They could do a quick Midway or whatever island map then when the other members are busy with the new PTO battle, mapmakers could do some DLC maps for the Eastern Front. Maybe some of those that people started and never finished like Odessa, summer Great Luke, Murmansk...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Let's summarize 15 pages:

 

PTO

Med

Malta

Italy

Normandy

Channel Front

Russia 1943 (Kursk)

Russia 1944 (Bagration)

Eastern Germany/Hungary/Austria/Czechoslovakia 1945

Korea

Battle of France 1940

Battle of Britain

Spain

Finland

Night Bombing

Strategic Daylight bombing

 

and everybody has a different opinion.  

But my opinion is what matters the most! 😜

Joke aside from business perspective devs shouldn't decide based on forum votes, it's very small percentage of playerbase that visit and post here rather they should aim on theatre that will drag in and expand existing  playerbase.

Imo estimation on theatre popularity is the smartest move (in perfect world where resources and tech is not the problem).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

But my opinion is what matters the most! 😜

Joke aside from business perspective devs shouldn't decide based on forum votes, it's very small percentage of playerbase that visit and post here rather they should aim on theatre that will drag in and expand existing  playerbase.

Imo estimation on theatre popularity is the smartest move (in perfect world where resources and tech is not the problem).

In recent big games like CoD ww2 people complained that it's Normandy and usa again. I am also really sick of this, there is so much games about exactly the same setting it's not fun anymore. I think Pacific is the best idea if you want to get more people, it has Americans, it has popular and known war but it's also quite rare in computer games so people are not sick of it. Last big game I remember about Pacific war was cod world at war and it was great. 

 

I wish they would make eastern front expansion then pacific then east again and then pacific. Would be nicely balanced. 

 

+game needs some advertisements, they don't make any trailers or cinematics anymore, I never saw any news on gaming websites about this game, they could put Stalingrad in humble bundle monthly or in some bundle pack there too. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to this so my opinion counts for nothing.

 

But there are already three addons dedicated to the Eastern Front and one the Western Front.

 

The obvious extension is the Pacific Theater. Particularly if it includes carrier operations.

 

Heavy bombing of Japan and air support to the various seaborne operations and landings.

 

Mike.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

and everybody has a different opinion.  

Welcome to the internet! 😄

 

 

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dogbert1940 said:

I am new to this so my opinion counts for nothing.

 

You've bought the game, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's on this forum.

 

S! and welcome btw.........

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

You've bought the game, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's on this forum.

 

S! and welcome btw.........

 

Thanks very much, but i know next to nothing about the game.

 

My total flightsim knowlege comes from buying 1946 & CLOD, cheap on Steam in March 2017.

 

Even then once i learned to take off in CLOD, i lost interest with the limited scope of the BoB setting.

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not like East again. 

 

Long shot imaginary scenario for me here: 

 

No more, or one last west European one, post Bodenplate, in example Berlin, adding B17 and some "exotic" planes. (This or extend Bodenplate with more planes to end Europe with a mega extension)

Then move to Pacific to explore at least 2 more BoX, early and late war.

And in years to come coming back to Europe,  closing and starting again the circle, with Battle of Britain (an old CloD passing the torch), maybe with a new game engine/technology to start a new saga.

 

Dream on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you want to talk about it purely from a business perspective, I have had long discussions with another successful wargame developper and he said the setting which sells the most, bar none, is North-West Europe 1944-45. U.S. players, which are still the biggest market, want to play with U.S. forces.

 

So yes, from a purely business perspective, an expansion to Bodenplatte like Berlin or Normandy would make the most sense.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the US players not interested in the Pacific, then Sgt_Joch ?

 

From what was said to you.

 

They made the largest contribution, in that TO.

 

Mike.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

If you want to talk about it purely from a business perspective, I have had long discussions with another successful wargame developper and he said the setting which sells the most, bar none, is North-West Europe 1944-45. U.S. players, which are still the biggest market, want to play with U.S. forces.

 

So yes, from a purely business perspective, an expansion to Bodenplatte like Berlin or Normandy would make the most sense.

 

Pacific would also add a lot, but yes, Bodenplatte is definitely a good business decision.

 

I'd still sell my right arm for BoB in BoX, to be honest, so the sim has those early war gems (Spit I, I want to see what 8 machineguns do in this sim! :P), but let's face it: there are so many places the sim could go in WW2 that would be awesome. Normandy, Pacific (which would be the most significant right now I think), Italy, baltic/Leningrad... it's almost a never ending source of potential Stuff To Do. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dogbert1940 said:

I am new to this so my opinion counts for nothing.

 

But there are already three addons dedicated to the Eastern Front and one the Western Front.

 

The obvious extension is the Pacific Theater. Particularly if it includes carrier operations.

 

Heavy bombing of Japan and air support to the various seaborne operations and landings.

 

Mike.

As previously stated, your opinion counts as much as anyone else's. Welcome aboard. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you Rjel and thanks for the welcome. 👍

 

Can't like your post sorry, i have exceeded my quota again. Same thing happened yesterday 🤣 🤣

Edited by Dogbert1940

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It is the Pacific I am most enthused about seeing. The plane set would not only be great but Carriers would be fantastic. None of the Japanese aircraft are represented in any way right now. This was a significant part of WW2 and can't be overlooked. I think it would be a great draw to a lot more people that are not represented thus far. 

Edited by tkcamp56tkcamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dogbert1940 said:

Are the US players not interested in the Pacific, then Sgt_Joch ?

 

Not as much as NWE 1944-45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×