Jump to content
Novice-Flyer

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

Recommended Posts

Expand or die, hoping the ground war picks up a bit in BOBP, now seems pretty sterile compared to even original Il-2.  I'd like to see fighting positions flinging tracers on sections of the front and things like traffic and troop movements.  BOBP can certainly get away with a lower intensity ground war, but it's unforgivable on the East front, = boring.  It ain't the plane set that keeps me cold, it's the near complete lack of any ground war.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Expand or die, hoping the ground war picks up a bit in BOBP, now seems pretty sterile compared to even original Il-2.  I'd like to see fighting positions flinging tracers on sections of the front and things like traffic and troop movements.  BOBP can certainly get away with a lower intensity ground war, but it's unforgivable on the East front, = boring.  It ain't the plane set that keeps me cold, it's the near complete lack of any ground war.

 

The tracers and artillery fire going on, on the front, already happens in both Career mode and in the Scripted Single player missions by Black Six. There's a lot of it going on along the front.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd disagree, only in tiny choke points where your scripted to fly.  A front is a much larger entity, and mainly empty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

I'd disagree, only in tiny choke points where your scripted to fly.  A front is a much larger entity, and mainly empty. 

 

That isn't going to change no matter what WW2 flight sim you play.  There will probably never be an affordable computer capable of simulating WW2.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

That isn't going to change no matter what WW2 flight sim you play.  There will probably never be an affordable computer capable of simulating WW2.  

 

Not to 100%, but in 1946 it surely feels a lot more lively. In our last SeoW there were ground and naval units fighting and moving all over Italy.

DCS also models a lot more ground assets (or AI in general) at the same place/time without going to it's knees.

The missing ground war is what i miss most in this sim, it was also my answer in the feedback round a while back. Currently we can only model very minor skirmishes (comparable to FPS like Post Scriptum)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the devs one day get to the point where they decide to create a new-improved game engine, I’m sure the issue of unit caps will receive some consideration. 

Share this post


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

 

Not to 100%, but in 1946 it surely feels a lot more lively. In our last SeoW there were ground and naval units fighting and moving all over Italy.

DCS also models a lot more ground assets (or AI in general) at the same place/time without going to it's knees.

The missing ground war is what i miss most in this sim, it was also my answer in the feedback round a while back. Currently we can only model very minor skirmishes (comparable to FPS like Post Scriptum)

 

1946 is obviously much lower fidelity in both detail on the ground units and flight models, and DCS has its own issues with AI planes doing the impossible and ground units with no real brain at all

 

BoX takes the route of putting smaller battles in higher detail, its a trade-off to make the game playable on the average computer, and while obviously I won't speak for everyone, I'm sure there are people who appreciate ground targets abandoning their posts under fire, more complicated vehicle damage models, AI conforming to physics, etc, over sheer quantity of units on screen

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

I'd disagree, only in tiny choke points where your scripted to fly.  A front is a much larger entity, and mainly empty. 

 

It's scripted for these firefights to pop up all along the front as you fly it. They aren't there until you fly it for resource reasons (no doubt) but they do spawn and despawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

1946 is obviously much lower fidelity in both detail on the ground units and flight models, and DCS has its own issues ...

 

 

I actually prefer if flight sims spend far less time and resources developing graphically intricate ground units. I know they make the game look fabulous in trailers and screenshots, but in game it's a bit pointless considering we usually see these things from a long way off and going past at speed. 

 

It is similar to Battlefield games which develop highly realistic soldier models, and you never see more than a blurred movement before you are pulling the trigger and ducking for cover. It is wasted on me, at least.  

 

I'd much rather the resources be spent on developing realistic behaviour, instead of well weathered textures. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pudu said:

 

 

I actually prefer if flight sims spend far less time and resources developing graphically intricate ground units. I know they make the game look fabulous in trailers and screenshots, but in game it's a bit pointless considering we usually see these things from a long way off and going past at speed. 

 

It is similar to Battlefield games which develop highly realistic soldier models, and you never see more than a blurred movement before you are pulling the trigger and ducking for cover. It is wasted on me, at least.  

 

I'd much rather the resources be spent on developing realistic behaviour, instead of well weathered textures. 

So no targets for the ground pounders? Without the ground war there is no air war, especially during the PGW.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

It's Papua - New Guinea 1942-43 or bust!

Seriously though, I feel like advocating this once more...

117720228_PNG-Air-war-1942-43(2).thumb.png.a067bfc8a3b05c887435c267cecc0ef4.png

 

#NewGuineaorbust

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Do I get carriers with New Guinea?

 

Could include if the map has enough eastern space the entire sector of the Coral Sea battle (which is also less problematic to model than Midway has it have less different model of ships going around...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Elem said:

So no targets for the ground pounders? Without the ground war there is no air war, especially during the PGW.

 

 

Ya, have all the targets you want. But even dive bombing to the deck, the level of detail is already beyond anything you can appreciate at the resolutions we play at and the speed everything happens. It has nothing to do with ground vs air. Simply how much effort goes into details that are never really appreciated/needed.

 

Isn't it better to have lots and lots and lots of ground units, that behave realistically, for you to pound than to have every rivet accurately modeled on a couple of tanks?

 

Anyway, that's how I feel.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pudu said:

 

 

I actually prefer if flight sims spend far less time and resources developing graphically intricate ground units. I know they make the game look fabulous in trailers and screenshots, but in game it's a bit pointless considering we usually see these things from a long way off and going past at speed. 

 

It is similar to Battlefield games which develop highly realistic soldier models, and you never see more than a blurred movement before you are pulling the trigger and ducking for cover. It is wasted on me, at least.  

 

I'd much rather the resources be spent on developing realistic behaviour, instead of well weathered textures. 

 

It's not about the graphics, it's about how complex the behaviour is. Compare Falcon BMS' SAM units which will turn off their radars and move to evade SEAD aircraft, versus DCS' very basic missile spitters that just sit there and let you kill them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about paying more coders vs paying more modelers.

 

 

Edit, because LukeFF is confused:

 

The developers don't have unlimited resources - they have to choose priorities. Modern flight sims (and to some extent racing sims) have prioritized graphic improvements over things like AI behaviour - because, I presume,  this is financially the most viable option.  Graphics have improved exponentially over the last 25 years, while AI, campaigns, and numbers of units simply have not - in some case they have regressed. GPUs are more powerful now, but so are CPUs.

 

It's a choice they make because, I guess, they are giving us what most of us want.

Edited by Pudu
edited for clarity
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 4:04 PM, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

People are cranky at TF for being jerks to their customers.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that they're being jerks to the customers. It's just that unlike Jason and the BoX team in which it's their primary job, the people at Team Fusion only work in their spare time. Meaning that whenever you have time to play IL-2, is when the people at Team Fusion have time to work on the game. Many times their job/personal life gets in the way. As a result they can't really say when something will be released, only roughly. For example, the release date of TF 5.0 will be in Q1 or first half of 2019. With BoK, it was stated for many months that it would be released at the end of 2017. But in December 2017 they said it would come out at the end of January, in reality it came out in March 2018. Like TFS, 1CGS hasn't given us a release date for Bodenplatte, or FC. They said in July that Tank Crew's release was more than a year away.

         Something that I appreciate about TFS devs is that they get their heads in the game more than 1CGS, as after the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe aircraft started carrying droppable fuel tanks, this will be implemented into TF 5.0, yet after 4 years that hasn't been implemented into IL-2 GB. For TF 5.0 there will be a great number of ships that I wouldn't have guessed would be added. Here's the link https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/41543-tfs-developer-update-–-novdec-2018/

 

        I feel that if 1CGS did the Battle of Britain now, it wouldn't be very good as lots of airplanes (more than 10) would have to be made, and the majority of these planes were only used in the BoB and mainly retired after. For the Mediterranean and D-Day, that would require lots of ships and aircraft. The original CloD by 1C Maddox consisted of people from Russia, and after the original game was released as a failure, they decided to do Moscow. The people at TFS are mainly from Britain, so getting their hands on British planes would be much easier than Russian planes yet to be added in BoX. I feel that unless Jason and his team get more members, a Battle of Britain, Med, and D-Day in IL-2 GB would be a "get what you want, but not what you need."

 

I feel that all of this bickering about Cliffs of Dover needs to stop until TF 5.0 and/or VR is released...

 

Something in life that I feel needs and or get redone to end is the show, The Walking Dead. 

Season 1-3: Great

Season 4: Worst Season. Needs to get redone

Season 5: Good

Season 6: Okay

Season 7+: Bad. Need to be redone.

Without Rick and Carl on the show anymore, there's no use continuing the show. I don't understand why they want to continue show anyway, the viewers have dropped significantly from 12+ million to 5 million.

 

     Thank you very much for reading what I have written you Smokejumper. Safe travels and flights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

For example, the release date of TF 5.0 will be in Q1 or first half of 2019.

Source for this information? I so wish this to be true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

Source for this information? I so wish this to be true!

 

Off the top of Novice-Flyer's head as usual. 

 

I particularly like this bit  " The people at TFS are mainly from Britain," Lol.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Guinea is a BLAST to fly over and operate in. I've spent a few hundred hours there (in P3D/ORBX), learning bush piloting the hard way.

Them mountains are really high, the jungles are deep, the weather is scary...and those dirt strips man...so not for children.

Yup, New Guinea is as macho as it gets. Would be the awesomest map ever if implemented for IL-2.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I particularly like this bit  " The people at TFS are mainly from Britain," Lol.

That must mean quality!

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 5:19 PM, Novice-Flyer said:

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that they're being jerks to the customers. It's just that unlike Jason and the BoX team in which it's their primary job, the people at Team Fusion only work in their spare time. Meaning that whenever you have time to play IL-2, is when the people at Team Fusion have time to work on the game. Many times their job/personal life gets in the way. As a result they can't really say when something will be released, only roughly. For example, the release date of TF 5.0 will be in Q1 or first half of 2019. With BoK, it was stated for many months that it would be released at the end of 2017. But in December 2017 they said it would come out at the end of January, in reality it came out in March 2018. Like TFS, 1CGS hasn't given us a release date for Bodenplatte, or FC. They said in July that Tank Crew's release was more than a year away.

         Something that I appreciate about TFS devs is that they get their heads in the game more than 1CGS, as after the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe aircraft started carrying droppable fuel tanks, this will be implemented into TF 5.0, yet after 4 years that hasn't been implemented into IL-2 GB. For TF 5.0 there will be a great number of ships that I wouldn't have guessed would be added. Here's the link https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/41543-tfs-developer-update-–-novdec-2018/

 

        I feel that if 1CGS did the Battle of Britain now, it wouldn't be very good as lots of airplanes (more than 10) would have to be made, and the majority of these planes were only used in the BoB and mainly retired after. For the Mediterranean and D-Day, that would require lots of ships and aircraft. The original CloD by 1C Maddox consisted of people from Russia, and after the original game was released as a failure, they decided to do Moscow. The people at TFS are mainly from Britain, so getting their hands on British planes would be much easier than Russian planes yet to be added in BoX. I feel that unless Jason and his team get more members, a Battle of Britain, Med, and D-Day in IL-2 GB would be a "get what you want, but not what you need."

 

I feel that all of this bickering about Cliffs of Dover needs to stop until TF 5.0 and/or VR is released...

 

Something in life that I feel needs and or get redone to end is the show, The Walking Dead. 

Season 1-3: Great

Season 4: Worst Season. Needs to get redone

Season 5: Good

Season 6: Okay

Season 7+: Bad. Need to be redone.

Without Rick and Carl on the show anymore, there's no use continuing the show. I don't understand why they want to continue show anyway, the viewers have dropped significantly from 12+ million to 5 million.

 

     Thank you very much for reading what I have written you Smokejumper. Safe travels and flights.

 

 

 

Where are you getting your info from? TF lead is in Canada....... Dudes are from around the globe. I beta tested last patch and put on a live stream. I've played with many TF members in ATAG. I loved ATAG server. Best time I've had dogfighting. The community in TeamSpeak was fantastic. I miss it.....

 

The sim community is tight and feuds run long and deep. Keeping out of one feud is how I got a beta test spot. There have been heated discussions over the years and it turned people off. Even I was upset at one of the last ones and I stopped playing. I have been a long term fanboi of Cliffs. I hope it will pass but people have long memories in simming. TF is going to have to deliver something special to turn the game around which I hope they do. I really like the FM in Cliffs.

 

I do have high hopes and wish them luck.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That talk about the Korean theater a few pages back made me realize how interesting a Chinese Civil War addition to BoX would be. Especially if it came after PTO. Both sides used an interesting mixture of American and Japanese aircraft, and most of the former are already set to be included in Bodenplatte. You could even include the 14th Air Force during Operation Beleaguer if you wanted to have US forces present in some shape or form.

Edited by Weegas
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 5:56 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Sure I can. Just because you didn't like 1C's implementation of them doesn't mean they weren't "covered." I didn't like a lot of things as well about Pacific Fighters and the few Western Front maps added, but that doesn't meant they suddenly don't exist and that - as you like to remind us every couple of months - that IL2 has "been stuck in the Eastern Front attacking the same truck convoy repeatedly" since the early 2000s. It just also goes to show you haven't been looking at any of the content released - both third-party and official - for BOS. It's a damn sight more than your crazy argument that the game has been nothing but a vehicle convoy attack simulator ever since it was first conceived.

You are arguing an indefensible position, you are clearly Eastern front biased. If the inverse were true, and the original IL-2 and this latest iteration covered the PTO and CBI since 2001 and threw in a map of Kursk ,minus the IL-2, and  Yak ( copyright issues -excluded from the plane-set ) you would be singing a different tune. The Eastern Front  air war were a series of small engagements flown at low altitude and short range, this cannot be disputed. The four main fighters 109,190, Yak and La-5 never significantly change, they were slow,short ranged, altitude challenged ( 190,Yak and La-5)  and under-armed with the exception of the 190. The Ju-87  and the Bf-110 ( a fighter that needed a fighter escort) were obsolete by the battle of Britain. The IL-2 was one of the worst aerodynamically engineered aircraft , exponentially so when they added the rear gunner.  Look at the number lost vs. sortie flown- , astronomical.Someone should have explained to the designers, the most valuable asset an aircraft carries is its crew . Time to move on to a much more interesting plane set with a  more diverse mission option.-PTO.

Because my preference is different than your bias you would be foolish to assume  I have not reviewed the content BOS has provided. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Frequent_Flyer said:

You are arguing an indefensible position, you are clearly Eastern front biased. If the inverse were true, and the original IL-2 and this latest iteration covered the PTO and CBI since 2001 and threw in a map of Kursk ,minus the IL-2, and  Yak ( copyright issues -excluded from the plane-set ) you would be singing a different tune. The Eastern Front  air war were a series of small engagements flown at low altitude and short range, this cannot be disputed. The four main fighters 109,190, Yak and La-5 never significantly change, they were slow,short ranged, altitude challenged ( 190,Yak and La-5)  and under-armed with the exception of the 190. The Ju-87  and the Bf-110 ( a fighter that needed a fighter escort) were obsolete by the battle of Britain. The IL-2 was one of the worst aerodynamically engineered aircraft , exponentially so when they added the rear gunner.  Look at the number lost vs. sortie flown- , astronomical.Someone should have explained to the designers, the most valuable asset an aircraft carries is its crew . Time to move on to a much more interesting plane set with a  more diverse mission option.-PTO.

Because my preference is different than your bias you would be foolish to assume  I have not reviewed the content BOS has provided. 

 

Frequent, please stop showing us your ignorance of history and run along and learn a little about the Eastern Front part of WW2 before you insult more the memories of the 10's of millions of people who were sacrificed there.  Also, Soviet aircraft were the equal of anything the West could develop as shown in Korea with the more recent opened up documentation on that war showing that the "UN" forces suffered huge losses in aviation at the hands of Soviet pilots which were until recently hidden from public view in the West.

 

The Western, Mediterranean and Pacific theaters of WW2 also had their share of interesting aircraft.  To slag off on the Eastern Front though given that most combat sim development from 00's onwards has been be the descendants of that conflict.....  Well, let piss on their ancestors and bite the hand that feeds what we do here.  Care to name a recent Western developer of military aviation simulations for the public?  What?  Crickets??

 

There is no way I would be inclined to go back to the heady days of the 90's to enjoy those old time programs as they just lack the fidelity and aesthetics/immersion that the current Il2 BoX series gives us.  Yes one can even go for 1946 original Il2 series but the sim does not hold a candle to the BoX series.  For those who are impatient for Western Biased Sims or Nostalgic for the older stuff - float your boat and take off and enjoy the alternatives and previous generations of Simulation software out there.  It's a relatively free world out there.

 

If not, be patient, work with the developers without insulting their history and I am sure they will deliver modern Western Plane Sets in today's BoX Simulation fidelity.

 

As for the original Il2 series - well, it got me to have a deep look at that part of the world and I feel I am a richer person for it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 People often regard IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles as the best IL-2 game. I understand this as the crashes, damage models and flight dynamics are incredibly realistic. However, as a long time user of IL-2 1946, I have noticed that there are some serious errors in this game. To begin with, whenever a plane crash lands, the pilot is unable to escape. Pressing Ctrl+E will jettison the canopy, but the pilot will remain in the plane. This is especially annoying when the plane is on fire or in the water and the pilot burns/drowns because he can't escape.

         Other errors are that whenever a pilot parachutes into the water, he sinks like a stone and dies! This never happens in 1946 or CLoD!! Being a real world pilot, whenever you fly a plane over a large body of water, you must carry a life preserver. That was probably the same back in WW2; there really is no bombsight. Sure, pressing V will display a bombsight, but that is a default bombsight, rather than the realistic one for the type of aircraft that is in IL-2 1946 and Cliffs of Dover.

         Radio Comms, Radio Commands to wingmen, etc.

         This game may be the 3rd Generation of IL-2, but it's certainly not the best. I feel that some of these errors were alright when there was just BOS and BOM, but after the release of BOK, and the early access of Bodenplatte, these errors are starting to become unacceptable.

 

       I feel that if the Pacific Theater isn't given the go-ahead this year, then I think Jason and his team should mainly spend their time on Tank Crew and fixing these errors mentioned above, as well as adding a few Collector planes. Some examples are: Fw-189, Pe-3, Li-2/C-47, Mosquito, Arado 234, etc.

       

 

Share this post


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

Frequent, please stop showing us your ignorance of history and run along and learn a little about the Eastern Front part of WW2 before you insult more the memories of the 10's of millions of people who were sacrificed there.  Also, Soviet aircraft were the equal of anything the West could develop as shown in Korea with the more recent opened up documentation on that war showing that the "UN" forces suffered huge losses in aviation at the hands of Soviet pilots which were until recently hidden from public view in the West.

 

The Western, Mediterranean and Pacific theaters of WW2 also had their share of interesting aircraft.  To slag off on the Eastern Front though given that most combat sim development from 00's onwards has been be the descendants of that conflict.....  Well, let piss on their ancestors and bite the hand that feeds what we do here.  Care to name a recent Western developer of military aviation simulations for the public?  What?  Crickets??

 

There is no way I would be inclined to go back to the heady days of the 90's to enjoy those old time programs as they just lack the fidelity and aesthetics/immersion that the current Il2 BoX series gives us.  Yes one can even go for 1946 original Il2 series but the sim does not hold a candle to the BoX series.  For those who are impatient for Western Biased Sims or Nostalgic for the older stuff - float your boat and take off and enjoy the alternatives and previous generations of Simulation software out there.  It's a relatively free world out there.

 

If not, be patient, work with the developers without insulting their history and I am sure they will deliver modern Western Plane Sets in today's BoX Simulation fidelity.

 

As for the original Il2 series - well, it got me to have a deep look at that part of the world and I feel I am a richer person for it.

I can only assume English is not your first language and listening and comprehension are a skill ,please remember this when replying. You clearly have a minimal if any knowledge of WW II air combat. Additionally, it is a tired and lazy response to quote the number of Russian lives lost inn WW II. Please keep in mind the "object of war is make the other poor bastard die for his country ". The least amount of loss of treasure and blood should be the end game.

Share this post


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

You are arguing an indefensible position, you are clearly Eastern front biased.

 

 

This comment betrays a hilarious lack of self-awareness.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I love the eastern front, and find its air theatre absolutely interesting and full of great set pieces (Stalingrad, Kuban, Kursk, Leningrad, to name a few), and would definitely be on board for a late war scenario (Yak-3s! La-7s!), I am happy with the switch to the west, and would love to see the pacific.

 

That said, if the Pacific is not an option, one thing I would love to see is something to try and simulate the strategic air war on the western front. I don't know how it could be done, but it certainly be great if mission designers at least found a way to recreate it in some way, and give us all an incentive to take the fight to high altitude (maybe AI B-25s will do the trick, giving them air starts and so on... who knows?)

Share this post


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

 

That said, if the Pacific is not an option, one thing I would love to see is something to try and simulate the strategic air war on the western front. I don't know how it could be done, but it certainly be great if mission designers at least found a way to recreate it in some way, and give us all an incentive to take the fight to high altitude (maybe AI B-25s will do the trick, giving them air starts and so on... who knows?)

 

The problem isn't mission design related.  The problem is that this game engine can't handle that much AI.

Share this post


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

 

This comment betrays a hilarious lack of self-awareness.

It is a admirable quality to be able to laugh at yourself, please keep it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Frequent_Flyer said:

I have not reviewed the content BOS has provided. 

 

🤣

 

Well, then I rest my case. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

I can only assume English is not your first language and listening and comprehension are a skill ,please remember this when replying. You clearly have a minimal if any knowledge of WW II air combat. Additionally, it is a tired and lazy response to quote the number of Russian lives lost inn WW II. Please keep in mind the "object of war is make the other poor bastard die for his country ". The least amount of loss of treasure and blood should be the end game.

Actually English is my mother tongue but maybe it is not the form of English that you are used too as it is spoken in other parts of the world other than the USA. 

 

Your summary of what war is about is quite on point and it seems in the last Century, the USA has practiced it for most of that century quite well and the early part of this Century.  Why is this?

As for the actual fighting side of it, well the Eastern Front was the most brutal in the European Theater and the second to that would probably be the Japanese occupation of China.  BTW who faced down the million man Japanese Army in Manchuria?

 

Your ideas on actual air combat would be lovely to hear one day.  Maybe you could school the rest of us as we seem to be so non understanding of the topic compared to your excellent self.  I do like the old P51, F4U, P40 and Brewster Buffalo which the Finns put to good effect against the VVS.

 

Again, keep pissing on the developers and their history. 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dev team is Russian.  At some point they’re going to produce a module with the late war VVS aircraft.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The dev team is Russian.  At some point they’re going to produce a module with the late war VVS aircraft.  

 

Fingers crossed and that better be two. 1943/44 and 1944/45 is sorely lacking EF-content. I hope their market data on this would make sense and let them prosper.

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

 People often regard IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles as the best IL-2 game. I understand this as the crashes, damage models and flight dynamics are incredibly realistic. However, as a long time user of IL-2 1946, I have noticed that there are some serious errors in this game. To begin with, whenever a plane crash lands, the pilot is unable to escape. Pressing Ctrl+E will jettison the canopy, but the pilot will remain in the plane. This is especially annoying when the plane is on fire or in the water and the pilot burns/drowns because he can't escape.

         Other errors are that whenever a pilot parachutes into the water, he sinks like a stone and dies! This never happens in 1946 or CLoD!! Being a real world pilot, whenever you fly a plane over a large body of water, you must carry a life preserver. That was probably the same back in WW2; there really is no bombsight. Sure, pressing V will display a bombsight, but that is a default bombsight, rather than the realistic one for the type of aircraft that is in IL-2 1946 and Cliffs of Dover.

         Radio Comms, Radio Commands to wingmen, etc.

         This game may be the 3rd Generation of IL-2, but it's certainly not the best. I feel that some of these errors were alright when there was just BOS and BOM, but after the release of BOK, and the early access of Bodenplatte, these errors are starting to become unacceptable.

 

       I feel that if the Pacific Theater isn't given the go-ahead this year, then I think Jason and his team should mainly spend their time on Tank Crew and fixing these errors mentioned above, as well as adding a few Collector planes. Some examples are: Fw-189, Pe-3, Li-2/C-47, Mosquito, Arado 234, etc.

       

 

Rome was not built in a day, give them time!

Between updates we easily forget how much game improved over the last year and a half.

Remember "month of suprises" and improvements in last few updates, it is going forward and they are addressing issues (even slowly).

I just hope BoBp will pour money in so they can expand team so other projects won't slow down ww2 content.

Edited by EAF_Ribbon
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 11:31 PM, Pudu said:

 

 

Ya, have all the targets you want. But even dive bombing to the deck, the level of detail is already beyond anything you can appreciate at the resolutions we play at and the speed everything happens. It has nothing to do with ground vs air. Simply how much effort goes into details that are never really appreciated/needed.

 

Isn't it better to have lots and lots and lots of ground units, that behave realistically, for you to pound than to have every rivet accurately modeled on a couple of tanks?

 

Anyway, that's how I feel.

I`d rather have a realistically modeled ground target than a set of boxes running about a war map, yes. I`ve done countless bomb strikes on crossing rivers, supporting ground troops and stopping tank attacks in IL2:1946. When the game had its time, tank battles were nowhere near realistic and you had to put a 250kg bomb directly on the enemy tank to disable it, same with most of the armored ground targets. Tank groups reached their waypoints and fought in front of each other at distances up to 50m. It would have been nice if disabling an enemy convoy required something less than a 250kg direct hit, and maybe if an armored vehicle could be rendered unoperational by lesser damage. That is a significant part of tactival ground combat. BoX does that and has ongoing development.

4 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

Though I love the eastern front, and find its air theatre absolutely interesting and full of great set pieces (Stalingrad, Kuban, Kursk, Leningrad, to name a few), and would definitely be on board for a late war scenario (Yak-3s! La-7s!), I am happy with the switch to the west, and would love to see the pacific.

 

That said, if the Pacific is not an option, one thing I would love to see is something to try and simulate the strategic air war on the western front. I don't know how it could be done, but it certainly be great if mission designers at least found a way to recreate it in some way, and give us all an incentive to take the fight to high altitude (maybe AI B-25s will do the trick, giving them air starts and so on... who knows?)

I fully accept your wish and I like bomber raids too. However, BoX is a tactical combat flight sim and the West also provides numerous tactical engagements.

 

Early P47/P51/P38 rock my boat, so maybe Italy/Africa someday?

4 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

 People often regard IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles as the best IL-2 game. I understand this as the crashes, damage models and flight dynamics are incredibly realistic. However, as a long time user of IL-2 1946, I have noticed that there are some serious errors in this game. To begin with, whenever a plane crash lands, the pilot is unable to escape. Pressing Ctrl+E will jettison the canopy, but the pilot will remain in the plane. This is especially annoying when the plane is on fire or in the water and the pilot burns/drowns because he can't escape.

         Other errors are that whenever a pilot parachutes into the water, he sinks like a stone and dies! This never happens in 1946 or CLoD!! Being a real world pilot, whenever you fly a plane over a large body of water, you must carry a life preserver. That was probably the same back in WW2; there really is no bombsight. Sure, pressing V will display a bombsight, but that is a default bombsight, rather than the realistic one for the type of aircraft that is in IL-2 1946 and Cliffs of Dover.

         Radio Comms, Radio Commands to wingmen, etc.

         This game may be the 3rd Generation of IL-2, but it's certainly not the best. I feel that some of these errors were alright when there was just BOS and BOM, but after the release of BOK, and the early access of Bodenplatte, these errors are starting to become unacceptable.

 

AFAIK in 3 years the IL2 franchise is going to be 20 years old. 20 years! How much of that BoX has? And I`ve seen it all grow from 2002 to this day.

 

For about 5 years I endured the feature in 1946 that when you bail and by some chance hit a tree, your chute folds and pilot dies from 15 feet fall. Not really an "unnacceptable" feature in a sim that had given a real dynamic online war to thousands of other simmers. Because it`s just not that simple. You make the best of what you can with what you have and hope for the best. And given what 777/1CGS has - not a 300 milion dollar budget - they keep dishing out damn good combat flight sims. I do enjoy them even offline, because online there is no lobby system for BoX and not enought western players still. CloD is nowhere near a finished product, so again I play it during parts where it has well made mechanics and I can enjoy it.

 

Rest some years and there will be no such games in the future because nobody cares about history anymore.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

×