Jump to content
Novice-Flyer

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

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

 

The battle of midway lasted more than one day technically, but I do agree that Midway expansion should have multiple maps for playability.

I can't imagine that this hasn't already been decided by Jason. If and when we go Pacific, I'm sure we'll go big. 

Share this post


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

I can't imagine that this hasn't already been decided by Jason. If and when we go Pacific, I'm sure we'll go big. 

 

It sure has. All IL2:GB Modules released so far last aprox. 6 months. It is highly unlikely that, if we go Pacific, we´ll see something significantly shorter. So, basically for Pacific, a map is needed that allows the simulation of roughly 6 months of conflict. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

i hope they go like this:

 

Battle of Midway

Battle of Anzio

Battle of Seelow

Battle of Korea

 

 

Well then I think you should prepare to be disappointed my friend.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Not to me. CoD is old, has no VR and they won't get any of my money

Okay, seriously? That is completely absurd! Do you not see the updates that Team Fusion provides for the upcoming patches Fenris Wolf? It's on this forum for Pete sake! All you got to do is scroll down till you reach the CoD section.

When IL-2 FB came out, it was met with positive reviews, and then that feeling went to IL-2 1946 and was met the same results. When CoD was announced it was anticipated as being the best game in the IL-2 series, as well as Oleg Maddox's masterpiece, this was not to be. When it came out there were many issues and bugs, then a year later in 2012 the team pulled away from the project and signed an agreement with 777 Studios. This was the birth of IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad.

 

Based on your post, I doubt you know that:

Team Fusion and 1C signed an agreement in 2016 and that went to re-releasing the game as IL-2 Cliffs of Dover Blitz last December

They are now planning TF 5.0 which will release Tobruk, many aircraft like the P-40, Wellington, Dewoitine D.520, He-111 H-6 (were you can carry torpedoes), F4F, Macchi 202, Bf 109F, etc., will fix many bugs still in the game, and many other game improvements.

6 months after TF 5.0 release, VR will be implemented into the game. I'd say mid 2019.

In the future TF 6.0, there will be aircraft carriers like the Illustrious class, probably you can fly the Walrus seaplane off allied ships, will most likely cover the Siege of Malta.

Will probably have more aircraft than in IL-2 Great Battles.

This game has clickable cockpits. Something that Jason also wants to implement into IL-2 GB.

 

I see Cliffs of Dover covering after Tobruk, Malta, Operation Torch, Sicily, and D-Day, maybe much more. Fenris Wolf, I believe that you are one of those people who just dismisses IL-2 1946 and CoD just because they're old, and I think that is totally wrong. To be fair, Cliffs of Dover is a relatively new game since the release of the Blitz edition (TF 4.5).

 

To see the updates of CoD here are the instructions: Go on IL-2 Sturmovik Forum> scroll down or click on Cliffs of Dover> click updates> See the game updates that Team Fusion has provided us since July.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Okay, seriously? That is completely absurd! Do you not see the updates that Team Fusion provides for the upcoming patches Fenris Wolf? It's on this forum for Pete sake! All you got to do is scroll down till you reach the CoD section.

When IL-2 FB came out, it was met with positive reviews, and then that feeling went to IL-2 1946 and was met the same results. When CoD was announced it was anticipated as being the best game in the IL-2 series, as well as Oleg Maddox's masterpiece, this was not to be. When it came out there were many issues and bugs, then a year later in 2012 the team pulled away from the project and signed an agreement with 777 Studios. This was the birth of IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad.

 

Based on your post, I doubt you know that:

Team Fusion and 1C signed an agreement in 2016 and that went to re-releasing the game as IL-2 Cliffs of Dover Blitz last December

They are now planning TF 5.0 which will release Tobruk, many aircraft like the P-40, Wellington, Dewoitine D.520, He-111 H-6 (were you can carry torpedoes), F4F, Macchi 202, Bf 109F, etc., will fix many bugs still in the game, and many other game improvements.

6 months after TF 5.0 release, VR will be implemented into the game. I'd say mid 2019.

In the future TF 6.0, there will be aircraft carriers like the Illustrious class, probably you can fly the Walrus seaplane off allied ships, will most likely cover the Siege of Malta.

Will probably have more aircraft than in IL-2 Great Battles.

This game has clickable cockpits. Something that Jason also wants to implement into IL-2 GB.

 

I see Cliffs of Dover covering after Tobruk, Malta, Operation Torch, Sicily, and D-Day, maybe much more. Fenris Wolf, I believe that you are one of those people who just dismisses IL-2 1946 and CoD just because they're old, and I think that is totally wrong. To be fair, Cliffs of Dover is a relatively new game since the release of the Blitz edition (TF 4.5).

 

To see the updates of CoD here are the instructions: Go on IL-2 Sturmovik Forum> scroll down or click on Cliffs of Dover> click updates> See the game updates that Team Fusion has provided us since July.

 

Honestly I hope they just take over Clod and redo it in BoX, Clod in it's current state is practically unplayable for me and many others. It's gotten to the point where I dont even bother trying to play it, it's not worth the effort imo.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like Clod and there are things in Clod that I'd like to see implemented in BoX someday, but overall I really just want CloD to end so we can see BoB and the like in BoX.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normandy will work out a LOT cheaper than DCS, and although there is some competition between the 2 sims I am not sure it would affect sales that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

but overall I really just want CloD to end so we can see BoB and the like in BoX.

Agreed.  I really don't want to have to have second game installed just to fly WW2 planes in a different theater.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Well then I think you should prepare to be disappointed my friend.

 

as long as next dlc is something in pacific ill servive :)  do you hope we will stay longer in pto?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m hoping for at least 2 PTO releases.

I want 3, but that might be unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DD_Crash said:

Normandy will work out a LOT cheaper than DCS, and although there is some competition between the 2 sims I am not sure it would affect sales that much.

 

It sure will and (IMHO) it will work out way better than DCS, because a Great Battles version has incredible single player replayability value and flying the planes is way more accessible to a broader audience. I guess there are several other advantages I forgot to mention. Bottomline is both sims can coexist pretty well, because they have different target groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Okay, seriously? That is completely absurd! Do you not... [...] a pretty excited super long post by a fan of CloD that completely ignores my opinion, yet quotes it

As one of my requirements for CloD, I mentioned VR. I'm glad for you that you enjoy CloD that much, but as I said, without VR there's no interest here. Zero, null, nada. 

I do possess a copy, it was gifted to me, and I am sure there are enough people at all times to play it online in a stable fashion. Oh wait, maybe not the latter.

 

Anyway, my coins would be all in for a relaunch of BoB/CloD within IL 2 GB. I'd purchase its premium instantly. 

 

And: Pacific 👍

Edited by SCG_Fenris_Wolf
btw, on these forums it isn't possible to delete emojis in mobile browser
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be a sour puss but CloD needs in my eyes, to migrate their efforts into the BoX engine before I pay them any attention.  Coming from 1C Il2 original series, I bought into the prospect of CloD and was sorely disappointed.  I know there has been a dedicated effort to remedy the problems CloD had but, to little too late.  With 1C/777 collaboration, Team Fusion would benefit from migrating to a platform which works.  

 

Less issues for them and for us.  I know the Il2 BoX series had a very shaky start as well but with the injection of tech from 777 (which was highly controversial at the time) and stewardship from Jason, it has taken off.  There are still some limiting factors holding it back on modern hardware like Physics and AI modelling on multiple cores and I would love to see them migrate to Vulcan and away from Direct X11 for their 3D engine but.  It is a huge improvement on anything previously and the Career is a hoot.

 

Now, to the Pacific, we forget there was a lot of island hopping by both sides.  Not just Carrier based combat.  Finding time frames that incorporate both elements within relative distance proximity to each other would help mitigate the Barren Blue Sea issue.  I would hope anyway ))  Being a passenger on regular occasions flying over the Pacific though, I never get bored looking out the window even though it might be miles of water below.  The clouds and storms are awesome.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

It sure has. All IL2:GB Modules released so far last aprox. 6 months. It is highly unlikely that, if we go Pacific, we´ll see something significantly shorter. So, basically for Pacific, a map is needed that allows the simulation of roughly 6 months of conflict. 

 

 

The maps are mostly water.  Compared to the terrain modeling that was done on (for instance) Kuban...

 

You could do Midway, Coral Sea, and Guadalcanal.  Hell, maybe even the Aleutians.  They don't have to release just one map.

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, blitze said:

Now, to the Pacific, we forget there was a lot of island hopping by both sides. 

 

There was no island hopping as such deployed by the Japanese against the Allies in WWII.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

 

The maps are mostly water.  Compared to the terrain modeling that was done on (for instance) Kuban...

 

You could do Midway, Coral Sea, and Guadalcanal.  Hell, maybe even the Aleutians.  They don't have to release just one map.

 

Well for me personally the more the merrier. I like going over several maps. However I admit I have no clue with which effort creating a career over several maps will be associated, and if this effort will be commercially viable. So I think we have to rely on their best judgement. And that they know what they do, I think, they have already prooven that, at least to me.

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Japanese did not take and occupy, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia (aka Dutch East Indies), Papua New Guinea, The Solomon s and other land masses of the Pacific that included island chains??

Share this post


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

So the Japanese did not take and occupy, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia (aka Dutch East Indies), Papua New Guinea, The Solomon s and other land masses of the Pacific that included island chains??

 

That's not island hopping.

Island hopping refers to a specific strategy and course of events during the way...look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so it was the Yanks who had the joy of island hopping, kicking the Japanese out.  There was hopping to be had at least on one side of the equation and the subsequent required air cover for such and island airstrips.  Not just boring blue ocean and carriers which was what I was pertaining to in my earlier post.

Share this post


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

 Not just boring blue ocean and carriers which was what I was pertaining to in my earlier post.

 

Yeah, and to your point much flying and fighting around islands/land masses regardless of who was doing the advancing/hopping. :)

Solomons is the best example of this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 5:29 PM, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

without VR there's no interest here

Hello Fenris [edited]

You should rephrase that to VR not being here... yet because it will take time to implement into the game. A survey was done to see if people wanted TF 5.0 to be delayed by 6 months so that VR would be implemented into it, most replied that VR should come after TF 5.0 is released.

 

Was VR planned to be released for IL-2 GB? Yes. Was it released? Yes.

Is VR planned to be released for CoD? Yes. Will it be released? Yes.

 

This game is mainly new Snoopy, less than a year old, like a child, or a "puppy". Criticizing it like that is like criticizing IL-2 BOS back in 2015.

 

On 10/11/2018 at 5:29 PM, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Anyway, my coins would be all in for a relaunch of BoB/CloD within IL 2 GB

MESSAGE FOR EVERYONE. PLEASE READ!

 

Cliffs of Dover runs on the game engine made by 1C Maddox back in 2011. Has the 1C Source code. Is the second generation of the IL-2 series.

IL-2 Great Battles runs on the game engine made by 777 Studios. Is the third generation of the IL-2 series.

 

These are two different engines and combining both games into one game would be virtually impossible.

 

I see your points guys that to fly in the Battle of Britain and the Mediterranean you have to have Cliffs. To fly on the Eastern Front and the PTO you have to have IL-2 GB. But just because you have to run 2 games on your PCs isn't much of an issue. I have Rise of Flight, IL-2 1946, CoD, and GB all on my PC and that doesn't cause any issues. There would be nothing wrong with having the 2 games on your PC. They are games that one would spend money on.

 

Yes 1CGS is helping them, but it doesn't mean that Cliffs is now part of IL-2 GB. Because of that more aircraft will be included in patches, tree collisions and Direct X were added, etc.

 

Jason stated in late 2016 that if GB did the Battle of Britain then there would lots of flak, he knows a lot about the Eastern Front and Pacific of WW2, but not mainly the Med. The MTO hasn't mainly been covered in an IL-2 game, so Cliffs is covering it because the RAF Spitfire and Hurricane (and many others) fought in the Med after the Battle of Britain. 

 

The earlier IL-2 games: 2001, FB/Ace, Pacific Fighters were all merged into IL-2 1946, but that was because they ran on the same game engine. CoD and GB do not run on the same engine, therefore.

 

IL-2 CLIFFS OF DOVER AND IL-2 GREAT BATTLES WILL NOT MERGE INTO ONE! FINAL ANSWER!

Edited by SYN_Haashashin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of interesting and interlocking stuff between a mid-war western front and the USAAF-campaigns in the PTO/CBI. Airplane-wise, you can't go wrong here (on the US side, that is).

 

As @sevenless already pointed out, a 42-44WF expansion pack (Channel or Normandy Map) would bring us lots of interesting stuff that could be used elsewhere, too.

A cleverly chosen planeset could do a lot of good - no matter which front. Maybe releasing airplane-packs could be a way to go.

 

Talking about the USAAF:

P-38F...H and J (at least one early model with those sexy, smaller chin-inlets)

P-39D and Q

P-40 at least one Tomahawk and two more Kittyhawks (a Merlin version and a late Allison version)

P-47D Razorback (maybe even two: an early Block and a late Block)

P-51, A (or a Mustang I or II), B/C

 

=> Tomahawk, P-39D and P-38F for a "1941" pack

=> Kittyhawk (Merlin), Mustang I/II (P-51A) for a "1942" pack

=> P-38J, Kittyhawk (late Allison), P-47D (early Razorback) for a "1943" pack

=> P-39Q, P-47D (late Razorback) and P-51B/C for a "1944" pack

 

Share this post


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

Hello Fenris or Snoopy.

You should rephrase that to VR not being here... yet because it will take time to implement into the game. A survey was done to see if people wanted TF 5.0 to be delayed by 6 months so that VR would be implemented into it, most replied that VR should come after TF 5.0 is released.

 

Was VR planned to be released for IL-2 GB? Yes. Was it released? Yes.

Is VR planned to be released for CoD? Yes. Will it be released? Yes.

 

This game is mainly new Snoopy, less than a year old, like a child, or a "puppy". Criticizing it like that is like criticizing IL-2 BOS back in 2015.

 

MESSAGE FOR EVERYONE. PLEASE READ!

 

Cliffs of Dover runs on the game engine made by 1C Maddox back in 2011. Has the 1C Source code. Is the second generation of the IL-2 series.

IL-2 Great Battles runs on the game engine made by 777 Studios. Is the third generation of the IL-2 series.

 

These are two different engines and combining both games into one game would be virtually impossible.

 

I see your points guys that to fly in the Battle of Britain and the Mediterranean you have to have Cliffs. To fly on the Eastern Front and the PTO you have to have IL-2 GB. But just because you have to run 2 games on your PCs isn't much of an issue. I have Rise of Flight, IL-2 1946, CoD, and GB all on my PC and that doesn't cause any issues. There would be nothing wrong with having the 2 games on your PC. They are games that one would spend money on.

 

Yes 1CGS is helping them, but it doesn't mean that Cliffs is now part of IL-2 GB. Because of that more aircraft will be included in patches, tree collisions and Direct X were added, etc.

 

Jason stated in late 2016 that if GB did the Battle of Britain then there would lots of flak, he knows a lot about the Eastern Front and Pacific of WW2, but not mainly the Med. The MTO hasn't mainly been covered in an IL-2 game, so Cliffs is covering it because the RAF Spitfire and Hurricane (and many others) fought in the Med after the Battle of Britain. 

 

The earlier IL-2 games: 2001, FB/Ace, Pacific Fighters were all merged into IL-2 1946, but that was because they ran on the same game engine. CoD and GB do not run on the same engine, therefore.

 

IL-2 CLIFFS OF DOVER AND IL-2 GREAT BATTLES WILL NOT MERGE INTO ONE! FINAL ANSWER!

 

I feel like you missed fenris's point, he never said there will be no VR, hes just stating that since there's no VR currently, he will not play!

 

You also missed his point about a relaunch,  he never said to combine the two games. He ment to scrap the whole project, and to redo the BOB theatre in the GB series of the current and modern il2 series. Graphically il2 CLOD still is way behind the new IL2 series. And to also add,  CLOD has an almost dead community. Whenever I'm on CLOD the most people I see in the main server are 10-20 people, I dunno, just feel like it would be better to just be remade completely. Obviously it wouldn't be anywhere in the near future due to Jason and his team already looking at other theatres 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

Lots of interesting and interlocking stuff between a mid-war western front and the USAAF-campaigns in the PTO/CBI. Airplane-wise, you can't go wrong here (on the US side, that is).

 

As @sevenless already pointed out, a 42-44WF expansion pack (Channel or Normandy Map) would bring us lots of interesting stuff that could be used elsewhere, too.

A cleverly chosen planeset could do a lot of good - no matter which front. Maybe releasing airplane-packs could be a way to go.

 

Talking about the USAAF:

P-38F...H and J (at least one early model with those sexy, smaller chin-inlets)

P-39D and Q

P-40 at least one Tomahawk and two more Kittyhawks (a Merlin version and a late Allison version)

P-47D Razorback (maybe even two: an early Block and a late Block)

P-51, A (or a Mustang I or II), B/C

 

=> Tomahawk, P-39D and P-38F for a "1941" pack

=> Kittyhawk (Merlin), Mustang I/II (P-51A) for a "1942" pack

=> P-38J, Kittyhawk (late Allison), P-47D (early Razorback) for a "1943" pack

=> P-39Q, P-47D (late Razorback) and P-51B/C for a "1944" pack

 

 

This would be excellent, and I think it will need to be done eventually if we get enough expansions.

 

If only I had tons of money to donate to the Devs, that way we could potentially see everything we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

 

The maps are mostly water.  Compared to the terrain modeling that was done on (for instance) Kuban...

 

You could do Midway, Coral Sea, and Guadalcanal.  Hell, maybe even the Aleutians.  They don't have to release just one map.

 

The Aleutians would be unlikely considering the USN seems to be the focus for the allied side from the earliest buzz. The Aleutians would have the same Japanese planeset but a completely different Allied flavor. I don't see them doing  an 8+8+8 release for both development considerations or the consumer's cost of that package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I think the future of IL-2 Great Battles is:

Main Projects                                                 Side Projects

2019                                                                 2019

Battle of Bodenplatte                                   Tank Crew: Prokhorovka. Flying Circus Vol.1

 

2020+ Pacific                                                 2020+

Battle of Guadalcanal                                   Tank Crew and Flying Circus Volumes. Flyable Western Front 44-45 aircraft.

                                                                          Maps for small Pacific islands eg. Iwo Jima, Chichi Jima, Saipan, Wake Island, Midway, etc.

Battle of ??                                                     Additional collector planes.

Battle of Okinawa

 

After Pacific mid 2020s

Eastern Front battles that haven't been made yet.

Smolensk, Kursk (aerial), Finland, 1944 Eastern front battles.

Battle of Berlin ( Thank you for the suggestion that this should be the last)

 

After WW2

Korean War.                                        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought IL2 because eastern front, west is nice too (since i fly germans, it's like a transfer). Pacific could be fun, i would like to try japanese side. But i would skip all these vietnam, korea things. I will only get expansions with germans and japan (if i will enjoy their side). My mine focus is ostfront, really hope they can go back there one day. And in the meantime, would like to see career mode for vielkie luki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Finnish front was a major part of the war in the east, before the German invasion and until wars end, without coverage of that we cannot consider the east finished.;)

 

There is already a Finnish map in progress by enthusiasts who did some outstanding work for IL-2 1946, hopefully Jason and his team will help and encourage that build and allow it into this series even if there were no further aircraft added specifically for it we do have German types that were used by Finland later in the war that would at least provide some coverage of the later war scenarios.:biggrin:

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

Edited by Missionbug
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always makes me snicker a little now when some people make comments they won't buy or fly anything that doesn't fit into their personal preferences for Russian or German aircraft, early war vs late war, ect. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it does make some of the older arguments from the beginning of this series seem insincere when Allied fliers were told how important it was to support the sim even if they didn't like flying Russian or German airplanes or simulating those regimes. Funny. Sad but funny that it is important for others to shell out to help the cause when it benefits what "I" want as opposed to what others find enticing or might just be good for the overall health for the future of this series.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 7:01 AM, Finkeren said:

I think the lack of defensive armament on that B-25 is a good indication of how much actual air combat you could expect in a 1944 China scenario.

 

This is why I like to have a China scenario from the start, nothing wrong with old slow planes as long as they are as slow as the enemy

Share this post


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

 

This is why I like to have a China scenario from the start, nothing wrong with old slow planes as long as they are as slow as the enemy

 

1937-1941 China would be great IMHO.

 

Cue someone telling us that it would drive the company into bankruptcy.

Share this post


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

It always makes me snicker a little now when some people make comments they won't buy or fly anything that doesn't fit into their personal preferences for Russian or German aircraft, early war vs late war, ect

lol yeah sure, people should pay 70$ on something they don't enjoy. I am not a fanboy who will buy everything, especially when it's so expensive. 

Share this post


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

Cue someone telling us that it would drive the company into bankruptcy.

 

You are probably right, but it make me sad it got to be that way. I find pre war planes much more interesting 

Share this post


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

lol yeah sure, people should pay 70$ on something they don't enjoy. I am not a fanboy who will buy everything, especially when it's so expensive. 

Then don't. But don't expect everyone else to be so eager to jump back to the Eastern Front either. Frankly, after both the original series spending time there and now the first three installments of BoX doing the same, I could hardly care less about going back. And to be honest, I've really had my fill of German A/C too. But that's just me. I'm eager for some more British and American planes to drive. And I'm more than ready for the Pacific. But again, that's just me. And I did spend my money supporting the sim when the content didn't always match my most ardent desires. So did a lot of others.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

Cue someone telling us that it would drive the company into bankruptcy.

 

Glad to do it. No one gives enough of a darn for such a scenario to be financially viable.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

1937-1941 China would be great IMHO.

 

Cue someone telling us that it would drive the company into bankruptcy.

I guess I'm not a complete stickler for historical accuracy. If I've got to fly so named "crap" planes from the earliest stages of WWII in obscure battles that are of little interest to me, then I'd rather do a "what if" scenario set in the late 1920s to mid 30s. There some of the great bi-plane fighters and bombers from the inter-war period, those that never really got to strut their stuff in wartime action, could be tested against each other. It was one of the most colorful periods of aviation and with so many varied designs, some holding onto lessons from WWI while others were reaching for the future. I'd like to see it. But I'd guess most wouldn't.

Share this post


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

 

Glad to do it. No one gives enough of a darn for such a scenario to be financially viable.

 

Yeah... I think you’re wrong. There comes a time in a video game franchise, where it has become established and has enough of a reputation, that it can afford to take risks such as choosing a setting that is less known but has loads of potential. Heck, the original IL2 did it right out of the gate by finally doing the Eastern Front justice, something noone had done in a flight sim before. They then followed it up with a title literally called “forgotten battles”, and it was a huge success, not due to name recognition but due to it having stellar SP content and interesting stories to tell.

 

The Great Battles series has a unique opportunity to bring new stories to life, not just retread those we’ve heard a hundred times before. By their hard work the devs have build a reputation for this series that allows them to not simply sell a new title on name recognition. They can bring us something new, something not seen before. Novelty can be just as strong a selling point as familiarity, if you handle it right.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Yeah... I think you’re wrong.

 

Yeah, well, I'll take the experience of Jason in building and marketing these sorts of games over the past decade or so over your opinion. Look, it's really simple and blunt: no one gives a crap about a regional southeast Asian conflict in the mid-30s any more than they give a crap about the Spanish Civil War - to say nothing of the research effort needed for such a title. You think Jason and the guys have a hard time finding reliable material for WWII Japanese planes? It would be dramatically more difficult finding said info for mid-30s planes.

 

All of this reminds me of the laughable suggestions I've also heard for a flight sim depicting one of the wars between India and Pakistan in the Cold War. You gotta market to what interests people. 

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


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

 You gotta market to what interests people. 

 

When you have a well-established franchise and have an interesting story to tell, I say you actually don’t. Again: IL2-FB was a perfect example that you don’t. You think anyone gave a crap about the Finnish, Romanian or Hungarian air forces in WW2? Of course not, but Forgotten Battles helped propel especially the FiAF to near legendary status in the flight sim community, because it took a chance. 

 

The Great Battles series gives its players what they want by being a great sim and by constantly improving on the game play experience - not by giving them only stuff they’ve already seen before.

 

I’m not saying, that retreading the same old ground with yet another PTO combat flight sim isn’t gonna be fun. It most likely will, and I will buy it. I’m not saying it isn’t a wise decission business-wise, it probably is. But it is also playing it safe, and is less exciting than giving the players something they actually haven’t seen before.

Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...