Alternative for Pacific Theatre after Bodenplatte

[yogy]

I voted Berlin, but Do 217 and Me 410 don't make sense. Better use a Mistel-version and above all - the soviet main fighter in 1944. It could also be delivered in all its variety... D, M, T, B

 

 

Yak-9  

[CountZero]

For me its not strange that some ppl have no interest in what ever peroiod of ww2 and like only one part of it, but then you make atleast one dlc that covers all areas and if ppl like what you did with their favorit area of ww2 they will probably buy other ones just because it has one or two airplanes they can use for area they like and then you have more ppl in game then you would have if you do 3-4dlc in row in same area untill you finish that and then go for other one and so on... 1,5-2years that it takes to make one DLC is not big time line to wait compared to 5-6+ 

Edited April 4, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[=27=Davesteu]

5 hours ago, 495-1_Banzaii said:

None of your choices help the problem with getting carriers in game.  Korea helps bridge that.

Battle of Korea should help bridge the Pacific Gap..ME262 brings jet tech to the game. Carriers were integral in Korea's survival with British and US carriers being involved.  The documentation is much easier to come by too.

I don't think carriers should be the ultimate goal (most scenarios don't fit this game), but I do think they need a lot of work if they are implemented. That's one the of the many reasons I don't think a Okinawa scenario is feasible at all and Midway in the way implied by various older official posts. Korea wouldn't be any different - it's just too much at once.
Having collected quite at lot of literature focused on the Asiatic-Pacific Theatre, I'm quite confident in assuming the main reason for the postponement of the Asiatic-Pacific theatre was related to the overwhelming amount of data and work necessary and not exclusively to the Japanese aircraft data.

For me the next pack has to be Asiatic-Pacific Theatre related. The way to go is a 1942/43 Papua and New Guinea campaign pack followed by a smaller Coral Sea pack (only six or seven aircraft needed). This way they could get used to Japanese aircraft first and capital ships second. There are many more reasons to go this route, but this is an important one.

 

 

As a side note: Korea won't work anyway.

• The North Korean air force had basically vanished one month after the US intervention and only reappeared with and limited to the MiG-15. Most of their piston engined aircraft were destroyed on the ground with very few aerial encounters.
• The map would have to be gigantic: The Korean Peninsula, the Chinese border region, and parts of West Japan for the early phase
• North Korean data isn't accessible at all
• ...

[Blackhawk_FR]

France, damnit, France!! 

 

But I have the feeling I'll be dead before having the opportunity to see a D520 vs Bf109E matchup...

Edited April 4, 2019 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Trooper117]

Korea will happen... be sure!

[DickDong]

2 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

 

I don't think carriers should be the ultimate goal (most scenarios don't fit this game), but I do think they need a lot of work if they are implemented. That's one the of the many reasons I don't think a Okinawa scenario is feasible at all and Midway in the way implied by various older official posts. Korea wouldn't be any different - it's just too much at once.
Having collected quite at lot of literature focused on the Asiatic-Pacific Theatre, I'm quite confident in assuming the main reason for the postponement of the Asiatic-Pacific theatre was related to the overwhelming amount of data and work necessary and not exclusively to the Japanese aircraft data.

For me the next pack has to be Asiatic-Pacific Theatre related. The way to go is a 1942/43 Papua and New Guinea campaign pack followed by a smaller Coral Sea pack (only six or seven aircraft needed). This way they could get used to Japanese aircraft first and capital ships second. There are many more reasons to go this route, but this is an important one.

 

 

As a side note: Korea won't work anyway.

• The North Korean air force had basically vanished one month after the US intervention and only reappeared with and limited to the MiG-15. Most of their piston engined aircraft were destroyed on the ground with very few aerial encounters.
• The map would have to be gigantic: The Korean Peninsula, the Chinese border region, and parts of West Japan for the early phase
• North Korean data isn't accessible at all
• ...

Korea worked in 46'  ....it can most definitly work here.  You dont need the whole penninsula.   Japan to North of Busan....call that the Pusan map.....one seoul to pyonyang....then another up on the yalu river.  A mig vs sabre matchup alone eould be popular enough, not to mention the asset sharing across future Pacific expansions.  1C needs to bring the American customer to the table to expand the game...New Guinea is a bad business move, you need a Midway first.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, 495-1_Banzaii said:

Korea worked in 46'  ....it can most definitly work here.  You dont need the whole penninsula.   Japan to North of Busan....call that the Pusan map.....one seoul to pyonyang....then another up on the yalu river.  A mig vs sabre matchup alone eould be popular enough, not to mention the asset sharing across future Pacific expansions.  1C needs to bring the American customer to the table to expand the game...New Guinea is a bad business move, you need a Midway first.

Midway for first PTO DLC sounds best option to atract most, but its naval heavy and it would be demanding for game, New Guinea is easyer for game but not so known and dont have usaf naval airplanes.

Also for Midway like for BoBp you can do more then just Midway, call it Battle of Midway for name sake but you can have 4 big carrier vs carrier battles depicted in SP campaign.

 

The Battle of the Coral Sea, May 4-8, 1942

The Battle of Midway, June 3-7, 1942

The Battle of the Eastern Solomons, August 24-25, 1942

The Battle of Santa Cruz, October 26, 1942

 

And use same planset for all of them:
 

-A6M2-21
-B5N2
-D3A1
-F1M2 (or D4Y1-C)
-A6M3-32

 

vs

 

-F2A-3
-F4F-4 (modification for F4F-3)
-TBD-1
-SBD-3
-TBF-1 (or PBY-5A)
 

[=27=Davesteu]

5 hours ago, 495-1_Banzaii said:

Korea worked in 46'  ....it can most definitly work here.  You dont need the whole penninsula.   Japan to North of Busan....call that the Pusan map.....one seoul to pyonyang....then another up on the yalu river.  A mig vs sabre matchup alone eould be popular enough, not to mention the asset sharing across future Pacific expansions.  1C needs to bring the American customer to the table to expand the game...New Guinea is a bad business move, you need a Midway first.

Yes, Korea mods worked in 1946 but they never proved to be particularly popular. That aside, splitting one gigantic map into three smaller ones doesn't reduce the human workload at all. It's not even possible as the opposing airfields have to be on one map. Moreover, very few, if any, assets are shared: Korean War Corsairs aren't WW2 ones, F-51D aren't P-51D-15, and Korean War carriers aren't WW2 carriers.
Lastly, the "forgotten war" won't attract the huge masses of new players you are predicting.

 

 

Regarding Midway and Papua New Guinea: I completely disagree.
Midway wouldn't offer much versatility in gameplay, but it requires a massive amount of (re)work.

With Papua New Guinea 1942/43 you would get four air forces/services (USAAF, RAAF, IJNAS, IJAAS), their respective aircraft (including British ones for the RAAF), a lot of tactical war, strategic bombing campaigns(!), naval strikes, extremely scenic landscapes, huge bodies of water, and a lot more without reinventing the game or overstretching the development cycle.
Introducing carrier battles, the closely related Battle of the Coral Sea could be added thereafter. The Developers would be used to modelling Japanese aircraft by then and could focus their efforts on proper implementation of the naval aspects of this battle. Most of the six Coral Sea aircraft (seven if the A5M4 would be included) would also fit the previous Papua New Guinea pack.

 

4 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

Also for Midway like for BoBp you can do more then just Midway, call it Battle of Midway for name sake but you can have 4 big carrier vs carrier battles depicted in SP campaign. 

I don't think so. As you said yourself, the amount of work required to do the ships involved in the Battle of Midway is already a huge concern - most ships wouldn't be reusable with other naval battles.

Edited April 4, 2019 by =27=Davesteu

[sevenless]

Normandy 2/44 - 9/44, Berlin 11/44 - 4/45, Bagration 5/44-10/44 in that order of priority.

[Poochnboo]

4 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

I don't think so. As you said yourself, the amount of work required to do the ships involved in the Battle of Midway is already a huge concern - most ships wouldn't be reusable with other naval battles.

Surely you are kidding. The Enterprise went on to serve in almost every naval engagement in the Pacific. The Zuikaku and Shokaku didn't see the bottom of the Pacific Ocean for over two more years. The other surface vessels, Battleships, Destroyers, Cruisers....all were basically the same warships that fought in numerous battles in that huge arena until the Japanese surrender. THAT is not an issue at all.

[Legioneod]

6 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Korea will happen... be sure!

 

That would be a huge mistake, the only thing worse is going back to the eastern front.

 

Logically Normandy makes the most sense as the next expansion, it flows nicely  into bodenplatte and would like for a larger planeset for the western front.

 

After Normandy if they choose to stay in Europe the Italy only makes sense. Other than that the Pacific should be focus.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Legioneod

[Trooper117]

The only other theatre mentioned with lots of enthusiasm and stated they would like to do it, was Korea when Jason was interviewed by Froogle.

Go and check it out on you tube. This was after a discussion on getting the first jet into the sim... the writing is on the wall.

All these other wants that people are hoping for have not had a mention by the dev's at all...

[Poochnboo]

7 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

The only other theatre mentioned with lots of enthusiasm and stated they would like to do it, was Korea when Jason was interviewed by Froogle.

Go and check it out on you tube. This was after a discussion on getting the first jet into the sim... the writing is on the wall.

All these other wants that people are hoping for have not had a mention by the dev's at all...

Yes, 90% of it is all wishfull thinking. Some of it, obscure battles that most people never heard of. You have to stick to the famous ones because most people don't know a whole lot about history. They hear "Battle of Britain," or "Midway" and their ears perk up. If you want to make money you have to stick to the big ones.

And speaking of Midway, I assume that most of you know that a new movie concerning the battle is due for release in November. Woody Harrelson is playing Nimitz. I didn't care much for the one made back in the 70's, so I'm hoping this is going to be a good one. 

[=27=Davesteu]

8 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Surely you are kidding. The Enterprise went on to serve in almost every naval engagement in the Pacific. The Zuikaku and Shokaku didn't see the bottom of the Pacific Ocean for over two more years. The other surface vessels, Battleships, Destroyers, Cruisers....all were basically the same warships that fought in numerous battles in that huge arena until the Japanese surrender. THAT is not an issue at all.

First of all, the Zuikaku and Shoukaku weren't involed in the Battle of Midway.

• Midway:
  Akagi(✝), Kaga(✝), Hiryu(✝), Soryu(✝) - Yorktown(✝), Enterprise, Hornet

They could get away with a generic June 1942 Yorktown-class resembling the Yorktown and Enterprise, but they shouldn't as they weren't alike in each and every feature. The Hornet differed slightly more and couldn't be unified. This means that they would have to research and model five or six floating airfields in detail. There would be no shortcut to this as they are the airfields each and every player would take off from, attack, and land on. It's a massive task and they are not used to modelling ships, let alone programming them. The current ship AI wouldn't cut it at all(!). The amount of work involved in finishing one carrier might very well equal one aircraft model.

At least all other capital ship would need a similar treatment - that's the reason you can't expect multiple carrier battles at once. The ships simply differ too much (frequent refits, differences within classes) and require a lot of work.

[CountZero]

But they would have more free ppl to do ships 3d models as no need for big towns and many new ground units like they have to make for example for BoBp so in the end is same amount of work or even less to model few islands and few differant ship types. 

My only concern with PTO ship vs ship battles is performance that would be when you have big ships with each having crazy amount of flak guns operating to simulate thouse big fleets, atleast bomber airplanes are with 1 rear gunner so that is not so demanding and you could have big amount of AI compared when you now have ju88s or other bombers, but some solution would be needed for flak AI on ships, but if they comit they can do anything so in PTO for start Midway is most famos name and bound to atract most atention.

 

[DickDong]

Honestly I think you'll get a IL-2 2.0 engine next to increase the size of maps etc. Then Pacific.

[Poochnboo]

3 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

First of all, the Zuikaku and Shoukaku weren't involed in the Battle of Midway.

Ah, yes. We talked about Midway and Coral Sea and I went and lumped them all together. But why not the Big E? I'll tell you the truth. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is with developing the ships. Hell, World of Warships (I know, I know...but hear me out) does some beautiful ship models. Not every ship has to be detailed right down to the correct placement of the heads! I least not for me. I don't think the ships are what's keeping this from happening. 

[Feathered_IV]

Really, Malta 1942 makes the best interim for the Pacific theatre.

 

Carrier and torpedo technology.  Existing aircraft easily adapted with fewest new ones required.  Smaller landmass with less strain on developer recourses.  Short flight times, and no agony of indecision about what instrument goes in which little hole on that Japanese dashboard.

[Semor76]

I repeate my vote. No more Bf-109 vs the world. I can´t see it anymore ?

 

Burma & New Guinea would be the place to be.

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Semor76

[Trooper117]

You do not want to be in one of those Buffaloes... Reading the Shores books in the 'Bloody Shambles' series gives harrowing accounts of RAF pilots being pretty helpless against the Japanese fighters.

If they weren't at altitude waiting for the bombers, they could hardly catch them up either.

[yogy]

If really Africa/Med is not available, overall probably a "Normandy 1944" makes sense from a value-effort point of view for 1C:

- Serves the US market & makes these customers a bit happier

- Creates a new theater for tank battles which I think is a huge market (Jagdpanther, british tanks, ...)

- relatively small efforts in technology (torpedoes, landing craft, glider towing, optionally guided missiles (Hs293) and V-1)

- versions of existing aircraft are base for new stuff like P-47C, P-51B/C, Typhoon, Fw190A-6&A-7, Bf109G-6/AS

- Add some 2-engined a/c like Mossie, Beaufighter, DC-3, Do217, Me410

- give us some juicy targets like allied ships, glider-planes (Horsa), German Kriegsmarine U-boats and Torpedo-boats ("S-Boote"), V-1 bases

Edited April 5, 2019 by yogy

[Poochnboo]

3 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

You do not want to be in one of those Buffaloes..

Gamers are the only ones who want to fly these crap airplanes. The real life pilots who were forced to operate them couldn't wait for better machines to come. Burma AND New Guinea, though? Those two pieces of land are a bit far away from one another.

I would truley love to see CBI, done, however. P-40's, P-51's, B-25's, B-24's, Hurricanes, Spitfires, and even Mossies were there. Oscars, Tony's, Tojo's.....what's not to like!? Huge maps, of course. Not going to happen. I know that. But as long as we're all dreaming..........

[=27=Davesteu]

23 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

You have to stick to the famous ones because most people don't know a whole lot about history. They hear "Battle of Britain," or "Midway" and their ears perk up.

22 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

... so in PTO for start Midway is most famos name and bound to atract most atention. 

I really don't want to be condescending, but at least Rabaul, Port Moresby, Kokoda Trail and SWPA should be recallable names for each and everyone claiming the slightest interest in the Asiatic-Pacific Theatre. The Papua and New Guinea campaigns were among the major campaigns of 1942-44.
Midway comes with a huge number of technical and gameplay related problems and just the name won't covered them up. Potential users with moderate to limited interest in the Asiatic-Pacific Theatre might get fascinated by the idea of carrier gameplay, but most of them would get bored out by its monotony soon thereafter. Selling them any further Asiatic-Pacific Theatre themed pack would be rather hard. That's assuming Midway could be convincingly realized from a technical point of view.
A lot of potential pitfalls for the sake of a name.
If they would do Papua & New Guinea 1942/43 first and Coral Sea second they could avoid most of them and players could always revert to the varity of New Guinea.

 

19 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Ah, yes. We talked about Midway and Coral Sea and I went and lumped them all together. But why not the Big E? I'll tell you the truth. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is with developing the ships. Hell, World of Warships (I know, I know...but hear me out) does some beautiful ship models. Not every ship has to be detailed right down to the correct placement of the heads! I least not for me. I don't think the ships are what's keeping this from happening. 

You can hardly compare WoWS and a potential Great Battles carrier scenario. WoWS is an arcade PvP ship game with little and simple AI, whereas Great Battles carrier scenarios would require the exact opposite. Accurately researching and modelling the individual ships directly involved in the Battle of Midway would be a laborious task in itself, but they also need a high fidelity AI capable of executing prudent evasive manoeuvres, utilizing some sort of damage control, radar, gun directors, etc, as well as a detailed damage model to go along.
The work involved in finishing a carrier might very well equal a aircraft model. You can't skimp on the natural points of interest in a carrier battle - ships.

Edited April 5, 2019 by =27=Davesteu

[Poochnboo]

1 minute ago, =27=Davesteu said:

A lot of potential pitfalls for the sake of a name.
If they would do Papua & New Guinea 1942/43 first and Coral Sea second they could avoid most of them and players could always revert to the varity of New Guinea.

I'm not argueing with you about that. I actually feel the same way about Midway, and wrote a long post some time ago as to why I thought it wouldn't work. But it mostly boiled down to the issue of playability. Attack the carriers, go back and land. Repeat. No large land masses. That little Atoll would get really old, really fast. Never liked the idea. I'm just playing Devils advocate about the fleet problem. That's not what I think the issue is.

Want carriers? Leyte Gulf! Holy smokes....the naval battle to end all naval battles. And you have the Phillipines. I don't want Wildcats, I want Hellcats. Such a more multi faceted engagement than Midway....but just my two cents.

[Legioneod]

8 hours ago, yogy said:

If really Africa/Med is not available, overall probably a "Normandy 1944" makes sense from a value-effort point of view for 1C:

- Serves the US market & makes these customers a bit happier

- Creates a new theater for tank battles which I think is a huge market (Jagdpanther, british tanks, ...)

- relatively small efforts in technology (torpedoes, landing craft, glider towing, optionally guided missiles (Hs293) and V-1)

- versions of existing aircraft are base for new stuff like P-47C, P-51B/C, Typhoon, Fw190A-6&A-7, Bf109G-6/AS

- Add some 2-engined a/c like Mossie, Beaufighter, DC-3, Do217, Me410

- give us some juicy targets like allied ships, glider-planes (Horsa), German Kriegsmarine U-boats and Torpedo-boats ("S-Boote"), V-1 bases

 

I'd have to agree. The good thing about normandy is that it opens up more aircraft to be used in the pacific, also some of the ship/landing craft could be used as well.

 

Aircraft like the P-47D-22, P-51B/C, and most of the Bodenplatte aircraft could be used in the Pacific.

 

My dream is to fly P-47 Razorbacks over New Guinea shooting down Japanese aircraft, but if I can't get that then Normandy is my second choice.

 

5 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

I'm not argueing with you about that. I actually feel the same way about Midway, and wrote a long post some time ago as to why I thought it wouldn't work. But it mostly boiled down to the issue of playability. Attack the carriers, go back and land. Repeat. No large land masses. That little Atoll would get really old, really fast. Never liked the idea. I'm just playing Devils advocate about the fleet problem. That's not what I think the issue is.

Want carriers? Leyte Gulf! Holy smokes....the naval battle to end all naval battles. And you have the Phillipines. I don't want Wildcats, I want Hellcats. Such a more multi faceted engagement than Midway....but just my two cents.

 

Main reason I want Midway is for the early pacific planeset. Aircraft like the TBD Devastator are only available in 42.

I want the late war Pacific eventually but not at first.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

We always seem to get wound up about the ‘Midway’ title. They should just rename it Battle of the Pacific, Carrier Ops or Battle of the Early Pacific. It would tamp down 60% of the arguments about it. The map will not be Midway Island alone. That makes no sense whatsoever. This team has had a couple of hiccups in the early going but I don’t recall any WTF moments over the last two or three years. Have a little faith that when it is done, it will be done well. I have faith that it WILL be done at some point.

[Legioneod]

14 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

We always seem to get wound up about the ‘Midway’ title. They should just rename it Battle of the Pacific, Carrier Ops or Battle of the Early Pacific. It would tamp down 60% of the arguments about it. The map will not be Midway Island alone. That makes no sense whatsoever. This team has had a couple of hiccups in the early going but I don’t recall any WTF moments over the last two or three years. Have a little faith that when it is done, it will be done well. I have faith that it WILL be done at some point.

 

Agreed. Midway could cover multiple battles.

 

One thing I see repeated about Midway including other battles, is that not all the ships can be modeled. The fact is not all ships need to be modeled, just need to pick ships that were the most common or are a good representation of a certain type. Yorktown class being an example.

[=27=Davesteu]

I for one highly doubt we would get multiple carrier scenarios in one pack for reasons partially explained in my previous posts in this thread.
Ships reminiscent of Pacific Fighters would be the only way to make this happen - no thanks.

 

@Legioneod You would get an early P-47D with New Guinea 1943 and the TBD with the Coral Sea light pack if the Devs recognize the versatility of this release sequence.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

 

Agreed. Midway could cover multiple battles.

 

One thing I see repeated about Midway including other battles, is that not all the ships can be modeled. The fact is not all ships need to be modeled, just need to pick ships that were the most common or are a good representation of a certain type. Yorktown class being an example.

 

The initial ship pack will likely be limited to four or five classes of ships. I think Jason said that in a thread somewhere. One fleet carrier type for each side and an as yet undecided set of combat and support ships. Certainly not the plethora of Japanese carrier types at the outset.

Edited April 5, 2019 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Legioneod]

I know I'm probably the only one, but I'd love to see a "what if" scenario based of pre-war aircraft. Aircraft like the P-26 or B-10 would be very interesting. 

I've always been fascinated with pre-war aircraft, so many different designs and theories being tested out and so many unique aircraft created.

 

EDIT:

Just look at these beauties:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Legioneod

[DickDong]

9 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Gamers are the only ones who want to fly these crap airplanes. The real life pilots who were forced to operate them couldn't wait for better machines to come. Burma AND New Guinea, though? Those two pieces of land are a bit far away from one another.

I would truley love to see CBI, done, however. P-40's, P-51's, B-25's, B-24's, Hurricanes, Spitfires, and even Mossies were there. Oscars, Tony's, Tojo's.....what's not to like!? Huge maps, of course. Not going to happen. I know that. But as long as we're all dreaming..........

 

I most definitely am not a "gamer" and I want to have the Buffalo and fly it extensively.  History and Aviation aficionados would enjoy it thoroughly more than a gamer would.  I would say the truth behind your statement is reversed, gamers would like the high end aircraft.

[Poochnboo]

56 minutes ago, 495-1_Banzaii said:

I most definitely am not a "gamer" and I want to have the Buffalo and fly it extensively.  History and Aviation aficionados would enjoy it thoroughly more than a gamer would.  I would say the truth behind your statement is reversed, gamers would like the high end aircraft.

Hmmm...I see your point and you might be right. I guess I just can't help thinking, "Why the hell would anyone want to get their ass kicked in a Buffalo. And unless you're flying over Finland against some Russian machines that are even MORE crap planes than the Buffalo, that's what's going to happen. I don't even relish the idea of flying an F4F against the Zeros, let alone an F2A!

[Eisenfaustus]

6 hours ago, 495-1_Banzaii said:

 

I most definitely am not a "gamer" and I want to have the Buffalo and fly it extensively.  History and Aviation aficionados would enjoy it thoroughly more than a gamer would.  I would say the truth behind your statement is reversed, gamers would like the high end aircraft.

You do know that BoX are games, right? If you enjoy the product and play it extensively, you are a gamer! You are no military aviator because you play a game. Just because flightsims are a rare genre in modern gaming, that doesn't change the fact that they are video games...

 

4 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

I don't even relish the idea of flying an F4F against the Zeros, let alone an F2A!

Could be really interesting, if AI did stuff like Thatch's weave... I think to remember that wildcats fared actually quite well against the zeros after the initial shock... They just didn't dominate them like hellcats and lightning would do later...

Edited April 6, 2019 by Eisenfaustus

[DickDong]

3 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

You do know that BoX are games, right? If you enjoy the product and play it extensively, you are a gamer! You are no military aviator because you play a game. Just because flightsims are a rare genre in modern gaming, that doesn't change the fact that they are video games...

 

Could be really interesting, if AI did stuff like Thatch's weave... I think to remember that wildcats fared actually quite well against the zeros after the initial shock... They just didn't dominate them like hellcats and lightning would do later...

You missed the point completly on my post...people treat this genre in two ways, game and simulation....those attitudes/preference affect how you enjoy your gameplay.  Only the others who know me personally  will chuckle at the rest of your response, cheers.

[Eisenfaustus]

1 hour ago, 495-1_Banzaii said:

You missed the point completly on my post...people treat this genre in two ways, game and simulation....those attitudes/preference affect how you enjoy your gameplay.  Only the others who know me personally  will chuckle at the rest of your response, cheers.

 

Oh no - I got your point - people who are interested in how it was to fly a Buffelo would enjoy the plane - people who are interested in winning a dogfight would not...

 

But you are right in that I actually do not understand how you seperate "gamers" from "people that treat this genre as simulation".

Might actually be a result of a language barrier as I'm no native speaker... How do you call persons that play video games?

[Trooper117]

On 4/4/2019 at 1:30 AM, Arthur-A said:

I don't get this "I'm not interested in Eastern Front/Other Front" crap. It's quite ignorant, IMO. 

 

I don't think it's ignorant at all... some people like the Eastern Front and some people don't. Some people like the Pacific theatre and some people don't.

We are all different, nothing wrong with that at all.

What would be ignorant is refusing to see the worth in other peoples views and ideas... you don't have to agree with people who have different views to your own, it certainly doesn't make them ignorant.

[Bf109zakkandrachoff]

Battle of France 1940

 

Messerschmitt Bf109E-3
Messerschmitt Bf110C
Heinkel He 111 H-1
Dornier Do 17Z
Junkers Ju 86
Junkers Ju 87B
 

Dewoitine D.520
Morane-Saulnier MS.406
Curtiss H-75A
Bloch 151/152
Bloch MB.200
Bloch 131
Lioré et Olivier LeO 451
Amiot 143M
Potez 630
Farman F222

 

Battle of Shanghai 1937 - Sino-Japanese war

 

Curtiss Hawk III
Curtiss Hawk II Goshawk
Boeing 281- P26 Peashooter 
Martin B-10 
Gamma 2E

Nakajima A2N3 Type 90
Nakajima A4N1 Type 95
Yokosuka B3Y1 Type 92
Aichi D1A2 Type 96
Mitsubishi G3M1 Model 11

 

anothers can be Battle of Madrid, Battle of Suomussalmi, Battle of Odessa, Battle of Sevastopol, Battle of Port Moresby.

If jets are on the run, i personally recommend, for the future, not just now,  Battle of Sinai 1967?

[DickDong]

9 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

 

Oh no - I got your point - people who are interested in how it was to fly a Buffelo would enjoy the plane - people who are interested in winning a dogfight would not...

 

But you are right in that I actually do not understand how you seperate "gamers" from "people that treat this genre as simulation".

Might actually be a result of a language barrier as I'm no native speaker... How do you call persons that play video games?

Gamer: Driving a P-39 to tank column on a PVP server and shooting up the column in a flight sim no less.  No care of pilot lives, no care of intent of server.

 

Simmer:  More historically focused....might even go a little overboard on simulating pilot life, fear of death etc.  Cares about historical accuracy to some degree all the way to militantly. 

 

The top group will want the best plane they can to win quickly....the simmer will enjoy the crappy aircraft, learn it, and beat the good aircraft in the crappy one with tactical prowess.

That wasn't super eloquent because it should be obvious in this game you have loads of both types of player.

Edited April 6, 2019 by 495-1_Banzaii

[Gambit21]

On 4/5/2019 at 1:11 AM, Semor76 said:

I repeate my vote. No more Bf-109 vs the world. I can´t see it anymore ?

 

 

A lot of us feel that way - time for PTO.

 

 

Solomons.

 

 

That gives us Operation Watchtower which involved carriers. Early war stuff, Zekes, Wildcats etc.

(Basically identical plane set as Midway...so a simple Midway map in addition and an aircraft or two gets you that battle)

 

It also get's us Cactus Air Force and the Battle of Guadalcanal itself which lasted 6 months.

 

Then up the slot, Corsairs moving in etc and a lot of mid-war action, maritime patrol, float planes etc.

[Trooper117]

Quote

It also get's us Cactus Air Force and the Battle of Guadalcanal itself which lasted 6 months

 

This early Pacific battle is the main one I would like ... I played this with the old IL2, highly enjoyable