Alternative for Pacific Theatre after Bodenplatte

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Who says it has to be 8 hour long missions? I remember playing The Mighty 8th and even 1946 and I don't ever remember flying 8h long mission. They could always do Normandy and have B-17s and B-24s bombing beaches and other instillation.

 

I'm willing to sacrifice a little accuracy to have bombers in-game. I had plenty of fun flying bombers in B-17 The Mighty 8th and Il2 1946, would love to have that experience again in a modern engine.

 

While I can’t get onboard with The Mighty 8th (that POS never worked for me) a European Air War approach would work (jump) however knowing the editor logic I can say this will take some doing.

 

Really, 2 different versions of the mission would need to be created. Then when you “jump” the air start version is loaded.

That’s the simplest, most plausible solution.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Gambit21

[DN308]

Battle of France is really interesting. Especially because it starts with Belgium and Holland air fights (don’t you see the BoBP map evidence?)

 

in addition, the skins during battle of France are really flashy and bright, that would be a great chance for the skinners

[jollyjack]

20 minutes ago, DN308 said:

Battle of France is really interesting. Especially because it starts with Belgium and Holland air fights (don’t you see the BoBP map evidence?)

 

in addition, the skins during battle of France are really flashy and bright, that would be a great chance for the skinners

 

Without a C3 para-dropper and gliders? Not possible ... Pacific: hurray, Torpedo's !

Edited October 27, 2019 by jollyjack
added

[DN308]

23 minutes ago, jollyjack said:

 

Without a C3 para-dropper and gliders? Not possible ... Pacific: hurray, Torpedo's !

C-3? JU-52 would be sufficient for battle of France in 1939-40.

 

[Sokol1]

This: ?

 

From Task Force Admiral RTS

Edited October 27, 2019 by Sokol1

[marcost]

Well, how about... no new theatre or aircraft?

 

Instead, more time spent on SP offline to make a truly immersive sim in all the existing theatres.

 

That's what I'd pay more money for! What's the point of creating more and more content when the SP experience is just not as engaging as its 20-year old predecessor? 

[DN308]

Absolutely agreed 

[Motherbrain]

1 hour ago, Sokol1 said:

From Task Force Admiral RTS

 

I cant wait for that to come out. It looks awesome. I love the RTS aspect. Yet at the same time, the individual units are going to be simulated fairly realistically it looks like. My only gripe is the Japanese wont be playable at release and you'll need to buy an expansion to play them.

 

But still, I'm exited for it.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Motherbrain

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, marcost said:

Well, how about... no new theatre or aircraft?

 

Instead, more time spent on SP offline to make a truly immersive sim in all the existing theatres.

 

That's what I'd pay more money for! What's the point of creating more and more content when the SP experience is just not as engaging as its 20-year old predecessor? 

 

That's not how game development/financing works.

[BraveSirRobin]

4 hours ago, marcost said:

Well, how about... no new theatre or aircraft?

 

Instead, more time spent on SP offline to make a truly immersive sim in all the existing theatres.

 

That's what I'd pay more money for! What's the point of creating more and more content when the SP experience is just not as engaging as its 20-year old predecessor? 

 

There is absolutely no chance that this will happen.

[jollyjack]

On 10/27/2019 at 11:43 AM, DN308 said:

C-3? JU-52 would be sufficient for battle of France in 1939-40.

 

 

Market Garden ... a wee bit later, but nobody forgot Arnhem.

 

19 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

That's not how game development/financing works.

 

IMO the financial success of MS Windows is due putting something on the market that's just about half finished, a sort of wobbly card house.

Make it partly accessible for 3rd party clever guys to make it better, and hey, with every body pushing along it to keep it standing up,

all parties involved depend more and more on each other to keep it alive. Out of self interest? 

 

I still remember Atari and Amiga. Just switch on power and it worked. Probably why they did not sell enough to keep these brands alive in a consumptive market.

Maybe why 1C Games made the FMB go public,  and if they make more things accessible fot third parties like map editing, building blocks as for buildings and more,

the project will become overall more interesting. Throw in an occasional new (paid) version and there you go ....

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by jollyjack
added

[DN308]

6 hours ago, jollyjack said:

 

Market Garden ... a wee bit later, but nobody forgot Arnhem.

Sure, I would love too, but I was speaking about the battle of France in 1939-1940

[marcost]

19 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

That's not how game development/financing works.

...since the rise of MultiPlayer. Pity indeed.

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, marcost said:

...since the rise of MultiPlayer. Pity indeed.

 

Well it's mostly because they need a revenue stream/plan to stay in business.

The next release funds itself, and work/refining existing content/code etc.

 

They can't stop progress/working on new content and stay afloat.

[marcost]

51 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Well it's mostly because they need a revenue stream/plan to stay in business.

The next release funds itself, and work/refining existing content/code etc.

 

They can't stop progress/working on new content and stay afloat.

Yes I know, I'm just lamenting times long ago when healthy competition meant titles were released as a rounded, complete package and were squarely focused on the single player experience.

 

Regards

 

M

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, marcost said:

Yes I know, I'm just lamenting times long ago when healthy competition meant titles were released as a rounded, complete package and were squarely focused on the single player experience.

 

Regards

 

M

 

That has nothing to do with multiplayer.  There are plenty of multiplayer console games that are released as complete packages.  The problem is revenue.  There aren't enough people spending money on combat flight sims to finance a completed version of such a complex game.  So the developer produces multiple modules that finance ongoing development.  

[marcost]

8 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

That has nothing to do with multiplayer.  There are plenty of multiplayer console games that are released as complete packages.  The problem is revenue.  There aren't enough people spending money on combat flight sims to finance a completed version of such a complex game.  So the developer produces multiple modules that finance ongoing development.  

IMO the rise of multiplayer and the younger generations' need for 'instant gratification' has everything to do with the demise in SP experience in many genres, not just flight sims. If things like W.. T.. didn't exist, maybe GB would have greater revenues... 

 

You are right that the technical development and popularity of consoles has also made PC-based SP gaming all the poorer. I will add it to my list of gripes ?

 

8 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So the developer produces multiple modules that finance ongoing development. 

Which comes back to my original point (and yours) - if revenues are weak, the 'development' bit gets left behind in favour of the new module. 

 

If developments were sold, I would buy them over new theatres. Just my minority perspective.

 

Regards

 

M

[BraveSirRobin]

6 hours ago, marcost said:

IMO the rise of multiplayer and the younger generations' need for 'instant gratification' has everything to do with the demise in SP experience in many genres, not just flight sims. If things like W.. T.. didn't exist, maybe GB would have greater revenues... 

 

 

1.  “Instant gratification” has absolutely nothing to do with the MP or SP.  In fact, if I want a dose of IG I jump in a SP quick mission.  MP often involves a long boring climb to altitude.

2.  Lots of people play WT because it’s free.  I’m not sure how much revenue you’re going to get out of people who play a game because it’s free.

 

6 hours ago, marcost said:

 

Which comes back to my original point (and yours) - if revenues are weak, the 'development' bit gets left behind in favour of the new module. 

 

‘That is demonstrably not true.  Development of the game has clearly progressed with each module.  And virtually no one is going to pay money for changes to the game with no new planes or maps.  Why would anyone do that?   It makes no sense to pay for development when I can get planes, maps and development.

[marcost]

 

Thanks for correcting me on my opinions and what I want. I'll try to be more like you in future, I promise

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, marcost said:

 

Thanks for correcting me on my opinions and what I want. I'll try to be more like you in future, I promise

 

Well, a lot of your opinions appear to be based on “I just hate those MP guys SO much!!!  Grrrrrrrrrr!!!”  So I’m glad that I could clarify the actual MP situation for you!

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

1.  “Instant gratification” has absolutely nothing to do with the MP or SP.  In fact, if I want a dose of IG I jump in a SP quick mission.  MP often involves a long boring climb to altitude.

2.  Lots of people play WT because it’s free.  I’m not sure how much revenue you’re going to get out of people who play a game because it’s free.

 

 

‘That is demonstrably not true.  Development of the game has clearly progressed with each module.  And virtually no one is going to pay money for changes to the game with no new planes or maps.  Why would anyone do that?   It makes no sense to pay for development when I can get planes, maps and development.

Yeah MP is much less instant gratification than SP, unless you're only playing on Berloga. Nearly every online scenario requires you to start your engine, taxi to the runway, take off, climb to altitude, and then navigate to your target area. My MP sorties are usually nearly as long as most of my career mode sorties...well, half as long as I usually die halfway through the mission.

Also, anyone who complains about the younger generation's need for instant gratification is absolutely always the old guy in line at the coffee shop huffing and rolling his eyes when he has to wait an extra 30 seconds for his morning java. 

[Fox3Japo32]

France, flat; Berlin, flat; Talvisota, flat. Spain, not because it is my country and we had one of the biggest conflicts in the modern war.. we are full of mountains, sea, islands, valleys....

Again another FLAT region? Even Kuban, has not very big mountains.

 

Only France in the alps (but Switzerland wasn't in the war)...

But if not Spain (that I would love to see it with the civil war battle), why not Italy that has big mountains in the north with Austria and Germany and also in the south with Sicily and the mediterranen sea??

 

NO MORE FLAT REGIONS PLEASE!!

Edited October 30, 2019 by Japo32

[DN308]

The Italy campaign is a good idea

[Enceladus828]

3 hours ago, DN308 said:

The Italy campaign is a good idea

In regards to Italy, do you mean Sicily, or from Reggio Di Calabria to Italian-Swiss border, or all of Italy?

 

For Sicily: although it could happen in IL-2 GBs, it MAY happen after the Pacific as I feel that the devs will let Team Fusion cover that area first for CloD in a Siege of Malta and Operation Husky modules. For Malta, makes no sense to make a Malta map without Tunisia, NW Libya and Sicily as well

 

For the rest of Italy: Maybe, maybe not.

 

In 2017 when it became clear that the Pacific wasn’t going ahead, I’m sure that the devs looked at many alternative battles that they could do. Some areas may not have been as interesting or there wasn’t enough resources to do it; in the end they picked an area that hadn’t been covered in a long while and planes that people were familiar with, P-51, P-38, Me-262, P-47, Tempest.

 

The BoB and MTO as alternatives for the Pacific likely wouldn’t happen. Maybe the reason is not necessarily because another team is going there, maybe the primary reason is a lack of resources to do it right; perhaps there’s too many planes that have to be made to do the Battle of Britain and other modules right without going over budget. As Jason stated, he CAN’T do every single battle/plane in WW2.

 

BTW. Another IL-2 team doing BoB and MTO DOESNT permanently block the devs from doing them in IL-2 GBs. 

[E69_Qpassa_VR]

As a Spanish I would really love a Spanish campaign

Edited October 30, 2019 by E69_Qpassa_VR

[=gRiJ=Alado]

As a Spanish I would really love a Pacific campaign,

the other alternatives are secundary and can be played like a littles campaings, but the newest and most instesting for me, with out a doubt the Pacific

Worl war two simulator, with out a Pacific Campaing its half simulator. 

Edited October 31, 2019 by =gRiJ=Alado

[Rei-sen]

Del

Edited June 16, 2020 by Arthur-A
Opinion change

[DN308]

8 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

In regards to Italy, do you mean Sicily, or from Reggio Di Calabria to Italian-Swiss border, or all of Italy?

 

For Sicily: although it could happen in IL-2 GBs, it MAY happen after the Pacific as I feel that the devs will let Team Fusion cover that area first for CloD in a Siege of Malta and Operation Husky modules. For Malta, makes no sense to make a Malta map without Tunisia, NW Libya and Sicily as well

 

For the rest of Italy: Maybe, maybe not.

 

In 2017 when it became clear that the Pacific wasn’t going ahead, I’m sure that the devs looked at many alternative battles that they could do. Some areas may not have been as interesting or there wasn’t enough resources to do it; in the end they picked an area that hadn’t been covered in a long while and planes that people were familiar with, P-51, P-38, Me-262, P-47, Tempest.

 

The BoB and MTO as alternatives for the Pacific likely wouldn’t happen. Maybe the reason is not necessarily because another team is going there, maybe the primary reason is a lack of resources to do it right; perhaps there’s too many planes that have to be made to do the Battle of Britain and other modules right without going over budget. As Jason stated, he CAN’T do every single battle/plane in WW2.

 

BTW. Another IL-2 team doing BoB and MTO DOESNT permanently block the devs from doing them in IL-2 GBs. 

Concerning Italy I meant from Anzio to Rome with a big part around monte cassino

[Cybermat47]

With Bodenplatte’s release in a matter of weeks, if not days, and our work on CloD 5.0 getting closer to completion every day, I think that the war against Germany and Italy has gotten enough attention.

 

What I would like to see from GBS is the war against Japan. Instead of new versions of the Bf-109, Bf-110, Fw-190, He-111, and Ju-88, there would be brand new planes such as the Zero, Val, Kate, and Betty, fighting Hellcats, Buffaloes, Dauntlesses and Devastators, all rendered and modelled beautifully and accurately in a modern flight sim for (apart from the Hellcat) the first time.

[E69_Maquina]

On 10/31/2019 at 9:05 AM, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

With Bodenplatte’s release in a matter of weeks, if not days, and our work on CloD 5.0 getting closer to completion every day, I think that the war against Germany and Italy has gotten enough attention.

 

What I would like to see from GBS is the war against Japan. Instead of new versions of the Bf-109, Bf-110, Fw-190, He-111, and Ju-88, there would be brand new planes such as the Zero, Val, Kate, and Betty, fighting Hellcats, Buffaloes, Dauntlesses and Devastators, all rendered and modelled beautifully and accurately in a modern flight sim for (apart from the Hellcat) the first time.

 

I completely agree with you.

 

What we need is a new paradigm:

 

- Pacific theater, with stress in naval operations and exotic locations would be perfect.  I really miss those IL-2  aircraft carrier missions searching and attacking an enemy naval task force agains terrific AA and CAP; or invade a fortified japanese held island from the sea. 

 

- Another item I miss these days is a recreation of the allied bombing campaign from 1942 to 1944, especially the day missions carried by the USAF 8ht Air Force. Find and fight a big bomber formation at 8K with FW190, Me109 or even Me262, against scort P51, P47 or P38, would be nice. It would reward team work in MP campaigns too, leading to more immersion. 

 

Thank you all.

 

 

 

 

[Ala13_pienoir]

Korea?

Why not follow the line started with the M202?

It was you who talked about the evolution of jet engines for subsequent deliveries

Those theaters don't seem very attractive to vote

It seems the logical way, given the lack of simulation of this type, except for DCS that for various reasons is not able to offer what BOX offers

[Reggie_Mental]

On 10/27/2019 at 1:14 PM, Feathered_IV said:

 

Not many people will have time for an eight to ten hour round trip. How could this be translated into a viable computer game?

But look at the marketing opportunities!

 

IL2 Thermos Flask

IL2 Lunch Box

 

To keep you sustained during those 8 hour+ missions!!

Edited November 12, 2019 by Reggie_Mental

[FTC_Tobi_der_Ossi]

My heart whould go for Korea. Since you could fly Japan vs Soviet there like also early Cold war scenarios of soviet vs americans and brits. Also it whould be a wet dream regarding ground units as a ex-tanker irl. But from all of your list you added, France and Spain looks both interesting. As long ots not again a 42 eastern front with again the same planes like Moscow or stalingrad... 

[Talisman]

Something to breath some fresh air into things and pull in fresh interest and new customers.  For me that would be all of the potential and new options provided by depicting the Korean war as a combat flight simulation.

We could do with something a bit different.  The Pacific offers something different and fresh, but if the Pacific is not on the cards than I think Korea would draw the most interest from a business point of view for the developers, expand the player base and move things on nicely

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited June 14, 2020 by 56RAF_Talisman

[JG7_X-Man]

I like the idea of various campaigns from different periods. However, I am all about the economics of it all too. To get the 777 and 1c teams the most money for their labor - you have to go with Berlin '45. I like the idea of the PTO but the other issue with the Pacific is scope: you have 1942 - 1943 and 44 - 45 periods of the war and different areas of conflict to choose from. So just say "The Pacific" is over simplifying the task IMHO. 

On 6/14/2020 at 10:31 AM, 56RAF_Talisman said:

...Korean war as a combat flight simulation.

We could do with something a bit different.  The Pacific offers something different and fresh, but if the Pacific is not on the cards than I think Korea would draw the most interest from a business point of view for the developers, expand the player base and move things on nicely

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

 

I think it would be exciting! My issue here is the (FM) flight model, projectile physics and adapting this to 1950 jets. I know the Me 262 is a jet but of a different class and performance envelop. The  increases in speeds and service ceilings of at 50,000 ft will mean a tweak to the current aircraft spotting logic and the terrain imaginary at high altitude will have to be revamped too.

 

I like the idea - but it would be a whole new game to get it right.

[Talisman]

19 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I like the idea of various campaigns from different periods. However, I am all about the economics of it all too. To get the 777 and 1c teams the most money for their labor - you have to go with Berlin '45. I like the idea of the PTO but the other issue with the Pacific is scope: you have 1942 - 1943 and 44 - 45 periods of the war and different areas of conflict to choose from. So just say "The Pacific" is over simplifying the task IMHO. 

 

I think it would be exciting! My issue here is the (FM) flight model, projectile physics and adapting this to 1950 jets. I know the Me 262 is a jet but of a different class and performance envelop. The  increases in speeds and service ceilings of at 50,000 ft will mean a tweak to the current aircraft spotting logic and the terrain imaginary at high altitude will have to be revamped too.

 

I like the idea - but it would be a whole new game to get it right.

 

Fair comment X-Man Thank you.  Perhaps one day though.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

I want to fly in Faith, Hope and Charity!, and in the interest of even handness, have a go at shooting then down as well!!  i.e Malta + Italy

Edited June 18, 2020 by RAAF492SQNOz_Steve

[EMS2/4_kerlir]

On 2/26/2019 at 5:28 AM, R7-S276 said:

...a picture is always better than words so, this could be a MB-152 of the french fighter group II/1 third squadron during the battle of France in may 1940... 

Where can we found and download this fabulous skin?