Jump to content
Eisenfaustus

Alternative for Pacific Theatre after Bodenplatte

Alternative for "Pacific" after Bodenplatte  

369 members have voted

  1. 1. If Pacific proves undoable, what alternative for a pacific theatre would you prefer to be developed after Bodenplatte? Battle of...

    • Spain (I15, I16, R5, SB + D.510 vs He 51, Bf109B/C/D, Ju87A, Do17 + Cr 32)
      77
    • Talvisota (I16, I153, SB2, DB3 + MRB2 vs Fokker DXXI, Brewster 239, Fokker C10, Bristol Blenheim + M.S. 406)
      37
    • France (D.520, Hawk 75, Potez 63, MB.170 + Hurricane vs BF109E3, BF110C2, Ju87B2, Do17 + Hs 123)
      91
    • Berlin (Yak3, La7, IL10, Tu2 + P39Q vs BF109G10, Ta152H, Me410, Do217 + He162)
      85
    • I don't care - If they can't do Pacific, I'm out anyway!
      79


Recommended Posts

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 by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by jollyjack
added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This: 😀

 

From Task Force Admiral RTS

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sokol1 said:

From Task Force Admiral RTS

 

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.

 

colonne-a-2.png?w=360

Edited by Motherbrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by jollyjack
added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

That's not how game development/financing works.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :P

Edited by Japo32
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Italy campaign is a good idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Spanish I would really love a Spanish campaign

Edited by E69_Qpassa_VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Spanish I would really love a Pacific campaign, :biggrin:

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 by =gRiJ=Alado
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be awesome to have Battle of Britain on this engine. I'm not saying immediately after Bodenplatte, but maybe after Pacific and some other theater. It was one of the greatest air battles. So if IL-2 GB really means Great Battles then Battle of Britain is a must have within this title.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Reggie_Mental

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...