Jump to content

Pacific theatre


Ekaton
 Share

Recommended Posts

PatrickAWlson
On 12/4/2019 at 5:08 PM, Voyager said:

@343KKT_KintaroWait, was there ever a presumption that we weren't nuts? We're flight simmers here; I thought being nuts was a prerequisite? 

 

Spend 3K on a computer, 1K on stick, throttle and pedals, another 1K on VR equipment, all so we can play a game  ... then complain that the game costs $80.  Sane i tell you, totally sane.  

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Spend 3K on a computer, 1K on stick, throttle and pedals, another 1K on VR equipment, all so we can play a game  ... then complain that the game costs $80.  Sane i tell you, totally sane.  

My flight sim equipment

maxflight stick

collective 1,6k 

rudderpedals 0,5 k

throttle selfbuild from a trainer 0,5 k
pc 3,5k

panels 0,5k

rift s 0,3 k

 

now 8 years back 

3,5 k in pc

0,7 k in yoke

 

But if I had not done this I would have spent it x 1000 in flying lessons and rent on planes or more to be able to back seat a Spit. 
Expences is relative. But this game is cheap

 

Edited by No.322_LuseKofte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Amiral_Crapaud
On 12/3/2019 at 2:20 AM, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

I do not expect any Pacific/Asia map for that game before 2023, 2024 or even a later date.

 

Nevertheless, my question remains the same : what theatre of operations in the Pacific (or in Asia) could be played on a full-scale map?

 

1. Guadalcanal makes poor sense as the distance from Rabaul (Japanese base of operations) to Guadalcanal (American fleet) is too long. The map would be too big. Undoable in terms of gameplay.

 

Early maps in the war chronology, like

 

2. Pearl Harbor

3. Coral Sea

4. Midway

 

 

Come on guys, we have to stop with the carrier non-sense. These are battles that lasted days, if not less (one morning for PH...), these are not viable playgrounds, gameplay-speaking. If PTO was to happen, Leyte would definitely have my preference with all the possibilities it offers, the reasonable range and the fact that all services (IJN, IJA, USN, USMC, USAAF) had a role to play. All sorts of missions took place, from invasion CAS, naval strike, kamikaze ops, night ops to... actual airborne assault! Can't get more rad than that. My 2 cts!

 

With BoN we just got handed a map that can work for anything between 1940 and 1944 on the Kanalfront. There is a lot to enjoy in this offering. Carrier battles as a setting would absolutely pale in that regard...

Edited by Amiral_Crapaud
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good point @Amiral_Crapaud and I would add that the carrier-oriented careers or "dynamic campaigns" in il21946/PF were a proof that it is hard to create a coherent single-player experience. For all the excitement that carrier-borne opetations were supposed to allow, I only really enjoyed the takeoffs and landings. There would be one mission happening in PH, then two in the Coral Sea, than two others in Midway, and it all felt the same. I remember getting tired of it very quickly, and eventually resorted to mere practicing T/o and landing in carriers. (Edit: proper radio navigation procedures would go a long way to make things more interesting and challenging, and by the end of the development cycle of the game I recall some where implemented).

 

I would like to see the PTO for the refreshing planesets and handsome land sceneries, mostly. So Burma, Solomons, Syngapore.... all of that seems much more feasible and effective.

Edited by danielprates
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinking carriers and destroyers with torpedos along with carrier takeoffs/landings are what PTO is all about....and pretty much enough! :)

 

Two questions: were there any naval ops in  La Manche involving planes loaded with torpedos and carriers?

I know there were ju88 and he111 versions fitted with torpedo racks.

Was there any Mossie, a20 and b25/26 torpedo versions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

I've more or less given up on it.

On PTO yes, but for BoN we can at least get Fairey Swordfish with torpedo as collector ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

On PTO yes, but for BoN we can at least get Fairey Swordfish with torpedo as collector ;)

 

The future looks bleak for anybody who want's anything other than the most pristinely documented aircraft. 

 

Not just In Il2 but for any sim.

 

I think I've spent enough money on this anyway. With the money I've spent on flight sims I could have made a nice RC model of a Japanese plane.

 

I'm still debating weather or not to buy into BoN. I doubt it. I still have Christmas gifts to get.

Edited by Motherbrain
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

 

The future looks bleak for anybody who want's anything other than the most pristinely documented aircraft. 

 

Not just In Il2 but for any sim.

 

I think I've spent enough money on this anyway. With the money I've spent on flight sims I could have made a nice RC model of a Japanese plane.

It's Sunday, be optimistic!

At some point they'll have to tackle PTO, there are flyable Jap planes out there as well docs, how to get them is another story.

Even DCS is going PTO, it'll take them years but again it will be done, same in il2 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

It's Sunday, be optimistic! At some point they'll have to tackle PTO.

 

We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep telling you guys, New Guinea is the location for long term ops in the "Pacific" theater.  It can be broken up into several different maps for different time periods of the campaign there, and there is a plethora of different plane types to satisfy everyone.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2019 at 5:33 PM, Voyager said:

 

Doing some digging around, it looks like the 846 and 849th Naval Air Squadrons may have been operating in the Channel around Normandy during D-Day. We'll need to do more digging to see if either operated from land bases during that period, or if they were strictly carrier based. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/846_Naval_Air_Squadron

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/849_Naval_Air_Squadron

 

They were land based, part of Coastal Command. Your link to 846 Sqn says

Quote

HMS Tracker was damaged in June 1944 in a collision with the Canadian frigate HMCS Teme (K458) while forming part of the naval screen for the D-Day landings, and the squadron disembarked to RAF Limavady airfield, Northern Ireland, joining 15 Group RAF Coastal Command.

 

...so they were deployed over the Channel for the invasion, but they were based way off the map.

 

=========================
Il2 Battle of the Solomons...but even that would be a huge map. Low on objects but still a large area. No carriers needed.

 

ObtiYMp.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro

In 2004-2011 computer engineering and (at the time) state-of-the-art video game development brought to us hours of fun on board of naval aircraft, on board of carriers… and so on.


The 2000s did it.


The 2010s and 2020s no longer can do it.


Sure, I believe you...


This game is fantastic, this 1C Game Studios company is fantastic, the Normandy map will be fantastic, and I do approve 1C's policy because I trust them. I who dream of a flight sim game set in the Pacific do not complain. No, I do not complain, I do not whine. That's one point.


Another completely different point is the following: future improvements in graphic cards and processors, and efforts provided by the community, will allow in a few years that the current game engine (or a completely new one) runs large boxes of 4-engined bombers in Europe and carriers in the Pacific theater of operations too, with plenty of Zeroes, Wildcats, Hayates and Corsairs.


It's only a matter of time.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

keep telling you guys, New Guinea is the location for long term ops in the "Pacific" theater.

... and so did I, over and over again. It would have been the obvious choice based on the current state of the game and the gameplay options.
Data is available; help has been offered. Whatever the reason(s) might be, it's not going to happen. Probably 75% business decision, 25% not feeling/being up to the task.
I'm giving up on it. All I'm waiting for is the promised official comment.
They knew for a long time - they should have told us a long time ago.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

I'm giving up on it. All I'm waiting for is the promised official comment.

They knew for a long time - they should have told us a long time ago.

 

This. 👆

Edited by Motherbrain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree about clarifying PTO ambitions. 
But we are customers of a very cheap combat flight sim. 
We are not part owners, the devs do not have any depth’s to us. 
We buy what we like and what we buy is supported. 
I bought bobp and tank crew for supporting development of PTO, I did understand that those packs would fund such endeavor. And this is why I feel they should tell us if it ever will come. 
I now buy things that I want, abandoned the support PTO development idea I had. Lucky for me Normandy contain things I want. 
But get this straight, they did have ambitions to go there, I simply think it is a step too far. But they not in any way obligated to go there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amiral_Crapaud
1 hour ago, Megalax said:

 

=========================
Il2 Battle of the Solomons...but even that would be a huge map. Low on objects but still a large area. No carriers needed.

 

ObtiYMp.jpg

 

Come on... Solomons without carriers is unthinkable - and without Rabaul even more so :)

That is, if you want to make it historical. You'd have the most realistic planes to ever fly in there, but you'd be content with missions all starting in Munda in order to cut the trip? Not quite sure about that TBH... :P

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play this sim for fun, and my idea of fun does not include 3-4 hour return flights. You can have a lot of great battles through the Slot without Rabaul.

I dealt with this kind of "constructive" criticism when I was on the build team that brought the Slot maps to 1946. "Whine whine you can't have Guadalcanal without Rabaul...whine whine you can't have Rabaul without New Guinea...whine whine you can't can't can't..."

For that matter we shouldn't have a Channel map without Norway, or a Rheinland map without Berlin. Just ask for the whole world while we're here. Then we can do those smaller battles like Madagascar.

Edited by Megalax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro

 

Rabaul + Solomons... this produces a map like this one:

 

Rabaul-Guadalcanal.jpg

 

 

Which has been already described as a too large map to be properly developed.

 

Rather than including the Bismarck archipelago in the map, let's focus on the Solomons only and put a few Rufes in Munda harbour bases… which is, apparently, much more feasable.

 

Popular sets for a Pacific module, thus better for ensuring commercial success, could be Pearl Harbor or Midway. The entire archipelago of Hawaii fits perfectly inside the frames of the usual "Great Battles" map format.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amiral_Crapaud
51 minutes ago, Megalax said:

I play this sim for fun, and my idea of fun does not include 3-4 hour return flights. You can have a lot of great battles through the Slot without Rabaul.

I dealt with this kind of "constructive" criticism when I was on the build team that brought the Slot maps to 1946. "Whine whine you can't have Guadalcanal without Rabaul...whine whine you can't have Rabaul without New Guinea...whine whine you can't can't can't..."

For that matter we shouldn't have a Channel map without Norway, or a Rheinland map without Berlin. Just ask for the whole world while we're here. Then we can do those smaller battles like Madagascar.

Erm... I get your point bro, but you don't need Norway to fight the Abbeville boys, cover Dieppe, Cerberus or Overlord...

 

I am from the same school of fun as you are. I have the same love of the topic as the one you show. But some like their game as close to IRL experience as possible. Regarding the sort of experience Il-2 GB provides, we should have their level of expectation as the golden standard from which we might "dumb down" our experience, not the other way around. My 2cts.

 

I mean, as a map for the latter part of the campaign, why not. But there is simply no Japanese airfield on this map as late as September 1942, to the least. Hell, at that time there's simply no actual airfield outside of Lunga at all! :P

 

Now, sorry if my criticism is not "constructive" enough for your ears (you do know that bullying or patronizing newcomers is not the answer to your problems btw, right...? Not nice...) but I made my opinion clear about what other options are available. I hardly need a game design lesson from a guy who thinks that Carriers are irrelevant in terms of gameplay in a 1942 Solomons setting. If you are not happy with the standards set so far by the series, I advise you to develop your own game - rest assured that I will happily discuss the design choices and buy a copy :)

Edited by Amiral_Crapaud
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Motherbrain said:

I'm still debating whether or not to buy into BoN. I doubt it. I still have Christmas gifts to get.

 

If you're that upset, just skip it and move on. Life is too short to let this minor disappointment ruin your day much less your Christmas.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro

Nobody said that something is spoiling somebody's life or day. The guy simply mentioned that he will not buy the Normandy module for the moment and he gave the reason. That's all.

 

The above was only my reading but, naturally, I may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Amiral_Crapaud said:

Erm... I get your point bro, but you don't need Norway to fight the Abbeville boys, cover Dieppe, Cerberus or Overlord...

 

I am from the same school of fun as you are. I have the same love of the topic as the one you show. But some like their game as close to IRL experience as possible. Regarding the sort of experience Il-2 GB provides, we should have their level of expectation as the golden standard from which we might "dumb down" our experience, not the other way around. My 2cts.

 

I mean, as a map for the latter part of the campaign, why not. But there is simply no Japanese airfield on this map as late as September 1942, to the least. Hell, at that time there's simply no actual airfield outside of Lunga at all! :P

 

 

Now, sorry if my criticism is not "constructive" enough for your ears (you do know that bullying or patronizing newcomers is not the answer to your problems btw, right...? Not nice...) but I made my opinion clear about what other options are available. I hardly need a game design lesson from a guy who thinks that Carriers are irrelevant in terms of gameplay in a 1942 Solomons setting. If you are not happy with the standards set so far by the series, I advise you to develop your own game - rest assured that I will happily discuss the design choices and buy a copy :)

 

 

I'm just as new here as you are Monsieur.

 

I wasn't talking about your criticism per se, just to the fact that so many people speak of adding this map or this plane and then others come in and chime in about how it wouldn't be a good enough experience for them. Let's just say that it doesnt matter what you or anyone offers as a solution, someone else will whine about it.

Speaking of the Battle of the Solomons though, obviously you couldn't choose to model a map that size just for the sake of having one airfield on it. You'd have to chose another timeframe, from late 1943 onwards, right around the time that Corsairs showed up in the island chain. You can't just say no we need carriers because 1942. That is just too limiting. However creating a map and offering a later timeframe from which to enjoy it would appease some of the ones wanting Pacific battles while allowing more time to eventually develop carrier ops for this sim. That way you'd have some Pacific action in the next year or two rather than in ten.

 

Respects kind sir.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Motherbrain said:

I'm still debating weather or not to buy into BoN. I doubt it. I still have Christmas gifts to get.

No BoN for me this Christmas either, have many other life priorities but preorder doesn't end this month, in 2020 i'll get that golden BoN badge.

Channel map alone is worth 80$, and possibilities it provides are whoaa!

 

I still think PTO will happen, but not soon.

Jason said many times they have docs but translations were problem, they wouldn't make official PTO announcement if they didn't have any background and preparation.

Going 3 products was smarter decision for customer base, profit and company/studio growth.

 

And BoN was logical move, continuation of western front with another popular planeset that will sell well and Channel map that will be groundwork for all 3 products (BoN, FC and TC).

With channel map they can sell FC collector planes aswell TC collector tanks and campaigns...or even sequels (Flying Crew and Tank Circus vol.2 😆😆).

I smell long term business plan, a genious one!

 

 

Edited by EAF_Ribbon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, this version of the map will be the best solution. Solomons is the most promising area for PTO

1898481434_1943solomons.jpg.28eeb43c514541ab2454a1d0974dd698.thumb.jpg.53a419a8e3cc1fff621e6df8f7b1e765.jpg

Edited by Viktor33_33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heliopause said:

Dornier 24.png

I cannot understand why a sea plane is not offered yet. We had many in ROF and they where gorgious

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amiral_Crapaud
4 hours ago, Megalax said:

 

 

I'm just as new here as you are Monsieur.

 

I wasn't talking about your criticism per se, just to the fact that so many people speak of adding this map or this plane and then others come in and chime in about how it wouldn't be a good enough experience for them. Let's just say that it doesnt matter what you or anyone offers as a solution, someone else will whine about it.

Speaking of the Battle of the Solomons though, obviously you couldn't choose to model a map that size just for the sake of having one airfield on it. You'd have to chose another timeframe, from late 1943 onwards, right around the time that Corsairs showed up in the island chain. You can't just say no we need carriers because 1942. That is just too limiting. However creating a map and offering a later timeframe from which to enjoy it would appease some of the ones wanting Pacific battles while allowing more time to eventually develop carrier ops for this sim. That way you'd have some Pacific action in the next year or two rather than in ten.

 

Respects kind sir.

 

No worries, kind Sir!

We are of one mind. I agree that any initiative, at any rate and despite inherent limitations, will always be - leagues above - better than nothing :)

 

S! o7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro
4 hours ago, Viktor33_33 said:

In my opinion, this version of the map will be the best solution. Solomons is the most promising area for PTO

1898481434_1943solomons.jpg.28eeb43c514541ab2454a1d0974dd698.thumb.jpg.53a419a8e3cc1fff621e6df8f7b1e765.jpg

 

 

Indeed, it is smaller than the version I mentioned above… Nevertheless (and I may be wrong 'cause I'm far from being an expert on video gaming development), I think that this one still is too large for the ressources at the devs' disposal.

 

I'm afraid some people here, on these forums, are tired to answer questions about Pacific map scales and sizes. Let's leave it as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

I'm giving up on it. All I'm waiting for is the promised official comment.
They knew for a long time - they should have told us a long time ago.

 

This as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope is a good thing. I guess they haven’t officially abandoned PTO , because they haven’t given up on it. 
If they one day official abandon it it is no way back, as for now there is hope. I still hope to fly Devastators, Kate’s , Val’s and Dauntless 

Catalina would also dig in on my flyingtime. 
But staying angry at people for their ambition to go there, but not yet being able to do so, is in my mind not fair, being temporary disappointed, yes, but by now it should have passed. 
Let it go, chill, wait and see what happens. 
Forcing a answer now, might work against us

Edited by No.322_LuseKofte
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro
2 hours ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

Forcing a answer now, might work against us

 

Absolutely.

 

It is fair enough to me if we discuss that matter, a future Pacific theatre of operations in this game, but never reaching the point when simmers start reproaching to each other, or getting angry. That would be ridiculous.

 

A s I said in past comments of mine : we will get it when will get it. That PTO will be ready when it will be ready, not after, not before.

 

Let's stay cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

I would have accepted BON better if at least they include torpedoes. We need them so much ....

I don't recall torpedoes even being mentioned in any book I have read on the Normandy campaign. If you can't accept an addition like Normandy without something as irrelevant as torpedoes...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

I would have accepted BON better if at least they include torpedoes. We need them so much ....

My greatest wish but we'll need North Atlantik map for that!

It's better devs spend time on B-25/26 than on Swordfish and Baracuda and save resources for torpedo bombers in PTO and MTO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the torpedoes are not for Normandy but for future escenarios and to start paving the path for the PTO.

Edited by =gRiJ=Roman-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.332.Animal_Mother
1 hour ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

I don't recall torpedoes even being mentioned in any book I have read on the Normandy campaign. If you can't accept an addition like Normandy without something as irrelevant as torpedoes...

 

They were used by the Germans in the battle of Normandy apparently:

 

I found this online: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/gaf-invasion-normandy.html#III

 

Chapter III paragraphs 16, 17, 20, 22, 24... and onwards, just search for torpedo in the document.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

But the torpedoes are not for Normandy but for future escenarios and to star paving the path for the PTO.

They develop what can be historically used in current expansions which is reasonable.

15 minutes ago, Sig_NOR said:

 

They were used by the Germans in the battle of Normandy apparently:

 

I found this online: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/gaf-invasion-normandy.html#III

 

Chapter III paragraphs 16, 17, 20, 22, 24... and onwards, just search for torpedo in the document.

Nice find....i think that was ju88-A17 variant!

That would be nice to have :)

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...