Jump to content

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, [3./J88]PikAss said:

Why Korea? We have DCS for it. I think pacific, because they announced it before Bodenplatte.

 

No we don't. We have two BoKorea airplanes in DCS and that's about it. Also, the F-86 in DCS isn't the most representative Sabre model for the FEAF.

 

The cool thing about Korea is that it has both, jets and props and that it has naval and land-based aircraft.

Th negative part about Korea is that the "DPRK and friends" air forces are essentially a no-show over most of the peninsula for a pretty long time-frame.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well PTO is already decided as the next step, isn't it? If they are venturing that way with Battle of Midway as the first iteration a battle of Guadalcanal feels like a natural next step. Having a map with Port Moresby / Rabaul at the western edge and all the Solomons islands with San Chrisobal on the eastern edge would be awesome... Many historic battles to fight there, and a nice mix of water and islands that are not tiny atolls in the middle of nowhere. Many of these islands are also rather easy to model as it's mainly just mountains with jungle. Few towns, roads and hardly any landmarks to get right... But a lot of ships to model for us to be able to help fill the iron bottom sound... 

 

But I agree with many here that an Italian map would be nice as well. Team Fusion are doing Malta / North Africa for Clod, and and Italian 1944 map would be nice. Cannot remember any FS that has had central Italy? Nice terrain with mountain ranges etc. Not that I am that interested in leveling monasteries but a lot of historic missions took place there. And if we get flyable B-25s they only need to implement pilotable inflatable life rafts and we can paddle to Sweden in the end if we get tired of the war ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

IL-2 got prop fights as only sim right and now they should switch to jets? No, thanks. 😄

 

Better keep your hands off the 262 then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bremspropeller said:

Better keep your hands off the 262 then.

 

You are not seen playing online anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries, they aren't going to do a Korean War sandbox scenario (and that's all they could do).

 

They are probably going to stick with Midway if the next instalment is going to be Asiatic-Pacific themed.
Carrier battles are the most one-dimensional Asiatic-Pacific Theatre scenarios, but better than nothing. I just hope it's not going to backfire on them and founding a second instalment. Something like the Papua & New Guinea campaign (best all-around scenario), Burma, China or the Philippines 1944/45...
...just not Okinawa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Something like the Papua & New Guinea campaign (best all-around scenario)

 

This.

 

1 minute ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

You are not seen playing online anyway.

 

I am.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you guys arguing about a theatre of war and we don't even know what it is yet for IL2s next project.

 

It won't be us that's making the decision will it?

 

As for my present day Hornet, Lightning, Eurofighter, SU27 , SU35 , MIG35 suggestion you are missing the point by saying there's DCS

 

Iam talking about what makes the difference between a great sim and an average one certainly when there is a crossover of the same theatres.

 

There's gameplay , graphical quality -ok better spec machines , the immersive experience and what it means to you , either clickable cockpits or not- I prefer not , Now there's VR to

 

consider , everyone can chip in at this point and name their thing that makes it for them.

 

In a sense that at least I like I think IL2 can provide a better immersive experience than DCS and that's why I suggested it as an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like Korea, as long as I get a Twin Mustang, or a Sea Fury and some poorly flown Yak 9s, IL2s and Po-2s to shoot at.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, [3./J88]PikAss said:

 

Why Korea? We have DCS for it. I think pacific, because they announced it before Bodenplatte.

 

Where have you been?... when Froogle interviewed Jason a few months ago and was asked if he would do the Korean theatre he was very, very positive about it.

Plus, we now have a jet aircraft in the game with all the correct fm and physics applied so there is no reason not to.

Edited by Trooper117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I can see a Korea pack comming. 

But with the player base we got. I hope a new breed of players coming too. 

We will already see a diversion of player base between early and new in bobp. A korean pack can if everything is as is do more harm than good. For the idea it self is doable. 

For my sake there is so much ww2 left desired that going there is in my mind not comprehensive 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Il2 Battle of Korea Expansion with 3 levels of AI

Korean😥

Chinese😬

Soviet 😊

 

When the UN forces encountered the latter - they didn't know what hit them.  Probably prevented WW3 as Truman seemed to have an Atomic Itch but was shown that his then delivery systems were not up to the task.

 

Mig Alley https://www.rbth.com/blogs/continental_drift/2017/03/23/mig-alley-how-air-war-over-korea-became-bloodbath-west-725501

Share this post


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

 

No we don't. We have two BoKorea airplanes in DCS and that's about it. Also, the F-86 in DCS isn't the most representative Sabre model for the FEAF.

 

The cool thing about Korea is that it has both, jets and props and that it has naval and land-based aircraft.

Th negative part about Korea is that the "DPRK and friends" air forces are essentially a no-show over most of the peninsula for a pretty long time-frame.

Add to that no Korea map. The WW2 assets dont fit for Korea.

The radio needs a total redo so it sounds crappiet and calls signs are better - now it feels your flying a P51 or F86 in 2019. 

B29s are essential especially with the limited plane set now

We also definity need Il7s and Yak9s. Doesnt matter they didnt last long red needs something besides 1 jet.

Also F9Fs, Bearcats, F80s and F86s are crucial.  And again 2 maps or one big Korea map is a must have. Though Caucauses is mountainous Korea was very uniqur for an air war because plames making it to the water had a good chance of air crew retrieval and because dogfights for much of the war happ3ned in a certaib geographic area that bordered a non neutral country but one we were loathe to admit to bombing. This adds an interesting twist..

Itd also be important to make sure some red squadrons were vet or elite off rip representing vvs squadrons rotating in with othet squads having hifh quality flight and element leaders with average pilots.

Us pilotd shouldnt all be aces. F86 pilots should startabove average and slowly progress to veteran no morre besifes some aces.

Navy pilots and af pilots should.fly different and generally groundpoundef piloyd should be more average.

The CSAR teams would be interezting and a great mission set.

Dcs would have a long long way to go. One major advantage theyvhave on us is civvie traffic exists ans for a normandy dcs (rlly bp too but it aont happening) is random trains etc to shoot up (look at rommel) another manor advantage is tgey afded 4 engines. Im not a programmer and dont knoe all difficulties.  I know 4 engines are doavle (ilya murmomentd) but they say turretd \interiors arent. I dont see how this affevts the insides. I really think we need to deal with 4 engine bomberd or really rethink what we.re doing.NWE Z42 TO 45 is almost weird no 4 enfines. Korea you could do but itd ve something missing. Even PTO itd ve a glaring exception.  Youd HAVE to stick to midway, coral sea, marianas.  Iwo jimam mayve but no b29s landing halfway in for emergencies.  No okinawa or escorts to japam. Or phillipines or new guinea or CBI. Im sure some wobt csre and ahppily play those anyways bur as itnis bobp to me is just odd witbout even ai 4envgi es.  Again if the luftwagge had made.more geberal.purpose fighters it wouldnt be as notic3able but the m262 is purely an anti bomber plane. The fw190a8can fight fighterd but those guns are for bombers the gudtav series entire point was bexause the bombers. 

Just my thoughts

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Where have you been?... when Froogle interviewed Jason a few months ago and was asked if he would do the Korean theatre he was very, very positive about it.

Plus, we now have a jet aircraft in the game with all the correct fm and physics applied so there is no reason not to.

 

Let's make a bet then, i bet the next game won't be Korea, it will be pacific. If i win you buy me the next game and if you win I will buy you the next game. And Jason wants pacific more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

DCS can keep all the F18's and SU27's. If I wanted to play those planes I would be in DCS. I have no desire to run around at supersonic speeds while shooting missiles at people.

 

The reason I started playing IL2 is because its WW2 and the eastern front. Plus there is plenty of room for expansion within the confines of WW2. The Pacific, Italy and the Mediterranean, North Africa, etc

 

I could not agree more.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ulfricsombrage said:

 

I could not agree more.

I disagree totally. Both games have features that would improve the others immensely. Dcs has a wats to go - b4 ww2 assets and normandy flyong my p51 felt like flying a p51 - in 2017.

But I got to try*briefly* a friends full up ww2assets normandy map with all tge planes. The flak looks way better thanours and isnt as god like. The .50s are terribly nerfed. However the maps gorgeous. Theres 4 engined bombers galore.  It has INCREDIBLE potential and shouldnt be written off. In the late 90s there were about 3 ot 4 A list ww2games any time.  Noome was demanding one move to modern era.  Competitin is healthy and if both companies were smart theyd take ideasfrom both.

Dcs has random car and railway traffic. Thatd be huge.

And IMO the mission editor is much more intuitive and powerful.

The ides of dcs just being jetd and missilez is outdated by years now frankly. 

Hinestly besides the incredi ly weak .50 cals if the radio for ww2 planes had crappiet receptiom and different call signs itd go leaps and boinds for immersion.

Just an opinion but guys Id argue companies out there making ww2 sims arent our enemies - theyre on our side!!

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'd like Korea, as long as I get a Twin Mustang, or a Sea Fury and some poorly flown Yak 9s, IL2s and Po-2s to shoot at.

i rlly dont want korea. But itll ease the pain alot if they add lots of planes that normally arent there.

Like corsairs yak9s il7s etcfor the first summer.

Ive seen a twin.mistang in person i fell in love with it.

Lots of flysble.p51s and f82s and corsairs would be great. Of course f80s and f84s. Id also tbink itd go a lo g long ways if they add ai b29s and made some squads vvs squads rotsting in with high quality pilotd with the rest middling quality with good flight leaders.

Of course korea being the last jet-gunfighter era id say its totally pointless unless they definitively adress spotting ranges. Spotting needs to be visible much further away and IDK if many remeber but a semi crappy game about he air war ocer korea (not mig alley this was scripted) at long distance. Planes would "glint" (reflect sublightl it eas done verrry well

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fair enough you don't want the jets of today I can understand easily enough.

 

If you looked at my earlier posts you would see that my first choice for new project was Normandy 1944.

 

This is because my first love in military aviation is WWII followed by WWI,  and I think that Normandy would be a good choice because I don't think its been done the way

 

1C Games  Studios could do it.Also it encapsulates what Jason and the team are doing with tanks, as Tank Crew and the opportunity to expand that genre from 6th June 1944.

 

I mentioned present day NATO versus Russia because its an attractive subject and I like these jets as well, but not as much as propeller craft from WWII.

Edited by timothy55
wrong company name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

i still dream about a Six Day War combat flight sim :blush:

will never happen , i know. And 1C/777 should stay in WW1 & 2.

Strike fighters 2 Israel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Redwo1f said:

Strike fighters 2 Israel

true, i played that - just forgot it ,it is ages ago.

 

But just think about flying french and soviet (and british) fighters of this war in 777 qualitiy !

As is said, just a dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ulfricsombrage said:

I have no desire to run around at supersonic speeds while shooting missiles at people.

I think you have misunderstood the concept. I flown DCS some years and owned it since first lock on. 

And I never spent my time that way. 

However. Flying even fc3 aircraft require proper procedure in order to release bombs or for that matter fire guns. 

I find it refreshing to do a simulation of real airwar procedure in between GB. 

I am not negative to Korea because of DCS. Only because of playerbase. I think GB going to Korea will be a thrill for many. They cut the bullshit and give people access to a easy enough aircraftsystem making those with talent aces within a week. 

DCS Mig 15 gonna be hard to beat, maybe tha funniest module in the program, but for the wargame itself I think GB will make a winner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with a Korean War map/expansion. Its an attractive scenario, both geographically and technologically. I just don't want to play modern jets with all their modern systems. Never have. If others do, and want the complexity of DCS then fine. That's why DCS exists. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I could write an entire article why Korea is a bad idea and most people will agree with me when i do, even those who don't like me, and why pacific, spain, finnish airplanes, medtar., north africa are the way better scenarios than bloody korea. 🤦‍♀️

Edited by MeoW.Scharfi
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd much rather see the Pacific than Korea, be sure.  I find jet on jet combat, tedious, at best.

 

Now Hawk 75s and Brewster 239s vs. I-153s and I-16s, with a mix of early bombers, oh yeah, that works too.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact I came to this sim because it was the only one which did eastfont. With westfront and PTO I´m equally fine but all other stuff I´m not interested in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, timothy55 said:

Fair enough you don't want the jets of today I can understand easily enough.

 

If you looked at my earlier posts you would see that my first choice for new project was Normandy 1944.

 

This is because my first love in military aviation is WWII followed by WWI,  and I think that Normandy would be a good choice because I don't think its been done the way

 

1C Games  Studios could do it.Also it encapsulates what Jason and the team are doing with tanks, as Tank Crew and the opportunity to expand that genre from 6th June 1944.

 

I mentioned present day NATO versus Russia because its an attractive subject and I like these jets as well, but not as much as propeller craft from WWII.

Not sure if you mean me bc I love modern jets too though I admit from the 60s to 90s theres a soft spot in me. I have a serious love affair with my DCS F14 module and UH1. In fact me playong GB was literally only me throwing an adult temper tsntrum with myself for not bengle able to properly afford dcs f14 :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as can be seen, our little niche combat sim market is really really diverse in what we want - desires are all over the place as evident in theater desires, aircraft desires, etc. - and that is completely okay.  😀 It is wonderful to be passionate about aircraft and history!  I think it is something we ALL have in common here.

 

There are some who are going to be very excited with choices 1C makes, others accepting, others disappointed - that's simply the reality of the future. One thing, however, I think will be extremely divisive (if it can't already been seen in the forum),  more so than any ww2 theater direction release (West, East, South, Pacific) or particular stand-alone collector release - would be a shift to Korea for next installment. That would pit all those WW2 enthusiasts wanting the title to explore further this conflict against those wishing for later warfare. And I think that would be a huge rift in the community and cause a lot of turmoil. I think it would be a big mistake to go Korea for very next release -- not saying to not ever go there - just I think it would be a momumentally bad move to make right now.  -- feel free to disagree, and that's okay to.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

It'll be PTO, they didn't just increase the draw distances to 100+km for nothing.

 

This, although jet combat would present a necessity for larger draw distance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sublime.

                    Since you have a soft spot for Jet aircraft from the 60s to the 90s does that mean you are going to suggest Vietnam, and of course Phantoms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, timothy55 said:

                    Since you have a soft spot for Jet aircraft from the 60s to the 90s does that mean you are going to suggest Vietnam, and of course Phantoms?

 

There's a time where modelling jets doesn't make sense anymore on the BoX engine - that's where jets are starting to become too complicated.

An F-84G or the vanilla F-86 are technologcally WW2 aircraft with jet engines, so very few additional tweaks are required to make them happen.

 

The cut-off happens in the mid 50s, when jets are carrying more and more capable radars and the onboard systems (engine control and regulation, hydraulic architecture, electrical bus structures, etc) are getting more complicated. Heck, the F-106 has an automatic aft fuel transfer when flying supersonic...

 

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

I could write an entire article why Korea is a bad idea and most people will agree with me when i do, even those who don't like me, and why pacific, spain, finnish airplanes, medtar., north africa are the way better scenarios than bloody korea. 🤦‍♀️

I agree. Korea will be a diversion and should be done in a separate brand after GB. Like Rof and GB. 

I think it will bring a precedence to those only thinking speed and fire power to get more modern afterward. In that regard I feel it is a highjack of a ww2 sim running a campaign for Korea. 

GB have yet to cover a great deal more of WW 2 before evolving to the fifties. 

So in that regard I also do agree on previous statement. If you want to go there fly DCS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Korea would certainly be a break with the current line. It would be interesting to see what 1C would make of it. But as "main title" I would be rather disappointed. If they did it like Tank Crew and had the 3D models created by a third party, it would be an interesting niche within the Great Battles Series. But I'm not sure whether this would go beyond the limits alongside the (hopefully successful) Tank Crew and Flying Circus projects.
I think there is another scenario where you could use especially variants of the P-47 and P-51 (Europe/Italy end of 43 beginning 44) and the Pacific most likely. Whereby this depends of course on the source situation.  Regardless of that, I have the hope that the next big patch (or maybe even before that) will tell us where the journey is going.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dream about isles, big boats...and palm trees...🌴...:rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a fairly long time I was convinced that Korea would be the next theater but I've changed my mind in recent weeks and think we will be heading to PTO next.

 

I know New Guinea and Midway are very popular choices but for me I'd prefer Burma, if we end up in the Pacific. It would be a great choice as it would include many nations and aircraft types with ample terrain and the possibility of naval operations. However, I'm still convinced we will be flying MiG's and Sabers over the Korean Peninsula one day.

 

   

third_burma_campaign_lg.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I know New Guinea and Midway are very popular choices but for me I'd prefer Burma, if we end up in the Pacific. It would be a great choice as it would include many nations and aircraft types with ample terrain and the possibility of naval operations.

Carrier battles and Guadalcanal/Solomons are probably the most popular ones for now. I'm afraid many proponents will come to realize the drawbacks only after a release.
New Guinea is honestly the most diverse and all-around best first scenario. On top of that, it's doable with only small additions to the current tech.

Don't get me wrong, Burma is a highly interesting scenario and I'd love it (one of the few chances to get my beloved Ki-44), but it's also very limiting in some respects and, as much as I hate to say it, too much of a niche.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'd prefer Burma,

It is just too hard choosing 1.  

I wont be sad if we got Burma. Not even a little bit. Once we there we will get New Guinea. And we wont depend on carriers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI improvements would make me return to the game and buy more content. Until then I'll wait. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that they will stick to WW2 / WW1. IMO most of the people currently playing the Il2 GB series would like any other WW2 specific scenario. On the other hand, if they actually go for post-war scenarios they will lose a big chunk of the current playerbase. From what I see around the topics in the forum a lot of people share this opinion. (yes I do know that the people on the forum represent a very small portion of the whole il2 playerbase.) Anyway, I just see it as a lose-lose if they go for a post-war scenario. What's the point of attracting new players if "half" of your current playerbase leaves? 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:


New Guinea is honestly the most diverse and all-around best first scenario. 

 

Says you.

I can’t argue with it's diversity, but we need carrier ops and the classic Zeke vs Wildcat  matchup can’t be ignored. Thus anything excluding those things arguably  cannot be “best”.

 

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Zeke vs Wildcat  matchup can’t be ignored

 

I really do wonder how that will play out in mp. 

Zeke got a huge advantage in a neutral startingpoint. 

Its only disadvantage is if it get hit

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...