Jump to content

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

Honestly a Western Europe 1943/144 set wouldn't be too bad

P-51B/C, earlier Spitfire Mk IX's, Hurricanes, Typhoons, Mosquitos...

 

 

Might well be a 3/44 - 9/44 Normandy module. I´m sure we will learn before x-mas.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im all for a good plane set, but for me a new map excites me the most. I love the diversity of the Kuban map and would would enjoy seeing coast lines, hills, mountains like you would see in Italy somewhere. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I think is next after Bodenplatte, the Pacific, Guadalcanal in particular. If that proves to be undoable then, drum roll please: They will return to the Eastern front, Finland/Leningrad is what I hope for because aircraft (mostly Russian) could be used for the BOM, a team is already working on the map. If not Finland, then Smolensk (41 and 43) or Bagration. I think returning to the Eastern front is the devs best bet ( along with working on TC and FC) as that’s Really the only thing they can do til the Pacific is ready to be made.

 

Doing an early war Western Front and Mediterranean, Italy and possibly D-Day right now is not likely to happen as that would just cannibalize the product that Team Fusion makes for Cliffs of Dover. If Jason saw no potential for CloD to be a commercially successful product, then he wouldn’t have given them the 1C source code back in 2016, nor would he right now do a BoB or Tobruk for IL-2 GBs. Even if CloD wasn’t doing the BoB or Med, I doubt that the devs would even go to those areas right now because there would be too many planes/ships that have to be made, and too many numbers of planes in flights for the Battle of Britain ( BTW I feel that they would need 3rd Party teams to make most of the ships for both PTO and MTO). With Bodenplatte we’re missing the heavy bombers because they take too long to make, even for the AI versions. I feel that we should just wait to see what Team Fusion has to offer us before making the devs go to those areas.

 

Saying that CloD needs to end is equivalent to saying in early 2016 that IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad should end. Imagine what a mistake that would have been if this game ended after BOM, the 2nd instalment of BoX.

 

Anyway, I really hope that the devs are able to go to the Pacific after Bodenplatte, if not then the best place would be the Eastern Front or a Tank Crew battle for WW2 content.

 

Thank you for reading what I have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another eastern front expansion would be the best way to ensure that my money remains in my wallet.

 

I appreciate the great work that these devs do, but after three eastern front titles; to get a taste of something else with Bodenplatte, then go back to the eastern front yet again-  I just can't justify the expense for something I'm thoroughly tired of.

 

I feel like I've flown on the eastern front now for longer than the actual pilots involved did.

 

As for Normandy, I feel like it would suffer a bit from Battle of Moscow syndrome.  It might be hard for some potential buyers to "move in reverse" after flying the aircraft available in Bodenplatte.  I of course have no data on BoM's sales numbers, but my impression from talking to people in this community and others, is that it isn't as popular as BoS.

 

I am also clearly biased toward PTO, so take that as you will.  :)

 

 

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

Another eastern front expansion would be the best way to ensure that my money remains in my wallet.

 

I appreciate the great work that these devs do, but after three eastern front titles; to get a taste of something else with Bodenplatte, then go back to the eastern front yet again-  I just can't justify the expense for something I'm thoroughly tired of.

 

I feel like I've flown on the eastern front now for longer than the actual pilots involved did.

 

As for Normandy, I feel like it would suffer a bit from Battle of Moscow syndrome.  It might be hard for some potential buyers to "move in reverse" after flying the aircraft available in Bodenplatte.  I of course have no data on BoM's sales numbers, but my impression from talking to people in this community and others, is that it isn't as popular as BoS.

 

I am also clearly biased toward PTO, so take that as you will.  :)

 

 

I agree with you except for the Normandy part. Eastern front needs to stay away for a while, if it's the next expansion then I'll probably be disappointed.

Normandy would be ok because I prefer the Normandy aircraft over Bodenplatte.

 

The pacific is my hope mostly due to my fav aircraft serving in the Pacific (some served everywhere).

New Guinea, Solomon, Midway, would all be welcome additions and a day one pre-order for me.

 

I'd also love to see the CBI theater just so I can fly the P-40B, P-43 Lancer, F2A Buffalo, etc.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope that Great Battles will include Battle of Britain at some time in the future. Yeah, CloD has it, and it has some potential. I'm looking forward for the 5.0 release, but still it's not even close to Great Battles in terms of detail, FM, and whole lot of other things. It is not a competitor to the GB. It would be a shame if CloD has influence on GB set of theaters.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we’re dreaming; I would love to buy an Il-2 Deluxe expansion.  No planes and maps necessary, just an optional player-side upgrade of AI, radio calls and smoke and visual damage etc.  Made for the things that won’t break compatibility with the base game.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Wasn't the Hurricane pretty much retired by 1943, on the service of the RAF in western europe at least?

 

I was reading The Big Show today and it seems like according to Closterman they were used in as late as December 43 to attack the V1 installations in northern France. They needed Spitfire mk IX fighter cover of course.

Edited by Jade_Monkey

Share this post


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

While we’re dreaming; I would love to buy an Il-2 Deluxe expansion.  No planes and maps necessary, just an optional player-side upgrade of AI, radio calls and smoke and visual damage etc.  Made for the things that won’t break compatibility with the base game.  

 

Pretty much my thoughts, I would love to get an expansion/patch to all these "little" things with implementation of some planes missing features, which would improve general "sim" side of the game. But again I don't play that much and understand there might be many people bit bored with current planes/maps as they have flown them in every way, hundreds of times.

 

Spoiler

On the other side wouldn't mind PTO or Africa as well as I just love these theatres :crazy:

 

Edited by TrueGrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

One reason why I feel so strongly about New Guinea is it's importance to the Japanese, and the huge resource losses they suffered trying to hold it.  Fully 50% of Japanese Army pilots with over 300 hours of combat experience were lost in the air campaign over New Guinea.  Let that sink in a bit.  The core of the Imperial Japanese Army Air Corps was lost in a single, long campaign.

 

Read Guadalcanal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guadalcanal offers fewer mission types than a New Guinea scenario.  There are way more stories to be told there.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Guadalcanal offers fewer mission types than a New Guinea scenario.  There are way more stories to be told there.  

 

Let's be honest, online MP it's going to be the same type of objectives over and over again as we have now; just with different window dressing.

 

In SP, just having a naval element and possibly float planes is going to introduce new missions beyond what we have now.  For one, Guadalcanal would be a great vehicle to integrate the artillery spotting (naval bombardment) that the Flying Circus guys are really hoping for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was plenty of artillery spotting to be done in New Guinea.  The Australian and US forces had the range to raid Japanese airfields too.  Plus there was a significant amount of anti-shipping operations against merchants, troop carriers and barges as well as warships.  The minimum flight distance was less than Guadalcanal too.  Which is all very compelling and everything, but a New Guinea expansion is never going to happen so why am I even talking about it??  :lol:

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my opinions:

  • I hope no other eastern front si comming next - the three eastern theatres are more then enough for me (well Finland is the only acceptable exception)
  • Hope we stay within WWII period (I would like to see Korea theater only in a long time distance horizon)
  • Though I admire the amount of the work the Team Fusion does, I am sorry but I would strongly preffer Africa and Battle of Britain in IL-2 Great Battles (better graphics, more up to date engine, possibility of offline campaigns, connection with other modules etc.) Though some aspects of CLoD are great, I regret to say, as a whole the CLoD is IMHO just the kind of obstacle for full potential of IL-2 GB (at least in the two theatres).
  • As for the new theatre I would preffer Malta, Italy, Normandy, France 1943, CBI or New Guinea - hope for some not too demanding theatre to give devs time to work on the game engine and some important improvements we long for.
  • But at the and I will buy everything the dev team is going to produce because I LOVE THIS SIM! 🙂
Edited by Tapi
  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Yep you scale things down, it's not an insurmountable problem fortunately. They built a scaled down Solomon's map for 46.

I remember there was as "islands" map for '46. I liked it a lot as it was very easy to make neat missions. Problem was, it was so small, that if you put a battleship on it and let that one move, it took very little and you found your airfield getting some by its artillery. Those things move fast and unless you made it move along the edges of the map, you'd be in for some.

 

17 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I think being a bit creative and going outside the box is the answer.

Probably yes. In essence, you'd have to ask yourself whether you really depicted exactly that place/island, you just make something that in essence is of a similar (functional) layout, but in a playable scale.

 

Playability of the vast PTO is a huge problem. It just doesn't work in a game. WoL is very popular and turn this sim in a popular game. But one can't help noticing that almost all places of interest are within reach of a single battleships artillery. It's not a world, it's a terrarium.

 

PTO in contrast for the most part challenge the poor sod sent there with (aside from sanitary issues) the challenge of long flights and navigation. Dead reckoning for hours long flights over uniformly blue water. To do so, you'd require to implement both ground control as muich as beacons for navigation. Finding an enemy would statistically be the anomaly, however possible in certain instances.

 

In order to make long flights a viable proposition, this sim had by all means to mature from the flat earther to a world geodetic model. It would also allow to import real world data (that had to be corrected for the 40s. In essence, you'd have to turn your combat sim into a fully fledged flight sim. You'd need dynamic weather. Real weather, not "clouds". All of which would make flight intersting, but have little impact on the "combat" part.

 

17 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

As far as flight times, no most simmers are not going to sit and fly for that many hours, yet how often do you see "B17!!!!" on the forum?

Doubt most of those people are going to sit for 8 hours either.

It is for practical purposes almost impossible to fly full missions. You had to have the ability to save a mission in-flight and load it from there. This is no problem to make, as FSX (and before) can do that. But how would such a mission look like?

 

Flight time: 8 hours

Combat time (shooting gallery & bomb drop): 5 minutes

Flak: 10 minutes

 

Gives you in total of 7 hours 45 minutes where you do as you would in FSX. In fact, I very much like the A2A Simulations B-17. You can even drop bombs, but no aiming and no *kaboom*. But it is enertraining. Just using the NDB's, you get places. The original navigation systems are not functional in that one, however there are no beacons anymore anyway. But you could create such beacons in the game.

 

In other words, you can only integrate big (level-)bombers as AI that add to your collection of "shootables". Flying the big ones is far outside the current gameplay.

 

Looking at what could be in line with gameplay, then we always end up with individual operations, with the exception of the Solomons and New Guinea.

 

Hawaii would fit for a "Tora-Tora-Tora" title:

Spoiler

hawaii.jpg

 

Midway would be easy, of course, mainly blue nothing:

Spoiler

midway.jpg

 

Solomons are a problem. They require a 1 mio. km2 map to fir the bare necessities:

Spoiler

solomons1.jpg

 

Cutting it down to Guadalcanal would make it fit again. One has to be creative on where to put the Japanese.

Spoiler

solomons2.jpg

 

New Guinea is a Problem indeed. To take the bare minimum of the real thing, you have to cover about 2,5 mio. km2.

Spoiler

PNew-Guinea.jpg

 

If you scale it down and make it flat, you make navigation very much unlike it really was. You basically had to redraw everything conceptually to fir our 150'000 km2 maps that work for current gameplay.

 

Leyte, Philipines could be a great map, it would fit.

Spoiler

leyte.jpg

 

If you are creative about giving the Japanese a home, Saipan would work as well:

Spoiler

Saipan.jpg

We had that in '46 as well, not sure about the scale of the island.

 

Also, Okinawa could be made workable.

Spoiler

okinawa.jpg

Again, one had to be creative in giving the Japanese a home base beyond the islands.

 

Generally, I think giving one or the other team an Island on the map could be a workaround. It would be on the edge of the map anyway with no aspirations of being all to realistic.

 

But it is rather obvious that one should really, really introduce a round earth if the earths curvature is the only mountain you'll ever have for the most part of your flying. But if you do that, there would be absolutely no reason to place those islands on a whole globe. We could have that 30 years ago in flight simulators and it would solve most problems at once. Those puny islands give very little map area. Open sea is no problem, you can have as much of that as you want without any added workload to speak of. The whole dry part of the Philippines is just about the size of map that can have already. but as a map, it would be huge.

If those "maps" would be placed on a whole globe, you could fly from one map to another. The entire idea of creating a "map" instead of a globe featuring different LOD is just to keep your work within limits. But in case of the pacific, it creates problems, as in principle it will not allow you to realistically create said locations and it precludes connecting maps, when it was common parctise back then to fly places that require map-hopping in game.

 

If PTO in this sim emerges, then it can only do so with maps that are mostly sea. Having smaller islands would make it far easier reusing them once this sim will adopt a round base and become a full flight simulator.

 

 

 

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it's not Italy next. 

 

I was there this weekend. 

 

I got dumped. 

 

I never want to go back. 

 

😑

 

 

(Also sorry to hear about the team member, hope he recoveres soon, best wishes!) 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Might well be a 3/44 - 9/44 Normandy module. I´m sure we will learn before x-mas.

 

 

The reason for Normandy is the same for Moscow

Why was Moscow made after Stalingrad? Because the set of aircraft are complete! The 190 participated in the Moscow sector in Rzhev not in Stalingrad. The two use the same airplanes/theater and complete each other and an important period of the war

Normandy is the map extension of Bodenplatte to the west and the airplanes of one battle complete the other

 

With only Bodenplatte the battles in the west are limited, Normandy would complete this and be easier to develop because it uses almost the same aircraft
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ZachariasX

Maybe they could make 1:1 map split it in few parts. You see one huge map in career menu screen but missions in career would load specific part of the map, it  would depend on where mission sends you. Maybe you could even carry on your flight to diffrent parts of map. You start as bomber and fly from your base, when you get to the specific waypoint you have "mission success" and you will get loading screen that respawns you on the next waypoint on new map and you carry one with your long bombing run.

 

I would rather see one huge map cut in 2-4 pieces (kind of like summer/winter versions of the same map) than some weird 2/3x smaller map.

Edited by InProgress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, InProgress said:

Maybe they could make 1:1 map split it in few parts.

You can't do that. It will result in a big distortion at this scale. Those tiles won't fit due to the "flattening of the earth" caused by the projection on the flat map. This means, flying on a great circle will result in you flying around corners when jumping from map to map. You by all means had to maually redraw the maps to align them somehow. If you do it, you end up with an artificial map as you have when just drawing islands conceptually in the size of map that you can use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for @=27=Davesteu to post his favorite books on New Guinea.

I need to add a few good ones to my PTO collection.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am os at the moment Gambit but if you pm me to remind me after 25 Sept I will post some in a thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gambit, Into the Dragon’s Jaws by Lex McAulay is a good one for the airwar against Rabaul.  Plus the eight-ballers squadron diary.  I’ll have a think about some others. 

Share this post


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

My books are mostly dealing with Guadalcanal/Solomons. Shattered Sword and a few others excepting.

What would you say based on your reading are the best books dealing with New Guinea?

Get started with:
 

Aircraft of the Aces 13 - Japanese Army Air Force Aces 1937-45

Aircraft of the Aces 22 - Imperial Japanese Navy Aces 1937-45

Aircraft of the Aces 36 - P-39 Airacobra Aces of World War 2

Aircraft of the Aces 55 - P-40 Warhawk Aces of the Pacific

Aircraft of the Aces 85 - Ki-43 ‘Oscar’ Aces of World War 2

Aircraft of the Aces 114 - Ki-61 and Ki-100 Aces

Aircraft of the Aces 137 - A6M Zero-sen Aces 1940-42

Duel 87 - P-39/P-400 Airacobra vs A6M2/3 Zero-sen: New Guinea 1942
South Pacific Air War - Volume 1: The Fall of Rabaul December 1941 - March 1942

South Pacific Air War - Volume 2: The Struggle for Moresby March - April 1942

Eagles of the Southern Sky: The Tainan Naval Air Group in New Guinea in WWII

The 5th Fighter Command in World War II - Volume 1: Pearl Harbor to the Reduction of Rabaul

The 5th Fighter Command in World War II - Volume 2: The End in New Guinea, the Philippines, to V-J Day

Protect & Avenge: The 49th Fighter Group in World War II

 

As already mentioned by @Bremspropeller, there's the superb "Eagles Over the Pacific" series by the IHRA. For the 1942/43 timeframe:

Revenge of the Red Raiders

Ken’s Men Against the Empire: The Illustrated History of the 43rd Bombardment Group During World War II - Volume 1: Prewar to October 1943

 

20 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Okay, here's four reasons for New Guinea:

- it hasn't been done before in beauty -  and there's lotsa!

- Ki 61

- early (F through H) Lightnings with the sexier chins

- B-25s with strafer noses (all kinds of strafer noses)

Exquisite taste!

 

 

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

New Guinea is a Problem indeed. To take the bare minimum of the real thing, you have to cover about 2,5 mio. km2.

  Reveal hidden contents

PNew-Guinea.jpg

Completely disagree. No need for such a large map if the instalment would be focused on the 1942/43 timeframe. In fact, this campaign would allow for some of the shortest distances in the entire Asiatic-Pacific Theatre. If you want to bomb Rabaul you can do so, but there are many faster options.

 

Buna - Port Moresby: 150 km

Dobodura Airfield Complex - Lae: 270 km

Lae - Port Moresby: 300 km

Goodenough Island - Arawe: 370 km

Dobodura Airfield Complex - Cape Gloucester: 370 km

Dobodura Airfield Complex - Madang: 480 km

Dobodura Airfield Complex - Rabaul: 670 km

Port Moresby - Rabaul: 800 km

 

For quick action in semi-historical custom (online) missions: many secondary airfields.

 

 

Again: The Papua & New Guinea campaign 1942/43 is the most diverse and versatile scenario - perfect to start off the Asiatic-Pacific Theatre.

Edited by =27=Davesteu
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - I’m looking for in-depth history, not the “aces of” stuff, so I’ll check out Eagles Over the Pacific.

 

I’m looking for an equivalent to Frank’s book on Guadalcanal - but it might not exist.

Share this post


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

Thanks - I’m looking for in-depth history, not the “aces of” stuff, so I’ll check out Eagles Over the Pacific.

I’m looking for an equivalent to Frank’s book on Guadalcanal - but it might not exist.

The mentioned Osprey books are some of the best they ever published, written by renowned scholars.
I highly recommend reading all of the above mentioned books. Essentials:

34 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

South Pacific Air War - Volume 1: The Fall of Rabaul December 1941 - March 1942

South Pacific Air War - Volume 2: The Struggle for Moresby March - April 1942

Eagles of the Southern Sky: The Tainan Naval Air Group in New Guinea in WWII

The 5th Fighter Command in World War II - Volume 1: Pearl Harbor to the Reduction of Rabaul

The 5th Fighter Command in World War II - Volume 2: The End in New Guinea, the Philippines, to V-J Day

 

Keep an eye out for the upcoming books "South Pacific Air War - Volume 3: Coral Sea & Aftermath May - June 1942", "Pacific Adversaries - Volume 1: Japanese Army Air Force vs The Allies New Guinea 1942-1944" and "Pacific Adversaries - Volume 2: Imperial Japanese Navy vs The Allies New Guinea & the Solomons 1942-1944", all written by prolific historian Michael Claringbould.

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to belive they would go for PTO for first time in so long, and not have carriers or usa navy stuff, so New Guinea is more like 2nd or 3rd PTO DLC in line not first one.

 

Share this post


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

@ZachariasX

Maybe they could make 1:1 map split it in few parts. You see one huge map in career menu screen but missions in career would load specific part of the map, it  would depend on where mission sends you. Maybe you could even carry on your flight to diffrent parts of map. You start as bomber and fly from your base, when you get to the specific waypoint you have "mission success" and you will get loading screen that respawns you on the next waypoint on new map and you carry one with your long bombing run.

 

I would rather see one huge map cut in 2-4 pieces (kind of like summer/winter versions of the same map) than some weird 2/3x smaller map.

 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You can't do that. It will result in a big distortion at this scale. Those tiles won't fit due to the "flattening of the earth" caused by the projection on the flat map. This means, flying on a great circle will result in you flying around corners when jumping from map to map. You by all means had to maually redraw the maps to align them somehow. If you do it, you end up with an artificial map as you have when just drawing islands conceptually in the size of map that you can use.

 

How about portal waypoints?, basically when you flight reaches an waypoint it's automatically moved to the next waypoint on the same map + advanced time and reduced fuel depending on how long the actual flight would have been to that waypoint, mission designers could put these waypoints anywhere on the map, portal waypoint could work for both 1 large map covering the operation or an worldmap.

 

It might even be possible to make these waypoints an option to choose ingame so players that actually want to fly all the way can do so.

For example when you reach the portal waypoint you recieve an text which describers the average flighttime to the next waypoint + the question 'Do you want to skip the flight to the next waypoint?' where you then have to press an button for yes or no.

Edited by ww2fighter20

Share this post


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

You can't do that. It will result in a big distortion at this scale. Those tiles won't fit due to the "flattening of the earth" caused by the projection on the flat map. This means, flying on a great circle will result in you flying around corners when jumping from map to map. You by all means had to maually redraw the maps to align them somehow. If you do it, you end up with an artificial map as you have when just drawing islands conceptually in the size of map that you can use.

And why is that? Earth is flat in box isn't it? Making just normal map like you see on paper would not be a bad choice even if it's not 100% realistic. Still in my opinion better choice than making island much smaller than it really is. And even if not, my idea of seperated maps for career mission still stands.

 

image.thumb.png.40e646af1fc2becd8620f65a1648bde5.png

 

Just a roughly idea. One day you get mission area of a red map in career mission so you fly in there. Other day you get mission that takes place in green area so this is where you fly and game loads this map. It's not perfect but this way maps could be big at least in theroy. If it's a map where frontline changes in time, you would simply progress to "new" career with new map that is just second part of the island.

 

Or devs will simply make just red part of that map and that's all :P Maybe they will avoid bigger islands to begin with. There is plenty of small ones that could be made. So no reason to bother with big ones.

 

Edited by InProgress
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tapi said:

Though I admire the amount of the work the Team Fusion does, I am sorry but I would strongly prefer Africa and Battle of Britain in IL-2 Great Battles...

Okay... I don't understand this, Why is there so much HATRED for IL-2 Cliffs of Dover? I mean yes, the original game was released as a buggy mess back in 2011 8 YEARS AGO, yes, development was abandoned a year and a half later, yes, early development by Team Fusion was slow. But now they have the source code that 1CGS gave them in 2016, and now Team Fusion simulations on the right track of further development for IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. You are simply holding a game back for something that happened 8 YEARS AGO. And TFS has NO fault for that. Those days are mainly OVER. TFS plans to address all the problems before they release TF 5.0, in the coming days they'll release patch 4.56. As soon as TF 5.0 is released, they'll begin development on VR which should take ~6 months. If You want to blame somebody for the game being a buggy mess, blame 1C Maddox or Ubisoft.

 

As stated by Jason Williams back in 2017 when the Blitz Edition was released " The two series will not be compatible with each other and likely cover different theaters of the war for the foreseeable future, but together both series will give you many options for gameplay and awesome content to enjoy."

 

7 hours ago, Tapi said:

Though some aspects of CLoD are great, I regret to say, as a whole the CLoD is IMHO just the kind of obstacle for full potential of IL-2 GB

THERE IS NO OBSTACLE. This Obstacle that you speak of is your own hysteria.

Basically a Sturmovik game dev team is giving you the option of flying the Wellington, Dewoitine D.520, Ju-88C, Gladiator, Hurricane Mk II A-D, F4F, P-40C, He-111H-6 were you can carry torpedoes, etc. Over Tobruk using the latest technology. Some of these planes you can't fly anywhere else with professionally made cockpits/FM/DMs. Whether you like it or not, that will be released sometime later in 2019 or early 2020. We also have to remember that Tobruk is the 2ND installment of CloD, equivalent to the Battle of Moscow which is the 2ND installment of IL-2 Great Battles.

 

If anyone feels that Cliffs of Dover should end after TF 5.0 then you're simply missing out on TF 6.0 and flying a Swordfish against the Bismarck (Something that will likely never happen in BoX) and against Taranto Harbour, flying over Malta, Sicily, Tunisia, possibly Tripoli, Bay of Biscay, Northern Algeria/Morocco. As well as flying the Fw-190, Hurricane, Gladiator, Spitfire, etc. off of British Aircraft Carriers, P-40F, SM.79, Walrus and Arado 196 off of ships, and possibly B-26, Cant Z 1007, Fw-200, Sunderland, possibly much, much more.

 

I am certain that if Cliffs of Dover ended after TF 5.0 then that wouldn't make 1CGS go and do the Med/Battle of Britain. NO. They would probably focus on the Pacific or Eastern Front, and additional planes for Bodenplatte, TC and FC, and then years later when the Pacific's done, so after Okinawa, the devs would then go to the Med and Battle of Britain. Even that would take many years to develop as well.

 

So here's the option: You wait until 2021 or 2022 for TF 6.0 which includes all of what is mentioned above (BTW, TF 6.0 won't take as long is it did for TF 5.0 as the bugs will mainly be out of the way and they'll be mainly focused on the new planes,ships, maps, new features, etc.), or you get what you want and CloD ends and then you're stuck waiting until the devs finish the Pacific before they decide to go to the Battle of Britain, and then have to wait a while longer for North Africa, Malta, Sicily. I know which one I'd pick.

 

I believe that these Cliffs of Dover haters should start acting the age they are and not for how many years they've been playing IL-2 GBs for.

 

Novice Flyer

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...