Next Theater Announcement Date

[Pikestance]

1 hour ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

@IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung The engine is incapable of having AI in MP in any significant numbers before the game grinds down to a stuttery and laggy mess. Wonder why Finnish MP server reduced number of AI planes covering depots or removes them altogether when certain amount of people are on the server? Or why there are no AI battles on the ground or convoys? Because of the performance hit. Tested so many times.

 I didn't mention anything about MP. I am sure it is limited to what is currently used by the game. I know some game developers have started to expand before 32 bit to the 64 bit, but only just barely. I am sure IL2 is not using all of the 64 bit graphics. Anyway, the more objects is being rendered the greater the demand on resources. 

 

I am curious to know what the development team stated about the game engine. I am under the impression not much. 

[simfan2015]

@Gambit21 ... look ... 'taste' is always 'silly', but did you see the movie ?

Did you maybe only care about the AOA and/or FM of the dive-bombers ?

I am in fact glad few people seemed to like 'Midway' ... the theatre was quite honestly rather empty when I was there yesterday, but we could pick the best spots and AFAIK ... you weren't there then ? ?  

Edited November 13, 2019 by simfan2015

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

6 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

I didn't mention anything about MP. I am sure it is limited to what is currently used by the game. I know some game developers have started to expand before 32 bit to the 64 bit, but only just barely. I am sure IL2 is not using all of the 64 bit graphics. Anyway, the more objects is being rendered the greater the demand on resources. 

 

Il-2 is a x64 build. However, that alone doesn't help much for performance besides allowing the use of more memory and some extra optimizations on the CPU. "64 bit graphics" isn't really a distinction between games; when you build a x64 application, you use all the appropriate 64-bit graphics libraries. Besides, it's not just rendering that's a performance problem; any objects that the game is simulating take CPU time even if they don't appear on screen.

 

34 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

I am curious to know what the development team stated about the game engine. I am under the impression not much. 

 

Yes, Jason has talked about the topic.

 

"Eventually we will need to build a new engine, when that actually happens is not necessarily known yet. I don't believe in building from complete scratch these days. [The graphics] may be from scratch. Everything else would be an evolution of sorts. That is the safest bet for us to stay alive for a long time."

 

It's safe to say that the engine will be staying around in some form.

[cellinsky]

11 hours ago, saldy said:

Battle of Rabaul from Autumn 1943. Attractive planeset for both sides. 

 

 

THAT would be perfect for carrer. Much better than Midway IMHO.  And Malta/Sicilly/Anzio.
Maybe some day..... 
 

[Pikestance]

2 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

Il-2 is a x64 build. However, that alone doesn't help much for performance besides allowing the use of more memory and some extra optimizations on the CPU. "64 bit graphics" isn't really a distinction between games; when you build a x64 application, you use all the appropriate 64-bit graphics libraries. Besides, it's not just rendering that's a performance problem; any objects that the game is simulating take CPU time even if they don't appear on screen.

 

 

Yes, Jason has talked about the topic.

 

"Eventually we will need to build a new engine, when that actually happens is not necessarily known yet. I don't believe in building from complete scratch these days. [The graphics] may be from scratch. Everything else would be an evolution of sorts. That is the safest bet for us to stay alive for a long time."

 

It's safe to say that the engine will be staying around in some form.

 

That wasn't necessarily my point. I was starting that I doubt the game is utilizing it to its full potential. If it were, they will definitely be thinking of a new engine. 

 

People making a bit much about PTO. The ground has details that the open water would not have. Ships will have detail, but i don't think it would have anymore than what is depicted currently in the game. That being said, I think Coral Sea would be the first. It has five carriers and land bases. It also would provide for a number of missions. 

[Gretsch_Man]

23 hours ago, Nibbio said:

Masterful computer games only have to create the plausible illusion of complex and massive engagements. The approach is not to absolutely simulate every nut and bolt, but to give a very convincing appearance of reality to the player, who is a single pilot in a cockpit. I'm sure there are clever ways to do it without spending a fortune to create an engine that no reasonable PC of the early 21st century could ever run ?

Exactly what I've been thinking about this topic, too. Very well said!

[Mac_Messer]

51 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

 

That wasn't necessarily my point. I was starting that I doubt the game is utilizing it to its full potential. If it were, they will definitely be thinking of a new engine. 

 

People making a bit much about PTO. The ground has details that the open water would not have. Ships will have detail, but i don't think it would have anymore than what is depicted currently in the game. That being said, I think Coral Sea would be the first. It has five carriers and land bases. It also would provide for a number of missions. 

Again, that is where I question whether the devs want to simplify any of the features that`d have to be top notch in a PTO sim. And how would the majority of ppl react to some of the "mainstreaming", so to say. The way I know the devs (not actually saying I "know" them) through the years of buying BoS and BoM, they aren`t exaclty keen on taking shortcuts. What is their motivation for that I can only speculate, but supposedly PTO being the next product, I take it that many, many sidelanes must be made to make it somewhat plausible.

[Lusekofte]

21 hours ago, SiPinto said:

With IL2 46 it was possible to fly from 1940 through to May 45 in West AND East Europe (albeit with the outstanding Enjoyr add-ons)....and from 1941 to August 45 in the Pacific

In all fairness it took a long time getting to that

[343KKT_Kintaro]

37 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

In all fairness it took a long time getting to that

 

The "Rise of Flight/Great Battles" game engine is 10 years old this year. But it only took 5 years from 2001 to 2006 to the first generation of IL-2 simulations to complete all WWII main theatres of operations, with litterally tens of maps in 2006-2007.

 

In the present day, if an effort is made on modelling ships and naval aircraft only, a "Coral Sea" map could be produced, like the "Coral Sea" map in the classic "46" IL-2 Sturmovik simulator. That would be easy since... there's only water and no lands in sight!! May 1942 and your life depending on the safe return to your aircraft carrier!! This could be a nice beginning, starting a series of Pacific expansions:

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of the Coral Sea"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Pearl Harbor"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Midway"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Leyte"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Guadalcanal"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Okinawa"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Singapore"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Darwin"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Manchuria"

 

Etc...

 

[JG300_Egon]

Letting 3rd parties doing maps, 3D models and ground vehicule (IA) could help bringing time to focus on flight & damage models and a new engine for the game.

And why not new unit like a CV

Edited November 13, 2019 by F/JG300_Egon

[Lusekofte]

7 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

/Great Battles" game engine is 10 years old

The engine is but not WW 2 section. For this they should be held accountable only from date 

bos was published

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Well, LuseKofte... I guess you are right...

 

17 minutes ago, F/JG300_Egon said:

Letting 3rd parties doing maps, 3D models and ground vehicule (IA) could help bringing time to focus on flight & damage models and a new engine for the game.

 

Why not, if it definitely improves the sim. When it comes to damaged aircraft, visuals are a disaster: ugly and not realisitic at all.

 

I'm not complaining, I'm very happy with "IL-2 Great Battles" because it is dynamic, efficient, and with almost no bugs… but, please guys, try to understand my position: I have to serve my Emperor by flying my Shiden-kai, not wasting my time on board of German or Russian birdies...?

Edited November 13, 2019 by 343KKT_Kintaro
syntax

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

36 minutes ago, F/JG300_Egon said:

Letting 3rd parties doing maps, 3D models and ground vehicule (IA) could help bringing time to focus on flight & damage models and a new engine for the game.

And why not new unit like a CV

 

The studio has already had partners Digital Forms and Ugra-Media making assets for various projects.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

21 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

The studio has already had partners Digital Forms and Ugra-Media making assets for various projects.

 

Lovely!

[ITAF_Rani]

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

I have to serve my Emperor by flying my Shiden-kai, not wasting my time on board of German or Russian birdies...?

If PTO will be the next...  the Shiden-kai is one to must have...

[VBF-12_Snake9]

16 hours ago, simfan2015 said:

BTW whatever negative comment I read on the new Midway movie ... FWIW I loved it !

Check it out yourself and don't believe the nay-sayers.

It's about ... heroes, what's the problem with that ?

At least we also had enough of the human factor (unlike the original Midway movie). 

IMHO it was better than ... Pearl Harbor (less of love stories, but still about the people in this awful ordeal).

But of course ... YMMV. 

I loved it too.  Who would have thought.  Right.  I love Pacific, planes, history, action, bombs, ships, things blowing up.  The movie was great.  

[Pikestance]

4 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

The "Rise of Flight/Great Battles" game engine is 10 years old this year. But it only took 5 years from 2001 to 2006 to the first generation of IL-2 simulations to complete all WWII main theatres of operations, with litterally tens of maps in 2006-2007.

 

In the present day, if an effort is made on modelling ships and naval aircraft only, a "Coral Sea" map could be produced, like the "Coral Sea" map in the classic "46" IL-2 Sturmovik simulator. That would be easy since... there's only water and no lands in sight!! May 1942 and your life depending on the safe return to your aircraft carrier!! This could be a nice beginning, starting a series of Pacific expansions:

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of the Coral Sea"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Pearl Harbor"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Midway"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Leyte"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Guadalcanal"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Okinawa"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Singapore"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Darwin"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Manchuria"

 

Etc...

 

 

I agree Coral Sea makes for the best first step in the Pacific. I wouldn't say there were no islands, but then again, I would include the entire campaign. Gudal Canal would then be a campaign in which they can sell additional collector planes. Pearl Harbor doesn't appeal to me at all. Midway would be the next best. Leyte Gulf could be late war. The Sino-Japanese War would also be nice. If i am being honest, if there is one part of World War II that has been largely ignored it is the Asian theater. This isn't historical games but documentaries as well. I would literally be shocked if the developers would do just one part of the theater. I am convinced that paradox only did Waking the Tiger DLC because the game was blocked in China. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

8 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

I wouldn't say there were no islands, but then again

 

It takes us to convince 1C Game Studios to procede to a Coral Sea map... because of the simple fact that a map that is entirely made out of sea surface is not time-consuming at all. Only the ships and the planes would need development: Lexington, Yorktown, Shokaku, Zuikaku and a few other ships… Zeroes, D3As, Dauntlesses, Wildcats and a few other aircraft… Thus, islands are not vital when developing a "Battle of the Coral Sea" map. No dry land in the entire map: easy.

 

 

8 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

The Sino-Japanese War would also be nice

 

Absolutely! Aircraft from that period, including 1930s biplanes, are fascinating machines. WWII flight-sim fans could support that scenario… but not as much as they would support a "Pearl Harbor" set of missions or a "Midway" campaign.

 

27 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

I am convinced that paradox only did Waking the Tiger DLC because the game was blocked in China. 

 

No idea… I don't have an opinion on that.

[Pikestance]

15 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

It takes us to convince 1C Game Studios to procede to a Coral Sea map... because of the simple fact that a map that is entirely made out of sea surface is not time-consuming at all. Only the ships and the planes would need development: Lexington, Yorktown, Shokaku, Zuikaku and a few other ships… Zeroes, D3As, Dauntlesses, Wildcats and a few other aircraft… Thus, islands are not vital when developing a "Battle of the Coral Sea" map. No dry land in the entire map: easy.

 

Even if the map is reduced to a very small area, the Islands that form the Jomard Pass would have to be included. Maps with proper Geography would be necessary. However they would be "insignificant." 

[Cybermat47]

21 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

No idea… I don't have an opinion on that.

The CCP takes issue with the fact that Hearts of Iron portrays Manchuria as a puppet state of Japan, Taiwan as a territory annexed by Japan, and China as being divided between nationalists, communists, and numerous warlords in 1936, and so the franchise is banned in mainland China.

[Feathered_IV]

14 hours ago, cellinsky said:

 

THAT would be perfect for carrer. Much better than Midway IMHO.  And Malta/Sicilly/Anzio.
Maybe some day..... 
 

 

Sicily to Malta is only about 15 minutes flight time.  That would certainly make it very friendly to MP missions.  The allied base at Nissan island to Rabaul is about 20 minutes in a P-38 which doesn’t put it too far behind either.  

[Rolling_Thunder]

5 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

The "Rise of Flight/Great Battles" game engine is 10 years old this year. But it only took 5 years from 2001 to 2006 to the first generation of IL-2 simulations to complete all WWII main theatres of operations, with litterally tens of maps in 2006-2007.

 

In the present day, if an effort is made on modelling ships and naval aircraft only, a "Coral Sea" map could be produced, like the "Coral Sea" map in the classic "46" IL-2 Sturmovik simulator. That would be easy since... there's only water and no lands in sight!! May 1942 and your life depending on the safe return to your aircraft carrier!! This could be a nice beginning, starting a series of Pacific expansions:

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of the Coral Sea"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Pearl Harbor"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Midway"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Leyte"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Guadalcanal"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Okinawa"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Singapore"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Darwin"

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Manchuria"

 

Etc...

 

Battle of Imphal, a bit one sided in the air but all tactical. The khe sanh of ww2.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Cybermat47, thank you for that clarification on China's ban of that game.

 

Battle of Imphal: the whole region, India and Burma, remains interesting since 1941 to 1944 concerning Japanese aircraft (Ki-21, Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44, A6M Zero...). Brits and Americans brought their own aircraft to fight the Japanese, so yes, that could be cool.

 

And now for something completely different. I don't know if this has been suggested before:

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of France"

 

French aircraft in 1940 were absolutely fascinating: Morane-Saulnier Ms 406, Dewoitine D.520, Potez 63.11, LeO 451... The American-manufactured Curtiss H-75 (which is in fact an exported P-36)... On top of that, the Brits were hanging around on board of Spitfires and Hurricanes… and they entered air combat against the Germans all the same. For the game, only minor modifications would be necessary to adapt already modelled Hurricanes, Spitfires, He 111s, Bf 109s. Only French aircraft would need development from scratch. Obviously, "IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of France" would cover both conflicts, the Battle of France and the Battle of Dunkirk, as they are in fact the same battle.

 

In any case, I prefer a PTO add-on rather than a Battle of France add-on. And "Coral Sea" is a good compromise between a too long map to build and no PTO at all... That's for sure.

[Ribbon]

3 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

It takes us to convince 1C Game Studios to procede to a Coral Sea map... because of the simple fact that a map that is entirely made out of sea surface is not time-consuming at all. Only the ships and the planes would need development: Lexington, Yorktown, Shokaku, Zuikaku and a few other ships… Zeroes, D3As, Dauntlesses, Wildcats and a few other aircraft… Thus, islands are not vital when developing a "Battle of the Coral Sea" map. No dry land in the entire map

Map is the least problem if they're going to PTO, in fact map is not problem at all, Okinawa, Guadacanal, Solomons... etc will take less time to develop than any of the current maps did.

Give them any part of the Earth and they'll do it as they did every map so far.

 

Time consuming and challenge is in new tech such as carriers, torpedo tech, ships and planes modeling along with engine optimization to run decent amount of planes and whole fleet with all those AI at one place.

 

Btw engine isn't 10years old since they improved and upgrade it in many areas since then, now if they manage to optimize it regarding cpu/gpu/memory usage and as Jason stated graphics improvements it will be lets say "new" engine.

It's a huge task and only someone familiar with il2 engine knows what is doable and what can be done (citing my dev friend).

[MarderIV]

I'm curious how a Career in the Pacific would pan out, if ever? I'm not well-versed in the action in the pacific, but I get the impression carrier-borne operations aren't going to be similar to what we have in the other titles as far as sorties and air operations would go. Our current career mode is pretty static as far as air tasking orders are concerned. But for operations in the Pacific, with CVGs moving about playing cat and mouse with one another, how would that pan out? 

 

If the Pacific is indeed where we are going, I'm curious to see how that would affect our Career mode. I sincerely hope it wouldn't rely on scripted campaigns, that's for sure.

[II/JG11_ATLAN_VR]

PACIFIC!!!!

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by II/JG11ATLAN

[Pikestance]

I do not mean any disrespect, but just what do people expect in a career mode? I mean if you are flying a fighter, you either escorting or attempting to gain air superiority. I am not sure what else you expect to do. If you re a bomber, then you will probably have a series of bombing task. The target may change, but after a few it will be the same ole thing. When I played career mode in Rise of Flight that all it was. I really didn't expect more than that. 

 

In PTO, as a fighter you either provide cover for the fleet or escort. Bombers may have different targets, but large operations would be to target the carriers. The same is true for Torpedo planes. An interesting career may be that of a scout pilot. 

 

I think PTO will shine greater as a MP venue. Targets will not longer be static but will move about the map. Navigation will take on a greater importance. You not only have to be mindful of your heading, but also where you need to go to meet up with your carrier. Which bring up an interesting question; would the designers make it possible to command a task force/ or individual ships? 

[Rei-sen]

13 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

I do not mean any disrespect, but just what do people expect in a career mode? I mean if you are flying a fighter, you either escorting or attempting to gain air superiority.

Variety of missions. For a fighter: bomber/attacker escort, bomber/attacker intercept, patrolling certain area, gaining air superiority over certain area, defending ground troops, defending cities, free hunt, fighter sweep, scramble, emergency support of friendlies in a heavy fight, etc. In current career we have only a fraction of that.

 

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

35 minutes ago, MarderIV said:

I'm curious how a Career in the Pacific would pan out, if ever? I'm not well-versed in the action in the pacific, but I get the impression carrier-borne operations aren't going to be similar to what we have in the other titles as far as sorties and air operations would go. Our current career mode is pretty static as far as air tasking orders are concerned. But for operations in the Pacific, with CVGs moving about playing cat and mouse with one another, how would that pan out? 

 

2 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

I do not mean any disrespect, but just what do people expect in a career mode? I mean if you are flying a fighter, you either escorting or attempting to gain air superiority. I am not sure what else you expect to do. If you re a bomber, then you will probably have a series of bombing task. The target may change, but after a few it will be the same ole thing.

 

The outcomes of important Pacific naval battles were largely determined by handfuls of vital aircraft carriers. This was very different from the local tactical operations that the game currently models. Careers consisting of random attacks on random enemy ships in random locations that do not persist into future missions would miss the decisive nature of aerial actions in the Pacific war. If you sink Akagi once, you probably don't want to meet another Akagi in a future mission.

 

I think that Career would need modifications to support persistent capital ships and missions that reflect the uncertainty of fleet movements. If that could be done, it would offer very exciting gameplay.

 

At the start of any operation, the primary task would be reconnaissance to locate enemy surface units. Then, you'd get the usual assortment of missions for different classes. Fighters would conduct patrols, cover bombers, etc. Bombers would be sent to hunt for enemy ships or strike bases. Again, persistence of surface units would be the key here.

 

[Pikestance]

6 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

The CCP takes issue with the fact that Hearts of Iron portrays Manchuria as a puppet state of Japan, Taiwan as a territory annexed by Japan, and China as being divided between nationalists, communists, and numerous warlords in 1936, and so the franchise is banned in mainland China.

 

This is 100% false. Hearts of Iron IV is NOT currently banned in China and Manchuria is STILL a puppet of Japan in the game. The developer's NEVER revealed the exact reason why the game was blocked. They only announced that there was a problem and then it was resolved, they announced it was resolved. You can find this information in their official forum. My students (Chinese) play Hearts of Iron IV. Also, Chinese history classes teaches the warlord people. It is an area that is studied in history class. Please, if you do not know m then please do not spread false rumors. 

[=621=Samikatz]

36 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

 

The outcomes of important Pacific naval battles were largely determined by handfuls of vital aircraft carriers. This was very different from the local tactical operations that the game currently models. Careers consisting of random attacks on random enemy ships in random locations that do not persist into future missions would miss the decisive nature of aerial actions in the Pacific war. If you sink Akagi once, you probably don't want to meet another Akagi in a future mission.

 

I think that Career would need modifications to support persistent capital ships and missions that reflect the uncertainty of fleet movements. If that could be done, it would offer very exciting gameplay.

 

At the start of any operation, the primary task would be reconnaissance to locate enemy surface units. Then, you'd get the usual assortment of missions for different classes. Fighters would conduct patrols, cover bombers, etc. Bombers would be sent to hunt for enemy ships or strike bases. Again, persistence of surface units would be the key here.

 

 

The issue with that is suddenly it puts the player in a position to change history with a well placed torpedo. The current careers let you ride along the historical movements of the battle, pushing across territory and jumping between airfields as they were available historically. No matter how well the player does, they can't succeed in taking Moscow by being a particularly good Ju-88 pilot or fail to intercept enough bombers in their Yak and lose Stalingrad, and that's fine as one pilot can't change history. Being able to kill valuable ships changes things, and while I think that could be interesting and fun, the dev team have said before their priority is historical accuracy

[MarderIV]

 

1 hour ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

I do not mean any disrespect, but just what do people expect in a career mode? I mean if you are flying a fighter, you either escorting or attempting to gain air superiority. I am not sure what else you expect to do. If you re a bomber, then you will probably have a series of bombing task. The target may change, but after a few it will be the same ole thing. When I played career mode in Rise of Flight that all it was. I really didn't expect more than that. 

No disrespect felt.

 

What I meant about how the Career might change has less to do with mission variety and more to do with the fact that, CVG's and TFs aren't static. The ships themselves conduct BARPAT for example. Airfields don't. My whole question was more on how the PTO Career might be built to cater to the nature of naval warfare than with the mission variety, considering we may as well be playing with moving carriers moreso than moving fronts. 

 

My curiosity revolves more around how they might program the career to take into account these differences. Or if they would, seeing as majority of the folk here would seem to rather have MP focus. Not that it's wrong in anyway, just that I don't think moving away from SP exclusively is a good idea; hence why I'm curious about Career. 

 

55 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

I think that Career would need modifications to support persistent capital ships and missions that reflect the uncertainty of fleet movements. If that could be done, it would offer very exciting gameplay.

 

I think this greater explains my concerns, considering the emphasis on fleet movements. Right now our Career seems to be more on generating combat missions on top of pre-determined front-lines, with missions only changing in venue as the front moves to and fro. 

 

For the PTO I'm not even sure that's appropriate, seeing as naval warfare is more cat and mouse, locations of carrier forces are indeed going to be dynamic. And that would either require the Career mode to take into account rudimentary tracking of assets, or the designers would have to painstakingly build from carrier groups' logs to either place elements throughout the career, or, to abstract and estimate them for the sake of gameplay. 

 

Our career has it's own weaknesses yes, with it seemingly being a mission generator overlaid on top of frontlines. But when you have something as dynamic as naval action, you'll be exposing this systems weaknesses to something far more complex, which is why this is one of my key areas of concern. Because the alternative would be to simply give the PTO title a series of scripted campaigns, which we're seeing now with the other TC and FC titles. And that might be a bit contentious for SP players and for folks who may have gotten used to having theirs with Career - not as a value-add, mind. But as a feature that tops the Il-2 experience (and price). 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

21 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Being able to kill valuable ships changes things, and while I think that could be interesting and fun, the dev team have said before their priority is historical accuracy

 

That's true. It seems like a tricky situation with no easy solution. It's difficult to maintain the appearance of historical accuracy if players can change the fates of highly recognizable ships.

 

Regardless, I'm sure that we'll get something interesting, no matter where the series goes next.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

It's probably going to be the PTO next but I genuinely hope that at some point that the Siege of Malta is featured.

 

 

[TWC_Ace]

Before we make a new toy John, we need to fix something.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by =VARP=Tvrdi

[Feathered_IV]

3 hours ago, MarderIV said:

I'm curious how a Career in the Pacific would pan out, if ever?

 

If a PTO chapter is Midway or something like that, I would bet my hat that there would be no career mode included in the game.  Just a handmade static campaign depicting each side of the battle.

[Cybermat47]

2 hours ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

 

This is 100% false. Hearts of Iron IV is NOT currently banned in China and Manchuria is STILL a puppet of Japan in the game. The developer's NEVER revealed the exact reason why the game was blocked. They only announced that there was a problem and then it was resolved, they announced it was resolved. You can find this information in their official forum. My students (Chinese) play Hearts of Iron IV. Also, Chinese history classes teaches the warlord people. It is an area that is studied in history class. Please, if you do not know m then please do not spread false rumors. 

This guy in China reports it being banned: https://www.reddit.com/r/paradoxplaza/comments/94fyhz/is_hoi_iv_banned_in_china/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

 

The NY Times reports that it’s still banned as of two weeks ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/opinion/blizzard-hong-kong-boycott.html

 

Searching “hoi4 china ban lifted” renders nothing.

 

So if there is in fact no ban, I can’t find that information.

Edited November 14, 2019 by [Pb]Cybermat47

[sniperton]

3 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

It's difficult to maintain the appearance of historical accuracy if players can change the fates of highly recognizable ships.

 

The Japanese believed to have sunk the Yorktown two or three times before she was actually sunk by a submarine. In reality she was only disabled for quite some time.

 

What you see after a successful attack is a smoking wreckage whose fate can be determined by a script after you left the scene. All the devs have to do is to determine the minimum damage when a carrier might sink at all, and to decide about her fate as history dictates.

Edited November 14, 2019 by sniperton

[ITAF_Rani]

2 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

If a PTO chapter is Midway or something like that, I would bet my hat that there would be no career mode included in the game.  Just a handmade static campaign depicting each side of the battle.

 

No without carriers noooo....so funny landing missing would be a pity..

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by ITAF_Rani

[CountZero]

32 minutes ago, sniperton said:

 

The Japanese believed to have sunk the Yorktown two or three times before she was actually sunk by a submarine. In reality she was only disabled for quite some time.

 

What you see after a successful attack is a smoking vreckage whose fate can be determined by a script after you left the scene. All the devs have to do is to determine the minimum damage when a carrier might sink at all, and to decide about her fate as history dictates.

Also they could lock amount of damage that ship can take so he can never sink in mission he didnt sink, player can damaged it but not sink it, if it campaign changing target.