Jump to content
sinned

Next Theater Announcement Date

Recommended Posts

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 by [Pb]Cybermat47
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by sniperton
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ITAF_Rani
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

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

 

 

 

Let’s skip PTO and go directly to Malta (end phase), "Husky" invasion of Sicily, “Baytown” 8th Army’s move across the Strait of Messina and “Avalanche” US 5th Army’s landing in Salerno.

Airplane set is mainly there. Develop torpedo and smart bomb technology and we have a very interesting scenario with innovative elements and all types of mission you can think of. The very important nations of our community are represented here: Americans, Brits, Ausis, Kiwis, French, Poles, Italians and Jerries.  Imagine the charming coastal landscapes, the picturesque fishing villages and the turquoise-blue Mediterranean Sea. Just beautiful!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The merit of having sunk an aircraft carrier should be recognized in the debriefing, even if in fact that very same aircraft carrier is still afloat in subsequent missions. The debriefing of the mission could state: "343KKT_Kintaro sank the USS Essex, but in technical terms only. In order to stick to historical facts, the vessel will remain afloat for the rest of the campaign".

 

A completely different choice, if the game designers change their minds, would lead to a game where you can really sink the Essex, and effectively see her disappearing beneath the waters…

 

I'm sure that both choices are doable.

 

Oh, by the way, yes, "The Eternal Zero": fantastic film, really recommendable. No "Star Wars" flight model on these CGI aircraft, completely the opposite of "Pearl Harbor" (2001) or "Flyboys" (2006).

 

Oh, by the way 2, forget Malta: I MUST go back to my Shiden-Kai.😍

Edited by 343KKT_Kintaro
punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A career of the type that most are used to in the sim now is only doable in a land based scenario, hence, New Guinea should be the obvious choice of where to go. the air war there lasted 3 odd years.  Plenty of fodder for a very immersive, and long, career/campaign scenario, with an amazing variety of aircraft types, especially for the Allies, as they went from P40s and P39s to P38s and 47s, also the very limited stint of the US Army version of the Dauntless, the A24, which proved unable to withstand the rigors of a lengthy ground campaign.  Also present were the B26, B25, and A20.  The Japanese would be more limitied as the Zero did not play a large role in this mostly Army affair, but that would still leave the Ki43 and Ki61 as the primary fighter types, and the Ki 21 as the main bomber type.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Grancesc said:

smart bomb technology

 

I think you'd have to have the Do-217 for those. Also, not deployed until after the Malta siege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

A career of the type that most are used to in the sim now is only doable in a land based scenario

 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

A career of the type that most are used to in the sim now is only doable in a land based scenario, hence, New Guinea should be the obvious choice of where to go. the air war there lasted 3 odd years.  Plenty of fodder for a very immersive, and long, career/campaign scenario, with an amazing variety of aircraft types, especially for the Allies, as they went from P40s and P39s to P38s and 47s, also the very limited stint of the US Army version of the Dauntless, the A24, which proved unable to withstand the rigors of a lengthy ground campaign.  Also present were the B26, B25, and A20.  The Japanese would be more limitied as the Zero did not play a large role in this mostly Army affair, but that would still leave the Ki43 and Ki61 as the primary fighter types, and the Ki 21 as the main bomber type.

 

Thats why Rabaul and the "Slot" would be the perfect choice for a PTO entry scenario: Plenty of air- ground- and naval-action. Japanese Army as well as the Navy present. America , Australia. Newsealand  and British on the other side. Some of the planes already done.  Island-hoping from Cuadalcanal up to Bougainville would fit the current carrier-mode perfect. Plus additional carrier-ops as well at a later stage in the carrier. In this scenario, it would not matter much, if a carrier or famous battleship would be sunk. The story could go on. Plus the map could be compressed for shorter ingress times. And no seasons would make map-developement even less costly. Midway or Formosa would make cool scripted and MP scenarios only IMHO. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind a Midway scenario at a budget with only 4 aircraft or so and only the Midway islands and the rest being (rather cheap to make) ocean without a campaign mode. With 30-40€ at max, this would be a fair deal. At the same time the devs could monetize their "R&D" in ship and ocean programming technology. But seeing the WW1 module for full price currently, having only a small map and no career mode, not even a complete set of ground assets i wouldn't bet on that. For full price Midway would be too expensive. Then i'd rather have Guadalcanal or the likes folks already proposed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:


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.

 

Well the Chinese gov't never announces when they remove a ban. In fact, they often do not announce when they ban anything either. There is a famous Qing Dynasty show that was ban, then the ban was removed and then banned once again in the middle of the series. Also, the Chinese gov't never state specific reasons for a ban. They just state that it violated Chinese law. The ban actually took place couple years ago. There is no mention of anything recently, so I do not know why the NY Times is running a story on old news. As I said, I know Chinese persons who stated it isn't ban. When I go to Paradox's store I can buy the game with no problem without my VPN on. I will double check with my students. 

Share this post


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

Thats why Rabaul and the "Slot" would be the perfect choice for a PTO entry scenario: Plenty of air- ground- and naval-action. Japanese Army as well as the Navy present.

 

I would love it, but the problem is that the airfields are very, very far from each other. The Japanese never got a workable airfield that was under 500 km from Guadalcanal. While that might work in single player with waypoint advances, no one in MP is going to want to fly for two or three hours just to reach a target. Even later in the war the airport complexes are pretty far apart, and the land targets are limited due to the small number of men engaged and the small land area fought over (i.e. fighting was for air base sites, as building one and holding it forced the enemy to retreat or starve).

 

I'd still love it, and will buy most anything I can. I hope they can work around these issues enough to please the MP crowd, which I'm currently too bad and too chicken to play :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

A career of the type that most are used to in the sim now is only doable in a land based scenario

 

41 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

Why?

 

The complexity of adding ships to a career mission template needs to be considered, and the few which were included in Kuban do not feature for this reason.  Trying to add an entire carrier group - or even two opposing ones, would be vastly more complex.  Odds are the devs would never do it.  One or more canned static campaigns would be your the most likely SP content if you were to have a Midway expansion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have widely different views on the capability of the development team. Fact that they haven't done something in the past is not a predictor if they can do it the future. Up until now (assuming PTO is an reality) they never had to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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.

 

If that were the case, the next expansion wouldn't probably be for me. I'd be curious though about how Il-2 would then differentiate itself from it's more applicable competitors if that were to happen. This whole series was built on "experience of being" instead of super fidelity simulation - I always thought that meant being able to just pick up and play your favorite aircraft and go through the motions instead of having to rely on other sources such as user-made things and MP. Or worse, spending more time in editors than actually flying the plane. 

 

Pretty much the only reason I use Il-2 more than competing products is because I could simply do that in SP - pick up and play. If I had to spend so much more time in mission editors after I'm done with the scripted stuff, I do wonder how different that would be from Flaming Cliffs for example. Specially at the price point. 

 

Outside of BoBP, the rest of the series seems to be in a weird MP-centric place. Not that it's bad or anything, I'm sure certain folks would love that. It's just that it'll feel different from the rest of the series. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

A career of the type that most are used to in the sim now is only doable in a land based scenario, hence, New Guinea should be the obvious choice of where to go.

...
The Japanese would be more limitied as the Zero did not play a large role in this mostly Army affair, but that would still leave the Ki43 and Ki61 as the primary fighter types, and the Ki 21 as the main bomber type.

I wholeheartedly agree with your first sentence, as is evidenced by many of my posts.

The IJNAS, and consequently the Zero, did play a very important role in the Papua & New Guinea campaign. In fact, the IJAAS wasn't involved until December 1942. This offers us a very diverse planeset - which is a very good thing.

 

3 hours ago, cellinsky said:

Thats why Rabaul and the "Slot" would be the perfect choice for a PTO entry scenario: Plenty of air- ground- and naval-action. Japanese Army as well as the Navy present. America , Australia. Newsealand  and British on the other side.

The IJAAS' involvement in the Solomon Islands Campaign was limited to a brief deployment of Ki-43 and Ki-48 in the last days of January 1943.
The British involvement was limited to "USS Robin".

 

 

As of now, I still doubt the viability of carrier scenarios. The Papua & New Guinea Campaign 1942/43 and the involved assets are doable(!) - this scenario is the obvious choice to get a foot in the Asiatic-Pacific Theatre.
That said, I don't care too much as long as they stay true to their commitment and produce something set in the Asiatic-Pacific Theatre.

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The IJAAS's involvement in the Solomon Islands Campaign was limited to a brief deployment of Ki-43 and Ki-48 in the last days of January 1943."

 

True, no Solomons without New Guinea . The maps have to be compressed/scaled down anyway, so why not have both in one. Nobody wants to fly real distances in this theatre anyway. The planeset would be awesome with Oscars, Tonys, Bettys, Zeros, Corsairs, Wildcats etc.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's tons of possible scenarios for PTO. Pearl Harbor, Midway, Mariannes, Rabaul, New Guinea, Solomons, Guadelcanal, Solomons, Darwin, Phillipines, Coral Sea, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe and hope we one day go to PTO, New Guinea, Burma and cover more of mid war Europe. 
Early Finland ,Balkan  Italy Malta 

I think devs start up after their Christmas with a new pack that they will announce in Desember

Edited by No.322_LuseKofte

Share this post


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

Guadalcanal, Cactus Air Force... has to come!

 

Yes

Even if it’s on a generic islands map.

I will not be at peace until we have Henderson/Cactus.

 

Coast Watchers “Henderson, 13 bombers plus escorts headed yours”

 

Epic

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The maps have to be compressed/scaled down anyway, so why not have both in one. Nobody wants to fly real distances in this theatre anyway

I want to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, InProgress said:

I want to.

 

Right - who tests those missions?

I’m telling you building and testing even 2 hour missions is just barely plausible. I know, I’ve done it. Even then, just one and the rest better be shorter.

 

3 hours - forget it.

This is why the whole map size argument is stupid. There’s a point (and we”ve found it while building and testing) that playability/testability takes over for 99% of players.(and builders)

 

Time at your PC is just different than in a real cockpit - during an actual war.

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sim needs waypoint skipping like old IL-2.  Without that, no thanks.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd honestly fly more career missions if most of the mission could be flown in a 2d/map planning mode with 256x acceleration... and I only had to be in cockpit for about 15 minutes in the combat area and landing!

Just now, J28w-Broccoli said:

Sim needs waypoint skipping like old IL-2.  Without that, no thanks.

 

Or EF-2000 or Aces Over Europe / Aces of the Pacific... those were even better in the sense that they didn't iterate but broke the mission into a series of submissions...

 

For instance in Red Baron I and Aces Over Europe... the career would decide that you were supposed to go somewhere but were going to be surprised by enemy fighters before you got there... and it would thus produce two sub-missions - one for fending off the enemy fighters en-rout and a second one for the target area... it was great for people who had less free time... and it also allowed a bit more design into the actual encounters (e.g. sometimes there would be an ace, or the enemy would have a height advantage)... it felt good.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Right - who tests those missions?

I’m telling you building and testing even 2 hour missions is just barely plausible. I know, I’ve done it. Even then, just one and the rest better be shorter.

 

3 hours - forget it.

This is why the whole map size argument is stupid. There’s a point (and we”ve found it while building and testing) that playability/testability takes over for 99% of players.(and builders)

 

Time at your PC is just different than in a real cockpit - during an actual war.

 

I wonder if mid-mission saving would alleviate that somewhat? 

 

I can fully understand that more than an hour or two at a sitting is just to much to do reliably, but at the same time it feels weird to start and stop missions in the air. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding lengthy flights I'll just quote one of my previous messages:
 

On 10/27/2019 at 9:35 AM, Arthur-A said:

If that's SP mode it could be done easily I think. Have some kind of strategic map mode with icons on the map of your flight and your allies, with ability to accelerate time up to smth like x128. You could select whether your plane follows waypoints (follows escorted bombers) or you could set a course, select engine mode and it will fly straight. When enemy aircraft is within a certain range you will automatically get back to flight mode. Even with heavy enemy flak you should be able to use strategic map and accelerate time, however the possibility of being hit by flak will be factored in. That way you can fly whatever range your plane is capable of. I remember this feature was present in Rowan's Battle of Britain. If a 19 year old game had this feature I don't see why GB can't have it today. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most plausible way, with minimal extra coding.

3 versions of the mission. One starts on the ground, version 2 starts in the air ingress, version 3 starts in the air egress.

 

You load up the mission, take off, fly.

When you decide to "accelerate" the game exits that mission file and loads version 2 which now has you closer to the target.

Then at a time of your choosing can then 'accelerate' closer to home, which is really the game booting version 3.

 

That's the most plausible way within the current game engine, minimal extra coding, which is not the same as ZERO extra coding.

So even what I've outlined here takes a guy who knows how many days/weeks....but doable.  

 

Share this post


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

 

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

 

 

Cool

Edited by Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be confused, but can't you accelerate the mission in SP? Wouldn't the issue of distance be a MP issue then? 

 

 while back in RoF, I was a gunner on a bomber. We flew a bombing mission to England, crossing the channel. It took awhile. We chatted the whole time. So much so, we nearly didn't realize we were about to hit the English coast. I would imagine flying long distances as a lone wolf in MP would be painful, but within a group it shouldn't be. Besides, maybe you will run into an expectant wayward direction-ally challenged pilot(s) along the way. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

I might be confused, but can't you accelerate the mission in SP? Wouldn't the issue of distance be a MP issue then? 

 

 

Functionally, no.

Acceleration stops working (beyond maybe an actual 1.5X to maybe 2X) with any degree of mission logic.

I can get actual 8X in a completely empty mission map with 1 or 2 aircraft. In an actual mission file, especially one my missions, not even a true 2X, let alone 4.

 

A water map might be a bit different, don't know.

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answer, Feathered_IV.

 

 

13 hours ago, cellinsky said:

Thats why Rabaul and the "Slot" would be the perfect choice for a PTO entry scenario

 

 

Good choice indeed. Hey dudes… don't you remember, back in 2003, therefore before "Pacific Fighters" was released in 2004??? In 2003, "IL-2 Sturmovik" developers released a very simple free patch that contained a) one map, b) one flyable 'merican plane (the Wildcat), and... c) one flyable jap' plane (the Zero). That map remained available in all versions of the game from 2006 onwards. And, although fictional, it really looked like the Rabaul bay…

 

Don't you agree with the above? The last generation of "IL-2 Sturmovik" sims, I mean "Great Battles", could, once more, reproduce the above mentioned approach of the problem: how to launch a Pacific scenario if your flight sim game basically started as a European-based theater of operations? Well… Rabaul could be considered as a good compromise, with no dynamic fleets, only static aerodromes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

You load up the mission, take off, fly.

When you decide to "accelerate" the game exits that mission file and loads version 2 which now has you closer to the target.

Then at a time of your choosing can then 'accelerate' closer to home, which is really the game booting version 3.

 

That's the most plausible way within the current game engine, minimal extra coding, which is not the same as ZERO extra coding.

So even what I've outlined here takes a guy who knows how many days/weeks....but doable.  

 

That seems like a lot of Loading menus to go through. Wouldn't it be better to hack in teleportation instead? In the very least I know some payware aircraft from other titles that could do this, but it'll be highly dependent on what the engine would allow them to do (in the case of that other title I mentioned, it was by default). 

 

It just seems like this way would generate a lot of overhead; having to load and keep track of multiple instances. Attempting to teleport priority assets around might be more appropriate, even if simply having it a function of distance. 

 

In any case, I've seen a lot of really good ideas on the forum over the years, and I'm sure with the devs being more intimate with the product that they'd have even better ones. But this feature seems like something that could have been done prior. Seems like a lot of stuff tying the devs hands back, and I think this kind of feature would simply just get dropped during triage.

 

Hell, I think it might have been dropped multiple times over Il-2's life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm talking talking about menus/manual loading...we can do that now. That would kill immersion and be pointless, and require nothing new.

I'm talking about the game doing it by itself under the hood. In other words functionally that's what the game is doing, but all you see is the "jump" if that makes sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the game know what settings or actions to carry over into the next chapter of the mission?   The location of your wingman or their state of fuel or level of damage for example.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah good point - that would cause a problem for the way home bit.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...