Jump to content
sinned

Next Theater Announcement Date

Recommended Posts

S!

 

 As Pequod said. No scaled maps. After that you can throw the words realism or historical accuracy out of the window. One solution could be "cutting out" a smaller chunk of the larger map to create a smaller area of fighting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are playing a flight simulation 'game'... we have not got realism or historical accuracy anyway, it's a game.

Anyone that thinks this is in any way close to realism are deluding themselves... we are 'playing' a representation of WWII aviation combat, that's all!

There is no way that the dev's will be able to make a full size representation of a Pacific theatre due to the distances involved.

If it means scaling down the map somewhat to make the game playable, but with a reasonable flight time involved, well, so be it if that is what will be required to make it a viable Pacific theatre.

It may well be that or no Pacific option... think about it.

Edited by Trooper117
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Trooper117 said:

It may well be that or no Pacific option... think about it.

 

😱

 

My worst nightmare...

Share this post


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

There is no way that the dev's will be able to make a full size representation of a Pacific theatre due to the distances involved

 

What about Malaya, Netherlands East Indies(no it's not flat there), Burma, Okinawa and New Guinea Even Guadalcanal the battle ranges were not that long. 😋

 

 

Edited by MeoW.Scharfi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

We are playing a flight simulation 'game'... we have not got realism or historical accuracy anyway, it's a game.

Anyone that thinks this is in any way close to realism are deluding themselves... we are 'playing' a representation of WWII aviation combat, that's all!

There is no way that the dev's will be able to make a full size representation of a Pacific theatre due to the distances involved.

If it means scaling down the map somewhat to make the game playable, but with a reasonable flight time involved, well, so be it if that is what will be required to make it a viable Pacific theatre.

It may well be that or no Pacific option... think about it.

See what I mean...

They want the whole package, no compromise. If I was making GB, I`d skip PTO just to evade all the negatives that would come from those customers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason said the first Pacific battle would be Midway, so it's carrier warfare... usually long flight times.

There are a few pacific purists that want those long flights to make it feel real for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly I'm looking forward to spotting over water.  Every "jungle" theatre that gets suggested, I just groan knowing I'm going to have to try to spot bombers flying at 8 meters against forests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

...

There is no way that the dev's will be able to make a full size representation of a Pacific theatre due to the distances involved.

...

 

Comparison  of Bodenplatte map to some Pacific campaign areas.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

What about Malaya, Netherlands East Indies(no it's not flat there), Burma, Okinawa and New Guinea Even Guadalcanal the battle ranges were not that long. 😋

 

 

Most of the Japanese air units during the battle of Guadalcanal operated from airbases in Rabaul which was over 1000 kilometers in distance. You could have the carriers in there as part of the battle of Eastern Solomons to give the Japanese a little closer deployment points, but for any career in the current form you'd need Rabaul which is a bit too far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

Comparison  of Bodenplatte map to some Pacific campaign areas.

 

The problem isn't the actual area, especially because there is so much water that (probably) requires a lot less work than every bridge in Holland. The problem is that the flying distances within those maps are much greater than the flying distance in the PTO maps.

 

The Solomons/Slot map is a prime example: in the area shown, there was not one major Japanese airbase for the entire campaign. Japanese bombers, except for Zeros, would have to fly in from off map. Even the carrier battles took place mostly off that map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

What about Malaya, Netherlands East Indies(no it's not flat there), Burma, Okinawa and New Guinea Even Guadalcanal the battle ranges were not that long. 😋

 

 

New Guinea will most likely be a own module. Same with Burma and Phillipines

Coral sea and Midway has to be scaled down 

anything else would make it unplayable. 
claiming this can not happened because of realism is nonsense. That is like claiming you can fly ww2 hotrods warplanes in the matter of minutes. 
We are not capable to fly the real thing, we are not dealing with authentic airplanes. 
In order to make a playable combat flight simulator , liberties in realism must be taken. 

Edited by No.322_LuseKofte
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just about every allied aircraft is already there in some form or other for the New Guinea theatre.  Add in a Beaufighter or PBY and that side would be close to complete.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

The Solomons/Slot map is a prime example: in the area shown, there was not one major Japanese airbase for the entire campaign. Japanese bombers, except for Zeros, would have to fly in from off map. Even the carrier battles took place mostly off that map.

 

I am pretty sure they will chose an area where a more or less static situation existed for 6 month or more and both sides had their airfields perhaps 300km max apart. New-Guinea would offer such a constellation AFAIK. Let´s see what they will come up with at the end of this year.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are getting worked up over distance unnecessarily. the Carriers in Coral Sea were at one point less than a mile apart. And looking at Midway, they were fairly close as well

 

Image result for battle of midway map"

 

The Carriers will be doing the "walking" not planes. I think some of you are picking scenarios they most likely won't do and perhaps for the reasons some have stated here. Carriers are the best way to reduce distance, so carriers would be the most likely step in a PTO addition. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, previously I mentioned that I would be happy with pretty much anything WWII (though I still do have preferences)...but now that I think about things I am going to add a very important qualification:

 

Being a single offline player, I don't want any scenario that cannot be done well with a dynamic campaign. If 1C and Patrick Wilson can't put together and offer a decent dynamic campaign for it, then count me out. (getting a little nervous of some of the possible pacific scenarios, tbh - but maybe they can be pulled through (????))

Share this post


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

I think people are getting worked up over distance unnecessarily. the Carriers in Coral Sea were at one point less than a mile apart. And looking at Midway, they were fairly close as well

 

I'd buy it and love it, but I'd still want IJAAF and USAAF campaigns one day, so yes, but it just kicks the can down the road a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its PTO then carriers are best, as you can set them to what ever distances you need. Reasonable thing to do for other is scale the maps but some purists youd make big fuss about it so best for devs is just go for carrier vs carrier actions or something simple like Midway. No ned for map tempering so purists cant complain. Just look how BoBp map is made and still ppl wont more citys towns barns and so on...

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

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

It can also cause problems for the action states as well. One real annoyance with the lead calculating gun sites is they start at the longest convergence and the biggest aircraft, so if you spawn right into combat, you need to adjust both to the correct spot at the same time you're doing everything else. 

 

The other aspect of that is you miss the parts in-between where the unexpected happens. When you are in enemy territory you are in enemy territory and things happen. I recall one Il-2 campaign generator mission, in the original Il-2 when I got separated from my wing lead, so I just headed home. Unbenounced to me, a 109 had spotted me and saddled up on me while I wasn't paying attention, and I only just happened to see him because I was looking around admiring the view. Totally unscripted, unplanned event, but I remember it nearly twenty years later. 

 

That said, I think you are correct that the most accessible method is the way point skip system like Aces of the Pacific used, but I would still appreciate a mid-mission state saving system for those of us crazy enough to want to fly the whole thing. Also, the ability to pause and quit without losing a mission progress would be nice for those of us with chaotic schedules. 

 

Harry Voyager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to that map:

 

41296085155_dfba17990b_c.jpg

 

 

We need far more than twice its size… if we want the map includes Rabaul on the East side of the map and Guadalcanal on its West side:

 

Rabaul-Guadalcanal.jpg

 

 

BUT… There's plenty of water there… and less dry land surface than in Bodenplatte...

 

I mentioned the above as a statement of fact only.😝

Oh, by the way, I copy-paste from Wikipédia:

 

"Sakai managed to fly his damaged Zero in a four-hour, 47-minute flight over 560 nmi (1,040 km; 640 mi) back to his base on Rabaul"

 

That was a return flight in 1942, from Guadalcanal to Rabaul, while being seriously wounded and with a damaged aircraft.

 

If we want to make my Google Maps screenshot playable (that map with both Rabaul and Guadalcanal), some may think that the real distances should be reduced by half in the simulation map… or maybe not…

 

What do you think ? any thoughts? (expert thoughts...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Going back to that map:

 

41296085155_dfba17990b_c.jpg

 

 

We need far more than twice its size… if we want the map includes Rabaul on the East side of the map and Guadalcanal on its West side:

 

Rabaul-Guadalcanal.jpg

 

 

BUT… There's plenty of water there… and less dry land surface than in Bodenplatte...

 

I mentioned the above as a statement of fact only.😝

Oh, by the way, I copy-paste from Wikipédia:

 

"Sakai managed to fly his damaged Zero in a four-hour, 47-minute flight over 560 nmi (1,040 km; 640 mi) back to his base on Rabaul"

 

That was a return flight in 1942, from Guadalcanal to Rabaul, while being seriously wounded and with a damaged aircraft.

 

If we want to make my Google Maps screenshot playable (that map with both Rabaul and Guadalcanal), some may think that the real distances should be reduced by half in the simulation map… or maybe not…

 

What do you think ? any thoughts? (expert thoughts...)



The second map, how does that compare to the current Rhine map we have now for BOBP?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason why a big open water area couldn't have more island battle sites than one on it?  If there was a Midway map built, why couldn't they place Guam in one corner, Wake on another, Truk on another and so on?   Even the Guadalcanal map has room in the upper right open water to place another battle site or two.  Why not have the cake and eat it too.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

The second map, how does that compare to the current Rhine map we have now for BOBP?

 

Based on the first map, it looks like it is about eight times larger than BOBp.

17 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

If there was a Midway map built, why couldn't they place Guam in one corner, Wake on another, Truk on another and so on? 

 

Since each will be surrounded by water, why not just have a map for each? I don't see any upside to having them all on one large map.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

What do you think ? any thoughts? (expert thoughts...)

 

Well I think it ignores everything I said about map size, flight distance and player tolerance for starters. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we really need another map when current maps and planes and stuff still needs lots of fixing and improvements.

dont get me wrong the team have done a great job in last 2 year so much content. 
but its time to polish the game. fix the bugs, clean up for performance. 
Last big update brought in a 25-45% Frame Rate loss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

Do we really need another map when current maps and planes and stuff still needs lots of fixing and improvements.
 

 

The developers need another map, if they are to continue with 'fixing and improvements'. How else are they going to fund such work?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 1:34 AM, Gambit21 said:

 

Not really.

 

Care to elaborate, or do we just one-line shut off people who are vocal about PTO and shouldn't express any opinion?...

 

On 11/12/2019 at 1:36 AM, cardboard_killer said:

 

It's unlikely for a very big reason--by 1943 it was very rare for Chinese planes to challenge the IJAAF. It is one of today's mysteries why the USA became enamored of a Chinese republic, and spent so much money backing insane levels of corruption. I truly believe it was motivated by a sense of paternalistic anti-colonialism, but in any case by 1942 the Chinese nationalists had basically quit the fight against the Japanese, and tried to hoard foreign planes as a personal air force for their leaders. The Japanese were pre-occupied with events in the South Pacific and SE Asia as pre-conditions for a final reckoning with China 🙄. Once the US began to stage B-29s in China, the Japanese in 1944 began an offensive that swept the Chinese Nationalists aside and pushed the USA out of range of the home islands. I don't believe even then the Nationalists contested the air much as they were more concerned with building their air force for after the war.

 

Didn't know that! One of the reasons I would love to see China as a setting for an expansion is that I know very little about it, especially compared to other theather of war during WWII. I was under the impression that the Chinese Nationalists still had some fight left in them after the 1941-42 time frame, though...

 

Khalkin Gol would have a pretty interesting plane set but is too short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Burdokva said:

 

Care to elaborate, or do we just one-line shut off people who are vocal about PTO and shouldn't express any opinion?...

 

 

Am I supposed to somehow remember the context of those 2 words?

In any case I find your post a bit silly...I've been as vocal about PTO as anyone.

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

The developers need another map, if they are to continue with 'fixing and improvements'. How else are they going to fund such work?

with all the money from all previous sales and ads on youtube channel and so on. 

also when it comes to fixing bugs, its like a car mechanic. 
if he fits something then later it plays up he has to fix it in his own time as his own cost.
a game bug is little different to electronic bug on say new car driving lights. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burma Road pls.

 

050520-F-1234P-012.JPG&f=1&nofb=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

with all the money from all previous sales and ads on youtube channel and so on. 

 

Studios have to plan future sources of revenue; they can't just drain their existing assets with no prospect of sales. YouTube revenues are likely negligible.

 

Besides, the studio has people with different skills working on different things. You can't suddenly tell an artist to learn to code and start optimizing the game engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:


also when it comes to fixing bugs, its like a car mechanic. 

 

 

‘This isn’t anything like a mechanic.  They need a constant revenue flow.  So they keep making new maps and planes.  That’s what pays for the game updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

with all the money from all previous sales and ads on youtube channel and so on.

 

That money runs out fast when you don't put out more content and you have a whole team to pay every week. They've found a good medium between the two. Hell just look at the last Dev diary. They're fixing stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

If its PTO then carriers are best, as you can set them to what ever distances you need. Reasonable thing to do for other is scale the maps but some purists youd make big fuss about it so best for devs is just go for carrier vs carrier actions or something simple like Midway. No ned for map tempering so purists cant complain. Just look how BoBp map is made and still ppl wont more citys towns barns and so on...

Hell, just shrink some of the water areas and leave the land areas the same size. Basically move the islands together, people who want longer flight times can slow down time progression and pretend.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we get PTO then i'll have to add *yet another* aircraft ID chart to my cube at work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

if we get PTO then i'll have to add *yet another* aircraft ID chart to my cube at work...

You say that like it's a bad thing... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Voyager said:

You say that like it's a bad thing... 

Fair point, we'll see how many charts it takes before a coworker asks about them 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

Besides, the studio has people with different skills working on different things. You can't suddenly tell an artist to learn to code and start optimizing the game engine.

 

Well you "can" and in the long run learning new skills is always good for everyone, it is just that in the short term you can't assume they will learn quickly enough to make it financially worthwhile paying existing employees to re-train in new disciplines rather than task them with getting on with something they are already know how to do.

 

I speak merely as professional artist and amateur modder  trying to learn to code in my spare time😀

 

 

Share this post


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

I've been as vocal about PTO as anyone.


So much so that I regard you as Prime minister of PTO and a supreme leader in our PTO republic. And you sit there in your fancy Wildcat

Getting the Hurricane we almost there when if comes to New Guinea. It is a fantastic starting point and you get to fight IJA over jungle. 
I would like to fight in Chinowar too. This sim can go on for ever

Share this post


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

 

Am I supposed to somehow remember the context of those 2 words?

In any case I find your post a bit silly...I've been as vocal about PTO as anyone.

 

Honestly, the two words comment felt rather snide. But I do agree my last comment sounded silly as I meant to say that I'm not a vocal proponent of PTO as the next settting (and I dozed off while typing). I don't oppose it but I do find people who want the PTO very quick to shut off discussion about alternative theaters for the next expansion.

 

Anyway, on the subject - aside from not agreeing that there's already too much Eastern Front (remind me which sim before the Il-2 series or after ever touched on the subject?), having a late scenario such as Battle for Berlin would round up the current planests and allow not only for a reasonably complete pilot career in the East but also to portray a rich late war scenario.

 

Even Italy would allow reusing existing planes for more diversity (Spitfire Mk.V and Mk.XI, P-38s, P-39s, MC.202, P-40s)...

 

One of the original Battle of Stalingrad's big problems was the very limited plane set - going to a Pacific theater such as Midway would be the same. 6 to 8 flyables and AI.   

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Burdokva said:

 

Anyway, on the subject - aside from not agreeing that there's already too much Eastern Front (remind me which sim before the Il-2 series or after ever touched on the subject?),

 

 

Now be careful.

Saying "too much" and "enough for now" are two very different things.

I think you're mistaking which one of those statements get's made around here.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...