Official Scripted Campaign "Lightning Strikes!"

[Jaegermeister]

15 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

Hi Jaegermeister,

 

One request for my favorite campaign.  Please don't despawn the player at the end of a mission.  I just finished Mission 17 - Gerolstein and came back all shot up after an encounter with some 109s on the way home.  After a nail-biter of a landing I parked my plane and was just about to shut down my engines and open my canopy, but suddenly I was despawned before I could finish.  My little ritual was cut short...lol

 

Thanks! 

 

OK, Easy fix there

[Burninator6502]

I've been noticing that the radio calls coming from the other aircraft in my flight aren't using the correct names. Well, names that are too 'computerish' I mean.

 

I'll be in Woodbine flight and when other aircraft make radio calls they're listed as WB_2, WB_3, etc. It kind of takes you out of the moment.

 

I'm on mission 13, but I believe it's been happening for a few.

 

 

[Burninator6502]

Something that really got me in the mindset for this campaign was this series of day by day events during the Battle of the Bulge.

 

You can really see the part you're playing.

 

Jaegermeister, perhaps you could put this in the documentation, linked to the particular video that covers the mission.

 

 

[Jaegermeister]

On 2/10/2025 at 7:03 PM, Burninator6502 said:

I've been noticing that the radio calls coming from the other aircraft in my flight aren't using the correct names. Well, names that are too 'computerish' I mean.

 

I'll be in Woodbine flight and when other aircraft make radio calls they're listed as WB_2, WB_3, etc. It kind of takes you out of the moment.

 

I'm on mission 13, but I believe it's been happening for a few.

 

 

 

That's how the planes in the flight are labeled. I never noticed it carried over to the subtitles because I don't have player messages enabled. I really don't use anything on screen except sometimes the icons to keep track of where the AI is during testing. To me, having written messages on screen "takes you out of the moment" so I turn them off.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Burninator6502 said:

Jaegermeister, perhaps you could put this in the documentation, linked to the particular video that covers the mission.

 

There is a fairly accurate front line map already with each mission in the briefing interface. I'm also not sure how one could include any type of external link that could expire, get blocked or not work for some other reason.

 

[Burninator6502]

Re: Mission 22 - rearming

 

The mission text states: “When you return to base, pull your aircraft into the rearming area.  You will be going back out as long as there are still targets to hit in the area.”

I dutifully spent 30+ minutes taxiing all over the place looking for the rearming spot. Then I got out of my VR setup and did a web search until I found your quote from an earlier post here:

 

“Although I mentioned rearming in the briefing, it was to add the atmosphere of knowing how close the enemy was to your base. They flew multiple round trip missions that day as I recall, not just one per day. I did not include rearming as a mission feature…”

 

WHAT?!?

 

I’ve never seen, and still can’t believe that in the mission description, it SPECIFICALLY tells you to rearm and then attack the target again, yet that feature is not available.

 

OMG, that wasted an hour of my life. I understand your reasoning for not adding rearming, but why couldn’t you have a little text at the bottom saying “Rearming/refueling isn’t actually implemented, just park and shutoff your a/c like normal.” How exactly are the players supposed to figure this out themselves?

 

Obviously I’m not the only person to have this issue, it’s been brought up multiple times here. You’d think that’d be a hint to the developer that there was an issue.

 

Up to this point the campaign has been stellar. It’s regrettable that it fell on its face and frustrates the player right at the end.

 

I’m still actually a little stunned by this - I’ve never seen any other campaign purposely mislead the player into wasting their time.

Edited February 13 by Burninator6502

[Burninator6502]

17 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

> To me, having written messages on screen "takes you out of the moment" so I turn them off.

I completely agree. However after years of working on helicopters, my hearing is at the point that unless I'm looking at a person I have trouble making out words; I just hear gibberish. That's why I have to have subtitles on when I watch movies. Trust me, I wish my hearing was better but I have no choice to have written messages on screen.

 

We all don't have good hearing!

Edited February 13 by Burninator6502

[Jaegermeister]

 

I'll see what I can do about correcting that since you have been so polite about it.

 

 

 

Edited February 15 by Jaegermeister

[LF_Mark_Krieger]

Replaying this magnific campaign (Thank you very much for your work again) now with the changes of 5.506.

Mission 2: In the brieffing it says the ground observer code name is Steeplechase. In the audio his callsign is Sweepstakes (I think)
Mission 3: Flight Bluebird keeps circling arround the objective when the message of return to base appears.

In the first three missions when the flight is in cover of the other flight that does the ground attack task flyes too low. I know this is just a little detail and the behaviour of the IA is difficult to control.

[Jaegermeister]

6 hours ago, LF_Mark_Krieger said:

Replaying this magnific campaign (Thank you very much for your work again) now with the changes of 5.506.

Mission 2: In the brieffing it says the ground observer code name is Steeplechase. In the audio his callsign is Sweepstakes (I think)
Mission 3: Flight Bluebird keeps circling arround the objective when the message of return to base appears.

In the first three missions when the flight is in cover of the other flight that does the ground attack task flyes too low. I know this is just a little detail and the behaviour of the IA is difficult to control.

 

Thanks for the comments, I’ll take a look at all those things. Considering that a major update was just published, I would imagine it will be a couple of months before anything else gets reworked.

 

You are correct about AI behavior, it changes sometimes and occasionally needs to be tricked into doing certain things. That’s an old campaign now and I’ve completely revised it twice already.

 

[Jaegermeister]

 

On 2/13/2025 at 11:16 AM, Burninator6502 said:

Re: Mission 22 - rearming

 

Spoiler

The mission text states: “When you return to base, pull your aircraft into the rearming area.  You will be going back out as long as there are still targets to hit in the area.”

I dutifully spent 30+ minutes taxiing all over the place looking for the rearming spot. Then I got out of my VR setup and did a web search until I found your quote from an earlier post here:

 

“Although I mentioned rearming in the briefing, it was to add the atmosphere of knowing how close the enemy was to your base. They flew multiple round trip missions that day as I recall, not just one per day. I did not include rearming as a mission feature…”

 

WHAT?!?

 

I’ve never seen, and still can’t believe that in the mission description, it SPECIFICALLY tells you to rearm and then attack the target again, yet that feature is not available.

 

OMG, that wasted an hour of my life. I understand your reasoning for not adding rearming, but why couldn’t you have a little text at the bottom saying “Rearming/refueling isn’t actually implemented, just park and shutoff your a/c like normal.” How exactly are the players supposed to figure this out themselves?

 

Obviously I’m not the only person to have this issue, it’s been brought up multiple times here. You’d think that’d be a hint to the developer that there was an issue.

 

Up to this point the campaign has been stellar. It’s regrettable that it fell on its face and frustrates the player right at the end.

 

I’m still actually a little stunned by this - I’ve never seen any other campaign purposely mislead the player into wasting their time.

 

 

Previous post deleted. I have figured out how to implement rearming and updated the mission to include this feature with a second attack run to the target area 

 

Edited February 26 by Jaegermeister
issue fixed

[LukeFF]

Alright, guys, let's get back on track here.

[JMax]

Excellent campaign. I am new to the P38J,and am really enjoying it...why did I wait so long?!?

 

IL2 is fantastic. 90FPS of 100% smooth play in VR. And it looks great.

 

Maybe a P38L model will be a collector plane soon....😎

[Jaegermeister]

I'm glad you are enjoying the campaign. The Lightning is still one of my favorite planes. 

[LF_Mark_Krieger]

Mission 9:

After we are intercepted and the enemis eliminated, Elwood flight doesn't RTB and keeps orbiting in the enemy zone.

[AndreiTomescu]

Only up to mission 6 and i have to say, the hole campaign is awesome. The detailed and somehow gradual briefing gets you into the mood, home area and target area are full, but full with "life", and the hole missions stream makes you fell like you are living/reading a journal. Jaegermeister-boss, many thanks.

The Lighting is an extraordinary piece of flying machine! On the ground, it's like driving a car, sooo easy, compared to the Mossie, or the Bf110. In the air, nimble, not like any 2 engined planes i have learned. Ony concern is above 450km/h, when the hisssling sound begins: it won't pull up......but I've learned to dance the ....flaps dance!

also I found it to be very sensitive to damage: a few hits and the rudder is gone, the fuel is gone and the elevator....is no more!

However, having the power of 2 both turbo and super charged engines and being able to dance with a K4  fighter nicely, that's something.

Why on earth did the Americans phased out so eagerly this aircraft??? Only due to cold in the cockpit and high costs??? Maybe....

 

[AndreiTomescu]

Another thing that happened first time this campaign in about 2k hrs of the new IL-2 , is short freezing of the game, when approaching the target area and home airfield. I guess it's due to heavy load of the system. Despite a quite decent one. (Ryzen7, 64 gb ram, 8 gb video, Rx6600xt). My concern is that for the new game -Korea- this system won't be enough. Did this happened to you also?

However, this doesn't affect the playability of any mission. 

Every mission until now I had to play at least twice, mostly due to my inability to master this strange and wonderful plane enough as to avoid ploughing the ground. And what I've noticed is that every mission so far has a great level of replayability, and it's the same mix of entertaining, thrill and adventure every time.

Edited May 3 by AndreiTomescu

[KodiakJac]

5 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said:

Ony concern is above 450km/h, when the hissing sound begins: it won't pull up......but I've learned to dance the ....flaps dance!

 

 

The P-38 has dive brakes!  They will help you control your speed during dives 

 

[AndreiTomescu]

Thank you @KodiakJac! Dive brakes discovered, thx to you.

Also tried to tweak my system a bit, graphic settings wise, thx to the Chat GPT. Thing is that now, with game settings almost all on ultra, the action runs at 110-120 fps constantly, without using all system resources, but at certain times image freezes for 1-2 secs, with the action going on in the game engine, somehow. The result is that if i'm very low, i usually crash. Any thoughts on that, pls?

P.S. The mission with the little island on the river was awesome. Found even an old paddle wheels boat, quite large one, there, hidden in an inlet !! Lots of targets, wonderful landscape, but truth to be said, quite stingy targets.

[Jaegermeister]

On 5/3/2025 at 9:13 AM, AndreiTomescu said:

 

However, having the power of 2 both turbo and super charged engines and being able to dance with a K4  fighter nicely, that's something.

Why on earth did the Americans phased out so eagerly this aircraft??? Only due to cold in the cockpit and high costs??? Maybe....

 

The lightning was in service from the beginning of the conflict, and some of its systems were not nearly as advanced as later US aircraft types. The twin engines created a high pilot workload and single-engine fighters took over the escort role with better visibility, maneuverability, comfort, range and speed. The P-47 excelled at the ground attack role and was a smaller target for ground fire, cheaper, more durable, and easier to fly, so it took over that role.

 

The P-38 was really left without a niche, but continued in service because it was already there, it was adequate at the time and was not completely obsolete yet. It did have a lot of firepower and could carry a heavy ordnance load, so units that were upgraded to newer aircraft progressively handed down their aircraft to the remaining groups that continued to fly the P-38. After the Battle of the Bulge, the 370th was supplied with Mustang D's and that is the group depicted in Wild Mustangs as you continue the fight moving to the East. If you fly LS first, and then Wild Mustangs, you will see that in the first couple of missions the aircraft involved cross over as they transition to the new planes.

 

There is also a reference to an obscure incident at the beginning of Wild Mustangs which resulted in the 370th being transferred from the IX Air Force to the newly created XXIX Air Force....

 

Spoiler

During the Allied Invasion of Europe the 370th Fighter Group fought its way across France and Belgium in twin-engine P-38 Lightning fighter bombers. During operations as a tactical ground support unit, these aircraft served their purpose well. When they were transferred to the newly formed XXIX Tactical Air Command and ordered to convert to the single engine P-51 Mustang, the pilots were not happy about the change. They all knew that they were being moved out because of The Accident. General Quesada was still sore that one confused knucklehead bombed his headquarters by mistake, and now they were paying the price for it. The Mustangs arrived, and the pilots broke in their new mounts as best they could with no written manuals and no information on how to fly them. They were all warned to watch out for the torque pulling to the left on takeoff, and sent down range to test them out.

 

Good luck taming your Wild Mustangs! 

 

If you can find references to this "Accident" it's an interesting story. I seem to recall that General Quesada's 2nd in command was killed along with about 30 other USAAF officers in his headquarters when they were bombed by the 370th by mistake and he was furious. They were lucky they didn't get put in front of a firing squad.

 

 

Edited May 5 by Jaegermeister

[Jaegermeister]

14 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said:

P.S. The mission with the little island on the river was awesome. Found even an old paddle wheels boat, quite large one, there, hidden in an inlet !! Lots of targets, wonderful landscape, but truth to be said, quite stingy targets.

 

I'm glad you liked that one, spoiler alert to follow...

 

Spoiler

The supply dump on the Island was the primary target, but the meat of the mission is further down the river. Once you get rid of your bombs and the dump goes up in flames, there are boats on the river to strafe, and a train running down the canyon that is challenging to hit with MGs and cannon. If you don't stop it in time, there is a nasty AA surprise at the top of the hill that you will have to avoid before heading home. I seem to recall that there is also a surprise bounce on the way home by enemy fighters that could be a problem if you are bingo ammo before you leave the target area.

 

If you got lazy and didn't fly all the way home of course you would never know that. Don't forget that all this really happened, and I didn't just make it up for grins

 

 

 

Edited May 4 by Jaegermeister

[LukeFF]

Just to add to what @Jaegermeister has said about the P-38, test pilot Eric Brown wrote this about the P-38's shortcomings:

 

Quote

We had found out that the Bf 109 and the FW 190 could fight up to a Mach of 0.75, three-quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it couldn't fly in combat faster than 0.68. So, it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photoreconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And the funny thing is that the Americans had great difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East.

 

[Sandmarken]

8 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Just to add to what @Jaegermeister has said about the P-38, test pilot Eric Brown wrote this about the P-38's shortcomings:

 

 

Maybe we tend to have more dogfights with a lot of turning than real pilots did, and that plays well to the P-38's strengths? I also think the P-38 is a great plane in-game but struggled a lot with the P-47, even with 150-octane fuel.

[AndreiTomescu]

9 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

If you got lazy and didn't fly all the way home

I didn't! Hit the ammo dump, Hit the beautiful boat, almost regreted that, lucky got just some guns, then sunk a torpedo boat, did a strifing on the train, and then i saw that nice building atop of a hill. Once I went there to admire it, heavy flak!!! Got down furiously on the flak gun, blasted it, only to got hit pretty bad by... a second one! So I limped back home, on one engine. No fighters came to ruin my day even further.

This is what I call action packed mission !

P.S. I always fly from take off till.....land/crash land/death. For true realism and immersion, you know.....Sometimes, and only if it's not the first time I do a mission, i use autopilot on the way, and only if it's not over enemy territory.

Edited May 5 by AndreiTomescu

[Jaegermeister]

3 hours ago, Sandmarken said:

Maybe we tend to have more dogfights with a lot of turning than real pilots did, and that plays well to the P-38's strengths? I also think the P-38 is a great plane in-game but struggled a lot with the P-47, even with 150-octane fuel.

Yes, the missions we play in game are certainly more full of enemy encounters than what really happened. Can you imagine writing a 12 mission campaign and you only encounter the enemy in 1 mission? That would be much more realistic but not much fun, so we cherry pick the active missions and discard all the ones that were boring.

 

Unfortunately after the recent “improvements” to the P-47, I find it extremely frustrating to fly due to completely unpredictable snap stall characteristics. At about 10,000 feet, even in an extremely gentle turn it snaps out of control randomly. Trying any sort of high G maneuver almost instantly results in departure and I can’t believe it actually behaved that way. I know it was supposed to be laterally unstable, but for me it is unflyable in a dogfight now. That’s too bad because I wanted to do a Normandy D-22 Campaign. I scrapped the idea after a couple of missions filled with cursing the computer during testing. It isn’t even worth doing. I know we are supposed to soften the control axis curves for it now, but that isn’t the problem I am having. It simply falls out of the air with no warning and is almost impossible to recover in less than about 5000 feet making it suicidal during ground attack missions. I am also not inclined to believe it will be overhauled again but maybe I’m wrong. I sure hope so.

 

The P-38 is surprisingly agile with size and visibility below and to the sides as its only major faults. I find myself almost always getting hit in head on passed due to the 3x fuselage front profile. I learned how to feather and fly on 1 engine pretty well during that campaign.

 

3 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said:

I didn't! Hit the ammo dump, Hit the beautiful boat, almost regreted that, lucky got just some guns, then sunk a torpedo boat, did a strifing on the train, and then i saw that nice building atop of a hill. Once I went there to admire it, heavy flak!!! Got down furiously on the flak gun, blasted it, only to got hit pretty bad by... a second one! So I limped back home, on one engine. No fighters came to ruin my day even further.

 

I have revised that campaign so many times, I may be remembering a different mission with the enemy bounce on the way home…

 

I added in some randomness at some point as well for the sake of replaybility.

[Sandmarken]

1 hour ago, Jaegermeister said:

I wanted to do a Normandy D-22 Campaign. I

I also wanted to do a P-47 campaign, but the AI just won't dogfight very well in it. I did a lot of testing, and in one fight eight P-47s versus one Bf 109 ended with the 109 taking down four P-47s before getting shot down in a head-on where the attacker was also downed.

[sevenless]

6 hours ago, Sandmarken said:

I also wanted to do a P-47 campaign, but the AI just won't dogfight very well in it. I did a lot of testing, and in one fight eight P-47s versus one Bf 109 ended with the 109 taking down four P-47s before getting shot down in a head-on where the attacker was also downed.

 

Diving from altitude, firing at the opponent, then climbing back was the game of the P47 in air to air business of 8th P47s. In real life all of that happened between 8000 and 12000 metres. You have neither of that in the game. The 9th P47s pre D-Day were great at bringing death from above to everything which moved on the ground. To enemy planes in the air, not so much. Therefore a scripted campaign for 9th D-22s would/should look very much like the two we already have for D-28s in BoBP, but in Normandy. Since groundpounding generally is considered to be fun in this game, I am pretty sure there is general interest for a well done D-22 campaign in BoN.

Edited May 5 by sevenless

[Billsponge1972]

It's my understanding that p-47s were better at dog fighting at high altitudes. But still not great. I'm guessing they would have had an escort for low altitude ground pounding. Something like spitfires or p-51s?

[Jaegermeister]

6 hours ago, sevenless said:

…. Therefore a scripted campaign for 9th D-22s would/should look very much like the two we already have for D-28s in BoBP, but in Normandy. Since groundpounding generally is considered to be fun in this game, I am pretty sure there is general interest for a well done D-22 campaign in BoN.

The “Hell Hawks over Normandy” would be good potential material since we have all the assets and the correct air bases on the map. I made the first 3 missions before D-Day, but flying the D-22 fully loaded, if I made even the slightest cross control or get near a high speed stall, the plane snaps into an uncontrollable spin with no chance of recovery below 2000 meters. It’s like trying to drive a car on black ice with bald tires.
 

After various episodes of becoming a crater in the ground with little to no warning, I put it on the shelf and moved on.

 

4 hours ago, Billsponge1972 said:

I'm guessing they would have had an escort for low altitude ground pounding. Something like spitfires or p-51s?

 

Shortly after D-Day, there was no longer a need to escort the ground attack flights, because there was almost no opposition from the Germans over the invasion front. The USAAF and RAF mounted offensive fighter patrols pretty far inland and very few of the Luftwaffe fighters made it through far enough to interfere with the ground attack aircraft. It did happen on occasion though.

 

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

The “Hell Hawks over Normandy” would be good potential material since we have all the assets and the correct air bases on the map. I made the first 3 missions before D-Day, but flying the D-22 fully loaded, if I made even the slightest cross control or get near a high speed stall, the plane snaps into an uncontrollable spin with no chance of recovery below 2000 meters. It’s like trying to drive a car on black ice with bald tires.
 

After various episodes of becoming a crater in the ground with little to no warning, I put it on the shelf and moved on.

 

 

Ha! I admit, I haven´t flown the D-22 in a while. I guess I need to start a new career with that thing and check it out.

[Jaegermeister]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

Ha! I admit, I haven´t flown the D-22 in a while. I guess I need to start a new career with that thing and check it out.

 

There was a major revision to the P47 flight model in update 5.202 a little over a year ago. Here is the notice in the Dev Blog;

 

In this update we also show some love to our older planes - our engineering team has thoroughly checked and improved the FM of several planes thanks to new historical data found by enthusiasts. P-47 critical AoA and maximum wing lift have been increased and made less stable (please be more careful with the flight stick until you get used to it).

 

I am not aware of the flight data used and I can’t be a judge of whether the flight model updates are historically accurate or not, all I can say is that the P-47 is not manageable for me personally regardless of how delicate I am with the controls. Anecdotally it was not dangerously unstable and prone to snap spins but I am not making any waves because I have no flight data to back up my personal opinions. For that reason I won’t be spending the time in it that would be necessary to make a campaign with it.

 

I flew the the D-28 model not long ago to test the last mission of Hell Hawks over the Bulge and I had a very difficult time even being able to complete the mission to see if it worked or not. I think I had to try 3 or 4 times because I kept falling out of the sky  doing simple turns at 15,000 feet while circling above the furball. Getting in a dogfight wasn’t an option because I couldn’t even turn, much less execute high G maneuvers. I’ll let you make your own decisions about it, but you can mark me down as disappointed at best with it now. That’s unfortunate for me because historically speaking it’s one of my all time favorite planes.

 

 

Edited May 6 by Jaegermeister

[sevenless]

8 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

There was a major revision to the P47 flight model in update 5.202 a little over a year ago. Here is the notice in the Dev Blog;

 

In this update we also show some love to our older planes - our engineering team has thoroughly checked and improved the FM of several planes thanks to new historical data found by enthusiasts. P-47 critical AoA and maximum wing lift have been increased and made less stable (please be more careful with the flight stick until you get used to it).

 

I am not aware of the flight data used and I can’t be a judge of whether the flight model updates are historically accurate or not, all I can say is that the P-47 is not manageable for me personally regardless of how delicate I am with the controls. Anecdotally it was not dangerously unstable and prone to snap spins but I am not making any waves because I have no flight data to back up my personal opinions.

 

For that reason I won’t be spending the time in it that would be necessary to make a campaign with it.

 

Thanks for the warning. I completely forgot about that. I´ll try to be gentle with the old lady and won´t do some boogie-woogie dancing 🙃

[Jaegermeister]

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

 

Thanks for the warning. I completely forgot about that. I´ll try to be gentle with the old lady and won´t do some boogie-woogie dancing 🙃

just FYI, I edited my previous post. I added an entire paragraph 

[AndreiTomescu]

well, it's great sometimes to have 2 engines: increases chances of survival, right ? But whom would have thought that having 2 rudders does that too ???

[KodiakJac]

On 5/5/2025 at 6:55 AM, Jaegermeister said:

Unfortunately after the recent “improvements” to the P-47, I find it extremely frustrating to fly due to completely unpredictable snap stall characteristics. At about 10,000 feet, even in an extremely gentle turn it snaps out of control randomly. Trying any sort of high G maneuver almost instantly results in departure and I can’t believe it actually behaved that way. I know it was supposed to be laterally unstable, but for me it is unflyable in a dogfight now.

 

I agree completely.  The P-47 is unflyable in a dogfight.  I spent a lot of time trying to tame it, but to no avail.  1C really needs to revisit the FM update they gave it a while back.  Like you, it is one of my favorite aircraft from WWII.  And it is modeled beautifully in IL-2 Great Battles which makes it even more painful that I can't use it at all.

[ST_Catchov]

15 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

I agree completely.  The P-47 is unflyable in a dogfight.  I spent a lot of time trying to tame it, but to no avail.  1C really needs to revisit the FM update they gave it a while back.  Like you, it is one of my favorite aircraft from WWII.  And it is modeled beautifully in IL-2 Great Battles which makes it even more painful that I can't use it at all.

 

It sure sounds like the saga of the Se5a. Not a conspiracy, just an observation.

 

[Jaegermeister]

On 6/19/2025 at 3:40 AM, KodiakJac said:

 

I agree completely.  The P-47 is unflyable in a dogfight.  I spent a lot of time trying to tame it, but to no avail.  1C really needs to revisit the FM update they gave it a while back.  Like you, it is one of my favorite aircraft from WWII.  And it is modeled beautifully in IL-2 Great Battles which makes it even more painful that I can't use it at all.

 

Yeah, if they would fix it, I would do a P-47 D-22 Normandy Campaign.

 

It might happen... I'll see what I can do after I finish my current project.

[AndreiTomescu]

This campaign, despite freezing quite a lot in some missions, is awesome. almost at its end, and i'm sad it's ending....