What kind of module would you like to see after BoN?

[Gambit21]

15 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

Yet TC got a shedload of improvements in the recent update. FC zilch. 

 

Yes it did, that has nothing to do with production schedule for primary GB releases.

[Feathered_IV]

I’d like a mid-war Malta/Sicily chapter next.  Add Italy as a faction, include a manageable sized map.  Lots of interesting new aircraft and variants to choose from and a host of mission types.  

[BraveSirRobin]

8 hours ago, Stab/JG1_Klaiber said:

 

But Rise of Flight made Great Battles possible.  

 

 

 

No, 1C made GB possible.  And there is absolutely no chance that a FC module will be given priority over another WW2 module.  Because money.

[Stab/JG1_Klaiber]

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

No, 1C made GB possible.

 

I don't disagree.

 

However, we both know that 1C used the 777 creative team to make BoX.  The same team who cut their teeth making, updating and revising Rise of Flight (their former flagship product). 

 

There is a clear brand evolution here, showing that WW1 aircraft and maps are not a spin-off of GB.  It has always been a vital part of it.

 

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

And there is absolutely no chance that a FC module will be given priority over another WW2 module.

 

I don't disagree here either.  But, you'll notice I'm not asking for that.

 

All I personally want is for FC to be added to this poll. ?

 

The initial poster said "you can pick as many as you want."   That's great!  There are a lot in the GB community who may want to vote for a bunch of WW2 choices AND Flying Circus Vol. 2.

 

Having come from RoF yourself, you might be one of them.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Stab/JG1_Klaiber

[Trooper117]

Unfortunately, I suspect FC has had it's day... lots of time and effort keeps being heaped on TC, but very little for the WWI crowd, and more worryingly, no words of encouragement from the head shed.

Still, I bought into this for the WWII aviation aspect... that should be the dev teams priority and rightly so.

I still have a fall back zone with RoF and WoFF for the WWI aviation  scene 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Malta. Great aircraft set, carriers, naval combat. Also adding Italian faction. 

 One the most strategically important battles in the MTO. 

[BraveSirRobin]

10 hours ago, Stab/JG1_Klaiber said:

 

I don't disagree here either.  But, you'll notice I'm not asking for that.

 

Yes, you are.  The question is what module do you want to see after BoN.  If the answer is FC2, then that is getting priority over a WW2 module.  There is almost no chance of that. 

[Roast]

Finnish Fokkers D.XXI & Fokkers C.V, and the Heinkel He 115 & Dornier 22 to try out floatplanes for later use for a possible Pacific expansion

 

Anyway, aan excellent excuse to post some nice Suomi aircraft ?

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Roast

[Eisenfaustus]

Now after more then 100 users voted I have to say that there are some surprises to me. 
 

1st While pacific is leading the field as expected, not even half the voters would like either pacific option. I was under the impression that a clear majority of the users wished for a pto project. 
 

2nd later pto land based operations seem to be preferred over the iconic carrier operations

 

3rd eastern front seems to be preferred over a third western european instalment. 
 

I don’t know how the devs analyse the market but their decision is a very difficult one. 

[357th_KW]

1943 Italy is a great next step.  It can use a bunch of the planes already in the game.  Fleshes out the USAAF/RAF/Italians.  Opens up more options for 1943/42 setups on the Normandy map.  And provides a really good opportunity to add in torpedoes and flesh out ships some more.  
 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

12 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

 

I don’t know how the devs analyse the market but their decision is a very difficult one. 

Not really.  They can go late Eastern Front or Med/Italy and then do the one they don’t pick next (assuming that PTO is still not an option).  This isn’t a zero sum choice.  Most of us will buy whatever they go with next.

Heck, they can also do post Battle of Britain and use most of the current BoM map to save some money.  The problem that they’re going to start to have is that Germany only had 2 single seat fighters.  We may not always get balanced fighter options like we do now.

[Gambit21]

12 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

 

2nd later pto land based operations seem to be preferred over the iconic carrier operations

 

 

Note that the wording of the poll is a bit problematic. Guadalcanal is technically early war, and opened with carrier ops (Operation Watchtower)

The end of Guadalcanal in 43 and moving up the Slot - mid-war. 

 

No mid-war carrier ops, but then we have late war carrier ops which are not in the poll.

As a historian and speaking of PTO timeline, I don’t begin my reckoning at the Spanish Civil war in other words. 

[Cynic_Al]

 

This is a leading question, in that it doesn't consider the desire for efforts to be directed towards repair and enhancement other aspects of the existing product, not that it's any more likely to happen. 

[BraveSirRobin]

23 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

This is a leading question, in that it doesn't consider the desire for efforts to be directed towards repair and enhancement other aspects of the existing product, not that it's any more likely to happen. 

 

Where do you think that they get the revenue for making enhancements?

[Cynic_Al]

16 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Where do you think that they get the revenue for making enhancements?

 

That's another leading question, in that I never suggested that I think anything of the sort.  Of course if you happen to be privy to the company's financial figures, I'm sure we would all appreciate your sharing them.

[BraveSirRobin]

8 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

That's another leading question, in that I never suggested that I think anything of the sort.  

 

That's exactly what your post is suggesting.  This thread is about what module you'd like to see that will finance the enhancements that you'd like to see.  It's NOT about what enhancements that you'd like to see.  You should start a different poll for that.

 

[Chief_Mouser]

Khalkin Gol 1939

Epirus 1940-41

Malta 1940-42

Murmansk 1941

Crimea 1941--44

Continuation War Finland 1941-44

 

Any or all of these if there is to be no Pacific expansion with this game engine.

Cheers.

 

[Trooper117]

If it has to be another Eastern Front battle, I'd certainly go for Murmansk... You can play RAF as well as Soviet and Luftwaffe (when the Hurri arrives of course)

[ww2fighter20]

156 votes now, not much changed, Italy/Eastern Front 1944 are around the same line now (1 vote difference) and Finland is not far behind them (5/6 votes) and considering Finland was added an bit later (after around 20 votes) Finland could also be considered on the same line as Italy and Late Eastern Front.

[messsucher]

On 9/19/2020 at 1:27 PM, Eisenfaustus said:

Now after more then 100 users voted I have to say that there are some surprises to me. 
 

1st While pacific is leading the field as expected, not even half the voters would like either pacific option. I was under the impression that a clear majority of the users wished for a pto project. 
 

2nd later pto land based operations seem to be preferred over the iconic carrier operations

 

3rd eastern front seems to be preferred over a third western european instalment. 
 

I don’t know how the devs analyse the market but their decision is a very difficult one. 

 

They should go with Pacific. It adds more variety than any other choice, but on the other hand it is most hard for them to do because so many things would have to be made from scratch. This is why they should charge more of it.

 

Regarding land and carrier pacific I think people just voted both because thinking either would be better than neither.

 

I personally find carrier a bit boring, especially if you prefer to take off and land yourself. It is cool for a while, though, and carrier landings are more fun than land landings, especially in MP and with your squadron. Jungle anyway better with all sort of crappy planes like Buffalo.

[BraveSirRobin]

28 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

Regarding land and carrier pacific I think people just voted both because thinking either would be better than neither.

 

Lol

 

Um... "neither" means there is no game.

 

People voted both because people always vote yes for as much content as they can get.  It's why polls in here are almost completely useless.

[messsucher]

10 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Lol

 

Um... "neither" means there is no game.

 

People voted both because people always vote yes for as much content as they can get.  It's why polls in here are almost completely useless.

 

Yeah. If people vote only one and then both pacific gets less votes than Finland and France etc. it means "neither" meaning no game for them. That's why better to vote both, stack votes on both.

Edited September 25, 2020 by messsucher

[BraveSirRobin]

30 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

Yeah. If people vote only one and then both pacific gets less votes than Finland and France etc. it means "neither" meaning no game for them. That's why better to vote both, stack votes on both.

So the poll is meaningless.

[messsucher]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So the poll is meaningless.

 

I would not say so, even if there is not many votes. It gives interesting results anyway, like that France is not appreciated by the people. Why it is so? Map could be beautiful and there would be Hurricanes. Yeah yeah, I know the planes are considered to be crap. I think I can only dream of Poland, or install original IL-2 to get it. Offline campaigns are so much more entertaining when you can go through the war from beginning to the end.

 

In Poland 1939 you meet these

 

 

And in Germany 1945 you meet these

 

 

When you see the latter in 40 - 60 swarms I can tell you it is a sight to behold, and that the end is near. Your Focke-Wulf Fw 190-D9 does not help much in that.

[BraveSirRobin]

2 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

I would not say so, even if there is not many votes. It gives interesting results anyway, like that France is not appreciated by the people. Why it is so? Map could be beautiful and there would be Hurricanes. Yeah yeah, I know the planes are considered to be crap. I think I can only dream of Poland, or install original IL-2 to get it. Offline campaigns are so much more entertaining when you can go through the war from beginning to the end.

 

In Poland 1939 you meet these

 

 

And in Germany 1945 you meet these

 

 

When you see the latter in 40 - 60 swarms I can tell you it is a sight to behold, and that the end is near. Your Focke-Wulf Fw 190-D9 does not help much in that.

 

They're not doing B-17s any time soon.

[Donik]

Late to this party, but I'd take FC v2 first, Finland second, Spanish Civil War 3rd, and France last.  Finland for that I-15/153 sexy airframe and all around ww2 biplane awesomeness.  It's like the perfect blend of WW1/WW2. Along with a pretty unique map. Also you'd potentially get the Buffalo.  How can you not love that plane? Spanish CW for more biplane action with a different map, and France just to have the d.520 in the IL-2GB engine. Honestly though a lot of those French monoplanes just look wicked. I'm really a sucker for the early war stuff.  Late war from any area is cool and all, but there's just so much power in those airframes I feel like it's a totally different arena than fighting in the older stuff.  I'm probably just a weirdo. ? 

[messsucher]

8 minutes ago, Donik said:

Late to this party, but I'd take FC v2 first, Finland second, Spanish Civil War 3rd, and France last.  Finland for that I-15/153 sexy airframe and all around ww2 biplane awesomeness.  It's like the perfect blend of WW1/WW2. Along with a pretty unique map. Also you'd potentially get the Buffalo.  How can you not love that plane? Spanish CW for more biplane action with a different map, and France just to have the d.520 in the IL-2GB engine. Honestly though a lot of those French monoplanes just look wicked. I'm really a sucker for the early war stuff.  Late war from any area is cool and all, but there's just so much power in those airframes I feel like it's a totally different arena than fighting in the older stuff.  I'm probably just a weirdo. ? 

 

Nope, I think late war planes are UFOs, the flying is like you would be in space, so much power. Booom, now you are down, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM, now you are back up. BOOOOOOOOOM, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.

[Beebop]

I am all Gung Ho on the Pacific Theater but the Dev's have clearly said it's not in the near future for various economic and documentation reasons. 

So I voted for Finland.  But I come from the 'Ancestral Linage' of Forgotten Battles so skis, Finland Winter and Summer maps, Fokker XXI's, Gladiators etc. would be true to the franchise IMO.

I'd also like some flyable twin engine bombers like the SB-2M series and IL-4/DB-3, something ground pounders can get their meathooks into.

As an added benefit, a Gulf of Finland map with some re-texuring could provide another usable 'Faux Pacific' Fly Zone especially if some of those islands like in 1946 were added.)

 

Just a beggar wanting to ride a horse.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Beebop

[messsucher]

8 minutes ago, Beebop said:

I am all Gung Ho on the Pacific Theater but the Dev's have clearly said it's not in the near future for various economic and documentation reasons. 

So I voted for Finland.  But I come from the 'Ancestral Linage' of Forgotten Battles so skis, Finland Winter and Summer maps, Fokker XXI's, Gladiators etc. would be true to the franchise IMO.

I'd also like some flyable twin engine bombers like the SB-2M series and IL-4/DB-3, something ground pounders can get their meathooks into.

)as an added benefit, a Gulf of Finland map with some re-texuring could provide another usable 'Faux Pacific' Fly Zone especially if some of those islands like in 1946 were added.)

 

Just a beggar wanting to ride a horse.

 

Finland map was a bit miracle to get. But now of course they should redo it, this time just include Norway and Murmansk too, name it Battle of Scandinavia and Baltic. I want to those fjords and mountains!

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Beebop said:

I am all Gung Ho on the Pacific Theater but the Dev's have clearly said it's not in the near future for various economic and documentation reasons. 

 

 

They haven't said that.

It's a complete unknown at this juncture. I might be directly next after Normandy given the time interval we're looking at, or it might be 2 releases away, or might not happen at all.

 

[Beebop]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

They haven't said that.

It's a complete unknown at this juncture. I might be directly next after Normandy given the time interval we're looking at, or it might be 2 releases away, or might not happen at all.

 

Well that's the impression I got from this post in Jason's Briefing Room and Officers Club thread.....

Economic Reasons / Documentation Reasons / Time Frame

 

Jason_Williams
Producer   

Posted January 27

 

Pacific Comments

When I took over development of Sturmovik I was convinced we could make a Pacific themed product without too much difficulty and shared that confidence with you. After getting neck deep in our development cycle for Kuban I realized the data and references I had where inadequate and my earlier confidence was a mistake. However, no matter how resourceful I am or how much I believe in the power of a strong will, I have yet to find a viable path to make this product to the standards you expect and within a time frame that pleases my business partners. This is why I have delayed any attempt to make a Pacific themed product to this point.

Since I last spoke about this issue, I have had three different Japanese speaking people do research for me in Japan to help me find needed and known references that will help the team build some Japanese planes to our usual standards and no one came back with anything super useful. I have personally spent quite a bit of my own money and amassed quite a large library of books on Japanese planes and they come close to what we need, but not quite enough. We also face the challenge of building the carriers and support ships of the USN and IJN. Not so easy and an expensive part of the development. Plus, some serious and costly translations are needed to learn about every system and procedure of these planes like we do with our current aircraft.

Building a A6M “Zeke” is not really the issue, there are enough references to build one for Sturmovik, but some of the other main-line but less-famous Japanese planes are more difficult. Committing my team to a product that only has a flyable Zero and a host of flyable American planes is not really a marketable option for our business model. We prefer to continue to build a full plane-set for each of our products. That’s what sells best for us.

I will continue to search any resource I find including government sources for actionable and useful info on Japanese aircraft, especially their cockpits in my spare time. And thanks to those who have sent me info through our forum or email over the past two years. I appreciate it greatly. I still hold out hope that we can sail the Pacific at some point in the future.

Jason

 

Unless he's posted something newer that I haven't seen.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I interpreted those Briefing Room comments as an explanation of the choice to go to Normandy (a response to people disappointed that the Pacific had not been chosen instead). I don't think they were meant to describe a definitive long-term strategy.

 

We know that the next year or so will be focused on Normandy development with a few side projects. However, anything beyond that is still up in the air.

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, Beebop said:

 

Unless he's posted something newer that I haven't seen.

 

Yes more recent remarks have been made.

Like I said - it could be after Normandy, down the road, or never.

[sevenless]

Late East Front. No doubt about it.

[Beebop]

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Yes more recent remarks have been made.

OK then.  I stand modified, so to speak.

[56RAF_Roblex]

I would love to have any sort of carrier ops so if CIG cannot get around the problem with IJN aircraft I would be happy just to fly off an escort carrier in the Arctic ?    Another alternative is to have a Med map with carriers.   Both those options leave the Axis having no carriers to fly off but I for one would not complain if CIG decided to pretend that the Graf Zeppelin carrier actually got launched or they had converted some freighters to escort carriers like the Allies did.

 

 

On 9/25/2020 at 11:44 PM, messsucher said:

I personally find carrier a bit boring, especially if you prefer to take off and land yourself

 

I am a bit confused by this sentence.  It seems to infer that carrier take-offs and landing were automated so no fun for people who enjoy the challenge of doing it themselves.  It is of course quite the opposite,  taking off from a carrier is a very tricky business and landing on one was a nightmare.  More carrier pilots died landing than in combat.

 

...and then we have the fun of landing on an escort carrier!

Edited September 28, 2020 by 56RAF_Roblex

[messsucher]

51 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

I would love to have any sort of carrier ops so if CIG cannot get around the problem with IJN aircraft I would be happy just to fly off an escort carrier in the Arctic ?    Another alternative is to have a Med map with carriers.   Both those options leave the Axis having no carriers to fly off but I for one would not complain if CIG decided to pretend that the Graf Zeppelin carrier actually got launched or they had converted some freighters to escort carriers like the Allies did.

 

 

 

I am a bit confused by this sentence.  It seems to infer that carrier take-offs and landing were automated so no fun for people who enjoy the challenge of doing it themselves.  It is of course quite the opposite,  taking off from a carrier is a very tricky business and landing on one was a nightmare.  More carrier pilots died landing than in combat.

 

...and then we have the fun of landing on an escort carrier!

 

First I want to say no to non Japanese Axis carriers. I am not open minded enough for it, even though some kind of alternative history where naval, air, and carrier ops in North Atlantic happen would be interesting. Norway and England would make excellent land bases for it. I would like to see modded axis carriers though. But if I was as axis pilot in Med taking off from a carrier I would just say this is so wrong and alt-f4. Crete is better than 10 carriers!

 

Med map with Allied carriers and no Axis carriers would be great. This is not sharing cookies equally to kids game. Axis just would have to be without carriers. Med is my favorite location for next expansion and kind of mandatory to have. 

 

About carrier landings I meant that they are boring in single player like landing is "boring" in single player when it is routine for you. Carrier landing though is less boring. MP carrier landings are great, you can watch people trying them while circling the carrier and waiting for your turn, that I like a lot.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by messsucher

[Beebop]

"I personally find carrier a bit boring, especially if you prefer to take off and land yourself"

 

Interesting outlook.  For me, even when I have it in hand, every landing requires your utmost attention.  You can't afford that extra bounce, being off just a tad to the right or the left or miss the wire and not have enough speed to take off again and too much speed to brake in time. 

And when you do get it mastered, add some wind gusts and it's a whole new ball game.

Then if you get that down pat, try it with battle damage.

Boring?  I think not, at least for me.

Believe me, if we ever do get carriers I'll be taking a week off and practicing, practicing, practicing and having a ball doing it.

[JG7_X-Man]

I'd like to see the Battle of Berlin personally.

Someone awhile ago posted about this idea.

 

VVS: Yak-3, Yak-9U and La-7 with IL-4

Luftwaffe: Bf 109G-10/AS, Fw 190A-9 and Fw 190D-13

 

I good poll would have had a catch all option for "Other". 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[RNAS10_Oliver]

21 hours ago, Beebop said:

"I personally find carrier a bit boring, especially if you prefer to take off and land yourself"

 

Interesting outlook.  For me, even when I have it in hand, every landing requires your utmost attention.  You can't afford that extra bounce, being off just a tad to the right or the left or miss the wire and not have enough speed to take off again and too much speed to brake in time. 

And when you do get it mastered, add some wind gusts and it's a whole new ball game.

Then if you get that down pat, try it with battle damage.

Boring?  I think not, at least for me.

Believe me, if we ever do get carriers I'll be taking a week off and practicing, practicing, practicing and having a ball doing it.

 

Or rather having no options after missing the wires but ramming into the barrier every time. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Oliver88