New Official Poll: Theme for one more Battle of Kuban historical campaign

[BlackSix]

Hello everybody,

 

The development of the Fw 190 A-5 ground attack campaign for the Battle of Kuban is nearing completion, and I'd like to invite you to choose a theme for the next campaign.

 

This time you have two options to choose from:

 

1. The Bf 109 G-4 fighter campaign (II./JG 52, May - June, 1943).

As a fully independent work, at the same time it will continue the story started in the "Ten Days of Autumn" and "Fortress on the Volga", and will tell you about the final stage of the spring battle for the Kuban bridgehead.

 

2. The Yak-7b fighter campaign (43th IAP, May - June, 1943).

As a fully independent work, at the same time it will continue the story started in the "Blazing Steppe" and will tell you about the final stage of the spring battle for the Kuban bridgehead.

 

The main distinguishing feature of these campaigns will be an extraordinary intensity of air battles, accompanied by the use of almost all types of Soviet and German aircraft operating at that time on the Eastern front.

 

 

 

The poll will be closed on July 16, 2021.

[jeanba]

A Yak7B campaign would be more original

There are already a lot of 109s Kuban campaigns

[Luger1969]

Very close run battle from the polls* so far....yak7b for me...there is a rhyme to it.

 

Well done Black6. Looking forward to steel birds....love the campaign names.

 

*I have a poll running as well, Gloster Meteor as collector... that one is also tight.?

Edited July 3, 2021 by Luger1969

[alpenspion]

Please Yak-7. We have so many Bf 109 campaigns. But a La-5 campaign where much better then Bf-109 or Yak.

[Irishratticus72]

Please! 

[jeanba]

28 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Please! 

The FM is porked, 777 and Neoqb completly messed up on this one : proof : it cannot take-of or fly

I tried !

47 minutes ago, alpenspion said:

Please Yak-7. We have so many Bf 109 campaigns. But a La-5 campaign where much better then Bf-109 or Yak.

I agree : I love the La5 and there is not a single scripted campaign for this one

[Irishratticus72]

4 minutes ago, jeanba said:

The FM is porked, 777 and Neoqb completly messed up on this one : proof : it cannot take-of or fly

I tried !

I agree : I love the La5 and there is not a single scripted campaign for this one

But I heard they're beefing it up......... 

[BlackSix]

1 hour ago, alpenspion said:

Please Yak-7. We have so many Bf 109 campaigns. But a La-5 campaign where much better then Bf-109 or Yak.

 

17 minutes ago, jeanba said:

I agree : I love the La5 and there is not a single scripted campaign for this one

Hmm, La-5 is a part of the Battle of Stalingrad set and I'd really like to return to this battle in the future and create Bf 109 F-4 campaign ... oh wait ... )))

[easterling77]

No matter which one it will be, it's gonna be an instant purchase for me

 

Your creations are?

 

Can't wait to get my fingers on the campaign for the lovely 190

Edited July 3, 2021 by easterling77

[Eisenfaustus]

I guess the no-collector-planes-policy will be kept in place. What a pity - I‘d prefer a G6 campaign over a G4 ^^

[BlackSix]

17 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I guess the no-collector-planes-policy will be kept in place. What a pity - I‘d prefer a G6 campaign over a G4 ^^

I wouldn't create the G-6 campaign anyway. When they appeared on the Black Sea at the end of June 1943, the main air battle had already ended and most of the aviation of both sides was transferred to the Kursk salient. The number and types of aircraft in the Kuban have sharply decreased. This is not that exciting period for the fighter campaign anymore.

 

The other news is that I'm creating a campaign for the collector plane right now, that's why all is not so bad.

[jeanba]

3 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

But I heard they're beefing it up......... 

Do you think it is Goodyear for ramming ?

2 hours ago, BlackSix said:

I wouldn't create the G-6 campaign anyway. When they appeared on the Black Sea at the end of June 1943, the main air battle had already ended and most of the aviation of both sides was transferred to the Kursk salient. The number and types of aircraft in the Kuban have sharply decreased. This is not that exciting period for the fighter campaign anymore.

 

Anyway, juri created a nice kuban g6 campaign

[Irishratticus72]

1 hour ago, jeanba said:

Do you think it is Goodyear for ramming ?

Better than a Pirelli or Bridgestone anyway. 

 

[BlackSix]

2 hours ago, jeanba said:

Anyway, juri created a nice kuban g6 campaign

I've no doubt about it, but these circumstances stop me.

[Priest_of_Dagon]

Yak 7B, please! I'd love to play as the pilot from Blazing Steppe again. 

[Avimimus]

Out of those two - I'd honestly prefer the Yak-7b. However, I'm not really the target market - I'm very happy with the Ice Rink campaign now that I finally have it, and I'll probably pick up the new JABO campaign - but I'm much more into ground attack than I am into dogfighting. So, consider me irrelevant. Thank you for the campaigns though, I appreciate the contribution to history and the sim, even if I'm only interested in ground attack for the most part!

[BladeMeister]

Both in one!

 

S!Blade<><

[alpenspion]

A P-39 ground attack/Fighter Campaing where also cool

[BlackSix]

3 hours ago, alpenspion said:

A P-39 ground attack/Fighter Campaing where also cool

I researched this question and thought about it a lot. Unfortunately, the Popovichevskaya airfield (45th IAP, 16th GIAP) is located 80 km from the village Krymskaya and 108 km from Novorossiysk. Korenovskaya airfield (298th IAP) is located 127 km from the Krymskaya ... My almost 20 years of experience in creating campaigns suggests that if you need to fly more than 60 km back and forth in each mission, then it becomes unplayable.

On May 20, the navy 32th IAP arrived in Gelendzhik, but nothing is known about its activity and this would be a partial repetition of the free campaign "Sea Dragons". But I keep this idea in mind...

 

Meanwhile, Russian-speaking users also want the Yak-7b, which is not surprising))

[Eisenfaustus]

I hope this poll can be understood in the sense of „which campaign to build first“ rather which to build exclusively

[BlackSix]

Unfortunately no. Bf 109 G-4 campaign is the second year losing the vote and most likely I'll have to part with this topic.

[Luger1969]

Oh dear...dont part...please just on the backburner......

[percydanvers]

Would have loved to continue the story from the previous two 109 campaigns. I hope you will reconsider about totally abandoning the idea. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by percydanvers

[BlackSix]

10 hours ago, percydanvers said:

Would have loved to continue the story from the previous two 109 campaigns. I hope you will reconsider about totally abandoning the idea. 

I can't answer now, perhaps I'll continue this story on the Normandy or Rhineland maps.

[Cybermat47]

I'm definitely in favour of the Yak campaign. I'm a 109 fanboy, but I like the idea of a campaign focusing on one of the more overlooked aircraft in this game.

 

Besides, if BlackSix is making it, it'll be worth buying no matter what the player's aircraft is ? 

[Burdokva]

Very tough choice for me, as I like both planes a lot. The 109 is probably my favourite plane all around but, there are already a number of excellent scripted campaigns for it (and likely more to appear). Although the G4 seema to be the neglected one of the bunch, which is a shame.

 

Now, having recently flown with ACG in a full multiplayer campaign over the Kuban in a Yak-7b in 3rd IAK, this would be more of a repetition. But, with TsAMO documents now digitized and readily available, I would like to see a historical campaign (Soviet scripted campaigns tend to be either loosely semi-historical or fully imagined). Also, Yak scripted campaigns are fewer, let alone La ones...

 

Honestly, I'd happily play both.

[jeanba]

On 7/4/2021 at 4:43 PM, BlackSix said:

Unfortunately no. Bf 109 G-4 campaign is the second year losing the vote and most likely I'll have to part with this topic.

I think 109G4 is losing the vote, not due to lack of interest but due to imabalance between 109 campaigns and other campaigns.

So once more "non 109 campaigns" will be available, players mey be more interested in returning to 109 ?

[Superflyer]

I would prefer a Jak-7 / Jak-9 or La-5 Ka ^ mpagnie.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Superflyer

[Gambit21]

On 7/4/2021 at 3:26 AM, BlackSix said:

I researched this question and thought about it a lot. Unfortunately, the Popovichevskaya airfield (45th IAP, 16th GIAP) is located 80 km from the village Krymskaya and 108 km from Novorossiysk. Korenovskaya airfield (298th IAP) is located 127 km from the Krymskaya ... My almost 20 years of experience in creating campaigns suggests that if you need to fly more than 60 km back and forth in each mission, then it becomes unplayable.

On May 20, the navy 32th IAP arrived in Gelendzhik, but nothing is known about its activity and this would be a partial repetition of the free campaign "Sea Dragons". But I keep this idea in mind...

 

Meanwhile, Russian-speaking users also want the Yak-7b, which is not surprising))

 

Just my 2 rubles as a fellow content creator Alex.

I find for my own purposes. it's acceptable to 'bend' history and place squadrons in places that maybe they didn't exist in real life...to make things work. 

 

For instance, in my Hell Hawks campaign I moved the 365th from Chievres east to St. Trond. Why? Because NOBODY want's to fly 40 minutes in a Jug to get to the target. 

So I moved the squadron. Do you know how many people complained that I wasn't being strictly "historical"?? Zero.

 

 

Same with my Havoc campaign...there was no A-20 squadron stationed down there at Adler...I made the squadron up. It's completely fictional. Nobody cares because it's historically plausible, and they're just happy to fly an A-20 over interesting terrain rather than repeating farm tiles.

 

So maybe with your fellow countrymen it's different, maybe they'd cry 'fowl' at making these 'adjustments'...I have no idea.

I just find that it's perfectly acceptable with everyone I've been in contact with that historically PLAUSIBLE is all that matters.

 

We all have our philosophies on how to build things, I just thought I'd share my outlook as fellow builder. I respect your work very much.

 

All that to say, some attention to the P-39 would be a nice, and a welcome change of pace. 

If not, I'd vote for the Yak 7 (well really the Rata, but that wasn't an option) over more 109 stuff...even though I think it's an ugly little airplane.

At least it's a Yak...just an ugly Yak.

 

The MiG 3 on the other hand...there's a beauty.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Gambit21

[Dakpilot]

Personally I prefer official dev campaigns to be as historical as possible 

 

There are enough very good user made ones (and hopefully more to come) to take up the slack

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[BlackSix]

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Just my 2 rubles as a fellow content creator Alex.

I find for my own purposes. it's acceptable to 'bend' history and place squadrons in places that maybe they didn't exist in real life...to make things work. 

 

For instance, in my Hell Hawks campaign I moved the 365th from Chievres east to St. Trond. Why? Because NOBODY want's to fly 40 minutes in a Jug to get to the target. 

So I moved the squadron. Do you know how many people complained that I wasn't being strictly "historical"?? Zero.

 

 

Same with my Havoc campaign...there was no A-20 squadron stationed down there at Adler...I made the squadron up. It's completely fictional. Nobody cares because it's historically plausible, and they're just happy to fly an A-20 over interesting terrain rather than repeating farm tiles.

 

So maybe with your fellow countrymen it's different, maybe they'd cry 'fowl' at making these 'adjustments'...I have no idea.

I just find that it's perfectly acceptable with everyone I've been in contact with that historically PLAUSIBLE is all that matters.

 

We all have our philosophies on how to build things, I just thought I'd share my outlook as fellow builder. I respect your work very much.

 

All that to say, some attention to the P-39 would be a nice, and a welcome change of pace. 

If not, I'd vote for the Yak 7 (well really the Rata, but that wasn't an option) over more 109 stuff...even though I think it's an ugly little airplane.

At least it's a Yak...just an ugly Yak.

 

The MiG 3 on the other hand...there's a beauty.

Yes and I enjoyed playing your P-47 campaign, even knowing that we are based at another airfield.
But when I do something myself, I start to feel uncomfortable if I've to deviate greatly from real events. Problems begin already when, while recreating a completely real flight, I've to reduce its range or add opponents who were not in the air at that time in order to make the mission interesting and playable. These are already features of the psyche))

And yes, this greatly reduces the choice of campaign themes.

 

I'd like to make a MiG-3 campaign for the autumn period of the Battle of Moscow, but this project, unfortunately, has a very low popularity ...

[Gambit21]

33 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

Yes and I enjoyed playing your P-47 campaign, even knowing that we are based at another airfield.
But when I do something myself, I start to feel uncomfortable if I've to deviate greatly from real events. Problems begin already when, while recreating a completely real flight, I've to reduce its range or add opponents who were not in the air at that time in order to make the mission interesting and playable. These are already features of the psyche))

And yes, this greatly reduces the choice of campaign themes.

 

I'd like to make a MiG-3 campaign for the autumn period of the Battle of Moscow, but this project, unfortunately, has a very low popularity ...

 

I completely understand Alex.

Glad you’re still hard at work.

 

[Oyster_KAI]

Does the official consider making training campaign-including complete key-binding and engine management, bomb/rocket skills, etc.
There is no need for chapter animations like ROF, but I hope there are some official guides worth enjoying.

[BlackSix]

I tried to do this a couple of years ago and gave up. This is deadly boring and uninteresting for me, I want to be engaged in the reconstruction of hostilities, not training missions...

[Gambit21]

47 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

I tried to do this a couple of years ago and gave up. This is deadly boring and uninteresting for me, I want to be engaged in the reconstruction of hostilities, not training missions...

 

Yep

Unless you've put in the time in the editor, one wouldn't understand that you have to be VERY interested in your subject matter, or the work would just become torture.

 

[sevenless]

Yak-7B campaign for sure. If possible, maybe you can also sneak in Yak-1B and Yak-9?

[VilsonFarias]

I'd love to continue playing the story started in the "Ten Days of Autumn" and "Fortress on the Volga". 

[BlackSix]

10 hours ago, sevenless said:

Yak-7B campaign for sure. If possible, maybe you can also sneak in Yak-1B and Yak-9?

You'll meet them in your regiment, squadron and flight (the 43th IAP used mixed flights from all three types). But I can't let the player control Yak-1b or Yak-9. These are collector planes that are not included in any our set, and I need the campaign to require only the standard version of the Battle of Kuban. More difficult conditions (BOK + any collector plane) will severely reduce campaign availability and sales.

 

9 hours ago, VilsonFarias said:

I'd love to continue playing the story started in the "Ten Days of Autumn" and "Fortress on the Volga". 

Most likely, this time it will be "Blazing Steppe" sequel) 

[jeanba]

It would be nice for SP that when a new collector plane is released, a SP campaign using this plane is released and the same time (and possibly with a "bundle price")

[BlackSix]

It's quite possible, ask Jason, this is his area for making such decisions))