Does the first PTO installment/first installment with Japanese planes need to be a carrier battle?

[Gambit21]

Taking off/landing a Zero from a carrier would be epic, and I can't wait to do it. That's a fact.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I think PTO will happen (not soon) but they will have to take their best stabs at accuracy in some regards. I’m sure you won’t see more than three modules and would be surprised if you see more than two - early and late or mid and late. The Japanese planeset development (IRL) isn’t as linear as the American set. It’s more revolution than evolution other than the Zero. I’d go with Battle of the Solomons but probably call it Guadalcanal to avoid conflict with the BoS acronym. Not sure where to place a late war scenario. The Japanese aircraft industry produced some excellent AC late but by then the allies had complete air supremacy. Where would you pit the top aircraft, geographically, against each other late?

There will be opportunities for scenery/map packs, unlike the current model for Europe, where they can sell boats and maps for existing plane sets. Which might be better for a Pearl and Midway scenario than a dedicated title - outside of the name recognition factor for sales to casual fans.

Adding recon and air/sea rescue opens up an entirely new gameplay opportunity, as well, which they will need to help sell titles in Europe. (See my completely self-serving thread on this elsewhere in these forums) Just as East Front doesn’t have broad appeal in the west, PTO doesn’t have broad appeal in Eastern Europe.(generally, outside of the diehards/fanbois).
 

Casual fans is where the money is. We fanbois will throw money at any quality sim regardless of locale/setting.

 

Also, why does my phone always autocorrect “produced” to “produces?” I’ve been editing forum posts for this for nearly a decade now.

Edited December 30, 2021 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[sevenless]

IMHO they need a somehow "static" area where the front remained stable for more or less 6 months. Where in the PTO was that the case? U.S. Army’s 5th Air Force in defending New Guinea and undertaking offensive operations against the Japanese bastion at Rabaul might be suitable for that? Anyways I would not bet on any PTO module to arrive before 2025.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

4 minutes ago, sevenless said:

IMHO they need a somehow "static" area where the front remained stable for more or less 6 months. Where in the PTO was that the case? U.S. Army’s 5th Air Force in defending New Guinea and undertaking offensive operations against the Japanese bastion at Rabaul might be suitable for that? Anyways I would not bet on any PTO module to arrive before 2025.

Agreed, 2025 would be the first opportunity.

[357th_KW]

54 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Not sure where to place a late war scenario. The Japanese aircraft industry produced some excellent AC late but by then the allies had complete air supremacy. Where would you pit the top aircraft, geographically, against each other late?

 

Okinawa and the Ryukus is probably the best option.  You have the usual challenge of big maps and long water crossings etc.  You really need the map to stretch from southern Kyushu to Okinawa - roughly 1000 km.  This should actually be doable though - if you align the map slightly off from North/South, the Ryukus are basically a straight line to Kyushu and you could have a 1000 km x 100km map (almost identical in total size to Normandy) but with most of it being water.  Obviously some sort of wormhole/air spawn/time compression tools would be necessary for certain missions to be feasible.

 

The bright side is that Okinawa gets you all the late war USN/USMC and USAAF stuff vs any of the late war Japanese stuff.  We already have the various late model USAAF fighters covered (except the 47N) so you could focus it entirely on the blue planes.  And you only need US carriers/capital ships which should greatly reduce workload.  F6F-5, F4U-1D, TBM, SB2C plus whichever of F4U-4/FM-2/P-47N you prefer vs. A6M5, Ki-43-III, and whatever late war Japanese planes you can get data for and squeeze in. 

 

[BladeMeister]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Taking off/landing a Zero from a carrier would be epic, and I can't wait to do it. That's a fact.

Now your coming around.

 

S!Blade<><

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

IMHO they need a somehow "static" area where the front remained stable for more or less 6 months. Where in the PTO was that the case? 

 

Solomons Solomons Solomons

More than 6 months in fact.

It took 6 months just for the battle of Guadalcanal.

 

 

Then you have New Guinea.

 

3 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

ICasual fans is where the money is. We fanbois will throw money at any quality sim regardless of locale/setting.

 

 

Well, that applies to me so long as it doesn't involve another front where more German planes took part. 

[Hoss]

Don't forget the CBI, early to late, includes the RAF, RAAF, and I'm sure many more... Rabaul...............  Battle of the Philippine Sea, San Bernardino Straight, Surigao Straight. So making a good map of select Philippine islands and Mariana's islands would give us lots of battles. And how hard is it to pluck down a few islands in the middle of an ocean.  It's nice to dream isn't it!.........................

 

Hoss

[sevenless]

44 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Solomons Solomons Solomons

More than 6 months in fact.

It took 6 months just for the battle of Guadalcanal.

 

 

Then you have New Guinea.

 

There we have it. Big question will be, if it will be commercially viable, where to start and if they need carrier ops in the first module. Most of the forum guys certainly will buy it, whatever it will be, but we are only the minority of their market.

 

[DBFlyguy]

Yall are missing the most important reason for the pacific and the Solomons specifically in Great Battles...So I can finally live out Black Sheep Squadron hunting down Hirachi in an F4U Corsair ?

 

 

 

[Drum]

I agree, the Solomon Islands would be a great starting point for the PTO.  Land-Based-Air was never the deciding factor in most carrier battles, so an LBA career wouldn't be impacted all that much until carriers are added.  When they do add carriers, the Battle's of the Coral Sea, Midway and British Eastern Fleet would all make natural expansion area's.  Once enough maps are produced, the other small career options like the Flying Tigers and later Island invasions could be added as pure gravy.

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Drum

[Trooper117]

Don't forget Malaya/Singapore... The British were getting the brunt of a large Japanese invasion.

There are several great early Japanese types to choose from, and if you fly RAF you are going to be hard pressed just to stay alive throughout that campaign, so, anyone up for a challenge?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

Just now, Trooper117 said:

anyone up for a challenge?

Did they fly P-40's there too?

Anyway, I would take the challenge.

 

have a nice day.

 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

On 12/30/2021 at 8:18 PM, DBFlyguy said:

Seems that FM's to aircraft have a better chance actually getting looked at if there is another variant currently being developed, so bring on the P-40F, M or N....and a P-47D-4  for that matter cause well, you now....maybe third time will finally be a charm

This.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Avimimus]

Honestly, the two aircraft I'm interested in flying are the Ki-43 and the Avenger - so those are my requirements ?

[Danziger]

Damnit don't get me hyped up again. I would love to hop the islands doing ops from airbases my grandfather helped build as a Seabee. 

 

I mean they pretty much have to do the PTO sooner or later. I really don't think people will care that much if they fudge the numbers on Japanese planes where they have to. 

[Pikestance]

I think i agree with most that Guadalcanal seems like the more likely starting point. Carriers would be cool, but i wonder how the career mode would work out. Unlike now, your squadron moves from airfield to airfield, in PTO, the carrier moves. The PT is a huge area. granted an ocean of water is an ocean of water, but you still have to break it up until something that machines can handle. Jason and the boys would have to have a detail plan to make the career system work I think. 

 

 

[twilson37]

Forgive me, I think a Midway campaign seems a bit silly. Can you imagine playing VF-8 career, it would be one mission, you would fly around for hours not seeing the enemy and then having to ditch in the ocean because you ran out of gas.  In all seriousness a Solomons campaign makes the most sense as you have US and Japanese Naval carrier aircraft engaging in a static location for several months instead of a couple of days.

[FTC_Derplo]

Kind of surprised there hasn't been much discussion of the Philippines. First battle was a 5 month resistance from December 1941-May 1942. The map could encompass Luzon as Allied forces made their last stand on the Bataan peninsula just South West of Manila. Personally, I would prefer the map to stretch as far south as Leyte Gulf because of the US invasion in 1944 and the massive naval battle which took place there in October (depending on map scale, that's quite the distance). Both the Japanese amphibious assault and the US invasion 2 years later involved Carrier ops and prioritized securing the airfields. You would have an excellent mix of early war and late war aircraft, as well as an urban setting around Manila. Various allied nations participated, including American, Australian, Philippine and even Mexican airmen (several Mexican airman casualties as well). 

 

The 1945 Battle for Manila was incredibly brutal and sadly under-appreciated. Only 2 buildings in the business district were noted as undamaged by the fighting and bombings (which were subsequently looted for their plumbing anyways). In this category, Manila is often compared with Stalingrad as a battle with fierce urban combat and destruction encompassing the entire city 

I for one would love to see this campaign explored in a flight sim

Edited January 19, 2022 by Control_Freq

[Eisenfaustus]

Tackling the question from the aircraft side of things: All Japanese aircraft included in a potential pacific module will have to be built from scratch - no way around that. 
 

So a question for all those who know much more about the PTO than I do:

 

In what scenarios could sensibly the allied side be mainly built around unreleased variants of aircraft already existing within our sim?

[cardboard_killer]

2 hours ago, Control_Freq said:

First battle was a 5 month resistance from December 1941-May 1942.

 

The air battle was over within a month (basically decided on December 8th though).

 

2 hours ago, Control_Freq said:

Both the Japanese amphibious assault and the US invasion 2 years later involved Carrier ops and prioritized securing the airfields.

 

IIRC, only one Japanese carrier operated around Luzon in 1941-2, one of the escort carriers. Air support initially was from Formosa, then captured bases on Luzon.

 

Of course, the US invasion and the naval battle involved maybe 30+ aircraft carriers in total, plus Japanese land based air. But the distances are immense in BoX scale. The fight went on into November and December because the Allied forces picked a bad island for building air bases; the weather was monsoon after monsoon, and the fields were underwater for much of the time.

 

As I've said elsewhere, a core problem for the PTO battles is the range of engagement. Air battles were almost always long distance flights. Very few players want to spend an hour commuting to a battle for ten minutes of combat, followed by an hour RTB. Mostly over ocean or jungle. The solutions, spawn points or ahistorical maps, are distasteful to a significant portion of players.

 

28 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

In what scenarios could sensibly the allied side be mainly built around unreleased variants of aircraft already existing within our sim?

 

Except for naval planes, the US and Brits have a version of every major fighter plane fielded. Bombers are a bit more problematic, but the B-25 and A-20 are ubiquitous in 1942+, so you have some.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'm sure the "dead spaces" on a water map will be solved with some creative editing. It won't be Pangaea but I'm sure many of those islands will be considerably closer than the world map in my fifth grade class were.

[357th_KW]

6 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Tackling the question from the aircraft side of things: All Japanese aircraft included in a potential pacific module will have to be built from scratch - no way around that. 
 

So a question for all those who know much more about the PTO than I do:

 

In what scenarios could sensibly the allied side be mainly built around unreleased variants of aircraft already existing within our sim?

New Guinea, Burma and China were all USAAF/RAF/Comonwealth zones and would just require variants of stuff we already have for the most part.  Though if anything, that feels like an argument to do a USN/USMC focused module.  I’m betting a bunch of new Blue planes will sell better.

[Eisenfaustus]

42 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

New Guinea, Burma and China were all USAAF/RAF/Comonwealth zones and would just require variants of stuff we already have for the most part.  Though if anything, that feels like an argument to do a USN/USMC focused module.  I’m betting a bunch of new Blue planes will sell better.

From a customer side - yet the devs seem to favor variants as they know already a lot about the plane type and can speed up development. 
 

It‘s certainly no coincidence that almost all Normandy planes released so far are variants. (except the typhoon)

I guess an all new planeset might stretch the development very far. And it would take quite a while for flyables to be available as incentive to buy into early access. 

[357th_KW]

The good news is that we have a bunch of Allied planes that fought in the pacific, so just starting by building some Zero/Ki-43 variant first would work nicely.  Players could stack it up against whichever USAAF/ RAF was time-frame appropriate to start with and then mix in the new stuff as it arrives.

[CountZero]

13 hours ago, Control_Freq said:

Kind of surprised there hasn't been much discussion of the Philippines. First battle was a 5 month resistance from December 1941-May 1942. The map could encompass Luzon as Allied forces made their last stand on the Bataan peninsula just South West of Manila. Personally, I would prefer the map to stretch as far south as Leyte Gulf because of the US invasion in 1944 and the massive naval battle which took place there in October (depending on map scale, that's quite the distance). Both the Japanese amphibious assault and the US invasion 2 years later involved Carrier ops and prioritized securing the airfields. You would have an excellent mix of early war and late war aircraft, as well as an urban setting around Manila. Various allied nations participated, including American, Australian, Philippine and even Mexican airmen (several Mexican airman casualties as well). 

 

The 1945 Battle for Manila was incredibly brutal and sadly under-appreciated. Only 2 buildings in the business district were noted as undamaged by the fighting and bombings (which were subsequently looted for their plumbing anyways). In this category, Manila is often compared with Stalingrad as a battle with fierce urban combat and destruction encompassing the entire city 

I for one would love to see this campaign explored in a flight sim

its not suprise, there is many interesting battles but game DLC has its limits, is map to big, do they have data on airplane that participated, can game handle to depict the battle, would it be interesting enought to not end up being last DLC they sell.

So far they said only Japan airplane they have data to build to other airplanes standards is Zero. 

 

10 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Tackling the question from the aircraft side of things: All Japanese aircraft included in a potential pacific module will have to be built from scratch - no way around that. 
 

So a question for all those who know much more about the PTO than I do:

 

In what scenarios could sensibly the allied side be mainly built around unreleased variants of aircraft already existing within our sim?

 

Why go to all the truble of making PTO DLC just to have P-40, P-39, P-38, P-47 and so on... that you can have on any other DLC in europe, if you go to all the truble of doing Japan airplanes why not make US navy airplanes that you already have planty of data for but no map area to fit them now...

i doubt that Ki-43 or Zeros are more popular then F4F F6F or F4U to justify doing first PTO DLC without any of them.

Edited January 19, 2022 by CountZero

[FTC_Derplo]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

its not suprise, there is many interesting battles but game DLC has its limits, is map to big, do they have data on airplane that participated, can game handle to depict the battle, would it be interesting enought to not end up being last DLC they sell.

So far they said only Japan airplane they have data to build to other airplanes standards is Zero. 

 

Yes… we are all painfully aware of the limitations in aircraft data for Japanese aircraft… This thread is requesting alternative PTO options for a theoretical PTO campaign, as the devs have stated they do want to at some point do a PTO campaign if possible. With regards to the OP’s request which we seem to be going go off topic from, I think Philippines is a possible scenario and surprising that no one has brought it up because of the reasons already stated.

[Lupus]

I want Carrier Ops.  I don't care which battle they start with.  Carriers operated throughout the war so.  Whichever they want to start with is fine.  I tend to fly allies against the Japanese, even when your talking about flying Wildcats that were so outclassed by the Zero's.  But yeah, gotta have carrier ops.

[Gambit21]

On 5/2/2022 at 8:29 PM, Lupus said:

 Carriers operated throughout the war so.  

100% not true.

Not only did carriers not operate (meaning taking part in combat) throughout the war, but during the most pivotal part of the war both sides had their carriers stashed out of harms way. We’re talking 18 months, including basically the entire battle for Guadalcanal.

[Lupus]

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

100% not true.

Not only did carriers not operate (meaning taking part in combat) throughout the war, but during the most pivotal part of the war both sides had their carriers stashed out of harms way. We’re talking 18 months, including basically the entire battle for Guadalcanal.

Um, nope.  https://www.history.navy.mil/news-and-events/multimedia-gallery/infographics/history/guadalcanal_carrier_action.html

 

Not that wikipedia shouldn't be taken without a grain of salt, but there is this as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Theater_aircraft_carrier_operations_during_World_War_II

Edited May 6, 2022 by Lupus

[Ribbon]

9 hours ago, Lupus said:

Um, nope.  https://www.history.navy.mil/news-and-events/multimedia-gallery/infographics/history/guadalcanal_carrier_action.html

 

Not that wikipedia shouldn't be taken without a grain of salt, but there is this as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Theater_aircraft_carrier_operations_during_World_War_II

Be careful, you're taking wikipedia against the PTO cultist who probably read every book and fact about PTO ?....and  dreaming it every night??? ????

[jojy47jojyrocks]

The Pacific theatre is a rarity indeed...

 

I'd like to see the Pacific theatre where the devs can get more data on, land or sea, whichever timeline. I'd assume naval would be a lot more tougher...I am also OK with land version of this theatre, at least, it would be a different theatre...land or sea.

[Bremspropeller]

On 1/19/2022 at 12:15 PM, Eisenfaustus said:

In what scenarios could sensibly the allied side be mainly built around unreleased variants of aircraft already existing within our sim?

 

New Guinea. I know, I'm sounding like a broken record, but there you'll get:

- early P-38s => F thru H (well, early Js, too) all saw action in Europe/ MTO => usable on BoBP and BoN maps

- some form of earlier P-39s (relevant on the eastern front) eastern front maps

- later P-40s (relevant on the eastern front) eastern front maps

- early P-47s relevant on BoN and BoBP maps

- different A-20s BoN

- different B-25s

- different B-26s

 

On 1/19/2022 at 11:01 PM, CountZero said:

Why go to all the truble of making PTO DLC just to have P-40, P-39, P-38, P-47 and so on... that you can have on any other DLC in europe

 

1) Because it adds value for people that own the other franchises and might not be completely convinced in going PTO yet.

2) It's the same thing for a LW guy who's mainly into EF scenarios, but he's gonna buy BoN/ BoBP for the LW aircraft.

 

On 5/3/2022 at 5:29 AM, Lupus said:

I want Carrier Ops.

 

So do I, but I want PTO to happen more than I want carriers. Especially since carriers are taking a duckton of effort to make and they'll provide only short-a$$ careers for offline folks. It's literally the worst combination of development effort spent for a given SP-experience outcome.

[Lupus]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

So do I, but I want PTO to happen more than I want carriers. Especially since carriers are taking a duckton of effort to make and they'll provide only short-a$$ careers for offline folks. It's literally the worst combination of development effort spent for a given SP-experience outcome.

 

Short-a$$ careers?  How do you figure?  I played a ton of PTO in 1946, almost entirely from Carriers and none, none of those careers were short.  I'm not asking for super complex  carriers either, I'd be happy with simple ones to start.  Spawn in on the deck, ready for takeoff.   Launch, Land and de-spawn.  I'm not looking for elevators or moving crew members, certainly not to start.  Maybe I've got low and simple expectations, but that doesn't mean that they can't improve over time and I don't see how you can truly do a PTO without Carriers.  They were a significant part of the operations in the Pacific.

[TheOldCrow]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

later P-40s (relevant on the eastern front) eastern front maps

 

What I would give to have a later P-40 variant to mess around with. Especially in such a unique theater like New Guinea. 

 

Though I would also love to see early war Burma with the P-40B/C.

[BMA_FlyingShark]

12 minutes ago, TheOldCrow said:

Though I would also love to see early war Burma with the P-40B/C.

A Flying Tigers expansion would fit for that.

They flew early as well as later P-40's.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Lupus said:

Short-a$$ careers?  How do you figure?

 

It's been described by different folks throughout different threads about a million times.

 

TLDR: You'll get three-ten sorties on a battle that takes 1-5 days tops. That's your "career".

[DBFlyguy]

Solomon Islands (provides carrier ops, depending on how big the map is, the "Battle of the Coral Sea" could be included in the career)

New Guinea (Aussie P-40 action, and a GREAT opportunity for the devs to FINALLY address the engine timers...)

China Burma India (plenty of career options including Flying Tigers, A-36s Invader action and the 33rd FG (one of the few USAAF groups that saw active sustained combat as a unit against Germany and Japan)

 

 

All three would work fine.  Hopefully we hear something soon on what is next after BoN, if anything is at all...

[Lupus]

41 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It's been described by different folks throughout different threads about a million times.

 

TLDR: You'll get three-ten sorties on a battle that takes 1-5 days tops. That's your "career".

 

Battle of Wake Island (8–23 December 1941)--This had some carrier involvement on both the Japanese and American side.

 

The Philippines Campaign (December 8, 1941 to May 8, 1942) had carrier involvement on the part of the Japanese.

 

The Guadalcanal Campaign (7 August 1942 – 9 February 1943) had carrier involvement on the part of the US and Japan.

 

Are you trying to tell me that in a game (remember, we are not trying to have a 'virtual history simulation', this is a game) that the Carrier based sorties during those three campaigns was limited to 1 to 5 days?  I find that very hard to believe.

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, Lupus said:

 

Battle of Wake Island (8–23 December 1941)--This had some carrier involvement on both the Japanese and American side.

 

The Philippines Campaign (December 8, 1941 to May 8, 1942) had carrier involvement on the part of the Japanese.

 

The Guadalcanal Campaign (7 August 1942 – 9 February 1943) had carrier involvement on the part of the US and Japan.

 

Are you trying to tell me that in a game (remember, we are not trying to have a 'virtual history simulation', this is a game) that the Carrier based sorties during those three campaigns was limited to 1 to 5 days?  I find that very hard to believe.

 

You do realize though that those are all separate maps?