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

[BladeMeister]

3 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

You can have whatever opinion you want, that doesn't change historical fact.

The OP does not ask if it is Historically relevant whether carriers were needed for the next Box theater. He asked does it need to be a carrier battle. There are a few Pacific battles that would facilitate carriers and island based aircraft. Who doesn't want to fly off a carrier fly a mission and trap back on a carrier. Hell we have been land bound for what 8 or 9 years now? There is no way 1C would make a solely carrier based Box. It would definitely be centered around one of the island battle scenarios and involve carriers if they even do it. The opportunity for making money is just to high to avoid the Pacific Theater for to much longer.

IMHO!

S!Blade<><

[spreckair]

Quote

Who doesn't want to fly off a carrier fly a mission and trap back on a carrier. Hell we have been land bound for what 8 or 9 years now?

I for one do not need a carrier, although I would enjoy one if it ever happens. 

But, I would be exceedingly happy with a land-based Pacific War installment.  I want to fly Japanese fighter planes as much as any of the other nations.

[[DBS]Tx_Tip]

On 8/5/2022 at 4:32 PM, BladeMeister said:

The OP does not ask if it is Historically relevant whether carriers were needed for the next Box theater. He asked does it need to be a carrier battle. There are a few Pacific battles that would facilitate carriers and island based aircraft. Who doesn't want to fly off a carrier fly a mission and trap back on a carrier. Hell we have been land bound for what 8 or 9 years now? There is no way 1C would make a solely carrier based Box. It would definitely be centered around one of the island battle scenarios and involve carriers if they even do it. The opportunity for making money is just to high to avoid the Pacific Theater for to much longer.

IMHO!

S!Blade<><

 

 

Indeed...

 

Perhaps statements such as "Carrier involvement in the Solomons was minimal." and "Carrier ops was only a small portion of the air war in the Pacific." miss the point of my earlier post with regards to how IJN and USN Carrier Ops directly and/or indirectly impacted the planning, implementation and prosecution of major PTO Campaigns. 

 

For instance, from its start Carrier Ops impacted Guadalcanal operations from the Japanese invasion of Tulagi, with the decision to accelerate the USN/USMC and USAAF response following the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway with Operation Watchtower through how the Cactus Air Force (MAG) 23 was initially transferred to Guadalcanal via USS Long Island (CVE-1) on August 20th:
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npswapa/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003122-00/sec2.htm

 

The Kings and Generals Series is right now beginning its' overview of the Guadalcanal Campaign (Invasion of the Solomons-Pacific War Documentary #37) fittingly during this 1st and 2nd week of August with: 

 

 

Looking forward to this series as it moves forward to the ultimate defeat of Japan. Should be good.

 

 

[Enceladus828]

On 8/5/2022 at 2:32 PM, BladeMeister said:

The OP does not ask if it is Historically relevant whether carriers were needed for the next Box theater. He asked does it need to be a carrier battle.

What I'm asking is, does the first PTO installment absolutely need to be a battle which involved carriers like Midway, or can it be a battle which didn't involve carriers or saw minimal action like Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Singapore or Burma? Jason stated in the past that he wants a carrier battle such as Midway to be the first PTO installment, but is the community okay with that or would they rather have something else? The third option is basically I don't care, I just want the Pacific or an installment with Japanese planes.

 

At this point, Guadalcanal plus Battle of the Coral Sea would work best as the majority of the pilot career wouldn't be flying endless hours over an open ocean encountering the enemy once in a while except for major dates and those who want carriers can have Coral Sea. With most of the community okay with a 5v3 or 3v3 planeset with the FM/DMs for the Val and Kate not 99.9% accurate because they are not fighters -- but better than how they were in IL-2 1946 and War Thunder -- then the only reason I see why the devs can't go to the Pacific after BoN is if the game engine can't handle any ship larger than a light cruiser, let alone an aircraft carrier, or a large naval component. But even if that's the case they can still do a battle which didn't really involve ships.

[Gambit21]

On 8/8/2022 at 8:39 AM, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

 

 

Indeed...

 

Perhaps statements such as "Carrier involvement in the Solomons was minimal." and "Carrier ops was only a small portion of the air war in the Pacific." miss the point of my earlier post with regards to how IJN and USN Carrier Ops directly and/or indirectly impacted the planning, implementation and prosecution of major PTO Campaigns. 

 

 

The point of such comments is always in the context of what we need or don't need for a PTO release, not the overall real world strategy of the actual, entire war in the Pacific. So not missing your point, just not concerned with it for a flight sim. If that makes sense.  Carriers were always a consideration, even if for 18 month sit was keeping them out of harms way.

 

That said, I don't think PTO is happening here.

Looking to DCS now for that, whatever it looks like.

 

 

 

 

That said, flying a Zero off the Akagi would be amazing, but I'll take a dusty island strip too. 

[Trooper117]

Guadalcanal, Burma, Malaya/Singapore... we could have a cracking good PTO experience with those without stepping foot on a carrier.

So, no need to wait for carriers to be implemented into the existing game engine, hop to it Jason and crew!  

[[DBS]Tx_Tip]

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

The point of such comments is always in the context of what we need or don't need for a PTO release, not the overall real world strategy of the actual, entire war in the Pacific. So not missing your point, just not concerned with it for a flight sim. If that makes sense.  Carriers were always a consideration, even if for 18 month sit was keeping them out of harms way.

 

That said, I don't think PTO is happening here.

Looking to DCS now for that, whatever it looks like.

 

 

 

 

That said, flying a Zero off the Akagi would be amazing, but I'll take a dusty island strip too. 

 

18 month sit... Lol.   What does make sense is that you are totally misinformed or being intellectually disingenuous with regards to USN/IJN Carrier Ops during the Guadalcanal Campaign and the PTO as a whole to make such a statement.

 

My comments on this topic were quite clear and on point that "any" new PTO release or "game" would need Carrier Ops. As much as I'd like to see it, obviously the current BoX engine wouldn't be able to handle a true PTO expansion.

You can play your I know everything hubris with someone else.

[BladeMeister]

On 8/9/2022 at 4:54 PM, Enceladus said:

But even if that's the case they can still do a battle which didn't really involve ships.

No! JUST NO!!!

 

S!Blade<><

[Gambit21]

On 8/11/2022 at 7:24 AM, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

 

18 month sit... Lol.   What does make sense is that you are totally misinformed or being intellectually disingenuous with regards to USN/IJN Carrier Ops during the Guadalcanal Campaign and the PTO as a whole to make such a statement.

 

My comments on this topic were quite clear and on point that "any" new PTO release or "game" would need Carrier Ops. As much as I'd like to see it, obviously the current BoX engine wouldn't be able to handle a true PTO expansion.

You can play your I know everything hubris with someone else.

 

I meant stashed out of harms way from opposing forces during this period.

edit

 

[Ribbon]

I would enjoy any kind of PTO battle, land based or even "flight to nowhere"!

But put aside tiny fanbase on this forum with detailed knowledge on ww2 (and Pacific).........carriers are main or biggest selling point of PTO, for any kind od average Joe!

Anything else is begging to stay afloat!

[[DBS]Tx_Tip]

21 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I meant stashed out of harms way from opposing forces during this period.

Go play your massively insecure, reactive, emotional, sensitive, whiney game with someone else. ;

 

 

Not hardly Mr. 18 months. Stashed out of harm's way from opposing forces... LoL The rest is how a resident edit responds. Don't flatter yourself.

You've been spouting this mis-informed, intellectually disingenuous edit from one end of any topic concerning USN/IJN Carrier Ops in the Guadalcanal Campaign and now the entire PTO to the other.
 
Far be it for me to education your ignorance on the matter though. I'm sure the excellent Kings and Generals Series (Pacific War) which I linked in earlier posts will serve nicely No IJN/USN Carrier Ops for 18 months. LoL  

 

[MisterSmith]

Take it to PM. You are both flirting with time on the beach.

 

Smith

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 8/11/2022 at 1:24 PM, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

My comments on this topic were quite clear and on point that "any" new PTO release or "game" would need Carrier Ops. As much as I'd like to see it, obviously the current BoX engine wouldn't be able to handle a true PTO expansion.

I don't want to rekindle the war (although some time on the beach does sound good!) but I'd still like to respectfully but vehemently disagree with both of those statements.

 

Nobody is suggesting that carrier-borne aircraft didn't play an important role in the pacific, even at "land" battles such as Guadalcanal. But that doesn't mean that carrier operations are remotely necessary. At Guadalcanal, after the first two weeks or so all the way up to the end of the campaign 6 months later, the US had a sizeable amount of land-based aircraft. The Japanese had a major base at Rabaul all along. That means that without any carrier operations*, we could still have most of the Guadalcanal campaign.

* enemy carrier-borne fighters could be spawned mid-air, if necessary.

 

On to the BoX engine. Saying that it wouldn't be able to handle the PTO (or even carrier ops) is quite a statement. Do you have anything to back that up?

I can think of two points where anyone could expect the engine to pose a problem: the map, and advanced ship physics. Regarding the map the only reason why this wouldn't be possible is the sheer size required. A while ago I made a drawing in another thread, of a concept map that could feature the battles of the Coral Sea, Guadalcanal and Bougainville. Although it's a positively huge map, the total land area is only half that of Rheinland. There are also barely any large towns. This should make it both relatively easy and fast to develop, as well as relatively light on the CPU/GPU (=engine).

Then there's ship physics. It's true these don't really exist as of yet, beyond an extremely primitive form, but I see no reason these can't be developed, similarly to how complex vehicle physics were developed for TC.

 

There's also gameplay. While carrier ops in support of ground ops could work, I doubt any of the traditional carrier battles (Midway, Coral Sea, ...) would work for IL2. The career mode is basically unusable as they're too short. The "terrain" is extremely boring, and I can't imagine that it would capture the interest of players for long enough for a healthy playerbase to develop.

[BMA_FlyingShark]

On 8/11/2022 at 10:36 AM, Trooper117 said:

Guadalcanal, Burma, Malaya/Singapore...

China...Flying Tigers...you know, early version of those planes with shark teeth painted on their chin.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[[DBS]Tx_Tip]

"I don't want to rekindle the war (although some time on the beach does sound good!) but I'd still like to respectfully but vehemently disagree with both of those statements."

Not much of a war. One of the participants was saved further seal clubbing by Mr. Smith.
 
"Nobody is suggesting that carrier-borne aircraft didn't play an important role in the pacific, even at "land" battles such as Guadalcanal." 

Who is nobody? There are specific posts in various topics, including this one, that Carriers from both sides were "Stashed out of harm's way from opposing forces for 18 months". 

 

How is my statement of any "True PTO Expansion" (i.e.) a historical based Campaign such as Guadalcanal even remotely debatable with regards to Carrier Ops?
 
Additionally, as the Cactus Air Force was initially supplied physically and augmented several times by and with Carrier Ops and USN carrier-based aircraft. Your entire pretense of "But that doesn't mean that carrier operations are remotely necessary. At Guadalcanal, after the first two weeks or so all the way up to the end of the campaign 6 months later, the US had a sizeable amount of land-based aircraft. The Japanese had a major base at Rabaul all along. That means that without any carrier operations*, we could still have most of the Guadalcanal campaign." certainly makes no sense historically.
 
"On to the BoX engine. Saying that it wouldn't be able to handle the PTO (or even carrier ops) is quite a statement. Do you have anything to back that up?"

You've already done that for me in one way with regards to ship physics. Or are you really suggesting that the USS Washington or USS South Dakota, the latter with 16 40mm (1.6 in) Bofors guns in four quadruple mounts firing in tandem with sixteen 5-inch Mark 12 guns in eight Mark 28 Mod 0 twin dual-purpose (DP) mounts and nine 16-inches Mark 6 guns in three three-gun turrets, not to mention Carrier needs, could be developed with any similarly as the vehicle physics for the MkIV Panzer in TC?
 
Get back to me when we have those battleships above along with IJN ones such as a Kondo or Haruna pounding Henderson Field during what was named "The Bombardment" by veterans, destroying half of the aircraft parked there and are created within this current engine.

 

You make no mention of how the Online aspect would be handled. Will the net-code be updated to account for the increased fire power of these new ships? Will the GUI interface for CoOPs and Dogfight missions be updated so one side cannot see the others' Briefings? Which brings up the need for the ME to be updated so players can spawn in without being seen by the other side unless directed by the mission designer on the map? These are just some of the things that need to be addressed.

 

I've already said my piece to and frankly spent too much of my time on this what if poll-topic. You're more than welcome to convince yourself and others on a non-historic Guadalcanal Campaign module within the current BoX engine. Done well enough I might even buy.
 
Have a great weekend y'all.
 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

How is my statement of any "True PTO Expansion" (i.e.) a historical based Campaign such as Guadalcanal even remotely debatable with regards to Carrier Ops?

 
Additionally, as the Cactus Air Force was initially supplied physically and augmented several times by and with Carrier Ops and USN carrier-based aircraft. Your entire pretense of "But that doesn't mean that carrier operations are remotely necessary. At Guadalcanal, after the first two weeks or so all the way up to the end of the campaign 6 months later, the US had a sizeable amount of land-based aircraft. The Japanese had a major base at Rabaul all along. That means that without any carrier operations*, we could still have most of the Guadalcanal campaign." certainly makes no sense historically.

And the real-life pilots in the Bodenplatte squadrons also didn't materialise out of thin air

 

The entire game is about playing a pilot between pre-determined start and end dates. You don't get to follow the months of training they'd have in Britain or across the pond. You don't get to fly across the channel to your new airfield. You simply spawn inside a squadron, 17 September the earliest. Everything that's happened beforehand isn't covered. I don't see why that same thing would be such a problem on Guadalcanal. The campaign could simply start on 21 August, with the flight there a day earlier implied but not covered. After the 20th, carriers aren't necessary anymore.

 

2 hours ago, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

"On to the BoX engine. Saying that it wouldn't be able to handle the PTO (or even carrier ops) is quite a statement. Do you have anything to back that up?"

 

You've already done that for me in one way with regards to ship physics. Or are you really suggesting that the USS Washington or USS South Dakota, the latter with 16 40mm (1.6 in) Bofors guns in four quadruple mounts firing in tandem with sixteen 5-inch Mark 12 guns in eight Mark 28 Mod 0 twin dual-purpose (DP) mounts and nine 16-inches Mark 6 guns in three three-gun turrets, not to mention Carrier needs, could be developed with any similarly as the vehicle physics for the MkIV Panzer in TC?

Actually, I have some experience with simulating boat physics . Boat physics have been created a thousand times already and the theory behind it is well-developed. It isn't too hard actually, especially if it doesn't need to be a 100% physically correct representation but rather something that stays within realistic limits and looks and feels believeable (it's not a player vehicle after all). Regarding how difficult it would be to develop, based on my own experiences I'd say it would indeed be on the same level as the vehicle physics for the Pz.IV. Possibly (likely?) even easier, as ship physics are actually pretty straightforward.

 

Bottom line is, there is not a single reason why advanced ship physics couldn't be incorporated into the IL2 engine.

 

2 hours ago, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

You make no mention of how the Online aspect would be handled. Will the net-code be updated to account for the increased fire power of these new ships?

Probably similarly to how the net-code will be handled for the huge invasion fleet that BoN features

 

2 hours ago, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

Which brings up the need for the ME to be updated so players can spawn in without being seen by the other side unless directed by the mission designer on the map?

This is already possible to some extent.

 

2 hours ago, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

You're more than welcome to convince yourself and others on a non-historic Guadalcanal Campaign module within the current BoX engine. Done well enough I might even buy.

The fact that not every single aspect of a battle is featured (i.e. carrier ops in this case) doesn't make it non-historical . After the 20th, there were plenty of air battles without direct involvement of carriers.

 

It's obvious that you feel strongly about carriers. And they would certainly be cool to have. But it's important to recognise that you are not representative for the average IL2 player. What you personally think has little to no impact on the feasability and sellability of a prospective Pacific module. Although it can be debated to what extent polls like these are a good representation of the entire community and prospective player base, this poll does show that an overwhelming majority doesn't agree with your opinion regarding carriers.

[Gambit21]

13 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 

The fact that not every single aspect of a battle is featured (i.e. carrier ops in this case) doesn't make it non-historical . After the 20th, there were plenty of air battles without direct involvement of carriers.

 

Yep

The entire battle of Guadalcanal after Watchtower /Solomons, Henderson/Cactus, R-Area Air Force, Marine Corsair ops after Guadalcanal moving up the slot…no carriers needed. 

[blue_max]

I would really like a PNG module, but it needs to have some kind of quick travel button!

[BMA_FlyingShark]

25 minutes ago, blue_max said:

a PNG module

What is PNG?

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Bremspropeller]

Papua New Guinea

[BMA_FlyingShark]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Papua New Guinea

Ah,  I see, thank you for the information.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Gambit21]

On 8/14/2022 at 6:41 AM, FlyingShark said:

Ah,  I see, thank you for the information.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

Yes...another one of those pesky, major Pacific operations where you can fly career after career after career, campaign after campaign in aircraft after aircraft and

no carriers necessary. Shhhh......

 

New Guinea Campaign

 

 

 

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Solomons, New Guinea, China

[Trooper117]

And the no's have it, the no's have it...

[DBFlyguy]

59 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

And the no's have it, the no's have it...

Unfortunately all of the dev's voted "yes" ? so it doesn't really matter

[56RAF_Roblex]

I voted that I am OK with them doing something like Singapore first, but I am very much more interested in Carrier ops than in seeing Japanese aircraft.    Quite frankly, I would be happy to turn a blind eye to them pretending the Graf Zeppelin got completed and launched with 109Ts & JU87Cs on deck if they put it up against 

HMS Illustrious in the Med or the North Sea ?