My requirements for a Pacific theater installment in this game

[Enceladus828]

After seeing discussions pertaining to the Pacific theater in this game and how according to the devs the community may have to agree with some compromises for some aspects in order to go to the Pacific, I have listed my requirements for the Pacific which hopefully most of the community will agree with and the devs will consider doing a Pacific battle as the next installment after BoN.

 

1. FMs/DMs for Japanese planes: there can be an exception to the rule that they have to be 99% accurate. As long as what the devs have for the FMs/DMs of an aircraft is the most accurate and is more accurate than these aircraft’s FMs/DMs in Pacific Fighters/IL-2 1946 and War Thunder then that’s fine. For the dive bombers and torpedo bombers like the Val and the Kate, I wouldn’t care too much about the FMs/DMs as they are not fighter aircraft.

 

Educated Guesswork: Jason stated in an interview interview with Shamrock that they may have enough information to make the cockpit of the Val, but don’t have enough information for the rear gunner, in particular if there was a radio included and how many Ammo magazines there are. Whether the rear gunner had a radio or exactly how many ammo magazines the gunner had doesn’t really matter to me, I’m pretty much okay with educated guesswork involved with making these planes.

But as Eisenfaustus stated in a thread “ Imagine you have to make an educated guess at a very early stage of a project - and much work relies on this estimate. Much later you realise you guessed wrong and are forced to start over. Since time is money - this can be a very risky course for the company.”

If making educated guesses can lead to a scenario where if this was completely wrong and have to start over, then wait until you have all the information before making this plane, ship, etc.

 

2. Documentation: this is probably the greatest thing to hold back making an aircraft or making it flyable. If there is very little, if any, documentation available for an aircraft such as the cockpit then that’s when I would say just make it AI or wait until the necessary documentation is available. However, if enough documentation is available to make the cockpit and bombardier/Nose gunner, and the Top or Rear Gunner of the G4M Betty then that’s fine.

 

3. The amount of flyable planes in each installment: at the very least a flyable fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bomber for each side. Also, if the devs do let’s say Midway and are only able to make the Wildcat, Dauntless and Devastator, and the Zero, Val and Kate (3v3) due to the budget and/or not enough information to make more planes then that’s fine with me. Even a 5v3 with also the Avenger or Buffalo and a flyable B-26 is fine.

 

4. Ships: If doing Midway, or Wake Island to Midway including Coral Sea, or Guadalcanal, then all of the aircraft carriers involved (if they were involved in the battle covered), and at least one* Battleship, Heavy Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Destroyer, and Submarine for each side. This can just be a class like the Kongo class Battleship or the Atlanta class Light cruiser, no need to model every single ship of each class.

        * Assuming that a battleship, heavy cruiser… saw action in the battle, campaign, or places that this installment covers.

 

5. Aircraft carrier hangars and working elevators: adding these is not necessary, the planes can just spawn on the flight deck and disappear shortly after landing on the flight deck.

 

6. Lastly, if doing a carrier battle is just not possible at this time, but it is possible to do Burma, or New Guinea, CBI, Malaysia/Singapore, or if it’s only possible at the time to do a late war Pacific battle like Okinawa or the Philippines then that’s fine.

 

Enceladus

[357th_KW]

You bring up some great points here that I largely agree with. 

 

One of the biggest issues is the plane set and the ability to model Japanese aircraft - I personally have no problem with a Pacific expansion that only included a couple flyable Japanese fighter variants, with the rest of the lineup filled in with AI only aircraft.  The hope there is that by launching a Pacific expansion, it opens some doors that eventually provide the information necessary to make a flyable Val or Betty etc.  But I'd absolutely pay full price for a Pacific module that just had a couple Zeros on the Japanese side - especially if it included functional aircraft carriers.

 

With regard to the actual module itself, I'd much prefer something like the Solomon Islands or New Guinea or Okinawa with some carriers integrated, rather then a pure carrier "Battle of Midway" etc.  The pure carrier engagements were just a small portion of the overall theater, and the land campaigns allow us to use a number of our existing aircraft.

 

IMO, the Solomon Islands campaign is the perfect starting point.  Two carrier battles took place here (Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz) so you can fill those in as carrier development allows.  The map would need to be huge, but much of it is water and you could theoretically do it in two volumes ala Flying Circus, with the map expanding as you go.  Start with A6M model 21, A6M2N, Val (AI if necessary), Betty (AI if necessary), Kate (AI if necessary) vs F4F-4, P-39D/P-400, SBD, TBF, PBY.  Then add the A6M model 32 and 22, F1M (AI if necessary), H6K (AI if necessary), Ki-46 (AI if necessary) vs F4U-1, F6F-3, P-40K, B-25, B-24. 

 

Assuming it was possible to model some IJAAF fighters, you could add New Guinea as a volume 3, expanding the map further (or perhaps as a separate map with some overlap) with the Ki-43 I/II, Ki-61, Ki-45, Ki-21, Ki-48 (again using AI only where necessary) vs. P-38F/G/H, P-40N, P-47D-4, A-20G, Beaufighter.

 

A final Okinawa volume 4 could round things out with a Ki-43 III, A6M5, and whatever late war Japanese fighters/attackers could be squeezed in vs F6F-5, F4U-1D, SB2C, Seafire, Firefly.

 

 

[CountZero]

I just dont see any reason for risking going to PTO without carriers and american navy fighters vs japan navy fighters, for most ppl this is what pacific is, zero vs cats, it would be stupid to start PTO DLC era without that, also i doubt next DLC is PTO.

[Ribbon]

Exactly what i was suggesting, well put together ?

 

-smaller planeset 3vs.3 (wildcat, dauntless, devastator vs. Zero, Val, Kate) and later they can add collector such as B25, PBY and such.

 

-dive bombers/torpedo bombers such as Val and Kate doesn't have to be 100/% accurate, they're not fighters. They're perfectly fine if modeled only on rough general performance data, due to their role i don't see much complaints there.

Like for any aircraft they can improve it over time when more data emerges.

 

-ships; there doesn't need to be every ship class there nor they need to be modeled 100% accurate.

Same as with aircrafts, only few from commumity will notice.

And yes carriers don't need to have working elevators and such, just make it mobile landing strips (at start i wpuldn't mind even if they,re stationary).

 

-about amount of units representing historical accuracy (amount of flak and ships) it would be crazy to expect real numbers, we even don't have them now in current expansions (otherwise we would have sky filled with flak) and that is perfectly fine, scale it down!

 

It's time for PTO and tropical islands?

Edited May 6, 2022 by =VARP=Ribbon

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'd accept even a "proof of concept" simply by releasing a few aircraft to use on existing maps.  Wildcat, Dauntless, P40E (with proper engine limits), P39, vs. A6M2, and Val, with both sides having access to the C47 with proper skins, put 'em all on the Kuban map in the Kerch area, and let the mission builders run with it.  Or Ki 27, Ki 43 vs. P40 and I 16 on the interior areas of Kuban for an ersatz CBI scenario.

 

Give us the planes and we can make fun things happen.

[Jade_Monkey]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'd accept even a "proof of concept" simply by releasing a few aircraft to use on existing maps.  Wildcat, Dauntless, P40E (with proper engine limits), P39, vs. A6M2, and Val, with both sides having access to the C47 with proper skins, put 'em all on the Kuban map in the Kerch area, and let the mission builders run with it.  Or Ki 27, Ki 43 vs. P40 and I 16 on the interior areas of Kuban for an ersatz CBI scenario.

 

Give us the planes and we can make fun things happen.

 

If they are gonna bother with a proof of concept might as well do a Lapino style mini map that is mostly water and a couple of airfields in opposite sides of the map.

[Vishnu]

I personally am not that interested in the PTO.   I think resources can still expand the ETO.  A purely US/Japan module could possibly limit the the variety of other country’s involvement. 

Not all of us are US centric. Although I truly understand the appeal.  

I also prefer accuracy over guesswork. 

[Chief_Mouser]

 

6 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

 

One of the biggest issues is the plane set and the ability to model Japanese aircraft - I personally have no problem with a Pacific expansion that only included a couple flyable Japanese fighter variants, with the rest of the lineup filled in with AI only aircraft.  

 

 

 

I DO have a big problem with just a couple of flyable versions of one fighter on the Japanese side. Not having a national bias as to what I like flying, any planeset that is so severely unbalanced won't see a penny of my money.

[DBFlyguy]

Concerning the Pacific.... JUST. DO. SOMETHING.  That is where I'm at as politely as I can put it. I'd guess that's where a lot of pacific hopefuls are at now.

[Asgar]

sure, they can give you an island and the AI destroyer they made for BoN and let you fly your Spitfire, P-38 and Mustang there for 80 bucks, cool?

 

That is "somthing" right? That's all you want? I rather they do a proper expansion when they feel they CAN do a proper expansion that fulfills their standards. we should be glad we have a developer team that HAS standards and sticks to them

Edited May 6, 2022 by Asgar

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Personally, I don't quite see the appeal of carrier vs. carrier battles. Fly hundreds of kms across boring, monotonous water into one direction, drop a few bombs, then fly back. Rinse and repeat two or three times, and either your own or the enemy's carrier is destroyed. Campaign over.

 

A land-based campaign would be different though. I'd personally love the change of scenery from the European skies. I'd say a Guadalcanal map should be possible:

A 1200x1400km map as above should be enough to cover not just Guadalcanal (7 August 1942 - 9 February 1943), but also the carrier-based battle of the Coral Sea (4-8 May 1942) and the Bougainville campaign (1 November 1943 up to the end of the war, although I don't know how active the air combat was in the final part of the war). Hence, just this one map would be enough to cover almost the entire length of the war in the Pacific.

 

Although it's a huge map (3x as wide and 4.5 times as tall as the Rheinland map), the amount of land area is only about half of the Rheinland map. It's very sparsely populated as well, which should also make it relatively easy to develop.

 

17 hours ago, Enceladus said:

If making educated guesses can lead to a scenario where if this was completely wrong and have to start over, then wait until you have all the information before making this plane, ship, etc.

Well, that's what they've been doing, isn't it?

Edited May 6, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed
Messed up the map size...

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

IMHO the PTO is the best way to keep this game alive and kicking right now. It would be a game changer and would spark the fire again (I don't feel like flying in the ETO right now) . Honestly, my interest and passion for this sim has been dwindling after the last scenarios. Sorry, I had to tell the truth to the community, no intention in hurting anyone's feelings.

Edited May 6, 2022 by =gRiJ=Roman-

[DBFlyguy]

2 hours ago, Asgar said:

sure, they can give you an island and the AI destroyer they made for BoN and let you fly your Spitfire, P-38 and Mustang there for 80 bucks, cool?

 

That is "somthing" right? That's all you want? I rather they do a proper expansion when they feel they CAN do a proper expansion that fulfills their standards. we should be glad we have a developer team that HAS standards and sticks to them

You went an entire post without mentioning the 410 once!?!? ? Are you ok? blink twice if you need hostage rescue? ?

 

To answer your point, yes....something would be better than nothing.  Perfect can be the enemy of good sometimes.  The Japanese data fairy isn't magically gonna show up, I'd rather the devs use what they have and do the best they can.  If the data is so rare, no one would be able to argue it wasn't accurate anyway. 

 

[Asgar]

5 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

You went an entire post without mentioning the 410 once!?!? ? Are you ok? blink twice if you need hostage rescue? ?

 

To answer your point, yes....something would be better than nothing.  Perfect can be the enemy of good sometimes.  The Japanese data fairy isn't magically gonna show up, I'd rather the devs use what they have and do the best they can.  If the data is so rare, no one would be able to argue it wasn't accurate anyway. 

 

good thing we don't have nothing. we're in the final stage of the Normandy release. 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Personally, I don't quite see the appeal of carrier vs. carrier battles. Fly hundreds of kms across boring, monotonous water into one direction, drop a few bombs, then fly back. Rinse and repeat two or three times, and either your own or the enemy's carrier is destroyed. Campaign over.

 

A land-based campaign would be different though. I'd personally love the change of scenery from the European skies. I'd say a Guadalcanal map should be possible:

A 600x700km map as above should be enough to cover not just Guadalcanal (7 August 1942 - 9 February 1943), but also the carrier-based battle of the Coral Sea (4-8 May 1942) and the Bougainville campaign (1 November 1943 up to the end of the war, although I don't know how active the air combat was in the final part of the war). Hence, just this one map would be enough to cover almost the entire length of the war in the Pacific.

 

Although it's a huge map (1.5x as wide and 2.5 times as tall as the Rheinland map), the amount of land area is only about half of the Rheinland map. It's very sparsely populated as well, which should also make it relatively easy to develop.

 

Well, that's what they've been doing, isn't it?

Thats 1300x1600km map , same ppl who wont Gudalcanal or other big land areas dont wont maps to be scaled down so what then ? airstarts, fantasy bases, or multi h missions for one side and multi h waits for other... while with carriers you can just move them closer, Midway is best and devs know it thats why they planed to do it first and asked for airplanes info about it... it has name of famous battle everyone knows about, great airplane types on both side and you can tailor it to fit most players needs, historical buffs who like to play 6h missions with 16s time skips, or turn and burn DF in MP enviroments.

[BraveSirRobin]

My “requirements” are pretty simple.  Does the module include aircraft that flew in the war in the Pacific?  Yes.  Take my money.

 

I’ll also be happy to fly other stuff if they don’t feel that they can properly do PTO.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, CountZero said:

Thats 1300x1600km map , same ppl who wont Gudalcanal or other big land areas dont wont maps to be scaled down so what then ? airstarts, fantasy bases, or multi h missions for one side and multi h waits for other... while with carriers you can just move them closer, Midway is best and devs know it thats why they planed to do it first and asked for airplanes info about it... it has name of famous battle everyone knows about, great airplane types on both side and you can tailor it to fit most players needs, historical buffs who like to play 6h missions with 16s time skips, or turn and burn DF in MP enviroments.

Oops, you're (almost) right, it's 1200x1400. I accidentally wrote down the resolution instead of the size in km ?. The calculation for the ground surface area is correct though.

 

EDIT: I do not agree with your assessment about Midway though, not in the slightest. Midway is just boring. Ever noticed people complain about the Rheinland map, and how empty it is? Midway is a 1000x worse. Only water as far as  the eye can see.

 

That's exactly the reason I think a Solomons map would be good. Those who want carrier action can have the Battle of the Coral sea. Those who like to fly land-based missions can have Guadalcanal, as well as those who want a longer Career than one that lasts only one or two missions.

Edited May 6, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[stevinne]

I do think you need carriers if you are going to do the Pacific, though starting with an island-based map campaign (Cactus is a no-brainer in my opinion) would be OK by me. I don't think we need every carrier recreated, since Midway would require four different Japanese carriers, a lot of work for not much return. Coral Sea or any of the Guadalcanal carrier battles would appeal as much as Midway. I don't care if all four of the Japanese carriers look the same and have the island on the same side. I would just like a Yorktown-class and a Japanese carrier to fly off. (Heck, I'd even be happy with a Malta/Torch module if the Pacific is just too difficult). I also agree that FMs and DMs for Vals and Kates need not be perfect, just believable. As for how many ammo cans the gunners on each plane had or if there were radios, I'd simply buy a Hasegawa or Tamiya 1/48 model and follow that lead, since those guys do quality work. I prefer late-war Hellcats and F4Us vs Zeros, N1K1s and KI-84s, but get me into the Pacific taking off from big, flat boats, please, and I'll buy whatever you put out there. I still spend about half my flying time on modded versions of IL-2:1946 and never feel like the aircraft I'm fighting against are too far off what I expect. My next purchase will likely be the DCS F4U, since owning the current IL2 and Team Fusion offerings give me a nice range of WWII fighters and I really don't feel the need to spend more money on yet another BF-109G variant. 

 

 

I just ducked off to play some online IL2 and it struck me how ironic it is that the current placard for multiplayer dogfight is one of the Bel Geddes dioramas for Midway. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by stevinne

[Ribbon]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 That's exactly the reason I think a Solomons map would be good. Those who want carrier action can have the Battle of the Coral sea. Those who like to fly land-based missions can have Guadalcanal, as well as those who want a longer Career than one that lasts only one or two missions.

100% with you on this ?

Battle of the Coral sea would be a perfect start.

-Solomons map

-two carriers per side (less demanding on game engine than all those carriers at Midway)

-planeset (Wildcat, Dauntless, Devastator vs. Zero, Val and Kate)

 

[gimpy117]

It might be expensive, but could some of these issues be solved with 3D wind tunnel simulation? if the scope of aircraft was lowered on both sides maybe, just maybe accurate models for Japanese aircraft might be able to be made, and some American aircraft can be ported over without too much difficulty. the Wildcat can stand on the shoulders of the one in the CLOD mod (at least maybe the model source)    

 

other things like carrier landings could just be air spawns and air landings. it's not ideal, but I think a lot of pacific buffs would not mind it. 

Edited May 7, 2022 by gimpy117

[kendo]

10 hours ago, stevinne said:

As for how many ammo cans the gunners on each plane had or if there were radios, I'd simply buy a Hasegawa or Tamiya 1/48 model and follow that lead, since those guys do quality work.

 

Damn good idea! I'd settle for Japanese aircraft done to Tamiya or Hasegawa standard. ?

[Bremspropeller]

I personally don't give a flying duck about gunner-stations. If I wanted to be a gunner, I'd play Battlefield or any of the other kewl-kid-games.

[Oyster_KAI]

IMO, the number of mazazine for the rear gun is in many sources, I don't think the difficulty is here.

In contrast, to build every corner of the cockpit, there may be a lack of more information.

And it needs to be developed in cooperation with Japanese people to make radio voice or even localization of the Japanese version.

A lot of extra work.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Oyster_KAI

[BlitzPig_EL]

On 5/6/2022 at 8:41 AM, Vishnu said:

I personally am not that interested in the PTO.   I think resources can still expand the ETO.  A purely US/Japan module could possibly limit the the variety of other country’s involvement. 

Not all of us are US centric. Although I truly understand the appeal.  

I also prefer accuracy over guesswork. 

 

Hence China-Burma-India or New Guinea would be good choices as it also involves British Empire forces, and their aircraft types.  And do remember, not all of us are Luftwaffe centric.

[gimpy117]

2 hours ago, Oyster_KAI said:

IMO, the number of mazazine for the rear gun is in many sources, I don't think the difficulty is here.

In contrast, to build every corner of the cockpit, there may be a lack of more information.

And it needs to be developed in cooperation with Japanese people to make radio voice or even localization of the Japanese version.

A lot of extra work.

while what you're saying is somewhat true it's not insurmountable. They're are plenty of Japanese voice actors out there. Cyberpunk, Red Orchestra Rising storm, War thunder. those are just three games in my steam library that have fully voiced Japanese characters/dialogue. 

 

as to every corner of the cockpit? I mean sure if we're gonna demand 100% accuracy in 100% of the planes or no pacific at all then, yeah, it will never happen. however if we don't back ourselves into a corner and learn to live with the possibility that a corner of the cockpit might have a rivet out of place or look different in a place nobody took pictures of and the last one fell into the sea in 1945 or was scrapped in 1947, then, it might be doable.   

[Ribbon]

5 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

while what you're saying is somewhat true it's not insurmountable. They're are plenty of Japanese voice actors out there. Cyberpunk, Red Orchestra Rising storm, War thunder. those are just three games in my steam library that have fully voiced Japanese characters/dialogue. 

 

as to every corner of the cockpit? I mean sure if we're gonna demand 100% accuracy in 100% of the planes or no pacific at all then, yeah, it will never happen. however if we don't back ourselves into a corner and learn to live with the possibility that a corner of the cockpit might have a rivet out of place or look different in a place nobody took pictures of and the last one fell into the sea in 1945 or was scrapped in 1947, then, it might be doable.   

I find it funny limiting yourself to 100% (or even 90%) visual/3D model accuracy while FM amd DM accuracy and realism being much much less than that!

For that matter no sim should exist!

 

About actor voices, British and American voices are made from community members if i'm right, i'm sure few Japanese ppl would pop in to help.

Even for British and American voices we have now you can tell they are not proffesionally made by real actors....no offense, i jist find this issues absolutley not important.

[DBFlyguy]

13 hours ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

100% with you on this ?

Battle of the Coral sea would be a perfect start.

-Solomons map

-two carriers per side (less demanding on game engine than all those carriers at Midway)

-planeset (Wildcat, Dauntless, Devastator vs. Zero, Val and Kate)

 

 

Definitely would get behind this!  I'd probably suggest a couple land aircraft to attract those who aren't into carrier ops....P-40F or M (operated by New Zealand and the US) and PBY Catalina.  For the Japanese, I'd add the Betty bomber and F1M2.

 

P-38G and A6N2 Rufe would be good collector planes.

 

 

[Ribbon]

18 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

Definitely would get behind this!  I'd probably suggest a couple land aircraft to attract those who aren't into carrier ops....P-40F or M (operated by New Zealand and the US) and PBY Catalina.  For the Japanese, I'd add the Betty bomber and F1M2.

 

P-38G and A6N2 Rufe would be good collector planes.

 

 

With Solomon islands map all cards are open (as expansion packs or collector planes), i would also love some land based aircrafts (bombers, fighters and amphibia).

In il2:1946 i enjoyed landing bombers on tropical islands, my favourite map.

I really hope PTO is next, nevermind the battle!

 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Hence China-Burma-India or New Guinea would be good choices as it also involves British Empire forces, and their aircraft types.

And early P-40's.

As much as I would like to see carriers one day in this great series, nothing goes above landing a P-40 on a strip of dirt in the middle of a jungle somewhere.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[357th_KW]

RNZAF forces were involved in the Solomon’s campaign and the British Pacific Fleet was involved in Okinawa and late war Japan action.  Most scenarios could include commonwealth elements.  There are even some Commonwealth specific aircraft that could be included at various points, like the Wirraway, Boomerang, Beaufighter, Seafire, Firefly, Barracuda etc.

[DBFlyguy]

Battle of Solomon Islands or Battle of Guadalcanal, both have a nice ring to them ?

 

 

 

 

[Mtnbiker1998]

Great post, with a lot of excellent points.

 

Like many others my vote goes for a Guadalcanal battle, land based Cactus Air Force stuff would be awesome and the ability to expand into carriers down the line seems like a perfectly fine way to develop the sim. I'm fine with "Good enough" Japanese assets.

 

Although I'll admit that at this point I've got myself pretty hyped up for a Med battle after Normandy, I'm sure I'll get over it and they can always do that after Pacific is done

[FliegerAD]

Question: if one bottleneck is information on Japanese planes... what is the situation actually? How many planes can be done? I mean, we need 5 max for one module. We don't have enough for a mere handful of planes? And yes, I guess most poeple would be willing to accept fewer planes.

 

Also, I want this beauty:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_CW-21

[Ribbon]

2 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

Question: if one bottleneck is information on Japanese planes... what is the situation actually? How many planes can be done? I mean, we need 5 max for one module. We don't have enough for a mere handful of planes? And yes, I guess most poeple would be willing to accept fewer planes.

 

Also, I want this beauty:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_CW-21

If naval ops involved i would say we need 6 aircrafts.

One fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bomber per side.

[Avimimus]

On 5/9/2022 at 12:17 AM, Ribbon said:

If naval ops involved i would say we need 6 aircrafts.

One fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bomber per side.

 

I'd be partial to a catapult launched spotter aircraft - to truly capture naval ops  Especially now that we can spot for naval bombardments.

 

After-all, those little birds had the heaviest armament of any aircraft during the war. Not many planes can boast an armament of nine 16" guns.