Battle of Britain & North African Theatres in IL2 Great Battles?

[JD007]

It would be great if these two theatres of the war could one day be incorporated into the GB series.

 

IL2 Cliffs of Dover has a very dated UI. It has problems detecting joysticks and even worse, no mouse control for the aircraft. Graphically it's still behind the Great Battles series. The engine used for this product has had its day and needs to be retired.

 

Both of these theatres are extremely enjoyable and would look and play much better incorporated into the much more modern GB series, making all the assets available to the player in the one game. 

[Trooper117]

Not going to happen...

[JD007]

It would be a shame it isn't ever included because I for one would have been interested in purchasing these two theatres for GBs, I dare say many others here would too, given the immense popularity and significance of the Battle of Britain. No doubt this would represent a significant number of potentially lost sales. Also for GBs we already have some tropical liveries and no terrain to use them with.

 

Commercially, it makes no sense at all continuing with COD; compare the number of players between the two on steamcharts.com. Great Battles has a large and growing number of players 233.2 (Average over 30 days) with a growth of +0.24% compared with Cliffs of Dover's pitiful 22 players and a whopping negative 56.03% over the same period!

 

COD is archaic and proves the old adage you can't polish a turd...but you can roll it in glitter. Even with its cosmetic improvements it is still behind GBs. The hideous UI, lack of mouse control and the palaver with getting the joystick to work, every time you wish to play. Frankly, I don't spend much time with this game, which I would have done had it been part of the GB series and been what you would have expected of a modern AAA game.

 

[Trooper117]

1C are not going to have two BoB games in direct conflict with each other... it's already been stated that it won't happen.

There is also the fact that GB's game engine would not be able to depict the very large air battles that occurred during 1940... or the fighting taking place over large cities and towns either... why do you think they would not allow you to fly over Moscow in BoM?

 

Yes, it would be great if there was a more up to date version of BoB made with a better game engine, and with a large gaming studio to fund it all, but sadly that is not likely to happen anytime soon if at all...

[Guster]

I think it has been made very clear it won't happen for a bunch of reasons, one of them I believe is that massive bomber formations over London would make the game a slide show. The game engine was developed to render clashes of a smaller number of aircraft, as was common on the Eastern Front, in very high fidelity. On the other hand I'd argue that there were also plenty of skirmishes involving 12-18 aircraft total, and sometimes even less, during the BoB.

 

However, with the Normandy map you can easily create some very credible post-BoB scenarios, like Rhubarbs and Roadsteads for example, and the Luftwaffe kept flying low-level sweeps over Southern England for quite some time. We have the planes and the map, so I can only encourage people with that sort of cravings to start creating some missions like that.

 

If you feel playing your own missions is too predictable, you can make a multiplayer mission with respawning targets and planes for a sandbox sort of experience where you basically only know where the action will take place and what's involved. I do that a lot, and I'm pretty amazed how varied my sorties are even with very simple missions.

[Zooropa_Fly]

It is a little strange that the Devs closed off the BoB option, if in fact that is the case. Same for NA.

 

I think you're being a bit hard on CloD though.

I've not played it for a while (I'm mainly ww1), but for me piloting a plane there felt a little more believable.

 

Yes the UI is horrible, always has been - nothing to do with age ! For me, it is a bit of a put-off.

Mouse control.. pretty irrelevant. Flight Sims are for joysticks, unless playing WT aparently.

Graphics are less important to me that immersion, but they seem to be working on 4k and VR implementation in any case.

Going by MP numbers these days. BoX series isn't exactly lighting the heather on fire. Those Steam numbers aren't great for either Sim.

 

Remembering that CloD is maintained by ordinary folks like us, I don't think the slagging it regularly gets is necessary .

Combat simming of the early 20thC wars seems to be in decline, so all efforts to keep it alive should be celebrated, irrespective of personal preferences.

 

We should probably be grateful for the action we have available, and the fact that there's still some sort of a choice.

Edited October 1, 2022 by Zooropa_Fly

[Trooper117]

CloD is far better now than the complete mess it was at launch... I think TF are working miracles with it TBH.

Yes, some aspects are a pain in the backside... but the GB series still needs a major look at various long standing problems, especially in the single player element and the command and control of your flight, let alone squadron and ground control aspects... good graphics do not make an excellent flight sim game either.

It is what it is however, and Jason and team have made massive inroads and improvements to what IL2 GB was like at it's release as well...

[JD007]

I agree, Team Fusion have done a wonderful job, with the engine that they have. The level of detail in their maps is most impressive, Deal pier for instance is a lot more detailed than in the D-Day 1944 map and Deal Castle is depicted as well in Cliffs of Dover but it isn't with Great Battles. Their selection of aircraft is also very impressive.

 

Team Fusion have put in an amazing amount of effort with their research and in the graphics department too, there is no denying that at all.

It's just frustrating not to see their work realising its true potential by being brought into a more advanced engine.

[DBFlyguy]

3 hours ago, JD007 said:

It would be great if these two theatres of the war could one day be incorporated into the GB series.

 

IL2 Cliffs of Dover has a very dated UI. It has problems detecting joysticks and even worse, no mouse control for the aircraft. Graphically it's still behind the Great Battles series. The engine used for this product has had its day and needs to be retired.

 

Both of these theatres are extremely enjoyable and would look and play much better incorporated into the much more modern GB series, making all the assets available to the player in the one game. 

There would be nothing enjoyable about maybe 8 Do17s escorted by 8 109s being intercepted by 8 spitfires.  That is what you'd be looking at in this current engine. The Battle of Britain is known for its large air battles, those would not work in GB. CloD is getting updates and can already depict that campaign more closer to what it was than GB will ever be able to.

[Eisenfaustus]

I personally don’t think the GB Engine is suited for an immersive BoB experience. BoB was strategic air warfare shaped by huge air battles (yes there were smaller engagements as well but the defining BoB experience would be 60+ fighters dogfighting around 30+ medium bombers)

This Engine can‘t cope with large battles due to dilation. That‘s why the devs sensibly focused on smaller tactical engagements so far. 
Africa would work better in this engine but compared to what we already have I can’t think of a 5v5 planeset that would be interesting to me. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Eisenfaustus

[DBFlyguy]

2 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Africa would work better in this engine but compared to what we already have I can’t think of a 5v5 planeset that would be interesting to me. 

Oh you know all the 109 stans want their Trop variants ? then throw in a couple Italian aircraft (finally) and the devs could definitely make an enjoyable planeset that would be interesting for many. 

[Trooper117]

30 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

Oh you know all the 109 stans want their Trop variants

 

Putting a tropical filter and adjusting any FM for performance changes does not however qualify paying for a new variant.

We have the 109 types already in game. In real life they would have taken their aircraft from their European setting and made adjustments to the aircraft to operate in the new environment... they certainly would not have made a brand new 109 type just to serve in NA.

That said, you are right, lot's of Luftwaffles would love to have a tropical filter on their 109's... but would they be happy to pay for them again?

[Enceladus828]

2 hours ago, JD007 said:

It's just frustrating not to see their work realising its true potential by being brought into a more advanced engine.

Sorry, but that would require the devs to train the 30 Team Fusion guys how to make planes, maps, ships, vehicles, etc. for IL-2 GBs — spending additional resources where completed unnecessary. The two game engines are completely different from one another, making the process of getting TF acquainted with the GBs engine longer; it would take many, many years to get them acquainted with the engine in order to make complete instalments from scratch that it would just be better and quicker if they make installments for CloD/IL-2 Dover series.

As an example, the 3rd party team making the C-47 flyable, Ugra Media, is just making 1 cockpit and nothing else, they aren’t making the B-25 flyable or anything like that and yet it’s still taking them at least a year and a half. That goes to show that having TF make content for IL-2 GBs wouldn’t produce the results you would expect.

[IckyATLAS]

Africa would be really nice. Easy map to do like the pacific instead of large areas of water you have sand. Easier as you have no waves at all. No need for ships or what we have already is enough just change the flags. We have the planes (we can add some italian planes Fiat G50 and Fiat CR 42, and a bomber three engine like the Savoia Marchetti), we have the tanks and with some nice infantry what else. I am making it a little simplistic but frankly that could be done with a reasonable investment and be a completely new theater of war.

[DBFlyguy]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

 

That said, you are right, lot's of Luftwaffles would love to have a tropical filter on their 109's... but would they be happy to pay for them again?

I think so, heck,  I'd probably join them given the hinted at "eastern" alternatives at this point...

 

 

[Eisenfaustus]

10 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

I think so, heck,  I'd probably join them given the hinted at "eastern" alternatives at this point...

 

 

So you‘d rather pay for Bf 109 G-2/trop and a Spitfire Mk V with sandfilter then for a Bf 109 G-10 and a Yak 3?

Ok - to each their own.

[DBFlyguy]

Just now, Eisenfaustus said:

So you‘d rather pay for Bf 109 G-2/trop and a Spitfire Mk V with sandfilter then a Yak 3?

Ok - to each their own.

 

Yep.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

Yep.

To bad as youll get Bf-109G-5 and Spitfire IXc ?

[BlitzPig_EL]

While North Africa is indeed a theatre I'd like to see in the series, I think the "simplicity" of making it is being over played by some.  Sure it's sand, but there are also areas of scrub, wadis, villages and cities on the coast, not to mention topographic relief that you don't have with just ocean.  And we have not even got to what time frame, and vehicles appropriate for the chosen time frame.  Currently we have no Italian land vehicles of any kind, though the Afrika Korps could be pretty well covered by what we already have in the German motor pool.  Things are far more dodgy for the Allies however.  No British cruiser tanks, no Matilda, no Stewarts, no Grant/Lee, and no correct Shermans for the US and Britain if we get late enough for those to be in theatre.

 

Aircraft are an issue for both sides as well.  There is a lot more to the Regia Aeronautica than Mc 202s.  Mc 200s were there in numbers, Fiat Cr42, SM 79, and the other Italian tri motor bombers and float planes.  The RAF and USAAF would need a host of new airframes as well, depending on time frame. Notably Gloster Gladiator, Curtiss Hawk 81 and 87 in various iterations, Martin Maryland and Baltimore, correct P39s for Torch, along with A36 Apache and early P38s, later US spec P40s (with proper operating limits), etc...  It's a long list really.

 

And it deserves to be done.  North Africa is a vast tactical playground with so many opportunities for both single player campaigns and multi player missions.

 

Bring it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[Trooper117]

With Tobruk being done by TF, wasn't it said GB series would not be doing North Africa?

[IckyATLAS]

39 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

With Tobruk being done by TF, wasn't it said GB series would not be doing North Africa?

Would be a pity because BOX would be much superior in terms of overall visual quality.

[BladeMeister]

41 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

With Tobruk being done by TF, wasn't it said GB series would not be doing North Africa?

I am pretty sure that was said. I Love both GB and CLOD/DWT, but at the rate TFS works, no slight to them, it would be a shame if Buzzsaw and Jason didn't come to some compromise to expand the development of the Africa Campaigns. As BlitzPig_EL said, there is a lot of planes, ground equipment and naval assets that have not been represented in a modern combat flight sim engine. The potential for SP especially, but also MP is definitely ripe for production.

 

S!Blade<><

[Enceladus828]

7 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

Would be a pity because BOX would be much superior in terms of overall visual quality.

True, but in other terms the devs can’t make more than 10 planes plus maybe 1 or 2 per installment, nor would they be able to make all of the ships that saw action off the coast of Libya including cruisers and battleships in Desert Wings-Tobruk (one of its greatest strengths). Therefore, while a GBs version would no doubt have a MC.200 and a SM 79, people would still be going back to Desert Wings for these other aspects. At this point, the only way an IL-2 GBs North Africa from 1940 to June 1942 would work is if they made all of the planes and ships in DW-T, save for a few, and added a few more planes and ships. But that is a next to impossible task.

 

I don’t get why some people keep coveting an IL-2 GBs version of Desert Wings-Tobruk, why can’t we just be glad what both dev teams have given us??

[Lusekofte]

I am perfectly happy with clod covering those theatres.

This game will cover sicily Italy very well 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Because good sirs, a lot of us have tried Tobruk, and in all honesty can not go back to it.  It's old and looks and feels it.  When we tried, the AI were absolutely terrible, and the desert sand looked like melted plastic.  The only thing it does better than Great Battles is the number of units it can support.  That's it, and If I never attack another He 111 over the Channel with .303s, it will be too soon.

[Lusekofte]

I like it. A huge chunk of it is pretty.

And they got the Wellington.

I won't say ai in this game make me afraid  if they do not succeed in their first bounce all you need to do is figure out where they be in their endless turn.

In fact none of the games I fly on got good ai. So that argument is not really valid

Taste is a beautiful thing, and I do not agree with yours

Edited October 1, 2022 by LuseKofte

[Enceladus828]

31 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Because good sirs, a lot of us have tried Tobruk, and in all honesty can not go back to it.  It's old and looks and feels it. 

Unless you conduct a poll to see how many people have tried Desert Wings and didn’t like it then your statement is unreliable.

[BraveSirRobin]

6 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Unless you conduct a poll to see how many people have tried Desert Wings and didn’t like it then your statement is unreliable.

 

You can put me on the "don't like it" column.  GB should do North Africa.

[Lusekofte]

13 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

You can put me on the "don't like it" column.  GB should do North Africa.

I do not mind if they did, and you not liking clod is your own business.

It is so much I do not like with all sims/ games I fly, still all of them got something to desire. Personally I fly clod in 2D and DCS in VR and 2 D. And GB in VR, latter almost only coop. 

But we all get a bit tired, spending two evening in week make it repeatable even with different planes and maps. This is why, I need more than one game too keep motivation

[BladeMeister]

54 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Because good sirs, a lot of us have tried Tobruk, and in all honesty can not go back to it.  It's old and looks and feels it.  When we tried, the AI were absolutely terrible, and the desert sand looked like melted plastic.  The only thing it does better than Great Battles is the number of units it can support.  That's it, and If I never attack another He 111 over the Channel with .303s, it will be too soon.

TOTALLY AND COMPLETLEY DISAGREE WITH YOU HERE. Maybe you don't like CLOD/DWT but your descriptions, " sand looked like melted plastic, the AI were absolutely terrible," are unequivocally wrong and inaccurate. The AI have their downfalls just as the GB AI do, but the desert terrain does not look like 'plastic'. Maybe you need an upgrade for your Rig or possibly lessons on how to

set up graphics, but something is off with your perception of CLOD/DWT LOL. I don't know who this we is that you spoke of? Maybe you have a mouse in your pocket?

 

S!Blade<><

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well, maybe the graphics have changed since we last tried it.  But I assure you my rig is up to the task.

As to the AI, seeing CR42s rolling like a Pitts was pretty off putting.  Again maybe they have gotten better over time, I don't know.

 

First impressions are important, and Tobruk did not impress.

 

When I say "we" I mean all my BlitzPig squad mates that tried it and came to the same conclusion.

 

Sorry you took it so personally.

Edited October 1, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[BladeMeister]

Didn't take it personal, but I do like to give the boys at TFS a fair shake. I like GB, it has it's strengthens and it is fun, but I also like CLOD/DWT as it has it's own strengths and each has a unique feel and immersion. I am just thankful both are still in active development, even with TFS's slower development cycles. There is still a lot of fun to be had in both IMHO for what its worth.

 

S!Blade<><

[Enceladus828]

18 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Well, maybe the graphics have changed since we last tried it.  But I assure you my rig is up to the task.

As to the AI, seeing CR42s rolling like a Pitts was pretty off putting.  Again maybe they have gotten better over time, I don't know.

 

First impressions are important, and Tobruk did not impress.

 

 

How about you list the problems you have encountered with the IL-2 Dover series on CloD section of the forum — bad AI, poor textures, etc. — as listing them on the IL-2 GBs section won’t get you anywhere because the TF people such as Buzzsaw who would be able to look into the problem and find a fix are never (at best, very rarely) on this section of the forum save for official announcements for the Dover series and a thread comparing the BoN map to other Channel/Normandy maps.

[DD_Arthur]

2 hours ago, Enceladus said:

Unless you conduct a poll to see how many people have tried Desert Wings and didn’t like it then your statement is unreliable.

 

I see we're in the usual parallel universe when it comes to CLoD.   Let's just take a quick peek at this weeks Steam charts for Cliffs;

 

https://steamcharts.com/app/754530

 

World population forecast to hit eight billion next month and CLoD has 22.2 regular players. 

Well, I suppose exclusivity has it's attractions but whatever perceived attractions CLoD might have for the vocal few here who profess to love it;  the rest of the world seems to have voted with its feet.

We're at the stage now whereby the only people who play CLoD are those who are either in TFS or have a direct connection with them.

 

Those Steam charts are always interesting.  If you examine them closely it becomes apparent that whenever TFS release a new update to the game, overall player numbers actually decline shortly afterwards.  I can't help feeling that the best thing the aforementioned vocal few could do for their favourite game is to actually play it rather than talk about it.

I wonder how CLoD would fair if Jason ceased to be series producer for 1CGS? 

[BladeMeister]

LOL! Same old lame let's look at the Steam charts DD_Arthur. Has absolutely nothing to do with the OP or the conversation at hand. Well played Sir.

 

S!Blade<><

[ACG_Bobo]

That's a very good point Mr. DD_Arthur.  If nobody plays the f'n thing what real good is it to us in GB land?  It would be sweet to have the big NA theatre available for our WWII sandbox (no pun in

tended) playfun.  But, to please the 22, we not a getta.
 

Edited October 2, 2022 by III./SG77-K_Bobo

[Bumfluff]

Pacific or bust for me. Not interested in going back to another eastern front theatre. I’m not being antagonistic. Just registering my thoughts. Find it concerning that the developers have signalled the engine can’t handle aircraft carriers. 

[stburr91]

Well, to be fair, GB only has an average of 239.9 players, and 329 current players (on a weekend), with a brand new module having just released. GB isn't exactly doing very well either. 

[Enceladus828]

@DD_ArthurSteam charts are a very unreliable means of determining how many like or don’t like the IL-2 Dover series. I am very busy at the time with my work and other important matters so I have very little time to flight sim and when I do flight sim, most of it is SP. While I don’t go on the MP servers that often, that has nothing to do with the fact the servers aren’t populated. Heck, I go on the Dover series MP servers much, much more than on the GBs MP servers. I don’t even remember the last time I went on a GBs MP server. I think it was in early 2019, I don’t know ?

[BraveSirRobin]

6 minutes ago, stburr91 said:

Well, to be fair, GB only has an average of 239.9 players, and 329 current players (on a weekend), with a brand new module having just released. GB isn't exactly doing very well either. 

Are those Steam stats?  Lots of GB users are not on Steam.