Battle over Europe

[oc2209]

21 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Steady. It’s merely a game, no one here has any input into development decisions and no one here is hating anything.

Have a nice cup of tea and a cheese sandwich.

 

Thanks for the totally condescending pat on the head, but it's easier to keep your cool when you're not being dogpiled.

 

Also, the most vociferous anti-Eastern Front whiners damn well want to influence the development decisions. Whether they do in the end, is irrelevant. The point is that they want to influence the devs via constant whining about how despicable another Eastern Front DLC would be, and how they absolutely won't buy it.

 

Let's not be naive, here.

 

At no point have I said that the Pacific shouldn't be made. I'm just saying to finish up the Eastern Front, first. It deserves priority because it's been on the back burner for years.

 

They're saying to never finish the Eastern Front, for all practical purposes.

 

That's a pretty big difference of opinion, right there.

[DD_Arthur]

20 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

Answer that. Anybody, answer that.

 

You can't, or you won't. 

I’ll try: I think I can live with the “huge glaring hole in the Russian line up” for some attention given to the huge glaring hole that is the rest of WW2 and the opportunities it offers to get away from the familiar fare of low level tactical mud moving.

 

Now; are you pleased to see me or is that a torpedo bomber in your pocket??

[Gambit21]

56 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, Spitfire and Hurricane will all be redundant when/if they're put in the Pacific. Period.

 

You said it was easy to avoid redundancy. I'm saying it's not. Of course there'll be other new planes in the Pacific, yeah... no s***, Sherlock. An entirely new theater.

 

But there will still be some unavoidable redundancy, even in a new theater. That was my point, and it is inarguable.

Redundancy only bothers people when it's of a plane they don't want to fly. Let's not act like redundancy in and of itself is the problem.

 

 

What an utterly pointless correction.

 

We could field an A-bomb and build a 4-engine bomber in an hour, but chose not develop 20-30mm cannons on par with other nations. Excuses are meaningless, the end result is all that matters.

 

If the end result is that very few American planes use cannons, then my original statement doesn't warrant correction.

 

 

 

You're equating the many 190's and 109's etc we have over 5 existing releases with PTO that A. we don't have, and B. will introduce a variety of types that we don't have. Unlike more eastern front which would introduce yet more 109's and 190's.

 

I was saying - I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the situation. The end. No need to get all triggered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Gambit21

[oc2209]

13 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

I’ll try: I think I can live with the “huge glaring hole in the Russian line up” for some attention given to the huge glaring hole that is the rest of WW2

 

And would you so easily live with a similarly glaring hole in the American or British lineup?

 

That's the question you avoided answering. Of course you can live with the Russians getting screwed. That was my point all along.

 

Nobody (including myself) would be content with the Allies being permanently cut off at 1943 tech levels, okay? That's quite clear.

 

It's only okay to do to the Russian side of equation because people don't have any respect for it. Something that's also abundantly clear. 

[percydanvers]

22 hours ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

No hate, just after 7years of repetitive gameplay only dlc i'll buy is PTO, medium and heavy bombers and torpedo bombers.

 

Ppl here reffer to knowlege of certain battle and theatre, you read a book, watch a documetary and then you boot up il2 in hope to experience said battle which looks great in your head while in (game)reality you end up over similar landscape with few flak bursts in the sky and with similar aircrafts you own from 5 previous expansions doing almost indentical missions you did in previous 5 expansions, missions with quite sterile scenery.

Only way to recognize said battle is by reading game title and career description.....good for you but i won't spend another 80-90$ for that.

Even with new updated engine, graphics and FM i won't buy if it doesn't offer new gameplay and diversity.

Devs these days think it's all about graphics and tech(FM) fidelity while gameplay and gameplay variety being forgotten.

If il2:1946 got VR support and a bit better/updated maps that would be a winner for me.

 

 

 

Idk, Moscow, Stalingrad and the Kuban feel like very distinct environments to me. One is a misty northern forest landscape, one an open steppe and the last is a mountainous coastal region bordered by swamps. Each is a different tactical environment and feels noticeably different to me to a greater degree than the difference between Normandy and Bodenplatte. 

Conversely the pacific feels less distinct to me. You have... water and then... more water and some jungle islands... then more water... then a slightly larger jungle island. That is unless you're going to like Burma or Manchuria or something. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by percydanvers

[oc2209]

11 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

 

Idk, Moscow, Stalingrad and the Kuban feel like very distinct environments to me. One is a misty northern forest landscape, one an open steppe and the last is a mountainous coastal region bordered by swamps.

 

And if the next module is Hungary/Romania, then we're dealing with a totally new environment. Easily on par with the Mediterranean for visual interest.

 

I can see why many would've hated the sameness of the landscape in a Berlin/Poland map, but that complaint doesn't apply in Hungary.

 

 

I'd be very happy to fly into the side of that mountain, any day.

Edited December 2, 2022 by oc2209

[DD_Arthur]

5 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

And would you so easily live with a similarly glaring hole in the American or British lineup?

 

That's the question you avoided answering. 

Oh…sorry. I wasn’t avoiding it. I just wasn’t aware I was being asked it?.

 

The answer is yes, certainly. I could live without either Normandy or Bodenplatte if it gave me the chance to do something…different…from the four releases beforehand.

 

To be clear; I have nothing against late war Russian aircraft. No ‘hate’ at all. 
In fact I’m pretty sure I’d really enjoy an La-7 in this iteration of the game. Over the twenty plus years I’ve been interested in this nonsense it’s been my overall favourite online clown wagon…..with the D9 a close second ?.

 

However, I and I think a fair few others simply do clamour for a change of direction….

[Gambit21]

9 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Oh…sorry. I wasn’t avoiding it. I just wasn’t aware I was being asked it?.

 

The answer is yes, certainly. I could live without either Normandy or Bodenplatte if it gave me the chance to do something…different…from the four releases beforehand.

 

To be clear; I have nothing against late war Russian aircraft. No ‘hate’ at all. 
In fact I’m pretty sure I’d really enjoy an La-7 in this iteration of the game. Over the twenty plus years I’ve been interested in this nonsense it’s been my overall favourite online clown wagon…..with the D9 a close second ?.

 

However, I and I think a fair few others simply do clamour for a change of direction….

 

 

Yep

I wouldn't mind an La-7 at all...I have a feeling we're going to see it.

 

 

Where/when is the question.

[migmadmarine]

36 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

 

Idk, Moscow, Stalingrad and the Kuban feel like very distinct environments to me. One is a misty northern forest landscape, one an open steppe and the last is a mountainous coastal region bordered by swamps. Each is a different tactical environment and feels noticeably different to me to a greater degree than the difference between Normandy and Bodenplatte. 

Conversely the pacific feels less distinct to me. You have... water and then... more water and some jungle islands... then more water... then a slightly larger jungle island. That is unless you're going to like Burma or Manchuria or something. 

This is part of why I think if/when carriers come, a "Il-2, Carrier Battles"  could be a good package for the early/mid pacific war, not strictly as the first  but as one of them. You could pretty well cover Midway and Coral Sea and maybe Santa Cruz islands all in one bundle since the carriers and aircraft compliments would be pretty similar to each other, and none of them would require much in the way of landmass to model for the maps. Release that after an adjacent more land based battle like the Solomons you could have a pretty good aircraft for the battle, though I admit the pacific ain't my strong suit. This would also potentially help with the issue for career mode with battles like Midway being only what, 4 days total? 

Edited December 2, 2022 by migmadmarine

[VBF-12_Pequod]

I dont't hate Eastern Front, but I'd love to see something... different.

[BlitzPig_EL]

While I have my preferences, I am going to purchase whatever comes out next.  I don't hate any theater, or aircraft (Well, the HS 129 I might hate a little).

 

The only thing that would stop me from buying a new "Battle" would be if they went all supersonic, BVR missile kills, and vectored thrusty on me.  NOPE.  Not now, not ever.

[Gambit21]

I'm actually a fan of the Yaks and La's. 

I had a lot of fun in the Yak 1 back in the BoS day. Never touched any of them back in 46.

It took me a minute when BoS hit... still had PTSD because of the Yak 4 "noob clown car" from 46. Could do an Immelmann from 3k below me and be on my tail in seconds.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Gambit21

[Ram399]

A "Battle of Bucharest" Eastern Front '44 remains my pipe dream, not sure when it became such but I want it.
Though I would obviously welcome any sort of Pacific DLC with wide open arms and a torpedo in my pocket, as Arthur put it.

It does seem to me that if this forum had it's way we would not allow the devs freedom until they'd modelled the entire war down to the most backwater skirmish, stay tuned for the Battle of Ethiopia 1935 coming in 2032.

 

[Dusty_Steppes]

I'll be right back. Gotta grab some more popcorn. ?

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

Oh…sorry. I wasn’t avoiding it. I just wasn’t aware I was being asked it?.

 

The answer is yes, certainly. I could live without either Normandy or Bodenplatte if it gave me the chance to do something…different…from the four releases beforehand.

 

 

Just to be clear, since the cutoff would be '43 (to equal the Russian cutoff), that would mean Normandy and Bodenplatte are off the table. You might be able to accept that, but I doubt many others would agree.

 

The truth is, planes like the P-51 (D model, specifically) are absolutely iconic and deserve to be made. I would never advocate (even if said advocacy goes unheeded) its omission on any grounds.

 

Likewise, the Yak-3 is among the greatest--possibly the greatest--low-level dogfighter(s) of the war. It is every bit as interesting as the P-51; probably not to a lot of people outside of Russia, but that doesn't change that it's an excellent plane that is worth putting in the sim.

 

The problem with kicking the Russian can down the road, is that it's likely to never be picked back up again. Certainly not by any other sim developers, if the Sturmovik team doesn't do it.

 

I just don't understand why the Pacific must come first, when we never thought the Pacific was doable at all, for years.

[Jaws2002]

6 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I'm actually a fan of the Yaks and La's. 

I had a lot of fun in the Yak 1 back in the BoS day. Never touched any of them back in 46.

It took me a minute when BoS hit... still had PTSD because of the Yak 4 "noob clown car" from 46. Could do an Immelmann from 3k below me and be on my tail in seconds.

 

 

In Il-2 46 i was feeling the same about Yak-3 and La-7. Those were the type of planes that you didn't have to think much. Just pull the stick in your belly and shoot when the enemy plane is in the sight.

 But I did like the the Yak-9U and YaK-9UT a lot. Very different planes compared to the Yak-3. Amazing climb, fast and better looks, with that long nose.

 

[Gambit21]

9 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

In Il-2 46 i was feeling the same about Yak-3 and La-7. Those were the type of planes that you didn't have to think much. Just pull the stick in your belly and shoot when the enemy plane is in the sight.

 But I did like the the Yak-9U and YaK-9UT a lot. Very different planes compared to the Yak-3. Amazing climb, fast and better looks, with that long nose.

 

 

Only Russian plane I flew in 46 was the I-16. I loved that thing.

Oddly I haven't flown it in this sim.

 

 

[oc2209]

2 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

In Il-2 46 i was feeling the same about Yak-3 and La-7. Those were the type of planes that you didn't have to think much. Just pull the stick in your belly and shoot when the enemy plane is in the sight.

 

Hey, I like not having to think sometimes.

 

I don't remember the La-7's handling, but the Yak-3 was like a 400MPH biplane.

 

I'm expecting something more nuanced this time around. Likely the Yak-9 will remain the best handling of them all (interestingly, only 500 were made as the sim depicts them--totally clean configuration; most -9s were subvariants that had crap added to them that degraded speed/handling). Which means the Yak-3 will probably handle slightly worse, but have far better acceleration/climb/top speed. Cleaner airframe in a dive, as well.

[oc2209]

25 minutes ago, Ram399 said:

It does seem to me that if this forum had it's way we would not allow the devs freedom until they'd modelled the entire war down to the most backwater skirmish, stay tuned for the Battle of Ethiopia 1935 coming in 2032.
 

 

Realistically, I don't see them ever making another Euro module prior to '43. Not if the Pacific is doable. If the Pacific was still a no-go, then backfilling Euro would've been unavoidable.

 

I wouldn't object to the Spanish Civil War, France '40, BoB, Poland '39, and Finland. But if it's that versus the Pacific, obviously Pacific wins for most people.

 

The holes in the early war lineups also aren't that massive. We've got the Spit V, Hurricane, 109E, P-39, and P-40. You can get some idea of early war combat from that mix. Most of the early Russian stuff has been covered as well. The only huge gap in Europe, from the years the game's already covered, '41-'45, is late Eastern Front. Everything else would require going back further than '41, or moving to less prominent fronts, or trying to make a map of an overly complex region, like a major city or Italy. None of it is commercially appealing to the devs, evidently.

[Cloyd]

Just give me a Tchaika and a Wildcat and stop all of this whining about who, where, and when! ?

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Late war Eastern Front can be done satisfactorily with some collector planes, as can early war ETO/Channel Battles scenarios, including the BoB (just gotta extend the map a little bit to the north and we're good there too).

 

What the devs should be focused on are core engine, game play, and graphics improvements to move the series forward to be able to achieve more diverse scenarios.

Edited December 3, 2022 by drewm3i-VR

[zan64]

2 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

ould be a good package for the early/mid pacific war, not strictly as the first  but as one of them. You could pretty well cover Midway and Coral Sea and maybe Santa Cruz islands all in one bundle since the carriers and aircraft compliments would be pretty similar to each other, and none of them would require much in the way of landmass to model for the maps. Release that after an adjacent more land based battle like the Solomons you could have a pretty good aircraft for the battle, though I admit the pacific ain't my strong suit. This would also potentially help with the issue for career mode with battles like Midway being only what, 4 days total? 

only problem with early pacific is that f4f wildcats are terrible, people will be screaming japanese bias. i think late war somewhere maybe better. i remember years ago Okinawa was talked about 

Edited December 3, 2022 by zan64

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, zan64 said:

only problem with early pacific is that f4f wildcats are terrible, people will be screaming japanese bias. i think late war somewhere maybe better. i remember years ago Okinawa was talked about 

Not at all.

The disparity between the 2 aircraft is part of the allure. Online it’s no problem either direction - I made my living making kills both directions back in 46.

 

Absolutely the only concern is programming the AI to handle the Wildcat BFM correctly.

 

 

[CountZero]

46 minutes ago, zan64 said:

only problem with early pacific is that f4f wildcats are terrible, people will be screaming japanese bias. i think late war somewhere maybe better. i remember years ago Okinawa was talked about 

F4F vs Zero in 42 is same as 109F4 vs Yak-1, best start for good DF.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I've shot down Zekes and Oscars with the Wildcat, and I've shot down the "uber" Hellcat with Oscars and Ki 61s, and A6M2Ns.

 

There is more to these aircraft than just numbers on a performance chart.

[CUJO_1970]

Here's what's going to happen:

 

1. The developers are going to utilize/enhance what content they have developed so far, to the best of their abilities and to the greatest extent possible.

2. They are going to do something involving ETO and most likely it will be EF-centric. Why? Because it's the natural progression, and because there is a metric poop ton of cool content still on the table there.

3. To this fact, they will also continue to grow the collector fleet, just as they've openly said they will do.

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Wardog5711
Replaced profanity

[DBFlyguy]

11 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

 

There is more to these aircraft than just numbers on a performance chart.

 

Careful using actual logic and documented historical facts around here... tends to make it difficult for some folks to just dismiss some aircraft as "poor fighters" with no context...

 

 

 

 

 

[oc2209]

30 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

and I've shot down the "uber" Hellcat with Oscars and Ki 61s, and A6M2Ns.

 

But did you do it while hammered? That's the important question.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadaaki_Akamatsu

[oc2209]

14 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

 

 

I own the 1/48 scale Hobby Master diecast model of this one. Bonnie, right? I'd recognize that scoreboard anywhere.

[Cpt_Cool]

The reason for the hate is - actually i think the russian planes are garbage. I could never be satisfied with western planes being cut of in '43 but I am totally fine with russian planes being handicapped. In fact, this pleases me. Because i have personal disdain for the people who like russian planes and want a late war eastern front game. Furthermore, the FACT that the pacific will have a dismally redundant planeset does not bother me either because i am a hypocrite. Lastly, but most important - I will try to influence the Devs by making posts on this forum and encouraging others to do the same. And good news - i am making progress. Soon the "russian cutoff" will be complete. If only you listened to oc2209 when you had the chance. He was right all along.

[SharkWolf2022]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Cool said:

The reason for the hate is - actually i think the russian planes are garbage. I could never be satisfied with western planes being cut of in '43 but I am totally fine with russian planes being handicapped. In fact, this pleases me. Because i have personal disdain for the people who like russian planes and want a late war eastern front game. Furthermore, the FACT that the pacific will have a dismally redundant planeset does not bother me either because i am a hypocrite. Lastly, but most important - I will try to influence the Devs by making posts on this forum and encouraging others to do the same. And good news - i am making progress. Soon the "russian cutoff" will be complete. If only you listened to oc2209 when you had the chance. He was right all along.

Please stop! You're drowning us with your sarcasm!

[PatrickAWlson]

On 12/1/2022 at 3:20 PM, DD_Arthur said:

Wake me up again when there’s a chance of getting wet…

 

There's a lake near Berlin.

[357th_KW]

What independent WW2 collector planes have been announced over the past few years since BoBp was released?  Yak-9, Yak-9T, Hurricane II (saw use on the eastern front), C-47/Li-2 (also saw use on the eastern front), IAR 80, and the Spit XIV.  So 1 of 6 isn't an eastern front aircraft.  

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think the eastern front has been forgotten, or won't get anymore content.

[SharkWolf2022]

4 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

What independent WW2 collector planes have been announced over the past few years since BoBp was released?  Yak-9, Yak-9T, Hurricane II (saw use on the eastern front), C-47/Li-2 (also saw use on the eastern front), IAR 80, and the Spit XIV.  So 1 of 6 isn't an eastern front aircraft.  

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think the eastern front has been forgotten, or won't get anymore content.

Less that we believe they've been forgotten (as you forgot the poor Ju52) and more that we assume that once the devs move on to the Pacific/Mediterranean the Eastern front will never get any new content again. Also, we will not be getting any late war Eastern Front planes because theyre will be no maps to accompany them.

[Eisenfaustus]

7 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Late war Eastern Front can be done satisfactorily with some collector planes,

Nope - I’d need a map and career to fly them in. So if EF was to be finished it had to be via a full release. Just like I couldn’t just get a wildcat and a zero, fly them over the Black Sea in qmb and claim Pacific’s done. 

[Jade_Monkey]

What a dumpster fire 

[CountZero]

7 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

What independent WW2 collector planes have been announced over the past few years since BoBp was released?  Yak-9, Yak-9T, Hurricane II (saw use on the eastern front), C-47/Li-2 (also saw use on the eastern front), IAR 80, and the Spit XIV.  So 1 of 6 isn't an eastern front aircraft.  

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think the eastern front has been forgotten, or won't get anymore content.

none of them is Yak-3 or La-7 ? 

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Nope - I’d need a map and career to fly them in. So if EF was to be finished it had to be via a full release. Just like I couldn’t just get a wildcat and a zero, fly them over the Black Sea in qmb and claim Pacific’s done. 

I am not there at all. I like things the majority do not. For me since 2001 cfs has always been make do with what you got. 
I always had to use my imagination in order to taste the scenario I like to have. 
I care not if one loop a he 111 I still fly it realistically. 
This is why MP put me off , it’s game play is simply fps counterstrike 

My all time fun is flying coop with mates against ai or scripted campaigns. Despite AI limitations they act more historical correct. No map in this game give me a recognisable feel. So I care not what I fly over. 
mid fmb or ME in this was like DCS or clod or old il 2 I made my own c47 missions my own Set of playground 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Lusekofte

[Cpt_Cool]

20 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

What a dumpster fire 

 

[Carl_infar]

Anyway as for me, i'll not but any next dlc with 109s, 190s or Yaks, ils etc. 

Theres quite enough of those currently