What's with all the Late War Eastern Front hate?

[Aleksander55]

1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

 

No, they did not say that, nor have they ever said that. The issue is the amount of time and resources it takes to develop such large objects.

Ah, okay, I read many comments seeming to indicate this. Thanks for the clarification.

[Gambit21]

7 minutes ago, Aleksander55 said:

Ah, okay, I read many comments seeming to indicate this. 

 

That's because people have thick skulls.

 

As Luke said it's about developer resources/time investment vs return on that effort.

At best it's risky, and likely wouldn't end up penciling out.

 

 

 

[Halon]

Spoiler

No hate from me, got this from Santa!

[newbravado]

I suggest late war Eastern Front.

[Lusekofte]

The devs talk about realism all the time. How can one simulate a broken lw with No fuel , against hordes of allied bombers and attackers in a Simulator not making bombers last 4 years 

[Koziolek]

 

 

48 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

 How can one simulate a broken lw with No fuel , against hordes of allied bombers and attackers 

Do you really want this kind of realism in a game? It would mean that flying as a RAF fighter at the end of the war you would see the enemy once every 30 missions. And from far away. I don't suppose this would sell very well ?

[Lusekofte]

3 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

 

 

Do you really want this kind of realism in a game? It would mean that flying as a RAF fighter at the end of the war you would see the enemy once every 30 missions. And from far away. I don't suppose this would sell very well ?

No but historically speaking neglecting rubbish fuel quality and quantity , no sufficiently trained pilots, most ME 262 never reach operational squadrons, absolutely no metal to build with. You basically make a what if. No historical substance at all 

And that tells the story about what GB has become. People want faster not realistic. 
no I do not want late war east front. Because it contain improved versions we flown all along. And will be even more fps focused. 
If this happens I ditch my ownership of licences. Not because I hate it, simply because it bores me to death. 
I think it is a real shame Battle of France never came along. When Luftwaffe was at it strongest. There is a lot of good lw staffels here to replicate that. 
Besides late war will mean Berlin, if they can do that, they can do Italy too

[Trooper117]

On 12/24/2022 at 10:08 PM, Halon said:

  Hide contents

No hate from me, got this from Santa!

 

Rubbish book, it's all propaganda I tells ya...  ?

[Bonnot]

8 hours ago, Koziolek said:

flying as a RAF fighter at the end of the war you would see the enemy once every 30 missions.

...If you read Clostermann   ( Tempest sqLdr) or Galland  it is not like this Peace and love till the last week......

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Bonnot

[LukeFF]

Just now, Bonnot said:

...If you read Clostermann   ( Tempest sqLdr)  it is not like this Peace and love till the last week......

 

Clostermann is but one source, and isn't always the most accurate. The original RAF squadron logs make it clear that contact with the Luftwaffe was very, very rare in the last months of the war.

[danielprates]

9 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

No but historically speaking neglecting rubbish fuel quality and quantity , no sufficiently trained pilots, most ME 262 never reach operational squadrons, absolutely no metal to build with. You basically make a what if. No historical substance at all 

And that tells the story about what GB has become. People want faster not realistic. 
no I do not want late war east front. Because it contain improved versions we flown all along. And will be even more fps focused. 
If this happens I ditch my ownership of licences. Not because I hate it, simply because it bores me to death. 
I think it is a real shame Battle of France never came along. When Luftwaffe was at it strongest. There is a lot of good lw staffels here to replicate that. 
Besides late war will mean Berlin, if they can do that, they can do Italy too

 

All excellent points.

[deathmisser]

Again it's not really hate it's more fatigue than anything else. 

 

As we got three modules covering the eastern front and only two western fronts.

I sure the same arguments will come up again for the other side when there's like 4 modules for the western front.

 

I think three for each theatre will be fair.

[Lusekofte]

I like to see more bombers. If I get that I do not care much where. 
I also like to get their gunners tweaked so they got a chance considering gameplay. It should be very deadly for a fighter coming in steady within the gunners zone of fire   Force the fighters to deflection shoot. It will give planes with defensive fire a fighting chance. There are so much bs about realism. This game is not real. No matter where we go ahead. Let gameplay be equal for everybody within  a reasonable limit

[CanadaOne]

All I know is I don't have an IL-10. 

 

This is not good. ?

[Aleksander55]

I understand the side of being burned out from 'always the same thing' by now. I'm coming back from pretty much 20 years of burnout from flight simulators. I can see how people who kept on during this time may be tired of east front right now, even more given that the original IL-2 pratically carried the torch of CFSs for all this time. This is not even considering the current political happening that we are discouraged to talk about.

 

(BTW, I don't think I need to say this, but I'm against the current political happening. I see youtubers still talking about soviet WW2 aircraft and nobody calls them P*t*n lickers.)

 

The trouble is that people saying they're tired of the same thing from the top of a mountain of late war german and american/british aircraft, including jets, doesn't really convince me of much. Did they stop playing with their Normandy and Boddenplate aircraft when they said they are tired? No? Are they going to stop playing with them if both Pacific and Late East don't get realised? No? Sorry, but 'I'm tired of the same thing' means nothing to me.

 

All this discussion is useless anyway, the devs will focus on what sells and I doubt it's a comercially smart decision to launch late east right now. Thanks P*t*n.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Aleksander55

[DD_Arthur]

7 minutes ago, Aleksander55 said:

 

The trouble is that saying you're tired of the same thing from the top of a mountain of late war german and american/british aircraft, including jets, doesn't really convince me of much. Did your stop playing with you Normandy and Boddenplate aircraft when you said you are tired? No? Are you going to stop playing with them if both Pacific and Late East don't get realised? No? 

Er….actually yes. I have. After five episodes of low level, tactical mud-moving followed by a predictable fighter punch up I’ve lost my mojo for ‘kersplosions.

Got nothing really to do with east or west.  Pretty sure most of my online time has been spent in a Yak?.

 

I’ve just had my fill of this sort of stuff for the time being. 
 

Looking forward to a new vision from the new management.

[Aleksander55]

1 minute ago, DD_Arthur said:

Er….actually yes. I have. After five episodes of low level, tactical mud-moving followed by a predictable fighter punch up I’ve lost my mojo for ‘kersplosions.

Got nothing really to do with east or west.  Pretty sure most of my online time has been spent in a Yak?.

 

I’ve just had my fill of this sort of stuff for the time being. 
 

Looking forward to a new vision from the new management.

 

Fair enough. I have to revise my point, I can believe the burnout, but can't help being envious of later war aircraft anyway ?. Sorry.

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Aleksander55 said:

 

Fair enough. I have to revise my point, I can believe the burnout, but can't help being envious of later war aircraft anyway ?. Sorry.

 

No need to apologise.  Sounds like you've come full circle. 

 

 

 

[=CFC=Conky]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:32 AM, VBF-12_Pequod said:

Flying Tigers would be awesome indeed.

 

Not with the current state of the Allison engines it wouldn't. ?

[SharkWolf2022]

 

On 12/30/2022 at 3:40 PM, DD_Arthur said:

Er….actually yes. I have. After five episodes of low level, tactical mud-moving followed by a predictable fighter punch up I’ve lost my mojo for ‘kersplosions.

Got nothing really to do with east or west.  Pretty sure most of my online time has been spent in a Yak?.

 

I’ve just had my fill of this sort of stuff for the time being. 
 

Looking forward to a new vision from the new management.

The only thing I would absolutely not buy is Jets. DCS already exists for Jets and IL-2 should stay focused on World War II. (Especially since I only play single player and DCS single player is horse?).

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Wardog5711
Replaced profanity

[FlyinCoffin]

Idont think the warthog single player is horse ?. havent played yet and wont play it.

 

legion condor would be real fun.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Wardog5711
Replaced profanity

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, SharkWolf2022 said:

DCS single player is horse?).

In this you have totally opposite opinion than me. But I fly only choppers in DCs and SU 25

[Crocogator]

Il2 just needs to provide AI punching bag heavy bomber formations

for the next expansion, please, Guadalcanal: recycle the P39 and P40 (with some modification) and work on the brand new zero and ki43. This matchup alone would be much more interesting than 109/190 versus everything.

[Cravis]

To me it would just be more of the same.

The terrain is isn't really interesting as it would be just another area of the European plain.

The units would be largely the same except some end war soviet planes. The mission sets would be the same. 

It is just more of the same.  

That would make it a disappointing outlook to me. I would rather like something which brings some needed changes and alternating gameplay to the game like e.g. naval aviation with vastly different units in e.g. a Pacific Theater. And before you type away yea yea not going to happen but that is my problem ain't it?

The rather limited scope of IL2GB kinda run its course with me and I did not play nearly as long as many other here have. Even lets say a Mediterranean campaign as many asked for would be kinda more of the same to me. Good for MP because another map, one certainly far more interesting than another area of the European plain, and some new units. But in general that's also about it.

The issue here for me would be that those expansion do not real introduce new game play mechanics or challanges. For example recently I finally got around to play some BoN pilot career and on the German side with the Bf109 I rather quickly noticed that I kinda miss a drop tank. The cruising parts of the mission are so long you get barely any fuel for actual combat unless you accept you are not going back to the home airfield. But afaik drop tanks have been shelved again.

And while I get it that it is a lot of work, that would still be a pretty small addition to the game overall. (I guess that is the reason they are not going thru with it)

 

I guess what I'm looking for would be changes that make the experience more dynamic and varied in general and more so in SP than MP. 

For example more mission variations e.g. I don't want to intercept the 12x H111/B25/B26 at 2km altitude all the time. But the game does not have AI B17 or Lancaster and seemingly no mission in career mode in which you would intercept bombers at 6 to 8km altitude.

That is also why I would prefer a Pacific Theater expansion as naval aviation and carrier operations would be something we currently do not have. Trying to dive/torpedo bomb Musashi would be exhilarating.

Another gripes would be that the career always plays out the same yes it is IL2Gb stick to reenact history but that's also somewhat a weakness. A dynamic campaign like BMS would be much more interesting.

Or the introduction of dynamic/random mission events in career mode e.g. you start on a patrol/free hunt mission and then half way in you are recalled due to an airfield attack (think of the Royale Griffon campaign), or you are redirected because a bomber formation was spotted etc. Something that makes missions a bit less predictable.

Also more mission variety in career mode would be something. The issue here seems to be that what a squadron does mostly depends on what squadron it is. For example if you joined a squadron that mostly did defense duty you probably get the same set of free hunt and intercept bomber/attacker missions back to back all the time to the point the career progresses and then you get the next set of repeating missions. While histrionically accurate (to a point) it is as gameplay monotonous and boring especially because the missions themselves follow a very similar if not the same mission parameters all the time. 

I read a blog post about reconnaissance missions for FC a while back. Did they ever release that?  I never got one of those in the WW2 expansions. That would be a breeze of fresh air.

 

In all fairness I somewhat gave up of them expanding the scope of what IL2GB is. I guess the only truly exciting news will be their new project and if it could fill that hole of mine.

[BMA_FlyingShark]

20 hours ago, =CFC=Conky said:

 

Not with the current state of the Allison engines it wouldn't. ?

Maybe Flying Tigers would be the perfect moment to review the Allison engines.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[SharkWolf2022]

4 hours ago, Cravis said:

To me it would just be more of the same.

The terrain is isn't really interesting as it would be just another area of the European plain.

The units would be largely the same except some end war soviet planes. The mission sets would be the same. 

It is just more of the same.  

That would make it a disappointing outlook to me. I would rather like something which brings some needed changes and alternating gameplay to the game like e.g. naval aviation with vastly different units in e.g. a Pacific Theater. And before you type away yea yea not going to happen but that is my problem ain't it?

The rather limited scope of IL2GB kinda run its course with me and I did not play nearly as long as many other here have. Even lets say a Mediterranean campaign as many asked for would be kinda more of the same to me. Good for MP because another map, one certainly far more interesting than another area of the European plain, and some new units. But in general that's also about it.

The issue here for me would be that those expansion do not real introduce new game play mechanics or challanges. For example recently I finally got around to play some BoN pilot career and on the German side with the Bf109 I rather quickly noticed that I kinda miss a drop tank. The cruising parts of the mission are so long you get barely any fuel for actual combat unless you accept you are not going back to the home airfield. But afaik drop tanks have been shelved again.

And while I get it that it is a lot of work, that would still be a pretty small addition to the game overall. (I guess that is the reason they are not going thru with it)

 

I guess what I'm looking for would be changes that make the experience more dynamic and varied in general and more so in SP than MP. 

For example more mission variations e.g. I don't want to intercept the 12x H111/B25/B26 at 2km altitude all the time. But the game does not have AI B17 or Lancaster and seemingly no mission in career mode in which you would intercept bombers at 6 to 8km altitude.

That is also why I would prefer a Pacific Theater expansion as naval aviation and carrier operations would be something we currently do not have. Trying to dive/torpedo bomb Musashi would be exhilarating.

Another gripes would be that the career always plays out the same yes it is IL2Gb stick to reenact history but that's also somewhat a weakness. A dynamic campaign like BMS would be much more interesting.

Or the introduction of dynamic/random mission events in career mode e.g. you start on a patrol/free hunt mission and then half way in you are recalled due to an airfield attack (think of the Royale Griffon campaign), or you are redirected because a bomber formation was spotted etc. Something that makes missions a bit less predictable.

Also more mission variety in career mode would be something. The issue here seems to be that what a squadron does mostly depends on what squadron it is. For example if you joined a squadron that mostly did defense duty you probably get the same set of free hunt and intercept bomber/attacker missions back to back all the time to the point the career progresses and then you get the next set of repeating missions. While histrionically accurate (to a point) it is as gameplay monotonous and boring especially because the missions themselves follow a very similar if not the same mission parameters all the time. 

I read a blog post about reconnaissance missions for FC a while back. Did they ever release that?  I never got one of those in the WW2 expansions. That would be a breeze of fresh air.

 

In all fairness I somewhat gave up of them expanding the scope of what IL2GB is. I guess the only truly exciting news will be their new project and if it could fill that hole of mine.

Late war Manchuria would be a much better option IMO. Could get late war soviet aircraft as well as some Japanese aircraft. Would be perfect! 

Personally, I'm not a big fan of any US aircraft outside some of the bombers and the bearcat so losing out on US aircraft (which we already have late war aircraft for) in favor of late war soviet aircraft(which we dont have at all) would make me much happier.