|| - It is time to make "Battle of France" - ||

[GOZR]

DCS making Korea.. IL2 making Korea.. Jason making Pacific..   I think Battle of France would do so well..  

[Monty_Thrud]

[Jackfraser24]

I would like a Battle of France too, but I don't think it is going to happen, or at least not with Great Battles.

Edited August 18 by Jackfraser24

[Blitzen]

I can see it all now..no ...really!

[Jackfraser24]

3 hours ago, Blitzen said:

I can see it all now..no ...really!

Looks good but the graphs and textures seem rather dated compared to Great Battles in my opinion. But they seem to have done an amazing job nonetheless with what they had. 

[kraut1]

 

[XQ_Lothar29]

I'm very happy with all the developments the developers have in mind. Everything they can offer us will always be good and will only get better.
But... I don't agree with them completely abandoning the development of future expansions and new aircraft for the IL-2 Great Battles series.
I think they could release collector aircraft and, at the same time, release maps to sell separately.
They would benefit financially, and so would we, because we don't want to see our simulator come to a complete standstill.

I sincerely hope the developers continue releasing aircraft and maps to keep IL-2 Great Battles alive.

[Aapje]

I don't understand this complaint at all. We are getting new planes and maps for GB going even beyond the release of Korea. Many a developer would have already put a bow on it when they started the development of the new engine.

 

At the end of the day, they built up a large collection of planes and maps on the GB engine over many years, but in the future, the Korea engine gets its turn to get a whole bunch of content, built on much better technology.  So you either get the choice to have much better content for the same level of developer effort (and thus price) or to have worse quality.

 

Of course, initially Korea won't benefit from the synergy that GB has with its many modules, but that is just temporary, and we already see plans for synergy between Korea and the Pacific, like the carriers that served in both wars.

 

So I think that you suffer from short term thinking. In the long term, it is not good for IL-2/1CGS to keep investing in increasingly subpar content. That sort of choice can result in a downward spiral where there will be ever fewer customers, thus fewer sales, so less development, so less customers, etc. In contrast, the new engine offers a chance of an upward spiral that is the opposite of this.

Edited September 8 by Aapje

[Jackfraser24]

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

I don't understand this complaint at all. We are getting new planes and maps for GB going even beyond the release of Korea. Many a developer would have already put a bow on it when they started the development of the new engine.

 

At the end of the day, they built up a large collection of planes and maps on the GB engine over many years, but in the future, the Korea engine gets its turn to get a whole bunch of content, built on much better technology.  So you either get the choice to have much better content for the same level of developer effort (and thus price) or to have worse quality.

 

Of course, initially Korea won't benefit from the synergy that GB has with its many modules, but that is just temporary, and we already see plans for synergy between Korea and the Pacific, like the carriers that served in both wars.

 

So I think that you suffer from short term thinking. In the long term, it is not good for IL-2/1CGS to keep investing in increasingly subpar content. That sort of choice can result in a downward spiral where there will be ever fewer customers, thus fewer sales, so less development, so less customers, etc. In contrast, the new engine offers a chance of an upward spiral that is the opposite of this.

As much as I love Great Battles, I don't think I have been looking the full picture (aka long term) either. 

[Kubert]

In my opinion keeping GB alive with new content alongside Korea would do no harm. You must take into consideration that there won't be huge migration from GB to Korea. It is not like GB gets abandoned over night. Many people don't have up to date PC for Korea or just aren't interested in Korean war or jet planes. The same way as not everyone owns Flying Circus...because there are people who came specifically for world war II aviation. I actually think it is very smart to release S&L and Korea at a similar time. It can keep interested more people. If GB will be totally discontinued, people who are interested in WWII eastern or western front won't have any new content on the horizon for a years. And that can also mean less customers over time. I personally definitely want S&L, but I am not sure about Korea. It is conflict I am not interested in and I don't have much time to play two sims simultaneously. GB for me have still tons of content already I didn't have opportunity to try yet. We can't simply count that people will buy anything what comes just because it is newer, people have preferences.

[ST_Catchov]

41 minutes ago, Kubert said:

Many people don't have up to date PC for Korea or just aren't interested in Korean war or jet planes.

 

True. Or couldn't be bothered to upgrade their PC's when GB runs perfectly fine on older mid-range rigs.

 

42 minutes ago, Kubert said:

because there are people who came specifically for world war II aviation.

 

And WW1 aviation.

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

In my opinion keeping GB alive with new content alongside Korea would do no harm.

 

Except that it takes developer resources away from Korea. If you don't accept that this tradeoff exists and discuss it seriously, then your argument is little more than wishful thinking, the idea that you can have it all. But this is obviously false.

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

You must take into consideration that there won't be huge migration from GB to Korea. It is not like GB gets abandoned over night.

 

And GB won't stop working, so people can enjoy it plenty, if they abandon the idea that they will get new planes & maps, once S & L is done. But they can still make new content like campaigns.

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

Many people don't have up to date PC for Korea

 

I don't see people with slow PCs as a good reason not to invest in Korea/Pacific, because over time the hardware that is sufficient to run the game will become cheaper. Then the people who upgrade later still get to enjoy all the content that is being created, just a little later.

 

And you forget about the other side of the coin, where people with powerful enough hardware miss out of all kinds of benefits if the effort goes to GB, rather than the Korea engine/content.

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

or just aren't interested in Korean war or jet planes.

 

This engine will be used for the Pacific as well, and some of the content will transfer over. So it's not like the investments being made are purely for Korea. And Korea will not only cover jet planes.

 

You have to keep in mind that fans of flight sims in WW 2 Europe, have had 10 years of content, while fans of Korea and the Pacific have had very little. So I actually think that it is quite inappropriate to demand even more content for that region/era just because you have a lack of interest in anything else. Do you understand how entitled this comes across to me?

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

If GB will be totally discontinued, people who are interested in WWII eastern or western front won't have any new content on the horizon for a years. And that can also mean less customers over time.

 

You can also take a far different perspective, which is that people with only that interest have lots of content that they can replay, create missions/campaigns for, etc; while a whole group of players did not have their interests catered to, so we may see a lot of new players with an interest in jets/Korea/The Pacific/carriers/etc.

 

But again this boils down to a willingness to accept that sometimes the interests of others get catered to, rather than your own, and objectively speaking there is not that much to complain about given how very privileged you've been with the extent to which you already got things that you enjoy. And what you got is not going away, while fans of Korea and the Pacific don't even have a somewhat modern IL-2 game for those eras to play.

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

I personally definitely want S&L, but I am not sure about Korea. It is conflict I am not interested in and I don't have much time to play two sims simultaneously. GB for me have still tons of content already I didn't have opportunity to try yet. We can't simply count that people will buy anything what comes just because it is newer, people have preferences.

 

The way it generally works is that something new will draw in people, including many casual people who like new things in limited doses, while more of the same tends to create fatigue after a while and people checking out, whether that is superhero movies or WW2 flight sims in the European theater. So my expectation is lots of people coming into the game, including people from DCS with a jet interest. I can see Korea working as a gateway drug, where they come for the jets, and then discover that the the piston planes are actually a lot of fun.

 

And that you currently are happy enough to play S & L is absolutely fine, but your reasoning doesn't seem all that persuasive to me. There is absolutely no reason why you have to play Korea directly after release, so you can just play S & L until you want something new and then Korea may very well appeal to you at that point. None of us have seen the finished product anyway, so at this point most opinions on IL-2 Korea are ultimately just speculation.

 

And as usual you forget you take yourself as the benchmark and forget about people with different interests. I personally choose not to get S & L, because I am happy with the content I have for now, and suspect that once Korea is released, I wouldn't spend much time in S & L. So different people exists, and you have to look beyond your own interests.

Edited September 9 by Aapje

[Enceladus828]

5 hours ago, Kubert said:

In my opinion keeping GB alive with new content alongside Korea would do no harm.

A proper Battle of France installment for GBs will not happen unless someone gets in there and retextures the BoN and western side of the BoBP map to 1940 and makes the necessary aircraft (Luke declared that no further GBs modules are being developed). And to be fair, the GBs technology at this point can be deemed outdated or obsolete by 3rd party teams so it makes sense to just make this project in the Korea engine.

[kraut1]

2 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

A proper Battle of France installment for GBs will not happen unless someone gets in there and retextures the BoN and western side of the BoBP map to 1940 and makes the necessary aircraft (Luke declared that no further GBs modules are being developed). And to be fair, the GBs technology at this point can be deemed outdated or obsolete by 3rd party teams so it makes sense to just make this project in the Korea engine.

I agree,

What is possible now from my point of view:

-To deleted all later 1941-1945 airfields by editing the surface and by deleting the static blocks from the template and to edit the GUI maptiles.

-To replace too big for BoB Airfields (e.g.: Manston with the late war huge emergency landing runway) by copy / paste with surfaces of existing smaller grass airfields.

-Maybe we will get the Blenheim, Morane406 and the Curtis75 by the finnish team.

-I fly the BF109-E7 as the E3:

   -with  20mm standard (russian) he shells (the mine shell was first used with the E4)

   -with removed / cut armor plate

   -cockpit plate with the hint about the automatic propeller control replaced by modified plate with hint about new manual propeller control at throttle lever.

   -with manual propeller control during flight

Edited September 9 by kraut1

[Kubert]

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

If you don't accept that this tradeoff exists and discuss it seriously,

I don't know why you think I didn't accept the tradeoff. I never specified what I mean by keeping GB alive. I don't mean full scale modules. But let's say only map with new career mode for planes already made. Pacific maps should be less demanding to make with less big towns and plenty of water. That could possibly free resources...but I know new map was already ruled out, so scratch that. It was just opinion. But scripted campaigns or something smaller in scale could be realistic. 

 

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

 

I don't see people with slow PCs as a good reason not to invest in Korea/Pacific, because over time the hardware that is sufficient to run the game will become cheaper.

Well fact is, that for people who have no PC for Korea, there is no reason to buy it immidiately. And 2-3 years later they'll buy it on sale. But those people can still buy new content for GB at day one for full price.

 

5 hours ago, Aapje said:

I actually think that it is quite inappropriate to demand even more content for that region/era just because you have a lack of interest in anything else. Do you understand how entitled this comes across to me?

I never said that Korea shouldn't be made. I only pointing out that, in my opinion, is wise to keep supporting GB with new content alongside Korea for various reasons. At least until Pacific comes. Because I believe Pacific is the best middle ground for people who like WWII era and people who are eager for jet age of Korea. Another thing...why entitled? It is like saying that players of Euro Truck Simulator are entitled because they want more trucks and not F1 cars. I came to IL2 series purely for WWII. It is not being entitled. It is keeping my interest. If my interest were jets, I would probably play DCS. Also, I never ruled out Korea and probably will buy it at some point.

 

5 hours ago, Aapje said:

 

But again this boils down to a willingness to accept that sometimes the interests of others get catered to, rather than your own, and objectively speaking there is not that much to complain about given how very privileged you've been with the extent to which you already got things that you enjoy. And what you got is not going away, while fans of Korea and the Pacific don't even have a somewhat modern IL-2 game for those eras to play.

I am willing to accept that there are people who want Korea more than another WWII content. I am not a bad guy here fighting against Korea. I don't know if my english sucks and keep explaining myself some arogant way, that I sound entitled and privileged. 

 

5 hours ago, Aapje said:

 

And as usual you forget you take yourself as the benchmark and forget about people with different interests. I personally choose not to get S & L, because I am happy with the content I have for now, and suspect that once Korea is released, I wouldn't spend much time in S & L. So different people exists, and you have to look beyond your own interests.

This is discuss forum. What else should I say if not my opinions? I never forgot about people with different interests. That's why I never said Korea is a bad thing. Because again, I am not against Korea. Simply explaining my own subjective point of view and not pretending that what I am saying is objective truth. 

 

Everyone is free to disagree with me.

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

I don't know why you think I didn't accept the tradeoff.

 

Because you said that adding more content to GB "would do no harm". But every map, plane, campaign, etc they make for GB, takes resources away from Korea & the Pacific and thus means less content for the new engine. Thus that harms the new engine and the modules for it, and thus by extension the fans of that engine and those modules.

 

So you phrased it in a very deceptive way where you make it seem like your request harms no one, while the actual reality is that you want more stuff that you like, at the expense of stuff that you don't like (as much), which is harmful to those who don't share your likes. Note that I'm not saying that you were intentionally deceptive, but intent doesn't matter for the impact that the words have.

 

I don't mind the selfishness as much as not openly and plainly making it clear what harms to others you want. Because at that point we can have an honest conversation about whether your request is reasonable, but not so much when there is the false implication that what you are asking has no downsides and that there is thus no reasonable reason to oppose it.

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

But let's say only map with new career mode for planes already made. Pacific maps should be less demanding to make with less big towns and plenty of water.

 

I'm very confused about your request. This is a topic for Battle of France, but what you actually want is a Pacific map for GB? How does this make any sense at all, when the existing planes are not suitable for a Pacific module. What existing axis planes do you expect to fight in the Pacific, Bf 109s?

 

You will get your Pacific maps, but in a way that makes way more sense, with appropriate planes, carriers and a new future proof game engine with many benefits.

 

I am actually truly flabbergasted by how unreasonable this request appears to me. To be clear, if you are happy with a Pacific module, then you lose out on at most a module and a half due to the choice to do Korea first. But actually less than that, because the carriers and some of the planes that they will develop for Korea, will also benefit the Pacific module(s), so if they didn't do Korea first, then they would have to spend more time on the Pacific development, and it would thus still not be here as quickly as the Korea module.

 

How much are you actually missing out on, given that S & L is getting released very close to Korea? So if you ignore Korea, you should have about 3-4 years between the release of a module you like and another module you like, which is actually not much different from how long you had to wait in the past, with the GB modules.

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

But scripted campaigns or something smaller in scale could be realistic.

 

1CGS never actually made all that many scripted campaigns for the game. If I'm not mistaken, they were actually all made by a single 1CGS developer, BlackSix. He is already working on the S & L career, and strongly suspect that he spends all the excess time he has on new scripted campaigns anyway, so any more focus on scripted campaigns would come at the expense of his other tasks and is thus not a reasonable thing to ask.

 

Quite a few of the official campaigns are just made by fans, and then integrated into the game package. And of course there are lots more scripted campaigns that you can download from the forum. So if you want more scripted campaigns, you should look to the community, and that can include yourself.

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

Well fact is, that for people who have no PC for Korea, there is no reason to buy it immediately. And 2-3 years later they'll buy it on sale. But those people can still buy new content for GB at day one for full price.

 

My expectation is that the release of Korea or even its announcement, result in a much lesser willingness to buy GB content at full price. But of course I don't know the sales figures and 1CGS are not going to share that.

 

But in general I would say that the financial argument is not going to be in your favor if you want to argue for releasing more content for an old game engine, rather than the new one.

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

I never said that Korea shouldn't be made. I only pointing out that, in my opinion, is wise to keep supporting GB with new content alongside Korea for various reasons.

 

1CGS has limited resources, so I think that it is unreasonable to expect them to do two things at one. Do you want two things to be done poorly, or one thing to be done right?

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

At least until Pacific comes. Because I believe Pacific is the best middle ground for people who like WWII era and people who are eager for jet age of Korea.

 

But your demand that they put less effort into content for the new engine means that it will longer for a Pacific module to arrive.

 

4 hours ago, Kubert said:

Another thing...why entitled? It is like saying that players of Euro Truck Simulator are entitled because they want more trucks and not F1 cars. I came to IL2 series purely for WWII. It is not being entitled.

 

Firstly because you actually got your way again and again, while fans of Korea haven't seen a proper flight sim for that war since 1999. Imagine being mom's favorite child and her always making food you like, while your brother never gets what he wants. Then one day mom decides to make what he wants for once. Then you can either recognize how privileged you've been all that time and accept just once not getting what you want, or you can complain, and I would indeed call that entitlement.

 

Secondly, because I think that your complaint is actually extremely unreasonable, given that historically, it has taken between 1-3 years to release a new WW 2 module. With S & L arriving close to Korea, and there being a Carrier (half)-module in between, I wouldn't imagine that it takes longer than 4 years between the release of (the completed) S & L and the release of the Pacific module. It wouldn't even be particularly unreasonable for there to be a 4-year gap to the first module on a new engine, given that developing that engine costs huge effort.

 

So even if someone sees zero value in the Korea module, then I still don't see how as a WW2 fan, they have all that much to complain about with how soon they will get another WW2 module after S & L, especially since the Pacific module will have lots of additional benefits next to the new map and new planes, compared to S & L.

 

Also keep in mind that Korea will have all the bugs of the new game engine, so once they get to the Pacific module, the new engine should be sorted out way more. So that's another benefit of the Korea module, even to those who ignore that module completely.

Edited September 9 by Aapje

[Kubert]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

 

I'm very confused about your request. This is a topic for Battle of France, but what you actually want is a Pacific map for GB?

NO. I meant Pacific map for module after Korea...for new engine, not GB.

 

There are more things I could react to, but I leave it. It is off topic anyway and we obviously thinking differently. In the end, we both know nothing and only wasting time here. Devs have theirs plans so we can just wait and see. 

[Jackfraser24]

On 9/9/2025 at 5:05 PM, kraut1 said:

-I fly the BF109-E7 as the E3:

   -with  20mm standard (russian) he shells (the mine shell was first used with the E4)

   -with removed / cut armor plate

   -cockpit plate with the hint about the automatic propeller control replaced by modified plate with hint about new manual propeller control at throttle lever.

   -with manual propeller control during flight

Soon, you won't have to. The E-4 is coming soon, and that saw service in the Battle of France, right?

[kraut1]

On 9/12/2025 at 3:43 PM, Jackfraser24 said:

Soon, you won't have to. The E-4 is coming soon, and that saw service in the Battle of France, right?

No sorry, during the Battle of France the E3 (and E1) was used.

The E4 will be great for the Battle of Britain, the E4 was in service since August 40, parallel together with the E3

 

https://www.mediafire.com/file/kfaxgt9nsb15xnw/1940_Battle_of_France_Mod_vD.zip/file

 

 

 

Edited October 18 by kraut1