The status of the yet-to-be-announced title

[ITAF_Artiglio]

A first screen of the new updates that will come...?

[Trooper117]

Yep, I'd be happy with that... just a shame it isn't going to happen...

[BlitzPig_EL]

I believe the original info from the devs said "mostly propeller based", so that infers to me that there will be some jets.  That leaves two scenarios, very late East Front, or, early Korea.  Personally I'd much rather see early CBI, Flying Tigers P40s and RAF Buffalos over Rangoon on Christmas Day, but I really doubt that is going to happen.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

So then if Korea, the devs will be not including the carrier based activity that occurred (US and British) throughout the conflict?   Or have they signaled they are now ready to implement aircraft carriers?

 

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[DD_Crash]

Who knows, besides the Devs. If it isnt compatible with the current GBS (even as an upgraded engine)then I can see a split happening in some squads. DCS is making BIG inroads with the DangerDogz and I have a feeling that Jason's project will have an effect on what people want to do on squad nights hurting numbers even more.

Edited November 6, 2023 by DD_Crash

[Lusekofte]

38 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

So then if Korea, the devs will be not including the carrier based activity that occurred (US and British) throughout the conflict?   Or have they signaled they are now ready to implement aircraft carriers?

 

 

No carriers they said. I hope at least their new game engine allow for a good chopper fm. 
I will not deem it in a negative way since we do not know what happening. I know my curiosity for new sim will make me buy it anyway. But how much I will use it is yet to be seen.

In my opinion it is time they show us what they have in mind
 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Lusekofte

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

30 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

No carriers they said. I hope at least their new game engine allow for a good chopper fm. 
I will not deem it in a negative way since we do not know what happening. I know my curiosity for new sim will make me buy it anyway. But how much I will use it is yet to be seen.

In my opinion it is time they show us what they have in mind
 

That's what I remember regarding the carriers as well..  Carrier based sorties certainly a big part of Korean conflict.

Edited November 6, 2023 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/korean-war/korea-ships-aircraft.html

 

 

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 I'd much rather see early CBI, Flying Tigers P40s and RAF Buffalos over Rangoon on Christmas Day…

That would be fantastic - there’s something about the P-40, those early   Kittyhawks… would be just lovely. With a proper engine model that is.

Theres’s also something appealing about the Oscar plinking away with those door-knocker machine guns.

Give me the Hudson too.

 

 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

That's what I remember regarding the carriers as well..  Carrier based sorties certainly a big part of Korean conflict.

When i think about mid to late ww2 at west front i see big 4 engined bombers and LW fighters attacking them...  how do we have TWO late war west front DLC and 0 4 engined bombers, and ppl still buy and played it.

 

Korea do not need carriers as mutch as west front ww2 needs big bombers, and we got 2 DLCs for it.

Edited November 6, 2023 by CountZero

[Trooper117]

Yes, Corsairs on carriers... but there were also ground based Corsairs during the Korean conflict... do we have to keep on telling people that?

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, Trooper117 said:

Yes, Corsairs on carriers... but there were also ground based Corsairs during the Korean conflict... do we have to keep on telling people that?

Apparently 

[MAJ_stug41]

Corsair without carriers would feel like toast without butter

[357th_KW]

13 minutes ago, MAJ_stug41 said:

Corsair without carriers would feel like toast without butter

 

Most of the Corsair's time in service in WW2 was spent flying from air strips.

[Irishratticus72]

2 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

 

Most of the Corsair's time in service in WW2 was spent flying from air strips.

*Cough, VMF 214.

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

51 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Yes, Corsairs on carriers... but there were also ground based Corsairs during the Korean conflict... do we have to keep on telling people that?

Nope.  No need to restate the obvious. Not sure why you think it is.   But yes, aircraft carriers were important in Korean conflict, and not just for corsairs. Funny how you guys ignore that.  Heck, they can just airstart the naval planes right?  Lol. Might as well do the Solomons,  or Malta then if lack of carriers is not important. 

 

I believe there were more carrier based Corsairs than land based in Korea.  But would need to confirm that..

 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

 

Most of the Corsair's time in service in WW2 was spent flying from air .

If that's true, then no need to avoid the Solomons.   But im not so sure that statement is correct.  Maybe?

Edited November 6, 2023 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[MAJ_stug41]

54 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

Most of the Corsair's time in service in WW2 was spent flying from air strips.

Ya and a vast majority of those who contribute to fighting a war are driving trucks, riveting rivets, or shoveling ----, but nobody wants to do that. We want to do the fun thing, flying iconic aircraft in exciting environments.

Edited November 6, 2023 by LukeFF
profanity

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

19 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

*Cough, VMF 214.

 

Would love it..  

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, MAJ_stug41 said:

Ya and a vast majority of those who contribute to fighting a war are driving trucks, riveting rivets, or shoveling ----, but nobody wants to do that. We want to do the fun thing, flying iconic aircraft in exciting environments.

I never realized that creating a VMF 214/Blacksheep campaign would be the same as a truck driving or shoveling campaign. Maybe I won’t bother them when the time comes.

Thanks for the deep insight - and here I’ve been wasting my time reading history books.

 

 

[MAJ_stug41]

A vmf214 campaign for korea, thatd require carriers, or for wwii, for which at this point you'd have to do it for combat pilot, not il2?

[Gambit21]

16 minutes ago, MAJ_stug41 said:

A vmf214 campaign for korea, thatd require carriers, or for wwii, for which at this point you'd have to do it for combat pilot, not il2?

Point missed

 

 

…or intentionally deflected.

I said “when the time comes”

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Gambit21

[Lusekofte]

If we believe it is Korea. Well if it is, we need to give some slack. 
In current game engine we seen no torpedoes, no float planes and no carriers. 
I for one do understand they would not make a new thing and promise something we did not have in old game engine. 
It make sense, albeit Korea loose some of its charm in my eyes. 
My guess is they aim to add that tech later on when things are up and going. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Lusekofte

[357th_KW]

20 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

But im not so sure that statement is correct.  Maybe?

 

"U.S. figures compiled at the end of the war indicate that the F4U and FG flew 64,051 operational sorties for the U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy through the conflict (44% of total fighter sorties), with only 9,581 sorties (15%) flown from carrier decks."  From Naval Aviation Combat Statistics: World War II by S B Barber.

Edited November 7, 2023 by 357th_KW

[BlitzPig_EL]

Be careful, you will have the carrier mafia reaching for their torches and pitchforks.

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

3 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

 

"U.S. figures compiled at the end of the war indicate that the F4U and FG flew 64,051 operational sorties for the U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy through the conflict (44% of total fighter sorties), with only 9,581 sorties (15%) flown from carrier decks."  From Naval Aviation Combat Statistics: World War IINaval Aviation Combat Statistics: World War II by S B Barber.

Ok..  thanks

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Be careful, you will have the carrier mafia reaching for their torches and pitchforks.

 

No chit..  sure glad I said maybe...lol

[ZachariasX]

I am so much looking forward to Korea with no carriers... Oh, wait

 

 

Yeah.. I'd really put my money into a market where I rely on the historic refusal of the competitor to make a meaningful combination of mostly existing assets.

[R33GZ]

13 hours ago, CountZero said:

When i think about mid to late ww2 at west front i see big 4 engined bombers and LW fighters attacking them...  how do we have TWO late war west front DLC and 0 4 engined bombers, and ppl still buy and played it.

 

Korea do not need carriers as mutch as west front ww2 needs big bombers, and we got 2 DLCs for it.

So doing it wrong twice, makes it all good to do it wrong again!? That's some munchausen syndrome logic, for sure

13 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Yes, Corsairs on carriers... but there were also ground based Corsairs during the Korean conflict... do we have to keep on telling people that?

There weren't many that were permanently stationed on land, most were used as staging bases and it certainly wasn't the norm.

[Robli]

Someone guessed before that it will be (part of) Operation Bagration and that sounds to me as a logical guess. I am pretty sure it will be WWII and the way they have excluded Western and Mediterranean options one by one makes something from Eastern Front most probable.

[R33GZ]

And just by the way... 29 pages of no bloody idea what the announcement of what the announcement might actually be about.

 

I do not believe there is an actual 'marketing plan' at work here.... marketing people like to to talk and communicate information that positively reinforces brand and sale of product. This thread just seems to be about dividing the customer base

[Robli]

Yes, the marketing approach is very weird. 

I think the logical reason for that is that the new game will not be compatible with the old game and they don't want to announce it yet, because it could cut the sales of the current version of the game. They are still adding some content to current game that they want to sell, while they are building the new game. 

[ST_Catchov]

On 10/2/2023 at 8:33 AM, Han said:

 

So... I am not hinting at anything, but there are no principal limitations or barriers in our game engine and graphics engine to evolve it for something like "F-35 versus Su-57" or "Wings over Vietnam", or even for round-world modelling ....

 

More than that -

 

Hmm ok ....

 

I'm pretty sure it'll be jetpacks then.

 

 

 

[Irishratticus72]

14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I never realized that creating a VMF 214/Blacksheep campaign would be the same as a truck driving or shoveling campaign. Maybe I won’t bother them when the time comes.

Thanks for the deep insight - and here I’ve been wasting my time reading history books.

 

 

ReEdInG iS fOr DoHpZ!

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Robli said:

Yes, the marketing approach is very weird. 

I think the logical reason for that is that the new game will not be compatible with the old game and they don't want to announce it yet, because it could cut the sales of the current version of the game. They are still adding some content to current game that they want to sell, while they are building the new game. 

100%

Would be nice of they could at least tell us which war the new game will model. 

[Trooper117]

If they do a good job with lots of new features that we would like to see, then people will buy it... 

[Lusekofte]

I see no reason not to buy stuff from current game, even if it gonna be a new toy. 
If you enjoy current, there is no reason not to buy. It will be playable after new game is out 

[Zooropa_Fly]

No, but I could imagine potential new customers could be put off - with the thought that the game might be approaching the end of development.

[Lusekofte]

53 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

No, but I could imagine potential new customers could be put off - with the thought that the game might be approaching the end of development.

This is one of the things I am pretty sure they will continue to support and improve. 
And one of the things they should make clear pronto. It is suicide stopping to support what we have. 
We would never have trust in the new game if they abandoned old. 
I am currently not flying this game, but that do not mean I am not going to. 

[Robli]

Luse, I am sure that everybody that has come to know you on these forums knows that you are a dream customer for any company, during all the phases of a product's life, but not all customers are like that.

 

To me the devs approach in marketing looks like a textbook case of decline phase of a product's life cycle. Here is a typical example that you can compare to the graph from SteamDB that JG27_Abaster posted before:

 

Products can also have their lifecycles extended, but then the promotion of the product is typically similar to growth or maturity phase, as happened during previous extensions:

[DD_Arthur]

10 hours ago, Robli said:

Yes, the marketing approach is very weird. 

I think the logical reason for that is that the new game will not be compatible with the old game and they don't want to announce it yet, because it could cut the sales of the current version of the game. They are still adding some content to current game that they want to sell, while they are building the new game. 

 

Exactly correct.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, Robli said:

Luse, I

I know that. Gb has reached its peak. But I can guarantee you that there will be some active servers years to come. Always someone left