Brief Room Episode 2: 2023 In Review, Plans For 2024, A Glimpse At The Upcoming Title

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, PatrickAWlson said:

 

 

Then I'll leave it to you to reconcile these statements.

 

 

 

Care tor econcile those statements?  

It’s pretty easy.  WW1 is a niche within a niche.  Even the Channel map was not popular.  I watched the server empty out every time those missions started.  The idea that an Italy map or East front map would be a financial success is completely ludicrous.

[LuftManu]

Guys, please get back to the subject of the video and what's around it.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

[MAJ_stug41]

7 minutes ago, parkerc341 said:

They are doing a late eastern front in the maps of Odessa and Finland I believe.

Yes, those are highly welcome maps with a great deal of utility. The la-7 and yak3 will be very cool as well. Unfortunately the la7 is a bit out of operational timeline for those maps, but still will be nice to have.

 

Representing the most impressive operation of the war, especially a soviet one, seems like a naturally marketable module within russia.

[sevenless]

47 minutes ago, Bussard* said:

Is it already known whether the announced Ju 87 D5 will also get the Dive bombing sight (Stuvi)? I believe such versions were used in Finland in 1944.

 

 

 

Would love to see that, but no, nobody knows. In fact the vid before x-mas was the first time they mentioned the D-5 as a possible collector.

[Lusekofte]

59 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Would love to see that, but no, nobody knows. In fact the vid before x-mas was the first time they mentioned the D-5 as a possible collector.

I just don’t see the need for D 5

we got D3 with all the same alternatives. JU 87 is a cool plane. You can take it to 5 k or more. It is no obvious altitude for fighters to look for it and do damage. It more likely to bring you to target than a IL 2 , home is another thing. 

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I just don’t see the need for D 5

we got D3 with all the same alternatives. JU 87 is a cool plane. You can take it to 5 k or more. It is no obvious altitude for fighters to look for it and do damage. It more likely to bring you to target than a IL 2 , home is another thing. 

 

Yeah, there are always subjective Pros and Cons, however at the end of the day for them it is about return of invest. It comes down to a business decision based on rational financial figures. From that point of view the D-5 seems to make sense.

[Guest deleted@83466]

If they’re making Korea, I’d like to see them concentrate on Korea.  It seems apparent that they have quite a bit of work to do towards that end, and to also bring their game engine up to date.  To me, it just doesn’t seem like the right time to fill in missing aircraft variants from 5 year old modules.  Maybe if they knock it out of the ballpark with Korea, then they can have the luxury of doing that.

[Lusekofte]

3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

It seems apparent that they have quite a bit of work to do towards that end,

Me too. Old Gb should rather be improved than added content if any recourse is to be put into it. 
I think they have no idea on how much improvement that is going to be achieved on the new thing. It is the only explanation I can find for this secrecy 
 

[Avimimus]

24 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

If they’re making Korea, I’d like to see them concentrate on Korea.  It seems apparent that they have quite a bit of work to do towards that end, and to also bring their game engine up to date.  To me, it just doesn’t seem like the right time to fill in missing aircraft variants from 5 year old modules.  Maybe if they knock it out of the ballpark with Korea, then they can have the luxury of doing that.

 

On the other hand, if assigning two staff to work part time allows them to keep the existing modules, and even Tank Crew/Flying Circus alive, and with some novelty... well, that gives them three product lines which are still considered 'alive' ...it encourages sales of the existing products and provides some redundancy. If I were them I'd aim to release a couple of Collector Planes/Tanks for each line of products a year (just from a business standpoint).

 

 

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

Yeah, there are always subjective Pros and Cons, however at the end of the day for them it is about return of invest. It comes down to a business decision based on rational financial figures. From that point of view the D-5 seems to make sense.

  

 

Where did Han say this? Source?

 

D-5 requires cockpit adjustments, as well as new wings, flame dampers too (I think). The Yak-3 and La-7 would be completely new aircraft, as are the Ta-152 and I-153 (admittedly, the latter is made by a third party).

 

[Avimimus]

7 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I just don’t see the need for D 5

we got D3 with all the same alternatives. JU 87 is a cool plane. You can take it to 5 k or more. It is no obvious altitude for fighters to look for it and do damage. It more likely to bring you to target than a IL 2 , home is another thing. 

 

I agree that the Ju-87B/R would be more useful for existing campaigns (including Kuban, I believe). But they offer little to the player except historical accuracy and reduced engine power. I think the Ju-87D-5 with extended wings and cannons offers a bit more... If I were making an argument for the D-5 it'd be that it represents a different way to use the Ju-87... a shift from dive bombing to low altitude bombing and strafing at night... and it provides a bit of a scary aircraft to run into in a U-2VS or an Li-2...

[sevenless]

13 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Where did Han say this? Source?

 

What exactly do you mean? That they know how to run a business economically? If they wouldn't they would have gone bust long ago.

[Avimimus]

3 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

What exactly do you mean? That they know how to run a business economically? If they wouldn't they would have gone bust long ago.

 

"Han said that, if at all, new collectors will only be variations of exiting planes."

 

Citation for this? It doesn't seem to line up with what they are actually doing.

[Gambit21]

I don’t know anything about future collectors aircraft etc, but I can’t see putting more resources into assets for older modules, for essentially what will soon be a legacy version of the game engine. (assuming I understand they’re intentions) Or do you now build them to the new standard? OK…so, where do they fit if you can’t include the older aircraft alongside the new due to engine texture compatibility issues with the upgraded engine?

Maybe they’ll solve that issue. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

4 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

What exactly do you mean? That they know how to run a business economically? If they wouldn't they would have gone bust long ago.

Maybe that why we still don’t have the D-5.  It didn’t make sound business sense!?

[Gambit21]

5 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

What exactly do you mean? That they know how to run a business economically? If they wouldn't they would have gone bust long ago.

They’ve probably come closer than you think - that’s all I’ll say.

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

"Han said that, if at all, new collectors will only be variations of exiting planes."

 

Citation for this? It doesn't seem to line up with what they are actually doing.

 

Ah I see. Yep, their vid from a year ago, If my memory doesn't fail me.

 

 

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

They’ve probably come closer than you think - that’s all I’ll say.

 

I know. You don't make changes in management structure if there is no need to. Thats all from me on the topic.

[Mtnbiker1998]

Thinking about it, it seems odd that they let us ask our questions before dropping this big briefing room on us. We were specifically told to avoid asking about the new project, only for them to drop a ton of new info on the new project, and have us raise a billion more questions.

 

First thing I asked about in the Q&A thread was GB engine timers, and with all the new info we've received, those timers are nowhere near the top of the list of things I'm curious about!!

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

Maybe that why we still don’t have the D-5.  It didn’t make sound business sense!?

A high fidelity (I mean beyond what they’ve shown they have the resources to do to date) would be fantastic, also MiG 3 and others.

 

I’d like to see the plane collection slowly upgraded if time and resources allow in the future. I’d buy a new Stuka D5 as well under those circumstances, or a new MiG 3 to support the effort. 

 

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

I were making an argument for the D-5 it'd be that it represents a different way to use the Ju-87... a shift from dive bombing to low altitude bombing and strafing at night...

I tried that a lot. It do not work on a server. 
if it isn’t fast enough to get away in a hurry. 
One of the reasons I am not too keen on a A20 G 

Night jobs are niche for sp players. Do not happens on servers. D5 will not be very popular. 

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

I agree that the Ju-87B/R would be more useful for existing campaigns (including Kuban, I believe). But they offer little to the player except historical accuracy and reduced engine power. I think the Ju-87D-5 with extended wings and cannons offers a bit more... If I were making an argument for the D-5 it'd be that it represents a different way to use the Ju-87... a shift from dive bombing to low altitude bombing and strafing at night... and it provides a bit of a scary aircraft to run into in a U-2VS or an Li-2...

 

Oh great! So if I want to strafe during day I'm just screwed...yeah thanks but no thanks buddy!!!!

 

 

[Trooper117]

Ju87-B/R is the way forward... or is it backwards?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

With bigger wings and 151s the D5 could make a good meme fighter in the right hands.

[Pict]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Ju87-B/R is the way forward... or is it backwards?

Hardly matters when they started in 1942 then went back to 1941...

 

When they should have started in 1939

[Lusekofte]

23 minutes ago, Pict said:

When they should have started in 1939

In Russia the great heroic war started in 1942. Everything before that is preferred forgotten. 
In my mind it was a lost opportunity not following chronologically from 39. After bodenplatte it was hard to go back to lighter armed and slower airplanes. 

[MAJ_stug41]

1 hour ago, Pict said:

When they should have started in 1939

Didnt work for wwiiol lol

 

Edit - I think 41/42 is a good starting point because by then most of the single seaters are much friendlier to fly. Before then, nearly all require micromanagement of prop pitch, rpm, manifold pressure, rads, mixture, etc, not something that brings in the crowds.

I say this as someone that loves the wonky 30s designs. Pzl 11s and such are super cool to me, but I know that chasing do17s in pzl11s isnt going to thrill many. Spanish war too would be awesome, but again, doesnt sell.

Edited January 10, 2024 by MAJ_stug41

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Pict said:

Hardly matters when they started in 1942 then went back to 1941...

 

When they should have started in 1939

If they had done that they never would have made it to 1942.

[Koziolek]

2 hours ago, Pict said:

When they should have started in 1939

 

Do you mean, to do a game in a period when USSR together with Germany invaded Poland and started WW2? The sales might be a bit low in Russia ?

[Lusekofte]

1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

If they had done that they never would have made it to 1942.

I think you are very wrong. It would have attracted other people. 
I stayed on because BOM was coming and there were no competition. And I had a rig to run it. About all I knew around in community was lost due to lack of interest in eastern front. They would not invest in new rig for this. They left the genre. Some went to DCS and I see some in flight sim groups in fb. 
I can only guess how many diverted when I saw so many leave. I am pretty sure early war would kept many interested

[BraveSirRobin]

5 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I think you are very wrong. It would have attracted other people. 
I stayed on because BOM was coming and there were no competition. And I had a rig to run it. About all I knew around in community was lost due to lack of interest in eastern front. They would not invest in new rig for this. They left the genre. Some went to DCS and I see some in flight sim groups in fb. 
I can only guess how many diverted when I saw so many leave. I am pretty sure early war would kept many interested

lol. They gave us every iconic aircraft they could cram into a module because they desperately needed money. Starting in 1939 would have made the problem even worse.  Unbelievable as it may sound, people prefer aircraft that they’ve heard of and don’t like games completely stacked in favor of one side.

[Koziolek]

37 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

 I am pretty sure early war would kept many interested

Maybe, but I think only Battle of France and Britain, maybe Norway. But Poland '39 was too one sided, Hell I am from Poland and I would be very frustrated flying in PZL-P11c against German planes. Probably would give up after 2-3 tries

Edited January 10, 2024 by Koziolek

[LukeFF]

Guys, I am going to ask one more time: keep the posts making references to contemporary politics and current events out of the discussion, as well as the comments about people missing the point, etc. This is not the place for such content. 

[Lusekofte]

30 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

lol. They gave us every iconic aircraft they could cram into a module because they desperately needed money. Starting in 1939 would have made the problem even worse.  Unbelievable as it may sound, people prefer aircraft that they’ve heard of and don’t like games completely stacked in favor of one side.

Late war should favour allied side. But it do not. 41 favour Luftwaffe and all you heard was ubergunner from pe2. 
But I am going to follow Luke’s restriction and cave in. 

[Koziolek]

3 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Late war should favour allied side. But it do not. 41 favour Luftwaffe and all you heard was ubergunner from pe2. 
But I am going to follow Luke’s restriction and cave in. 

Just don't forget this is still a game. Maybe a simulation, but not a history simulation. How would you like to play an Allied career in 45 without seeing a German plane once, like a lot of fliers did IRL. Maybe a very few people would be happy to but it'd hardly be a selling point of a game

[Zooropa_Fly]

The whole passion behind it was to do the Eastern Front, so starting in '39 was never happening.

However, I think they'd have done alright if they'd done BoB after Stalingrad and Moscow.

[Gambit21]

3 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

The whole passion behind it was to do the Eastern Front, so starting in '39 was never happening.

However, I think they'd have done alright if they'd done BoB after Stalingrad and Moscow.

In theory. However unlike the upcoming title that we’re discussing, the sluggish engine of the old game would never handle enough aircraft to make that plausible. Unlike the upcoming title, which again, is what we’re discussing.

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

13 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

The whole passion behind it was to do the Eastern Front, so starting in '39 was never happening.

However, I think they'd have done alright if they'd done BoB after Stalingrad and Moscow.

They couldn’t do BoB with the current game engine.  I would not be surprised if we see it at some point after Korea.

[Lusekofte]

14 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

They couldn’t do BoB with the current game engine.  I would not be surprised if we see it at some point after Korea.

My guess in that part it will be sone time in 2030

PTO is What I understand What they focus on after. And that will take 4 years. For me , by then clod got vr and bob is covered. 
I do hope they manage to improve as much as you think they will. Their secrecy tells me they do not know

[BraveSirRobin]

7 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

My guess in that part it will be sone time in 2030

PTO is What I understand What they focus on after. And that will take 4 years. For me , by then clod got vr and bob is covered. 
I do hope they manage to improve as much as you think they will. Their secrecy tells me they do not know

I’ve made absolutely no comments about how much I think the simulation of large formations will improve.  But it better improve a lot if they’re planning on formations of B-29s.

[Enceladus828]

29 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

They couldn’t do BoB with the current game engine.  I would not be surprised if we see it at some point after Korea.

At some point yeah... after they do Bagration, Berlin, and add greatly requested planes such as the Bf-110F, IL-4, and early Yak-1.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I’ve made absolutely no comments about how much I think the simulation of large formations will improve.  But it better improve a lot if they’re planning on formations of B-29s.

 

That is true. It must be based on a greater number of at least ai. And that would be a massive improvement