Presenting our new title, Korea. IL-2 Series

[Sgt_Joch]

Very nice.

[Jaegermeister]

From the information I am gathering in this and other threads, the map size should look something like this although I would guess the borders would move to the southwest so that major airfields are not right on the edges of the map

 

 

This would be able to include Mig bases along the Chinese border, Cho-do Island and Sabre bases at Kimpo and Suwon. The area marked in yellow is roughly 450km x 450km

 

Edited June 29, 2024 by Jaegermeister

[BlitzPig_EL]

Mmmm... Lots of rail activity to interdict.   Nom Nom Nom!! ☠️

[Jaegermeister]

Yes, there will be no shortage of action. The first month of the planned time frame for the careers starts off very busy

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2024 by Jaegermeister

[BigMotor]

Looking forward to it, this will be my old stomping grounds (25years Falcon 4, KTO).

[FTC_Kongoo]

1 hour ago, Jaegermeister said:

From the information I am gathering in this and other threads, the map size should look something like this although I would guess the borders would move to the southwest so that major airfields are not right on the edges of the map

 

 

This would be able to include Mig bases along the Chinese border, Cho-do Island and Sabre bases at Kimpo and Suwon. The area marked in yellow is roughly 450km x 450km

 

yep. just a bit to the west and maybe a bit south from the second image so tatung kou is not like on the edge. but this should be the ball park. There was a chinese airfield, Dakushan further west that doesn´t exist anymore although i think i know where it was. however its not that important so i can see them omitting it. But Andong, Tatungkou (Miagou in Manchurian i believe) and Dapu ( constructed in 1952) should be present in Manchuria. From UN side Kimpo, Suwon and Soeul Bases, along with the other smaller ones to the east. 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Jaegermeister said:

From the information I am gathering in this and other threads, the map size should look something like this although I would guess the borders would move to the southwest so that major airfields are not right on the edges of the map

 

 

This would be able to include Mig bases along the Chinese border, Cho-do Island and Sabre bases at Kimpo and Suwon. The area marked in yellow is roughly 450km x 450km

 

it needs to go 50miles more to west, nothing wors then having only mig bases in one corner of map, there should be some "breathing room" to gather before geting messages your out of map borders

 

in old il-2 1946 when zeks vs wildcats server hosted early korea mods missions from time to time, fights usealy happend around pyongyong area most of the time, that was good fun 100 ppl + AI bomber raids

Edited June 29, 2024 by CountZero

[Gwoodby]

WW2 Careers in Korea-  Question for the Devs.  Will we be able to continue our WW2 Pilot careers in Korea?  We put a lot of time and energy in career mode if you play it.  I would like to continue my career into Korea.

[Avimimus]

10 minutes ago, Gwoodby said:

WW2 Careers in Korea-  Question for the Devs.  Will we be able to continue our WW2 Pilot careers in Korea?  We put a lot of time and energy in career mode if you play it.  I would like to continue my career into Korea.

 

You should be able to enter your name and rank at the start of the campaign.

 

What else exactly would carry over? Awards and kills?

[SIA_ArcTander]

So dissapointed it's only USAF on the Allied side. The RAF, RN and RAAF were there too.

 

No Gloster Meteor (again!)

No Sea Fury.

 

Iconic planes. After not getting the Gloster Meteor in Bodenplatte I was so hoping to get one for Korea as no one could say they weren't there, there on time or didn't see action.....

 

 

PLEASE can we get a Gloster Meteor as a Collector plane!!!

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

This would be able to include Mig bases along the Chinese border, Cho-do Island and Sabre bases at Kimpo and Suwon. The area marked in yellow is roughly 450km x 450km

 

 

I was looking at this myself 440km by 44 km is pretty impressive. It should be just enough to capture both Mig-Alley and most of the Air Battle over South Korea in 1950. So, they can probably get by with one map.

[354thFG_Leifr]

21 minutes ago, SIA_ArcTander said:

So dissapointed it's only USAF on the Allied side. The RAF, RN and RAAF were there too.

 

No Gloster Meteor (again!)

No Sea Fury.

 

Iconic planes. After not getting the Gloster Meteor in Bodenplatte I was so hoping to get one for Korea as no one could say they weren't there, there on time or didn't see action.....

 

 

PLEASE can we get a Gloster Meteor as a Collector plane!!!

 

Yup, both of these aircraft would be pretty great to have! It's a shame that the Meteor has not (yet) appeared in BoX.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

From the information I am gathering in this and other threads, the map size should look something like this although I would guess the borders would move to the southwest so that major airfields are not right on the edges of the map

 

 

This would be able to include Mig bases along the Chinese border, Cho-do Island and Sabre bases at Kimpo and Suwon. The area marked in yellow is roughly 450km x 450km

 

 

Yes, map borders are going to be discussed in a future announcement hopefully sooner rather than later. 

 

50 minutes ago, Gwoodby said:

WW2 Careers in Korea-  Question for the Devs.  Will we be able to continue our WW2 Pilot careers in Korea?  We put a lot of time and energy in career mode if you play it.  I would like to continue my career into Korea.

 

Negatory

 

38 minutes ago, SIA_ArcTander said:

So dissapointed it's only USAF on the Allied side.

 

It is planned to have a separate career branch for the F4U-4 since that is USMC.

[Gwoodby]

Yes....I would like to continue with all the stats awards etc....same way you go from one campaign to another.  From France to Belgium....

[EduardoMCfly]

Can we maybe get some helicopters like the Bell H-13 Sioux, the Sikorsky H-5, Sikorsky, or H-19 Chickasaw? As collector aircraft or something. It would be very fun and interesting to have some helis! 

[FlyingNutcase]

Really, really looking forward to this. My knowledge of the Korean War is minimal but I have Thomas Kleaver's MiG Alley book in my Amazon cart and SGS Korea in my Steam cart to dip my feet.

 

This will likely time well with the mainstream nVidia 50 series cards and the hopeful delivery of the Yaw 2 motion chair. so roll on 2025.

 

 

[blockheadgreen_]

19 hours ago, SIA_ArcTander said:

So dissapointed it's only USAF on the Allied side. The RAF, RN and RAAF were there too.

 

No Gloster Meteor (again!)

No Sea Fury.

 

Iconic planes. After not getting the Gloster Meteor in Bodenplatte I was so hoping to get one for Korea as no one could say they weren't there, there on time or didn't see action.....

 

 

PLEASE can we get a Gloster Meteor as a Collector plane!!!

Begging on my knees for the Seafire FR 47 too - what a monster of a plane. That and the Firefly!

[Sgt_Joch]

One nice thing about Korea is that the F86 and MIG15 are a good matchup.

 

In terms of raw performance, the MIG was faster and could fly higher, but visibility out of the cockpit was limited. The F86 had a faster roll rate and visibility (and SA) out of the bubble canopy was excellent.

 

The MIG was armed with a powerful 23mm cannon, great for taking down bombers, but it was slow firing so harder to use in a twisty dogfight against fighters. The F86s 6x.50 cal MGs were easier to use, but did not pack that much punch. There were stories of MIGs flying back to base with hundreds of bullet holes. The USAF tested a 4x20 mm cannon setup on a F86 to try to solve that, but it made the plane harder to control.

 

really looking forward to this. 

[Avimimus]

Yes, I believe it was gas ingestion which was the problem for the F-2 variant (with the cannons). They lost two out of the seven prototypes to it - if I remember correctly?

[LuftManu]

14 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

One nice thing about Korea is that the F86 and MIG15 are a good matchup.

 

In terms of raw performance, the MIG was faster and could fly higher, but visibility out of the cockpit was limited. The F86 had a faster roll rate and visibility (and SA) out of the bubble canopy was excellent.

 

The MIG was armed with a powerful 23mm cannon, great for taking down bombers, but it was slow firing so harder to use in a twisty dogfight against fighters. The F86s 6x.50 cal MGs were easier to use, but did not pack that much punch. There were stories of MIGs flying back to base with hundreds of bullet holes. The USAF tested a 4x20 mm cannon setup on a F86 to try to solve that, but it made the plane harder to control.

 

really looking forward to this. 

Also, can't wait for the .50 cals if the systems modelling is better as stated.

I remember this from the Q&A video:

 

I guess this detail is also on the fighters, then our guns are going to make a mess! But the MiG-15s were also sturdy!

[Sgt_Joch]

54 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Yes, I believe it was gas ingestion which was the problem for the F-2 variant (with the cannons). They lost two out of the seven prototypes to it - if I remember correctly?

that may be part of it, it has been a long time since I read it and not sure what the source was, although I believe the4x20 mm setup also affected the stability/center of gravity of the AC and could cause an uncontrollable spin in some cases.

[Rjel]

While I’ll enjoy flying the F-86 and will be hoping the future will bring the E and F models, I’m really looking forward to the F-80. To my eyes, it was one of the most attractive of the first generation of jet fighters as was the case with all Kelly Johnson designs.  
 

There are so many possibilities for additional A/C on the U.N. side of the conflict and so few on the other, it’s difficult to imagine how the devs will be able to continue selling balanced plane sets as has been the norm. Still, I’d be on board with buying any additional maps or campaigns even if it added only U.N. equipment. 

[jnfrombigt]

On 6/25/2024 at 8:32 AM, Dauntless said:

Where's the Douglas A-1 Skyraider?  

My thoughts exactly!    I'm hoping as with the other Battles this version will evolve and grow in content to include the Skyraider.  Regardless I'm still looking forward to "Korea".   For me,   IL2 has been the best thing out there.

Edited June 30, 2024 by jnfrombigt

[Avimimus]

20 minutes ago, Rjel said:

There are so many possibilities for additional A/C on the U.N. side of the conflict and so few on the other, it’s difficult to imagine how the devs will be able to continue selling balanced plane sets as has been the norm. Still, I’d be on board with buying any additional maps or campaigns even if it added only U.N. equipment. 

 

Yes, well, they could bring in the La-9 and a few European types (Yak-17, Yak-23, La-15, Mig-17A, and Il-28 were all active during Korea, even if they weren't deployed to Korea - I think China still had a few Mig-9, although how operational that type was seems to be debated). Some variety could also be added with British or French types.

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

One nice thing about Korea is that the F86 and MIG15 are a good matchup.

 

In terms of raw performance, the MIG was faster and could fly higher, but visibility out of the cockpit was limited. The F86 had a faster roll rate and visibility (and SA) out of the bubble canopy was excellent.

 

The MIG was armed with a powerful 23mm cannon, great for taking down bombers, but it was slow firing so harder to use in a twisty dogfight against fighters. The F86s 6x.50 cal MGs were easier to use, but did not pack that much punch. There were stories of MIGs flying back to base with hundreds of bullet holes. The USAF tested a 4x20 mm cannon setup on a F86 to try to solve that, but it made the plane harder to control.

 

really looking forward to this. 

Thats why in old il-2 MiG players were afraid of F9F and its 4x20mm when they had to go low in rear ocasions.

 

But for MP Mig-15 is one dictating fights, in SP its all about how good they gona make AI, but in Mig-15bis you have airplane that has higher cealing, better climb, better guns (in game your gona be better trained on them) and almost same speed and turn ability, F-86A on him has dive acceleration, roll and G-suite.

 

In old Il-2 you would use your better dive in F86s to run away, but we will not have E model so your gona end up being at eaqual there as you cant pull up at speeds where mig would have to activate auto air brakes.

 

MiG-15bis outmatches F-86A in all aspects and is eaqual to it in others.

 

Its probably gona be like 109F4 vs yak-1s matchup from BoS

Edited June 30, 2024 by CountZero

[creamersdream]

If I do buy this upcoming title. I probably will need a new Rig. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

Thats why in old il-2 MiG players were afraid of F9F and its 4x20mm when they had to go low in rear ocasions.

 

But for MP Mig-15 is one dictating fights, in SP its all about how good they gona make AI, but in Mig-15bis you have airplane that has higher cealing, better climb, better guns (in game your gona be better trained on them) and almost same speed and turn ability, F-86A on him has dive acceleration, roll and G-suite.

 

In old Il-2 you would use your better dive in F86s to run away, but we will not have E model so your gona end up being at eaqual there as you cant pull up at speeds where mig would have to activate auto air brakes.

 

MiG-15bis outmatches F-86A in all aspects and is eaqual to it in others.

 

Its probably gona be like 109F4 vs yak-1s matchup from BoS

That does assume you're playing in a free hunt deathmatch setting. If we're doing something more objective focused it would incentivize the Migs to come down and make things more interesting.

[Jaegermeister]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Thats why in old il-2 MiG players were afraid of F9F and its 4x20mm when they had to go low in rear ocasions.

 

But for MP Mig-15 is one dictating fights, in SP its all about how good they gona make AI, but in Mig-15bis you have airplane that has higher cealing, better climb, better guns (in game your gona be better trained on them) and almost same speed and turn ability, F-86A on him has dive acceleration, roll and G-suite.

 

In old Il-2 you would use your better dive in F86s to run away, but we will not have E model so your gona end up being at eaqual there as you cant pull up at speeds where mig would have to activate auto air brakes.

 

MiG-15bis outmatches F-86A in all aspects and is eaqual to it in others.

 

Its probably gona be like 109F4 vs yak-1s matchup from BoS

In multiplayer there will also be no allowance for the fact that the Russian MiG units were deployed as entirely new squadrons while the experienced units were rotated out, giving the Allies an advantage in tactics. The new units held back and attacked in small groups, even though they frequently had superior numbers of fighters available. The US units kept experienced pilots in theatre to train newer pilots and pass on their knowledge. They were also rotated out a few at a time instead of all at once.

 

If you match MiGs against Sabres at medium altitude with equal numbers and experience, it will come down to who can use the strengths of their planes to gain the advantage.

 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

That does assume you're playing in a free hunt deathmatch setting. If we're doing something more objective focused it would incentivize the Migs to come down and make things more interesting.

 

That actually makes for some interesting scenarios - if most of the 'points' fo blue are for ground-attack, one could have an asymmetric game mode where a large number of the players have to be flying the ground attack aircraft... and the Sabres or Migs are oriented toward escort duties.

[danielprates]

8 hours ago, creamersdream said:

If I do buy this upcoming title. I probably will need a new Rig. 

 

Since we're talking about that, is there a minimum specs suggestion already? Sorry I haven't read all the material

[PivoYvo]

On 6/27/2024 at 2:22 AM, Trooper117 said:

Half of the plane set are WWII aircraft types... they are the type of planes you like to fly, or is it because they don't have a shed load of 109's and 190's in the mix?

YES totally and absolutely, especially in Korea, cause intelligent Persons know, they traveled from Neuschwabenland, with their Ufos to Korea to fight Communists there and don´t forget the wonderful Junkers, Heinkel, Henschel, Arado, Dornier, Blohm & Voss, Gotha, Siebel, Klemm, Bücker, Fieseler, Bachem, Horten... 

 

Joking over now, the real reason is and i don´t know why, but it doesn´t give me the warm feeling, that i wanna play this very much, like i have with other titles i see. Have a Nice Day.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, danielprates said:

Since we're talking about that, is there a minimum specs suggestion already? Sorry I haven't read all the material

 

Far too early for that, no.

[CountZero]

15 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

That does assume you're playing in a free hunt deathmatch setting. If we're doing something more objective focused it would incentivize the Migs to come down and make things more interesting.

Thouse things are less and less comon in MP, and even then players play to stay alive, so keep high , bnz. In korea it will be even more obvious.

 

if you try to do something dinamic so ground units advance depending on players actions, soviet side dont have any ground attack jets, so any ground war is one sided in favor of americans, youll have fighter players  on soviet side hunting ai bombers and human ground attackers and fwe fighter players on american side, it was always like that in previous games, just in df server or in online campaigns.

Edited July 1, 2024 by CountZero

[BlitzPig_Bill_Kelso]

Will there be an option to nuke along the Yalu River per MacArthur's idea?

 

Edited July 1, 2024 by 1./JG54_Lang

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

Thouse things are less and less comon in MP, and even then players play to stay alive, so keep high , bnz. In korea it will be even more obvious.

Depends on scoring. If we get more objective focused scoring, I think we'd see more varied gameplay. Not saying people shouldn't want to survive, but in war taking risks to complete the mission is part of the job as well, and the scoreboard should award that. If all the Migs refuse to leave their ceiling while they're ground objectives are being demolished, and they're friendly ground attackers are getting swatted, they'll get tired of losing all the time, and getting terrible scores while being bored and lonely up there, and that should motivate them to come down and have some fun.

 

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

If you try to do something dinamic so ground units advance depending on players actions, soviet side dont have any ground attack jets, so any ground war is one sided in favor of americans, youll have fighter players  on soviet side hunting ai bombers and human ground attackers and fwe fighter players on american side, it was always like that in previous games, just in df server or in online campaigns.

The lack of player controlled Soviet ground attack options is only a problem if your trying to keep the mission 100% symmetrical. You can always weigh things in the Soviets advantage by giving them extra TU-2 AI flights, or give them more strafing targets with their cannons. Or if you don't mind being ahistorical you could even give both sides the US ground attack jets in hopefully different enforced skins, but thats obviously not for everyone.

[Jaegermeister]

4 hours ago, 1./JG54_Lang said:

Will there be an option to nuke along the Yalu River per MacArthur's idea?

An inside source told me that nuclear weapons are going to be modeled, but if you decide to use them, you will be permanently locked out of the game and banned from the forum.

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Lopsided ground war can't be any worse than the greater German flyable bomber fleet we currently have in our game.  At least that one won't be backwards to history.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Indeed, the quantitative advantage once the Chinese entered the war should balance out the quantitative and qualitative advantage the U.N. side had in attack aircraft.

That is if large numbers of troops can be realized in the sim.

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

The lack of player controlled Soviet ground attack options is only a problem if your trying to keep the mission 100% symmetrical. You can always weigh things in the Soviets advantage by giving them extra TU-2 AI flights, or give them more strafing targets with their cannons. Or if you don't mind being ahistorical you could even give both sides the US ground attack jets in hopefully different enforced skins, but thats obviously not for everyone.

 

Also, the Il-10 will be included. I'm not sure if any of the other Soviet fighter variants could carry bombs.

[Lusekofte]

Looks kind of good this. But I am with those saying leaving all allies out except US is a mistake I think will be noticed. I can see US citizens are hyped, but for some this is or was a last straw. 
It kind of not doing it for me. I urge to reconsider this. I would like some UK designs mentioned earlier. And of course a chopper to lighten my mood. 
But seriously , no carrier no RN and no RAF 

It would mean the world of difference getting a more UN focused plane set.