Presenting our new title, Korea. IL-2 Series

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The Mig has limited bomb and rocket capabilities, but it and the IL-10 will be outclassed by the US stuff at ground attacking. It will need some type of asymmetry to make things interesting.

[Avimimus]

12 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

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. 

 

They can still simulate the land based Commonwealth air groups.

 

5 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

The Mig has limited bomb and rocket capabilities, but it and the IL-10 will be outclassed by the US stuff at ground attacking. It will need some type of asymmetry to make things interesting.

 

Is this true of the Mig-15Bis in 1951 though? Or is it only true of later variants?

 

Also, I suspect the Il-10 might perform decently against its counterpart (the AD-2).

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I dont know if the 1951 version gets the GA stuff, but some versions did. The devs would have to answer what we're getting.

 

Are we getting the AD-2? The balance is better when sticking to props, but gets worse when the F80 and F86 are added, but this does depend on the new ground damage model. If small bombs still 1 shot most targets then it won't be as bad for the Soviets, but if you need bigger bombs for whatever reason, the Soviets need help.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Lusekofte said:

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. 

 

It is practically impossible to put everything into the first release that we want, unless you want the release pushed back even farther. 

 

That, and as the USA is such a big market, it's natural to focus on American planes first for the UN side. 

[BlackSix]

1 hour ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

The Mig has limited bomb and rocket capabilities, but it and the IL-10 will be outclassed by the US stuff at ground attacking. It will need some type of asymmetry to make things interesting.

AFAIK, the MiG-15/MiG-15bis were used in Korea only as a pure fighter or night interceptor. For attacking ground targets, the PLA Air Force used the Tu-2, but for a very limited period, and the KPA Air Force used the Il-10 and La-9 until mid-1952, and for night attacks the Yak-18 and Po-2 were used.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I guess they were a prototype, or they just could but didn't. That's OK, I wasn't expecting they'd do much ground attacking anyways.

[Avimimus]

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

It is practically impossible to put everything into the first release that we want, unless you want the release pushed back even farther. 

 

That, and as the USA is such a big market, it's natural to focus on American planes first for the UN side. 

 

Ah, but the United Kingdom, ANZAACS, and Canadians make up 137 million people. If the U.S. has six flyable aircraft then they have about 55 million people per aircraft modelled. Even if Americans were worth two of us, then our population should justify flyable two aircraft! So... how about a Meteor F.8 and a Vampire/Venom as a Collector Plane?

 

P.S. The current plane selection makes sense from a purely numerical perspective (i.e. what were the most numerous aircraft in theatre?) - but I do feel a Meteor is warranted as one of the first addons.

 

10 hours ago, BlackSix said:

AFAIK, the MiG-15/MiG-15bis were used in Korea only as a pure fighter or night interceptor. For attacking ground targets, the PLA Air Force used the Tu-2, but for a very limited period, and the KPA Air Force used the Il-10 and La-9 until mid-1952, and for night attacks the Yak-18 and Po-2 were used.

 

Ah, interesting - I didn't know the La-9 could carry bombs. What about the Yak-9P? Also, this lack of ground attack aircraft makes the Yak-18 and Po-2 more interesting... I believe a Po-2 was the only air-to-air kill by a Skyraider? Also, more rationalisation for getting an F-82G (although it'd have to be one with a working radar - rather than one of the F-82G which had its radar removed to protect the radar from ground fire while pressed into ground support during the fall of 1950).

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

The Mig has limited bomb and rocket capabilities, but it and the IL-10 will be outclassed by the US stuff at ground attacking. It will need some type of asymmetry to make things interesting.

yes for asymmetry, and in one simple seow campaign we only had MiGs on one side, their main task was destroy certen % of enemy bombers and prevent enemy from destroying its bridges, dams, rail hubs and so on... to force them go low, but have their high alt fun also. and sone it got obvious why day B-29 raids had to be stoped in real war ... it was imposible to protect B-29s, but down low human F9F and F84s were hard to prevent on bomb runs. It remeinded me of early BoB, one side defend onother attack and front is static.

Edited July 1, 2024 by CountZero

[=621=Samikatz]

As a UK citizen I am okay with them doing all-US aircraft for now. Get the career experience correct and in-depth for one air force, then develop other UN nations as their own experience later. Better than half-completing things imo. Maybe if/when there's a carrier expansion we'll get RN Fireflies and Seafires?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

18 minutes ago, CountZero said:

yes for asymmetry, and in one simple seow campaign we only had MiGs on one side, their main task was destroy certen % of enemy bombers and prevent enemy from destroying its bridges, dams, rail hubs and so on... to force them go low, but have their high alt fun also. and sone it got obvious why day B-29 raids had to be stoped in real war ... it was imposible to protect B-29s, but down low human F9F and F84s were hard to prevent on bomb runs. It remeinded me of early BoB, one side defend onother attack and front is static.

Good thing the bombers aren't humans this time.

 

You could still have a dynamic front in that scenario if you calculated it so that good defense by the Migs can push the line too. Just think of it as the Migs defending successfully enables their ground troops to push the line. Could also give them the possibility for their IL10s and TU2s to push the line as well, but potentially just weigh everything differently for the two sides in the calculations.

[Avimimus]

16 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

As a UK citizen I am okay with them doing all-US aircraft for now. Get the career experience correct and in-depth for one air force, then develop other UN nations as their own experience later. Better than half-completing things imo. Maybe if/when there's a carrier expansion we'll get RN Fireflies and Seafires?

 

Traitor! As a Canadian who has to overcompensate for having an 8891 km long undefended border with the United States and needs to overcompensate to reinforce national identity, I'm not okay with this! 😛 Come on good sir!

[Lusekofte]

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

It is practically impossible to put everything into the first release that we want, unless you want the release pushed back even farther. 

 

That, and as the USA is such a big market, it's natural to focus on American planes first for the UN side. 

I try to be objective and grown up for once. 
And you are right, if one allied was the option US involvement is the natural choice. 
But if I was to give my deepest honestly a sincere advise in the matter. Please send a carrot to European customers and say there will be a couple of UK designs coming as soon as possible. 
I had some hopes killed when I learned there would be no carriers. And I kind of need to hear there is at least ambition to expand 

[=621=Samikatz]

14 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Traitor! As a Canadian who has to overcompensate for having an 8891 km long undefended border with the United States and needs to overcompensate to reinforce national identity, I'm not okay with this! 😛 Come on good sir!

 

Think of it this way, they can use the Americans as a practice run, then the glorious Commonwealth forces can be done with experience and to *perfection*

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I had some hopes killed when I learned there would be no carriers. And I kind of need to hear there is at least ambition to expand 

 

Well, no carriers immediately. They haven't promised that they won't do them. But it will take investment and time to do it right.

[[CPT]Crunch]

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/pusan-perimeter-raaf-anzus-treaty/

 

Aussies first ones in in any sort of fighting force.

[Aapje]

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

It is practically impossible to put everything into the first release that we want, unless you want the release pushed back even farther. 

 

That, and as the USA is such a big market, it's natural to focus on American planes first for the UN side. 

 

This comment implies that we'll get IL-2 Korea 2: Carrier Edition

[LukeFF]

10 hours ago, BlackSix said:

AFAIK, the MiG-15/MiG-15bis were used in Korea only as a pure fighter or night interceptor. For attacking ground targets, the PLA Air Force used the Tu-2, but for a very limited period, and the KPA Air Force used the Il-10 and La-9 until mid-1952, and for night attacks the Yak-18 and Po-2 were used.

 

Interestingly enough I found a newspaper article tonight from June 5, 1951 that said two Communist planes assumed to be jets dropped five bombs on UN positions north of Yanggu. It was noted as being the farthest south such jets had flown. 

 

Makes you wonder if they were indeed MiG-15s. 🙂

26 minutes ago, Aapje said:

This comment implies that we'll get IL-2 Korea 2: Carrier Edition

 

Not really - just saying it's a natural thing that the first release of a new title is naturally going to be missing things some players regard as essential. Whether they get added or not is an entirely different thing. 

[MadKerbal]

Are their any plans to allow players to fly for non US nations that flew US made aircraft in the career? (if their respective bases are on the map) Even if it's with American voices and pilot models the option would be greatly appreciated (These squadrons, which operated F-51s were, 77 squadron RAAF (Although they converted to Meteor F8s right at the start of the modeled period in early April), 2 Squadron SAAF (also flew a squadron of loaned F86s from February 1953, although a later model then the one slated for inclusion) and 1 flight of the ROKAF.)

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Interestingly enough I found a newspaper article tonight from June 5, 1951 that said two Communist planes assumed to be jets dropped five bombs on UN positions north of Yanggu. It was noted as being the farthest south such jets had flown. 

 

Makes you wonder if they were indeed MiG-15s. 🙂

 

I might also wonder if they were some confused U.N. planes? That is also a possibility. It'd be interesting to find out if they had swept wings or not.

 

28 minutes ago, MadKerbal said:

(These squadrons, which operated F-51s were, 77 squadron RAAF (Although they converted to Meteor F8s right at the start of the modeled period in early April)

 

Interestingly, I just found out that British (and maybe Canadians) were serving in 77 squadron as well! Canadians also had pilots rotated into the 4th Fighter Interception Wing and the 51st (flying Sabres).

[BlackSix]

13 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Ah, interesting - I didn't know the La-9 could carry bombs. What about the Yak-9P? Also, this lack of ground attack aircraft makes the Yak-18 and Po-2 more interesting... I believe a Po-2 was the only air-to-air kill by a Skyraider? Also, more rationalisation for getting an F-82G (although it'd have to be one with a working radar - rather than one of the F-82G which had its radar removed to protect the radar from ground fire while pressed into ground support during the fall of 1950).

The La-9 used only cannon armament for attacking ground targets, the Yak-9P was used as a pure fighter in 1951-52.

I know that on the night of June 24, 1951, the B-26 from the 8th BS(L) 3rd BG USAF shot down a Po-2

 

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Interestingly enough I found a newspaper article tonight from June 5, 1951 that said two Communist planes assumed to be jets dropped five bombs on UN positions north of Yanggu. It was noted as being the farthest south such jets had flown. 

Makes you wonder if they were indeed MiG-15s. 🙂

Yes, I think it was friendly fire. During this period, only Soviet jet regiments fought in Korea, which never approached the front line.

 

2 hours ago, MadKerbal said:

Are their any plans to allow players to fly for non US nations that flew US made aircraft in the career? (if their respective bases are on the map) Even if it's with American voices and pilot models the option would be greatly appreciated (These squadrons, which operated F-51s were, 77 squadron RAAF (Although they converted to Meteor F8s right at the start of the modeled period in early April), 2 Squadron SAAF (also flew a squadron of loaned F86s from February 1953, although a later model then the one slated for inclusion) and 1 flight of the ROKAF.)

Additional nations mean additional reward and rank systems for career need to be made. As Luke wrote above, first we need to create a main project that will become the base, and only then think about expanding it.

[Avimimus]

Understood! Although, I suspect one could probably get by with just a DFC... and I do hope the RAAF gets added post release.

 

P.S. The asymmetric nature of the conflict does make me want some of the European/Suez planes... it'd be pretty neat to have an Il-28 to intercept - but that would be even further down the line if it happens!

[LuftManu]

We have to remember that when Battle of Stalingrad launched, there were only a few planes in a simple map. Not even seasons, just winter snowy map.

 

Beginnings are always just that, beginnings. Besides, it seems that what is going to come out will be well worked and finished.

 

Other European designs would be great as Collectors or next expansions, but I'm fine with having US NAVY and USAF aircraft first since they were the most numerous for the UN side.

[BlackSix]

6 minutes ago, LuftManu said:

US NAVY

There will be USMC units, not USN 🙂

[LuftManu]

11 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

There will be USMC units, not USN 🙂

oopsies! I stand corrected! Those Corsair are not going to fly by themselves 😁

About the air to ground and side parity: War is never fair! but we shouldn't forget about the Il-10.

I have fond memories with my old squad in Korea theater for the old Il-2 1946.

The Il-10 is a great air to ground platform. It's an Shturmovik after all! (Beast!)  It's a heavy armored aircraft, full of weapons and tons of trigger time / station time.

I remember that the Il-10s could actually deal huge damage to convoys and ground positions. Down in the weeds, the jets were not as dangerous as flying at high alttitudes.

Sabres and F-80s would jump on the Il-10s from medium altitudes but the Shturmoviks were able to just turn and fly low. Passes with the .50 cals were not as dangerous as trigger time was low.

Add to that some cover with MiGs and things are not as easy as it seems

 

For the Il-10, the most dangerous enemies were actual Corsairs or other props, but the Il-10 can also defend themselves better, specially if the props end up flying low for the dangeorus jets battling up above!

 

IIRC Soviet Air Force decided to update and upgrade the Il-10 aircraft from the experience of Korea to the Il-10M. They were in service by China too. A true workhorse that will be really fun to fly with.

 

 

I'm actually looking forward to fly the Il-10 a lot. For me, the Il-2 to Il-10 is like when the Emil changed to Friedrich on the 109s. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Sheesh that cockpit looks tight, did they use each others backs as a seat rest?  You can hold hands while bailing.

[LuftManu]

15 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Sheesh that cockpit looks tight, did they use each others backs as a seat rest?  You can hold hands while bailing.

It was sure cramped! But also well armed. Late variants even carried a 20 mm gun replacing the UBK 12,7 mm.

 

Also, @BlackSix may I ask if we are getting different turrets? 😀 The VU-9  turrets carried a 20 mm B-20 for self defense. Not sure if we are getting that or the VU-8 with a 12,7 mm UBK. Seems like the VU-9M was for Il-10M after Korea.

 

Same with offensive armament. Twin Vya-23 with heavy machineguns or  quad NS-23 cannons. 

If the planes came from the 26th Assault Aviation Regiment of the Pacific Navy Aviation (after the Manchuria campaign against the Japanese) maybe the Koreans were given early samples.

Edit: Good images too  https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/il10/details/cockpit/cockpit.htm

 

[BlackSix]

22 minutes ago, LuftManu said:

Also, @BlackSix may I ask if we are getting different turrets? 😀 The VU-9  turrets carried a 20 mm B-20 for self defense. Not sure if we are getting that or the VU-8 with a 12,7 mm UBK. Seems like the VU-9M was for Il-10M after Korea.

I can't disclose such detailed information about future project, sorry.

[LuftManu]

7 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

I can't disclose such detailed information about future project, sorry.

Roger!!!  Underestood! 

My wallet is ready!

[ITAF_Rani]

Best luck for the new project...but to me Great Battles still has many fields of improvement and developing...hope IL2 GB will not be abandoned

[MiGCap]

I can't wait for the release, and I hope for expansions, too.

Carriers are a natural choice if the follow-on project is PTO, but an early helicopter would also be very welcomed.

 

Photo copyright: www.chopperspotter.com

 

 

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, BlackSix said:

Yes, I think it was friendly fire. During this period, only Soviet jet regiments fought in Korea, which never approached the front line.

 

Good info, thanks. Just goes to show how uncertain some of these news reports could be. 

[migmadmarine]

4 hours ago, MiGCap said:

I can't wait for the release, and I hope for expansions, too.

Carriers are a natural choice if the follow-on project is PTO, but an early helicopter would also be very welcomed.

 

Photo copyright: www.chopperspotter.com

 

 

I was reading some last night about the H-19 being used for front line resupply and insertion by the marines, while it wouldn't be Vietnam level helo ops doing those sorts of scoot in-scoot out missions along with front line SAR and medivac would be super cool. 

[Gambit21]

7 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Best luck for the new project...but to me Great Battles still has many fields of improvement and developing...hope IL2 GB will not be abandoned

I wouldn’t count on anything but increasingly sparse content for what is effectively a defunct engine after Korea is released. 

Might as well get used to that now.

[danielprates]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I wouldn’t count on anything but increasingly sparse content for what is effectively a defunct engine after Korea is released. 

Might as well get used to that now.

 

That was the very first thought that went through my head when I first saw what Korea is all about. It is an entirelly different animal. It is only reasonable to expect that, though they said GB will still get new content, what is likelly to happen is that 95% of all effort goes to the new engine and modules, and 5% goes to the older product. If that much.

 

So it doesnt take much calculation to realize a simple truth: how much of the same effort went in the last products, for maps, planes etc.? Of all the work output available, lets say a map took half the effort, the 8 or so planes ate up the other 50%. If from now on only only 5-ish percent goes to GB, we can hardly expect a single new flyable, let alone whole maps as some people are expecting.

 

If they say GB wont be abandoned, I believe them, but I dont expect nothing other than skins, tweaks etc.

[deathmisser]

17 hours ago, BlackSix said:

first we need to create a main project that will become the base, and only then think about expanding it.

So atm this could be a one off sim right? 

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, danielprates said:

So it doesnt take much calculation to realize a simple truth: how much of the same effort went in the last products, for maps, planes etc.? Of all the work output available, lets say a map took half the effort, the 8 or so planes ate up the other 50%. If from now on only only 5-ish percent goes to GB, we can hardly expect a single new flyable, let alone whole maps as some people are expecting.

 

You forget that Karelia and Odessa are being developed by third party enthusiasts, so this won't cost 1CGS any developer effort. Those maps are developed with the old tools, so they will probably come out for the old engine. And 1CGS has indicated that they might want to add some new planes (perhaps mostly variations on existing planes, so it takes way less effort), to turn it into a full module that they can sell.

 

Also, FC4 is clearly going to be released for the old engine.

 

So that's 3 potential new modules already for the old engine, assuming that the third party developers can get it done anytime soon, which is always questionable with amateurs doing it in their spare time.

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

You forget that Karelia and Odessa are being developed by third party enthusiasts, so this won't cost 1CGS any developer effort. Those maps are developed with the old tools, so they will probably come out for the old engine. And 1CGS has indicated that they might want to add some new planes (perhaps mostly variations on existing planes, so it takes way less effort), to turn it into a full module that they can sell.

 

Also, FC4 is clearly going to be released for the old engine.

 

So that's 3 potential new modules already for the old engine, assuming that the third party developers can get it done anytime soon, which is always questionable with amateurs doing it in their spare time.

 

The Odessa was started well before the new engine etc was announced.

Frankly past these examples I can't see even 3rd parties putting too much effort, too often into that engine.

 

[Aapje]

 

10 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Frankly past these examples I can't see even 3rd parties putting too much effort, too often into that engine.

 

Yes, of course, because the new engine is the successor. But danielprates claimed that there won't be new flyables for the old engine, which is definitely wrong as we will get new WW I planes for the old engine with FC4. He also claimed that there won't be new maps, but there are two maps in development for the old engine.

 

[KodiakJac]

I've been reading this thread on and off, but not everything.  So, I apologize for asking two questions that may have already been answered...

 

1.  Has 1C confirmed that there will be no weapon and/or aircraft upgrade unlocks in Korea: IL-2?

 

2.  Has 1C mentioned if the player will always land last under AI control in Korea: IL-2?  I'm hoping they will let the player land like the AI planes do in IL-2 Great Battles based on position in the flight.  That will give the player the greatest variety of landing positions and feel more realistic, as when the player is 7th in a flight, they would land 7th, and when the player is 3rd in a flight, they would land 3rd, etc.

 

Thanks!

[biglouis]

Love it, super happy and excited about this. I love those old jets, before guided rockets and whatnot.

 

VR support on release? That would be the only thing stopping me from a pre-order honestly. I cannot do flat screen flight sims ever again. (sorry if it has already been asked)