Brief Room Episode 5: Commander Career and Museum

[LukeFF]

Hey everyone! In this episode, our art director Zhenya Isaev discusses with Daniel Tuseev the many changes coming to the user interface with Korea, plus they answer some of your questions.

 

 

[Avimimus]

I really like the museum feature and including more information to help new people learn the history.

 

My one big suggestion: Include some quotes from pilots (or some after-action reports). The old SWOTL manual and air combat classics strategy guides were great in that regard - including a bunch of quotes from people who were actually there. It really helps get people involved.

 

[Blitzen]

Where can I get one of those nifty T-shirts?????🤔

Edited July 17, 2024 by Blitzen

[BlitzPig_EL]

Possibility of "Multiplayer campaign" will be a game changer.

[LuftManu]

This was my favourite so far.

 

I really liked that the team opted for an historical campaign! But the screens are, for me, the best part.

The new management system shows some cool features. For example, looks like the AI has several quality levels:
 

Spoiler

 

Also, really lovely to have cockpit diagrams and information beforehand! Same with the "tutorials". This will come really, really handy for new players! 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Lovely!

Thanks team!

 

[=621=Samikatz]

F-84G confirmed too? Nice nice, was expecting a Thunderjet and nice to see the plane list seemingly finalised?

[ESAflankercobra]

Career mode gives the impression of being the PWGC built into the simulator; but I think it is a mistake not to be able to use them in cooperatives as if it can be done with the PWGC.

 

I see him very corseted. It's fine for someone who is alone at home..., but for communities that want to fly all together in a network, do training, prepare flights, etc...

It is good that there are new interaction screens, the possibility of training within the simulator, being able to see the development of the conflict; but it is not a flight simulator where you can participate in the conflict; What they are creating is a "narrative of an air conflict" where you can participate in first person; apply the same concept to a LAND COMMANDER and you have the same product. Maybe my own idea of the product is wrong and I'm still stuck in the old 1946

Edited July 17, 2024 by ESAflankercobra

[LukeFF]

56 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

F-84G confirmed too? 

 

Yep, cat's out of the bag with that one. 😄

[deathmisser]

1 hour ago, LuftManu said:

This was my favourite so far.

 

I really liked that the team opted for an historical campaign! But the screens are, for me, the best part.

The new management system shows some cool features. For example, looks like the AI has several quality levels:
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Also, really lovely to have cockpit diagrams and information beforehand! Same with the "tutorials". This will come really, really handy for new players! 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

 

Lovely!

Thanks team!

 

Very very odd to have Battle of Britain stuff when this may just a Korea exclusive. Hehe

[LukeFF]

Just now, deathmisser said:

Very very odd to have Battle of Britain stuff when this may just a Korea exclusive. Hehe

 

It's placeholder artwork. 

[deathmisser]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yep, cat's out of the bag with that one. 😄

That thing is a good bird to fly in WT so in IL-2 it should be better. 

 

Btw I've just noticed this will be the first time the P-80 makes appearances again. When the late one was way back in 46.

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It's placeholder artwork. 

My copium wants it the other way around lol 

Edited July 17, 2024 by deathmisser

[LukeFF]

47 minutes ago, ESAflankercobra said:

Career mode gives the impression of being the PWGC built into the simulator; but I think it is a mistake not to be able to use them in cooperatives as if it can be done with the PWGC.

 

We don't say in the video that we aren't going to do multiplayer career but that it requires more planning and thought. 

[deathmisser]

I would like to ask would future modules feed onto Korea like how GB was/is? 

[LukeFF]

6 minutes ago, deathmisser said:

I would like to ask would future modules feed onto Korea like how GB was/is? 

 

That is the plan, yes.

 

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

My one big suggestion: Include some quotes from pilots (or some after-action reports). The old SWOTL manual and air combat classics strategy guides were great in that regard - including a bunch of quotes from people who were actually there. It really helps get people involved.

 

So far in writing the career mode articles I've found there are a lot of quotes from pilots the day of or after a major engagement took place, in the original newspaper articles, so I'm including those in my writeups. They are quite candid and don't have the issue of them being stated months or decades after the event took place.

[deathmisser]

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

That is the plan, yes.

Thank god, as I thought having a standalone Korea era game would be short lived.

So can't wait for my new PC now. 

[Trooper117]

Career mode will be as a commander only, not a regular pilot... did I hear that right?

 

[Aapje]

34 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Career mode will be as a commander only, not a regular pilot... did I hear that right?

 

Yes

 

----

 

My reaction to the vid:

 

The pictures look quite nice. Still hard to judge the career. We probably need to actually play it to see how it truly works out.

 

The AI communication improvements look promising.

 

A good idea to have training missions, to get familiarized with new planes.

 

I like the new look in general.

 

Unfortunately, the new voice over is a bit worse for me. The voices change and Russian speech bleeds through at times, which makes it hard to understand.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Aapje

[BlitzPig_EL]

The F84 did a lot of work in the attack role, really look forward to it.

[migmadmarine]

I hope best climb speeds can be added to the aircraft data, I think that is the most useful piece of info missing from the current aircraft data info. 

 

Regarding the voice over, there were bits where the new version was better, but it was horrible at other portions, both with Russian bleeding through, two voices overlapping, accent changing several times.. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

21 minutes ago, migmadmarine said:

I hope best climb speeds can be added to the aircraft data, I think that is the most useful piece of info missing from the current aircraft data info. 

 

So much this, and it will be critical for the jets on takeoff.

Edited July 17, 2024 by BlitzPig_EL

[Trooper117]

I just had a feeling that this commander thing would be the fly in the ointment for me... guess I won't be doing career then, I just want to be a pilot going through the air campaign, not to much to ask is it...

[Rjel]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The F84 did a lot of work in the attack role, really look forward to it.

As I recall, they also did some early escort missions for the B-29s. One of my favorite WWII era pilots, Col. Blakeslee flew the F-84 in Korea.

[migmadmarine]

The commander thing does seem like it can be interesting, but yes, I do wish we still had a "cog in the machine" option of starting as a rank and file pilot. Also, I like at least having the option to play the day to day missions. I think they have (to my taste at least) slightly missed the mark on what needs improvement on how the existent career is structured:

 

1. I wish we were not confined to starting at the beginning of each "phase", it would be nice to be able to select our own date a la ROF, say if there was an aircraft we were particularly interested in flying, and wanted to start at the time it was adopted by a given unit, or of we wanted to start a few days before a major event like D-Day. 

 

2. It would be nice to have an easier way to skip ahead to a date, similar to PWCG's "request leave" feature. That way you could easily fast forward through the slow periods at the player's discretion. 

 

These could have addressed the risk of being boring without reducing the amount of potential missions for those who want them. I know in the past they remarked on how few players finish careers, but for me at least I don't particularly care about finishing a given career, I'm more keen on being able to dip into a variety of them.

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

What was the auto-manage button for then? It might just be bad phrasing where you can't turn the resource management system off, but you are able to avoid spending time on it by letting it manage itself. I think it could have potential (in multiplayer too if that system ends up working there) if it affects gameplay, like destroyed objects affects supply. Makes your favorite loadouts/planes more meaningful when you can lose them, and attacks are more meaningful when you can see an effect on the enemy's deployment ability. I like playing the meta game, I get bored if its all just random pews and booms without anything tying it together.

[Jade_Monkey]

Nice update, I really liked the career idea, and how well integrated the museum, the spec sheets and other content is with the game interface.

Getting pretty excited about Korea, looking forward to new feature reveals.

 

I agree with other comments, the audio was kind of weird at times, with overlapping sounds and languages in some parts.

 

Although both of you are very handsome, I'd suggest keeping the screenshots up for longer, it barely gives us time to see them without pausing, and there is no real need to rush back to seeing the two hosts talk.

[JFM]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

I just had a feeling that this commander thing would be the fly in the ointment for me... guess I won't be doing career then, I just want to be a pilot going through the air campaign, not to much to ask is it...

+1. I'll check it out to see firsthand how it is, but my thought now is I'm disinterested in a management sim. I just want a target assignment and fuel and ordnance enough to accomplish it. 

Meanwhile, F-84, yes! Be the first thing I climb into. 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

As I recall, they also did some early escort missions for the B-29s. One of my favorite WWII era pilots, Col. Blakeslee flew the F-84 in Korea.

 

They were faster and longer ranged than the F-86A - so they were viewed as an escort fighter (before being shifted almost entirely to the ground attack role).

 

  

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The F84 did a lot of work in the attack role, really look forward to it.

 

It only flew 86,408 sorties! I gather that most of them were ground attack too! Definitely was needed. I'm a bit surprised it is the G variant (for some reason I assumed it would be a D or E).

 

  

1 hour ago, migmadmarine said:

1. I wish we were not confined to starting at the beginning of each "phase", it would be nice to be able to select our own date a la ROF, say if there was an aircraft we were particularly interested in flying, and wanted to start at the time it was adopted by a given unit, or of we wanted to start a few days before a major event like D-Day. 

2. It would be nice to have an easier way to skip ahead to a date, similar to PWCG's "request leave" feature. That way you could easily fast forward through the slow periods at the player's discretion.

 

I agree! If these features are added it would cause me to use the campaign a lot more.

[LukeFF]

More info about career will come, don't worry. 🙂 The thing about it being commander only right now, as Zhenya talks about in the video, is each role (flight lead, section lead, etc) needs to be properly fleshed out. As anyone who's played the current career knows, that's just non-existent right now in any form. 

 

So, likely this is the first step towards making a better career mode than what we have right now. The team is well-aware players want to fly as lower-ranking pilots. 

[Rjel]

19 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

They were faster and longer ranged than the F-86A - so they were viewed as an escort fighter (before being shifted almost entirely to the ground attack role).

 

They were faster than the F-80 but somewhat slower than the F-86A. The F-84 topped 600 MPH but the F-86A did closer to 670. Give or take. 

[ST_Catchov]

Looks good to me. Career mode badly needed a re-vamp. Finally, the penny drops. They want those SP sales. 

 

The video presentation still needs work .... but it's better than past efforts mostly. 3 & 1/2 stars. Turn down the volume and use subtitles if the dubbing annoys.

[Aapje]

I'm not going to jump to conclusions on the career. It could be really nice, or it could be meh. In any case, the actual flying is still going to be where you spend most of the time.

[Avimimus]

10 minutes ago, Rjel said:

They were faster than the F-80 but somewhat slower than the F-86A. The F-84 topped 600 MPH but the F-86A did closer to 670. Give or take. 

 

Are you sure? I have about 622 MPH for the F84G and about 601 MPH for the F-86A and 685 MPH for the F-86F... however, looking at Richard L. Johnson's record breaking flight in the F-86A, it would seem my numbers might be off... that said, I keep seeing numbers in the 600 MPH or less range for the Sabre (including for the up-engined Mk.5 in some sources)!

[Jade_Monkey]

Here is some fuel for the speculation fire:  Available planes: F9F-8  (or am I reading that wrong?)

 

According to Wikipedia it did not make it in time to Korea?  

 

 

 

 

  

[deathmisser]

4 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Here is some fuel for the speculation fire:  Available planes: F9F-8  (or am I reading that wrong?)

 

According to Wikipedia it did not make it in time to Korea?  

 

 

 

 

  

Was this from the video posted earlier ? 

[Jade_Monkey]

2 minutes ago, deathmisser said:

Was this from the video posted earlier ? 

Yes  about 1/3 in

[deathmisser]

If it was then yea it is.

 

Plane list,

 

F9F-5         

F-80C         

F-51D-25    

F-4U-4E 

F-86A

F-84E

 

 

 

So this is the plane list so far for Il-2 Korea. Please correct me if I'm wrong or missing stuff.

 

USA

F9F-5         
F-80C         
F-51D-25    
F-4U-4E 
F-86A
F-84E

B-29 (AI)

NK/RU/CH

Mig-15Bis
Yak 9P
IL-10

Tu-2S (AI)

Edited July 18, 2024 by deathmisser

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

 

Are you sure? I have about 622 MPH for the F84G and about 601 MPH for the F-86A and 685 MPH for the F-86F... however, looking at Richard L. Johnson's record breaking flight in the F-86A, it would seem my numbers might be off... that said, I keep seeing numbers in the 600 MPH or less range for the Sabre (including for the up-engined Mk.5 in some sources)!

Sure? Only based on what I've read. The prototype straight wing XP-86 couldn't do 600 MPH. That's when it was redesigned. Perhaps those are the numbers you're thinking of? The swept wing XP-86 broke Mach1 (in a dive) in 1948. I think the top speed of later F-86As was around 670.

[migmadmarine]

Huh, surprised if we are getting an additional American jet rather than an LA-11, always more associated those with Korea than Yaks, but that could well be off the mark.

[migmadmarine]

2 hours ago, deathmisser said:

If it was then yea it is.

 

Plane list,

 

F9F-5         

F-80C         

F-51D-25    

F-4U-4E 

F-86A

F-84E

 

 

 

So this is the plane list so far for Il-2 Korea. Please correct me if I'm wrong or missing stuff.

 

USA

F9F-5         
F-80C         
F-51D-25    
F-4U-4E 
F-86A
F-84E

B-29 (AI)

NK/RU/CH

Mig-15Bis
Yak 9P
IL-10

Tu-2S (AI)

Hang on, F4U-4E, isn't that a radar equipped version?

[PretzelDarter]

Wasn't the 4E also only a proposal? The 4N only had only one built too iirc. The F4U-5N meanwhile saw widespread service as a nightfighter version of the Corsair.