IL-2 4th Generation Future Titles

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Or it fails miserably and everyone loses their jobs.  And flight sim developers obviously look at SCW and think “I don’t want to lose my job”.

 

And this is not even close to being the same as Korea.  I can go to an air show in the US and see aircraft that fought in Korea.  Some of the most iconic aircraft in aviation history fought in Korea.  That is not the case with SCW. 

Glass half full or half empty. 

Btw smart business rather have budget for mishaps calculated. 

[BraveSirRobin]

41 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Glass half full or half empty. 

Btw smart business rather have budget for mishaps calculated. 

Go ahead and develop a SCW game if you think you have a better grasp of the market than the current developers.  But there is a reason these games are now produced using cheaper Russian programmers.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

17 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Go ahead and develop a SCW game if you think you have a better grasp of the market than the current developers.  But there is a reason these games are now produced using cheaper Russian programmers.

Ok 

[BraveSirRobin]

17 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Ok 

I know.

[Gambit21]

13 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Until someone do something nobody ever tried it and make successful business out of that "risk" decision.

 

Sorry that's not how business works, especially this business.

Some things are manifestly awful ideas, and those are avoided in favor of acceptable risks.

Guess which category the Spanish Civil War falls into.

[Avimimus]

13 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Sorry that's not how business works, especially this business.

Some things are manifestly awful ideas, and those are avoided in favor of acceptable risks.

Guess which category the Spanish Civil War falls into.

 

That is exactly how business works. One conceives of and produces a product. Then one finds out how well the product does. It either returns a substantial profit, returns a minimal profit, or is a loss. One can't know for certain ahead of time how big a market will be and companies are taking risks all of the time. Market research is always an informed guess (unless you've locked in contracts for a product you haven't even designed or produced yet).

 

You can argue that preliminary market research suggests it is unlikely that a product would be profitable or very profitable... but you can't argue this isn't exactly how it works.

 

  

16 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Go ahead and develop a SCW game if you think you have a better grasp of the market than the current developers.  But there is a reason these games are now produced using cheaper Russian programmers.

 

Let's not make assumptions here. I gather the salaries are relatively competitive for many of the job types (the devs have only stated that it is difficult to find AI programmers).

 

But that does get to a point - something like the SCW would probably be developed by 3rd parties who are doing most of the initial work in their spare time... so they can afford for the product to not be immensely successful, as they are not relying on it. There are some people who just really want to make a superb 3d model of something like a CR.32 and will put most of their spare time into it - and if they get paid at the end, it is a bonus.

 

The Karelia map was originally to be developed for free... one could do something similar for the map, and have 3d modellers build for four flyable and a couple of AI aircraft this way... then go to early access and put the revenue into completing the flyable list... it is probably feasible.

[Avimimus]

 

  

19 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

And this is not even close to being the same as Korea.  I can go to an air show in the US and see aircraft that fought in Korea.  Some of the most iconic aircraft in aviation history fought in Korea.  That is not the case with SCW. 

 

So, the Bf-109, He-111, S.M.79 aren't iconic? Really? The only aircraft I can think of from Korea which are equally iconic are the F-51, F4U and F-86...

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

That is exactly how business works. One conceives of and produces a product. Then one finds out how well the product does. It either returns a substantial profit, returns a minimal profit, or is a loss. One can't know for certain ahead of time how big a market will be and companies are taking risks all of the time. Market research is always an informed guess (unless you've locked in contracts for a product you haven't even designed or produced yet).

 

You can argue that preliminary market research suggests it is unlikely that a product would be profitable or very profitable... but you can't argue this isn't exactly how it works.  

 

I'm sorry...I should have said smart business.

To be clear...you lost the thread a few words in with "produces a product" because in this case that wouldn't work out very well, and that's pretty much a known quantity, and that's why it hasn't happened, nor ever will happen.

 

Of course we can pick this thread back up in another 15 years and debate it further...when it still hasn't happened.

[Rei-sen]

22 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

But there is a reason these games are now produced using cheaper Russian programmers.

Now? When was the last time they weren't made by Russian programmers, lol.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

I'm sorry...I should have said smart business.

 

Ah, now that is a much more reasonable claim.

 

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

To be clear...you lost the thread a few words in with "produces a product" because in this case that wouldn't work out very well, and that's pretty much a known quantity, and that's why it hasn't happened, nor ever will happen.

 

Technically it has happened - Luftwaffe Commander has some Spanish Civil War scenarios... it was made and released... a bit of a buggy product overall though.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Warthunder also has a SCW map and planes, and they're still here. Obviously making the SCW is not the secret to their success, but they do show that stuff like the SCW can exist in different business models. It probably makes more sense for 1C to stick to safer theaters for IL2 where they hyper focus on 8-10 planes and a map every 2-3 years, but it can exist in a game that favors breadth over depth.

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Ah, now that is a much more reasonable claim.

 

 

Technically it has happened - Luftwaffe Commander has some Spanish Civil War scenarios... it was made and released... a bit of a buggy product overall though.

 

Ahh...imbedding obscure, unpopular, commercially unviable content into a product who's main focus is non-obscure, commercially viable content...smart.  

Although I'd argue the employee time spent on that obscure content could have been better spent.

 

SCW is going to happen when?
 

 

 

Sorry...making myself laugh. 
Apparently I'm 12.    🤣

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

They did WW1 Ilya Muromets with map and S-22 how this is  less obscure than Spanish Civil War? 😅

Edited November 14, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Gambit21]

46 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

They did WW1 Ilya Muromets with map and S-22 how this is  less obscure than Spanish Civil War? 😅

 

You mean the aircraft that the museum commissioned from them? 

Stick with apples to apples please. You're also talking about a plane/map...not an entire theater with multiple aircraft.

 

Being able to answer the question you asked is one of the things I suppose that separates someone who should be a flight sim producer, and someone who shouldn't be.   

[Enceladus828]

On 11/13/2024 at 2:55 AM, Avimimus said:

I'd expect possibly the Battle of Britain - but more likely a scenario in 1944-1945 for the first Western European module.

Italy 1944 and 45 would be my choice though Tunisia or Sicily would be nice. 
 

On 11/13/2024 at 8:09 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

Or it fails miserably and everyone loses their jobs.  And flight sim developers obviously look at SCW and think “I don’t want to lose my job”.

Starting with SCW for a high fidelity or hardcore flight sim would not be a wise business decision but if you start somewhere that’s very familiar or has familiar aircraft and then cover a lesser known place (though not SCW necessarily) it can work. For instance if the devs started with Kuban instead of Stalingrad, well, the Kuban bridgehead isn’t well known so while you would have a Spitfire and P-39, it wouldn’t sell as much as one set in Stalingrad. If combat flight sims developers only covered places that are very well known — Normandy, Battle of Britain, Rhineland, Moscow, Stalingrad, Midway, Guadalcanal and Okinawa — then that would get boring pretty quickly and devoid us from lesser known but interesting places which offer scenery and opportunities.

 

Risks can be very beneficial as long as we know that we can break even with it or have the finances that it’s not risking us going out of business. I’d also say that another company doing an obscure theatre can show that going there would be financially viable. One could say that Tobruk, Malta, Tunisia and Italy would be too obscure to risk going there and would only go there at the end but if a company shows that the MTO would offer great opportunities and better explain the events surrounding a particular battle then going there wouldn’t be risky. In that logic, a WW1 Italian Front installment in the new engine would be financially viable thanks to BlackMill Games. The same can be said if they do Sinai-Palestine and Macedonia.

 

 

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

Risks can be very beneficial as long as we know that we can break even with it or have the finances that it’s not risking us going out of business.

 

Said no investor ever.

 

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

I’d also say that another company doing an obscure theatre can show that going there would be financially viable.

 

Sure, every company should wait for another company to prove that it's not a financial disaster. The problem is that every company knows that it would be a financial disaster.

 

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

One could say that Tobruk, Malta, Tunisia and Italy would be too obscure to risk going there

 

I'd say they are borderline yes, certainly better than SCW but I speak in relative terms there.

The only way forward is to secure the widest audience possible for each release. Investors expect a return, the "risk" we're speaking of here should not be underestimated. It's truly a risk.

 

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

and would only go there at the end but if a company shows that the MTO would offer great opportunities and better explain the events surrounding a particular battle then going there wouldn’t be risky.

 

Just to be clear, explaining historical events does not factor into financial success of a flight sim project. 

Japanese air operations over China in 1939 might very well be 'explained' by a flight sim project featuring these events, but good luck selling that to a wide audience.

 

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

In that logic, a WW1 Italian Front installment in the new engine would be financially viable thanks to BlackMill Games.

 

Define "viable" 

 

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

The same can be said if they do Sinai-Palestine and Macedonia.

 

Probably - I'd expect that to be just as successful as the Spanish Civil War. 

I suggest getting a kick-starter going and let us know how it shakes out.

 

To be clear, having everything available would be amazing, so that no matter what you want to fly, you just click there and go and fly it.

Truth is however that return on investment rules the day, and that's not a bad thing for most of us. 

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

a WW1 Italian Front installment in the new engine would be financially viable thanks to BlackMill Games. 

 

Only if "viable" means "crushing financial failure that doesn't impact me because I don’t have enough money to invest in it".

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

The same can be said if they do Sinai-Palestine and Macedonia.

 

This reminds me of one of my favorite jokes about owning a boat.

 

How do you make a small fortune in software gaming development?  

 

Start with a large fortune and make a WW1 flight sim featuring Sinai-Palestine or Macedonia. 

[Enceladus828]

6 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

You mean the aircraft that the museum commissioned from them? 

Stick with apples to apples please. You're also talking about a plane/map...not an entire theater with multiple aircraft.

I wouldn’t say that’s not an apples to apples comparison, how many WW1 flight sims have covered the Eastern Front? Yes the team was commissioned to make the Ilya Muromets but if the devs could have continued development of RoF we probably would have seen more Russian versions of Entente planes, AH versions of German planes, and a Pilot Career. After all, the Eastern Front of WW1 is much, much better known than the SCW.

 

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Sure, every company should wait for another company to prove that it's not a financial disaster. The problem is that every company knows that it would be a financial disaster.

No, not at all. Lol. What I was getting at is that is that if someone covered a lesser known place like North Africa for instance in great detail and was a financial success then it would show that covering this place would be worth it.

 

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Just to be clear, explaining historical events does not factor into financial success of a flight sim project. 

That’s not what I was saying or even implying.

 

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Define "viable" 

Sure. The Italian Front offers stunning scenery with the picturesque Dolomites and the Venetian Plains with the map, stretching from Venice to Trieste, it would offer a great planeset of Austro-Hungarian and Italian planes like the Hansa-Brandenburg D.I, Caproni Ca.3 and Ansaldo SVA, and a lot of planes in FC were also used by the Austro-Hungarian, Italians, and the Germans in 1917. Doing it can also bring many Isonzo players here so they can fly the planes that bombard them and also see the battlefield from the air.

 

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Probably - I'd expect that to be just as successful as the Spanish Civil War. 

I suggest getting a kick-starter going and let us know how it shakes out.

 

4 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Start with a large fortune and make a WW1 flight sim featuring Sinai-Palestine or Macedonia. 

You guys think I’m an idiot, if you’re going to do a WW1 series, sim or FPS, then you have to start with the Western Front or at the very least include it before doing other fronts. The only game that would start elsewhere would be a new WW1 series in the new engine — they would likely start with the Italian Front — but that is because the Western Front has already been greatly depicted in RoF and FC. There is no use making players buy RoF with the same map and planes for a third time, probably would be the same result as doing SCW. While the Western Front was where the majority of aerial action took place in WW1, aerial action also took place on the Eastern, Italian, Macedonian and Palestinian Fronts in significant numbers that they would be worth doing.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Enceladus828

[Gambit21]

19 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

I wouldn’t say that’s not an apples to apples comparison, how many WW1 flight sims have covered the Eastern Front? Yes the team was commissioned to make the Ilya Muromets but if the devs could have continued development of RoF we probably would have seen more Russian versions of Entente planes, AH versions of German planes, and a Pilot Career. After all, the Eastern Front of WW1 is much, much better known than the SCW.

 

No, not at all. Lol. What I was getting at is that is that if someone covered a lesser known place like North Africa for instance in great detail and was a financial success then it would show that covering this place would be worth it.

 

That’s not what I was saying or even implying.

 

Sure. The Italian Front offers stunning scenery with the picturesque Dolomites and the Venetian Plains with the map, stretching from Venice to Trieste, it would offer a great planeset of Austro-Hungarian and Italian planes like the Hansa-Brandenburg D.I, Caproni Ca.3 and Ansaldo SVA, and a lot of planes in FC were also used by the Austro-Hungarian, Italians, and the Germans in 1917. Doing it can also bring many Isonzo players here so they can fly the planes that bombard them and also see the battlefield from the air.

 

 

You guys think I’m an idiot, if you’re going to do a WW1 series, sim or FPS, then you have to start with the Western Front or at the very least include it before doing other fronts. The only game that would start elsewhere would be a new WW1 series in the new engine — they would likely start with the Italian Front — but that is because the Western Front has already been greatly depicted in RoF and FC. There is no use making players buy RoF with the same map and planes for a third time, probably would be the same result as doing SCW. While the Western Front was where the majority of aerial action took place in WW1, aerial action also took place on the Eastern, Italian, Macedonian and Palestinian Fronts in significant numbers that they would be worth doing.

FWIW I don’t think you’re an idiot at all.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The popularity of WW1 is waning across the board.  Osprey is no longer going to publish anything about the Great War, for example.

Making a WW1 air combat sim in today's market would be like making a first person shooter that covered the Boer War.

I don't like that, but that's the reality of it.  While I was still hosting for the BlitzPigs asking about putting up a WW1 server was a fast way to end the night.

It's a very small niche within a small niche.  It's a wonder that combat flight sims exist at all really.  They are populated by an aging demographic after all. (I'll be 71 this weekend).

Be happy that we have what we are getting.

Edited November 15, 2024 by BlitzPig_EL

[Enceladus828]

29 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

But I can tell you, without any fear of being proven wrong, that any WW1 combat flight sim that is not focused on the war over the trenches will be a financial disaster.

Where did I suggest that a WW1 combat flight sim be focused on anything but aerial warfare?

 

13 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Hell, they’re having trouble making a game that does focus on the war over the trenches financially viable.

Where's the proof that RoF and FC weren't financially viable? RoF sold well enough to be supported for 6 years, have 40+ planes and two more main maps. FC2 at the very least sold well enough to have FC3 quickly follow and then FC4 after.

 

16 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

There are probably dozens of aircraft that could have been added to RoF or FC.  But there wasn’t enough demand to make it happen.  

Are you sure it wasn't the devs making BoS/moving to another game engine and then having to leave RoF behind to focus entirely on BoS that more planes couldn't be added to RoF; same story with FC? If not for the devs making BoS or moving on to the Korea engine we could have seen more planes for RoF and FC.

 

43 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Almost no one gives a rat’s @ss about any other aspect of the WW1 air war.  So it isn’t going to happen.  Ever. Never ever.

 

24 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

But you think they’re going move on to a part of the war that hardly anyone cares about and make money?  lol.  Not a chance.

By that logic no developer would ever, ever, make a combat flight sim covering the Eastern Front of WW2 except for like the Battle of Berlin, but look where we are 23 years later.

[Enceladus828]

24 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

They are populated by an aging demographic after all. (I'll be 71 this weekend).

Be happy that we have what we are getting.

I'm sorry I just get frustrated by the fact that over 100 years later and all that is mainly talked about of WW1 is the Western Front. Heck, this whole war started from an event that happened in Austria-Hungary in 1914 and yet they become a footnote afterwards except for that the empire collapsed at the end of the war. WW1 saw many fronts across the world -- it was a crazed conflict over nationalistic dominance. Many fronts were not swift victories, also employed gas and trenches, and some fronts made fighting in France a walk in the park by comparison; air power was also seen in significant numbers in Europe beyond France and the Middle East so it's unfair to exclude them.

 

I have hope that if 1CGS doesn't do more WW1 then Asobo Studios will. Anyway man Happy Birthday! 🥳

[Trooper117]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

(I'll be 71 this weekend).

 

You old git... I'm 68 and rapidly catching you up! 

Have a great birthday mate!

[BlitzPig_EL]

8 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

I'm sorry I just get frustrated by the fact that over 100 years later and all that is mainly talked about of WW1 is the Western Front.

 

Anyway man Happy Birthday! 🥳

I get that the Western Front is the main focus to the detriment of the rest of the war,  hell, my callsign is derived from one of the players in the Mid East campaign, as I have always had a fascination with the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Turks, but no studio making flight sim content can survive without an income, and the masses only know about France in WW1, and WW2 is always about The Battle of Britain, Normandy, Midway, and Okinawa.  Which is sad as there are so many other places that could provide outstanding content.

 

Thanks for the Birthday wishes.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Why is there an aversion to new theatres among the history buffs? To me that would be the ideal, since there's all kinds of new stuff to learn, instead of rehashing all the things I already know from the typical battles.

[AndyJWest]

8 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Why is there an aversion to new theatres among the history buffs? To me that would be the ideal, since there's all kinds of new stuff to learn, instead of rehashing all the things I already know from the typical battles.

 

It isn't the history buffs that have the aversion, it's the people trying to make a profit in a niche market.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Q : If FC had been produced as a stand alone product and not part of a larger franchise - would we have got as far as FC4 ?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

12 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

It isn't the history buffs that have the aversion, it's the people trying to make a profit in a niche market.

Then what group is driving the demand to stick to mainly the typical battles? The history noobs or whatever you'd call them?

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Then what group is driving the demand to stick to mainly the typical battles? The history noobs or whatever you'd call them?

You don’t understand why more people are interested in the most important battles?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I want to better understand the aversion to the unfamiliar. I'll see people say things like "I've never heard about this battle before, I dont want it" instead of being curious about it.

[=621=Samikatz]

I generally think if the airplanes are interesting enough flight simmers are a niche and nerdy enough of an audience to do their homework and become interested in something. Kuban isn't a famous engagement in the west, but the aircraft provided an excellent experience and a lot of them still are quite novel for the series, so you see them used a lot online. The Other Simulator has plenty of second-rate popularity airplanes that really are there just for nerds, but you still see plenty of them online, people make lots of Youtube vids about them, etc. Korea might not be a war that's popular in media, but I think when people see jet gunfights swirling around bomber formations and ground attack runs through Korea's complex terrain then the interest will happen. I think 1CGS believe this too, which is why they're doing long vids talking about the history of specific aircraft, etc, devblogs for the lesser known airplanes...

 

While the SCW is historically interesting and relevant, I'm not sure if it would be fun to play for most. Air combat was largely asymmetric (more-so than Korea) with the Republicans have a significantly worse air force, and the airplanes on offer are largely what we have but less capable. I feel like if they were going to do something of the late 30s, Khalkin Gol would be more likely due to the novelty of Japanese aircraft and the more equal air war, and I think KG is *really* unlikely. How would it sell itself to the unfamiliar?

[BraveSirRobin]

7 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I want to better understand the aversion to the unfamiliar. I'll see people say things like "I've never heard about this battle before, I dont want it" instead of being curious about it.

Then you’re looking at the issue from the entirely wrong angle.  More people care about the most important battles.  They’re not interested in some obscure skirmishes in the mountains of Italy in WW1.  They’re not going to buy a game about stuff that they’re not interested in.  And since there isn’t much money in the genre to begin with, producing a game that may not attract the casual fans is too big of a risk.

Edited November 15, 2024 by BraveSirRobin

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Then you’re looking at the issue from the entirely wrong angle.  More people care about the most important battles.  They’re not interested in some obscure skirmishes in the mountains of Italy in WW1.  They’re not going to buy a game about stuff that they’re not interested in.  

Dude, if any WW1 sim started off with any front other than the Western Front then that would be a poor starting point and not get a large audience’s attention. However, if the (Western Front) sim is very successful then they can explore other fronts like Eastern and Italian. With those two, planes from the Western Front can also be used there.

 

I would say however that the Italian Front was not some obscure skirmish, it was a bloody stalemate for two years until the Germans helped the Austrians inflict a massive defeat for the Italians where they were almost knocked out of the war. The Front was a major proponent of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

 

P.S. I take it you don’t like this plane

Edited November 15, 2024 by Enceladus828

[AndyJWest]

58 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I want to better understand the aversion to the unfamiliar. I'll see people say things like "I've never heard about this battle before, I dont want it" instead of being curious about it.

 

'Aversion to the unfamiliar' is hardly confined to choice of video games. It is more or less the norm for most people, most of the time, regardless of what the subject is. If I see 'Baked beans in tomato sauce' on a supermarket shelf, I'll know what I'm getting. 'Braised beetroot in radish purée' might possibly taste as good, or even better, but I'm unlikely to try it on the off-chance. Selling stuff people have heard of is always easier than selling stuff they haven't.

 

The simple truth is that video games make most of their money from casual sales. They need to appeal to people who see the title and maybe look at a YouTube video or two to make their choices.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

38 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

'Aversion to the unfamiliar' is hardly confined to choice of video games. It is more or less the norm for most people, most of the time, regardless of what the subject is. 

True, but I would have guessed that flight simmers would be naturally curious about this stuff, but it makes sense if its not lack of curiosity and more about good match ups and consequential battles and youtube vids.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Enceladus828 said:

I would say however that the Italian Front was not some obscure skirmish,

lol.  Most people with a casual interest in WW1 probably don’t even know that it happened.  And even the people who know about it probably can’t name a single pilot who fought there.

[BraveSirRobin]

39 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

True, but I would have guessed that flight simmers would be naturally curious about this stuff, but it makes sense if its not lack of curiosity and more about good match ups and consequential battles and youtube vids.

 

Most of the people bought RoF aircraft did not play MP or SP careers.   They jumped into a quick mission and flew for a few hours and then shut the game down until the next aircraft was released.  That person is the target market. 

[Enceladus828]

27 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

lol.  Most people with a casual interest in WW1 probably don’t even know that it happened.  And even the people who know about it probably can’t name a single pilot who fought there.

Man, this thread is about discussing installments within the Korea engine. Yes, everyone has the right to post their opinions but being a troll here is unwelcomed. It's clear to all of us that you never had much interest in more WW1 maps and fronts because only the Western Front gets the fame and glory. In that sense then why are the devs doing Korea if it's The Forgotten War when audiences are much more familiar with the Pacific Theater of WW2? WW1 content has sold sufficiently enough to have dozens of aircraft in both RoF and FC over the course of 6 years that doing a WW1 installment in the Korea engine would be worth it. No WW1 sim would do the Western Front and all of a sudden jump to the Middle East or Africa, nor would developers start with anything but the Western Front. The only exception to that would be in the Korea sim because it makes no sense for a RoF 3.0 on the Western Front. They would start with the Eastern or Italian Front because those have aircraft which also saw use on the Western Front and eventually come back to the Western Front.

 

If WW1 beyond France is not of your interest then that's fine but if you cannot let others express their opinions of places that would be appealing to players (scenery, aircraft used, opportunities) without being rude to them then perhaps it's best to stay out of it. 

[LukeFF]

Guys, let's watch the tone and stay away from the name-calling, please.