IL-2 4th Generation Future Titles

[BraveSirRobin]

So it’s now official.

 

No Channel map.

No London added to the Channel map that isn’t being done.

No WW1 Italy.

 

Thanks for the update!  

[ST_Catchov]

We're sittin' down to dinner see, the missus and me, tuckin' inta croc and crab freshly caught from the Mary River. All romantic like. And she turns to me and says, who's this Robin bloke? Is he a military type? He seems very assertive. I says nah, cracking the leg off a crab and sucking the meat out. He's just some bloke that pops up now and then. Oh, she says. So he doesn't wear a uniform then? I don't think so I says. Maybe in private. She's noodling the croc meat around the plate and sighs. I says would you like a cask wine darl, sensing her disappointment. Fresh, none of that vintage muck. She nods, and holds out her mug.

 

Well, if Trooper's not comin' downunder, what about young Luke she says. He seems like a nice chap, brightening up. I bet he looks good in uniform. He's happily married darl, forget it I says. She gets that gooey look in her eyes again and starts humming Glenn Miller's St Louis Blues March hopelessly off key. 

 

I decide to change the subject and discuss the Devs plans for FC in the new engine. She wanders off into the kitchen to do the dishes, mug in hand, still humming. I'm listening darl, she says. I know she's not. God love 'er.

 

[DD_Arthur]

4 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

We're sittin' down to dinner see, the missus and me, tuckin' inta croc and crab freshly caught from the Mary River. All romantic like. And she turns to me and says, who's this Robin bloke? Is he a military type? He seems very assertive. I says nah, cracking the leg off a crab and sucking the meat out. He's just some bloke that pops up now and then. Oh, she says. So he doesn't wear a uniform then? I don't think so I says. Maybe in private. She's noodling the croc meat around the plate and sighs. I says would you like a cask wine darl, sensing her disappointment. Fresh, none of that vintage muck. She nods, and holds out her mug.

 

Well, if Trooper's not comin' downunder, what about young Luke she says. He seems like a nice chap, brightening up. I bet he looks good in uniform. He's happily married darl, forget it I says. She gets that gooey look in her eyes again and starts humming Glenn Miller's St Louis Blues March hopelessly off key. 

 

I decide to change the subject and discuss the Devs plans for FC in the new engine. She wanders off into the kitchen to do the dishes, mug in hand, still humming. I'm listening darl, she says. I know she's not. God love 'er.

 

Despite reports to the contrary, it’s wonderful to see that Sir Les Paterson is alive and well!

😍

[BraveSirRobin]

9 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

I'm listening darl, she says. I know she's not. God love 'er.

 

Don’t worry about her.  I’m listening, bro.  I can’t wait to hear what we’re not getting next.  Although this new announcement is a little odd.  We’re not getting croc or crabs?  Is that like one of Jason’s games where we have to guess what new features won’t be added?

[Enceladus828]

On 8/16/2024 at 4:37 PM, Enceladus828 said:

If FC4 is it for any major WW1 development in GBs then I hope the devs will contract another 3rd party team to bring the RoF Channel and Tarnopol maps to the new engine, and add the Italian, Romanian, Balkans and Palestine Fronts to it.

Adding on to this, if WW1 is to be continued in the new engine then I would want to have to have the Channel Map added to FC as a final send off with the rest of the fronts listed added in the new engine (though it would be great to see all in FC). As many Entente planes already in FC were used by the Italians, Russians, Romanians and by the British in Palestine and the aforementioned places, they can get ported over and added to their respective fronts along with planes not featured in FC.

 

Doing some research, these FC planes, including those of the Central Powers, served on these fronts.

 

Italian: Sopwith Camel, RE.8, SPAD 7, SPAD 13, Nieuport 11, Nieuport 17.

 

Eastern: Nieuport 11, Nieuport 17, Sopwith Triplane, Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter, SPAD 7; Albatross D.II and D.III OAW

 

Balkans: DH.2; Halberstadt D.II

 

Palestine: SE5, RE.8, Bristol Fighter (technically speaking the Handley Page but only 1 was used); Halberstadt D.II.

[BlitzPig_EL]

It has been stated repeatedly that after Korea the team will be focused on the Pacific.  It has also been stated that old maps are NOT compatible with the new engine.

Once FC4 drops that's all folks.  You are only building yourself up for disappointment.

 

Continuing this absurd PR campaign will not sway the devs to the will of about 4 people that are the most vocal supporters of WW1 on this forum.

If The Great War was as popular as you make it out, don't you think the developers would have posted positively on updating it in a new engine?

Yet they have not done that.  They see the numbers that we don't, and I'm willing to bet real money that WW1 is a losing proposition for them.  If it was as popular as you make out there would be other developers rushing to release new WW1 flight sims.  So where are they?

Edited August 18, 2024 by BlitzPig_EL

[Trooper117]

9 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

If it was as popular as you make out there would be other developers rushing to release new WW1 flight sims.  So where are they?

 

He might have something there!!!

[Avimimus]

13 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Continuing this absurd PR campaign will not sway the devs to the will of about 4 people that are the most vocal supporters of WW1 on this forum.

 

I will defend our right to be absolutely delusional! Including about the upcoming glorious waters of Venice!

 

That said, I doubt that the devs will be swayed - so you needn't worry about that. Think of us as jesters of the flying circus  You needn't be quite so serious!

 

13 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

They see the numbers that we don't, and I'm willing to bet real money that WW1 is a losing proposition for them.  If it was as popular as you make out there would be other developers rushing to release new WW1 flight sims.  So where are they?

 

The same thing could be said of flight simulators generally... 'If flight seems were as popular as you make out, there would be other developers rushing to release new flight sims. So where are they?'

 

The current combat flight simulators started as:

1) A WWI sim.

2) A simulation of the Il-2 Sturmovik (which later received fighters, then other aircraft), and its Battle of Britain successor.

3) A simulation of the Su-27 (which was then rebuilt around the Su-25, and then the Ka-50).

That is it. There haven't been any others.

 

Part of this might be the initial start-up costs, with an immense amount of technical skill required, and several years (and millions of dollars) of lead time prior to an initial release. That is probably why there hasn't been the creation of a new combat flight simulator engine from scratch in over fifteen years.

 

In any case, one of the three successes was a WWI sim! It was also the first successful combat flight simulator to not have its roots in a project started more than twenty years ago (i.e. in the previous century).

 

P.S. I appreciate that you are representing your speculations as being speculations (and making it clear that you don't actually know the financials).

[BraveSirRobin]

16 hours ago, Avimimus said:

The same thing could be said of flight simulators generally... 'If flight seems were as popular as you make out, there would be other developers rushing to release new flight sims. So where are they?'

No, it really can’t. Jason moved on from WW1 as soon as he got the opportunity to do so.  DCS has WW2.  IL2-1946 was WW2.  Jason’s new project is WW2.  Clod is WW2.  The guy who developed the original Red Baron tried to start a WW1 arcade game and everyone laughed at him.  
 

But, sure, it’s a total mystery why no one is developing WW1 combat flight sims.

[MajorMagee]

This is the best you are going to get for WW1 

 

WOFF Is Still In Active Development.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2024 by MajorMagee

[BraveSirRobin]

15 minutes ago, MajorMagee said:

This is the best you are going to get for WW1 

 

WOFF Is Still In Active Development.

 

 

 

It’s 3 people using ancient tech.  Do they have an Italy map?

[Jackfraser24]

What do you (the reader) think about them doing a Philippine map covering both Philippine campaigns? 

[JFM]

11 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It has been stated repeatedly that after Korea the team will be focused on the Pacific.  It has also been stated that old maps are NOT compatible with the new engine.

Once FC4 drops that's all folks.  You are only building yourself up for disappointment.

 

Continuing this absurd PR campaign will not sway the devs to the will of about 4 people that are the most vocal supporters of WW1 on this forum.

If The Great War was as popular as you make it out, don't you think the developers would have posted positively on updating it in a new engine?

Yet they have not done that.  They see the numbers that we don't, and I'm willing to bet real money that WW1 is a losing proposition for them.  If it was as popular as you make out there would be other developers rushing to release new WW1 flight sims.  So where are they?

Similarly, after having written four WW1 books for Osprey, with two more in the pipeline, I (and all the other WW1 authors, guys with way more books than I) were informed by Osprey that they would no longer be publishing WW1 aviation titles. Go check—seen any new ones in the last few/several years? Why? Sales. They *do* sell, but nowhere as well as what Osprey said was their money-makers—WWII, Cold War, Vietnam. I’ve done zero research on this, but my guess is it’s similar for flight sims. If nothing else, Osprey’s decision is a barometer of the overall interest of the masses. 

[Avimimus]

14 minutes ago, JFM said:

Similarly, after having written four WW1 books for Osprey, with two more in the pipeline, I (and all the other WW1 authors, guys with way more books than I) were informed by Osprey that they would no longer be publishing WW1 aviation titles. Go check—seen any new ones in the last few/several years? Why? Sales. They *do* sell, but nowhere as well as what Osprey said was their money-makers—WWII, Cold War, Vietnam. I’ve done zero research on this, but my guess is it’s similar for flight sims. If nothing else, Osprey’s decision is a barometer of the overall interest of the masses. 

 

Yes, that would fit with overall trends... and trends in overall memory (unfortunately).

 

It'd be interesting to get some numbers from the history of flight simulators... my overall impression is that most have been 4th or 5th generation jets, followed by the 8th Airforce and Midway, followed by Battle of Britain, followed by WWI, followed by Korea.

 

But an important caveat is that these sims almost all date from the 1990s, and the market may have changed substantially since then. Flight sims have less backing from mainstream game companies, they tend to be relatively self-published, they cost more to develop, and gaming overall has changed massively in the last quarter century.

 

There is a distinction between what is profitable and what is most profitable. We see a lot of projects for DCS which don't make sense under conventional wisdom including transport aircraft (e.g. CH-47, C-130), light scout helicopters (Sa-342, Oh-58), trainers, and relatively obscure designs with modest performance (J-8PP). Rise of Flight was also clearly successful enough to keep them in business and allow them to keep developing the engine and adding new features over several years.

 

But, I agree that WWI likely has a much smaller market than other subjects.

[Trooper117]

It's all gone for a box of birds... that's the truth of it.

We might see the ''agonal gasp'' of WWI as it draws it's final breath after FC4... it's more likely that will happen than a continuation into a new version in the new engine.

Sad to say it, but there is nothing else on the horizon for a new WWI air combat series, and yes, WoFF is still going, and yes , it's old tech, but it's still the best for a properly fleshed out WWI air combat game on the Western Front. Such is life!

 

[Avimimus]

9 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

We might see the ''agonal gasp'' of WWI as it draws it's final breath after FC4... it's more likely that will happen than a continuation into a new version in the new engine.

 

Yes, I suspect that it is too early to begin rebuilding WWI content from scratch in the next generation of the engine... which means that we may be looking at a five or ten year gap. This is why some continued development after FC4 by a third party is desirable (and likely to be sufficiently profitable - given the lack of competition on the WWI front).

 

There is another issue - one that was rearing its head back in the Rise of Flight days - which no one seems to be talking about though! Which is that they were running out of single seat fighters. There is probably enough for a Volume 5 though...

 

The remaining fighters are:

- A couple of important early war types (Fokker D.II, Morane-Saulnier N).

- Two visually striking fighters from 1917 which had limited performance at higher altitudes and were overshadowed by other types as a result (i.e. Airco D.H.5 vs. Roland D.II). - One extremely high performance late-war German fighter (i.e. Roland D.VI).

- Three fighters that were distributed across many units in small numbers to aces (Fokker D.III, Fokker E.IV, and Spad S.XII).

 

After that we're mainly on to two seat fighters (Hannover CL.II, Nieuport N.12) and a couple of conversions of two-seaters to single-seat fighters (e.g. Morane-Saulnier L) or expanding to include naval fighters or the Italian/Austro-Hungarian front (which has a number of additional single seat fighters).

 

P.S. I probably should have included the F.E.8 in that list (a British fighter similar to the D.H.2) - but it doesn't add as much in terms of historical accuracy or gameplay balance as the Fokker D.II or Morane-Saulnier N would. There are also a number of other conversions of racer aircraft or two seaters into fighters in 1915, but these were almost all total failures.

 

[Avimimus]

I suppose one could also make an FC volume by including some variants of existing fighters (e.g. Bentley Camel, Mercedes D.IIIaü Pfalz D.XII, Hispano-Suiza 8 150hp S.E.5, Albatros D.V) - so one might actually be able to get two more modules out of the Western Front (especially if float-planes were included)... although I'm suspect that additional variants wouldn't sell as well as completely new types.

 

In any case, I do find it interesting that the number of single-seat fighters was running low. Of course, a major priority for improving realism would be to get a handful of additional two-seaters to fill in major gaps (mainly slower 1916 types, a lack of French types, and the missing Rumpler C.IV)! ...but I assume that one probably needs to have 50%-70% of a plane list be fighters.

[Jackfraser24]

Hey guys I appreciate yo all visiting my thread and posting things but this topic is not about the future of Flying Circus but about the future of the new series after Korea and then the Pacific. You are more than welcome to post things about the future of Flying Circus on another thread of mine called Flying Circus Future but please keep it there. 

 

Thank you. 

[Trooper117]

36 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

but about the future of the new series after Korea and then the Pacific.

 

They will be aiming for Vietnam... be sure.

[ST_Catchov]

Choppers innit. That's wots next Jack. The Devs cannot resist a challenge and them things is their last great flying crate challenge. 

 

And then of course, Vietnam. It's a natural progression.

 

Or they could just do Zeppelins.

 

 

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

Choppers innit. That's wots next Jack. The Devs cannot resist a challenge and them things is their last great flying crate challenge. 

 

And then of course, Vietnam. It's a natural progression.

 

Or they could just do Zeppelins.

 

 

Hey, don't joke about Vietnam! They really could announce a Vietnam title one of these years. And they really could have choppers! 

Edited August 20, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I think engineers would like to take a challenge in modeling chopper FM. Like they do with tanks in first place - just for fun.

[Avimimus]

14 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Hey guys I appreciate yo all visiting my thread and posting things but this topic is not about the future of Flying Circus but about the future of the new series after Korea and then the Pacific. You are more than welcome to post things about the future of Flying Circus on another thread of mine called Flying Circus Future but please keep it there. 

 

Thank you. 

 

Ah, a lot of people see Flying Circus and Tank Crew as now being part of the 'Il-2 series'.

 

What would you define as being on-topic? WWII only - or does it include post-war (e.g. Europe 1950s, expansions to Korea, Suez Crisis)? What about interwar conflicts going on in 1939 (i.e. Russo-Finnish Winter War, Khalkhin-Gol, Spanish Civil War)?

 

From a really strict perspective, I suppose that the Il-2 series proper might only be those modules with an Il-2 in them (i.e. BoS, BoM, and BoK)!

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Ah, a lot of people see Flying Circus and Tank Crew as now being part of the 'Il-2 series'.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. "4th gen IL2" starts with Korea - in Jack's reasoning WW2 would then also be out of the question since that too involves an unrelated war. Not to mention other theatres that have been talked about like Vietnam.

 

15 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

about the future of the new series

But what then defines "new series"? IMO the correct answer is not content-dependent but purely technological - everything running on the new engine is the new series, regardless of whether it's Korea, WW2, Vietnam or WW1. Flying Circus and Tank Crew both run on the same engine as the current IL2 - heck, they're even part of the same game. If you'd want to, you could fly a Mustang, join up with a Camel and bomb a Tiger tank, all in a single mission or multiplayer server. FC and TC are just as much an "IL2 3rd generation title" as BoS to BoN are. Similarly, if they go WW2 in the next generation, it would just as much be an "IL2 4th generation future title" as Korea - and so would any WW1 title that's made within the same technological framework.

[Aapje]

You can define it both technology-wise, but also based on content. For example, based on what modules form one big campaign, or the setting, or the kind of planes, or whatever.

[Airborne2001]

On 8/14/2024 at 7:23 PM, Jackfraser24 said:

I meant some time after they have finished with the Pacific. When they have IL-2 Series development going at full speed. 

 

Speaking of the Pacific, here's where I think they will go.

• Okinawa
• Marianas
• Gilbert islands
• Coral Sea

But don't take my word as gospel. 

The original plan years ago was to go to Midway first, then to Okinawa, and then a third unknown location in the Pacific. That was for Great Battles before they changed into the Western Front direction.

[Jackfraser24]

35 minutes ago, Airborne2001 said:

The original plan years ago was to go to Midway first, then to Okinawa, and then a third unknown location in the Pacific. That was for Great Battles before they changed into the Western Front direction.

I'm kind of glad that they went for the Western Front over the Pacific theatre because:

1. software technologies were not ripe enough to provide a decent carrier ops at the time (from my understanding of the issue).
2. they did not have enough information on the planes and carrier positions during the battles.
3. We got some good planes out of it such as the Me-262, P-51, Me-410, P-38, Tempest and the Ar-234 (speed is a good enough defense system to make it a good bomber).
4. though I think Bodenplatte and Normandy were pretty good, I also think it was a learning experience for the developers that showed them where Great Battles had it's limits. From my understanding the game cannot handle large densely populated areas and highly detailed mas to the level everyone was hoping. Hopefully this new game can do that to everybody's expectations. 

Edited August 20, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[Avimimus]

14 hours ago, Airborne2001 said:

The original plan years ago was to go to Midway first, then to Okinawa, and then a third unknown location in the Pacific. That was for Great Battles before they changed into the Western Front direction.

 

Is there a citation for this?

 

The late war Pacific always seemed a bit too imbalanced... My inclination was always to do Midway (with Coral Sea and Santa Cruz as DLC), and then do the Eastern Solomons/Guadalcanal as it would introduce more variations in aircraft give a more ground support...

 

However, that plan doesn't include a Ki-43... so if I was going for my own preferences, I'd lean into New Guinea or the Philippines (or Burma)...

[Varibraun]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Is there a citation for this?

 

I think the actual 2017 announcement including a roadmap was taken down when the Pacific was shelved for BoBp.  But Okinawa was on that old Pacific roadmap.  Here are a few references I could find to it, one even quoting the announcement in a DCS forum:

 

 

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/158999-il2-going-back-to-pacific/

 

https://stormbirds.blog/2017/03/09/what-are-the-chances-that-il-2-battle-of-okinawa-would-feature-the-bpf/

 

 

[Avimimus]

Ah! Interesting! Thanks! A bit of the history I somehow missed!

 

I'd be interesting to hear the pitch for why Okinawa should be a priority over the Solomons or New Guinea!  I suppose the Avengers get rockets? Anything else particularly attractive?

[BlitzPig_EL]

I don't care where they go, as long as it's a theatre where I can fly the Ki61.

 

Be sure.

 

My old sig from Pacific Fighters

[BlitzPig_Bill_Kelso]

In my opinion, 

The AI needs some serious work. If the Dev's don't introduce the next sim with some great AI and some solid, engaging single player content, I am not interested. Same thing with the online, work with Hyperlobby, make a great dedicated server and amazing mission builder. Do what is necessary to build a community.

 

I am tired of the lack of serious effort in these regards.

[Varibraun]

15 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Ah! Interesting! Thanks! A bit of the history I somehow missed!

 

I'd be interesting to hear the pitch for why Okinawa should be a priority over the Solomons or New Guinea!  I suppose the Avengers get rockets? Anything else particularly attractive?

 

Personally, I agree with you that I would rather go to either of those (and CBI) before Okinawa.  I guess the thought was the late war Japanese a/c. 

 

Anyway, since that is well down the line for IL-2 development, I am looking just forward what is next on the table here in Korea and I guess we will see what/when CP brings for a new WWII Pacific experience.  I just feel fortunate to have new flightsim experiences on the horizon with all of the advances in hardware and software tech finally coming to fruition in our little hobby.  

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Time will tell and I'm moderately excited for Korea (well the new game engine and world at least), but I think the devs have made a big mistake abandoning GB instead of revamping it and bringing it up to a 2024 standard while maintaining backwards compatibility. I agree with a certain ex producer that shan't be named, that Italy/Sicily--along with more focus on planes, core engine improvements/fixes, and content for Karelia/Odessa and FC4--would have been a great 2-3 year plan to finish and polish up GB (so that it could sustain itself for years to come), before moving on to the jet age. It also seems silly to go from Korea back to Pacific WW2 when the new engine will have no other WW2 theaters or planes. Who will want to fly WW2 after tasting jets with guns? That approach (to jump back and forth in time and era in a non-cohesive manner) seems frenetic to me. Time will tell who's right, but I don't know about the future of IL-2. For now, I'll keep enjoying GB and try to get the devs to continue to improve and refine it before it is left to time.

[BraveSirRobin]

32 minutes ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

Time will tell and I'm moderately excited for Korea (well the new game engine and world at least), but I think the devs have made a big mistake abandoning GB instead of revamping it and bringing it up to a 2024 standard while maintaining backwards compatibility.

Ex-software developer here.  Why do you think they made a mistake?  Did they include you in development meetings and refuse to listen to your advice?  Because moving on from a functional product and creating a new one that is not backwards compatible is extremely common in software development.  I’ve been involved in at least 5 different cases.  What makes you think this one was not necessary?

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Ex-software developer here.  Why do you think they made a mistake?  Did they include you in development meetings and refuse to listen to your advice?  Because moving on from a functional product and creating a new one that is not backwards compatible is extremely common in software development.  I’ve been involved in at least 5 different cases.  What makes you think this one was not necessary?

I don't think think Korea will be the commercial success they believe it will be. I hope I'm wrong. Moving away from a known and established platform that is very good and has tons of content and ways to make money built in to establish something new and incompatible (and in a forgotten theater to boot) is/was a big risk. Even diehards like me are very lukewarm. Only time will tell. If they were planning to improve and port the existing planes and maps over to the new engines I would feel very differently.

[BraveSirRobin]

19 minutes ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

I don't think think Korea will be the commercial success they believe it will be. I hope I'm wrong. Moving away from a known and established platform that is very good and has tons of content and ways to make money built in to establish something new and incompatible (and in a forgotten theater to boot) is/was a big risk. Even diehards like me are very lukewarm. Only time will tell. If they were planning to improve and port the existing planes and maps over to the new engines I would feel very differently.

Were you this concerned when they dumped the RoF game platform and moved of to GB?

[Jackfraser24]

14 hours ago, 1./JG54_Lang said:

In my opinion, 

The AI needs some serious work. If the Dev's don't introduce the next sim with some great AI and some solid, engaging single player content, I am not interested. Same thing with the online, work with Hyperlobby, make a great dedicated server and amazing mission builder. Do what is necessary to build a community.

 

I am tired of the lack of serious effort in these regards.

I agree with you on this. The other day I was doing an airfield attack mission in Normandy and let’s just say only my bombs hit anything. The other AI controlled planes missed the airfield entirely. I recon that the AI needs to be fixed in Great Battles before they shut down development of this game.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Were you this concerned when they dumped the RoF game platform and moved of to GB?

I never played RoF but good try. 

[Aapje]

5 hours ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

I don't think think Korea will be the commercial success they believe it will be. I hope I'm wrong. Moving away from a known and established platform that is very good and has tons of content and ways to make money built in to establish something new and incompatible (and in a forgotten theater to boot) is/was a big risk. Even diehards like me are very lukewarm. Only time will tell. If they were planning to improve and port the existing planes and maps over to the new engines I would feel very differently.

 

They stuck with the old platform for 10 years, which is a very long time. The MSFS 2020 platform is now getting abandoned after just 4 years.

 

In software, it tends to get harder and harder to improve things, as more and more is build for the old platform. Some changes becomes practically impossible, since the impact is so large and we've seen that GB was stuck with many limitations because of this. With this step, they can make major improvements and bring the engine up to date.

 

And I personally think that your view is completely incorrect and that Korea will sell far better than remastering the old content in a new engine. We would see endless complaints how things are too much the same and that there is nothing new and exciting to do. Korea still offers the close combat of the pre-guided missile era and they already promised to go back to WW II, in the pacific.