Great Battles Future

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

I hope the Devs make the right choice ... the future of the sim at stake ...

[BraveSirRobin]

7 hours ago, moustache said:

 

I'm ready to pay for a new feature, a new campaign, but not to fix the bugs of a product I've already bought...

Then you should probably find another hobby, because that is how flight sims are now developed.  The sales of new planes and other new features pays for improvements, and that includes fixing bugs.  Some day they’ll stop releasing new aircraft, and the bug fixes will stop then as well.

[moustache]

11 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Then you should probably find another hobby, because that is how flight sims are now developed.  The sales of new planes and other new features pays for improvements, and that includes fixing bugs.  Some day they’ll stop releasing new aircraft, and the bug fixes will stop then as well.

this is even in general how video games now work for a large part... and that also because we are stupid enough to accept being cash cows... That doesn't mean I have to endorse that...

 

(and again, it doesn't work, it doesn't fix...)

[BraveSirRobin]

44 minutes ago, moustache said:

and that also because we are stupid enough to accept being cash cows... That doesn't mean I have to endorse that...

 

Yes, I am totally stupid enough to spend my money on games so amazing that I could not have even imagined that they were possible when I was a teen.

 

This is the reality of extremely complex software.  You’re basically paying a maintenance fee.  The days of getting a complete game on a 8” floppy disc are not coming back.

 

You don’t have to endorse it, but pretending that this could be done differently is just pissing into the wind.

[moustache]

10 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

pretending that this could be done differently is just pissing into the wind.

Reminds me of Candid, of Voltaire...

 

13 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Yes, I am totally stupid enough to spend my money

be careful, it's not to insult you, it's a generality, of which I am a part...

[BraveSirRobin]

34 minutes ago, moustache said:

Reminds me of Candid, of Voltaire...

 

be careful, it's not to insult you, it's a generality, of which I am a part...

I’m not taking it as an insult.  You have a completely unrealistic idea of how these games can be developed.  A developer that puts all it’s resources into fixing bugs before moving on to producing new features will very quickly go out of business.  There are 2 realistic options.  Use income from new modules to pay for ongoing bug fixes or charge a maintenance fee.  The “stupid” people willing to buy new products as they wait for issues to be fixed are the people keeping combat flight sims alive.

[moustache]

15 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I’m not taking it as an insult.

Oof,I was afraid

 

16 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

You have a completely unrealistic idea of how these games can be developed.

 

16 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Use income from new modules to pay for ongoing bug fixes or charge a maintenance fee.

in this case, why (I'm talking about TC, I fly too little to encounter many bugs I think...) many bugs are they still present in TC, whether since the release or even before (AI not responding at orders, turret that locks, AI that sees and shoots through objects... etc...)? what is it, more than a year of the release and 3 years of the beta...

 

how much did i pay for this? $120, see more with the different extensions.. that doesn't seem to fix things...
again, I have nothing against this system if it is honest and the bugs are fixed, but there...

[BraveSirRobin]

2 minutes ago, moustache said:

in this case, why (I'm talking about TC, I fly too little to encounter many bugs I think...

There are many long threads detailing “bugs” in the flight sim section of this game.  Bugs that some are convinced are the reason that the game is doomed, bugs so serious that it’s probably an indication of the end of Western civilization.

 

Maybe just enjoy the stuff that works and focus less on the stuff you think doesn’t work.  Otherwise you will just be miserable.  Because you will always be able to find stuff that isn’t working the way you feel that it should.

[CountZero]

with the state of gaming industry today we are lucky ones we have it this way... just imagine world where IL-2 have loot boxes, NFT, pay for better airplane modifications, pay for virtual maintanance or fuel you spend, mobile version and so on... 

[Alexmarine]

35 minutes ago, CountZero said:

NFT

 

Great idea, going to mint some extra-rare Hartmann-Ape NFTs, I am sure that I'll found some stu... I mean savy investor that will recognize the value of such a product 

[moustache]

4 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Maybe just enjoy the stuff that works and focus less on the stuff you think doesn’t work.

the problem is that there are clearly bugs that break the game... how to ambush when the AI sees you through objects and therefore already calibrates its shot? how to play when the AI refuses to follow orders? so yes, the game is playable despite BIG flaws in multiplayer, but the solo is screwed up (and the site promises solo though...)

 

(again, I'm mostly talking about TC...)

 

 

do not translate this sentence (there could be translation errors) : "tout vas pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possible"

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, moustache said:

the problem is that there are clearly bugs that break the game... 

Yes, I know.  Everyone is certain that the bugs they’re reporting mean that the game is broken.

 

Guess what happens when those bugs are fixed?  There will be some other bug that completely breaks the game.

[moustache]

13 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Guess what happens when those bugs are fixed?  There will be some other bug that completely breaks the game.

AI bug that refuses orders: reported, not fixed

turret crashing bug: reported, not fixed

AI bug that sees through objects: reported, supposedly fixed, still present...

 

just a few examples...

 

 

(but hey, I think we've gone a little too far from the subject of stockings... and I don't think we'll ever agree, right? might as well stop there, right?)

Edited May 18, 2022 by moustache

[Enceladus828]

On 4/10/2022 at 1:56 PM, FliegerAD said:

I know I am a minority on this forum, but I really want a late war Eastern Front module. Courland, Seelow Heights, Lake Balaton

Agree. I really want the Pacific to be next and even listed my requirements for it in a thread. 

 

However, if the devs were to go back to the Eastern front in their next module after BoN then I'm keen on a Battle of Berlin scenario which can give us planes like the La-7, Yak-3, Yak-9U and the Tu-2. If that's not possible then I would want to see an installment which would give us the Pe-3, IL-4, and P-39Q, or perhaps a Finland or Barbarossa/1943 installment which would give us early war planes like the I-153, SB-2, early Yak 1, and P-40C and could also fit into BoM. For Finland, planes used by the Luftwaffe and the Finnish Air Force like the Gladiator, Blenheim, Hurricane Mk. 1, MS. 406, Ju-87B-2 and Do-17 can also be used for a Battle of Britain and France scenarios on the BoN map.

 

If not any of those then do Sicily as it would add some Italian birds and Allied planes which can be used for BoN and 1943 Channel Map Ops. 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

17 minutes ago, moustache said:

 

just a few examples...

 

Wings that fall off.  Wings that are indestructible.  Guns that don’t work.  Guys that work too well.  There are hundreds of game killing issues if you look hard enough.

 

In any case, you think the game is dead, then go play something else.

21 minutes ago, moustache said:

 

(but hey, I think we've gone a little too far from the subject of stockings... 

Not we, you.  You’re one who declared that there are too many issues to talk about the next module.

[moustache]

"tout vas pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possible"

[Eisenfaustus]

7 hours ago, moustache said:

"tout vas pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possible"

Kräht der Hahn auf dem Mist, ändert sich das Wetter oder es bleibt, wie es ist. 
 

Don‘t translate the sentence - might not be worth your time. Good talk though!

[Jackfraser24]

Battle of Kursk

 

I've suggested this before, and I still think that it is a good idea. Even though I still hope that Great Battles go to the Med, but if a return to the Eastern Front is the only option (due to travel restrictions from Russia and Europe) then the Battle of Kursk should be looked into.

1. Thousands of planes were used in the Battle of Kursk (2100+ Axis and 2700-3500+ Soviet planes) and both sides saw heavy losses.
2.  Iyushin IL-2's and Ju 87's were heavily used in this battle, which would appeal to many Sturmovik and Stuka fans. The IL-2 is in the name of this game, and it would be unjust to leave Kursk out.
3. It was a major turning point in the war in terms of the enigma code being broken, causing major surprise German attacks to be foiled (apart from the Battle of the Bulge later in the war). It was a turning point also because the Axis made no more significant offensives on the Eastern Front.
4. It might not take up as much time, effort or resources to make like Bodenplatte or Normandy in terms of researching and modeling many completely new aircraft, environment types, or large cities aside from Kursk itself, Belgorod and Karkov (as it was called then) (sorry if I have offended).
5. Existing aircraft like the Yak 9T, La 5FN, A-20B, Bf 109 G-4, Fw 190 A-5 and He 111 H-16 could be used in another map for Advanced Quick Mission Builder (AQMB) and Pilot Career. Right now, if I am correct, these aircraft can only be used in Kuban.
6. Kursk is only partially covered in Tank Crew Clash at Prokhorovka in area and in ground warfare, like with AFV's and Anti Aircraft vehicles (apart from being able to fly there in QMB.) It would be a dream come true if a much wider map of the Kursk area was produced along with 10 planes, AQMB and pilot career missions too. 
7. It was a GREAT BATTLE. IL-2 Great Battles would be incomplete without a Battle of Kursk dlc.

My suggested plane list

 

Soviets

• IL-4 medium bomber
• LaGG 3 series 66
• La-5 F type 39
• P 40 M
• Yak 9 K

Axis

• Fw 190 A-4
• Ju 87 B-2
• Ju 87 D-5
• Ju 88 A-14
• Me 323

 

I couldn't find any other 1943 era IL-2, so that's why there isn't one in this list. The IL-2 AM-38F model 1943 from Kuban could be used in Kursk.

 

Thanks

Edited May 25, 2022 by Jackfraser24

[Eisenfaustus]

1 hour ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Battle of Kursk

 

I've suggested this before, and I still think that it is a good idea. Even though I still hope that Great Battles go to the Med, but if a return to the Eastern Front is the only option (due to travel restrictions from Russia and Europe) then the Battle of Kursk should be looked into.

1. Thousands of planes were used in the Battle of Kursk (2100+ Axis and 2700-3500+ Soviet planes) and both sides saw heavy losses.
2.  Iyushin IL-2's and Ju 87's were heavily used in this battle, which would appeal to many Sturmovik and Stuka fans. The IL-2 is in the name of this game, and it would be unjust to leave Kursk out.
3. It was a major turning point in the war in terms of the enigma code being broken, causing major surprise German attacks to be foiled (apart from the Battle of the Bulge later in the war). It was a turning point also because the Axis made no more significant offensives on the Eastern Front.
4. It might not take up as much time, effort or resources to make like Bodenplatte or Normandy in terms of researching and modeling many completely new aircraft, environment types, or large cities aside from Kursk itself, Belgorod and Karkov (as it was called then) (sorry if I have offended).
5. Existing aircraft like the Yak 9T, La 5FN, A-20B, Bf 109 G-4, Fw 190 A-5 and He 111 H-16 could be used in another map for Advanced Quick Mission Builder (AQMB) and Pilot Career. Right now, if I am correct, these aircraft can only be used in Kuban.
6. Kursk is only partially covered in Tank Crew Clash at Prokhorovka in area and in ground warfare, like with AFV's and Anti Aircraft vehicles (apart from being able to fly there in QMB.) It would be a dream come true if a much wider map of the Kursk area was produced along with 10 planes, AQMB and pilot career missions too. 
7. It was GREAT BATTLE. IL-2 Great Battles would be incomplete without a Battle of Kursk dlc.

My suggested plane list

 

Soviets

• IL-4 medium bomber
• LaGG 3 series 66
• La-5 F type 39
• P 40 M
• Yak 9 K

Axis

• Fw 190 A-4
• Ju 87 B-2
• Ju 87 D-5
• Ju 88 A-14
• Me 323

 

I couldn't find any other 1943 era IL-2, so that's why there isn't one in this list. The IL-2 AM-38F model 1943 from Kuban could be used in Kursk.

 

Thanks

The planeset doesn’t convince me. Most planes played no - or no significant- role in the battle. As you suggest it it would be a pure „flesh out“ product and couldn‘t stand on it‘s own feet. The other possibilities discussed on the forum (MTO/PTO/Battle of France/Late Eastern Front) all would work well on their own. 

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, Eisenfaustus said:

The planeset doesn’t convince me. Most planes played no - or no significant- role in the battle. As you suggest it it would be a pure „flesh out“ product and couldn‘t stand on it‘s own feet. The other possibilities discussed on the forum (MTO/PTO/Battle of France/Late Eastern Front) all would work well on their own. 

I see what you’re saying. It wouldn’t support itself without Stalingrad or Kuban. But it’s become apparent that Great Battles are running out of new significantly different German aircraft/aircraft variants so I was trying to scrape together a list of planes that were around in 1943. That’s all. What would you, or anyone else who reads this would suggest?

Edited May 25, 2022 by Jackfraser24

[Eisenfaustus]

41 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

What would you, or anyone else who reads this would suggest?

Besides doing a full release that can stand for itself? 
From my customer POV hiring new map and career people and start pushing out collector maps without planeset would have a market. Leningrad springs to mind. Yet Jason - with a much clearer picture of the market then me - ruled that option out some time ago. 

[Jackfraser24]

Why don't they make collector maps?

[CountZero]

6 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Why don't they make collector maps?

Who knows, they just said that they will not do them.

 

My gues is , now you can play on every map in game in MP if you have it or dont what is best option compared how other games does that, so MP ppl would not have a reason to buy collector map when they can just play on it for free in MP.

And for SP ppl if you dont make campaign with map , why would they just buy map, mission maker is not user frendly like in other games so not many ppl wont to build missions.

So its robably to expencive to make with how many ppl would acualy buy it, and it would probably be expencive compared to single airplane.

 

Many interesting areas we will never see in game, we have airplanes needed already in game so DLC cant be made for them, fan making maps failed exept small maps made in first few years, and dev collector making maps are no go.

[Ribbon]

On 5/27/2022 at 10:30 AM, CountZero said:

Who knows, they just said that they will not do them.

 

My gues is , now you can play on every map in game in MP if you have it or dont what is best option compared how other games does that, so MP ppl would not have a reason to buy collector map when they can just play on it for free in MP.

And for SP ppl if you dont make campaign with map , why would they just buy map, mission maker is not user frendly like in other games so not many ppl wont to build missions.

So its robably to expencive to make with how many ppl would acualy buy it, and it would probably be expencive compared to single airplane.

 

Many interesting areas we will never see in game, we have airplanes needed already in game so DLC cant be made for them, fan making maps failed exept small maps made in first few years, and dev collector making maps are no go.

With recent map development issues and delays they have i don't see collector map being an option either way (Kuban map 120 000km2 developmemt timeframe 1.5years, BoN map 110 000km2 2.5years and still not finished).

Even so, to be a desirable purchase option for me it has to be something different than we already have, like Kuban or Channel maps are.

[MisterSmith]

Dial it back. The political stuff will result in additional moderation if it continues.

[Thad]

On 5/26/2022 at 9:34 PM, Jackfraser24 said:

Why don't they make collector maps?

 

Yes, detailed with topography for Tank Crew not just for a flight simulator. Ground terrain must come into play blocking detection (sighting) and fire.

[BraveSirRobin]

On 5/26/2022 at 9:34 PM, Jackfraser24 said:

Why don't they make collector maps?

The same reason that they don’t do lots of things.  Money.  They sold a collector map for RoF.  They’ve never released the financial info for that map, but they’ve also never done another one.  So it’s really not too difficult to figure out why.

 

It appears that they have decided that to remain solvent that they need to make fighters, bombers, and maps a package deal.  They can make a few bucks on the side with collector aircraft, but maps require too much effort for them to be profitable.

[Enceladus828]

On 5/26/2022 at 7:34 PM, Jackfraser24 said:

Why don't they make collector maps?

Not right now, but when they start running out of 'Battles of..." to do in Europe, there are going to be areas like Hungary, Slovakia, late war Italy and a few other places where there wouldn't be enough new planes to add to justify a "Battle of Hungary" or "Battle of Italy" with even 8 planes per this Battle pack. It would be that they have all the planes but not the map.

I would totally pay $40 or $50 for a Hungary map, or a Battle of Italy Part 1 (1944) with the G.55 and another $40-50 for a Battle of Italy Part 2 (1945) with the Re. 2005.

[Jackfraser24]

Battle of the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf.

 

If IL-2 ever gets there, would it be doable? I ask because I’ve heard the game engine it runs on can’t take that many ships and aircraft at once. Could they improve the engine so it could work? Hundreds of ships and thousands of aircraft were used in the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf.

4 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Not right now, but when they start running out of 'Battles of..." to do in Europe, there are going to be areas like Hungary, Slovakia, late war Italy and a few other places where there wouldn't be enough new planes to add to justify a "Battle of Hungary" or "Battle of Italy" with even 8 planes per this Battle pack. It would be that they have all the planes but not the map.

I would totally pay $40 or $50 for a Hungary map, or a Battle of Italy Part 1 (1944) with the G.55 and another $40-50 for a Battle of Italy Part 2 (1945) with the Re. 2005.

I would love to see the Fiat G.55, Macchi 205 (or later versions of the 202), but especially the Reggiane Re 2005. The latter is said to have been the most beautiful fighter of WW2, and I strongly agree.

[Jackfraser24]

What about a Battle of Slovakia or Hungary? That would be cool.

[DD_Arthur]

9 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

What about a Battle of Slovakia or Hungary? That would be cool.

  
Really? Why? It would be a scenario where we already have the main aircraft and the reality is there were no air battles for either of these places. Hordes of IL2’s shot up and bombed what vehicles they could find whilst hordes of soviet fighters supported them and were faced by a trickle of 109s and 190s.

The same would be true of a ‘Battle of Berlin; there was no air battle for Berlin….

 

Edit; Jack, my reply is in no way any sort of criticism of you or your ideas. I just disagree with you…

 

However, I do think you’re posts highlight the problem the devs face now.

 I can’t help but feel this series is now at a crossroads as to it’s future development. Where do we go from here? Another round of low level tactical air war with essentially the same planes doing the same thing on essentially the same maps?

Personally I don’t see that as sustainable. I think at a push they could do a Mediterranean scenario with an Italian element but I think the only way forward is a move into the pacific and another kind of war; a carrier aircraft based war with all that goes with it.

 

My two cents…

Edited July 21, 2022 by DD_Arthur

[AEthelraedUnraed]

24 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Personally I don’t see that as sustainable. I think at a push they could do a Mediterranean scenario with an Italian element but I think the only way forward is a move into the pacific and another kind of war; a carrier aircraft based war with all that goes with it.

Long term, I think you're correct. Short term, based on which axis planes haven't been done yet, there's basically two modules that could be done: Italy, with Italian aircraft, and late-war Eastern Front, with the Fw-190A9 and Bf-109G10. Based on the development rate of other modules such as BoBP and BoN, that should potentially give some 5 more years of content before they'd need to move to the Pacific.

 

That said, I'm not so sure a purely carrier-based war would cut it. Can't imagine there's anything as boring as flying hours and hours over the ocean with little to no land in sight. Also makes for *very* short Careers.

[Juri_JS]

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

  
...there was no air battle for Berlin….

Actually the battle for Berlin saw the largest concentration of Luftwaffe aircraft in the east since Kursk. Especially during the first few days of the Soviet offensive there were large scale air battles with heavy losses on both sides.

[AndytotheD]

On 7/21/2022 at 5:54 PM, Juri_JS said:

Actually the battle for Berlin saw the largest concentration of Luftwaffe aircraft in the east since Kursk. Especially during the first few days of the Soviet offensive there were large scale air battles with heavy losses on both sides.

I’ll have to find the statistic to be sure, but I think on a given day in April 1945 the Luftwaffe managed to mount some 1,000 sorties across the force. They were still flying and fighting although at a significantly reduced rate. 

[Sky_Wolf]

The next one has to be Battle of Meridione (Southern Italy). This would include the invasion of Sicily and the invasion of mainland Italy (up to Rome). 

 

We'd get new planes, mountains, and aircraft carriers. 

 

With the carrier technology worked out, we'd get the Pacific theatre by the year 2025/26. 

[ITAF_Rani]

Thinking to med....

 

 

[Enceladus828]

Next Great Battles Module, Pacific. In particular, Guadalcanal.

 

It is time that the devs go to the Pacific after BoN. Enough revenue has been generated by BoBP and BoN to give them a large enough budget to tackle Guadalcanal (BoN gained them enough revenue to make the C-47 flyable and build the Li-2). This can be a 5v3 or 4v3 planeset with just the Zero, Kate and Val as the only/only flyable Japanese planes. Heck, Jason said they have enough info to build a Zero, enough info to build the cockpit of a Val, and probably enough info to build the cockpit of the Kate as well. The FM/DMs for the Val and Kate don't matter as much because they are not fighters and educated guesswork on how many ammo magazines the gunner had, whether or not the gunner had a radio, and whether the fuel pressure gauge was to the left or right of the turn coordinator doesn't matter. The Solomons island map would mostly be water with the islands mostly having trees, small and very simple towns and airports. Therefore, lots of time can be spent on making large ships and maybe a PBY Catalina ?

 

For those who want carrier battles, well the Battle of the Coral Sea can be included in this installment as well.

 

If after BoN is fully released and the devs still can't go to the Pacific, the only thing I want to hear is because the game engine can't handle large warships like cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers, or a large naval component... even on a map that with mostly open water. Even so they could just do an entirely land-based battle instead which didn't involve large warships or a large naval component. I mean, if the devs are so adamant that the community won't accept compromises such as educated guesswork for the FM/DMs of the Val and Kate and stuff pertaining to the gunner, and perhaps some other things, then they should do a Poll.

 

?

 

 

[Jackfraser24]

A lot of people have posted their desires to have a module concerning strategic bombers, wanting to fly planes like Lancaster's and B-17's over to Germany and back. Even though I think that it is doable, lots of hurdles would stand in the way for the development team. But that's not what I want to talk about.

 

Would a module on strategic bombing over Japan or Italy be worth doing?

[Eisenfaustus]

4 hours ago, Enceladus said:

This can be a 5v3 or 4v3 planeset with just the Zero, Kate and Val as the only/only flyable Japanese planes.

I disagree. I like the current 4+1 vs 4+1 model - and find Japanese planes in general the most interesting aspect of the pacific. 

[357th_KW]

12 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

A lot of people have posted their desires to have a module concerning strategic bombers, wanting to fly planes like Lancaster's and B-17's over to Germany and back. Even though I think that it is doable, lots of hurdles would stand in the way for the development team. But that's not what I want to talk about.

 

Would a module on strategic bombing over Japan or Italy be worth doing?

Assuming you come up with solutions for getting the big bombers into the game, and managing the ranges involved (and I think this is possible), the next big hurdle here is coming up with 5 aircraft for each side in such a scenario.  
 

For Europe doing a map of East Anglia to Central Germany probably makes the most sense.  You could make it long and narrow and a map with roughly the same surface area of Rhineland would stretch all the way to Leipzig, which was a big focal area of the US oil campaign.  That covers mid 1943 through the end of the war.  A mixed day and night scenario might work best - B-17 and Lancaster, Mosquito variants and throw in a US escort fighter variant we don’t already have.  And then give the Germans a 109G-6AS and an early D-9 with no MW for daytime, with a 110, Ju88 and He219 for night fighters.

 

In the pacific it would probably make the most sense to just include a B-24 in a Solomon’s or New Guinea 1943/44 module.