Avimimus Posted February 28 Posted February 28 Wishlist threads have been moved here: I've left posts which are discussing (or asking questions) about what units were present in Odessa/Karelia here. It is only the posts which are discussing what aircraft are desirable in general that have been moved. On 2/24/2025 at 4:09 PM, BlackSix said: I can't answer but we definitely don't need them for the Odessa or Leningrad careers in 1941. The Pe-3 units were used in Moscow in 1941 (multirole), and Stalingrad in 1942 (mainly observation duties), and I recall some were used for patrol in the Arctic. I take it that no units were actually deployed near Leningrad though? Or were some used after 1941?
Rudini Posted March 7 Posted March 7 fantastic news! - thanks to the team! @LukeFF will there be a separate romanian career with names, ranks, medals, like the separated careers with same aircraft like great britain and france? thanks
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 7 Author 1CGS Posted March 7 No, as of right now Romanian units will continue to be a part of the German side. 1
Rudini Posted March 8 Posted March 8 @LukeFF okay, thanks. what about the timeframes? Does the odessa career start with 22.06.41? because i hate starting too late the moscow/typhoon campaign 11.10.41, two weeks too late... i hope odessa doesnt start something like 05.07.41 What about Luftwaffe on the Leningrad front? which timeframe, what units, besides Erg./JG 54 already mentioned?
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 8 Author 1CGS Posted March 8 It wll/should be around that time, yes. The German units that you would expect to be there will be on the map.
Jackfraser24 Posted March 10 Posted March 10 On 3/9/2025 at 5:41 AM, LukeFF said: It wll/should be around that time, yes. The German units that you would expect to be there will be on the map. Question. Would you like to see a reiteration of Karelia and Odessa in the new series along with all of the other IL-2 Great Battles content? Of course we would be looking 10-15 years down the track, and I know businesses like these don't usually look that far. But would you be happy to see it done? Sorry if this is not an appropriate thing to talk about here.
Aapje Posted March 10 Posted March 10 (edited) We don't even have this module yet, Jack. Also, Luke can't really answer these kind of questions in general given his role as spokesperson. Edited March 10 by Aapje 1
migmadmarine Posted March 10 Posted March 10 Can't imagine any answer other than "would be nice, but who can say"
Jackfraser24 Posted March 11 Posted March 11 3 hours ago, Aapje said: We don't even have this module yet, Jack. Also, Luke can't really answer these kind of questions in general given his role as spokesperson. Good point. I’ll remember that from now on.
Rudini Posted March 12 Posted March 12 (edited) as far as i understood, the problem with the old il-2 Great Battles we play today is it has a lot of technical depth. it means the team started to make the engine with a bunch of limited specifications, focusing on the most important features - at least 16 years ago. then, new features appeared to make the product more valuable. but the code got - especially when making it quick and dirty - more and more chaotic and hard to adapt to new features. like a totally tangled ball of wool that nobody can untangle. the product il-2 Great Battles is now in a state where, a former cash cow for many years, it can no longer compete with more agile competitors responding faster to customer needs. therefore, the team decided to make that new, more advanced engine. i mean they have the chance with korea, because the sabre and mig from dcs are cool, but they have no career, no scenario, no map, no environment with airplanes and groundtargets from 1950... war thunder? ... bullshit! so, a last word about long term goals. we live in a very complex world. everything changes very fast. therefore, planing a game with a big budget and developing without contact to the market for 5 years can end up in a financial disaster. since the customers might not need that stuff any more or the needs shifted in another direction. yes, they have that long term goal, going back to ww2 aviation with all the fancy fearures of ai and ground units, humans and unlimited maps... but till that day, the il-2 team might has developed korea, pacific, eastern front, dday, etc for another 5 times... development only step by step. no big jumps without the market. earning some money with each step, ading more and more value to the product. Edited March 12 by Rudini 2
Aapje Posted March 12 Posted March 12 The main reason for the new game engine with new content is that IL-2 is using an old way to model planes and maps, while the state of the art is using a different and much better method. The old content is not modelled this way, so it's impossible to just put the old content in the new game engine. And 1CGS is taking this opportunity to get rid of some implementations that were just about 'good enough,' but held them back, like their old GUI engine. I hope to see some more announcements in this area (like native OpenXR support and DLSS/FSR support). Quote development only step by step. no big jumps without the market. earning some money with each step, ading more and more value to the product. Given how expensive and hard making a game engine has become, we see almost everywhere in the gaming industry that gaming engines have to be reused for many titles, or it is simply not viable. This is of course the model that 1CGS used for GB already, and the big benefit of using the exact same engine for a whole list of modules, is that improvements come even to modules that were released in the past. So for example, if they don't add DLSS support to Korea, but add it for the next title, then Korea will get it too.
1./SG2_Vogelsang Posted March 13 Posted March 13 24.02.2025 в 00:01, LukeFF сказал: Guys, regarding mods: Ju 87 D-5: G-2 Antitank mod Stuvi Droppable wheels feature WB81 Flame Dampers Jumo 211P If Ju-87 D-5 will have Stuvi…Will Ju-87 D-3 or Ju-88 A-4 have it as a mod?
AEthelraedUnraed Posted March 13 Posted March 13 14 hours ago, Aapje said: The main reason for the new game engine with new content is that IL-2 is using an old way to model planes and maps, while the state of the art is using a different and much better method. The old content is not modelled this way, so it's impossible to just put the old content in the new game engine. And 1CGS is taking this opportunity to get rid of some implementations that were just about 'good enough,' but held them back, like their old GUI engine. I hope to see some more announcements in this area (like native OpenXR support and DLSS/FSR support). I respectfully disagree that this is the main reason for switching to a new engine (i.e. losing compatibility with the current content, since I'm sure we both agree that the new engine is just an updated GB engine). PBR (which I assume you're referring to) is just a shader, and using PBR shaders for some objects doesn't rule out using other shaders for other objects. In other words, there is no inherent reason why they couldn't implement new PBR aircraft alongside the old, non-PBR ones. I think that the main reason - if such a think exists since there are obviously a couple of reasons including the one you mentioned - is the severely outdated Scaleform API. Quite a lot of IL2's functionality is implemented in the corresponding flash files, and a huge proportion of that is not strictly GUI. Compared to the graphics engine, it's not nearly as easy to maintain backwards compatibility. 2
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 13 Author 1CGS Posted March 13 5 hours ago, 1./SG2_Spielz said: If Ju-87 D-5 will have Stuvi…Will Ju-87 D-3 or Ju-88 A-4 have it as a mod? Not likely - it would require development time that is just not available right now. 1 4
Jackfraser24 Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 3/14/2025 at 12:31 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said: I respectfully disagree that this is the main reason for switching to a new engine (i.e. losing compatibility with the current content, since I'm sure we both agree that the new engine is just an updated GB engine). PBR (which I assume you're referring to) is just a shader, and using PBR shaders for some objects doesn't rule out using other shaders for other objects. In other words, there is no inherent reason why they couldn't implement new PBR aircraft alongside the old, non-PBR ones. I think that the main reason - if such a think exists since there are obviously a couple of reasons including the one you mentioned - is the severely outdated Scaleform API. Quite a lot of IL2's functionality is implemented in the corresponding flash files, and a huge proportion of that is not strictly GUI. Compared to the graphics engine, it's not nearly as easy to maintain backwards compatibility. I think that it is good that they are going to move on to a new game, even if that game is merely an updated version of the same engine Great Battles runs on. I look forwards to all the new content and 10-20 years worth of developer diary updates. PS, I promise not to do anymore suggestions or speculation on the future of Great Battles. 1 1
MD_Titus_Gibbonicus Posted March 18 Posted March 18 loving that the early war (earlier war) stuff is getting added. Is there a campaign that plays out like this https://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=3284 knocking around at all?
Jackfraser24 Posted March 18 Posted March 18 I do hope that we eventually get reiterations of Odessa and Karelia in the new IL-2 series, and as separate modules. That way we can have twice the planes and be able to fly a Soviet MiG-15 up against a Finnish Curtiss P-36A. Thought it would be a fun idea to get out there. 1
ZPA_Malan Posted March 18 Posted March 18 (edited) Gotta say I have pretty much zero interest in pre-stalingrad eastern front, biplanes or even slower LaGGs vs 109s just doesn't sound fun. IMO Great Battles does best when there is reasonable parity in the planeset and scenario. Kuban and Normandy are both pretty evenly matched, Stalingrad the red planes are slightly disadvantaged but win the battle, BoBP the germans are doomed but have jets. I don't have BoM because this 1941 stuff is lopsided and uninteresting to me as gameplay. The 1944 planes will definitely be better in that regard, but I still have a lot of BoN/BoBP content to get through... We'll see - also likely the last chance to for them to add a checkbox setting to turn off engine timers, fingers crossed (could be as simple as removing the collision aspect from the unbreakable setting already in game). Edited March 18 by ZPA_Malan 1 1
CzechTexan Posted March 18 Posted March 18 2 hours ago, ZPA_Malan said: Gotta say I have pretty much zero interest in pre-stalingrad eastern front, biplanes or even slower LaGGs vs 109s just doesn't sound fun. IMO Great Battles does best when there is reasonable parity in the planeset and scenario. I have to disagree. Especially with the Odessa module. Most of the 1941 battle was fought between Romanians and Russians. The Romanians had the IAR and 109E. Even when the Germans did appear, the Bf109E-7 model was not that much greater than what the Russians had - which were the MiG-3, I-16, I-153, and Yak-1. In an I-153, you can make a very tight turn to defeat the enemy. At the beginning of the war, the Russians had skilled pilots who knew how to handle their planes, so, I'd say the parity was equal for all air forces. Later on, the Russians lost most of their skilled pilots and that's when they had a rougher time of it. I respect your opinion because I know the early LaGG can be a deathtrap (or coffin), so I see where you're coming from. However, I'm sure all the Russians wanted fast hot-rods to zoom around in. But they had to deal with what they got (LaGGs and I-153s) - and make the best use of it - without getting killed. I see it like this... You don't have to win all the time. Sometimes you die. This is a "game" after all. Sometimes it's about the challenges you face as a pilot and trying to overcome those challenges. 10 2
Jackfraser24 Posted March 19 Posted March 19 10 hours ago, ZPA_Malan said: Gotta say I have pretty much zero interest in pre-stalingrad eastern front, biplanes or even slower LaGGs vs 109s just doesn't sound fun. IMO Great Battles does best when there is reasonable parity in the planeset and scenario. Kuban and Normandy are both pretty evenly matched, Stalingrad the red planes are slightly disadvantaged but win the battle, BoBP the germans are doomed but have jets. I don't have BoM because this 1941 stuff is lopsided and uninteresting to me as gameplay. The 1944 planes will definitely be better in that regard, but I still have a lot of BoN/BoBP content to get through... We'll see - also likely the last chance to for them to add a checkbox setting to turn off engine timers, fingers crossed (could be as simple as removing the collision aspect from the unbreakable setting already in game). You have a right to your own opinion. I agree that German aircraft are better performed than Soviet aircraft in the early years of the Eastern Front and I agree that the German aircraft have a huge advantage over the Soviet ones. But I wouldn't disregard any chronological pre-Stalingrad titles because a) it tells the story of the Soviet struggle against the Axis forces in the air as well as the ground. b) you feel good about yourself after shooting down a superior aircraft when flying an obsolete one. c) it also gets the message across that war is almost never fought on an even playing ground. 6 hours ago, CzechTexan said: I see it like this... You don't have to win all the time. Sometimes you die. This is a "game" after all. Sometimes it's about the challenges you face as a pilot and trying to overcome those challenges. Well said, old sport. 2
ZPA_Malan Posted March 19 Posted March 19 (edited) On 3/18/2025 at 2:58 PM, CzechTexan said: I have to disagree. Especially with the Odessa module. Most of the 1941 battle was fought between Romanians and Russians. The Romanians had the IAR and 109E. Even when the Germans did appear, the Bf109E-7 model was not that much greater than what the Russians had - which were the MiG-3, I-16, I-153, and Yak-1. In an I-153, you can make a very tight turn to defeat the enemy. At the beginning of the war, the Russians had skilled pilots who knew how to handle their planes, so, I'd say the parity was equal for all air forces. Later on, the Russians lost most of their skilled pilots and that's when they had a rougher time of it. I respect your opinion because I know the early LaGG can be a deathtrap (or coffin), so I see where you're coming from. However, I'm sure all the Russians wanted fast hot-rods to zoom around in. But they had to deal with what they got (LaGGs and I-153s) - and make the best use of it - without getting killed. I see it like this... You don't have to win all the time. Sometimes you die. This is a "game" after all. Sometimes it's about the challenges you face as a pilot and trying to overcome those challenges. Interesting! Hadn't realized it was mostly Romanians, figured they would be there but not the main force, like in BoS. It'll be a good use of the IAR when its newer, unique aircraft. Still probably not my cup of tea, but closer in performance than I assumed. I have no particular connection to the eastern front history so its gotta click with gameplay. Flew yak1/7 and p39 in BoS/K which are no world-beaters. But they have some strengths, and perform close enough otherwise to take advantage of mistakes and gain the initiative if flown right. Partly my perception is from reading up on how the soviet P39s were flown and the pilot bios often start like "in 1941 pilot flew I-153, shot down a recon plane through great effort and skill, was lucky to be badly wounded and evacuated before squadron was wiped out" There's no doubting that took a lot of bravery. As for performance - turning tighter is all well and good, but if the plane is so totally outclassed on speed/climb/dive it can't take advantage of mistakes or reset the engagement in any way, its on borrowed time. I'm glad the planes are not artificially 'balanced', and i enjoy a good challenge, but I have some limits. Will have to see how the planes compare when it comes out. Edited March 20 by ZPA_Malan 2
Jackfraser24 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 5 hours ago, ZPA_Malan said: I'm glad the planes are not artificially 'balanced', and i enjoy a good challenge, but I have some limits. Fair enough.
Rudini Posted March 28 Posted March 28 On 3/18/2025 at 5:35 PM, ZPA_Malan said: Gotta say I have pretty much zero interest in pre-stalingrad eastern front, biplanes or even slower LaGGs vs 109s just doesn't sound fun. IMO Great Battles does best when there is reasonable parity in the planeset and scenario. Kuban and Normandy are both pretty evenly matched, Stalingrad the red planes are slightly disadvantaged but win the battle, BoBP the germans are doomed but have jets. I don't have BoM because this 1941 stuff is lopsided and uninteresting to me as gameplay. The 1944 planes will definitely be better in that regard, but I still have a lot of BoN/BoBP content to get through... We'll see - also likely the last chance to for them to add a checkbox setting to turn off engine timers, fingers crossed (could be as simple as removing the collision aspect from the unbreakable setting already in game). Flying Luftwaffe in BoM is pretty hard. Especially against high flying Boom and Zoom flying MiGs. Pokryshkin flew his MiG above Odessa in 1941 and had significant success. Luftwaffe units had almost only Bf 109 Es in this theather. After 27 august 1941 there were only romanian Bf 109 E-3s and IARs left. No Uber planes. I bet you wont regret it. Give it a try 2
Recommended Posts