[VIETNAM] IL-2 Great Battles: Vietnam

[SOLIDKREATE]

I was thinking just now, with Korea looming withing the next one or two years, Vietnam would be a worthy successor. I don't see how much more content you can have with IL2Ko. Sure there would be pleanty of aircraft but the Blue side, ours, the US would be heavily lop-sided. Most of the aircraft of the time never saw combat. 

 

I'm hope this will be a short DEV cycle comparatively speaking. I'd like to propose Vietnam as a worthy sucessor or even co-developed series. They already co-develop projects as it stands now. Plus 1C doesnt appear to suffer from FFM syndrome.

 

Initial Release:

 

USA

• F-100D Super Saber
• A5 (A1-E) Skyraider
• F-102A Delta Dagger 
• B-26K Counter Invader

 

VPAF

• MiG-17F Fresco
• J-6 (MiG-19) Farmer
• MiG-21PFL Fishbed
• H-5 (IL-28) Beagle

 

I think this series would provide content that will last another 10~15yrs.

 

Then later it's all just BLUFOR in no order (Flyable)

 

• F-105B Thunderchief
• F-105D Thunderchief
• F-105F Thunderchief
• F-105G Wild Weasel
• F-4A Phantom II
• F-4B Phantom II
• F-4C Phantom II
• F-4J Phantom II
• AT-28 Trojan/Fennic
• A-37B Dragonfly
• O-2A Skymaster
• F-111A Aardvark
• F-5A Freedom Fighter (Skoshi Tiger)

 

I wouldn't know if Helicopters would be of interest to the DEV's.

 

 

 

Edited July 17 by SOLIDKREATE

[Juri_JS]

Maybe on day. If I rember correctly Han once mentioned that he is interested in Vietnam air war.

[Trooper117]

Pacific is next... so you can forget Vietnam for the foreseeable future...

[Cardolan]

Here's to hoping 1CGS don't forget the ETO and continue to develop or outsource content there with the present engine.

 

Based on the apparent success of what is currently in development for the present engine, I believe people would continue to support it with their wallets.

 

Besides remaking the classic Battle of Britain now with a proper career included, there's so much more to present in Europe and/or North Africa... not forgetting many western campaigns between 1939/1944 can use the same map.

[Aapje]

The issue with Vietnam is that the technology really ramped up for that war, with air-to-air missiles and somewhat capable onboard radar systems. And while helicopters were first used in tactical ways during the Korean war, they were primarily used for MEDEVAC and supply transport, with the tactical use of helicopters only becoming doctrine for the Vietnam war. So for that war, it would be important to at least have AI helicopters.

 

Moving to the Vietnam war would probably require a ton of new development, and I'm not sure whether 1CGS is capable of that with the resources they have.

 

Furthermore, a lot of the fans of IL-2 are into the older planes, with even jets being a bridge too far for some, and missile combat is a different beast to gun combat.

 

So I think that 1CGS is better off focusing on the pre-Vietnam period.

 

Quote

I don't see how much more content you can have with IL2Ko.[...] I'm hope this will be a short DEV cycle comparatively speaking.

 

It seems like we will get a second module with aircraft carriers, which would be a nice technological development to have, and this will also be a nice enabler for the Pacific, as the same class of carrier was used in both wars, and even some of the same actual carriers.

Edited July 14 by Aapje

[[CPT]Crunch]

Would love to see it also one day, but it has a major hole in the air war, the Peoples Air Force withdrew completely from 68 to 72, there wasn't a single air to air engagement during that four year period.  It would have to focus and concentrate on the SAM war, or pick a period, early or late. 

 

Also the map would have major changes between early and late, people have little idea how drastically Vietnam was built up and modernized between those time frames.  The entire landscape changed from rural to industrial urban, it might need two maps to do the entire decade plus.

 

If it's ever done they may have to pick a year like 68 or 72 to focus it, it's just way too long a time frame to do it all, and the changes in equipment and infrastructure too much to lock down.  

 

I'd prefer 67-68 and lock it to that plane set.  The Vietnamese had very good Soviet made equipment and top notch Chinese pilot training.  Only the Chinese had not abandoned dogfighting as their core pilot training and tactics focus.  The combination of Chinese pilot training and Russian Tech made them a potent force to be reckoned with.

[SOLIDKREATE]

13 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

I'd prefer 67-68 and lock it to that plane set.  The Vietnamese had very good Soviet made equipment and top notch Chinese pilot training.  Only the Chinese had not abandoned dogfighting as their core pilot training and tactics focus.  The combination of Chinese pilot training and Russian Tech made them a potent force to be reckoned with.

 

Agreed, I think that would be a good time period to focus on. It would still give us most of the planes I listed. 

[Enceladus828]

On 7/14/2025 at 8:34 AM, Aapje said:

Moving to the Vietnam war would probably require a ton of new development, and I'm not sure whether 1CGS is capable of that with the resources they have.

 

Furthermore, a lot of the fans of IL-2 are into the older planes, with even jets being a bridge too far for some, and missile combat is a different beast to gun combat.

 

So I think that 1CGS is better off focusing on the pre-Vietnam period.

Agree, doing Vietnam would require the development of another game engine. If Vietnam was in the plans for the near future then they would have done that instead of Korea

[Kubert]

On 7/14/2025 at 4:34 PM, Aapje said:

Furthermore, a lot of the fans of IL-2 are into the older planes, with even jets being a bridge too far for some, and missile combat is a different beast to gun combat.

That's my case. I prefer classic maneuvering dogfights of WWII. Korea is still in my tolerance, because there were a lot of planes from WWII and early jet dogfights worked similarly. But on board radars, guided missles and stuff like this is outside of my interest. Especially when there is still a lot of possibilities from WWII. Center of eastern front like Kursk, op. Bagration, Kurland, Poland, Hungary or Battle of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, early/mid war allied air offensive over northern France, North Africa, Mediterranean, Pacific and with a new engine which can handle large formations of bombers even late war western front strategic bombing campaign. For now I don't dare to ask for more than incoming Odessa and Leningrad, but I hope IL-2 GB series stays in World War II as long as possible and Korea won't abandon it in the future.

[SOLIDKREATE]

On 7/15/2025 at 12:15 PM, Kubert said:

That's my case. I prefer classic maneuvering dogfights of WWII. Korea is still in my tolerance, because there were a lot of planes from WWII and early jet dogfights worked similarly. But on board radars, guided missles and stuff like this is outside of my interest. Especially when there is still a lot of possibilities from WWII. Center of eastern front like Kursk, op. Bagration, Kurland, Poland, Hungary or Battle of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, early/mid war allied air offensive over northern France, North Africa, Mediterranean, Pacific and with a new engine which can handle large formations of bombers even late war western front strategic bombing campaign. For now I don't dare to ask for more than incoming Odessa and Leningrad, but I hope IL-2 GB series stays in World War II as long as possible and Korea won't abandon it in the future.

 

No one is saying you can't still play the entire WWII series of IL-2. At some point, we have to move on. I used to have the same mind you did, then discovered DCS and the Cold War. Now I own hundreds of dollars worth of maps and planes. I also own everything in RoF. I almost own everything in the main GB series as well, and I'm a founder.

 

Some of my blood, sweat and tears in in this game too. I designed all of the unit emblems for the career mode for all of IL-2. I get it, beleive me but at some point we have to move on because there are people here who do want that, and would support the game for many years.

Edited July 17 by SOLIDKREATE

[Kubert]

For me, there is no place where to move on. Because I am already in final destination. I know what DCS is and reason why I never spent a cent on it but put a lot of money into IL-2 is WWII. I am not stuck in some kind of early stages of evolution. I know what I want, IL2 GB series giving it to me and because of that there is no reason why should I want of them to change the course when there is still room where to expand in current one. If you want something different, ours opinions never align, but that is fine...it is not up to us to decide where the series will go. We can just wait and see.

[SOLIDKREATE]

On 7/17/2025 at 7:39 AM, Kubert said:

For me, there is no place where to move on. Because I am already in final destination. I know what DCS is and reason why I never spent a cent on it but put a lot of money into IL-2 is WWII. I am not stuck in some kind of early stages of evolution. I know what I want, IL2 GB series giving it to me and because of that there is no reason why should I want of them to change the course when there is still room where to expand in current one. If you want something different, ours opinions never align, but that is fine...it is not up to us to decide where the series will go. We can just wait and see.

 

🫡

[Avimimus]

The underlying reality is that the complexity of avionics begins to rapidly increase starting around 1955.

 

By Vietnam the amount of time it would take to make a flyable aircraft increases to be longer than it currently takes to produce a module (i.e. 2-3 years per flyable). So with ten years of development you could probably get four flyable aircraft.

 

For some more minor conflict (e.g. Suez Crisis, to some extent the Six-Day War) the aircraft were usually older models, so it would be a bit better (maybe one flyable every year or two)... but one would still have to expect a lot less flyable content.

[Jackfraser24]

On 7/30/2025 at 8:12 AM, Avimimus said:

The underlying reality is that the complexity of avionics begins to rapidly increase starting around 1955.

 

By Vietnam the amount of time it would take to make a flyable aircraft increases to be longer than it currently takes to produce a module (i.e. 2-3 years per flyable). So with ten years of development you could probably get four flyable aircraft.

 

For some more minor conflict (e.g. Suez Crisis, to some extent the Six-Day War) the aircraft were usually older models, so it would be a bit better (maybe one flyable every year or two)... but one would still have to expect a lot less flyable content.

I would like to see those conflicts done one day in my life.