TBF Avenger and other planes [Archive] - Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

IceFire

03-26-2015, 11:37 PM

We don't know the full details except that lawyers that represented N-G corporation very likely sued and won some sort of settlement with Ubisoft/Maddox Studios which allowed them to keep the current N-G content but anything new was strictly forbidden under the agreement. Everything was hush hush and out of the public eye but enough details have made their way out. This was even loosely confirmed by Oleg Maddox but he explained that they couldn't say any more than that.

The problem stemmed from the advertising on the back of the Pacific Fighters box. This is what we theorized. It was also a time when lawyers were suing plastic and die cast model makers trying to get money from them. I believe there is now some legal precedent set as a result of the EA/Battlefield 4 lawsuit involving the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter but I'm not sure.

Regardless, a legal agreement is in place and any additional work on N-G aircraft is pretty much out of the question for the IL-2 1946 series.

New games and new series are separate. War Thunder can do whatever they want and I suspect in the near future those types of lawsuits have been largely quashed. Not to say that it won't come up again. Stupid stuff like that does tend to.

Pursuivant

03-28-2015, 05:49 AM

B-17 and B-29 aren't flyable probably because of the huge effort it takes create multi-engined planes with many gunner positions.

Due to work being done on the B-24, and past work for the B-25, it would be "relatively easy" to get a flyable B-17E, due to common equipment being used for the different planes. Perhaps 5 existing crew stations could be partially reworked (bombardier, nose, dorsal, waist and tail guns). The ball turret wouldn't need to be reworked at all, other than possibly tweaking animation. It might also be possible to port over some of the cockpit gauges for the pilot/co-pilot stations.

Pursuivant

03-28-2015, 05:59 AM

I believe there is now some legal precedent set as a result of the EA/Battlefield 4 lawsuit involving the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter but I'm not sure.

Not surprisingly, the case was settled out of court and the terms of the settlement are undisclosed. No defense contractor wants an unfavorable legal precedent on the books, since it would gut their ability to launch future lawsuits against video game manufacturers.

http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes-first-amendment-protection-for-video-games-in-trademark-dispute-with-helicopter-maker

But, in the years after the NG Consent Decree, the U.S. Supreme Court has made some rulings that could be taken to be favorable to game manufacturer's rights to "free speech."

In particular, they have the right to use the unnamed images of real people without paying royalties:

http://kotaku.com/5838921/ea-has-a-first-amendment-right-to-depict-real-college-football-players-judge-rules

Of course, that changes NOTHING with regards to IL2, for the reasons that Icefire mentioned.

There's also the possibility that the Warthunder programmers quietly paid royalties to NG and other defense contractors, precisely to prevent a lawsuit. Different game, different companies, different legal environment.

Janosch

03-28-2015, 12:01 PM

War Thunder can do whatever they want, because it's not a game, but a screensaver.

btw, I'm glad that Ilyushin or Messerschmitt never sued.

ElAurens

03-28-2015, 01:02 PM

It took two very talented and devoted guys years to make the B 24 we will have in 46. That's right, I said years.

Making the B17 or B29 flyable is a LOT more than just pasting in a few of the common bits from the B24 model. For starters you have to model the interior of every manned station, and the 17 and 29 look nothing like each other, or the 24.

Also the 29 would present other issues as it is really almost from another era of design. The remotely controlled turrets alone would be quite a programming feat I would think.

And none of this gets into building credible flight and damage models for these large, complex airframes.

Just something to think about.

Oh, and about the whole NG thing, you must remember that War Thunder is not an air combat game, it is a very sophisticated money making machine, that preys on it's players desires to buy their way to success, so they have LOTS of money to spend on royalty payments to the large aircraft manufacturing corporations.

IceFire

03-28-2015, 10:13 PM

I still don't think they have paid any money to license the aircraft. It's just a matter of there have been resistance and precedent set in a few instances now so the lawyers are out looking for money elsewhere these days.

gaunt1

03-29-2015, 12:16 PM

Why dont forget those damned NG planes? There are tons of far more interesting aircrafts in WW2 that would also deserve to be included as flyable: Do-217, Me-410, Spitfire XIV, Typhoon, Tu-2, Su-2, B6N, D4Y to name a few...

ElAurens

03-29-2015, 02:17 PM

majorfailure

03-29-2015, 05:02 PM

Because the US and the Fleet Air Arm operated the TBF/TBM, and the US has no viable torpedo bomber that is player flyable. These aircraft were widely deployed in the Pacific, and the Atlantic, and really are necessary for any kind of campaign that involves carrier operations.

Having the TBF/TBM and the Curtiss Helldiver BTW, would flesh out the compliment for the USN.

And true, we need more Japanese attack aircraft as flyable as well.
As sad as it is not to have Avengers, I think a Helldiver would make a fairly suitable replacement as it has similar capabilities - looks aside. And late war Japanese strike/torpedo aircraft would be a welcome addition, too - as the early war D3A/B5N really are totally obsolete by at least 1944.

RPS69

03-29-2015, 05:20 PM

All "fair" battles were fought on 1942. After Midway, Japaneese were just overwhelmed. The amount of carriers the US deployed on the Pacific after that, almost required to put traffic lights on mid ocean!

IceFire

03-29-2015, 05:33 PM

At this point having the SB2C and the B6N or D3Y flyable would probably round out the carrier aircraft fairly well. The TBF/TBM is super important and the key aircraft in the carrier strike wing but it will have to be what it is.

Honestly as time passes IL-2 1946 is slowly fading out. In a few years I hope that the new IL-2 series will catch up to the Pacific and start to have the kinds of features the we enjoy in IL-2 1946... and we can leave this legal stuff in the past. But we'll see. There's a lot of ground to cover between now and then so I suppose the Pacific portion in particular will be key for some time to come.

ElAurens

03-29-2015, 07:40 PM

Furio

03-29-2015, 07:53 PM

I believe in game US Navy is well represented. Avengers are present, even if AI only, and just a single plane is missing: the Helldiver. With the SB2C, all relevant types would be available, and any carrier deck would be faithfully reproduced for any Pacific battle, from Pearl Harbour to VJ Day. I know, there should be Vindicators up to Midway, but their role was marginal, and I think we can live without them.

About Japanese attack plane, any late war type would be useful mostly as AI. Realistic missions against USN carriers would be almost, or totally suicidal, not particularly attractive for a campaign or career.

shelby

03-29-2015, 08:06 PM

for me the il2 needs only a few maps and enough planes and vehicles to be the most complete ww2 sim ever better than war thunder and new il2series even if the graphics are by far the best in new ones

Furio

03-29-2015, 08:06 PM

Sadly I think in a few years the new sim will be history.

:cool:

El is right, I fear.

Even if not, there is a huge difference in development cost for each new plane type between the “New Game” and “Good Old Il2”. Ten to one? Twenty to one? Perhaps more, and I can’t even guess the ratio if we talk about carriers.

In short, I think the chances to have in the New Game a plane set comparable to Good Old Il2 are really slim.

Fighterace

03-29-2015, 10:56 PM

Shame there's no P-61 either

IceFire

03-30-2015, 12:05 AM

Sadly I think in a few years the new sim will be history.

I don't think they understand the market, or the needs of the player base.

On an up note, my new computer build has finally allowed me to play the Finnish Hawk Campaign in this sim.

Just got back into it, but enjoying it, even though I'm stuck in Fokkers and Hurries for the moment. As you know I'm not much of an off line guy, but a well crafted off line experience is well worth the time spent.

:cool:
Now that the dust has settled and development continues... I'm pretty optimistic about the new generation. It's not going to be the same as the old one with prettier graphics... its definitely different and not everyone is going to like that but I guess we'll see what happens. I'm pretty excited for round two (Battle of Moscow).

Glad to hear you're enjoying the Hawk campaign. Yeah I didn't make the player stick it out too long in the Fokker but its a really great way to break into the experience and you get such a rush when you finally get into the Hawk and flying something fairly competitive. I have to say its not as exciting as some of my other campaigns but on the other side of the coin it follows pretty darn closely to those early days of the Continuation War (Thanks to awesome public records for the Finnish Air Force) and the types of missions and opponents they faced.

gaunt1

03-30-2015, 07:20 AM

I believe in game US Navy is well represented. Avengers are present, even if AI only, and just a single plane is missing: the Helldiver.

Thats what I think too.
You cant have every important plane in IL-2 as flyable. Besides, just check how awfully the Luftwaffe bomber force is represented! Missing entirely: Do-17, Do-217E series, late Ju-88, late He-111, Ju-188. AI only: Do-217K/M, Fw-200. Compare this to USN... Aveger is already ingame, as AI. The only plane that is REALLY missing, the Helldiver.

Furio

03-30-2015, 11:15 AM

Shame there's no P-61 either

That’s another type under the Gxxxxxn-Nxxxxxxp ban. I would love to have it flyable, of course, but, giving the time and resources limitation faced by developers (read: TD), choices are unavoidable.

My preference would go to complete already existing scenarios, such as the already mentioned Pacific Theatre. To me, it makes more sense to complete what we have, than have more incomplete scenarios. And – don’t shoot at me – I would shelve the whole night bombers-night fighters lot. Flying night interceptors would be simply to follow a different kind of mini-map, and then fire on a black silhouette barely visible in the dark. Flying bombers, it would be simply sit and wait for invisible fighters coming out from nowhere.

That’s my opinion, of course.

majorfailure

03-30-2015, 11:36 AM

My preference would go to complete already existing scenarios, such as the already mentioned Pacific Theatre. To me, it makes more sense to complete what we have, than have more incomplete scenarios. And – don’t shoot at me – I would shelve the whole night bombers-night fighters lot. Flying night interceptors would be simply to follow a different kind of mini-map, and then fire on a black silhouette barely visible in the dark. Flying bombers, it would be simply sit and wait for invisible fighters coming out from nowhere.

That’s my opinion, of course.

Right with you there. Basically you'd either shoot at barely visible targets - and the bomber AI either is too good and guns you down the instant you open fire, or too bad and you shoot fish in a barrel. And as custom or selectable belting has been requested many times and has not been done, I'd suppose that it is not that easy to do. And with current tracers and muzzle flashes, night fighting is merely a joke - you are blind the instant you fire, and all of the enemies open up at you at once.

And having a flyable late war German bomber would definitley add to this sim - any of them.

gaunt1

03-31-2015, 07:46 AM

And having a flyable late war German bomber would definitley add to this sim - any of them.

Even if its only a He-111H16! That would be relatively easy to add. As far as I know, TD cooperated with yt2, who made the Ju-88A5 and Ju-88P. He did a brilliant He-111 pack, not only adding new variants (including H16), but fixing older, like H6 (missing a front ventral gun, to name one serious problem) too!
Including some variants from his He-111 pack would be a really good addition!
A fixed H2, H6, H12 and a new H16 would be more than enough.

Sita

03-31-2015, 08:32 AM

Yt2 for now already part of DT )

Fighterace

03-31-2015, 09:50 AM

Flyable F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat variants would be cool but in my dreams....sadly

Furio

03-31-2015, 10:15 AM

Flyable F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat variants would be cool but in my dreams....sadly

Your idea doesn’t look to me too far fetched. :grin:
These types would be perfect for a “Pacific 1946”. But a new scenario and several new planes would be needed – the J7W Shinden, for example – and the whole thing will fatally end up as a “new incomplete”.

As I see it, new German bombers are a more realistic proposition. To begin with, they are missing in already available scenarios, such as Eastern Front in 1943. then, they can extend bomber pilot careers. Finally, as Gaunt 1 wrote, updating existing models can pay big dividends.

In my opinion, this is “realistic management of dreams!”:rolleyes:

ECV56_Guevara

03-31-2015, 12:45 PM

. But a new scenario and several new planes would be needed – the J7W Shinden, for example

I saw somewhere a shinden WIP. A really beautifull one.

Agree with german bombers. Ju 86 as bomber/recce ( was/is it WIP???) He111 - Ju88 variants would be nice aditions.
But, IMO, what made this sim great was/is the comunity. All the campaigns. skins, tutorials, etc...Every new item added, a new bombsigth, new fuse settings, triggers, navigation aids, new AI, even a new FM, bring new life to the sim, because it gives new things to learn to all of us, and new things to teach, to discuss. What could give a total and great full orchestra ending to this sim, I guess is that. And what we have to learn, after all this years were we learnt history, geography, a lot of new words in russian, italian, spanish german, tech specs, etc...???
Still we need to learn to fight in the dark. :cool:
Again, this is my humble opinion.

gaunt1

04-02-2015, 09:29 AM

What about the B-25C? I think it would be relatively easy to add:
Forward cockpit and top turret could be taken completely from B-25J, ventral gun would need only a simple periscope view, like in Pe-2. Pilot's cockpit is probably not much different, so I think it wouldnt be hard to make.

sniperton

04-02-2015, 10:32 AM

The Mediterranian scenario would be near-complete with:

Gladiator => Sea Gladiator (AI, or needs British cockpit to be playable)
Hurricane => Sea Hurricane
G.50 => G.50 FB

As to night operations:

Halifax AI and/or Lancaster AI

Sita

04-02-2015, 11:37 AM

at first need repaint J8a => Gladiator MkI and MkII

Pursuivant

04-02-2015, 08:02 PM

Thats what I think too.
You cant have every important plane in IL-2 as flyable. Besides, just check how awfully the Luftwaffe bomber force is represented! Missing entirely: Do-17, Do-217E series, late Ju-88, late He-111, Ju-188. AI only: Do-217K/M, Fw-200. Compare this to USN... Aveger is already ingame, as AI. The only plane that is REALLY missing, the Helldiver.

Of the list of German bombers, the one I'd most like to see if a flyable Fw-200. I really liked what TD was doing with the anti-shipping additions.

Speaking of which, it would also be dead simple to create a "North Atlantic" map. Take the existing "Coral Sea" map, change the latitude, longitude and temperature (winter and summer versions), and perhaps change the water color. Perfect environment for the new B-24D and the new U-boats.

If you wanted to get fancy, you could even do a map that includes a tiny bit of Greenland or Iceland at the North end of the map to give land-based planes a place to land.

Pursuivant

04-02-2015, 08:11 PM

Right with you there. Basically you'd either shoot at barely visible targets - and the bomber AI either is too good and guns you down the instant you open fire, or too bad and you shoot fish in a barrel.

I think that the appeal of night operations is mostly in the night-fighter end, since there's an art to tracking bombers using GCI and AI radar.

Night bombing might have some appeal, but unless we get some of the night bombing aids, it's mostly an exercise in instrument flying and dead reckoning. Challenging, but not unique to IL2 or to night bombers.

And as custom or selectable belting has been requested many times and has not been done, I'd suppose that it is not that easy to do. And with current tracers and muzzle flashes, night fighting is merely a joke - you are blind the instant you fire, and all of the enemies open up at you at once.

Actually, unless you're flying in a dark room, the player ISN'T blinded by bright lights at night. That means your virtual pilot or tail gunner retains his night vision when he should be dazzled by searchlights, explosions or muzzle flashes.

And having a flyable late war German bomber would definitely add to this sim - any of them.

There is the Ar-234, which is about as late war as German bombers get. But I don't think that's what you had in mind :)

Sita

04-02-2015, 08:39 PM

yeah i want flyable Fw-200 too))

need find the person who could)

IceFire

04-02-2015, 11:27 PM

This may not be what you had in mind for late war German bomber ... but many of the bomber squadrons transitioned from Ju88 and He111 to the bomber variant of the Me410. Then you could have a mid/late war German heavy fighter/destroyer, bomber, night fighter and whatever else the 410 was adapted to become and its all in one basically the same aircraft. At the same time you could probably have ventured off to do the Me210 and Me210Ca which wasn't too different from the Me410 to begin with.

That would have been ideal IMHO.

ElAurens

04-03-2015, 11:19 AM

Furio

04-03-2015, 11:50 AM

I don't claim to have a wealth of knowledge about Luftwaffe aircraft type utilization, but were not most of the bombers pretty much grounded in the late war period as what little fuel the Luftwaffe had available was deemed more important for use by fighters for air defense?

You’re right, I think. Let’s say that “late war” means end of 43, beginning of 44 as far as LW bombers are concerned.

Furio

04-03-2015, 11:55 AM

These threads about wished planes are always popular, it seems, and as varied as usual. Nothing bad, here, as long as we understand that we are having a little fun… So, instead of adding another type to the wish list, I’ll try to make some general considerations.

Lets start acknowledging some limitations. Good old Il2 is efficient in simulating tactical, short-range combat, much less for strategic bombing or long-range missions (overseas excluded) for obvious limitation in maps size.
As I understand it, a map for Bomber Command squadrons going from UK to Berlin and back is out of question.
Moreover, it’s impossible to replicate realistically a 1,000 bombers mission, and even – if I’m not mistaken – an Eight AF combat wing.
Lastly, it’s hard to simulate correctly a whole strategic situation. For example: ill directed, badly organized and trained VVS pilots in the early days of Barbarossa. Hopelessly outnumbered and short on fuel Luftwaffe from late 1944 to war’s end.

No less limited are TD’s time and resources. They already made wonders (thanks, guys!) and surely have many surprises in the making, but can we expect to see all WWII scenarios, campaigns, maps and planes? Would love it, but I think not. Also, I understand that many types have been, and will be, selected more with heart and passion that with thoughtful planning.

From these premises, this is my Great Plan.

Set aside long-range types and strategic missions.
Set aside scenarios and maps requiring too many new planes. France 1940 was often mentioned, but would require too many new types: Battle, Lysander, Defiant, Potez 63, Breguet 69, Amiot 143 and 350, Bloch 152, 174, 175 and 210, Caudron 714, LeO 451, just to name some… a dream too good to be true.
Give priority to types that, being missing, prevent realistic missions in existing scenarios. Helldiver on US carrier decks after 1943 is a good example.
Give priority to types that can extend and complete existing career, as a late war Ju88 for LW bomber career.
Give priority to types useful in many roles and scenarios such as the Me410 proposed by IceFire.
Give priority to mid war scenarios, when air superiority was contended on equal terms.
And, finally (for the time being): consider new versions of existing types when easy to be done. A good example is good old I16: bashing existing Type 18 and Type 24 would produce a type 17, a real Type 24 and a Type 28. The last one would require nothing more than changing the name…

Pursuivant

04-03-2015, 05:53 PM

I don't claim to have a wealth of knowledge about Luftwaffe aircraft type utilization, but were not most of the bombers pretty much grounded in the late war period as what little fuel the Luftwaffe had available was deemed more important for use by fighters for air defense?

Pretty much. Also, many bomber pilots were transitioned over to fighter pilot duties. That said, there were some conversions of later bomber types into night fighter variants, and those were used until the war's end. A few were also used as flying launch platforms for V-1 rockets.

Furio

04-03-2015, 06:44 PM

Furio

04-03-2015, 06:52 PM

Pretty much. Also, many bomber pilots were transitioned over to fighter pilot duties. That said, there were some conversions of later bomber types into night fighter variants, and those were used until the war's end. A few were also used as flying launch platforms for V-1 rockets.

Much depend on what type of bomber we are talking of. The Me262 saw service as bomber and some work was done on an Ar234 night fighter version. Sometimes, it’s not easy to see logic and consistency in late war LW planning…

Pursuivant

04-03-2015, 07:11 PM

After all that ponderous planning in my previous post, I should have added IMHO… And must admit: I have my personal, far from rational favourites: the Whirlwind and the B26 Marauder… Both would need new maps, very unlikely! Sigh…:(

Not really.

The Normandy map can stand in for any part of the French coast for "Rhubarb" missions for 1941-42 British fighters and strike fighters.

The B-26 was widely used. Any of the Pacific Island maps, the Normandy map, and any of the Italian maps would be fine for it.

Furio

04-03-2015, 07:44 PM

Not really.

The Normandy map can stand in for any part of the French coast for "Rhubarb" missions for 1941-42 British fighters and strike fighters.

The B-26 was widely used. Any of the Pacific Island maps, the Normandy map, and any of the Italian maps would be fine for it.

I would accept any map for the Whirlwind!

As for the Marauder, I was dreaming about the Ninth Air Force, where the type really shone, and remembering a fantastic comic story with Ian Kennedy arts. Story was about Marauders in the Pacific (incorrect model and year, but…) fighting against Bettys and Ohkas…:rolleyes:

ElAurens

04-03-2015, 09:31 PM

After all that ponderous planning in my previous post, I should have added IMHO… And must admit: I have my personal, far from rational favourites: the Whirlwind and the B26 Marauder… Both would need new maps, very unlikely! Sigh…:(

Actually the B 26 was used for a short time in New Guinea, before being replaced with B 25s. Why couldn't you use the Whirlwind on the Normandy map in an early war scenario?

Furio

04-03-2015, 10:09 PM

Actually the B 26 was used for a short time in New Guinea, before being replaced with B 25s. Why couldn't you use the Whirlwind on the Normandy map in an early war scenario?

You’re right, the short wing model. As for the Whirlwind, as I said, I would use any map, any!

majorfailure

04-03-2015, 11:02 PM

Actually, unless you're flying in a dark room, the player ISN'T blinded by bright lights at night. That means your virtual pilot or tail gunner retains his night vision when he should be dazzled by searchlights, explosions or muzzle flashes.

Okay if compared to real life -the player is not blinded. The muzzle flash temporarily outshines all other ingame objects, and the slightly more blackish grey of the enemy bomber gets lost against the greyish black of the background. If lucky enough, rinse, wash, repeat. Usually and unlucky - ram bomber you don't see any more. Extra unlucky and very common, given away position, and getting pounded by all bombers nearby.
Another thing that would be useful and maybe even necessary - flames and or glow of exhausts.

There is the Ar-234, which is about as late war as German bombers get. But I don't think that's what you had in mind :)
Yeah, this thing is fun. No one can catch you(almost). And that's also not too desireable for balance. And it was a rare bird. I was more thinking along the lines of a Do-217/He-177 (already there as AI model).
After all that ponderous planning in my previous post, I should have added IMHO… And must admit: I have my personal, far from rational favourites: the Whirlwind and the B26 Marauder… Both would need new maps, very unlikely! Sigh…:(
Whirlwind can use Normandy map. Or the fake British isles (Kuban if I'm not mistaken?) - and it would be highly welcome even without a map.
B-26 is one of my favourites, too, but to be honest -its roles can largley and without too much hassle be occupied by B-25/A-20. As sad as it is, there is no real need for this beautiful plane.

Derda508

04-04-2015, 09:16 AM

-its roles can largley and without too much hassle be occupied by B-25/A-20. As sad as it is, there is no real need for this beautiful plane.

But it made quite some impression on the German footsoldiers serving in Northern Africa, Sicily, Itlay and Normandy. I know from first hand that they used to call all these American twin-enginie bombers, regardless whether A 20 or B-25, just "Marauders".

Furio

04-04-2015, 10:12 AM

Whirlwind can use Normandy map. Or the fake British isles (Kuban if I'm not mistaken?) - and it would be highly welcome even without a map.
B-26 is one of my favourites, too, but to be honest -its roles can largley and without too much hassle be occupied by B-25/A-20. As sad as it is, there is no real need for this beautiful plane.

The B26 had a significant role in the last two years of war, particularly with the Ninth AF. In my opinion, it was a sort of “tactical Flying Fortress”, the best type allied had in this role, until the Invader became available. And in that role it would be perfectly suited for good old Il2. It would efficiently share the same overall scenario with the Typhoon, flying over Northern France, the Ardennes and Southern Germany, pounding the same targets.

The Whirlwind is – to my eyes – the most beautiful WWII type, but honestly it can be considered barely operational, with just 116 examples built, flown by two squadrons only and replaced by the Typhoon. Possibly, the best way to use it is as a starting point for an RAF ground attack pilot career, progressing to the Typhoon and Tempest. As said above, the Typhoon could happily share the same scenario with the B26…

Just an exercise in optimism! ;)

gaunt1

04-04-2015, 02:30 PM

majorfailure

04-04-2015, 02:50 PM

The B26 had a significant role in the last two years of war, particularly with the Ninth AF. In my opinion, it was a sort of “tactical Flying Fortress”, the best type allied had in this role, until the Invader became available. And in that role it would be perfectly suited for good old Il2. It would efficiently share the same overall scenario with the Typhoon, flying over Northern France, the Ardennes and Southern Germany, pounding the same targets.
Yes that would fit. And it would find its friends - I'd bet anyone that likes the A-20 would like the B-26. But I don't see the huge gap where this plane is missing, rather a small niche.

The Whirlwind is – to my eyes – the most beautiful WWII type, but honestly it can be considered barely operational, with just 116 examples built, flown by two squadrons only and replaced by the Typhoon. Possibly, the best way to use it is as a starting point for an RAF ground attack pilot career, progressing to the Typhoon and Tempest. As said above, the Typhoon could happily share the same scenario with the B26…

Just an exercise in optimism! ;)

And we have a I-185, with Idontknowhowlittle built, among others. I always thought a hypothetical souped up Whirly 1945/46 model would have been a perfect counter against the more realistic 1946 German planes. And given that most prop engines of that time enhanced their power by 1.5 to 2 in their carreres, a fully developed Peregrine with all the bells and whistles would be no more unrealistic as a few other planes IMHO.

Furio

04-04-2015, 04:34 PM

And we have a I-185, with Idontknowhowlittle built, among others. I always thought a hypothetical souped up Whirly 1945/46 model would have been a perfect counter against the more realistic 1946 German planes. And given that most prop engines of that time enhanced their power by 1.5 to 2 in their carreres, a fully developed Peregrine with all the bells and whistles would be no more unrealistic as a few other planes IMHO.

That’s because the I185 was a work of love, not the result of rational planning, and I’m grateful to the people that modelled it and shared it with us. Thanks, guys!
In my opinion, the real “what if Whirlwind” would have been a slightly scaled up machine: something around 10% would have sufficed to accommodate Merlin engines. Add four belt fed Hispanos and look what you have: same power and armament as the Mosquito, but smaller and single seat!

Furio

04-04-2015, 04:40 PM

So, if we exclude strategic bombing, I think the following planes would be suitable for IL-2 maps

LW: Ju-88A14, He-111H16, Do-217K/M*, Me-410
US: B-25C, B-25G and H, Helldiver
Soviet: Tu-2

* used as anti shipping bomber too, thats why in the list.

That’s an interesting list, even if not includes my favourites… If I’m not mistaken, the Helldiver is the only completely new type requested, all others being already present in AI form, or flyable in other versions.
We are becoming very measured dreamers!

sniperton

04-04-2015, 06:48 PM

There's a saying in my country: 'If you build castles from the air, don't economize with the brick'.

Pursuivant

04-05-2015, 12:43 AM

There's a saying in my country: 'If you build castles from the air, don't economize with the brick'.

:grin::grin::grin:

Buster_Dee

04-05-2015, 01:30 PM

That’s another type under the Gxxxxxn-Nxxxxxxp ban. I would shelve the whole night bombers-night fighters lot. Flying night interceptors would be simply to follow a different kind of mini-map, and then fire on a black silhouette barely visible in the dark. Flying bombers, it would be simply sit and wait for invisible fighters coming out from nowhere.

That’s my opinion, of course.

There's at least one problem with your assumption. I started learning to model for Target for Tonight, I have a radar background and, even as a Yank, the only theaters that REALLY interest me are the Commonwealth night bomber offensive, and the North-Atlantic U-boat defense. The only reason I model at all is that, after 20 years of waiting, I still hope. So, the one problem: if you tell me I will NEVER have my night bomber/night fighters, I'm taking my ball and going home.;)

Buster_Dee

04-05-2015, 01:46 PM

Ok, maybe SOME daylight stuff is ok. I do love that B-26. All the talk about what could be "easily done" by using parts of other birds does not seem to include the B-26, which did have the same turret as the B-24 had (nearly identical).

But, I like the short-wing version in British service. There's is definitely something wrong with my allegiances.

The TBF? I fume to think about having it off-limits. NG was always such a stand-up company--clearly most concerned about giving fighting men something they could REALLY use and repair, giving their workers a real reason to be proud, and giving engineers a reason to do "right" things. I still can't put what happened with that company. An apology from them, and a thanks for all the model builders who became engineers, seems far more characteristic of their legacy.

Did you know that a Hellcat was bounce-tested from a ceiling? It was so rugged that the testers decided to have a little fun. I don't think the cat even noticed it was being abused.

IceFire

04-05-2015, 02:09 PM

There's at least one problem with your assumption. I started learning to model for Target for Tonight, I have a radar background and, even as a Yank, the only theaters that REALLY interest me are the Commonwealth night bomber offensive, and the North-Atlantic U-boat defense. The only reason I model at all is that, after 20 years of waiting, I still hope. So, the one problem: if you tell me I will NEVER have my night bomber/night fighters, I'm taking my ball and going home.;)

I think we're close to that night fighter scenario. A map of somewhere in Germany, a flyable British bomber, set the lights low, a Bf110G-4 which we've already seen.... would give us some great night fighter/bomber activity.

The B-26 would be amazing however. Very useful over the Normandy map we already have.

Furio

04-05-2015, 02:24 PM

There's at least one problem with your assumption. I started learning to model for Target for Tonight, I have a radar background and, even as a Yank, the only theaters that REALLY interest me are the Commonwealth night bomber offensive, and the North-Atlantic U-boat defense. The only reason I model at all is that, after 20 years of waiting, I still hope. So, the one problem: if you tell me I will NEVER have my night bomber/night fighters, I'm taking my ball and going home.;)

Of course, I'm telling you nothing, being just a guy as all of you. In a perfect world, a perfect sim makes everyone happy.:grin:

ElAurens

04-05-2015, 02:44 PM

Furio

04-05-2015, 04:55 PM

The short wing B26 was also flown by the USAAF early on, and is my personal favorite of the B26 models because it had the best overall performance.

Yes it was tricky to fly for new pilots, even dangerous really, but as one pilot who liked the short wing version said, "it was a weapon". When flown by well trained pilots is was very good indeed.

Add the fact that it is just stunning to look at and it is a winner.

Wing was short and small. The early B26 was called “the prostitute” because it “had no visible means of support”. But you’re right: it was not designed for joyrides, and as a weapon it was really effective.

Buster_Dee

04-06-2015, 12:28 AM

I think we were still in that phase of "almost" listening to British war experience, while they were just getting used to letting us find out some things for ourselves. It's amazing that the only flying survivor (that I know of) is the early, hot rod version.

Pursuivant

04-06-2015, 08:01 AM

The only theaters that REALLY interest me are the Commonwealth night bomber offensive, and the North-Atlantic U-boat defense.

Two different wars.

Of the two, the "easier" one to get into the game is the Battle of the Atlantic.

Depth charges as a load-out (actually, just delayed action bombs since IL2 doesn't handle water depth or submarine behavior properly).

One ASW radar for the Liberator. (Perhaps British instruments, guns, radars, etc. for the Liberator VLR variant.)

Big map of the North Atlantic. Steely gray water with a bit of Newfoundland, Iceland, Northern Ireland and/or Norway in the corner(s). Perhaps massively scaled down so that ops that normally took 18 hours to fly could be done in 1-2 hours.

Maybe a Leigh Light.

Bomber Command Night Ops would almost require an entire new sim, since smoke and fire effects would need to be massively reworked, and dozens of new flyable planes and navigation and targeting aids would need be developed, plus new maps to fly over.

Pursuivant

04-06-2015, 08:12 AM

The TBF? I fume to think about having it off-limits. NG was always such a stand-up company--clearly most concerned about giving fighting men something they could REALLY use and repair, giving their workers a real reason to be proud, and giving engineers a reason to do "right" things.

Yep. They got evil and corrupt starting in the 90s after the merger. Massive fines for various ethics and environmental violations. Grumman might have been a stand-up company, but Northrop wasn't so nice and Northrop bought Grumman, not the other way round.

My hope is that a talented modder will make high-quality flyable TBF cockpit and crew stations, and then go on to complete the entire run of Grumman fighters, starting with the F3F. Then, they'll finish off by making a really top-of-the-line fully flyable P-61 and the Ryan FR Fireball. This is a wish-list thread!

Pursuivant

04-06-2015, 08:27 AM

I think we were still in that phase of "almost" listening to British war experience, while they were just getting used to letting us find out some things for ourselves.

I'd say that the major nation that get shortest shrift in IL2 is the UK.

There are many major British plane, tank and vehicle types that aren't represented, and the major theaters where the British fought (mostly) don't have maps. Many of the British planes chosen to be in IL2 were only because they were used on the Eastern Front. If it wasn't for Finland, we'd have no early war British planes at all!

Admittedly, IL2 was designed from a Russian point of view and was a healthy correction to all the Battle of Britain and "U.S.-conquers the world" sims, but I'd love to see a sim focused on the Mediterranean Theater from 1941-1943.

Plenty of air forces (Yugoslavia, Vichy France, Rhodesia, South Africa, Greece, Egypt and Canada in addition to the nations already in the game), many obscure battles, many obscure aircraft and vehicles to go along with the famous hardware, gorgeous terrain, often evenly matched forces - almost to the end.

Furio

04-06-2015, 09:44 AM

I'd say that the major nation that get shortest shrift in IL2 is the UK.

There are many major British plane, tank and vehicle types that aren't represented, and the major theaters where the British fought (mostly) don't have maps. Many of the British planes chosen to be in IL2 were only because they were used on the Eastern Front. If it wasn't for Finland, we'd have no early war British planes at all!

Admittedly, IL2 was designed from a Russian point of view and was a healthy correction to all the Battle of Britain and "U.S.-conquers the world" sims, but I'd love to see a sim focused on the Mediterranean Theater from 1941-1943.

Plenty of air forces (Yugoslavia, Vichy France, Rhodesia, South Africa, Greece, Egypt and Canada in addition to the nations already in the game), many obscure battles, many obscure aircraft and vehicles to go along with the famous hardware, gorgeous terrain, often evenly matched forces - almost to the end.

The list of British missing types is impressive. Most medium and all heavy bombers, all seaplanes, all transports. We have just one Mosquito and one Beaufighter models, but the Beau is the Australian variant. If I’m not mistaken, there is Tempest but no Typhoon, no ground attack Hurricanes (IId, IIe and IV), no Griffon Spitfires.
By comparison, Italian types are well represented, with a good choice of fighters and two out of three main bomber types. Regia Aeronautica just miss a transport (like the S82 Marsupiale, used also by Luftwaffe) and a seaplane (like the CANT Z506).

Looking at the British missing list I feel mixed emotions. The dreamer drools thinking at all those new types. The realist thinks that such dream is too good to be true and would be better to concentrate energies on more reachable goals.

gaunt1

04-06-2015, 01:07 PM

B-25C/D (same) was also used by the british (Mitchell Mk.II), and in significant numbers. I think this is the most reachable goal for a flyable british bomber.

Pursuivant

04-06-2015, 01:35 PM

B-25C/D (same) was also used by the British (Mitchell Mk.II), and in significant numbers. I think this is the most reachable goal for a flyable british bomber.

True. Although the A-20C was also used in limited numbers by the UK.

Another conversion of an existing plane in the game would be to convert the A-20C to the Havoc III, or even the DB-7/Boston I. As an AI plane, you wouldn't even need different crew stations - just different ordinance and guns.

Pursuivant

04-06-2015, 01:50 PM

If I’m not mistaken, there is Tempest but no Typhoon, no ground attack Hurricanes (IId, IIe and IV), no Griffon Spitfires.

Correct on almost all counts, although I think that the Mk.IId Hurricane is in the game.

By comparison, Italian types are well represented, with a good choice of fighters and two out of three main bomber types. Regia Aeronautica just miss a transport (like the S82 Marsupiale, used also by Luftwaffe) and a seaplane (like the CANT Z506).

Yes, but there are some frustrating choices for the flyable Italian planes.

A flyable Re.2000/MAGAV Heja would make for a more interesting career as a Hungarian fighter pilot (you start off with the Cr.42 - which sucks on the Eastern Front after 1941, then later transition to the Bf-109G).

A flyable Fiat G.55 would just be fun. We don't exactly need it since we have a flyable MC.205 and the G.55 wasn't built in any great numbers, but if you're a fighter geek, then not having it flyable is like being a kid with his nose pressed up against the candy store window. Same for the Re.2000 and Re.2002.

Looking at the British missing list I feel mixed emotions. The dreamer drools thinking at all those new types. The realist thinks that such dream is too good to be true and would be better to concentrate energies on more reachable goals.

Yep. The good news is that modeling a single-engined AI plane isn't THAT hard, if you've got the basic artist skills. Maybe some modder will hear our prayers.

Furio

04-06-2015, 05:19 PM

A flyable Re.2000/MAGAV Heja would make for a more interesting career as a Hungarian fighter pilot (you start off with the Cr.42 - which sucks on the Eastern Front after 1941, then later transition to the Bf-109G).
If I’m not mistaken, the Italian built Re2000 was the Hèja I, and could already be employed in a Hungarian pilot career. For the Hèja II, a different engine and cowling is almost all is needed, performances being similar.

A flyable Fiat G.55 would just be fun. We don't exactly need it since we have a flyable MC.205 and the G.55 wasn't built in any great numbers, but if you're a fighter geek, then not having it flyable is like being a kid with his nose pressed up against the candy store window. Same for the Re.2000 and Re.2002.

That’s a typo for the 2001, I suppose… In that case, the Re2001 was built in small numbers (Wiki says 237) and had rather unspectacular performances. The Re2002 was a ground attack variant, reverting to radial engine. It was a sort of “Mini-Sky raider” with low performances and light armament. It was noteworthy mainly for being in operational service on both sides at the same time, being flown by both Luftwaffe and Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force.

The one really outstanding Reggiane was the 2005, but only 32 were built, briefly used against allied bombers. Two B24 shot down is all what they obtained, but they revealed very good high altitude performances. An aesthetically pleasing machine, the Sagittario had – at last – a powerful armament, with two 12,7 mm SAFAT and three 20 mm MG151.

Asheshouse

04-07-2015, 09:23 AM

The good news is that modeling a single-engined AI plane isn't THAT hard.

That's great news. I'll expect to see all the single engine models that you are working on in the next patch. ;)

sniperton

04-07-2015, 10:38 AM

RPS69

04-07-2015, 11:11 AM

A friend tried to make us play a mission with 100 B17's.

He said he tested it off line and it worked fine.

It was going well, until we aproached the bombers and they opened fire upon us. This lagged things a lot, but when they dropped bombs, FPS go to 0.

Still, I won't blame the game, but internet quality, and CPU performance.

sniperton

04-07-2015, 11:28 AM

If I’m not mistaken, the Italian built Re2000 was the Hèja I, and could already be employed in a Hungarian pilot career. For the Hèja II, a different engine and cowling is almost all is needed, performances being similar.

Re.2000 was only produced for export (Sweden and Hungary). In Hungary, it was called Héja I and was used as a first line fighter in 1941/42. Later on, Hungary even manufactured it, as Héja II, under licence, but this second version saw service only in secondary roles (the superior Bf 109 F and G became available by then). The Re.2000 was indeed made available in the game as part of the Hungarian plane-set (Cr.42 > Re.2000 > Bf 109).

The funny thing is that the Italian manufacturer delivered the planes for Hungary with an English maintenance manual. It seems that the language of the enemy was the common language between the two allies of Germany. :D

KG26_Alpha

04-07-2015, 11:57 AM

The funny thing is that the Italian manufacturer delivered the planes for Hungary with an English maintenance manual. It seems that the language of the enemy was the common language between the two allies of Germany. :D

They were translated locally depending on deployment.

Furio

04-07-2015, 02:23 PM

Re.2000 was only produced for export (Sweden and Hungary).

Actually, it saw limited service in Italy also. Some examples were adapted to be launched from ships, much like the British Hurricat, the only difference being… the ships: merchantmen for the Hurricat, capital battleship for the Re2000. Having long range, the 2000 Catapultabile was supposed to reach shore after completing its mission.

A dozen "2000 GA" (Grande Autonomia, Long Range) were used from land bases and, apparently, obtained just one confirmed kill, against an RAF Blenheim.

Pursuivant

04-07-2015, 02:40 PM

That's great news. I'll expect to see all the single engine models that you are working on in the next patch. ;)

Point taken. Sadly, modeling is beyond my skills, much less all the fiddly stuff that represents 90% of the work.

Pursuivant

04-07-2015, 03:05 PM

Strange as it is, but the game engine and the general game design are more fitted to recreate either the 'forgotten battles' of WWII or the Jet Era than the large-scale air operations characteristic of the main battle fronts from the mid war. Even the Battle of Britain falls into this latter category.

That just means that mission builders need to design their scenarios wisely, scaling big missions down proportionately or removing planes which aren't vital to the mission.

For example, if you're designing a fighter sweep where a flight of P-51s leave the bombers to attack a German airfield, you don't have to include the rest of the squadron and all the bombers cruising along at 25,000 feet.

Also, don't assume that just because there weren't that many planes in the theater that there couldn't be odd battles where there were dozens of planes in the sky. For example, one mission flown by the Flying Tigers saw 12 P-40s and 15 Buffaloes vs. 25 Ki-43 and 63 Ki-21! Or, during the bombing of Darwin, Australia, the Japanese put 188 aircraft into the air for the first raid!

As to new maps and (mostly British) planes, I would hark back to the forgotten battles concept and concentrate on the Northern convoy route to Murmansk, on the Med, on China, and on Australasia. And, of course, several old cockpits deserve a repaint at least.

My choice for "new" maps would be to have some big open sea maps for the Arctic Sea, North Atlantic and Mediterranean. All that would be needed is changing the .ini files for the Coral Sea map to alter longitude, latitude and air temperature, although perhaps water color could be altered to reflect dominant cloud conditions (i.e., steely gray for the North Atlantic in winter).

Pursuivant

04-07-2015, 03:38 PM

If I’m not mistaken, the Italian built Re2000 was the Hèja I, and could already be employed in a Hungarian pilot career. For the Hèja II, a different engine and cowling is almost all is needed, performances being similar.

I'd forgotten that the Re.2000 is flyable. The cockpit gauges are Italian, though. I have no idea if they were in Hungarian for the Heja I, but that's a minor detail.

That’s a typo for the 2001, I suppose… In that case, the Re2001 was built in small numbers (Wiki says 237) and had rather unspectacular performances.

Yep, typo for Re.2001. Top speed and high altitude performance wasn't all that, but at low levels it was an effective turn fighter and a potential match for the Spitfire Mk.V when competently flown.

As for low production figures, remember that, compared to aircraft production in larger nations, no Italian plane was produced in huge numbers. Italian industry just wasn't up to the task, so many promising designs were never built, or weren't produced in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

sniperton

04-07-2015, 10:38 PM

As for low production figures, remember that, compared to aircraft production in larger nations, no Italian plane was produced in huge numbers. Italian industry just wasn't up to the task, so many promising designs were never built, or weren't produced in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

More disturbing is what they did produce in large quantities and we've never complained about. These are the plane types (without trainers) they had in larger numbers (>100). Type / role / year entering service / number of aircraft built:

Reggiane Re.2002 fighter 1942 140
Breda Ba.88 fighter / bomber 1938 149
Caproni Ca.111 reconnaissance 1933 152
Fiat RS.14 reconnaissance 1941 186
Caproni Ca.310 reconnaissance / bomber 1938 193
IMAM Ro.43 reconnaissance 1935 193
Macchi M.C.205V fighter 1943 199
Breda Ba.65 ground attack 1937 200
Caproni Ca.314 bomber / maritime patrol 1942 200
Junkers Ju 87B-2 & D-1 dive bomber 1940 210
Messerschmitt Bf 109G/K fighter 1943 225
Fiat B.R.20 bomber 1936 233
Caproni Ca.309 reconnaissance n/a 243
Reggiane Re.2001 fighter 1941 243
Fiat B.R.20M bomber 1936 279
Caproni Ca.164 liaison 280
Caproni Ca.311 bomber 1939 284
CANT Z.506B maritime patrol / bomber 1939 314
Savoia-Marchetti SM.84 bomber 1941 329
Caproni Ca.313 bomber n/a 338
SAIMAN 202 liaison 1939 390
Caproni Ca.133 transport / bomber 1935 443
CANT Z.501 maritime patrol 1936 454
Savoia-Marchetti SM.81 bomber 1935 534
CANT Z.1007 bomber 1939 582
IMAM Ro.37 reconnaissance 1935 617
Fiat G.50 fighter 1938 683
Savoia-Marchetti SM.82 transport / bomber 1940 726
Fiat C.R.32 fighter 1933 1052
Macchi M.C.200 fighter 1939 1151
Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 bomber / transport 1936 1240
Macchi M.C.202 fighter 1941 1351
Fiat C.R.42 fighter 1939 1551

I suspect other air forces would be not much different if scrutinized.

Furio

04-08-2015, 08:37 AM

More disturbing is what they did produce in large quantities and we've never complained about. These are the plane types (without trainers) they had in larger numbers (>100). Type / role / year entering service / number of aircraft built:

Reggiane Re.2002 fighter 1942 140
Breda Ba.88 fighter / bomber 1938 149
Caproni Ca.111 reconnaissance 1933 152
Fiat RS.14 reconnaissance 1941 186
Caproni Ca.310 reconnaissance / bomber 1938 193
IMAM Ro.43 reconnaissance 1935 193
Macchi M.C.205V fighter 1943 199
Breda Ba.65 ground attack 1937 200
Caproni Ca.314 bomber / maritime patrol 1942 200
Junkers Ju 87B-2 & D-1 dive bomber 1940 210
Messerschmitt Bf 109G/K fighter 1943 225
Fiat B.R.20 bomber 1936 233
Caproni Ca.309 reconnaissance n/a 243
Reggiane Re.2001 fighter 1941 243
Fiat B.R.20M bomber 1936 279
Caproni Ca.164 liaison 280
Caproni Ca.311 bomber 1939 284
CANT Z.506B maritime patrol / bomber 1939 314
Savoia-Marchetti SM.84 bomber 1941 329
Caproni Ca.313 bomber n/a 338
SAIMAN 202 liaison 1939 390
Caproni Ca.133 transport / bomber 1935 443
CANT Z.501 maritime patrol 1936 454
Savoia-Marchetti SM.81 bomber 1935 534
CANT Z.1007 bomber 1939 582
IMAM Ro.37 reconnaissance 1935 617
Fiat G.50 fighter 1938 683
Savoia-Marchetti SM.82 transport / bomber 1940 726
Fiat C.R.32 fighter 1933 1052
Macchi M.C.200 fighter 1939 1151
Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 bomber / transport 1936 1240
Macchi M.C.202 fighter 1941 1351
Fiat C.R.42 fighter 1939 1551

I suspect other air forces would be not much different if scrutinized.

Looking a little more in depth, the situation is not bad as described, at least for what I know and IMHO.

I divided the listed types in four groups. The first one comprises types never or little used in combat, or that had an indifferent career. We can live without them, IMHO.
Breda 88: a total failure.
Caproni 111: retired as combat type before WWII.
Caproni Ca 310: operated in small numbers over Libia.
Caproni Ca309: a minor type, in the same class as the Avro Anson.
Caproni Ca164: similar to the Tiger Moth.
Siai SM84: designed to replace the SM79, it was actually inferior.
Saiman 202: a lightplane used for training and liaison.
IMAM Ro37: an obsolete recon type, little more than fighter fodder.
Caproni Ca133: obsolete by 1940, never used operationally in WWII.
Fiat CR32: in the same class as Gloster Gauntlet. It was even more obsolete than its replacement, the CR42.
To this list, I would add:
Re 2005, a beautiful fighter with very, very short operational career.
Piaggio P108, the only Italian four engine heavy bomber.

The second group lists interesting, but not particularly important types. All of these, IMHO are not a priority by any means.
Reggiane 2001: an unremarkable performing fighter.
IMAM Ro 43: shipborne floatplane. Limited use.
Breda Ba65. An obsolete attack type, employed in Spain and North Africa.
Caproni Ca 311-313-314. An interesting light bomber-recon, mainly employed in secondary roles.
Fiat RS14. That’s an interesting floatplane, but the CANT Z506 was more widely used.
Cant Z501: An interesting flying boat, mainly used in rescue role.
Siai S81: an obsolete bomber by 1940, it was mainly used for night sorties. Relegated to transport role, it saw service in Finland, with Italian crews and Luftwaffe markings up to 1944. A minor, but interesting type.

The third group lists important types really deserving – IMHO – to be included: as you can see, it’s a short list.
Fiat BR20-BR20M. This type would complete the trio of main Italian bombers. It was used also by Japanese Army Air Force.
Cant Z506: a beautiful floatplane, widely and successfully employed.
Siai S82: a big transport, with long range and high load carrying capability. This is an important missing type by any means.

The fourth group lists types already present, flyable or AI:
Fiat G50: flyable.
Macchi 200, 202 and 205: flyable.
SM79: flyable.
Fiat CR42: flyable.
Cantz 1007: AI.
Re2002: AI.
To this list, must be added the Fiat G55, AI.

Conclusion: in my opinion, Regia Aeronautica is well represented, with most major combat types already available. I would love to see the same ratio for RAF.

gaunt1

04-08-2015, 08:42 AM

I'd add one more italian type: Ca-135. As far as I know, hungarians used it against soviets.

sniperton

04-08-2015, 11:00 AM

Conclusion: in my opinion, Regia Aeronautica is well represented, with most major combat types already available. I would love to see the same ratio for RAF.

I completely agree, but my point was different. Sure we can't have all the planes, sure we don't need those not used, and sure we don't want the obsolate ones. This latter is my concern, the cannon fodder types, together with secondary role aircraft.

Air war is something like a grand opera, with many no-name musicians and backstage workers facilitating the performance, but we only pay attention to the primadonnas. This is okay so far as we play Il-2 as a tactical combat simulation, but if you try to create a dynamic campaign, you'll need some transports, recons, liaison aircrafts, and all those obsolate planes that the given nation used as light bombers to harrass troops, etc.

In this sense only the German and the Soviet plane-set is really well represented. For the rest, there are important functional roles not covered at all. Italy is a good case in point as it is generally well represented, but it still lacks a transport, a recon, an attack plane, and a light bomber.

I don't argue for particular planes. I simply say that this great game would really deserve more than just two basic transport types, and the like. I know that they are only the stage set for the grand opera performance, but still they are important IMHO. :)

gaunt1

04-08-2015, 11:16 AM

In this sense only the German and the Soviet plane-set is really well represented.

I dont agree fully with the German planeset. Bomber force is awfully represented. Also we missing a few other important planes too: Bf-110C4 flyable, Bf-110F, Ju-88C, Me-410 for example.

Furio

04-08-2015, 11:52 AM

I completely agree, but my point was different. Sure we can't have all the planes, sure we don't need those not used, and sure we don't want the obsolate ones. This latter is my concern, the cannon fodder types, together with secondary role aircraft.

Air war is something like a grand opera, with many no-name musicians and backstage workers facilitating the performance, but we only pay attention to the primadonnas. This is okay so far as we play Il-2 as a tactical combat simulation, but if you try to create a dynamic campaign, you'll need some transports, recons, liaison aircrafts, and all those obsolate planes that the given nation used as light bombers to harrass troops, etc.

In this sense only the German and the Soviet plane-set is really well represented. For the rest, there are important functional roles not covered at all. Italy is a good case in point as it is generally well represented, but it still lacks a transport, a recon, an attack plane, and a light bomber.

I don't argue for particular planes. I simply say that this great game would really deserve more than just two basic transport types, and the like. I know that they are only the stage set for the grand opera performance, but still they are important IMHO. :)

Here I agree with you. To devote precious development time to secondary types may seem a waste, but we should keep in mind that AI only would be required, without cockpit and crew station. A non-flyable, AI only S82, for example, would spare at least four crew stations and a two-seat cockpit, the smaller Ca313 at least three stations.

What types would be a logical and wise choice? For a tactical recon type, the Ro37 stands out. The Ca313 would fulfil various roles: recon, light bombing, liaison, and coastal patrol. The Breda 65 would be an interesting addition for North Africa. Sure enough, nobody will ever debate about their “uber” or “porked” performances!

sniperton

04-08-2015, 01:12 PM

I dont agree fully with the German planeset. Bomber force is awfully represented. Also we missing a few other important planes too: Bf-110C4 flyable, Bf-110F, Ju-88C, Me-410 for example.

What I meant is that although some important individual types might be missing, the main roles are covered, so that if you need a transport, you have one, if you need a recon, you have one, if you need a light bomber, you have one, etc, etc.

DuxCorvan

04-08-2015, 02:16 PM

Of all the nations involved, French planes are probably the most underrepresented in the game.

sniperton

04-08-2015, 02:39 PM

What types would be a logical and wise choice? For a tactical recon type, the Ro37 stands out. The Ca313 would fulfil various roles: recon, light bombing, liaison, and coastal patrol. The Breda 65 would be an interesting addition for North Africa. Sure enough, nobody will ever debate about their “uber” or “porked” performances!

Yep, these seem reasonable, together with SM.82. The community and campaign creators have already 'voted' for planes, as can be seen by simply looking around among the hack skins at mission4today and elsewhere: you'll find Tupoljev SB as Ca31X; R-10 as Breda 65, Ju 52 as SM.82, Po-2 as Ro37, Hs-123 as Cr.32 (in the ground attack role). On might say, though, that so far we can substitute missing plane types with existing ones there's no reason to complain... :-P

sniperton

04-08-2015, 02:57 PM

Of all the nations involved, French planes are probably the most underrepresented in the game.

This has something to do with the fact that France surrendered after 4 weeks, a very short timespan for French planes to see combat on the allied side. Vichy France as an axis country would be a different story (e.g. against Britain). The Free French mostly used British and American equipment. Some French planes like the D.520 were used by Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, and it would be great indeed to have them (as we do have those used by Finland).

Furio

04-08-2015, 05:45 PM

This has something to do with the fact that France surrendered after 4 weeks, a very short timespan for French planes to see combat on the allied side. Vichy France as an axis country would be a different story (e.g. against Britain). The Free French mostly used British and American equipment. Some French planes like the D.520 were used by Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, and it would be great indeed to have them (as we do have those used by Finland).

Add an unbelievable variety of types, as the Armée de l’Air was caught in the middle of an almost complete reorganization, with many squadron replacing their obsolete types. They probably fielded five fighter types (Ms406, D.520, Mb151, C.714, Curtiss Hawk) and had many more under development and production, such as the Arsenal Vg33. For bombers, it was even worse: Amiot 143 and 340, Bloch 131, 175 and 210, Breguet 693, Farman F222 and 223, Loire Nieuport LN401, Lioré et Olivier Leo 451, plus Douglas DB7 and Martin Baltimore…:(

majorfailure

04-08-2015, 06:25 PM

I completely agree, but my point was different. Sure we can't have all the planes, sure we don't need those not used, and sure we don't want the obsolate ones. This latter is my concern, the cannon fodder types, together with secondary role aircraft.

Air war is something like a grand opera, with many no-name musicians and backstage workers facilitating the performance, but we only pay attention to the primadonnas. This is okay so far as we play Il-2 as a tactical combat simulation, but if you try to create a dynamic campaign, you'll need some transports, recons, liaison aircrafts, and all those obsolate planes that the given nation used as light bombers to harrass troops, etc.

In this sense only the German and the Soviet plane-set is really well represented. For the rest, there are important functional roles not covered at all. Italy is a good case in point as it is generally well represented, but it still lacks a transport, a recon, an attack plane, and a light bomber.

I don't argue for particular planes. I simply say that this great game would really deserve more than just two basic transport types, and the like. I know that they are only the stage set for the grand opera performance, but still they are important IMHO. :)
Many roles can bes substituted, does not matter if you shoot down a low performance floatplane of the exact type - or if you shoot down a low performing floatplane that looks roughly similar. Agree about some other types, a few more transports to chose from would not hurt.

And while we are at Primadonnas, I'd love to see the G55 as flyable.

RPS69

04-08-2015, 08:21 PM

nic727

04-08-2015, 09:46 PM

List of french aircrafts in WW2 :

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww2-french-military-aircraft.asp

Didn't know they used german planes...

Furio

04-09-2015, 07:38 AM

Furio

04-09-2015, 08:04 AM

List of french aircrafts in WW2 :

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww2-french-military-aircraft.asp

Didn't know they used german planes...

And Japanese, like the Ki43. Many of the types listed here entered service after Battle of France was over, in late war years with Vichy or Free French markings, or even after the war. On the contrary, many types that fought in 1940 are not listed.
Armée de l’Air had probably most types in front line service than any of the combatants, a true nightmare for logistics, repairs, pilot training and battle planning, and a contributing factor to France’s defeat.

sniperton

04-09-2015, 09:55 AM

Many French planes exist as mods, but after the fall of France it's difficult to find a scenario where they actually saw combat. Initially both the Free French Air Force (FAFL) and the Vichy Air Force had French (and American) types, but only Vichy used them extensively, e.g. in Senegal (against the British), then in Syria (against the British), and finally in Morocco (against the western Allies). Most telling is the tally of a French ace pilot:

During his complicated combat career Pierre Le Gloan shot down 18 aircraft (4 German, 7 Italian and 7 British), which gave him the 4th position among the leading French flying aces of the war.

Anyway, the D.520 would be a useful addition, as several air forces used it in quantities over the years (France, Vichy France, Free France, Italy, Bulgaria).

majorfailure

04-09-2015, 06:04 PM

Your approach is a dogfight one.
On a campaign approach, someone must fly those secondary types you despise, but were much more important than pure fighter ones. They decided more battles than any fighter, and they represented life and death for fallen fighter pilots.
Try to read the german float plane missions over the black sea, or the storch scouting on the eastern front. Those guys got more balls and skill than any fighter pilot.

Didn't say I despise them. And I know it is much much more difficult to get a good result in a slower "death trap" plane. And for a whole war, transports and recon for example play a much greater role as the tactical scenario of IL2 is capable of simulating. And as I see it, if you can do that mission in plane A that is way below the performance envelope of a contemporary fighter, it is possible and not that much different in plane B that has 10% more performance. For a fighter though these ten percent are more important IMHO.
There’s an example that demonstrates this concept beyond any doubt. Probably the single, most decisive dive-bomber attack took place at Midway, the battle in which a handful of SBD Dauntless pilots turned the tide of war. But their success was largely determined by VT8 squadron Devastators, hopelessly obsolete torpedo bombers equipped with unsuitable torpedoes. The Devastators were all shot down, but kept busy the Japanese Zeros, leaving their carriers defenceless against SBD. We can say that, acting as decoy, Devastators decided the battle no less than Dauntlesses.

Probably no one will ever want to fly a Devastator pilot career, and a flyable one would be a dispensable luxury, or a curiosity, but the AI only Devastator is, IMHO, one of best additions ever to TD era Il2, showing how much precious a secondary type can be.
I see that differently:
It was a grave mistake to have own planes in the process of rearming while there was a potential American strike under way - and if doing so, then it was sheer folly to not have a massive CAP present.
The first enabled the enemy to strike the carriers with deadly force even with a few hits, the second made it highly propable for the above to happen.
The existing CAP beeing distracted by the Devastators for me is not as decisive (though it helped) - it would IMHO not have mattered if the CAP were at altitude -as three squads of dive bombers arrived nearly at the same time(some fine piloting on that day by American crews).
And it would likley have been enough to hit every carrier once/twice -Akagi as an example, and later in the war there were other carriers that sunk after one or two hits because the hits started inquenchable avgas fires.

ElAurens

04-09-2015, 09:50 PM

One must also take into account the extremely poor IJN damage control procedures.

During the course of the war the IJN lost many ships that the USN or Royal Navy would have saved.

Also, don't disparage the TBD too much. It performed well at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and when it was introduced it was indeed the very best torpedo bomber on the planet, though that was a time when technology was in a state of rapid advancement when it came to aircraft design, to be sure.

Furio

04-09-2015, 09:50 PM

I see that differently:
It was a grave mistake to have own planes in the process of rearming while there was a potential American strike under way - and if doing so, then it was sheer folly to not have a massive CAP present.
The first enabled the enemy to strike the carriers with deadly force even with a few hits, the second made it highly propable for the above to happen.
The existing CAP beeing distracted by the Devastators for me is not as decisive (though it helped) - it would IMHO not have mattered if the CAP were at altitude -as three squads of dive bombers arrived nearly at the same time(some fine piloting on that day by American crews).
And it would likley have been enough to hit every carrier once/twice -Akagi as an example, and later in the war there were other carriers that sunk after one or two hits because the hits started inquenchable avgas fires.

Any disaster is the end result of a long series of mistakes, some minor, some major, some decisive. IMHO, Devastators at Midway were decisive, but even if they only helped, fact remains that secondary planes often play a major role. Il2 is so good, and still better than newer sims, because it already has several of these types. Some new ones will simply add to this richness. According to my taste, of course.

IceFire

04-09-2015, 10:18 PM

Furio: Don't we have the Cant Z.506? We definitely got an Italian floatplane in the game now.

I'm at work otherwise I could check more quickly.

The Br.20 would be nice and a flyable G.55 and Re.2002 would be bonuses but otherwise the Italian airforce is well represented.

Furio

04-09-2015, 10:31 PM

Also, don't disparage the TBD too much. It performed well at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and when it was introduced it was indeed the very best torpedo bomber on the planet, though that was a time when technology was in a state of rapid advancement when it came to aircraft design, to be sure.

Of course you’re right. Obsolete doesn’t mean useless. Just think about the Swordfish. In comparison, the TBD was more than modern, but the Stringbag was probably the best scoring torpedo bomber of the whole war, and served to the last day in advanced roles such as night anti-submarine warfare.

Pursuivant

04-09-2015, 10:38 PM

Fiat BR20-BR20M. This type would complete the trio of main Italian bombers. It was used also by Japanese Army Air Force.
Cant Z506: a beautiful floatplane, widely and successfully employed.
Siai S82: a big transport, with long range and high load carrying capability. This is an important missing type by any means.

Good calls. I'd forgotten about them.

BR.20 would be a nice addition for Sino-Japanese and SCW campaigns. It also saw limited use during the battle of Kolhin Gol. But, only the Italians used the BR.20 during WW2, and only in limited numbers. So, maybe not a priority for an Italian WW2 order of battle.

Cant Z506: The Italians operated a lot of floatplanes and the Cant Z506 was one of the best. Later, some were operated by the Germans, and few were used as far away as the Baltic. Definitely needed for a Mediterranean focused anti-shipping campaign, although in appearance and role, it might duplicate the He-115.

Saia S82: A major mid-war transport aircraft, extensively used by the Germans as well as the Italians. But, in appearance and role, it's somewhat similar to the Ju-52.[/QUOTE]

Pursuivant

04-09-2015, 10:53 PM

List of french aircrafts in WW2 :

Didn't know they used german planes...

Germany built a number of low-performance aircraft (i.e., liaison and trainer) types in French factories after France fell. Additionally, the Luftwaffe had to leave many German built planes behind when France was liberated.

So, in late 1944-45, and in the immediate post-war period, France operated a lot of captured German planes or French-built versions of German designs.

From 1940 on, the Free French Air Force used British and American types. After the war, they retained the best of the lot (e.g., F6F, P-51, Spitfire, Gloster Meteor, A-26 Invader).

So, the Armee de l'Air order of battle for 1945 or for the battles in Vietnam is a very interesting mix of planes, few of them French.

Prior to 1940, France was attempting to use just French-built planes, but when it became obvious that the French aircraft industry wasn't up to the task, they started purchasing from British and American sources. There are so many missing from the IL2 order of battle, that you'd almost need to design a whole new simulation to properly represent them.

Pursuivant

04-10-2015, 12:09 AM

This has something to do with the fact that France surrendered after 4 weeks, a very short timespan for French planes to see combat on the allied side.

To be fair to the French, the Armee de l'Air held its own against the Luftwaffe, but ultimately was defeated because the French Army and the BEF couldn't stand against the Blitzkrieg.

There's plenty of fun flight simming to be had with "what if" campaigns where the German advance hadn't been quite so swift or well-managed, and/or where the French had sorted out their logistical and labor relations problems sooner. That would allow for longer campaigns, or campaigns where players can fly French aircraft that were only produced in limited numbers or which were still on the drawing board in early 1940.

Pursuivant

04-10-2015, 12:22 AM

Your approach is a dogfight one.

What's wrong with that? IL2 is a great "sandbox sim" which you can enjoy in many different ways.

Given the popularity of arcade games like World of Planes, there's certainly a fan base for dogfights.

And, even if you're a hard core rivet-counting historical campaigner, there are still times when you want to fly the best plane in the sky.

But, like you said, being able to simulate any sort of historical mission allows us to appreciate the difficulties and heroism of combat pilots who flew the less glamorous missions.

Personally, I'd love to see a flyable Ju-52, Fw-189, or Fi-156, and would happily fly campaigns based around those planes. In some cases, the ability to deliver supplies or paratroopers, or to bring back information, was as important as delivering bombs and just as harrowing.

sniperton

04-10-2015, 10:46 AM

To be fair to the French, the Armee de l'Air held its own against the Luftwaffe, but ultimately was defeated because the French Army and the BEF couldn't stand against the Blitzkrieg.

I didn't want to be unfair. I just wanted to record that there's relatively little room for French planes so far as we consider new planes and maps under the pretext of their historical relevance to the outcome of WWII. For this is what we generally do. Our other approach is to resurrect promising projects which historically failed or entered production too late to have influence. The D.520 would qualify for both categories, but the rest of French aircrafts hardly. Yet, all this is pure speculation on our side -- we can get any French plane provided someone models it according to TD's standards. :)

sniperton

04-10-2015, 11:15 AM

And, even if you're a hard core rivet-counting historical campaigner, there are still times when you want to fly the best plane in the sky.

As to me, this has nothing to do with 'rivet-counting'. I'm a minor nations geek, and minor nations typically had second-rank fighters. These are seriously outmatched by the first-rank fighters of major nations. Still, most fighter units of most minor nations had a positive kill/loss ratio (even the Polish in 1939!), as major nations too had obsolate planes. Now if you take out obsolate planes from the game (luckily we have quite a lot of such Russian types), then flying a Finnish, or Hungarian, or Romanian campaign becomes completely pathetic and, therefore, pointless. The tuna can live on mackerel, even if defenseless against the few sharks.

Furio

04-10-2015, 11:51 AM

Good calls. I'd forgotten about them.

Saia S82: A major mid-war transport aircraft, extensively used by the Germans as well as the Italians. But, in appearance and role, it's somewhat similar to the Ju-52.

They were both tri-motor transport, and had similar wingspan, but the similarities ends here. The S82 was much bigger, faster and heavier, its empty weight being more than Ju’s max take off weight. Payload was accordingly higher, more than twice, and there’s no comparison in range.
That said, I would prefer Marauder, Whirlwind and Helldiver…

RPS69

04-10-2015, 06:17 PM

What's wrong with that? IL2 is a great "sandbox sim" which you can enjoy in many different ways.

Given the popularity of arcade games like World of Planes, there's certainly a fan base for dogfights.

And, even if you're a hard core rivet-counting historical campaigner, there are still times when you want to fly the best plane in the sky.

But, like you said, being able to simulate any sort of historical mission allows us to appreciate the difficulties and heroism of combat pilots who flew the less glamorous missions.

Personally, I'd love to see a flyable Ju-52, Fw-189, or Fi-156, and would happily fly campaigns based around those planes. In some cases, the ability to deliver supplies or paratroopers, or to bring back information, was as important as delivering bombs and just as harrowing.

The wrong thing, is favoring one type of plane against others, those ones that are not first class fighters.

The better approach would be to fulfill the principal aircraft available on a scenery. Not just the fighters in it.

People say, the battle of France lasted only four weeks, but the battle of Kursk, employed more tanks and aircraft, and lasted only 10 days. I really don't like that kind of biased argument. The battle of France is one of the best scenerys to be played, and the only fighter missing is the D520, that was actually rare to be seen. But the french got no bombers, and no recon to employ in the game. The british are also in the same situation.

People complain about missing planes to fully fill the pacific scenery, and I must agree. There are no torpedo lunchers on the american side, and few late war japanese bombers. Trying to win a campaign from the japanese side is very difficult. Bombs are less powerfull, and torpedo launchers are really sitting ducks.

Pursuivant

04-10-2015, 11:41 PM

I didn't want to be unfair. I just wanted to record that there's relatively little room for French planes so far as we consider new planes and maps under the pretext of their historical relevance to the outcome of WWII.

Fair enough.

For any WW2 aircraft sim to really do justice to all nations and all theaters, and to accurately cover events from 1939-45, I've figured that it would take at least 13 "focused" simulations - each covering a specific theater and/or type of operations.

So far, we've got just two theaters of the air war covered more or less adequately - Eastern Front and Pacific Carrier Ops. Even then, there are some gaps in the Order of Battle and some mistakes and omissions on the maps.

Pursuivant

04-11-2015, 12:00 AM

I'm a minor nations geek, and minor nations typically had second-rank fighters. These are seriously outmatched by the first-rank fighters of major nations.

We're birds of a feather then. I love my obscure planes and minor air forces, in particular the Finns. I'm thrilled to have rare birds like the Avia B.534 or Rogozarski IK-3 in the game.

And, its not that the minor nations necessarily had bad designs, they just didn't have the economic and industrial base to develop their designs fast enough or in sufficient quantities. I'd love to know how doomed planes like the PZL.50 Jastrzab, Weiss-Manfred WM.23 Ezüst Nyíl, Fokker G.1, Fokker D.XXIII, or the PZL.62 Kanya would have fared, even though it makes no sense to include them into a historical simulation.

sniperton

04-11-2015, 01:21 AM

We're birds of a feather then. I love my obscure planes and minor air forces, in particular the Finns.

I love them too. They are my favourite. 'Did you give up drinking?' -- Raikönnen: 'No'. :-P

Derda508

04-11-2015, 09:32 AM

Not counting my personal preferences, but what is 'needed' most I would opt for an early British bomber, a late Japanese Torpedobomber and, most of all, the Me 210/410.
That said, in my opinion the biggest obstacle for 'realistic' late war bomber intercept missions (no matter which theater) is AI behaviour. At present, if you try to attack a big formation of bombers with a small number of attackers, the protecting fighters will all immediately go for you, leave their bombers and chase you all over the map, even if you spend all your ammo and are no threat anymore. Your own AI (even obsolete Bf 110) will not go for a quick attack on a bomber, but happily engage in turnfights with vastly superior numbers of enemy fighters.
To create more 'realistic' bomber intercepts and survivable missions for destroyers the missionbuilder would need to be able to give several commands for attackers and defenders:
Blue high flying fighters (Bf-109, Ki-100 etc.): Attack fighters only
Blue bomber interceptors (Me 410, FW-190, Ki 84 etc.): Attack bombers only
Red fighter cover: Stick to the bombers, never get further than XXX distance from them.

I have no idea whether this is possible and I am well aware that AI programming is extremly difficult (and far beyond my abilities).
And, please don´t get me wrong: In my opinion Il-2 1946 AI is still by far the best of all flight sims I know. And I am perfectly sure that in terms of maps and planeset, all other sims will just reach a small fraction of what we can enjoy here.

majorfailure

04-11-2015, 10:40 AM

So far, we've got just two theaters of the air war covered more or less adequately - Eastern Front and Pacific Carrier Ops. Even then, there are some gaps in the Order of Battle and some mistakes and omissions on the maps.

Eastern front is main focus of IL2-and thus logically pretty complete (And mostly fun, though early war is hard on Russian side and late war not easy as Germans.)

Pacific carrier ops is complete, if you don't want to go too late in the war. Later on a capable flyable torpedo/dive bomber is missing on both sides.

Med theather is pretty playable IMHO, too - if you are not too picky and can live with wrong Beau variant, replacing a few planes with similar ones(e .g. Baltimore repaced by a-20/B-25) a missing Hurri IId and a few others. And IMHO it still is the theatre that ages best, from the beginning almost up to the end of the invasion of Italy it is balanced on terms of individual performance, the Italian/German planeset just fits nearly perfectly to their Brit/American counterparts. Though maps for that theatre would not hurt, or are rather obviously missing.

gaunt1

04-11-2015, 11:31 AM

Eastern front is main focus of IL2-and thus logically pretty complete

Apart from the fact that a german bomber player is forced to fly 1940/41 He-111 and Ju-88 versions even in 1943... Or missing important Bf-110 variants (C4, F2)

From pacific, I think the most important would be the Helldiver, a flyable B-25C, and a D3A2

Furio

04-11-2015, 11:36 AM

Pacific carrier ops is complete, if you don't want to go too late in the war. Later on a capable flyable torpedo/dive bomber is missing on both sides.

Med theather is pretty playable IMHO...

Of these two, I would definitely opt for the Med. After 1943, Japanese carriers didn’t play any meaningful role, and the chances for an attacking JNAF torpedo bomber, even land based, were so slim that the only viable way to continue fighting was the extreme measure of “special attack”. I don’t think any player would opt for a torpedo or bomber JNAF career ending with a suicide attack.

Expanding Mediterranean theatre could result in interesting scenarios and career. An Italian pilot will start on the blue side, and could switch to red after September 8th 1943. Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force flew mainly Spitfire V, P39Q and Martin Baltimore… And just the latter would be needed.

majorfailure

04-11-2015, 01:00 PM

Of these two, I would definitely opt for the Med. After 1943, Japanese carriers didn’t play any meaningful role, and the chances for an attacking JNAF torpedo bomber, even land based, were so slim that the only viable way to continue fighting was the extreme measure of “special attack”. I don’t think any player would opt for a torpedo or bomber JNAF career ending with a suicide attack.

Expanding Mediterranean theatre could result in interesting scenarios and career. An Italian pilot will start on the blue side, and could switch to red after September 8th 1943. Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force flew mainly Spitfire V, P39Q and Martin Baltimore… And just the latter would be needed.

And while no perfect solution, with a little creative leeway, an A-20 could be used as a substitute - should be close enough. Maps would still be needed. With maybe Sicily and another North Africa map, which I think were posted here as WIP this could go a long way. And there was an absolutely fun campaign playing Battle of Malta using some Japanese islands. So Malta map would be a real treat - and that battle lasted for quite some time.

Furio

04-11-2015, 06:39 PM

And while no perfect solution, with a little creative leeway, an A-20 could be used as a substitute - should be close enough. Maps would still be needed. With maybe Sicily and another North Africa map, which I think were posted here as WIP this could go a long way. And there was an absolutely fun campaign playing Battle of Malta using some Japanese islands. So Malta map would be a real treat - and that battle lasted for quite some time.

The glass nose type is possibly one of the best substitutes ever. Surely it would do for mission builders, but what about offline dynamic campaigns? Does Il2 allow substitutes?

sniperton

04-11-2015, 07:45 PM

The glass nose type is possibly one of the best substitutes ever. Surely it would do for mission builders, but what about offline dynamic campaigns? Does Il2 allow substitutes?

Sure, it's a common practice in DCG campaigns. You only need a hack skin and voilá, you have an R-10 as a Ba.65, or an IK-3 as a D.520.

Pursuivant

04-12-2015, 10:48 AM

And while no perfect solution, with a little creative leeway, an A-20 could be used as a substitute - should be close enough.

More A-20 variants are needed, period. It was one of the most ubiquitous planes of the war, serving with multiple air forces from 1940-45 (and beyond) on all fronts.

The DB-7 would be an excellent choice for an early war French bomber since it saw service in North Africa as well as France.

The DB-7A/Boston II would be a good choice for a mid-war British medium bomber (although the choice of British light and medium bomber types is huge).

Havoc I would be a good choice for an early British night fighter.

The DB-7C/Boston III was used by the Australians, British and the Soviets.

Lend-Lease A-20C were fitted with Soviet guns, ordinance and turrets.

Pursuivant

04-12-2015, 10:52 AM

Sure, it's a common practice in DCG campaigns. You only need a hack skin and voilá, you have an R-10 as a Ba.65, or an IK-3 as a D.520.

It almost never looks right, though.

Looking at the number of "hack" skins gives you a pretty good indicator of the sort of planes that mission builders actually want for the game.

Ba.65
D.520
Ki-44
Sunderland
Lancaster
Gloster Meteor

Pursuivant

04-12-2015, 11:06 AM

Of these two, I would definitely opt for the Med. After 1943, Japanese carriers didn’t play any meaningful role

That's where the tension of IL2 as a "sandbox sim" - useable in many different ways - begins to show.

Some people want non-historical missions where the Axis and the Allies are evenly matched until 1945 and beyond, complete with "what if" designs which never made it beyond the prototype stage.

Some people want historical missions where after 1943 it becomes a curb-stomp for the Allies.

Both groups are correct, but who are you going to develop content for?

I don’t think any player would opt for a torpedo or bomber JNAF career ending with a suicide attack.

There are a few campaigns that end that way. And, if you don't like that outcome you just take off, fly around a bit, land again and say that you've completed the mission to finish the campaign. (Realistically, that could happen - sometimes kamikazes couldn't find their targets and had to return to base.)

Expanding Mediterranean theatre could result in interesting scenarios and career. An Italian pilot will start on the blue side, and could switch to red after September 8th 1943. Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force flew mainly Spitfire V, P39Q and Martin Baltimore… And just the latter would be needed.

The problem here is that IL2 doesn't allow you to switch sides in the middle of a campaign. You'd need two different campaigns.

robday

04-12-2015, 06:45 PM

Gloster Meteor

This 'plane, as it was the only allied jet aircraft to reach squadron service during WW II, should have been in Il-2 1946 from it's release. Instead we got an American prototype, Soviet aircraft, that as far as I am aware took no part in combat missions, a couple of jets that the Luftwaffe actually flew in service and German drawing board fantasies.
If some third party modeller could produce a "Meteor" to TD's standards I would be eternally grateful.

Cheers,
Rob

sniperton

04-12-2015, 11:55 PM

Looking at the number of "hack" skins gives you a pretty good indicator of the sort of planes that mission builders actually want for the game.

Sure. But we mission builders are a minority group who do not produce new models. So we have to live with what we do have.

Furio

04-13-2015, 08:02 AM

That's where the tension of IL2 as a "sandbox sim" - useable in many different ways - begins to show.

Some people want non-historical missions where the Axis and the Allies are evenly matched until 1945 and beyond, complete with "what if" designs which never made it beyond the prototype stage.

Some people want historical missions where after 1943 it becomes a curb-stomp for the Allies.

Both groups are correct, but who are you going to develop content for?
The problem of balancing – or unbalancing – is around from day one, I believe, and is hard to control. A couple of examples: in the early days of Barbarossa, VVS suffered enormous losses, being numerically superior and inferior in quality of planes. Main factors were bad organization, wrong decisions by leaders, and inexperience of pilots and unit commanders. It’s not easy – to understate it – to recreate this situation with simple mission building tools and AI planes.
In the last days of war, Luftwaffe suffered from lack of experienced pilots and fuel. Again: how can you recreate this situation with simple mission building tools and AI planes? You should include missions with player’s plane sitting on the ground with empty tanks…
As I see it, at the moment the most efficient solution is to concentrate on theatres and scenarios historically balanced: North Africa 1942, Pacific 1942-43, Russia 1943, etc. My opinion, of course.
What-ifs are a viable and attractive way out, with many enjoyable possibilities. It’s a matter of measure, I think. Fantasy planes, many of which populate 1946, should be avoided, I believe.

There are a few campaigns that end that way. And, if you don't like that outcome you just take off, fly around a bit, land again and say that you've completed the mission to finish the campaign. (Realistically, that could happen - sometimes kamikazes couldn't find their targets and had to return to base.)

So, I stand corrected: there are actually players ready for a special attack, or to cheat the Emperor.;)

The problem here is that IL2 doesn't allow you to switch sides in the middle of a campaign. You'd need two different campaigns.

That’s a limitation deserving a solution, I think. The same side switching happened in Finland, France (twice, in theory), Romania and other places (such as Slovak insurgency) and countries (such as Croatia). And I didn’t mention what if side switching, such as an anti-Soviet alliance, actually considered by Winston Churchill…

sniperton

04-13-2015, 10:12 AM

That’s a limitation deserving a solution, I think. The same side switching happened in Finland, France (twice, in theory), Romania and other places (such as Slovak insurgency) and countries (such as Croatia). And I didn’t mention what if side switching, such as an anti-Soviet alliance, actually considered by Winston Churchill…

I agree, but there are two independent problems here.

One is the problem of missing factions like Vichy France or Allied Romania. This is relatively easy to fix, and has been already done so in the Forgotten Countries mod years ago. It's simply a matter of decision on TD's side to add 'new' nations, each with a side flag and the appropriate squads.

Another, and more complicated, problem is how a nation (or a squad) could switch side mid-campaign. It would require a special code turning e.g. some select Italian squads from blue to red on a given date (with corresponding markings, ranks, etc.) E.g. on the day when France surrenders, some squads should remain red as FAFL, while others turn to blue as Vichy. Still, such 'hard dates' for side switches would make hypothetical scenarios much more difficult.

Another, not unproblematic, solution would be enabling squad changes (transfers) in mid-campaign, at least between battles/scanarios. E.g. when there are both blue and red Italian/French/Romanian squads, you could simply transfer from one to another. If such a transfer could be initiated via the mission script, then the rest of the problems could be sorted out on a campaign design level. The only problem is that campaign files reside in nation-specific folders, which are likely to be messed up when you switch from Italy Blue to Italy Red. :confused:

majorfailure

04-13-2015, 05:07 PM

The problem of balancing – or unbalancing – is around from day one, I believe, and is hard to control. A couple of examples: in the early days of Barbarossa, VVS suffered enormous losses, being numerically superior and inferior in quality of planes. Main factors were bad organization, wrong decisions by leaders, and inexperience of pilots and unit commanders. It’s not easy – to understate it – to recreate this situation with simple mission building tools and AI planes.
In the last days of war, Luftwaffe suffered from lack of experienced pilots and fuel. Again: how can you recreate this situation with simple mission building tools and AI planes? You should include missions with player’s plane sitting on the ground with empty tanks…

Make the AI on the German side good. Feed them Russian squads piecemeal.
For player sitting around with no fuel, just space missions apart a few days or more, and comment on it. Best campagins offline are those that have a good written narrative, and to name one that IMHO stood out: Castaways/Bushpigs.

As I see it, at the moment the most efficient solution is to concentrate on theatres and scenarios historically balanced: North Africa 1942, Pacific 1942-43, Russia 1943, etc. My opinion, of course.
What-ifs are a viable and attractive way out, with many enjoyable possibilities. It’s a matter of measure, I think. Fantasy planes, many of which populate 1946, should be avoided, I believe.

Right. And make that North Africa//Mediteranean, planeset there is IMHO balanced till the end. Numbers will not help the axis side later on...

And I didn’t mention what if side switching, such as an anti-Soviet alliance, actually considered by Winston Churchill…

I think this would be enormous fun. Never understood why 1946 didn't pick that theme up. German Co-Belligerent Airforce. And think about the near endless ordnance options, unguided rockets for the Germans, guided bombs and rockets for allied bombers. Or even better, German Airforce splits in two, and German planes/armament is available on both sides.

Pursuivant

04-14-2015, 02:54 AM

The problem of balancing – or unbalancing – is around from day one, I believe, and is hard to control.

I'd say impossible to control. There were actually very few periods of the war where both sides were evenly matched in quality and quantity. And, they typically only lasted a few months before something changed to "spoil" the even match up - drop in plane numbers and/or pilot quality, failure of supply lines, or introduction of superior aircraft.

For example, early phase of the Battle of Britain were fairly well matched in planes and pilot quality. Towards the end, the RAF was starting to hit bottom in terms of available fighters and trained pilots.

Same thing for the other evenly matched theaters you mentioned, except that the Allies won the supply battle and were able to get more and better planes into the air.

On dogfight servers, you can only really have parity by having equal numbers of competitively matched fighters, although a few people will always take bombers or other "non-competitive" planes as a change-up.

For historical missions and campaigns, you don't have to worry about balance as long as you tell the player up front that the odds are stacked against him. That will weed out the people who just want to fly a hot rod and kill things, and select for the masochists who enjoy doing things like flying the Brewster Buffalo against a pack of Veteran A6M2 at 10:1 odds (or the D3A1 against a pack of Veteran F6F at 10:1 odds).

In the last days of war, Luftwaffe suffered from lack of experienced pilots and fuel. Again: how can you recreate this situation with simple mission building tools and AI planes? You should include missions with player’s plane sitting on the ground with empty tanks…

That's a bit too brutal. For any good campaign, you need to take a bit of dramatic license to make things challenging for the player while still giving the "overall impression" of the tactical and strategic situation.

For example, it would be more "interesting" to have your hapless Luftwaffe fighter jock like sitting on the end of the runway with 10% fuel, with an entire squadron of Average to Veteran P-51 screaming down to strafe the airfield. Basically, the player is screwed unless he chooses to not complete the mission, but there's a tiny chance that with luck and skill he can somehow survive.

What-ifs are a viable and attractive way out, with many enjoyable possibilities. It’s a matter of measure, I think. Fantasy planes, many of which populate 1946, should be avoided, I believe.

Generally agreed, but what constitutes a "fantasy" plane? There were plenty of planes that were promising prototypes that never made it to combat service for reasons that we might consider to be stupid, or because of tactical or strategic factors beyond the designer's control. He-112 with DB-601 engine, Fw-187 Falke, PZL.50 Jastrzab?

That’s a limitation deserving a solution, I think. The same side switching happened in Finland, France (twice, in theory), Romania and other places (such as Slovak insurgency) and countries (such as Croatia). And I didn’t mention what if side switching, such as an anti-Soviet alliance, actually considered by Winston Churchill…

Agreed. There should also be the option for allowing "blue" nations to be switched to "red" and vice-versa. This would allow for USSR vs. US battles - either accidental encounters like those that occasionally happened in 1944-45, or intentional "Cold War gone hot" set-ups.

It would take a lot more work, but it might also be possible to have a third side as "green" or some other color - just like in multiplayer coop missions. That would allow for the odd three-way fight, like US vs. USSR vs. Germany or France vs. Germany vs. Switzerland (fleeing French pilots attempting to get to neutral Switzerland, with Luftwaffe pilots attempting to shoot them down).

Pursuivant

04-14-2015, 03:15 AM

I think this would be enormous fun. Never understood why 1946 didn't pick that theme up. German Co-Belligerent Air Force. And think about the near endless ordnance options, unguided rockets for the Germans, guided bombs and rockets for allied bombers. Or even better, German Airforce splits in two, and German planes/armament is available on both sides.

I wondered about that as well. Possibly lack of development time. Possibly lack of understanding by a Russian development team about the political tensions underlying the Western Allies-Soviet alliance. Possibly a residual horror at the thought of such a bloody and prolonged conflict.

Also, not to get political, but a Western Allies-German military alliance vs. the USSR was probably a non-starter once there was undeniable evidence of The Holocaust. (But, then again, if IL2:1946 could include the Lerche, they could just as easily imagine a scenario where everyone agreed to forget the death camps, or where the Shoah never existed.)

As alternate history, a Western Allies-German alliance might have worked if the USSR had attacked Poland in 1939 (and that was a potential conflict Churchill imagined). The UK and France might have held their noses and allied with Germany in a grand Western European crusade against Bolshevism. But, that alternate history would require all sorts of early war planes we don't have.

A more easily created alternate history campaign could occur if the Nazis had been deposed in 1942 to 1944, resulting in a German Civil War. The USSR invades Eastern Germany to "keep order," with some German military units fighting alongside them. The US and UK then occupy Western Germany with other German military units fighting alongside them, and war breaks out in Central Germany roughly along the line of the Cold War "Iron Curtain."

Great gaming opportunities, but horrifying to contemplate as real life scenarios.

Furio

04-14-2015, 07:49 AM

I'd say impossible to control. There were actually very few periods of the war where both sides were evenly matched in quality and quantity. And, they typically only lasted a few months before something changed to "spoil" the even match up - drop in plane numbers and/or pilot quality, failure of supply lines, or introduction of superior aircraft.

For example, early phase of the Battle of Britain were fairly well matched in planes and pilot quality. Towards the end, the RAF was starting to hit bottom in terms of available fighters and trained pilots.

Same thing for the other evenly matched theaters you mentioned, except that the Allies won the supply battle and were able to get more and better planes into the air.

On dogfight servers, you can only really have parity by having equal numbers of competitively matched fighters, although a few people will always take bombers or other "non-competitive" planes as a change-up.

For historical missions and campaigns, you don't have to worry about balance as long as you tell the player up front that the odds are stacked against him. That will weed out the people who just want to fly a hot rod and kill things, and select for the masochists who enjoy doing things like flying the Brewster Buffalo against a pack of Veteran A6M2 at 10:1 odds (or the D3A1 against a pack of Veteran F6F at 10:1 odds).
As we say in Italy, and surely elsewhere as well, devil lives in details. What do we mean with “balanced” or “unbalanced”? Considering that between black and white there are countless shades of grey, I would try to write some numbers, at least for a discussion basis. So, I would define “unbalanced” a situation in which one side has less than 25 % average possibility to complete each mission of a campaign. A ten missions campaign against three to one odds for each mission is an impossible one, in my opinion, or a very boring one if the player hit “refly” button after each death. Things change, clearly, if the player is only required to survive, but even then there’s a limit of reasonability. I’ve mentioned the odds faced by Japanese torpedo bombers from early 1944 onwards. They’re so low that ultimately only two options remained: stay on the ground or take off for a suicide mission. For this reason, I believe that late war, flyable Japanese torpedo bomber types are useful for a “what if” campaign only, with non-historical balancing.
At the other end of the spectrum, I would consider balanced a situation in which each side has at least 50% possibility to complete each mission of a campaign. It’s still very, very hard, with one to one odds repeated for a number of missions up to the end of a campaign. A less demanding one would probably require an average of more than 90%. If the number looks too high, just think about the 25 missions cycle of a B17 pilot over Europe.

Generally agreed, but what constitutes a "fantasy" plane? There were plenty of planes that were promising prototypes that never made it to combat service for reasons that we might consider to be stupid, or because of tactical or strategic factors beyond the designer's control. He-112 with DB-601 engine, Fw-187 Falke, PZL.50 Jastrzab?

Again, we are talking about shades of grey, or devil in details. My opinion is that operational types only should be available in game, with priority for types that had widespread use, regardless of their successes or failures. Just try to count experimental or what if types available and play the game of substituting them with important, missing types. Griffon Spitfire in place of I-185, Meteor in place of swept wing Me262, Helldiver in place of Mig 3U, and so on…
To sum it up, I would have preferred Battle of France in place of 1946, but that’s my opinion, and I’m probably wrong if we talk about development costs and commercial strategies.
Moreover, I understand that I185 and other types were a labour of love done by volunteers, to which I’m simply grateful. Thanks, guys!:grin:

Furio

04-16-2015, 08:47 AM

I wondered about that as well. Possibly lack of development time. Possibly lack of understanding by a Russian development team about the political tensions underlying the Western Allies-Soviet alliance. Possibly a residual horror at the thought of such a bloody and prolonged conflict.

Also, not to get political, but a Western Allies-German military alliance vs. the USSR was probably a non-starter once there was undeniable evidence of The Holocaust. (But, then again, if IL2:1946 could include the Lerche, they could just as easily imagine a scenario where everyone agreed to forget the death camps, or where the Shoah never existed.)

As alternate history, a Western Allies-German alliance might have worked if the USSR had attacked Poland in 1939 (and that was a potential conflict Churchill imagined). The UK and France might have held their noses and allied with Germany in a grand Western European crusade against Bolshevism. But, that alternate history would require all sorts of early war planes we don't have.

A more easily created alternate history campaign could occur if the Nazis had been deposed in 1942 to 1944, resulting in a German Civil War. The USSR invades Eastern Germany to "keep order," with some German military units fighting alongside them. The US and UK then occupy Western Germany with other German military units fighting alongside them, and war breaks out in Central Germany roughly along the line of the Cold War "Iron Curtain."

Great gaming opportunities, but horrifying to contemplate as real life scenarios.

Looks like my previous post killed the debate! Perhaps I used too many numbers, perhaps the general tone sounds too pedantic (remember: this is not my language, and my control of subtleties like humour is relative), fact remains that I was left alone…
It’s a pity, because the thread was interesting, so I’m here trying a new approach. No more ponderous analysis about historical facts and technical detail. No more serious and boring references to reality, but just some dreaming thoughts about… A perfect sandbox Il2! My idea is simple, and almost certainly unfeasible: to create a generator of dynamic campaign generators.
Imagine a series of menus in which you choose:
Red, Blue (and Green, according to Pursuivant).
Alliances for Red and Blue (and Green).
Player nation.
Map, or maps, in order of appearance.
Year of start, year of end.
Planeset for each nation, and for each year.
Defined or undefined outcome (who will win the war).
Pilot career for each year, in such a way that player can start as fighter pilot and then switch to bomber, or vice-versa.
Difficulty level.
Experience of AI pilots (% of rookies, veterans, aces) for each nation and year.
Then, save your dynamic campaign.
Hit the fly button.

sniperton

04-16-2015, 11:12 AM

Looks like my previous post killed the debate!

Not quite, I did follow the discussion, but I had the impression that we were talking without an end and sometimes without proper responses, therefore I didn't respond either...

It's a game. It has to be playable to be called a game properly. If you recreate historical circumstances, sometimes it will be playable easily (white), sometimes hardly (grey), and sometimes not at all (black). Black does not make sense, like a late-war Japanese torpedo bomber campaign according to history. You either avoid it at all or brutally cheat history in order to make it playable. So simple.

As to grey, here come the many shades. Even with good survival chances, you'll have to hit the 'refly' button from time to time. How frequently, depends on your skills and on scenario design. There are many ways to improve your chances and your playing experience, even if you stick to history. This is what we call 'balancing': it's cheating in a historically legitimate way. On the tactical level, you only enter combat when you have the advantage, right? Now you can do the same on the strategic level too: even outnumbered forces can achieve local superiority, and you are at liberties at recreating those situations with preference.

Or think of the G.50. It has such a low speed that it is theroretically unable to intercept most contemporary allied planes, including the Blenheim -- unless it dives on it from a higher altitude. So assign the Fiats a higher patrolling altitude in your campaign, and you're basically done.

And this is exacly what makes your (our) dream of a supreme generator of campaigns impossible to be realized (apart from the technical hindrances): only human discretion can make history 'playable'.

RPS69

04-16-2015, 02:04 PM

Put your efforts on doing a better interface to the SEOW engine, and play to games in one.
It is mainly intended to play online, but if you combine it with the DCG for a single player, it will be a child's dream.

Pursuivant

04-16-2015, 03:24 PM

Imagine a series of menus in which you choose:
Red, Blue (and Green, according to Pursuivant).

This option already exists for multiplayer, where you can have any number of teams. All that is needed is to transfer the code over to the QMB, FMB and campaign engines.

Note that I chose "green" as the third option because it corresponds to the color used for a third force on US military maps. (The US is blue, opposing forces are red.) Other countries do things differently.

Furio's idea is a good one, but to make IL2 "cross cultural" and truly a "sandbox sim" a better way for the menus to work might be:

1) Choose the number of forces
2) Choose the color of each force
3) Choose the nationality for each force - different forces can have the same nationality to simulate civil war scenarios. Alternate national insignia would be needed. You should also have the option of adding nations rather than choosing from the standard list.
4) Choose whether a particular force is allied, hostile or neutral with respect to every other force present.

Neutral = Will turn into an enemy if attacked, but won't attack otherwise.

For example,

1933 - Chinese Nationalists vs. Chinese Communists vs. Beiyang Army (a warlord's private army) vs. Japanese Army Air Force. 4 sides. All are hostile to each other. Colors chosen for each side are arbitrary.

1945 - US vs. Soviet vs. Luftwaffe - US = Blue, Soviet = Red, Luftwaffe = Black. US & Soviet are hostile to Luftwaffe and vice-versa. US and Soviet are Neutral.

Alternate 1946 - German Civil War. US + UK + France + Co-Belligerent Luftwaffe vs. Soviets + Polish People's Liberation Air Force + German People's Liberation Air Force with Hungarians and Romanians being neutral with respect to everyone else and to each other. So, 4 "sides" and 9 colors.

Obviously, for most scenarios it's still going to be "red vs. blue"

Map, or maps, in order of appearance.
Year of start, year of end.
Planeset for each nation, and for each year.
Defined or undefined outcome (who will win the war).
Pilot career for each year, in such a way that player can start as fighter pilot and then switch to bomber, or vice-versa.
Difficulty level.
Experience of AI pilots (% of rookies, veterans, aces) for each nation and year.
Then, save your dynamic campaign.
Hit the fly button.

This part looks really good.

I'm wondering if it might work well as a stand alone project, similar to what Lowengrin did with his Dynamic Campaign Generator.

People could define campaign parameters - nationalities involved, maps, planesets, etc. and share them.

sniperton

04-16-2015, 04:09 PM

I'm wondering if it might work well as a stand alone project, similar to what Lowengrin did with his Dynamic Campaign Generator.

Sure it could work, the only question is who is able and willing to do it. Both DCG and DGEN-mod, as we have them now, are the result of many years of work.

KG26_Alpha

04-16-2015, 04:44 PM

You could use the chat box at his website and ask if its possible to make the addition of swapping sides and other tweaks.

http://www.lowengrin.com/content.php?article.11

Or at the forum requests area

http://forum.jg1.org/forum/67-dcg-feature-requests/

:)

majorfailure

04-16-2015, 05:27 PM

A more easily created alternate history campaign could occur if the Nazis had been deposed in 1942 to 1944, resulting in a German Civil War. The USSR invades Eastern Germany to "keep order," with some German military units fighting alongside them. The US and UK then occupy Western Germany with other German military units fighting alongside them, and war breaks out in Central Germany roughly along the line of the Cold War "Iron Curtain."

Great gaming opportunities, but horrifying to contemplate as real life scenarios.

Real good starting point could have been Stauffenbergs assasination attempt. Let it succeed. Germany still strong enough to be a pain, maybe even a threat. War in the Pacific going better, but no end at the horizon. Germany then is easiest to neutralise if it becomes an ally. German high command would see the opportunity to end a war going South - and maybe too eager to get rid of the political leaders. Then either Soviets see an opportunity, or Germany and Allies do (Also some time could pass with an uneasy peace).

Another scenario could have been that Roosevelt does live a lot longer. He does not believe Joe Stalins lies, listens to Churchill - and the Allies fall apart earlier in the war. Then German forces fight with the US+Brits+French+Others. Stalin and The Emperor, now both with the back to the wall join in together. Bonus: Almost any late war plane we have can fly for one or the other side. And on nearly any map we have.

ElAurens

04-16-2015, 11:45 PM

Some time ago I made a fantasy alternative history DF mission along some of the lines you gents are talking about.

Here is the description I did for it...

Za Tzarista!
It is now early 1947. Imperial Japan has been knocked out of the war and is in shambles. But the real shocker took place after the new Kaiser took over from the National Socialists in Germany, and the tragic accident at Alamagordo New Mexico, which effectively wiped out the US ability to manufacture atomic weapons after the initial bombing of Hiroshima. Germany was able to manufacture one "heavy water" bomb and succeeded in obliterating the Soviet capital of Moscow. With Stalin dead, central contol of the CCCP crumbled in days. During the chaos, German and Austro-Hungarian troops raced across Russia and now stand at the gates of Vladivostok. A heretofore unknown group of Russian Imperialists and Cossacks, secretly supported by the Kaiser, has consolidated power and re-established the Monarchy under Tzarista Anastasia Romanov. But in yet another bizzare turn of events, the Tzarista promptly declared war on the Kaiser in revenge for Germany's support of the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution. She, and the remnants of the Russian Army are holding out in the temporary capital of Vladivostok. President Truman, seeing a chance to totally wipe out Communism, diverted all troops currently in the Pacific into China and ended the Maoist Insurgency there. Now The US and Great Britain have recognized the new Russian government and are openly supporting it. It seems that World War One will now finally be fought to the end...

It's on the Manchuria map and has all the late war and paper napkin "wonder planes" and several mod additions from HSFX.

sniperton

04-16-2015, 11:46 PM

You could use the chat box at his website and ask if its possible to make the addition of swapping sides and other tweaks.

The question is not whether Paul is able to make such an addition. He is, provided you can offer him a job. The question is whether Il2 can handle a player swapping sides.

;)

Derda508

04-17-2015, 06:16 AM

Here is the description I did for it...

OMG! That sounds like real fun! :grin::grin::grin:
Please, were can I get it?

Furio

04-17-2015, 01:20 PM

Technical questions apart, it’s undeniable that Il2 has a strong potential for what if and alternate history scenarios, and it’s easy to understand why. The game has an unequalled plane set, a rich ground and surface objects inventory, and a varied choice of maps. Yes, it would require tweaking in campaigns, but not much more. Perhaps some new skins and, if required, new national markings.

With a little ingenuity, minor or experimental types could be put to good use. Then, it would be just a matter of creativity, and El’s example, some posts above, shows well what can be achieved. Surely it could be a lot of fun and, perhaps, perhaps, it could have some commercial value.

majorfailure

04-17-2015, 06:01 PM

The question is not whether Paul is able to make such an addition. He is, provided you can offer him a job. The question is whether Il2 can handle a player swapping sides.

;)

Sure hope it can be made to do just that. There is so much opportunity in betrayal - even the historical ones. Also players could make their own choices, and according to that the story continues.

Thinking a little further a really capable mission generator could use players results to generate different missions. And even good very old Wing Commander offered that - though its different for an all scripted missions game.

Pursuivant

04-17-2015, 08:17 PM

Sure it could work, the only question is who is able and willing to do it. Both DCG and DGEN-mod, as we have them now, are the result of many years of work.

Agreed. It's possible that a mod team might be interested. Modders have already done a lot to improve the stock UI with the "Forgotten Nations" pack for just about every nation that ever had an air force, plus a few fictional ones. The modded plane set also offers a lot more potential for 1930s and post WW2 battles.

Pursuivant

04-17-2015, 08:41 PM

Real good starting point could have been Stauffenbergs assasination attempt. Let it succeed. Germany still strong enough to be a pain, maybe even a threat. War in the Pacific going better, but no end at the horizon.

Just about any alternate war scenario has to include Hitler dying before 1945. But, the good news (bad news for history) is that he survived literally dozens of assassination attempts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

So, choose the year that Der Fuhrer takes the dirt nap and set your alternate history accordingly.

Something that hasn't yet been mentioned for Alternate History is a civil war between the SS and the Nazi party vs. "German Nationalist" (perhaps even democratic) forces led by the Heer and remaining non-Nazi politicians. Basically, the German equivalent of what happened in Italy in 1943.

But, there weren't that many Nazis in the Luftwaffe, and in a civil war it's quite likely that the Luftwaffe would have sided with the anti-Nazi forces. So, you'd have to invent some reason why the SS-Luftwaffe had the same quality and quantity of pilots and planes as the "Nationalist Luftwaffe".

Even so, plenty of opportunity to fly cool German planes against each other.

Another option for Alternate History is a second Russian Civil War, where Stalin is assassinated, killed or deposed after 1941, resulting in a conflict between the "Whites" and the "Reds," with the Western Allies and/or Germany backing alternate factions. The campaign would use the stock maps of the Eastern Front, but the plane set and allegiances would be different.

ElAurens

04-17-2015, 10:06 PM

15034

I have put the mission files for my Za Tzarista! mission in a zip file. I hope this attachment works.

Just put the folders in Missions>Net>Dogfight and it should work. Not sure it will work without HSFX but give it a shot.

Apologies to the really good mission builders out there, but it's something that I can whip up without too much bother.

Fighterace

04-24-2015, 04:22 AM

So what's happened to all the modeled planes and etc that were not added to this game?

IceFire

04-24-2015, 11:54 AM

So what's happened to all the modeled planes and etc that were not added to this game?
Which ones are you referring?

Furio

04-24-2015, 12:01 PM

So what's happened to all the modeled planes and etc that were not added to this game?

To begin with, it’s third party’s choice to submit a plane or ground object for inclusion in official patches. Then, TD has the responsibility of the final decision, according to quality and technical standards. As far as I know, of course.:)
Also consider that no new Northrop Grumman types can be added, for legal reasons.

sniperton

04-24-2015, 01:45 PM

#26 here

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,45665.24.html

gives you an idea how complex it is to import an already existing 3D model into the game.

optio

04-24-2015, 01:51 PM

About the late war Japanese bomber campaigns...

I think it depends on what the campaign creator wants. After all, some IJN&IJA units did continue to practice "standard" method of attack until the end of war, with some success(including the successful torpedo strike on USS Pennsylvania, as late as August 1945).

I would love the opportunity to fly as the member of the "Fuyo squadron", performing night time attacks from Kyushu to Okinawa...Although that would require to have a map which includes both regions, as well as a flyable Judy!

Fighterace

04-24-2015, 02:51 PM

Which ones are you referring?

I mean the TBF Cockpit and P-61s

ElAurens

04-24-2015, 04:30 PM

We cannot have those because they fall under the "agreement" with Northrop-Grumman that limits flyables to what came in the stock PF.

The model I wonder about the most is the IJN battleship Haruna. Shots of it in 3d Max were posted years ago, and it never came to fruition.

Pursuivant

04-24-2015, 08:21 PM

We cannot have those because they fall under the "agreement" with Northrop-Grumman that limits flyables to what came in the stock PF.

Basically:

If it was military hardware made or upgraded by any company that NG ever owned and it's currently in the game, it can't be improved or altered. That means no changes to the F4F, FM2, F6F, or TBF, or most existing US ships.

If it was military hardware made or upgraded by any company that NG ever owned and its not in the game, it can't be added. That means no new US ships (with a very few exceptions), no Ryan FR Fireball, no P-61, no F3F, XF5F, XP-50, F7F, F8F, F9F, or J2F.

The model I wonder about the most is the IJN battleship Haruna. Shots of it in 3d Max were posted years ago, and it never came to fruition.

Plenty of cool aircraft and ships were developed for PF, but fell by the wayside for various reasons. SB2C, P-47H, Ki-44, etc.

Modders, being modders, abandon projects for all sorts of reasons, from death (IL-4) and earthquake (Boomerang) to burnout to lack of interest.

ElAurens

04-24-2015, 09:48 PM

The Haruna was NOT a modder project. It was shown in an early official development update.

The Nihon Kaigun is really hurting in two very important areas:

1. Cruisers, as the IJN heavily relied on it's cruiser force throughout the entire war.

2. Battleships. We need an IJN battleship that is representative of what saw the most action during the war, not a monster that played a pretty minor role if the truth be told. The Kongo class, of which Haruna was a part, fits this bill perfectly.

Pursuivant

04-26-2015, 05:10 PM

The Haruna was NOT a modder project. It was shown in an early official development update.

My understanding was that many models for PF were farmed out to independent design teams (which I mistakenly described as modders). After the NG debacle, it seemed that 1c/Ubisoft lost interest in the project, stranding many of these projects.

Of these lost efforts, the only one successfully revived was the TBD.

The Nihon Kaigun is really hurting in two very important areas:

Agreed, but it's not just the IJN. EVERY Navy in the game could use more ships, in particular the UK and Italy. In a more perfect world, every navy in the game would have an early war AO, FF, DD, CL, CA, BB, CVL and CV type (if they had them).

For the US, UK and IJN, there should also be middle/late war AO, FF, DDE, DD, CL, CA, BB, CVL, CVE, and CV types.

Due to the variety of types and their historical importance, it would make sense to have perhaps more than just 2 different types of DD, CL, CA, BB, and CV/CVE/CVL for the IJN, USN and RN.

There also need to be more small ships and boats, like tugs, minesweepers, torpedo boats, tankers, and coastal merchants. For the US/UK, and to a lesser extent the IJN, there should also be a decent sample of the various amphibious and amphibious assault support ships which were so important later in the war. While attacks on capital naval ships made history, most of the day to day work of convoy protection and anti-shipping strikes revolved around those types.

RPS69

04-27-2015, 01:32 AM

Something that is not modeled, is early war catapult planes, used to chase enemy recon planes. It could be quite frustrating, but it was live or death for ships, to avoid recon, or to pester single bomber flights. They could even be used to chase submarines.

Another thing badly implemented in game, submarines... you can´t play submarine hunting the way ti is implemented now.

Submarines show a lot from the air when at periscope depth, but it appears that we allways fly over muddy waters here.

Pursuivant

04-27-2015, 06:32 PM

Something that is not modeled, is early war catapult planes, used to chase enemy recon planes.

Catapult-launched planes and catapult-assisted takeoff are available as mods. So, that means that they're technically feasible, although they currently might not be up to TD's standards.

Mostly, however, catapult launched aircraft were used for recon and artillery spotting, rather than direct attacks. Since IL2 doesn't currently support player controlled artillery spotting missions (but again, available as a mod), there's not much point in having catapult-launched planes at the moment.

Hurricanes launched from CAM ships were obviously a different breed, but they were more of a gimmick than a sustainable form of convoy defense. Actual numbers were quite small, and there were only 9 combat launches.

For now, the best you can do for CAM launches in unmodded IL2 is just set up air-start missions using a Hurricane Mk I.

Another thing badly implemented in game, submarines... you can´t play submarine hunting the way ti is implemented now.

Agreed.

At the very least, submerged submarines shouldn't just be represented as a periscope, but also as a submarine-shaped "shadow" on the water's surface. Basically, a mobile "oil slick" centered around the periscope, or perhaps a submarine-shaped shadow model. I think that this is a fairly easy fix, requiring only a bit of graphics work.

Submarines at greater depths should be represented as submarine-shaped "shadows" of lesser intensity, using the same fixes above.

Unfortunately, getting submarines to "work right" requires two big programming tasks.

First, submarines and ships would need to be given sufficient AI that they'll take evasive action. All sea vessels would need basic collision avoidance and station-keeping routines. Ships and subs would need to be given basic attack routines vs. other ships (e.g., torpedo runs for SS, DD and PT types). Ships would need standard torpedo, sea/land attack and air-attack avoidance routines. Submarines would need the option of crash diving when attacked, or the option of maneuvering like ships while fighting it out on the surface.

The second big programming challenge is to allow submarines to maneuver below sea level. While it probably isn't necessary to model sea bottom depth or physics in any detail, submarines would have to be programmed so that they can "fly" beneath the water's surface, from the surface down to their crush depth.

Once you've got true submarine operations, it would then be relatively simple to include mines and depth charges.

Mines are just bombs which fail if dropped in water that is too deep and which only trigger if a ship or sub gets within a certain distance.

Depth charges are basically delayed action bombs which have increased damage effects with a longer delay (simulating the more damaging effects of an explosion at a greater depth).

ASW radar could be modified from currently developed AI radars (although this would take a lot of technical research, programming and graphics work).

MAD gear could be derived from ASW radar. (But, but with simplified physics. And with all the challenges associated with developing any other sensor system in the game.)

RPS69

04-28-2015, 12:49 AM

Mostly, however, catapult launched aircraft were used for recon and artillery spotting, rather than direct attacks.

Not so true. On the Bismarck attempt at crossing between Iceland and Britain, when it was spotted by a PBY, (if I remember well), the registry relates that the Arado on board was launched on an attempt to give chase, the PBY actually pulled away, the Arado not being capable of climbing fast enough to make contact, but the attempt was made. Also many early war ships got floaters for an intended defense task. You may discuss their effectiveness as fighters, which actually happened, but they did try.

Agreed.

At the very least, submerged submarines shouldn't just be represented as a periscope, but also as a submarine-shaped "shadow" on the water's surface. Basically, a mobile "oil slick" centered around the periscope, or perhaps a submarine-shaped shadow model. I think that this is a fairly easy fix, requiring only a bit of graphics work.

Well, it depends on the waters you are flying over. On clear waters they don't look like a shadow. They clearly looks like a distorted ship, at least at periscope depth. Planes used to straffe this shapes underwater, and they were very vulnerable even to heavy machine gun fire.

Submarines at greater depths should be represented as submarine-shaped "shadows" of lesser intensity, using the same fixes above.
I would be happy with just the periscope depth submarine, the other thing goes unto the dream wardrobe, but well, who knows!

First, submarines and ships would need to be given sufficient AI that they'll take evasive action. All sea vessels would need basic collision avoidance and station-keeping routines. Ships and subs would need to be given basic attack routines vs. other ships (e.g., torpedo runs for SS, DD and PT types). Ships would need standard torpedo, sea/land attack and air-attack avoidance routines. Submarines would need the option of crash diving when attacked, or the option of maneuvering like ships while fighting it out on the surface.

A nice attempt unto this was made in CLOD. Just with ships I must say. I didn't played enough with it to judge how well was it implemented. But this is a thing asked once and again from IL2, way before TD took the flame.
I think TD have been also pestered with this, but until now it never entered into the agenda.

Your other suggestions are excellent, but just the possibility of attacking a periscope depth submarine is a huge change.

BTW, you must add that depth charges clocked to higher depths, don't make a big water flush as seen on films.

Pursuivant

04-28-2015, 02:45 AM

Not so true. On the Bismarck attempt at crossing between Iceland and Britain, when it was spotted by a PBY, (if I remember well), the registry relates that the Arado on board was launched on an attempt to give chase

There were some situations where catapult-launched recon planes were used for purposes other than recon and artillery spotting, but those missions were their primary duty.

Mind you, I'm not against catapult-launched aircraft, but it would take a lot of development work required to provide the necessary planes and ships, as well as catapult take-off capacity.

Also, not that many sim pilots are into flying slow, vulnerable planes, calling out fire missions while dodging flak and fighters, even if your primary weapons system is a battery of 16 inch guns. :)

Well, it depends on the waters you are flying over. On clear waters they don't look like a shadow. They clearly looks like a distorted ship, at least at periscope depth. Planes used to straffe this shapes underwater, and they were very vulnerable even to heavy machine gun fire.

True, but IL2's ability to model water clarity and texture is extremely primitive. In IL2, you've got a choice of shallow water texture and deep water texture "painted on" to the water's surface, rather than the sea bottom being textured and water opacity being modeled as a function of ambient light conditions, water turbidity, bottom depth and so forth. So, realistic modeling of light on sub-surface objects isn't an option.

That means that the only option for a periscope depth submarine is a "shadow" - which could be a suitably distorted texture of the submarine's hull. My ignorant guess is that the simplest fix would be to tweak the submarines' shadow models so that the periscope makes a submarine-shaped shadow on the water's surface.

But, that means you just get a dark, hazy submarine-shaped thing that doesn't alter its size or visibility with depth. Also, it's exactly the sort of short-cut that modders love and TD seems to hate, so it might not be good enough to ever be an official fix.

A nice attempt unto this was made in CLOD. Just with ships I must say. I didn't played enough with it to judge how well was it implemented. But this is a thing asked once and again from IL2, way before TD took the flame.

1c completely rewrote their graphics engine for CloD, and took their sweet time doing it. In terms of graphics capacity and appearance, CloD is several generations more advanced than IL2. Say what you will about game play, but CloD is a gorgeous to look at.

To get all the pretty effects you see in CloD or BoS, you'd need to entirely rewrite IL2. That means an entire development team working full time for years to create a brand new simulation. That's way beyond the limits of a couple of dedicated hobbyists.

Your other suggestions are excellent, but just the possibility of attacking a periscope depth submarine is a huge change.

You can attack submarines at periscope depth, but remember that it's actually almost impossible to get a kill against a sub using guns. The angle of bullets striking the water and water resistance means that even a 20mm cannon shell isn't going to have the force required to penetrate a sub's pressure hull when it's more than about a meter deep. At best you get a periscope hit, which forces the sub to surface.

BTW, you must add that depth charges clocked to higher depths, don't make a big water flush as seen on films.

Good point. So, a quick and dirty fix might be to make depth charges more powerful with depth (like the next larger size of bomb) but with a proportionately smaller bomb splash effect. For example, a depth charge fuzed for 30 meters might have the damaging power of a 250 kg bomb, but produces the "medium bomb splash" effect when it goes off. One fuzed for 200 meters would have the damaging power of a 1,000 kg bomb, but just the "small bomb" splash effect.

Realistically, though, new splash effects for mines and depth charges would need to be created. For simplicity, you'd need large, medium and small depth charge/mine effects at shallow, medium and deep depths. That would give the "mound of water" effect, followed a few seconds later by a fountain of water.

Furio

04-28-2015, 09:09 AM

True, but IL2's ability to model water clarity and texture is extremely primitive. In IL2, you've got a choice of shallow water texture and deep water texture "painted on" to the water's surface, rather than the sea bottom being textured and water opacity being modeled as a function of ambient light conditions, water turbidity, bottom depth and so forth. So, realistic modeling of light on sub-surface objects isn't an option.

I have some experience with another game, no less old than Il2, and with similar texturing effect. In that game, a workable solution would be:
To duplicate the water’s surface.
To place the second one at some depth, 20 meters – 60 feet would probably be a good compromise.
To reduce opacity of both surfaces (a different way to say “To augment transparency”). I would guess 80% opacity for the upper surface and 20% for the lower should work, correctly representing the effect of clear waters.
Done that, the submarine would be visible at periscope depth, and disappear at a realistic depth.
There’s another possible solution, if I’m not mistaken.
Again: to reduce surface opacity.
Then, to place a continuous dark cloud under water surface.

RPS69

04-28-2015, 02:45 PM

Also, not that many sim pilots are into flying slow, vulnerable planes, calling out fire missions while dodging flak and fighters, even if your primary weapons system is a battery of 16 inch guns. :)

Il2 fans, aren't limited to dogfighters. We played a short campaign as the crew of a B17, and believe me it was enormous fun!

1c completely rewrote their graphics engine for CloD, and took their sweet time doing it. In terms of graphics capacity and appearance, CloD is several generations more advanced than IL2. Say what you will about game play, but CloD is a gorgeous to look at.

What I was talking about have nothing to do with graphics, on CLOD ships under air attack DO take evasive maneuvers!
The problem on IL2, is that ships have no AI at all. They are just mindless robots that follow the line. Even ground vehicles got a lesser AI capacity, but ships got no AI at all.

Once I did a mistake while text editing a CV path, and it made a 180° turn over it's center. They don't event interpret that as a round turn.

You can attack submarines at periscope depth, but remember that it's actually almost impossible to get a kill against a sub using guns. The angle of bullets striking the water and water resistance means that even a 20mm cannon shell isn't going to have the force required to penetrate a sub's pressure hull when it's more than about a meter deep. At best you get a periscope hit, which forces the sub to surface.

Yeah, but on real life the sub will submerge anyway, and stop being a threat. A submerged sub can´t follow no convoy. Success don't always need a kill, a kill is just a bonus, seeing it as long term suppression.

RPS69

04-28-2015, 02:48 PM

I have some experience with another game, no less old than Il2, and with similar texturing effect. In that game, a workable solution would be:
To duplicate the water’s surface.
To place the second one at some depth, 20 meters – 60 feet would probably be a good compromise.
To reduce opacity of both surfaces (a different way to say “To augment transparency”). I would guess 80% opacity for the upper surface and 20% for the lower should work, correctly representing the effect of clear waters.
Done that, the submarine would be visible at periscope depth, and disappear at a realistic depth.
There’s another possible solution, if I’m not mistaken.
Again: to reduce surface opacity.
Then, to place a continuous dark cloud under water surface.

Do you know how they were capable of showing under the water line of ships on IL2?

To my knowledge, if they can do that, they can do a ship that just go on that line and show it.

Furio

04-28-2015, 05:28 PM

Do you know how they were capable of showing under the water line of ships on IL2?

To my knowledge, if they can do that, they can do a ship that just go on that line and show it.

I just took a ride in a Rufe floatplane around Pacific Island map. For what I saw, water surface has 100% opacity. Not an inch of submerged ships, submarines and floats shows through. The feeling is confirmed by plane’s shadow on water. My guess is that the shallow water effect is simply “painted” on, with a texture applied to water surface near beaches. Of course, I have no idea if the methods I suggested are applicable to Il2.:confused:

sniperton

04-28-2015, 07:00 PM

The method you suggested sounds primising, at least for me. A transparent upper layer could only be a problem if you watch waves from close to sea level, so that you can see through them, but this could be resolved by fine-tunig opacity.

Pursuivant

04-28-2015, 07:07 PM

To duplicate the water’s surface.
To place the second one at some depth, 20 meters – 60 feet would probably be a good compromise.

A bit more work, but either of your solutions is better than mine.

And, as long as the game allows the option for actual submersible operations, then IL2 could ditch the periscope version of the submarines and just use one submarine model.

ASW operations are an area of the WW2 operations which are is potentially fascinating, historically important, and barely represented in the game.

Its post-WW2, but this video has some cool ideas as to how ASW aircraft did their work. Just about all the technologies shown in the video were developed during WW2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnkwoO7uBEE

Pursuivant

04-28-2015, 07:33 PM

Il2 fans, aren't limited to dogfighters. We played a short campaign as the crew of a B17, and believe me it was enormous fun!

Agreed, but the most accessible planes in the game are the fighters and single-engined attack planes, since that's what IL2 was originally designed to simulate, and that's what most players seem to want.

There are so many aspects of the air war during WW2 that aren't well modeled in IL2. You're lucky that you had a group of friends willing to play an unusual mod campaign.

The problem on IL2, is that ships have no AI at all. They are just mindless robots that follow the line. Even ground vehicles got a lesser AI capacity, but ships got no AI at all.

Completely agreed, but, it would be a big programming task to give ships any degree of AI. I'm not sure it's an area that TD wants to tackle.

Yeah, but on real life the sub will submerge anyway, and stop being a threat. A submerged sub can´t follow no convoy. Success don't always need a kill, a kill is just a bonus, seeing it as long term suppression.

True. You use the weapons you have, but unless you've got surprise on your side and/or the submarine tries to fight it out on the surface (Kreigsmarine doctrine from 1943 on) then it's not an effective tactic to use guns. Rockets, bombs and depth charges are the weapons of choice.

Realistically, an ASW patrol plane would also try to keep contact with the submarine and try to summon reinforcements if their attack failed.

RPS69

04-29-2015, 11:19 AM

Agreed, but the most accessible planes in the game are the fighters and single-engined attack planes, since that's what IL2 was originally designed to simulate, and that's what most players seem to want.

What do you mean by accessible?
Most players maybe, but campaign designers? what do they want?
Take a good look on HSFX and you will see a thing or two about what it is wanted.

There are so many aspects of the air war during WW2 that aren't well modeled in IL2. You're lucky that you had a group of friends willing to play an unusual mod campaign.

Unusual? it seems that I came from a really different world.

Completely agreed, but, it would be a big programming task to give ships any degree of AI. I'm not sure it's an area that TD wants to tackle.

I don't think so. Ships don't need a whole AI, we are not talking about developing huge tasks of attack formations, nor the need to dock perfectly when arriving into a port. I don't expect destroyers to be launched on patrol trough a convoy, nor putting themselves as a torpedo screen protecting a capital ship.
This could be done by setting a main sheep, and associate it with a set of ships to mimic it's behavior. This main sheep may only be programmed to react upon air attack by moving on zig zag, or doing whole turns to avoid bombing runs. The ability to evade collisions with semi sunk ships will be appreciated too!

The difficult task would be if it is decided to do it historically correct, by limiting every type of ship to it's historical maneuver limits. That would be too much, a generic behavior would be enough. Anyway it will be 1000% more than we have today.

True. You use the weapons you have, but unless you've got surprise on your side and/or the submarine tries to fight it out on the surface (Kriegsmarine doctrine from 1943 on) then it's not an effective tactic to use guns. Rockets, bombs and depth charges are the weapons of choice.

Yeah... you sure got lots of them on the first two years of war... I mean rockets, and depth charges thrown from a plane. Do you know that uboots, at the beginning of the war harassed convoys with their deck canons? Also, the British got a whole procedure to strafe submarines on those years. It was deemed an effective tactic, mostly developed on the gulf of biscay. Still, I must admit that the submarine was expected to be on surface to do that.

Pursuivant

04-30-2015, 04:37 AM

What do you mean by accessible?
Most players maybe, but campaign designers? what do they want?
Take a good look on HSFX and you will see a thing or two about what it is wanted.

Accessible = easiest for a new player to understand. Multi-engined and multi-crewed planes require extra commands, and a bit more understanding of how aircraft work in order to fly.

HSFX and other online sites represent a community of very committed fans and modders, with an emphasis on online and squadron play. They're a good representation of what "advanced users" want.

There aren't enough mission/campaign designers to really figure out what they want. My guess is that they're a subset of "advanced users".

I don't think so. Ships don't need a whole AI, we are not talking about developing huge tasks of attack formations, nor the need to dock perfectly when arriving into a port. I don't expect destroyers to be launched on patrol trough a convoy, nor putting themselves as a torpedo screen protecting a capital ship.

I agree, but the problem are that ships in IL2 have no AI at all, and their maneuvering physics is really bad (e.g., your example of a CV being able to turn on its axis). Upgrading ship physics and AI to even a basic level would require a huge amount of work. My impression from TD members public comments is that they don't want to do it.

This could be done by setting a main sheep, and associate it with a set of ships to mimic it's behavior. This main sheep may only be programmed to react upon air attack by moving on zig zag, or doing whole turns to avoid bombing runs. The ability to evade collisions with semi sunk ships will be appreciated too!

This is what I've described as "station keeping" and ability to move in formation.

Your ideas are similar to suggestions made in the past on different threads, and represent the sort of basic AI that ships should have.

1) In the FMB, it should be possible to set formations of ships, with other ships keeping station around a ship in the the center of the formation.

2) In the FMB, it should be possible to set standardized ship behavior, like zig-zagging.

Neither of these fixes requires any AI work. Just additions to the FMB.

Basic Ship AI would require:

1) Collision Avoidance - so that ships slow down and/or turn to avoid land, shallow water and other ships.

2) Torpedo Defensive Maneuvers - so ships will turn into, or away from, a spread of torpedoes to "comb" (i.e., sail in between) the torpedo formation. All this requires is a 90 degree turn in the direction of the largest formation of torpedoes (or a 90 degree turn away from it).

Slightly more sophisticated AI would require the ship to speed up or slow down to avoid torpedoes.

3) Bomb/Kamikaze Defensive Maneuvers - Ships attacked by bombers or kamikazes will make the tightest turn they can to left or right, possibly randomly alternating left/right turns, to spoil bombing/suicide attacks.

The difficult task would be if it is decided to do it historically correct, by limiting every type of ship to it's historical maneuver limits. That would be too much, a generic behavior would be enough. Anyway it will be 1000% more than we have today.

Again, agreed. But, it's somewhat difficult to find data for things like turning radius or acceleration. Also, like aircraft, a maneuvering ship is affected by things like centripedal force and inertia. It's a whole different area of engineering/physics.

Yeah... you sure got lots of them on the first two years of war... I mean rockets, and depth charges thrown from a plane. Do you know that uboots, at the beginning of the war harassed convoys with their deck canons? Also, the British got a whole procedure to strafe submarines on those years. It was deemed an effective tactic, mostly developed on the gulf of biscay. Still, I must admit that the submarine was expected to be on surface to do that.

WW2 era submarines were intended as surface vessels that could submerge (vs. modern doctrine where submarines are designed as true submersibles), and this heavily influenced early war submarine design and doctrine.

The big issue for the mid/late war anti-submarine planes was anti-submarine/anti-shipping radar. That allowed ASW planes to detect subs and ships dozens of miles away. Some radars were sensitive enough that they could even sense sub periscopes.

Not surprisingly, submarines were quickly fitted with radar detectors allowing them to detect and avoid snooping aircraft, so there was a "technical war" with each side developing better radar systems (and, later in the war, MAD systems) and defenses against radar.

The "Battle of the Atlantic" from 1940-43 was not unlike the RAF's Night Bomber Campaign from 1942-44, with each side gaining a temporarily advantage based on some new gadget being developed.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see a simulation of aerial and naval operations in the Bay of Biscay from 1940-44. Lots of really interesting ships and aircraft. Plenty of desperate small actions. Historically quite important. Utterly ignored by any sim to date. Sadly, doing it right would require massive amounts of work that's far beyond my limited skills.