Battle of Malta or Mediterranean - why not?
 

I am curious why not battle of Malta or Mediterranean.

The Italian aircraft are pretty well done in COD, the early Hurricanes, Gladiator and early Spits as well.

The Early German aircraft as well. We would need new skins of course.

A Mediterranean theatre was never addressed in IL2 until mods were introduced.

The Battle of Moscow will require many new and later model aircraft.

A Mediterranean theatre just makes more sense for a quick release addon.

A Malta addon would be an excellent subject. A nice tight little map, not too many new aircraft needed and a good use of existing types. The only tricky bit would be the ships.

Clod=focused on Russian players=BoM.

The only thing they don't have is time or money...

I would buy either or both!
Moscow will be good as well!

Yeah I think us in the west forget how HUGE this sim is over in Russia. Remember the lines of hundreds of people waiting to get the sim and Oleg signing copies? He's a rockstar over there.

I think my favorite would be North Afrika, then Med. But I'm fine with Russia as well as long as it means this sim does well and we can get more add ons.

Moscow next by all means. Malta after that would be a cost effective choice.

It has long been rumored that the sequel to BOB was going to be the Med. Personally I think Battle for Moscow was originally a third party addon, as it was annouced at a Russian Game show before BOB was released. The developers pulled Luthiers Korean team in to help finish COD and this could have happened to the Battle for Moscow team aswell. Now they probably need another cash infusion to continue work on the series, and the Battle for Moscow was closest to being finished, while the Med could only be at the research stage.

It can see more third party addons in the mix after the game engine and features are finished and optimized. Then the parties will only have to add maps, some aircraft, and objects, while the main development team can be adding new features to the game engine, more aircraft, and main maps, such as the Med.

...and it would take hundreds of models of destroyers, cruisers, battleships and submarines for the navy of France, Britain, Italy and Germany

I would prefer "Battle of Malta" or whatever more then a "Battle of Moscow", but I dont care anymore, just the fact, that a "Battle of Moscow" should mean, a fix of our current scenario. And I like to fly oneday, a BoB as it should!

+1

Mazex

Still though, for the ships and subs needed, some of these could even be taken from the original IL-2, re-worked 3d wise and then outfitted for those certain theatres. Because some of the modellers do pretty good jobs and their mods look great, so if it could be re-worked by proffesionals, even better.
And Oleg did say he preffered the Med theatre next but I guess they need the cash and with most of Moscow happy to fly in Moscow, well it answers itself.

...and aircraft carriers, to model Operation Pedestal. And if you haven't got Pedestal you haven't got a Battle for Malta. It'd be like simming the Battle of Britain without any naval dimension.

indeed, its a pitty that the marvelous shipdamage model is left out in the BoM.
i would have also prefered some NorthAfrica scenario.

Malta alone, im not very interested in actually, its "the same" as the BoB - and axis bombing campaign with allied defenders........

MTO is nevertheless interesting:
Ship attacks
possible carrier operations by the RN
ground suporrt.


But yes, i also belive they choose a easternfront scenario so fast again because of their homemarket. And perhaps 1C have better sources about soviet aircraft and stuff than about western allied one?!
i was just surprised that they choose such an early one, as at least the soviet fighters had not an easy standing against the Luftwaffe 109Fs. I would have expected something about Kursk 1943. But a lot of BoB Luftwaffe aircraft (with more or less modifications) can be used in a Moskau 1941/42 scenario -at least less work for the 3D developers :)

Wouldnt it ? :grin:

I see what you did there. :-P

Yes, use the Il2 ships. We used axis and tagged them as allied in the mission builder. Ships were for attacking and building battlefield.

No one seemed to care what country made a ship, train or other ground object in missions.

Yes it is best to have all objects by country and used with that country in missions, but it only really seemed to matter with aircraft.

I see what you both did there ;D

lol

I think I remember them saying tbey know its out of order but there were compelling techical reasons to do it this way first.

Hopefully it will mean they can optimise the graphics engine with regard to terrain and buildings, as technically it would seem sensible to go for a theatre with a lot of water, especially since the channel gives far better FPS than London.

Quite, it's a thing the level of detail a ship involves in this sim. I'm looking forward to carriers but expect it to be years before they incorporate them into what'll presumably be a great grandson of CloD. For the time being naval action seems to be too resource heavy both for the developer and the simmer.

I don't think so. The ships have only exterior modell (maybe very simple interior), with primitive shapes. Lots of them, but simple objects. And dont forget, no need interior (below the damaged surface), no need programming complex engine management, DM, etc. And no need cockpit either, what is a huge work.

I know this is outside the box here, but I really wish they would get back to the Korean war sim they were working on using this engine. WW2 has been covered quite a bit in our flight sim world, and the last sim that was dedicated to the Korean conflict was Mig Alley. Machinegun dogfights in early era jets, whats not to like! They would really have something unique and not done too often. I know there are some IL-2 mods out there that touch on this era, just nothing very complete.

I often wonder why the BOBDG never took on the old mig alley and turn it into something similar to BOB2

+1 I have actually spent quite a bit of time getting Mig Alley to run well on my rig. It runs decent but it just is...well...ugly, and has some CTD issues.

leaving the aircombat between the MiG-15 and F-86 beside, a little bit one sided this scenario, wouldnt it ??

but true, our BoB is too :( (never been a fan of the BoB scenario TBH :D )

yup I did the same with the same results

Regarding the ships surely they could open it up to the 3D modellers who would probably jump at the chance. They could then submit their ship models for some kind of QC before they get implemented.

Oleg used to do the same and everyone wins. We get our ships and MG can carry on with expansions.

I'm hoping that the release of the full range of software development kits will result in a quantum leap in the amount of content available for the CloD range. Certainly there'll be 'uneven' standards but pay-ware should be up to snuff. Luthier and Maddox Games will set the benchmark for quality and other's will be measured against it.

Luthier Korean War addon (Galba?) must have done a considerable amount of work before their team was drafted into the main development. I would say there is a good chance that third party Korean addon will regroup after the main game engine is optimized, and mostly bug free. You should see more than a couple third party groups, community modders, and the main development pumping out Maps, Theaters, Aircraft, objects, and campaigns. The new game engine has been the major stumbling block. IMHO ;)

LOL! Thanks for throwing that in there at the end Chivas. I completely agree with you on this one. I think I remember seeing early renders for the Sabre and mig awhile ago.

The Mediterranean will come along after Russia I'm sure. They already have many of the aeroplanes needed but Italy Sicily Yugoslavia Greece Crete maybe Turkey, Tunisia Libya Egypt the Mediterranean Sea Etc. will be a huge undertaking it sounds simple when one just says the "Med". This may take a while especially if it's done one to one witch seems impossible. I think it will be done in sections.

They did manage to do one in IL-2.MODs I think it first came out in the IL-2 War addon patch. I really liked that online War. This map could be made much bigger. There is a huge Libya map in the mission builder. As you can see it goes all the way up to DP!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-F4C...1&feature=plcp

For the video I get around 940 across, I checked in my Atlas and it suits miles better that Kms. but either way that Libya Egypt map looks like it's 1 to 1.

The size of the possible maps is still an unknown. It will be great if its possible now, but I think it will awhile before the sim is optimized enough or even computers strong enough to make highly detailed large maps. But in the mean time we could see smaller maps, like the area surrounding Malta, that could intail parts Sicily, and a very small part of N. Africa. That said there weren't alot of objects in that area so its possible it could be expanded.

edit....the size of the map in your thumbnail would be a great map.

I'm not sure how the sim at the moment renders maps, but it doesn't do the whole map at once- if I press Ctrl F2 to look at enemy aircraft and they are over land it takes a few seconds for the land to change to sea or vice versa, with the area of the map they are in getting rendered to view when selected. As you get a lot better FPS over sea than land I think that it could handle larger maps, but only if optimised enough to render that much buildings and landscape- London isn't as smooth fps-wise as the channel. However I hear some people get good FPS over London on very high end PC's, if thats so then they could probably get good FPS over large maps as it will generally always be the same amount of view distance that is rendered I would guess (less if we get fog etc, though the way smoke effects destroy my fps I'm not sure that would be good at the moment!).

Your probably right, then it would be just a case of the time it takes to build such a large map which wouldn't be a problem when its mostly open water, but the time to build a Britain to Germany bombing campaign map would be another matter.

I have to admit that I was looking forward to project Galba...Mig's & F-86 Sabre's battling it out!! The mind drools. Also...all of the Asian ground textures (and buildings, ect) would have been a great boon for a modding community, that's interested in the Pacific theater (once the tools are released).

I still hope (dream and fantasize) that somehow, the Chinese (1937) incident and the Spanish Civil war will be offered in some kind of an add-on. I love the variety of aerocraft involved in these theaters. On the one side, you have a rag-tag variety of fighters & bombers that have been imported from around the world. And on the other side you have a determined and organized industrial power that is working to develop a modern air power.

If I remember correctly...the Mediterranean theater, was the forums front runner for the next add-on. Granted it was all forum speculation, but it was never presented by the development team as a possible add-on...it was the forum that presented the idea.

Anyway...the defense of Moscow will be fun too. ;)

I totally agree about the thumbnail map Chivas. We've had a lot of fun on that map. Very versatile.

Interestingly, I find my machine takes just as much of performance hit over one of the silly little clod maps as it does over mainland France or Britain. The FPS issues seem to be deeper than just meshes and textures. If they get their **** together with the new engine, it could mean good things for future map sizes.

There are some desert textures already present in the game.....

For those interested in the Defense of Malta in 1940, here is a link to the IL-2 movie "Faith, Hope, and Charity". Made in 2005-2007, there had to be a lot of workarounds for acft types not available in IL-2 and no real Malta map, etc. The movie is an epic fictional drama, "inspired" by historical facts. The movie is the longest ever made using IL-2 (at one hour in duration), yet was extremely well received at the time of release.

COD has virtually all of the Italian acft needed (and of course the RAF Gladiators) for this small 1940 early "front" of the larger Mediterranean theater. The Malta story of late 40 to early 41 could be told/played also, since the necessary Luftwaffe acft types are also available in COD. A Map of just Malta would do the trick for 1940, with the addition of Tunisia for early 1941 operations, while awaiting the much larger and encompassing Med Theater map and ships/aircraft needed for the 41-44 scenarios.

In the meantime, I offer "Faith, Hope, and Charity" for your possible enjoyment.



"Faith, Hope, and Charity" at FSM

Very nice.

My favorite has always been Wolfbiscuits The Desert Dogfighter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXFugJlqAEE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MuvSSRSgtE

Yes. Excellent movie. Was awarded a Golden Oleg in 2008 at FSM.

A mediterranean theatre with SM79?

I will buy it even if bugged as the first release of ClOD!:grin:

Me too!:cool:

If the game gets patched to a point where most of us would consider it complete, and the Battle of Moscow scenario pans out, I think that the next addition should have US planes to continue the spread of theaters and draw in the crowd.

Battle of Britain first made sense since it's a smallish map, not too many planes to make the scenario complete, and there is a general interest in North America, Europe and Russia (three biggest flight sim markets).

Battle of Moscow at this point makes sense since the only market that's willing to keep giving Maddox Games their money is the Russian one.

If they move on to a campaign that has a sufficient number of US planes, then they will be able to draw North America back into the customer pool. They would probably avoid the pacific since the amount of maps, and ship models would be staggering to get anywhere near being acceptable. So possibly a North Africa/Fortress Europe scenario.

The name of the Game at this point is #1. Get the bloody thing to work. and #2. Get some money. They're going to have to go for the widest possible audience they can, and Moscow or the Med isn't going to be enough.

I think that thinking of a single pacific scenario is very unrealistic.
It should get separated in single battles, i.e.
1. Pearl harbor, wake island and philippines when the japanese took it.
2. Later indonesia, new guinea, sumatra, battle of the Java sea and Java, naval battle of midway.
3. Next Marines at guadalcanal, eastern solomones, santa cruz burma.
4. Followed by tarawa, kwajalein, truk, saipan and philippines.
5. And finally to the end.

Just as a idea, to be plucked by the experts.

i guess that have to be said about every theatre of operation. The amount of work that this engine needs ( maps, cockpits, planes, ships) , means that every adon can be 'only' about a special battle ( read limited time frame) IMO.

The nice thing about the pacific is that you can stretch the aircraft over a long timeframe as they didn't advance model wise nearly as fast as the European Theater, but you need new terrain and tree models, buildings, vehicles, and the biggest obstacle (manpower wise) are all of those ships. Having 2 types of generic freighters (US/JPN) doesn't cut it any more, and the warships (especially the Japanese) are incredibly complex looking with their insane superstructures which I can only describe as cluttered.

THIS IS WHERE YOU TURN TO THE COMMUNITY!

You need buildings, vehicles and ships? Release the tools necessary for them to make them. No matter how good your modeling staff is, there is always some hardcore fan who is better, can make them faster, and even more detailed than your guys have the time to. Have a submission contest where the fans who make models that are good enough for the game get their names mentioned in the credits and maybe 1/2 off the game when it is released. Those fans that can and do make models aren't interested in copy-writing their work and getting big bucks, they want a game that is full of content. Naturally the aircraft will have to be made in-house, but it would free the people who are modeling the other stuff to help out on the new aircraft. More vehicles, and more aircraft, with less money. . . where is the downside? Obviously they will have to do some quality control and make sure the models are appropriate, but that's a heck of a lot less time than making a new carrier or truck from scratch.

These people are out there and want to help, might as well use them! If nothing else you get some more publicity for the game when the word is out that people can actually have their work published. There are people who are dying to get into the industry, and having some of the content make it into a real game would be payment enough.

same question and line of reasoning was presented years ago in the IL-2 forums.. Just prior to the IL-2 Pacific Fighters release ;)

The blind faith in "release the tools and topnotch models will appear" is getting old, people. In the 1946 world there were a handful of people (as in - 10 at the max) who could and did produce models which did fit the technical specifications and which did not have to be corrected. In the new engine model detail has gone up another few notches and I severely doubt anyone could do such a model on his own within a reasonable timeframe ... Making a 3D model for a game is not so much about looks (and getting Oooh!s and Aaah!s in some message board) but about sticking to technical specifications and adhering to them like superglue. That, coupled with the enormous detail and the interior structures, makes modelling for the CloD engine very laborious.

Give me the SDK and I'll have a go

Didn't UBI made any Pacific expansion impossible by this http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...49&postcount=9 ?

I enjoyed flying aircraft-carrier scenarios in Warbirds BTW. It is fun.

If you read my post again, I said that things like buildings, trees, and vehicles the player would never drive could be modeled by the community so the devs could focus on the aircraft so we get more flyable content. Creating a Russian peasant's house would be easy, so would creating a hundred other buildings. Static vehicles as well could be fine. I imagine that AI controlled land vehicles would be more difficult, but they would be a million times easier than aircraft.

Quite agree.

and to say the 'release the tools' argument is getting old? I can only think of 1 flight sim series where tools were available to the wider public and the add ons for that series are flooding in.

Quite honestly after reading countless times that this or that object (3rd Party, remember) in 1946 fails to meet the specifications or goes far beyond the specifications I no longer believe that even buildings are easy to model. Or maybe it's just not easy to overcome the laziness of one's weaker self and adhere to specifications. I don't know.
Tanks, vehicles and ships (especially them) are even worse since they're technically intricate and - in CloD - need a high level of details to match what is already there in the game.

I am not arguing against people trying their luck, I am arguing against people thinking that creating any objects for CloD will be an easy undertaking.

That's fair enough, not sure anybody said it would be easy though, would just be nice to have a crack.

Quality objects will require a professional approach and Maddox Games themselves will provide the benchmark for content, hopefully some of the software houses that provide pay ware content for sims like FSX will be inclined to do so for the CloD series. It doesn't all have to have DMs either, if the sim ever lives up to its promise then the FMs and recreation of physics of flight should allow it to become attractive to simmers who are not interested in combat such as sport or aerobatic fliers, imagine a 'Reno: Air Racer' add-on? Be a while though, given the current state of the sim it's hardly a 'market' to invest in.

You give someone a poly/texture size limit and some general outlines and requirements and you can have a hundred buildings submitted in a week. I'm not saying that there isn't going to be need for quality control and maybe some tweaking, but how do you mess up 4 walls and a roof? The same with static vehicles. Not all them have to be movable. If they are doing a battle of moscow there should be maps with dozens or hundreds of knocked out vehicles on the side of the roads. Why insert a dev made truck, then set the damage to "dead" when there is nothing more you can do it it? It's already busted, why not use a static vehicle made by a fan? That way you also have some variety so not every single destroyed vehicle on the side of the road is "lend-lease jeep" or "5 ton truck".

As for vessels, fishing boats, tugs, barges, etc only need one damage setting, "destroyed". That doesn't require a bunch of crazy compartments or intricate internal detail. As for larger naval vessels, if the tools are available, the requirements and constraints are clearly established, then it shouldn't be a problem for the devs to get dozens of usable (maybe with slight tweaking) larger vessels.

Battlefield 1942: Forgotten Hope mod added hundreds of vehicles, all of them high quality, meshing with the game perfectly, and with realistic damage values (or the closest approximation you could get with that engine).

Silent Hunter III: Lots of additional content, just as good or better than the stuff included in the game.

I could go on, but I figured those were the two most would remember. I'm not saying fans can make the planes and cockpits, but static objects and the vehicles that the player will never pilot. If MG released the tools and a few of their existing building, vehicle, gun, and ship models then the model makers out there could examine them, see what they need to do and replicate them for their new content.

This has been done before in hundreds of mods. I'm not saying that MG should just let anyone email them their models, but maybe create a subforum where good models, that meet the quality and requirements of the game could be examined and then moved to a developer viewed thread by the mods where only the best of the best make it.

Couldn't hurt. Or are MG intent on keeping all of their tools a closely guarded secret until after they go out of business because nobody wants to buy a game with 4 flyable planes, no decent missions, and 2 different tanks you can attack?

I am no modeller but I have watched enough TD discussions on the matter to know that there is more to a modelling specification than just texture size and poly count. There are also such things as model breakup (in specifically named parts), materials to be used, specific regulations for animations and and and ...

But, quite honestly, before MG diverts any manpower into the SDK I'd rather see them use it to fix the goddarn engine bugs ... and the AI. ;)

I am a modeller and all that is true, release an SDK with a good white paper detailing the required specifications and modellers will be able to work something out.

But youre right.....fix the game first.

Agreed, for a user to make a new A/C or even a cockpit for an existing A/C and to the incredible standard they have set will take a few months unless you can work on it full time and it would still take a long time.

Much longer than six months I would say. Oleg mentioned several times that it took his team that long to produce a simple aircraft for the old Il-2.

Given Maddox Games' efficiency (only took them 6 years to make a broken game) I would say most real studios would laugh at that statement.

Also, as I said a few times already, the modelers wouldn't be doing aircraft, instead they'd be leaving it to the devs. The modelers who prove themselves on the static objects, could possibly move on to ground vehicles, etc. Maybe if someone in the community proved to be incredibly skilled and progressed through the steps of more and more complex models, they could move on to AC, but the intent of my post was that you could have the modelers work on the tough stuff while the community gives you the "atmospheric content". The models that just sit there and look pretty, that only have two damage settings, the ones that are not going to make or break the game.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????

Of course the modellers would be doing A/C!!!

And while were at it "most real" studios don't go into this level of detail and have a much larger team!

Do you have any experience modelling, judging from what you posted I would say, No?

They must have been furious that the Zero wins the fight on the box too LOL.

I think it's the only sim out there where the Axis aeroplane wins the fight on the box. I'm such a 1c fan. :) I dare them to let a Messerschmitt win a fight. There's just no way.

Is there a reading comprehension issue here?

I'm saying the "COMMUNITY MODELERS" would not do the aircraft due to the complexity and the requirements. The Community Modelers could do all the simple stuff that makes a map look real (buildings, static objects, simple vehicles, etc.) so that the developers (Maddox Game employees) could focus on those. The less time they have to spend working on simple things like static objects, the more time they have to work on Aircraft. If this worked, the sim could have extra planes because the devs could devote more time to it instead of working on a hundred different peasant buildings, haystacks, and Moscow apartment blocks.

Maybe if some modeler showed that he could do buildings well he could then be asked to do some static vehicles, if those worked out well some actual vehicles, and if those worked out well maybe move on to aircraft. The percentage of people who could do AC that would be suitable for the game would be quite low, but getting all the simple stuff out of the way would probably help the devs a lot.

So I made a quick little mod to see what the deserts of north africa would look like in cod.
http://www.abload.de/img/shot_20120121_205348lv159.png
http://www.abload.de/img/shot_20120121_205116up1hl.png

Malta is a niche inside a niche inside a niche. If they are going to invest development resources it needs to be a broad based product.

Fortress Europe would be a good "broad based" product. You have all those mid-late war warplanes that everyone loves to fly. (109, Spit, Tempest, P-47, P-51, B-17, FW-190, Me-262, etc. The biggest problem is that what makes it such a draw (variety of aircraft over a huge map) also makes it incredibly labour intensive to complete. Dozens of new aircraft, tons of mapping, creating ground objects to bomb, a huge variety of armaments (bombs, rockets, MG's and Cannons) and a host of other issues.

If you can get a P-51 and a B-17, you're going to draw a lot of US players. If you can get the late war British and German aircraft you'll draw a lot of European players. The only problem might be lower sales in Russia (which is a big market for flight sims) since there wouldn't be any Russian content.

There really is no scenario that's all inclusive until you get into very late 44 and 45 where Allied and Soviet aircraft were over the Reich, but who want to play a game where the enemy is being outnumbered (in some cases 10-1) by the allies?

What it looks like they are doing is the most logical. Progressing threw the war years with the sim as it happened in real life. They started with The Battle of Britain because they needed a popular jumping off point I suppose.

Battle Of Britain 1940
Russia 1941-44?
The Mediterranean - North Africa 1941-43
The Western Air War Over Europe 1942-45

That line of progression makes sense since you have some overlapping of aircraft that you can either straight-up reuse for the next addition or slightly tweak to get the period appropriate model. The problem is that the Eastern front will probably be a low point for sales outside of Russia, and the Med/N. Africa isn't the most popular theater either. Cheaper to make the game and sequels this way, but limited returns.

I'd like to see what their marketing dept had to say about that path and the reasoning behind it. (assuming it happens in that order)

The Mediterranean theater might be a little more popular in the UK Australia and Canada. Germany may go for it too. Hans-Joachim Marseille and F4s :)

The problem is that it's a mostly forgotten theater in a war where Hollywood has told them which battles are important. (Stalingrade, Battle of Britain, Iwo Jima, and naturally D-Day. You, your friends, and the people who frequent these forums probably think it would be awesome to play, but we represent a very small portion of a very small niche market.

Gamer->PC Gamer->Flight Simmer->WWII Enthusiast->Med/N. Africa.

There's a reason why you don't see many N. Africa or Eastern front movies in theaters, because the studios have done the research and they rank pretty low in the interest category. I'd love to bust some Hurricanes over the desert in my F-4, but I'd be surprised if I wasn't in the minority when it came to that over a 1944-45 European campaign.

Yes I would much rather have The Mediterranean - North Africa than 1944-45 Western Air War Over Europe mainly because of the great fighter mach ups. There's usually a lot of brawling on those North Africa maps in IL-2...when there's people around.

The late Western Air War will have the beloved P-51 D so you'll get lots of lust for that in America. Somehow for me though this arena isn't as much fun as being in an F4 in the desert.

I'd prefer a post-BOB Western Europe first of all, let's say 1941 - '42. This would include a few new fighters and some AI bombers and a somewhat larger Western Europe map (and re-use a lot of objects already there). It would also be the easiest extension to get done while they fix the underlying engine and all bugs reported sofar. It would mean some new variants of Spits and Me's and a nice new FW ;-)

BoM is far more radical and a lot more ambitious. New map, new planes and a lots of new objects. In this case there's far more for to do than just fixing the game itself. I understand they like to do this because it's a Russian game and also would like to see the Eastern theatre included again, but I'm not that convinced they will be able to pull this off in 6 months or so.

First they'd need to radically improve this game and bring it up to a state where il2 4.11 stands now. Graphics are the least of their problems right now; they are already great and highly detailed, but there's a lot more than just eye-candy.

Rgs,
FP

aaaaaaaaahahahahaha, you're my favourite welshman for the rest of this year :)

Well The Battle For Moscow will be fine especially for the Luftwaffe in my opinion because FW 190 fans may get their zoomer. I'll get my F4. Russian boys will get their aeroplanes witch unfortunately for us as things progressed got very good.

Anyone remember fighting I-16s with F-2s in VEF missions? :shock:

I think 'fighting' is too strong a word Furbs.I prefer 'running away from'... ;)

Tunisia 1942-43 would be nice. American, British, German and Italian a/c.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2-1943.svg.png

yes, we in the west think the world revolves around us tooo much .. 1C and olegs IL2 is basically that - a Russian WWII flight sim, for a Russian audience. If the Next IL2 game is BOM, fine, I just hope 1C doesn't get bogged down with an inward focus.

I'm still hoping for more flyable BOB planes and maybe a French campaign?

He111.

Sure do you mean old 2001 IL-2? I can't remember if I-16s were flyable then but I did battles with them a lot later in Forgotten Battles. In the 2001 IL-2 days I was flying DID missions Dead Is Dead. F4s came along later in a patch as well as Es and the Stuka in 2001 IL-2.

After the next sequel is done, BOB will get quite a few new flyable aircraft.

The Germans will get the 109F, Fw 190, and the Ju 87D.
The British will get the IL-2, the LaGG-3, Pe-3, and the Yak-1.

I am curious. Are you a member of the 1C Company Cliffs Staff or development team? Or did you pick up that information somewhere on this Forum?

Read his last line again.
;)

Any aircraft built for the sequel can be used in BOB when you merge the products. Russian aircraft were obviously not used in the west, but a few of the german aircraft were, so they could be added for some historical missions.

I'm not sure what can be done about the Grumman issue...but I heard speculation on the issue. Some people felt that as long as Ubi didn't use the protected names (of aeroplanes) that Grumman owns...that the likenesses of said aeroplanes could be used in a game. To the best of my knowledge the whole legal issue revolved around the fact that Ubi used copy-written names for aerocraft that Grumman owned...when they (Ubi) where marketing the Pacific theater game. Maybe some with the legal knowledge could enlighten us?

That said...their are areas of the Pacific theater (or at least campaigns that involved Japan) that could be made into a game. For example...the "Chinese Indecent" involved many aerocraft that Grumman didn't make. Also the "Air Battles of Khalkhin Gol" could be modeled. And lastly...the bombing campaign of Japan could be mapped out with B-29's, P-51's and Ki-84's, Ki-61's, Ki-44's, N1k2, Raiden...ect. Its far from complete, but the air battles around Guadalcanal could be mapped out with the Corsair, P-40 and P-39. I know that its far from perfect, but their are some campaigns that could be played out.

Ahhh....I didn't read down that far...so I missed the Joke! And it was/is a Good joke!!! :grin:
Actually, the first line should have gotten me smiling: No 109F's, or FW190's, or JU87D's ever flew over England, in the BofB itself, nor everafter. :)

Did anyone ever get a dollar amount what it would cost to actually use the aircraft with their names? Given that Lockheed is used to bilking the US taxpayers out of billions, I'd imagine it would be a substantial amount that would render using them useless since the game would never make enough to pay for them.

The whole situation is disgusting since Grumman/Lockheed built those aircraft with 100% taxpayer money, so really all those WWII aircraft should be public domain (at least in the US). Is Lockheed afraid that someone is going to buy a pacific theater game instead of a real Wildcat or TBF Avenger?

Do other games have to pay to use the Sherman tank? The Willy's Jeep, or the dozens of other vehicles that companies still "own" the rights to?

Here we go again.... :rolleyes:

The Grumman discussion went on for YEARS at the UBI IL-2 Forum, without any resolution or understanding of the matter.

I really don't think it is worth the time/effort to re-hash it all again....certainly not for me.:cool:

But, you other folks want to speculate endlessly, go for it. :-) I would suggest, though, that someone start a thread called "GRUMMAN". As it is, this "Malta or Mediterrranean" thread has been definitively "Hijacked".

EDIT: Okay...sorry...NOT hijacked on the Grumman issue

I was not intending to start another thread about this issue...if fact, the one observation I made, was that it would be nice to hear from someone who had actual legal knowledge. I believe that this has been a standing request from the forum at large...I was just bumping the sentiment.

BUT IF you read the rest of my post, you will see that I put forth the idea of building an add-on around Pacific theater campaigns (or Japanese campaigns in general) the focus on the 18th Fighter group, the 21st Fighter wing and the 318th fighter group (for example), which all flew P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-51's. The British and Australians also saw a great deal of action around Singapore, Malaysia, & New Guinea. These country's largely flew Spitfires and Hurricanes (not to mention the Dakota and Mosquito squadrons). Lets also remember the Flying Tigers!! That would make a tidy little add-on (do I hear the idea of releasing an add-on to coincide with the forthcoming movie?). Of coarse I'm joking...but I think my idea is clear.

For the people who can not live without the navy air powers represented, we could always enjoy a Pappy Boyington (Black Sheep) add-on. I for one love the "bent wing bird"!!!

:grin:You and I have no disagreement. :-) I was just noting that for a thread entitled "Battle of Malta or Mediterranean", the diversion to discussion of the Pacific Theater and Grumman, and Lockheed, etc etc seems Odd.

Someone cruising the Forum who might be very interested in the Pacific Theater would have to grovel through 100 pages of Med talk in this thread before getting to Grumman, Flying Tigers, et. al. Might be better to start a new "Pacific" thread to get a discussion going.... Actually, a quick review shows the pacific brought up as early as Post #60 in this thread. Maybe the title of the thread could be changed to "Which theater should be next?"

Just a thought...But...to each his own.

Now that I think about it, usually by Post#100+ most threads have gone wide afield...

I'll now depart the field/thread myself. Have a good day, mates. :D

Make that 1940-1941 and you've already got in COD the German, British, and Italian aircraft you need....just need the Map!

True but the map would have to be over 1000mi long (Alexandria to Tripoli ~900mi).

Don't forget about all the ship and ground models that will have to created that are missing in CloD.

Tunis to Tripoli..and Tunis to Messina. Maximum 450 Miles. 70% Ocean. Piece of cake.

a map covering the Cyreneika would be totaly 'enough' for 41/42 North Africa scenarios....

from Bengahzi to Alexandria that would be 900km :D most propably something smaller with Tobruk in its "center" would be more possible

There was no Tunis in 1940-41. All the fighting was east of Tripoli.

What you have described is the eastern side of the map I posted.