Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-03-2008, 03:41 AM
nearmiss nearmiss is offline
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,687
Cool Pacific Fighters Bombed - inadequate maps

Pacific Fighters, did someone leave something out? The maps are a sad case of mistakes. The Pacific War was just not studied carefully, or maps would have been different.

I was messing around with the Pacific theatre today and got to thinking why the Pacific Fighters bored me. After I learned to make carrier landings I put the PF back in the box and didn't have any more use for it. I didn't try to analyze it or anything. Afterall, I'm just a consumer.. what do I know about what I want. LOL

The Solomons are not there, Rabaul, Pillippines, Northern Australia, Western New Guinea, etc.

There are so many islands just isolated on the IL2 maps. You can't fly close to historical missions from one land base to another. The reason the US conquered the islands was to build bases and support the advance towards Japan.

Marine and USAAF aircraft have practically negative application in the sim, because they were land based.

Iwo Jima was a tough prize and the purpose for taking it was to have bases from which the US could support and launch AC against Japan. Well there are two airbases on the island, but the Japanese didn't use them. So, when the US conquered Iwo Jima... kaput. Nothing else to do, because you can't launch attacks to Japan (another map)

I think it must have been in Oleg's mind that the Pacific Theatre was strictly a war of carrier launched aircraft. Where do you fly your B17s, B24s, B25s, B26s, P61s, and B29s from and to?

THe US dropped bombs on mainland Japan for quite awhile with the big bombers, long before the A-Bombs were used.

OK, so you spawn your heavy bombers like the B29s in the air and they have no place to land after they reach their final mission targets...they can never land? I guess the PF map makers planned for the fighters to land on the carriers and let the bombers fly into eternity. LOL

As it worked out, it didn't very well. LOL

-------------------

Knowing Oleg's flair for the full realism I'd say the reason the maps are like they are is because the distances would make maps too large for IL2.

There is a simple fix... Just move things closer together in the maps. Heck, who wants to fly for 9 hours from one island to another. All the player would do is 8x to the next island. Afterall, this is a game simulation and if Tinian was on the same map as Japan so what. You'd still have a distance to fly. It isn't like we're doing GPS or sophisticated navigation. We get into the plane and waypoint our merry way to and from. LOL

Last edited by nearmiss; 03-03-2008 at 03:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-03-2008, 03:55 AM
Chivas Chivas is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,769
Default

Pacific fighters was never meant to be the be all and end all of the Pacific theater. It was started by a third party that Oleg had to divert his team too help finish. It was the first of many delays to the work on BOB SOW. It was first rumored that the third party was modelling an aircraft carrier then it slowly developed into a standalone sim with a few aircraft and maps of the Pacific Theater.

Edit

It was also called Pacific Fighters, not Pacific Bombers, or Pacific Theater.

Last edited by Chivas; 03-03-2008 at 04:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-03-2008, 07:03 AM
csThor csThor is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere in Germany
Posts: 1,213
Default

In my opinion PF was supposed to be the ultimate PTO sim, mainly because of the "weird" combination of maps and aircraft. To me it's obvious that there were more aircraft and maps planned ... But with hindsight it's also obvious that a much smaller scale would have been better. A smaller but more focused selection aircraft would have been better for gameplay, same goes for maps.

My 0,02 € ...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-03-2008, 08:21 AM
nearmiss nearmiss is offline
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chivas View Post
It was also called Pacific Fighters, not Pacific Bombers, or Pacific Theater.
That's funny... works for me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-03-2008, 10:18 AM
Feathered_IV's Avatar
Feathered_IV Feathered_IV is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,471
Default

I think there would have been much more wisdom in concentrating on a single period of the Pacific conflict, and doing it properly and not trying to represent everything from Pearl Harbour to the Home Islands in one hit.


btw, is pacific fighters an oxymoron?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-03-2008, 11:36 AM
Feuerfalke Feuerfalke is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Feathered_IV View Post
btw, is pacific fighters an oxymoron?
Not more than "Air Front" or "Air War" I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-03-2008, 04:26 PM
KOM.Nausicaa KOM.Nausicaa is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 290
Default

The IL2 engine never allowed what most Pacific Theatre fan's secretly want: One big map, from Pearl Harbour to Japan. The problem was in the concept, from the beginning.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.