Pacific Fighters Bombed - inadequate maps

[csThor]

Actually it happened one week before release. And yes it was Ubi's faux pas ... but then PF was not the child of MG but of RRG. I guess the equation had a lot of variables in it, most of which we don't even know about.

[tater]

Bottom line is that 1 week before release it didn't change the content any, the masters were already printed.

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by tater

Bottom line is that 1 week before release it didn't change the content any, the masters were already printed.

100% true! But of course this also had a time-released effect in that it nixed future efforts as well- whether or not future efforts would have included things like a Flyable TBF or F8F, etc, is speculation I think

[Golf Pro]

I think the Pacific Air War is difficult for anyone to do well, because with the exception of a handful of frenzied battles, there wasn't much of a competition at all. Basically, after 1942 the theatre was dominated by the Allies (i.e. the USA) with Japanese opposition varying from ineptly weak to non-existant.

There were a couple of exceptions (Phillipines and Okinawa) but generally the pattern was for TF58 pull up next to an island, destroy all enemy air opposition in one or two days, then the marines land 6 months later with no fear of aerial opposition. Campaign-wise most of the maps in PF are good for about 3 days of air-to-air action. From then on most aerial activity was of the ground attack sort, which again can't be replicated because instead of attacking tanks, trains and road convoys, the F4U's and F6F's spent most of their time routinely bombing caves and anonymous bits of jungle on the remote chance that they might kill the occasional jap.

For all the glamour of the photographs, B-25 gunships, PBJ's, P-38's, Mustangs, F4U's, F6F's etc. spent most of the Pacific war travelling huge distances to do fairly mundane (though dangerous) work. A historically realistic Pacific simulator would probably be a very dull affair.

I sometimes think that all 1C should have done is create the Coral Sea map for the famous carrier battles (Midway, Marianas, Leyte Gulf) and one generic (but well done) island map and be done with it. It should have been biased to online and offline single missions. By trying to create scenarios for "campaigns" they fell between two stools - a true Pacific campaign needs lots of BIG maps with long distances so that players can replicate all the dull stuff that happened between the 48-hour Zero-massacres. They should just have just concentrated on the latter.

[Golf Pro]

Deleted double post!

[tater]

The SWPA and Burma (really CBI) are the best suited for il-2.

Papua/New Guinea was in play from early 1942 til the middle of 1944. Sure, there were some places that were total slaughters, but there WERE effective japanese units (even if on the defensive) well into 1943. PNG would take maybe 2-3 maps to do properly.

The Solomon Islands is another map. Guadalcanal to Bougainville will fit on one, and Bougainville to New Britain/New Ireland (both complete islands) will fit on another. That gives action from Spring 1942 til 44.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by Golf Pro

I think the Pacific Air War is difficult for anyone to do well, because with the exception of a handful of frenzied battles, there wasn't much of a competition at all. Basically, after 1942 the theatre was dominated by the Allies (i.e. the USA) with Japanese opposition varying from ineptly weak to non-existant.

There were a couple of exceptions (Phillipines and Okinawa) but generally the pattern was for TF58 pull up next to an island, destroy all enemy air opposition in one or two days, then the marines land 6 months later with no fear of aerial opposition. Campaign-wise most of the maps in PF are good for about 3 days of air-to-air action. From then on most aerial activity was of the ground attack sort, which again can't be replicated because instead of attacking tanks, trains and road convoys, the F4U's and F6F's spent most of their time routinely bombing caves and anonymous bits of jungle on the remote chance that they might kill the occasional jap.

For all the glamour of the photographs, B-25 gunships, PBJ's, P-38's, Mustangs, F4U's, F6F's etc. spent most of the Pacific war travelling huge distances to do fairly mundane (though dangerous) work. A historically realistic Pacific simulator would probably be a very dull affair.

I sometimes think that all 1C should have done is create the Coral Sea map for the famous carrier battles (Midway, Marianas, Leyte Gulf) and one generic (but well done) island map and be done with it. It should have been biased to online and offline single missions. By trying to create scenarios for "campaigns" they fell between two stools - a true Pacific campaign needs lots of BIG maps with long distances so that players can replicate all the dull stuff that happened between the 48-hour Zero-massacres. They should just have just concentrated on the latter.

I often equate the management of war with the management of business.

The constant referrals to acceptable losses and collateral damage make it all seem very non-personal.

Yet, as we play the game we are not aware of those two little management verbalizations. A 25% loss rate of aircraft was horrible in real war, and we experience much higher loss rates everytime we fly in this sim.

So, I say enjoy the sim, make what you like of it and great maps make it all more immersive fun. Large maps and long air flights would bore the pants off most of us, this is about enjoyment. Most of us have no desire to sit in front of the screen watching our 1s and zeros fly the plane for couple hours across the constant view of the Pacific. (binary code)

Funny thing is.. if you read some of the accounts of real pilots during the war many trimmed their aircraft carefully and took a nap on long flights. Pappy Boyingtion mentioned it in Baa Baa Black Sheep as I recall.

I love history and have a strong penchant for historical accuracy. I have a stack of WW2 books I've read. However, I realize historical accuracy is null and void with the IL2 series. We don't even have a decent Full Mission Builder to perk up our missions. We know exactly what is going to happen, because the mission builder tools are prs-set for the conflict engagement before we even live the hypthetical ground. LOL

So, don't even think to discourage mission builders or mod builders. These are the people that are keeping this sim alive. I look for new mods everyday, and I'm very anxious to acquire "The Slot" when it's released.

[Fltlt_HardBall]

An interesting and thought-provoking thread. I hope Oleg's team will take these ideas on board. The fact that this thread remains unlocked suggests to me that someone is watching and listening.

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Funny thing is.. if you read some of the accounts of real pilots during the war many trimmed their aircraft carefully and took a nap on long flights. Pappy Boyingtion mentioned it in Baa Baa Black Sheep as I recall.

Yes

He rigged the stick with rubber bands, as well. According to Boyington's ifirst hand account he did this often

[Golf Pro]

nearmiss - I wasn't making any reference to modders or mapmakers.

I suppose I was thinking about the original PF as a commercial product. IL2 was kind of configured around Eastern Front/European air wars, where generally well-matched opponents used tactical air power to influence the outcome of battles and the positions of the front line. Battles like Stalingrad and Kursk went on for months, or in the case of Leningrad, years.

There are maybe 3 or 4 scenarios in the Pacific where this kind of air war prevailed (sort of): New Guinea & The Solomons (as mentioned by Tater), The Philippines and the early CBI, and even these became walkovers by 1944. Okinawa is an interesting sustained air battle, but of little tactical consequence to what happened on the ground.

So you could replicate these with the right maps, but they are self-contained actions with hardly any crossover i.e. Whereas a Russian pilot could go from Lvov to Smolensk to Moscow to Kursk to Kiev etc., an American pilot in New Guinea generally stayed there.

Also, when most people think of the Pacific war, they think of the classic carrier actions and Cats Vs. Zero's. I think that's what would have attracted most people to PF, but most of the great Pacific air battles lasted 2-3 days max. You could do an F6F campaign with all the major air actions in about 10 missions. If you wanted a sustained F6F campaign you'd need a map for pretty much every atoll in the pacific, each of which would be good for 1 or 2 missions. And even then, you'd just be peppering runways and destroying sheds and outhouses.

I dunno, I can see 1C's problem with PF - the main attraction (carrier ops with classic dogfighters) doesn't suit IL2's basic configuration, whereas the sustained land battles that do suit it (SWPA, CBI etc.) are more obscure, less glamorous and less likely to pull in large numbers of punters.