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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

I would be happy with just the periscope depth submarine, the other thing goes unto the dream wardrobe, but well, who knows!

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!


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.

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.

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.