Originally Posted by Shadowcorp (Post 241285)

perhaps my initial post came off a little harshly for this you all have my apologies.
But please il2 birds of prey was a great game with few a flaws; but missing a pacific campaign was not one of the flaws in my opinion.
In my professional opinion flaws were: Not including iconic aircraft such as the lancaster and mosquito, a poor representation of French, Italian and American aircraft, unkillable gun positions on all rear gunner and bomber aircraft, lack of clear definition in setting up game lobbies e.g. allies verses axis, single seat fighters only etc was a flaw. random deployment in team battles (makes absolutely no sense), no wave re-spawn in strike CTA and team battle.
These are the critical issues i would like to see fixed before adding a pacific campaign or preferably a north African campaign
I do know a lot of American and Japanese players would really like a pacific campaign. I would hope they focus on fixing flaws within the multiplayer modes, rather than simply adding a or devoting the game pacific campaign and marketing it as a new game. You can finish the single player within two days, it's the multi-player that keeps interest in the game.

Originally Posted by guiltyspark (Post 244016)

I dont see where the pacific hate is coming from , the pacific campaign was a far more interesting air conflict.

You had alot more going on in the pacific then you did anywhere else in the war. First you had the life and death struggle of the carrier fleets , the sub hunters , the island based defence forces , the long range bombing missions on cities , and the epic island invasions with tons of air support (iwo jima for example).

North africa would be easily the most boring campaign i can think of , BOB was already done to death in the first game and done rather well.

The only thing really missing was D-day missions of a massive scale and missions during kursk.

Originally Posted by guiltyspark (Post 244016)

I dont see where the pacific hate is coming from , the pacific campaign was a far more interesting air conflict.

You had alot more going on in the pacific then you did anywhere else in the war. First you had the life and death struggle of the carrier fleets , the sub hunters , the island based defence forces , the long range bombing missions on cities , and the epic island invasions with tons of air support (iwo jima for example).

North africa would be easily the most boring campaign i can think of , BOB was already done to death in the first game and done rather well.

The only thing really missing was D-day missions of a massive scale and missions during kursk.

Originally Posted by Gilly (Post 246342)

Agree with the other guys here. There's no hate for it just people pointing out that there are other areas of the game that could do with working on rather than dedicating it all to a pacific campaign.
As for your 'a lot more going on' comment. The war was already 2 years old when Pearl Harbour occured. There were already sub hunters out in the north Atlantic trying to prevent wolf packs from destroying britains supply lines. And as for saying North Africa would be boring I think is just ignorance. I'm sorry but to also say that 'the only things missing are d-day and kursk' again shows the same. There were many long range bomber attacks in Europe on a larger if not more 'exciting' than the ones in the pacific.
I'm all for a sequel which I think is the most important fact in all of this and truth be known we won't know what theatre it's likely to be until its actually announced. Anton only alluded to it including the pacific as well as the sequel itself so all of this is just speculative anyway.