TBF Avenger and other planes

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

Of these two, I would definitely opt for the Med. After 1943, Japanese carriers didn’t play any meaningful role

That's where the tension of IL2 as a "sandbox sim" - useable in many different ways - begins to show.

Some people want non-historical missions where the Axis and the Allies are evenly matched until 1945 and beyond, complete with "what if" designs which never made it beyond the prototype stage.

Some people want historical missions where after 1943 it becomes a curb-stomp for the Allies.

Both groups are correct, but who are you going to develop content for?

Originally Posted by Furio

I don’t think any player would opt for a torpedo or bomber JNAF career ending with a suicide attack.

There are a few campaigns that end that way. And, if you don't like that outcome you just take off, fly around a bit, land again and say that you've completed the mission to finish the campaign. (Realistically, that could happen - sometimes kamikazes couldn't find their targets and had to return to base.)

Originally Posted by Furio

Expanding Mediterranean theatre could result in interesting scenarios and career. An Italian pilot will start on the blue side, and could switch to red after September 8th 1943. Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force flew mainly Spitfire V, P39Q and Martin Baltimore… And just the latter would be needed.

The problem here is that IL2 doesn't allow you to switch sides in the middle of a campaign. You'd need two different campaigns.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

That's where the tension of IL2 as a "sandbox sim" - useable in many different ways - begins to show.

Some people want non-historical missions where the Axis and the Allies are evenly matched until 1945 and beyond, complete with "what if" designs which never made it beyond the prototype stage.

Some people want historical missions where after 1943 it becomes a curb-stomp for the Allies.

Both groups are correct, but who are you going to develop content for?

The problem of balancing – or unbalancing – is around from day one, I believe, and is hard to control. A couple of examples: in the early days of Barbarossa, VVS suffered enormous losses, being numerically superior and inferior in quality of planes. Main factors were bad organization, wrong decisions by leaders, and inexperience of pilots and unit commanders. It’s not easy – to understate it – to recreate this situation with simple mission building tools and AI planes.
In the last days of war, Luftwaffe suffered from lack of experienced pilots and fuel. Again: how can you recreate this situation with simple mission building tools and AI planes? You should include missions with player’s plane sitting on the ground with empty tanks…
As I see it, at the moment the most efficient solution is to concentrate on theatres and scenarios historically balanced: North Africa 1942, Pacific 1942-43, Russia 1943, etc. My opinion, of course.
What-ifs are a viable and attractive way out, with many enjoyable possibilities. It’s a matter of measure, I think. Fantasy planes, many of which populate 1946, should be avoided, I believe.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

There are a few campaigns that end that way. And, if you don't like that outcome you just take off, fly around a bit, land again and say that you've completed the mission to finish the campaign. (Realistically, that could happen - sometimes kamikazes couldn't find their targets and had to return to base.)

So, I stand corrected: there are actually players ready for a special attack, or to cheat the Emperor.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

The problem here is that IL2 doesn't allow you to switch sides in the middle of a campaign. You'd need two different campaigns.

That’s a limitation deserving a solution, I think. The same side switching happened in Finland, France (twice, in theory), Romania and other places (such as Slovak insurgency) and countries (such as Croatia). And I didn’t mention what if side switching, such as an anti-Soviet alliance, actually considered by Winston Churchill…

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Furio

That’s a limitation deserving a solution, I think. The same side switching happened in Finland, France (twice, in theory), Romania and other places (such as Slovak insurgency) and countries (such as Croatia). And I didn’t mention what if side switching, such as an anti-Soviet alliance, actually considered by Winston Churchill…

I agree, but there are two independent problems here.

One is the problem of missing factions like Vichy France or Allied Romania. This is relatively easy to fix, and has been already done so in the Forgotten Countries mod years ago. It's simply a matter of decision on TD's side to add 'new' nations, each with a side flag and the appropriate squads.

Another, and more complicated, problem is how a nation (or a squad) could switch side mid-campaign. It would require a special code turning e.g. some select Italian squads from blue to red on a given date (with corresponding markings, ranks, etc.) E.g. on the day when France surrenders, some squads should remain red as FAFL, while others turn to blue as Vichy. Still, such 'hard dates' for side switches would make hypothetical scenarios much more difficult.

Another, not unproblematic, solution would be enabling squad changes (transfers) in mid-campaign, at least between battles/scanarios. E.g. when there are both blue and red Italian/French/Romanian squads, you could simply transfer from one to another. If such a transfer could be initiated via the mission script, then the rest of the problems could be sorted out on a campaign design level. The only problem is that campaign files reside in nation-specific folders, which are likely to be messed up when you switch from Italy Blue to Italy Red.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

The problem of balancing – or unbalancing – is around from day one, I believe, and is hard to control. A couple of examples: in the early days of Barbarossa, VVS suffered enormous losses, being numerically superior and inferior in quality of planes. Main factors were bad organization, wrong decisions by leaders, and inexperience of pilots and unit commanders. It’s not easy – to understate it – to recreate this situation with simple mission building tools and AI planes.
In the last days of war, Luftwaffe suffered from lack of experienced pilots and fuel. Again: how can you recreate this situation with simple mission building tools and AI planes? You should include missions with player’s plane sitting on the ground with empty tanks…

Make the AI on the German side good. Feed them Russian squads piecemeal.
For player sitting around with no fuel, just space missions apart a few days or more, and comment on it. Best campagins offline are those that have a good written narrative, and to name one that IMHO stood out: Castaways/Bushpigs.

Originally Posted by Furio

As I see it, at the moment the most efficient solution is to concentrate on theatres and scenarios historically balanced: North Africa 1942, Pacific 1942-43, Russia 1943, etc. My opinion, of course.
What-ifs are a viable and attractive way out, with many enjoyable possibilities. It’s a matter of measure, I think. Fantasy planes, many of which populate 1946, should be avoided, I believe.

Right. And make that North Africa//Mediteranean, planeset there is IMHO balanced till the end. Numbers will not help the axis side later on...

Originally Posted by Furio

And I didn’t mention what if side switching, such as an anti-Soviet alliance, actually considered by Winston Churchill…

I think this would be enormous fun. Never understood why 1946 didn't pick that theme up. German Co-Belligerent Airforce. And think about the near endless ordnance options, unguided rockets for the Germans, guided bombs and rockets for allied bombers. Or even better, German Airforce splits in two, and German planes/armament is available on both sides.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I think this would be enormous fun. Never understood why 1946 didn't pick that theme up. German Co-Belligerent Air Force. And think about the near endless ordnance options, unguided rockets for the Germans, guided bombs and rockets for allied bombers. Or even better, German Airforce splits in two, and German planes/armament is available on both sides.

I wondered about that as well. Possibly lack of development time. Possibly lack of understanding by a Russian development team about the political tensions underlying the Western Allies-Soviet alliance. Possibly a residual horror at the thought of such a bloody and prolonged conflict.

Also, not to get political, but a Western Allies-German military alliance vs. the USSR was probably a non-starter once there was undeniable evidence of The Holocaust. (But, then again, if IL2:1946 could include the Lerche, they could just as easily imagine a scenario where everyone agreed to forget the death camps, or where the Shoah never existed.)

As alternate history, a Western Allies-German alliance might have worked if the USSR had attacked Poland in 1939 (and that was a potential conflict Churchill imagined). The UK and France might have held their noses and allied with Germany in a grand Western European crusade against Bolshevism. But, that alternate history would require all sorts of early war planes we don't have.

A more easily created alternate history campaign could occur if the Nazis had been deposed in 1942 to 1944, resulting in a German Civil War. The USSR invades Eastern Germany to "keep order," with some German military units fighting alongside them. The US and UK then occupy Western Germany with other German military units fighting alongside them, and war breaks out in Central Germany roughly along the line of the Cold War "Iron Curtain."

Great gaming opportunities, but horrifying to contemplate as real life scenarios.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I wondered about that as well. Possibly lack of development time. Possibly lack of understanding by a Russian development team about the political tensions underlying the Western Allies-Soviet alliance. Possibly a residual horror at the thought of such a bloody and prolonged conflict.

Also, not to get political, but a Western Allies-German military alliance vs. the USSR was probably a non-starter once there was undeniable evidence of The Holocaust. (But, then again, if IL2:1946 could include the Lerche, they could just as easily imagine a scenario where everyone agreed to forget the death camps, or where the Shoah never existed.)

As alternate history, a Western Allies-German alliance might have worked if the USSR had attacked Poland in 1939 (and that was a potential conflict Churchill imagined). The UK and France might have held their noses and allied with Germany in a grand Western European crusade against Bolshevism. But, that alternate history would require all sorts of early war planes we don't have.

A more easily created alternate history campaign could occur if the Nazis had been deposed in 1942 to 1944, resulting in a German Civil War. The USSR invades Eastern Germany to "keep order," with some German military units fighting alongside them. The US and UK then occupy Western Germany with other German military units fighting alongside them, and war breaks out in Central Germany roughly along the line of the Cold War "Iron Curtain."

Great gaming opportunities, but horrifying to contemplate as real life scenarios.

Looks like my previous post killed the debate! Perhaps I used too many numbers, perhaps the general tone sounds too pedantic (remember: this is not my language, and my control of subtleties like humour is relative), fact remains that I was left alone…
It’s a pity, because the thread was interesting, so I’m here trying a new approach. No more ponderous analysis about historical facts and technical detail. No more serious and boring references to reality, but just some dreaming thoughts about… A perfect sandbox Il2! My idea is simple, and almost certainly unfeasible: to create a generator of dynamic campaign generators.
Imagine a series of menus in which you choose:
Red, Blue (and Green, according to Pursuivant).
Alliances for Red and Blue (and Green).
Player nation.
Map, or maps, in order of appearance.
Year of start, year of end.
Planeset for each nation, and for each year.
Defined or undefined outcome (who will win the war).
Pilot career for each year, in such a way that player can start as fighter pilot and then switch to bomber, or vice-versa.
Difficulty level.
Experience of AI pilots (% of rookies, veterans, aces) for each nation and year.
Then, save your dynamic campaign.
Hit the fly button.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Furio

Looks like my previous post killed the debate!

Not quite, I did follow the discussion, but I had the impression that we were talking without an end and sometimes without proper responses, therefore I didn't respond either...

It's a game. It has to be playable to be called a game properly. If you recreate historical circumstances, sometimes it will be playable easily (white), sometimes hardly (grey), and sometimes not at all (black). Black does not make sense, like a late-war Japanese torpedo bomber campaign according to history. You either avoid it at all or brutally cheat history in order to make it playable. So simple.

As to grey, here come the many shades. Even with good survival chances, you'll have to hit the 'refly' button from time to time. How frequently, depends on your skills and on scenario design. There are many ways to improve your chances and your playing experience, even if you stick to history. This is what we call 'balancing': it's cheating in a historically legitimate way. On the tactical level, you only enter combat when you have the advantage, right? Now you can do the same on the strategic level too: even outnumbered forces can achieve local superiority, and you are at liberties at recreating those situations with preference.

Or think of the G.50. It has such a low speed that it is theroretically unable to intercept most contemporary allied planes, including the Blenheim -- unless it dives on it from a higher altitude. So assign the Fiats a higher patrolling altitude in your campaign, and you're basically done.

And this is exacly what makes your (our) dream of a supreme generator of campaigns impossible to be realized (apart from the technical hindrances): only human discretion can make history 'playable'.

[RPS69]

Put your efforts on doing a better interface to the SEOW engine, and play to games in one.
It is mainly intended to play online, but if you combine it with the DCG for a single player, it will be a child's dream.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

Imagine a series of menus in which you choose:
Red, Blue (and Green, according to Pursuivant).

This option already exists for multiplayer, where you can have any number of teams. All that is needed is to transfer the code over to the QMB, FMB and campaign engines.

Note that I chose "green" as the third option because it corresponds to the color used for a third force on US military maps. (The US is blue, opposing forces are red.) Other countries do things differently.

Furio's idea is a good one, but to make IL2 "cross cultural" and truly a "sandbox sim" a better way for the menus to work might be:

1) Choose the number of forces
2) Choose the color of each force
3) Choose the nationality for each force - different forces can have the same nationality to simulate civil war scenarios. Alternate national insignia would be needed. You should also have the option of adding nations rather than choosing from the standard list.
4) Choose whether a particular force is allied, hostile or neutral with respect to every other force present.

Neutral = Will turn into an enemy if attacked, but won't attack otherwise.

For example,

1933 - Chinese Nationalists vs. Chinese Communists vs. Beiyang Army (a warlord's private army) vs. Japanese Army Air Force. 4 sides. All are hostile to each other. Colors chosen for each side are arbitrary.

1945 - US vs. Soviet vs. Luftwaffe - US = Blue, Soviet = Red, Luftwaffe = Black. US & Soviet are hostile to Luftwaffe and vice-versa. US and Soviet are Neutral.

Alternate 1946 - German Civil War. US + UK + France + Co-Belligerent Luftwaffe vs. Soviets + Polish People's Liberation Air Force + German People's Liberation Air Force with Hungarians and Romanians being neutral with respect to everyone else and to each other. So, 4 "sides" and 9 colors.

Obviously, for most scenarios it's still going to be "red vs. blue"

Originally Posted by Furio

Map, or maps, in order of appearance.
Year of start, year of end.
Planeset for each nation, and for each year.
Defined or undefined outcome (who will win the war).
Pilot career for each year, in such a way that player can start as fighter pilot and then switch to bomber, or vice-versa.
Difficulty level.
Experience of AI pilots (% of rookies, veterans, aces) for each nation and year.
Then, save your dynamic campaign.
Hit the fly button.

This part looks really good.

I'm wondering if it might work well as a stand alone project, similar to what Lowengrin did with his Dynamic Campaign Generator.

People could define campaign parameters - nationalities involved, maps, planesets, etc. and share them.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I'm wondering if it might work well as a stand alone project, similar to what Lowengrin did with his Dynamic Campaign Generator.

Sure it could work, the only question is who is able and willing to do it. Both DCG and DGEN-mod, as we have them now, are the result of many years of work.