Storm of War Teamspeak

BoX Update 7/28/2017

For the discussion of 1C's Battle of Stalingrad, Moscow, Kuban and Bodenplatte etc.

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby Hiromachi » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:06 am

The thing is that you either pick solid ground with long and immersive campaign or a catchy name. I've spent a long time considering this and even if New Guinea is so unheard of (which is not true, to be fair when I've asked among virtual pilots it was relatively known topic, though not nearly as much as Midway), it has advantage of planeset that is catchy on its own - P-38, Ki-43, P-47, Ki-61, B-25 ... and Boomerang (my secret love).
Planeset is the most balanced you can get with selection I've presented, while remaining realistic and consistent with battle reports throughout 1943. P-38 and P-47 would be faster, but primarily above 23,000 ft. Below that Ki-61s offer a fair fight. Ki-43 is much slower but it had advantages elsewhere. P-47 D-2 had no water injection and was limited to lower boost, P-38 F had no features that made later (J or L models) so agile at high speeds ...
Also, I'd not be concerned about the armament. While inferior in ballistics to M2 Brownings, Ho-103 offered a satisfactory firepower with explosive and incendiary ammunition. Ki-61 with four of those should really not be in a bad spot. I have a bunch of combat reports and actual tests carried by Allied Technical and Intelligence Service finding that damage caused by explosive round was comparable to weaker 20 mm rounds. Plus a modification for it should be possible, replacing two Ho-103s in wings with MG 151/20s. And Ki-43 as well as Ki-61 were well protected unlike Zero.

Okinawa is a madness since anyone really understanding campaign would know that its impossible to make for the same reason as Guadalcanal. Once island was cut off there were no serviceable airfields on island itself left - you would have to fly either from Kyushu or Formosa (Taiwan today), possibly with refuel option at Amami Oshima. It's hundreds of miles either way. And all the mission variety for the Japanese is limited to damn kamikaze. Planeset itself might be appealing but you can get same one on much superior campaign (I'd not count on Ki-84b though, exact number of manufactured and participation in combat is unknown) - 1944 Philippines, including Leyte, Cebu, Negros and few other islands in central Philippines. Campaign lasting at least four months with ground, air and naval movements from both sides and actual air power on the Japanese side. I've spent few months working my own suggestion but it didnt get published for reasons I won't disclose. If anyone is interested I can show it on PM.

Pearl Harbor or Iwo Jima are again catchy names but present no campaign opportunity. It's really too small piece to make anything out of it.
User avatar
Hiromachi
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:46 am

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby EAF79_OD_ » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:39 am

Pearl Harbour was a one day battle and the planeset very heavily sways in favour of the Japanese Fleet. I'd agree with Hiromachi.

The main thing I want to see is Carrier Ops. I almost wouldn't mind if the map was just sea - no land. With fleets of ships to attack, so long as we have torpedo bombers this time, and not just the SBD-3/5 or the D3A. For me it is always more about campaigns than dogfight servers - but I appreciate that at the moment the two are closely aligned.
Image
User avatar
EAF79_OD_
SoW Supporter
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:12 pm
Location: Leeds, UK

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby StG77_CountZero » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:04 am

Pearl Harbor was joke recomendation, but if there was just few more USA airplanes in air in that battle they would go for it for sure, just because everybody knows it and it can be marketed easy :)

I plyed in 46 DF servers on maps with that planset you think would be balanced for NG, and they would get empty realy fast (same type ofplayers you have on BoX or cloD most popular servers now), as you have 47 and 38 models that cant turn and should only be used to BnZ, while on other side you have slower airplanes that are underarmed. PTO maps were always hard to make for servers to keep players interested as if they are to demanding for one side players just dont stay. Midways planset is mutch balanced, and its best option to start they PTO adventure.
Airsim loving PTO guys maybe heard about NG but they need to atract general flyers and WT bunch, and names like Midway and Okinawa are well known, and WT guys care the most about airplan types.
One of popular early maps was Singapour, because it had balanced planset, but no one knew history of battle or care about it, they just like it because of airplanes give them fair chance on both sides, so servers had players. That would be bad choice for 777 to make as also no one knows about it, or care for it. games need cathcy names, they started with Battle of Stalingrad, not with operation Barbarossa, as general public dont know what the heck is that, but everybody knows about Stalingrad from movies atleast if not from anything els.
Like i posted before i know how fantasy Okinawa would be but they clearly decided that they will still have big benefit from it even if it will be fantasy, they need name recegnision of it and to get best airplnes that would atract general flyers and WT guys, turn and boom type of players that like big sexy guns that give you instant kill and great turning airplanes so you dont have to work hard for kills. This is in the end air game and if they make bad choice of airplanes they are screwed. Campaigns they can always make fantasy online, like you have now online with all historical maps and airplanes of BoS, BoM and sone BoK, and for SP they can use airstarts as it doesent mather mutch, or even pretend that airplanes take of from Okinawa. Just look at DCS all airplanes have to be top realistic, bt who cares if they fly over Normandy ugenst airplanes that were never there or should never be there to have any DFs in big numbers, and people dont care about that they just care about sexy airplanes.

In the end they cant make a game for few hundred or tousen hard core gamers, they will fail then and thouse hard core gamers will be only one playing for long time same game and wonder why no more expantions
StG77_CountZero
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:08 pm

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby Hiromachi » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:12 am

I'd not consider Il-2 46 a good experience to refer to. In most cases Japanese aircraft were on the shorter end of the stick in terms of performance, when I've compared data from the gamefiles to what original manuals indicate, Ki-61 for instance was from 15 km/h up to 60 km/h slower depending on the altitude. Japanese armament was also piss poor, since those 12.7 mms were using the same ammunition as Italian Breda-Safat. Oleg really did a poor job at replicating Japanese aircraft.
On the other side you had often the best possible aircraft models for Allies. And they were not lacking in performance.

I know that most of the time Luftwaffe pilots chose American side and aircraft like P-47 or P-38 since they claimed it suits their style of flying.

You also underestimate WT players. I came back to flying due to WT and was there a moderator for quite some time. Plenty of guys I've met know about New Guinea, Malta, Philippines, Burma or other theaters of war and battles. But anyway, I just think there are much better choices for late war scenario then Okinawa. Leyte with Yamato and Musashi sound to me more appealing then weaves of kamikaze.
User avatar
Hiromachi
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:46 am

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby 19RAF MJDixon » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:52 am

I never got in to multiplayer back in the IL2 Pacific Fighters days, so missed out on any sort of carrier war stuff, but I like the idea of Carrier vs Carrier, or Fleet vs Fleet multiplayer, as it seems like it would easily lend itself to the MP format and give roles for fighters, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, recon, search and rescue (if Dietrich gets his Catalina) and even team command deciding where to move their carriers, etc - with pretty clear victory conditions, all the while remaining grounded* in a realistic scenario.

*Just hopefully not the Carriers.
Image
User avatar
19RAF MJDixon
 
Posts: 1407
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:08 am
Location: Dispersal Hut, Fowlmere Aerodrome

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby 56RAF_Roblex » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:58 pm

StG77_CountZero wrote:But almost nobady heard about New Guinea, and that planset would be hard for japan side, they would never catch 38s and 47s. 61 has good engine but pis por guns 2x7.7 2x12.7, would not make scrach on 47s even if they catch them, same on 43 2x12.7.


You misunderstood. It was Warhawks & Aerocobras, not Lightnings and Thunderbolts :-) The Japs were using A5ms which had 2 x 7.7 & 2 x 20mm
Last edited by 56RAF_Roblex on Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
56sqn US@R
Diary of a hopeless Pilot Officer http://roblex56raf.livejournal.com
Image
User avatar
56RAF_Roblex
SoW Supporter
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: West Cornwall

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby Hiromachi » Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:15 am

Since discussion about zero came up yesterday I thought some might actually like what I've written few years ago:
https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/27 ... -zero-sen/
User avatar
Hiromachi
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:46 am

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby StG77_CountZero » Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:00 am

56RAF_Roblex wrote:
StG77_CountZero wrote:But almost nobady heard about New Guinea, and that planset would be hard for japan side, they would never catch 38s and 47s. 61 has good engine but pis por guns 2x7.7 2x12.7, would not make scrach on 47s even if they catch them, same on 43 2x12.7.


You misunderstood. It was Warhawks & Aerocobras, not Lightnings and Thunderbolts :-) The Japs were using A5ms which had 2 x 7.7 & 2 x 20mm


You misunderstood :)
If you read topic cearfuly you will see that im talking about what Hiromachi posted on BoS forum in link he posted here about New Guinea and planset he says it would be for it, they cant just make all planes that fight there they have to select 4-5 for both side they dont do it like CloD, and that planset he posted there would be bad as its one sided and would not work in online focused game.

From my expiriance il-46 was good enought for its time, mutch better then WT is now for sure, and i dont underestimete WT players as majority of them are just arcade players, in any game youll fined few people who are in wrong game as they know mutch more and they usealy didnt stay in WT long as they see how shalow it is and they switch to better air sims :)

Also what i see reading PTO talks on BoS forum is always same small number of few players talking about it, if im 777 i would be concerned about it, maybe rest of players wait to join descusions after BoK is out, but i expected bigger interest.
StG77_CountZero
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:08 pm

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby StG77_CountZero » Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:14 am

If im starting with airplane games now or even few years ago, instead 15 years ago, i would be playing WT like others newcomers, i would not know about 46 , i would not care about clod as if i would even bather to check what that is i would only here it was failed game, and after few years playing WT i would maybe switch to DCS, as its most realistic flying game when talk is only about airplanes so why bathere with games inbetwen, and maybe try BoX after that when they get PTO, as my interest in ETO is low. :D
StG77_CountZero
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:08 pm

Re: BoX Update 7/28/2017

Postby Hiromachi » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:20 pm

We may argue over the planeset, but its historical and closest to the balanced you could possibly get. I can even get into actual technical and performance aspects if need be :D
But the point is that you put too much emphasies on experiences from the old Il-2.

You wont get more people discussing PTO until its officially announced, for now most await P-39 and A-20. And 109 G-6 :twisted:
User avatar
Hiromachi
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:46 am

PreviousNext

Return to IL2 Battle of "X" series

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest