PDA

View Full Version : Is it true there will be no flyable torpedo planes?



Oilburner_TAW
09-27-2004, 08:20 AM
I just read the WIP list and all of the Avengers show to be AI. This is a mistake right? The only carrier born non-fighter for the allies I see is the Dauntless.

Oilburner_TAW
09-27-2004, 08:20 AM
I just read the WIP list and all of the Avengers show to be AI. This is a mistake right? The only carrier born non-fighter for the allies I see is the Dauntless.

Jason Bourne
09-27-2004, 08:22 AM
I have heard that untill the first patch, only the devastator will be Flyable Torpedo plane. Though there are rumors that the first patch will include the avenger as a flyable plane.

IV_JG51_Razor
09-27-2004, 08:45 AM
That's funny. I had heard that the Devestator would never be flyable due to lack of data on cockpits. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

SaQSoN
09-27-2004, 08:54 AM
No one, repeat, no one, including Oleg, Ubi or Luthier doesn't know exhactly what will be in a patch. They don't even know, if the patch will be at all.
You, guys, are funny.
Get the release first. It would keep you busy for some time, I hope. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-27-2004, 09:20 AM
than call it "adon" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

from oleg himself (propably http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

"Yes in the first add-on will be several flyables and AI that wasn't going in release. Mianly becasue of CD space. Cokpits of some bombers take the space equal to many fighter planes. But we need to go fo compromisses and remove/add such thing that to get the free CD space, that some time may looks starange, but when you will get the add-on you will understand easy why ther is some AI (low space) presnt that didn't flew on the maps that are present in release.

So not only planes, but at least one-two new maps will be in free add-on."

falco_cz
09-28-2004, 05:04 AM
Torpedo bombers not included in sim featuring PTO? Err..and what about exactly this sim will be?

Owl_NZ
09-28-2004, 05:52 AM
Of course there are flyable torpedo bombers in PF. Aren't you looking forward to flying Il-2T's, G4M's and He-111H-6's? LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Gotta be fun trying to land one of those on a carrier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Seriously though, SaQSoN is right - no one knows. It's all hands to the pumps ATM for them. I dare say the TBF will turn up as a flyable sooner or later anyway, as the US is the sole focus of PF as far as UBI is concerned and you are right in that having no torpedo bomber is rather daft for a PTO sim.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

faclo_cz asks : "Err..and what about exactly this sim will be?"

The answer is elementary my dear falco. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif - the US. No-one else matters to UBI. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

gombal40
09-28-2004, 06:22 AM
im not an american had big time fun with fb wich is placed in europe but looking forward to pf.
So the line is Ost front--->>pacific--->back to BOB.

I like what is being made by Maddox&UBi wouldnt you agree?

RocketRobin__
09-28-2004, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by falco_cz:
Torpedo bombers not included in sim featuring PTO? Err..and what about exactly this sim will be? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems ironic that while the war was begun with torpedo bombers, the game has none flyable in it.
My guess is that 1C Maddox is banking on the American crowd to go for an MMP "Marianas Turkey Shoot" server, 24/7. With superior planes and pilots (there are few Japanese squads), sales should be brisk for the Xmas season.

Note: I wouldn't expect any flyable torpedo bombers until many weeks after Dec. 7. If Fox News got ahold of a Pearl Harbor MMP game running on that day, it could give Bush an excuse to declare martial law and attack the Russian Virtual Terrorists, using real nuclear weapons.

"People of America, my intelligence sources have confirmed that Russia has no WMDs and it will be quite profitable to Haliburton if we lanch an immediate nukular strike on these virtual terrorists."

Then no one would play IL-2 online, for millions of years. However, LAN parties in Antarctica could prove to be quite popular.

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2004, 07:37 PM
They know what they are doing.

The Dev team knows that Nobody would fly the torpedo bombers they would all pick the dive bombers. They would test fly the torpedo bombers once or twice on the servers, just "for fun," but then all would go for the dive bombers.

Nimits
09-28-2004, 07:38 PM
I am wondering if part of this decision stems from the fact that 1C is Russian, and thus don't have a real grasp of what is expected/needed in a Pacific War sim. I mean, as an American, prior to the release of the original Il-2, I would probably have not batted an eye at an Eastern Front sim that lacked an Il-2, LaGG-3, or Yak-3. I knew what those planes were and the general history of the Russo-German war, but my knowledge was not at the time extensive enough to tell me whether I was missing something if key planes such as those were omitted (obviously I know differently now). Perhaps the same thing is happening in reverse with PF?

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2004, 07:46 PM
Flyable Pe~2 and Flyable Bf~110 were missing from original IL~2. This has been "fixed" now, because of...More Planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif (-- *oops*, Pe~2 being modded now as we post)

Don't know if Flyable Stuka was in original IL~2.

Nimitz:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...1C is Russian, and thus don't have a real grasp of what is expected/needed in a Pacific War sim. I mean, as an American,... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Russians have a better grasp of Pacific than our own USA flight sim makers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Snootles
09-28-2004, 08:27 PM
One of the earlier Il-2 patches gave us the Ju-87B-2. I remember how AWESOME it was when I first fired up the Stuka and tried to divebomb with the aid of the floor window. And those crazy sirens...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Dev team knows that Nobody would fly the torpedo bombers they would all pick the dive bombers. They would test fly the torpedo bombers once or twice on the servers, just "for fun," but then all would go for the dive bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me? I would definitely fly a lot of torpedo bombing missions. Hell, I'd fly a whole TB campaign!

Nimits
09-28-2004, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
They know what they are doing.

The Dev team knows that Nobody would fly the torpedo bombers they would all pick the dive bombers. They would test fly the torpedo bombers once or twice on the servers, just "for fun," but then all would go for the dive bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, wrong there. Guess what were the only two careers I played in PAW 1942? That's right, the IJN and USN torpedo bomber careers. Guess what type of career I flew most in AotP? If you said the US torpedo bomber career (mostly, by choice, in the TBD), you are right again. Guess what type of bomber/mission I fly most in every Il-2FB/AEP, CFS2, CFS3, and Aces High? If you said torpedo anti-ship, you got 3 out of 3.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Flyable Pe~2 and Flyable Bf~110 were missing from original IL~2. This has been "fixed" now, because of...More Planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif (-- *oops*, Pe~2 being modded now as we post)

Don't know if Flyable Stuka was in original IL~2.

Nimitz:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...1C is Russian, and thus don't have a real grasp of what is expected/needed in a Pacific War sim. I mean, as an American,... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Russians have a better grasp of Pacific than our own USA flight sim makers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they just have a better grasp of it than Microsoft's flight sim studio. But then, my 13 year little sister has a better grasp of the Pacific Air War (or any other air war for that matter) than Microsoft's flight sim studio . . .

Maddox is a great programmer and engineer, but he needs to get some serious (western) historians on their team to keep things balanced.

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2004, 09:10 PM
Nimitz:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No, they just have a better grasp of it than Microsoft's flight sim studio. But then, my 13 year little sister has a better grasp of the Pacific Air War (or any other air war for that matter) than Microsoft's flight sim studio . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
13 year old girls have better grasp of Pacific Air War than all our USA flight sim makers put together.

aminx
09-28-2004, 10:06 PM
they dont give two hoots about what anyone thinks or says.
aminx

Owl_NZ
09-28-2004, 10:09 PM
Nimits,

1C is very clued up actually. They've got enough human resources only an email away that can answer any question they have. Remember this is Luthier's baby - he wanted this. From what I've seen about PF the last people that could possible complain are the US fans, because the focus is on the US. If THEY aren't satisfied simply because the Avenger/B-17/B-29 isn't flyable then they'll never be satisfied unless UBI has every other side deleted from the program (which I'd imagine UBI would do if it got them more market share in the US).... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

As for the Torpedo Bombers, the biggest problems are:

References - not a problem for US a/c or Kates in this case
Modellers - 1C want to get on and actually make BoB, not extend the life of a four-year-old+ program by sacrificing BoB. So if they don't get it made by third party quickly (and to high-enough standard), you won't see it. If UBI made them, then you might be alright. Otherwise chances are slim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
Time - 1C are up against it. AFAI can tell it looks like UBI set them a date to release it and they are having to compromise on a lot of things just to meet that deadline. Once PF is out, then you might find stuff like Torpedo Bombers etc get attention for a limited time, but for the time being it's all focus on fighters and carriers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I'd say Avengers must make it in (as flyables) - there are just too many sources of info for them not to be. Kates are probably in the same boat. Jills, Graces, doubtful. Devastator - why? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif but like the Avenger I'd imagine there are enough sources for it. Any others? Only really the British as other main users of torpedo bombers (carrier-based I'm on about here) that I can think of and I doubt there'll be any torpedo bombers for them, certainly PF-wise as the RN/FAA was almost entirely using Avengers and Barracudas in 1945, and I'm fairly sure I saw somewhere (maybe the forums?) that Barracudas aren't being made, so you'll probably find the RN/FAA stuck flying only US planes in PF (aside from the Seafire). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

One statement I saw a while ago - "this is a fighter game. Go fly something else if you want ground-attack". LOL Funny given it's all based on Il-2 eh.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif It's funny how this game has been hijacked and the loudest whiners got their way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif I hope they keep BoB as BoB, not let it degenerate into ANOTHER "US 8th AF wins war in Europe/USN/USMC/USAAF wins war in Pacific" game. Unfortunately, UBI is the publisher, so it will.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif I actually hope that in future two versions are made for things like this - a US version, and a "rest of the world version". That way the US gets it's "US wins war single-handed" version which UBI and many US fans want (and will sell wildly well in the US), while the rest of us get something that isn't so badly one-sided in favour of one group.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Nimits
09-29-2004, 12:59 AM
Owl_NZ, I wasn't complaining about a lack of US planes in particular, but about a lack of torpedo bombers in general, as well as an inablity to put together a decent plane set for any side. I speak more to the US since that is my area of expertise; I have little interest in the Japanese military other than as it relates to the US in the Pacific war, and I don't often fly Axis or Soviets in computer games because of the political ideologies they represented. Still, I would gladly drop the Havoc or B-25 if it would get me a TBD or Kate.

However, I really don't see where you get "the focus is on the US" bit. Both sides are missing some important plane types as flyables, including TBD, TBF, SB2C, DY4, B5N, B6N, Osacr, etc. but, with the exception of the bombers, most of the omissions Ihave seen people complaining about are low productions late war Japanese fighters that have limited use in a historical campaign and were not at all representative of the what most Japanese pilots were flying.

BTW, no offense to the contributions of the ANZACs and Brits, but America pretty much responsible for defeating the Japanese, as much or more so than the Russians were responsible for defeating Nazi Germany.

LEXX_Luthor
09-29-2004, 01:20 AM
Stiglr hinted at a good point in GD...they may not have torpedoes working properly in the game.


Nimiz:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't often fly Axis or Soviets in computer games because of the political ideologies they represented. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The highest scoring NATO fighter Aces all had over 100 kills, and these NATO Aces shot down many USA planes.

USAF and USN test pilots flew "imported" Soviet planes all the way through the Cold War, starting with defected MiG~15.

Chuck Yeager flew MiG~15 in mock combat against F~86 and kicked F~86 butt. They switched cockpits and Yeager kicked MiG~15 butt.

Owl_NZ
09-29-2004, 03:56 AM
Nimits,

Fair enough. But I had a laugh at the "inablity to put together a decent plane set for any side" bit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

When I look at the planes present, in terms of families represented the US, Germany and USSR have got pretty much all the main ones covered. This is in line with what I got told the other day, namely that UBI's priority order for sales is: USA, Germany then rest (1C being Russian means USSR is probably third. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif).

By comparison, the British and Italians have been left out badly. That is very bad....

Back to PF. The problem exists that most of the Japanese mid-late war a/c that entered service entered at a time of crippling fuel shortages, nearly no pilots qualified to do anything other than crash (which is due to the Govt getting greedy and prolonging a short war they weren't ready for), the US firebombing raids and carrier strikes destroying workers and factories, and then there was a major earthquake in May 1945 that knocked over a lot of factories and production as well. Thus they end up with "low production numbers" or "were not encountered" as they were being held in reserve in Japan for the anticipated invasion (Olympic).

"So what?" you say. Well, going on the decent planeset point, it really strikes home when you look at this. This is what's missing from PF in the way of major types:
US - Ventura, Hudson, SB2C, TBD, maybe also Mariner, Kingfisher, B-26. (7 a/c)
Japanese - Ki-51, Ki-21, Ki-48, Ki-49, Ki-44, G3M, Ki-67, P1Y, H6K, E13A, Ki-45, J1N, Ki-102, D4Y, B6N, L2D, Ki-57, Ki-100. (18 a/c)

So where is the decent planeset in that?

The point is the argument over torpedo bombers is the small edge of a very large wedge. The whole point of PF is Carrier Fighters as we keep getting told. And yes, it will be pointed out "what other sim offers as much as this does??"

As for the last point - I see you graduated from the "David Letterman History Course" LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The reality is, yes the US were the major factor, but part of that was the US was the ONLY a/c producing country that did not have to disperse production, move factories, and fight to defend it's own airspace. In both cases (Atlantic & Pacific) this was because it has huge barriers known as Oceans in the road, so any assault would have to come by Carrier unless Canada or South America was invaded (and if either of the latter happened the US would still have months of warning anyway....). Thus, the US could solely focus on attack. GB & USSR couldn't do that, they were required to put defence as the first priority. Them being attacked was actually the reason the US could take the position it did, because someone else was getting beaten up, not the US. It's easier to fight when you know no-one can hit you back. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Also, the Commonwealth and other Allied forces tied down major garrisons and left the US with the sole focus of offensive operations. That helped end the war a lot early....

Plus, have you ever wondered what would have happened if Japan hadn't brought the US into the war? Remember in 1941, the US Govt (aside from the President) were committed to "isolationism", and didn't care if the world went mad around them, as long as the US was not touched.

Obi_Kwiet
09-29-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Owl_NZ:
By comparison, the British and Italians have been left out badly. That is very bad....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, just mabye, thats because they're devoting a whole new game to the Brits next year on an entirly new engine! As for the Italians, they wern't reallly a major factor in the Air war. They'll get thier turn in the Med add on for BoB.

JG53Frankyboy
09-29-2004, 06:44 AM
actually BoB will be ALSO a game for italians.......... because the FIAT G.50 , Cr.42 and Br.20 will be there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

just as an historical info (good reading):
http://www.dalnet.se/~surfcity/falco_bob.htm

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and nevertheless, the commenwealth is not too bad represented in PF:
Hurricane MkII
B-339 Buffalo
BlenheimIV (AI)
Spitfire MkVIIIc
Seafire III
Kittyhawk
Martlet
Hellcat
Corsair
Beaufighter
Avenger (AI)

there will be (as planed) Singapore and Rangoon as maps. and sure some parts of the south east pacific

ships including Carrier.
well, Beaufort and Hudson as AI would be nice - let the game grow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

perhaps we will see some japanese Army Bombers than too as AI like Ki-21, Ki-48, Ki-49 - fighters are needing targets to shoot down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

aminx
09-30-2004, 05:31 AM
we are nobody
aminx

269GA-Veltro
09-30-2004, 06:54 AM
We italians will be probably well represented in the game soon... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For the torpedo....... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif, at least Avenger and Devastator please, waiting for a miracle for the Kate cockpits. Somebody in Japan could have some pics.

aminx
09-30-2004, 08:11 AM
we never were.
aminx