ÆþelrædUnræd

I think the reason they chose Midway is largely that it's much less work than Guadalcanal. Guadalcanal is 5302 square kilometres (even without other nearby landmasses such as the Florida Islands) versus 6.27 square kilometres for Midway, nearly a factor 1000 difference. By doing Midway, they can focus on implementing the key technologies rather than spend time developing content. I do agree however that Guadalcanal would make a great title. I'm sure that we will see a Guadalcanal module eventually 🙂

I think one should be very careful with statements such as "we will be able to" see certain things. Especially when comparing to demo videos that are designed to impress rather than run realistic game loops on a low or mid-range PC. It's nice to see what Unreal is capable of. However, all of this also needs to be implemented in the game, as well as 3d models made. This takes time and money, not to mention that it eats away at the framerate budget. Given the nature of the game, it may very well be that development effort will be allocated elsewhere.

Nice DD! One question that crossed my mind @Jason_Williams. You mentioned the abysmal performance of the early war torpedoes. Will this be simulated? I.e. if you drop your torpedoes slightly high and/or fast or if they hit the target at an oblique angle, there's a high chance they fail? Perhaps even random duds? Or will they always work, no matter what?

It seems to be for a plastic modeling kit. I don't know to what extent those 3d models are compatible with games since they have vastly different design requirements. I think it's not related. It's still a beautiful model though. I sure hope we'll eventually get a Kate in game!

Well the sales picture would be the same. Didn't buy CP: Battle of Guadalcanal? You only get low-res terrain (if at all) without any airfields, towns, targets or campaigns/career. Buy CP: BoG and you get the additional content. I just think that having no restrictions on where your carriers, airfields and targets are located has lots of benefits in the long run, especially with the huge distances of the Pacific. But it undoubtedly is more difficult to implement (spherical coordinates) and as such more expensive in the short run. I guess only Jason knows whether this extra investment is worth it, or even possible budget-wise 🙂

Nice pic! I presume the letters indicate several bomb impacts/damage types? Do you happen to know what their caption says?

You don't have to fill in everything 🙂 Either just low-res land or simply ocean. The big advantage is that a world system makes it possible to have additional historical missions as more content is released, as well as enable the Devs to release content in smaller increments. Bought both a Marianas and Kyushu map? Fly a bomber (escort) mission to Japan. Just Guadalcanal? Fly ground attack from Henderson Field. The Devs add Rabaul? Attack Henderson Field as the Japanese.

Thanks for the clarification. Even if it's just one or two planes and a carrier, I'd happily play it, if you decide to do early access 🙂

Nope, that's not the case 🙂 Besides what ZachariasX says, it's been quite common in games for ages already to only load in those parts of the "world" where you actually are, whether that game is a flight simulator, a shooter or a MMORPG. The whole world needs to be stored somewhere, sure, but there is no technical reason the whole world needs to be loaded beyond what you can actually see at a particular time. Similarly, MSFS doesn't actually host the world - you do that locally. It's just some data that is stored online, e.g. the satellite textures and the locations and type of buildings and trees, etc. The only reason for that is that it'd cost too much disk space (i.e. "store" a world), not that it'd cost too much RAM ("load" a world). I guess the biggest technical problem with an entire world is that you'd need a spherical coordinate system, and that can be a bit of a hassle to properly implement when pretty much all of the world around you happens in carthesian coordinates - including aircraft and ship physics.

I for one hope that they abandon the idea of "maps" like we have in IL2 1946/BoX, DCS etc. and move to a world system as we see in MSFS. One big world where you can fly wherever you want, with only those areas you've bought filled in with (hand-made) terrain (the rest either ocean or low-res terrain).

Great first DD of what's sure to become many! Can we conclude from that, that right now, the plan is to have some kind of public alpha version of the game available with just the Zero, Akagi and presumably their American counterparts, while we wait for things like dive/torpedo bombers, more ships and midway island? Or am I reading too much into your comment and does this just concern an internal prototype @Jason_Williams? Understanding, of course, that plans are always subject to change, especially at this early stage 🙂

Well, at least the top brass were fully aware that the US were immensely powerful (or at least, would be once they put their industrial might to use). They didn't have much alternatives to declaring war though. Given that: - the Japanese wanted to conquer China (and southeast Asia by extension), and - they were dependent on oil to further these objectives, it follows that they needed to capture the Dutch East Indies to obtain oil as Japan was under embargo. They then surmised that this would likely lead the US to declare war, as well as the US colony of the Philippines being rather inconveniently located directly on the sea route from the Indonesian oil fields to Japan. So in the end, they had only two options really: - give up their imperial ambitions in China, or - prepare for war with the US. Given that they weren't prepared to do the former, this left the latter as the only viable choice.* They were fully aware they needed to hit the Americans as hard as possible in the early months where they'd still have the advantage, hence the Pearl Harbour raid. One can only guess what'd have happened if the US carrier fleet had been in port. Even when the war turned for the worse, it's important to recognise that the Japanese didn't need to win. They only needed to not lose. As long as they held the Dutch oil fields and were able to keep the US at bay, they'd still be better off than in mid-1941. * Of course, the doctrines of Cpt. Hindsight dictate that the other option would've been the better one.

It does kinda completely miss the point that the Japanese never intended to fight a long war of attrition. Their whole strategy was to hit fast and hit hard, so that the Americans would quickly agree to a white peace, precisely to *avoid* any such lengthy war. How realistic this desire was in retrospect is a different question, but if you don't wage a war of attrition, little of what this article says matters.

Why are those Wildcats on deck? They obviously can't have been there when the Mitchells took off, and the part of the deck that's left seems a bit short for 5 Wildcats to take off from. So if there's enough room to store them down in the hangar, why put them up there?

Yes I'm a nerd and proud of it 😛 Never played Warhammer, although I've got a friend that does. He's never played DnD, and will join us for a oneshot soon.