Pearl Harbor Scenario

[Docjonel]

Thrilled to learn today about this project! I'd about given up on a modern flight sim involving the WW2 PTO, but I guess things are darkest before the dawn.

 

Also excited to hear Midway will be the first scenario to hopefully be released. If nothing else it confirms carrier operations from the start. 

Also excited to hear you are considering a possible Pearl Harbor scenario in the future. Tora Tora Tora is one of my favorite movies and the possibility of reenacting that day in a state of the art flight sim, this time with accurate capital ships, gets my blood pumping. Add VR and I'm in heaven!

 

Lots of well wishes and support from this end. Glad to have you back, Jason!

[Feldgrün]

I look forward to Pearl Harbor eventually, but I think it's a good idea to start out with a mid-war scenario as it would be the most popular. It's where the aircraft are relatively equally balanced between the US & Japan. Similar to Stalingrad, although I think the Germans easily outclassed the Russians, but were ill-prepared for a lengthy war.

[Skelthos]

The Pearl Harbor scenario on one hand would be cool, on the other it was extremely one sided, you either completely dominate as the Japanese or hope you survive and shoot down a couple planes as the U.S.    Starting with more equal battle is definitely the correct call, although I would love to ultimately see all the major battles covered from Pearl Harbor to the end of the war. 

[Trooper117]

I have to admit, having played the scenario of the Pearl Harbour attack a couple of times with the old IL2, I never felt the need to go back to it.

Malaya/Singapore, Guadalcanal, Flying Tigers scenarios etc I would play again and again... just my take on it.  

[Docjonel]

Yes, you would clearly be outmatched and yes I completely agree that it is not the place to start. I think that Midway is an excellent choice for the first scenario.

 

So I may be a voice of one, but I still eagerly look forward to someday being George Welch on December 7th, 1941.

[Juri_JS]

If they really add some early war carrier force vs land bases scenarios, I think the Marshall and Gilbert Islands raids would be the better choice, mostly because the map/maps could also be used for later scenarios. Pearl Harbor would only be useable for December 7, 1941.

[wheelsup_cavu]

5 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

Pearl Harbor would only be useable for December 7, 1941.

I would still like to have that map to be able to fly that battle but definitely not right away. Maybe as an extra scenario/map to be included in an Island hopping expansion?

 

Wheels

[BlitzPig_EL]

IJN vs. KNIL battling for Java.

 

Yes please.

[spreckair]

On 5/19/2023 at 12:55 PM, Juri_JS said:

Pearl Harbor would only be useable for December 7, 1941.

Which is why I have a hard time imagining how a career mode might be developed for carrier pilots.  Maybe I just don't know enough about the tempo of the naval air war, but they seem to consist of very short intense actions separated by periods of inactivity.  Pearl Harbor was one day, the Battle of Midway was four days, the Battle of the Philippines Sea was two days.  How many times are we going to want to replay these battles?  As for the island-hopping campaigns, I suppose each island campaign was long enough that, if several were placed in a release, there might be enough sorties for career mode; Battle for Guam was about 20 days, as was the Battle of Saipan.  And then I guess there were probably a whole lot of patrols without any action over an endless sea...😖

I am very interested in how others think about this.  I think this is a big reason why I am more interested in the land based campaigns than the sea ones.

Edited May 20, 2023 by spreckair
correction

[Juri_JS]

1 hour ago, spreckair said:

Which is why I have a hard time imagining how a career mode might be developed for carrier pilots.  Maybe I just don't know enough about the tempo of the naval air war, but they seem to consist of very short intense actions separated by periods of inactivity.  Pearl Harbor was one day, the Battle of Midway was four days, the Battle of the Philippines Sea was two days.  How many times are we going to want to replay these battles?  As for the island-hopping campaigns, I suppose each island campaign was long enough that, if several were placed in a release, there might be enough sorties for career mode; Battle for Guam was about 20 days, as was the Battle of Saipan.  And then I guess there were probably a whole lot of patrols without any action over an endless sea...😖

I am very interested in how others think about this.  I think this is a big reason why I am more interested in the land based campaigns than the sea ones.

A Career mode like in Il-2GB will be a problem when the game is mostly focused on carrier battles. But who knows, maybe the devs will instead try something completely new. For example a game mode similar to "Task Force Admiral", where the player commands a whole carrier task force and plans the missions of his squadrons.

[HBPencil]

Admittedly I haven't flown online since using HyperLobby and 1946 back in the day, however I wonder if a O'ahu would make for a good multiplayer furball map with short flight times to the opposition's targets on land, sea and air.

[HerrMurf]

12 minutes ago, HBPencil said:

Admittedly I haven't flown online since using HyperLobby and 1946 back in the day, however I wonder if a O'ahu would make for a good multiplayer furball map with short flight times to the opposition's targets on land, sea and air.

Probably have to do the majority of the Hawaiian Islands chain to make the map broad enough for good multiplayer. There would be enough distance and airfields to warrant good gameplay options. I think just one island would be a perpetual furball and vulch-fest.

[dburne]

Pearl Harbor was one day.

I myself have no particular desire to re-enact that day. Much better battles that can be represented I am sure.

[spreckair]

44 minutes ago, dburne said:

Pearl Harbor was one day.

I myself have no particular desire to re-enact that day. Much better battles that can be represented I am sure.

With regard to Pearl Harbor, what I didn't think about are possible "what if" scenarios.  For instance, what if the radar reports were taken seriously?  What if the U.S. reaction was different.  It would be cool to be able to game out these possibilities.

[HerrMurf]

The Pearl map in ‘46 was actually really fun, mountains, plains, rolling hills, oceans, gobs of ground targets. Lots of MP gameplay options and good visuals for the timeframe.

[wheelsup_cavu]

2 hours ago, HerrMurf said:

Probably have to do the majority of the Hawaiian Islands chain to make the map broad enough for good multiplayer. There would be enough distance and airfields to warrant good gameplay options. I think just one island would be a perpetual furball and vulch-fest.

Imo The 200/250 kilometers between the islands of Oahu and Kaui would give you plenty of distance if there had been airbases modeled on Kuai.

51 minutes ago, HerrMurf said:

The Pearl map in ‘46 was actually really fun, mountains, plains, rolling hills, oceans, gobs of ground targets. Lots of MP gameplay options and good visuals for the timeframe.

It is why I made the QMB missions that got released with the v4.12m patch. I always felt it was a huge oversight not to include any QMB missions for that map when Pacific Fighters was released.

 

Wheels

Edited May 21, 2023 by wheelsup_cavu

[HerrMurf]

If you go south from Oahu to Hawaii, instead, you get more historical airfields and more varied terrain for navigation and eye candy. If you cut all of the respective (major) channels in half you would save 40'ish miles of map space and the average user wouldn't notice the map compression.

Edited May 21, 2023 by HerrMurf

[Feldgrün]

I'd rather see a Solomon Islands scenario. Pearl Harbor was far too one-sided to replicate, although I'd like to be one of the two P-40s that got a chance to try.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Feldgrün

[HerrMurf]

Based upon the interview, Solomons is unlikely in the initial offering. It will, however, make an excellent second chapter and radically diversify the planeset. 

[Madman]

22 minutes ago, HerrMurf said:

Based upon the interview, Solomons is unlikely in the initial offering. It will, however, make an excellent second chapter and radically diversify the planeset. 

Exactly! 

[Trooper117]

27 minutes ago, HerrMurf said:

radically diversify the planeset. 

How radical?

[Chief_Mouser]

Got to have some land action eventually - basically the IJN carriers had three types of aircraft plus a few old floatplanes on their cruisers. Not going to be any 5x5 modules like BoX. So we need the IJA aircraft as well.

The biggest problem with any land-based scenarios is distance. Fly a Betty from Korea to Singapore? Or from Rabaul to Port Moresby? We're looking at multiple-hour flights that even a map nut and bomber-type like myself would baulk at. A Zero could fly up to eight hours on drop tanks; the Betty had a fully-loaded range of well over 2000 miles. It's going to be difficult finding airfields close enough together for short action scenarios, even on New Guinea.

It will be interesting to see how Jason and Co. approach this whole scenario. Carrier battles and the odd island-hopping map aren't going to hold attention for ever, especially as so many battles were very one-sided. Years ago Jason wanted to do Okinawa - but that's a shocker from a balanced gameplay point of view. Unless you have a map going all the way up to and including southern Japan, i.e. Kyushu, with another very long flight time get to Okinawa, basically the Japanese will have nothing to do but air start and die.

It's definitely going to be an interesting sales model if it goes the distance.

Midway, although a short battle, had so much going on and a good variety of different aircraft with both carrier- and land-based types, even if some of the numbers were small, that it's a good choice for a starting point.

[Blue 5]

36 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

How radical?

P-40s, P-38s and P-39s alongside the F4Fs and SBDs with early F4Us into ‘43. Some B-25s and B-24s as well for AI with Catalinas.

IJN had 3 different Zeros, Vals, Kates and Judies as well as Betties. Mavis-es. Probably a few other leaser-known for AI.

That’s a GB module right there. Also fewer ship types.

 

 

[Trooper117]

I have a feeling that if they go ahead with Guadalcanal after Midway, Coral sea etc, it will be the initial landings and plane setup after Henderson became operational...

SBD's, F4F's, P-400's and TBF's... with the Japanese using A6M2 and A6M3 Zeroes, D3A1 Val's and G4M Betty bombers... 

As for GB model planeset size, we have no idea what Jason plans how many planes he will include in each module... it might be only 4 or 5 flyable's  with a couple of NPC's.

[HerrMurf]

I think smaller planesets makes sense in so many ways. A 4+2 or 6+2 lets you do more releases/maps/aircraft over shorter periods of time. Gets your product out faster to keep the steam rolling. I didn't have a problem with the other guys release concept but it clearly has pluses and minuses. I'd rather be arguing about rivet counts which are correctable than complaining about things we don't even have yet or significant periods of radio silence.

 

Oh, and at Mouser, I can't imagine there won't be significant map scaling over some of the expanses of ocean for gameplay purposes. That and air starts and waypoint skips for the same reasons.

Edited May 21, 2023 by HerrMurf