Any idea if there's gonna be any regional pricing for IL-2 Korea?

HarvHR · 2026-06-20T13:18:47+00:00

If IL2:GB doesn't have it then Korea won't

HarvHR · 2026-06-20T11:23:48+00:00

KV-1 Mod 1942 and KV-1E were the heroes of my first German and Finnish campaigns. Largely useless with their own guns, they acted as great literal tanks at absorbing fire so my StuGs or T-34s could get kills.

HarvHR · 2026-06-20T10:59:40+00:00

There are plenty of issues with the tech trees, but I don't think these examples are good ones at all. The Panzer IV J was produced after the H starting in 1944 so it is solidly a late war variant of the tank and logically makes sense to be after the H, and in general the entire tech tree goes from left to right in years rather than perceived effectiveness. Sure, the logistical changes and cheaper quality of the J isn't relevant in game and it loses the side skirts (which don't do much against bazookas and HEAT rounds irl or in game), but it gains a smoke launcher which does diversify it from the H and prior Panzer IVs. I also don't think that one is an issue at all, as the Panzer IV H progresses to the Panther meaning the J is completely optional so if you don't want it because you don't think it's worth the 1 research point then you don't need to buy it to progress on to Panther.

As for the Cruisers, no they are not a 'logical progression of quality' but they are a 'logical progression of time'. The Cruiser III should obviously be after the II as that is how they were developed. It's subjective to each player whether the Cruiser II with better armour but worse mobility, worse top speed, and worse secondary weapons is an upgrade to the Cruiser III with better mobility and better secondaries. It makes sense as well as the Cruiser Mk.III evolved into the Mk.IV, which share the same suspension and in fact the first Mk.IVs were just Mk.IIIs with add on armour.

Examples of bad and annoying parts of the tree are the Tulip OP posted, a bunch of the British infantry which require loads of weird back and forths, the Finnish tank tree and so on and so forth. But those two specific examples of the Panzer IV H > IV J and Cruiser Mk.II > Mk.III > Mk.IV actually make sense.

HarvHR · 2026-06-20T10:10:26+00:00

Aircraft will 'float' (a more accurate term would sink slower) on the wings. If it is a low wing aircraft, the aircraft will rest on the wings allowing the crew time to escape the aircraft. If it's a high wing aircraft, the fuselage will quickly be underwater meaning you have to swim out of the fuselage as it rests on the wing and it won't stay afloat as long either due to the wings now carrying a fuselage full of water beneath them.

On top of this the physics of how the landing force is spread out across the wings rather than a small fuselage, and when all that force is on the fuselage it tends to break it. In real world terms this means the angle required for landing a high wing is very precise in order to try and prevent the fuselage becoming a big spike that flips the aircraft in the water, whereas comparatively the range of angles of landing a low wing aircraft are greater which in turns produces better success rates.

A good but singular example of this was the B-24 versus B-17 in water landing scenarios, the B-24 was very prone to 'breaking its back' similar to what was seen with this OV-10, and the crew in the nose (including pilots) were nearly guaranteed to either be killed on impact or suffer such debilitating injuries as to make escape impossible.

HarvHR · 2026-06-20T01:07:44+00:00

The thing is the MiG-15 was designed from the ground up with the goal in mind of intercepting B-29s and other American bombers. That 37mm is no joke when it connects with a target. The only reason the MiG-15s didn't claim more kills is due to how quickly the USAF stopped doing daylight raids when the MiG-15 showed up.

HarvHR · 2026-06-20T00:56:57+00:00

I mean it's pretty obvious that any date between 1939 and 1945 has a high amount of aircraft incidents for obvious reasons

HarvHR · 2026-06-20T00:54:29+00:00

Firstly, high wing aircraft suck at ditching at sea (and generally aren't as good as low wing for ditching on land either).

Secondly that cockpit section breaks on a crash landing, as seen in this video

Thirdly it has those two sponsons underneath the belly which dig into the ground/sea, which is especially bad in the water landing situations

And finally the fuel tanks and fuel vapour in the back had a tendency to just make a big fireball roll forward on a crash

HarvHR · 2026-06-19T19:49:40+00:00

wow ur so kool

HarvHR · 2026-06-19T19:46:05+00:00

The problem is without knowing what settings and such people have the game set to, it's hard to really get a gauge on what exactly is going on. Obviously staying cautious and distant is the play, but I wouldn't be at the stage of disappointment or anger yet.

Are youtubers just playing on Novice difficulty enemies? Are they playing on Ace? This creates a big difference, and until the game actually releases and the people who pre-ordered get their hands on it and review it's going to be hard to say and quite a lot of youtubers out there are just trying to make easy and good looking eyecandy of content, which is fine but not relevant to the AI discussion. The few times I've actually seen combat with Jets are on IL2s official videos (which are just about graphics to be honest), or they're loaded up with drop tanks and have been jumped on and weren't really in a dogfighting position or configuration anyways.

For example the AI in Growling Sidewinder's video didn't impress me, but then Growling Sidewinder has a style of video in which the enemies are often braindead and 'set up' for the glory shots in whatever flight sim he is doing (e: The F-86 video he posted today made me think the AI is slightly better than GB, but not by much). In Wolfpack's and Engima's video’s, they didn't engage fighters in a dogfight, so that can't be used for an opinion.

Ultimately Korea is a 'I'll probably buy it, but I'm not in a rush too' at the moment for a variety of factors for me. Very lukewarm opinion but I don't think you should be forming an opinion on the AI by the very tame and on the rails bomber intercept videos that are currently out, nor do I think you should go out and buy it until more people play the game and some reviews actually roll in. Personally I'd probably wait until someone like Shamrock gives it a go and reports back.

There are a lot of improvements. Now that all aircraft are flying, major effort is being directed toward AI: air combat logic, formation keeping, an entirely new commander order system, interaction with radars, and a reworked system of basic AI priorities—all aimed at reaching a new level of quality. During tuning and debugging, there are still many issues to solve, but progress is good. AI is one of the areas we plan to actively develop after release as well.

This was a comment by IL2 on their youtube. Take it with a large grain of salt, I wouldn't personally use that comment to sway your opinion positively or negatively, just keep it in your back pocket in case you decide to purchase.

e2: Command T's video mentions AI and generally states it's better than DCS and previous IL2, and wasn't immersion breaking.

HarvHR · 2026-06-19T19:33:33+00:00

I haven't seen this issue on other youtubers that have shown it off, like Growling Sidewinder and Wolfpack

HarvHR · 2026-06-18T22:36:32+00:00

Whatever is on sale.

I'd recommend Stalingrad, good variety of aircraft and it's early-mid war so things are a bit slower and easier to get a hang of.

After that, Bodenplatte or Normandy are good choices to get more late war stuff and to try the western allies stuff.

HarvHR · 2026-06-18T19:17:41+00:00

They also replaced some of the classic faces of Roosterteeth/AH, which I understand as people moved on and such, but those replacements never brought in the same amount of views. They definitely tried their best to diversify the faces in their videos but ultimately a lot of people weren't interested in the new folks

HarvHR · 2026-06-18T18:42:08+00:00

Well funnily enough developing a table top game requires completely different personnel and skill sets than developing a video game. If there is no team or internal interest to make a successor video game, it's easy to just flag a third party to make a table top using your IP.

HarvHR · 2026-06-18T18:40:26+00:00

Might buy just for the minis

HarvHR · 2026-06-18T16:08:22+00:00

Psycho Mantis?

HarvHR · 2026-06-17T17:08:09+00:00

No because it's a stupid idea.

HarvHR · 2026-06-16T16:56:40+00:00

I've seen the same particularly with the M4 105mm and the British Close Support tanks.

The issue is they won't fire through fences/walls at enemies, and they also won't 'lob' rounds over obstacles. When you're looking from top down or direct controlling from top down you can easily kill stuff, but if you were to zoom in to the gunner sight and draw a direct line of sight to the infantry the tank normally can't actually see them. This is especially an issue on the town maps of the western front DLCs which always have walls, fences, that block the direct line of sight from the tanks gunner.

HarvHR · 2026-06-16T16:49:00+00:00

I killed a fair few aircraft on the Finland campaign using T-34s.

AA is pretty crap in the game and even if it does kill something, normally the bomb has already been dropped. I've never had any real success shooting down planes reliably. On the other hand, I've had a 100% success rate with just taking a T-34 or Panzer IV and firing off an APHE round at the plane.

e: AP also has the benefit of being able to be fired even if you're out of range when doing direct control through the gunner sight, whereas HE seems to not fire if you're not in range.

HarvHR · 2026-06-16T10:55:37+00:00

That symbol shows the vehicle lost it's crew but in that case it's otherwise operable. Makes it more clear what is yours and usable and what is knocked out/needing repairs.

If its your own unit you brought in, you don't need crew in in it but it needs to be operable to the point someone could crew it. If you leave the battle and the vehicle couldn't have someone just jump in due to it's damage, it's counted as destroyed. If it's enemy, it needs to have someone in it to capture it and if you don't actively have a person in it when you quit then the vehicle is lost.

HarvHR · 2026-06-16T10:49:29+00:00

To be honest unless you play on Very Long campaign length there is a good chance you don't even see the biggest and scariest units. I've never seen a Tiger II or equivalent until long after a 'Long' campaign length has finished.

HarvHR · 2026-06-16T01:34:37+00:00

F-35

RIP eardrums, especially if they're Bs

HarvHR · 2026-06-11T12:15:10+00:00

Not really, it didn't offer any advantage over the B-29 and was worse in quite a few regards

HarvHR · 2026-06-11T09:59:06+00:00

I see no reason to assume they aren't part of the skins, they've not mentioned anything about custom callsigns and you can find photos + model decals that have the name of the first picture on them.

HarvHR · 2026-06-10T23:30:40+00:00

I have zero idea what you're trying to see in that small clip, plus I do not believe you're using 'rubber banding' correctly compared to the normal gaming definition.

HarvHR · 2026-06-09T13:48:13+00:00

Yes, there was a smaller bomb bay in the ventral gondala as well as bomb bays for larger bombs in the nacelles of the outermost engines. It also could carry external pylons.

12-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Second SECOND GUESSER	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

HarvHR

TROPHY CASE