Normandy 2.0 FAQ

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Montdidier

That's a good one as well, added to my list of "wish we hads", already had Poix among others. 

Also on #3, this is something a lot of us even ad ED want, it will be beneficial for not just Normandy but many other maps well into the future. Right now we simply havent developed the tech for it, but it is on the want to do list.

[twistking]

5 hours ago, MrExplosion said:

I assume that they will patch N1, so the high detail areas of N1 are identical to their N2 counterpart. I cant imagine they can achieve compatibility otherwise.

I agree, that this would be the only way to archieve true compatiblity, but i absolutely hope that they don't do it that way. There are huge areas in N1 that just look bad. And this is from someone who actually likes the N1 map quite a lot. But areas that are not near particular POIs look very bland and while they are fine for flying over, they don't hold up to serving as a mission area for everything but high altitude combat. My biggest issue are the endless - ever repeating - fields, that are lying over any type of topo like a blanket. Sometimes they hard intersect with rivers, soemtiems they cover steep inclines... These areas are absolutely in need of improvment and they need more detail but more importantly they need some variety injected. This would then change the layout of the land and would require mission designers to adjust their missions.

2 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

3. Since day 1 of Normandy 1 being announced many of us have been asking for the ability to remove/redact or otherwise have a version without the French allied ALGs; this would allow for the map to be prototypical for a far wider period than having them baked in. Is there any way that the locations could be left as grass field locations and for mission makers to load in templates to show the ALGs as required by mission date?

I also thought about leaving the ALGs without any buldings and objects and offering templates to add full built-ups sites with assets from the ME. Of course the required assets would need to be provided. For me it would be acceptable to have simple grass fields in these locations - even when they were ahistoric for a specific mission. They would not catch the eye at least. The big problem is however, how to change the grass runway and parking to that particular style of PBS/dirt for the mid 44 setting. I think it's particularly these material that make the ALG stick out so much. This would require a material change on the map. Maybe it can be done in the same way winter textures are loaded by mission date, but it would have to be not only texture but material including sound and physic attributes....

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by twistking

[NineLine]

9 hours ago, Grimes said:

So really they are compatible it just might be buggy. Just like any mission on Caucasus from 1.5 to 2.5 where the map received a assorted updates. The mission still loaded, thus compatible. However the place where you need to land your helicopter on some specific mission is now in the middle of a forest, thus buggy. 

The expectation for a mission file to simply load is the main barrier of entry with any sort of inconstancies that *can be corrected* within the editor are the far lesser concern. Frankly map differences from version to version impacting missions can be expected any time a map updates paid or not. 

The biggest issues will be airbases that change that are on the existing Normandy map. For example Tangmere was never the correct layout, if corrected it will completely break anything using that airfield. I have requested some feedback on this on things we can do, but its a rock and a hard place. Its awesome to have these updated to historical accuracy... it sucks that its going to cause issues, the goal is to know that it will do it in a way that will only be an issue once and then we can move forward and not a reoccurring issue. 

[Cliffhanger31]

Since Heathrow and Farnborough aren't very relevant to the Operation Overlord timeframe, I figured I would toss out two suggestions that would hold much more value for the community. Apart from the two previously mentioned airfields, we will have a very nice selection of RAF airbases in Southern England. Notably absent, however, are any of the USAAF airbases on the South coast, and since it seems like Ugra has done a great job of listening to the communities' airfield suggestions (Guyancourt, Dinan Trelivan... etc.) I'd like to advocate for the inclusion of some USAAF bases. 

1st photo - RAF Beaulieu 9th AF P-47 station. 

2nd Photo - RAF Stoney Cross 9th AF P-38 station.

3rd Photo - Map of the locations of all 9th AF units, including the fighter groups located on the Southern coast, this may be helpful in selecting other 9th AF airfields. 

[Angelthunder]

3 hours ago, Cliffhanger31 said:

Since Heathrow and Farnborough aren't very relevant to the Operation Overlord timeframe, I figured I would toss out two suggestions that would hold much more value for the community. Apart from the two previously mentioned airfields, we will have a very nice selection of RAF airbases in Southern England. Notably absent, however, are any of the USAAF airbases on the South coast, and since it seems like Ugra has done a great job of listening to the communities' airfield suggestions (Guyancourt, Dinan Trelivan... etc.) I'd like to advocate for the inclusion of some USAAF bases. 

1st photo - RAF Beaulieu 9th AF P-47 station. 

2nd Photo - RAF Stoney Cross 9th AF P-38 station.

3rd Photo - Map of the locations of all 9th AF units, including the fighter groups located on the Southern coast, this may be helpful in selecting other 9th AF airfields. 

Yeah,don't forget RAF Thorny Island,Westhampett and Croydon Airport too.Will Urga finally add the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton since they were very important areas for the Royal Navy and Supermarines factory for the Spitfire.

[Grimes]

5 hours ago, NineLine said:

The biggest issues will be airbases that change that are on the existing Normandy map. For example Tangmere was never the correct layout, if corrected it will completely break anything using that airfield. I have requested some feedback on this on things we can do, but its a rock and a hard place. Its awesome to have these updated to historical accuracy... it sucks that its going to cause issues, the goal is to know that it will do it in a way that will only be an issue once and then we can move forward and not a reoccurring issue. 

Ehhh it depends. Anything placed on the ground like ground units, statics, or aircraft spawns will be at the coordinates where-ever they are. So yeah vehicles might be in the middle of a runway all a sudden. Again, fixable in the editor ~= "incompatible". Aircraft with ramp spawns have an id associated with a given parking spot, if said coordinates of that parking spot move then the aircraft will likewise be moved with it. It appears that if a parkingId is not present then the editor will assign one automatically. Fairly certain the same rules apply if you just load into the mission without re-saving. 

It is a relatively unique situation though since major layout changes to an airport don't occur that often on DCS maps. Usually its minor taxiway changes if anything. The only one I can think of off the top of my head was when Caucasus updated from BS1 to WH release. Batumi and Sukhumi were changed a bit, but what I don't remember is precisely when the change occurred and if the old versions were ever present in A-10C beta releases. Since the miz format from BS1 to now is technically compatible as you can see it might as well be random chance if units happen to block the changed base. 

[Cliffhanger31]

2 hours ago, Angelthunder said:

don't forget RAF Thorny Island

If they decide to add any more RAF airfields I would be in favor of adding Gravesend and Thorney Island. As it stands we have plenty of RAF Spitfire, Mustang, and Typhoon bases so it would be nice to have a historically accurate Mosquito airfield. Between my previous suggestions of Beaulieu, Stoney Cross, Gravesend, and Thorney Island, Normandy 2.0 would provide bases in the UK for each Allied aircraft type in DCS.

Photo 1 - RAF Gravesend Mosquito base

Photo 2 - RAF Thorney Island Mosquito base

Photo 3 - Locations of the suggested airfields within the Normandy 2.0 map

[NineLine]

54 minutes ago, Grimes said:

Ehhh it depends. Anything placed on the ground like ground units, statics, or aircraft spawns will be at the coordinates where-ever they are. So yeah vehicles might be in the middle of a runway all a sudden. Again, fixable in the editor ~= "incompatible". Aircraft with ramp spawns have an id associated with a given parking spot, if said coordinates of that parking spot move then the aircraft will likewise be moved with it. It appears that if a parkingId is not present then the editor will assign one automatically. Fairly certain the same rules apply if you just load into the mission without re-saving. 

It is a relatively unique situation though since major layout changes to an airport don't occur that often on DCS maps. Usually its minor taxiway changes if anything. The only one I can think of off the top of my head was when Caucasus updated from BS1 to WH release. Batumi and Sukhumi were changed a bit, but what I don't remember is precisely when the change occurred and if the old versions were ever present in A-10C beta releases. Since the miz format from BS1 to now is technically compatible as you can see it might as well be random chance if units happen to block the changed base. 

Yeah I really dont know, compatibility might be tough, I hope they can pull something off but we will see. It sounds like Normandy 1 will still be an option as well so it might be best to treat 2.0 as a new map weird as it may sound. As you said, this one is rather unique, and I dont think the tech for this is full matured enough, nor is Normandy 1 accurate enough to do a lot of this. Its more like the map would have to have been built with this in mind, if that make sense. Again we will see though. 

 

40 minutes ago, Cliffhanger31 said:

If they decide to add any more RAF airfields I would be in favor of adding Gravesend and Thorney Island. As it stands we have plenty of RAF Spitfire, Mustang, and Typhoon bases so it would be nice to have a historically accurate Mosquito airfield. Between my previous suggestions of Beaulieu, Stoney Cross, Gravesend, and Thorney Island, Normandy 2.0 would provide bases in the UK for each Allied aircraft type in DCS.

Photo 1 - RAF Gravesend Mosquito base

Photo 2 - RAF Thorney Island Mosquito base

Photo 3 - Locations of the suggested airfields within the Normandy 2.0 map

Yeah we will see, honestly if we stay with what we have the idea the map is meant for wont be too hurt (although I still think Heathrow needs to be a construction site and not an airport) Any additions need to be important for Normandy/D-Day and the days following. The Channel Map needs some BoB planes (give Hurricane please) but there wasnt a ton of action in that area after D-Day so as long as that chunk is suitable for fly over it should be fine. Anyways, we will submit some ideas from you guys to the for consideration, and always no promises. (PS Give Spitfire Mk II for The Channel).

[Angelthunder]

1 hour ago, Cliffhanger31 said:

If they decide to add any more RAF airfields I would be in favor of adding Gravesend and Thorney Island. As it stands we have plenty of RAF Spitfire, Mustang, and Typhoon bases so it would be nice to have a historically accurate Mosquito airfield. Between my previous suggestions of Beaulieu, Stoney Cross, Gravesend, and Thorney Island, Normandy 2.0 would provide bases in the UK for each Allied aircraft type in DCS.

Photo 1 - RAF Gravesend Mosquito base

Photo 2 - RAF Thorney Island Mosquito base

Photo 3 - Locations of the suggested airfields within the Normandy 2.0 map

I hope they add Orly Airport in Paris as that was used by the Luftwaffe as an airbase.Also the map is lacking some more AI Assets,we still need the Typhoon,P-51B Mustang & F-6 Mustang,B-26 Marauder,P-38 and a P-61 Black Widow alongside more Luftwaffe air assets since they were at least stationed at one point at the French ALGs in the Normandy region.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Angelthunder

[FiveWire]

Will Tower Bridge in London be functional as a draw bridge so the ground assets can cross as well as ships pass through?

[71st_AH Rob]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

The Channel Map needs some BoB planes (give Hurricane please) but there wasnt a ton of action in that area after D-Day so as long as that chunk is suitable for fly over it should be fine. Anyways, we will submit some ideas from you guys to the for consideration, and always no promises. (PS Give Spitfire Mk II for The Channel).

Except for of course 9th AF had 3 P-51 squadrons and 18 P-47 squadrons in that area.  ADGB had  Spitfire XIV squadrons and a bunch of Spit IX squadrons in that area; Nos. 33, 64, 74, 80, 127, 130, 229, 234, 274, 303, 345 350, 402 (R.C.A.F.), 501, 611.  No. 137 flying the Typhoon. Nos. 418 (R.C.A.F.), 605 flying the Mosquito IV in the Intruder role, with Nos. 96, 125, 219, 456 (R.A.A.F.)  flying the Mosquito in the NF role.  And there was Nos. 275, 277, 278 (A.S.R.) flying variously Spitfire and Walrus.

2TAF had three Mosquito FB IV squadrons at Gravesend,

[hmleao]

Will the $14.99 USD for those who have one of the other maps raise eventually? Just asking because the a10c to a10c2 upgrade had a raise after sometime.

[Fred901]

15 hours ago, NineLine said:

That's a good one as well, added to my list of "wish we hads", already had Poix among others. 

Also on #3, this is something a lot of us even ad ED want, it will be beneficial for not just Normandy but many other maps well into the future. Right now we simply havent developed the tech for it, but it is on the want to do list.

I think Dieppe-St-Aubin and Triquerville would be very relevant for the Normandy 2 map!

[MrExplosion]

8 hours ago, FiveWire said:

Will Tower Bridge in London be functional as a draw bridge so the ground assets can cross as well as ships pass through?

You cannot use ships on rivers, so this should be a no.

[DD_Fenrir]

8 hours ago, Fred901 said:

I think Dieppe-St-Aubin and Triquerville would be very relevant for the Normandy 2 map!

There has to be some care taken in requesting airfields; firstly there were a LOT of them in France, and expecting a developer to model them all would be unfeasible in both time, cost and processor budget; secondly, not all of them were used operationally. What do I mean by that?

From my analysis - and this is not authoratitive, I'm sure there are some better educated Luftwaffe airfield experts that could correct the following opinion - there seem to be two distinct types of airfields:

1. Operational - these were used (at some point, not necessarily throughout the war - I will expand on this in a minute) by combat units, for offensive or defensive combat missions, i.e. by bomber, fighter, fighter-bomber or nightfighter units.
2. Administrative - these are too small or too under developed logistically to support combat units but were useful to keep maintained for embarking or receiving mail, light stores or personnel, stuff that needed to be moved expeditiously around France (which, after all, is a big country)

Now, Dieppe-St-Aubin (and similarly Fecamp that is shown on the WiP map) seem to fall definitively into this last category. Whilst these would be nice to have, with airfield capacity of any given map at an apparent budget for those reasons listed above, given that we fly combat aircraft against other combat aircraft, would it not make sense that the adminstrative fields be relegated far down the priority list?

Triquerville, on the face of it is an operational airfield, and therefore worthy of inclusion; but there's a catch...

The last unit based there was in I./JG 2 and they left at some date in June of 1943. A full year before the invasion. Now did the airfield exist around the invasion? Sure, it was bombed repeatedly from June of '43 till February of '44 by B-17s and B-26s but eventually the Luftwaffe conceded and covered it in anti-invasion obstacles.

So by the time of the map makers apparent chronology of the map, it is irrelevant; no Luftwaffe units were flying from there against the Allied forces in the 6 months prior to or in the immediate aftermath of invasion.

The same is true of many, many of the Luftwaffe airfields in France, especially those nearer the coast, and those that we otherwise associate with the famous Luftwaffe Geschwader;

Abbeville - 15 Mar 44: all 3 runways were mined during the preceding month and by 27 May the mines had been detonated and trenches dug across all remaining landing runs.

Audembert - 23 Apr 44: work underway to permanently obstruct the landing area with trenches

St Omer - (firstly, which one, as there were a number!) all of the airfields around St Omer are obstructed and/or mined by April of 1944.

So many of those famous Luftwaffe airfields that people have heard about, by the time span relevant to the aircraft we have currently in DCS, are largely irrelevant.

Would they be nice to see?

Sure, but given that we don't have the aircraft types to recreate their operational history for the appropriate time periods, would it not make more sense to focus development energy on providing airfields with an operationally historical precedent to the aircraft types and at least rough chronological relevance?

I know, people will say "what about the Battle of Britain", or "what if I want to create scenarios from earlier in the war"?

Well fine. But if you are happy to use incorrect aircraft variants then why are you unhappy to use the wrong airfield? It is logically inconsistent.

Personally, I say let the maps reflect the historical record as true as possible. This will allow the purists to make accurate scenarios. If you wish to what-if thereafter, then fine, subvert to your desires, that is your right. 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[Cliffhanger31]

14 hours ago, NineLine said:

Any additions need to be important for Normandy/D-Day and the days following. The

100% agree, all of the airfields I’ve proposed housed fighter groups or RAF squadrons that were active on D-Day and throughout the rest of the Overlord timeframe.

 

14 hours ago, NineLine said:

Anyways, we will submit some ideas from you guys to the for consideration, and always no promises.

Thanks for passing along our suggestions, I think we’re all just trying to help this map be the best it can be, and it has some great potential at the moment. 

[SMH]

Ridiculous! As if the DCS WWII community wasn't fractured enough already with two semi-overlapping maps competing against each other. Now it'll be 3? (Or even worse with some kinda-sorta-maybe compatibility? You know that's never going to work, right?)

The correct way to do this is retire the old map entirely (as you don't seem to want to bring it up to date with your new tech) and give existing Normandy owners the new replacement map for free. (And highly prioritize fixing existing missions and campaigns to use the new map.) Always trying to have your cake and eat it too, with total disregard to how that impacts customers' gameplay and the effectiveness of their previous purchase decisions. And you're only making far more work for yourselves by trying to have it both ways. Will you re-sell the $11 map to enough customers to amortize all that extra work (not to mention the bad PR this is going to rightfully earn you)?

I really cannot imagine what you're thinking.

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, SMH said:

Ridiculous! As if the DCS WWII community wasn't fractured enough already with two semi-overlapping maps competing against each other. Now it'll be 3? (Or even worse with some kinda-sorta-maybe compatibility? You know that's never going to work, right?)

The correct way to do this is retire the old map entirely (as you don't seem to want to bring it up to date with your new tech) and give existing Normandy owners the new replacement map for free. (And highly prioritize fixing existing missions and campaigns to use the new map.) Always trying to have your cake and eat it too, with total disregard to how that impacts customers' gameplay and the effectiveness of their previous purchase decisions. And you're only making far more work for yourselves by trying to have it both ways. Will you re-sell the $11 map to enough customers to amortize all that extra work (not to mention the bad PR this is going to rightfully earn you)?

I really cannot imagine what you're thinking.

The decision to update this map was UGRA's. Suggesting they do not want to bring it up to date with new tech is not what is happening here, the fact that the older map cannot be updated without major changes is really what is happening here. While I am sure giving it away for free would make many happy, its simply not possible. If you are not happy with this, you can stay with Normandy 1 and nothing will change for you.

As for what UGRA is thinking, I am sure its along the lines of having a much better grasp of map creation and wanting to improve Normandy and bring it up to a level much higher than it was, sadly compatibility will be very limited if not nullified by these improvements. 

 

6 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

There has to be some care taken in requesting airfields; firstly there were a LOT of them in France, and expecting a developer to model them all would be unfeasible in both time, cost and processor budget; secondly, not all of them were used operationally. What do I mean by that?

From my analysis - and this is not authoratitive, I'm sure there are some better educated Luftwaffe airfield experts that could correct the following opinion - there seem to be two distinct types of airfields:

1. Operational - these were used (at some point, not necessarily throughout the war - I will expand on this in a minute) by combat units, for offensive or defensive combat missions, i.e. by bomber, fighter, fighter-bomber or nightfighter units.
2. Administrative - these are too small or too under developed logistically to support combat units but were useful to keep maintained for embarking or receiving mail, light stores or personnel, stuff that needed to be moved expeditiously around France (which, after all, is a big country)

Now, Dieppe-St-Aubin (and similarly Fecamp that is shown on the WiP map) seem to fall definitively into this last category. Whilst these would be nice to have, with airfield capacity of any given map at an apparent budget for those reasons listed above, given that we fly combat aircraft against other combat aircraft, would it not make sense that the adminstrative fields be relegated far down the priority list?

Triquerville, on the face of it is an operational airfield, and therefore worthy of inclusion; but there's a catch...

The last unit based there was in I./JG 2 and they left at some date in June of 1943. A full year before the invasion. Now did the airfield exist around the invasion? Sure, it was bombed repeatedly from June of '43 till February of '44 by B-17s and B-26s but eventually the Luftwaffe conceded and covered it in anti-invasion obstacles.

So by the time of the map makers apparent chronology of the map, it is irrelevant; no Luftwaffe units were flying from there against the Allied forces in the 6 months prior to or in the immediate aftermath of invasion.

The same is true of many, many of the Luftwaffe airfields in France, especially those nearer the coast, and those that we otherwise associate with the famous Luftwaffe Geschwader;

Abbeville - 15 Mar 44: all 3 runways were mined during the preceding month and by 27 May the mines had been detonated and trenches dug across all remaining landing runs.

Audembert - 23 Apr 44: work underway to permanently obstruct the landing area with trenches

St Omer - (firstly, which one, as there were a number!) all of the airfields around St Omer are obstructed and/or mined by April of 1944.

So many of those famous Luftwaffe airfields that people have heard about, by the time span relevant to the aircraft we have currently in DCS, are largely irrelevant.

Would they be nice to see?

Sure, but given that we don't have the aircraft types to recreate their operational history for the appropriate time periods, would it not make more sense to focus development energy on providing airfields with an operationally historical precedent to the aircraft types and at least rough chronological relevance?

I know, people will say "what about the Battle of Britain", or "what if I want to create scenarios from earlier in the war"?

Well fine. But if you are happy to use incorrect aircraft variants then why are you unhappy to use the wrong airfield? It is logically inconsistent.

Personally, I say let the maps reflect the historical record as true as possible. This will allow the purists to make accurate scenarios. If you wish to what-if thereafter, then fine, subvert to your desires, that is your right. 

 

 

 

We have a nice "wishlist" of airfields created to submit to UGRA, thanks for all the input. 

[SMH]

15 minutes ago, NineLine said:

The decision to update this map was UGRA's. Suggesting they do not want to bring it up to date with new tech is not what is happening here, the fact that the older map cannot be updated without major changes is really what is happening here. While I am sure giving it away for free would make many happy, its simply not possible. If you are not happy with this, you can stay with Normandy 1 and nothing will change for you.

As for what UGRA is thinking, I am sure its along the lines of having a much better grasp of map creation and wanting to improve Normandy and bring it up to a level much higher than it was, sadly compatibility will be very limited if not nullified by these improvements. 

 

Then why are you speaking for them?

And they said exactly that.
 

Quote

Because the Normandy 1944 map was created using older map technology and tools, it is not possible to simply expand the size of that existing map. The Normandy 2.0 map has been created with new map technology and tools that has allowed us to greatly increase the map size and amount of detail.

And what will change for me is it will become that much harder to find others to fly with because now we're split across 3 (or is it 3.5?) maps that all pretty much cover the same area of the planet! Again, I can't imagine what you're thinking. Please just take this as some free market research and go rethink this plan. (Also, you just admitted to us you sold us a map by a developer who did a much lower-level job than they should have. Again, that's exactly why the new map should be a replacement.)

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by NineLine
Removed 1.3 comment

[NineLine]

Just now, SMH said:

Then why are you speaking for them?

That's my job. 

For the rest of your post, you are reading a lot into what I said. I suggest you re-read it. I never said the did a much lower level than they should have, Normandy was one of the first 3rd Party maps made when map tech was much less matured than it is now. This is nothing unusual. For example if the Caucasus was to be updated it would have to be done from scratch and be totally new. It is using hybrid tech and not upgradeable at all. 

Again, you have a choice, you can choose not to get the updated version, I am sure some servers will keep their servers running the old map. Campaigns will still support the old map, all the current missions are still there. Nothing will change for you if you want to stay with 1.0. Please do not make more drama where there is none. Sadly sometimes to move things forward hard choices need to be made. 

[Hispanus]

What I am afraid of is that yet again you place the big cities like London and Paris at the borders of the map, you don't extend it enough to make it immersive since you will probably notice the low resolution textures like in the channel map, it just doesn't look good. I hope I am wrong, and you give it some more love to that area so we can't notice while flying at med/high altitude, please don't make the same mistakes...

[Nealius]

The Newsletter info and FAQ info don't match in some parts:

Newsletter:

Quote

DCS: Normandy 2 will benefit from new technology that allows existing maps to be extended with low-detailed areas. If you wish to pass on the upgrade, you may still join multiplayer servers and compatibility with campaigns will remain.

FAQ:

Quote

Because the Normandy 1944 map was created using older map technology and tools, it is not possible to simply expand the size of that existing map.

However, missions created for the Normandy 1944 map would not work in the Normandy 2.0 map.

Perhaps the cart was simply put before the horse to meet the newsletter deadline, but it could be misconstrued as being misleading. 

[DD_Fenrir]

I read that as Normandy 1 cannot be extended due to being built with legacy map technology; however, Normandy 2, having been built using the later map tech will have the ability to be further expanded in the future.

[Nealius]

Perhaps that was the intention, but over on /r/hoggit Nineline said it was an optional expansion in multiple comments to others asking about the functionality/differences.

[[AUSSIE]t0min8t0r]

On 10/12/2022 at 5:13 AM, Catseye said:

And . . . . . Biggin Hill!

 

yeh the fact biggen hill was not on the map blew my mind

On 10/13/2022 at 9:20 AM, NineLine said:

Yeah I really dont know, compatibility might be tough, I hope they can pull something off but we will see. It sounds like Normandy 1 will still be an option as well so it might be best to treat 2.0 as a new map weird as it may sound. As you said, this one is rather unique, and I dont think the tech for this is full matured enough, nor is Normandy 1 accurate enough to do a lot of this. Its more like the map would have to have been built with this in mind, if that make sense. Again we will see though. 

 

Yeah we will see, honestly if we stay with what we have the idea the map is meant for wont be too hurt (although I still think Heathrow needs to be a construction site and not an airport) Any additions need to be important for Normandy/D-Day and the days following. The Channel Map needs some BoB planes (give Hurricane please) but there wasnt a ton of action in that area after D-Day so as long as that chunk is suitable for fly over it should be fine. Anyways, we will submit some ideas from you guys to the for consideration, and always no promises. (PS Give Spitfire Mk II for The Channel).

regarding your last comment it would be great if we just had 3 versions of one map and what map shows depends on the dates you chose for example 1. BOB 2. pre-invasion 3. post invasion (and even the option to remove some airfields from each version respectively based on what you want for a mission dynamic)

Edited October 15, 2022 by [AUSSIE]t0min8t0r