IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad

 PC
User Score
6.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 279 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 147 out of 279
  2. Mixed: 35 out of 279
  3. Negative: 97 out of 279
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Maax
    Nov 16, 2014
    4
    BoS may be a good flight sim in the core but the behavior and outright contempt for their core players, who has been around for years enjoying the true IL2 Sturmovik series takes away any good that can be found, with a bit of searching mind you, from the game.

    Wont repeat the negatives as you only have to read all the other scores that are not 8-10.
  2. rss334
    Oct 30, 2014
    3
    Single Player is pretty bad. Bought and backed this primarily for the single player, did not turn out as expected and the end development was rushed to get it out. The company who made this was 1C, same company who abandoned Cliffs of Dover. They will tell you it was a different set of people but it's the same company, the same drama, and the same results. Official forums are NaziSingle Player is pretty bad. Bought and backed this primarily for the single player, did not turn out as expected and the end development was rushed to get it out. The company who made this was 1C, same company who abandoned Cliffs of Dover. They will tell you it was a different set of people but it's the same company, the same drama, and the same results. Official forums are Nazi style moderation and anyone who has anything negative to say is moderated and removed.

    While the graphics are decent, the flight model and damage model are not up to par. Additionally the single player campaign is tedious and boring. Whoever decided to charge 80 dollars for a game then make you unlock everything is out of their minds. Buy Cliff of Dover with the Team Fusion Mod, it's a better game at a much cheaper price.

    Due to the single player experience this game fails at what it tried to set out to do.    … Expand
  3. Blade_Meister
    Oct 27, 2014
    4
    Okay, this is my second review for IL2 Battle of Stalingrad. My first review, along with ever other review of BOS 90% complete was deleted at 1C/777 insistence. It seems the devs didn't like the backlash of negative reviews after some of the final rounds of updates. So, here we go again.
    1. Game Engine = 7 Bos works right out of the box. The updating system works well and is easy. The    Okay, this is my second review for IL2 Battle of Stalingrad. My first review, along with ever other review of BOS 90% complete was deleted at 1C/777 insistence. It seems the devs didn't like the backlash of negative reviews after some of the final rounds of updates. So, here we go again.
    1. Game Engine = 7 Bos works right out of the box. The updating system works well and is easy. The true strength has not been thoroughly tested in the consumer market because the D Server has just been released, so this remains to be seen. How many player and AI planes and objects that can be used in a functional mission is not known yet. Once FME is released, which may be up to 6 months from now per 1C/777, the strength of the DNE good or bad will be displayed.
    2. Graphics and Sound = 6 The games looks nice and gives pretty good frame rates(40 FPS for me on Ultra). There is nothing new here graphically(dx9c) except that BOS uses a full snow map with vary little on it in the way of objects, which is probably correct for Stalingrad during WWII.Graphics are set through 1C/777 designated presets, no custom graphics settings. Low, Balanced, High, and Ultra are the presets. Antialaising and Gama-correction are available. The sound in BOS is good with the usual setting of low, medium and high bit rate.
    3. Plane models = 7 They are nice but they do not compare to either DCS or CLOD plane models. The damage modeling again is nice, but does not compare with either of the above mentioned Sims. As of now only 1C/777 can add skins to BOS. There are 10 skins per plane that have to be unlocked through SP missions.(more on this later). No Nose art.
    4. Flight Model = 6 BOS gives a good feeling of flying but it still feels something like flying the ROF FMs. a very lite feeling. It is not a convincing metal plane heavyweight feel. It is very bouncy unless you set deep curves in the control settings. Landings are quite bad. BOS is way to bouncy on each plane, this really needs attention IMHO.
    5..Map = 5 Here again it looks nice. It has very little in the way of trees(trees do have collision model, a +)or other objects. Stalingrad itself is modeled and looks average at best. The sky and depiction of the 24 hour lighting(Sun) cycle are absolutely excellent, one of the best in any Sim yet. The weather effects are standard.
    6.Gui = 4 The Gui looks very "Arcade" and plain. There is no theme once you are in the SP, MP , QMB or Campaign selection screens. The Campaign has a tiny theme in the Campaign selection screens, and video intros for each stage of the Campaign. These videos are CG graphics and while good graphic quality is there, they are quite unrealistic and plastic feeling. In game videos would have been much better.
    7. SP, QMB and Campaign. = 2 There are 14 SP missions, they are fair at best. QMB is straight forward and a good place to practice, but no meat as far as building immersive missions. The Campaign is awful, that is the only true way to describe it. Non Historical Squads at non Historical Airfields, cannot custom name your pilot, there is no storyline and the missions are non connected and generated by the QMB. The way points are Home Field, Action point and Exit points(completely arcade). All planes come with basic weapons for SP and MP. During the Campaign you accumulate Xpoints by flying missions, Intercept, Escort, Ground attack, Ground Support and Bombing. These missions either consist of takeoff start or air start and fly to action point and fight enemy there. You may encounter some miscellaneous flights to fight, but that is rare. It is estimated to take about 60-80 hours of flying in Campaign mode to unlock all plane upgrades(see BOS Forums). THIS IS REQUIRED IF YOU WANT TO USE PLANE UPGRADES IN MP. This Single player and Campaign mode is very "Arcade" and does not even measure up to the original IL2 Single player and Campaign immersion or challenge. IMHO, this is the worst Campaign in a Flight Sim I have ever played.
    8. Replay Ability = 2 Other than MP, BOS has no replay ability as of now. Of course if and when user content can be added to BOS this could change. The Campaign mode is just plain boring and is best flown in very small doses.
    Conclusion: Score = 4(at best) THIS IS NOT THE IL2 SUCCESSOR THAT THE DEVS PROMISED, NOT EVEN CLOSE. The cover art for BOSs DVD box says," IL2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad, The Legend Returns." IMHO, The Legend is not back. A quote from one of Lofts' initial interviews during the beginning of pre-purchase but before production of BOS had begun,"And to the experienced avia-sim players I want to say: “Don’t worry! We know how to make our sim the way you’ll like it." I have owned and flown every IL2 iteration from the first IL2 to BOS, and I can comfortably say 1C/777 have not lived up to there word. I supported BOS from a before production start EA purchase and 1C/777 had a pretty good game going until 3 weeks ago when they locked everything down. This is an Arcade game.    … Expand
  4. JPRuri
    Oct 28, 2014
    3
    Synopsis: a mediocre game based on an old but solid engine (RoF), dumbed down to dumb for the masses.

    BoS is a bit muddled and feels as though it has suffered from a development tug of war between making a simple blaster to appeal to the masses, or a flight simulator for the smaller core audience. As it stands it on release, BoS does neither element well and unfortunately falls foul to    Synopsis: a mediocre game based on an old but solid engine (RoF), dumbed down to dumb for the masses.

    BoS is a bit muddled and feels as though it has suffered from a development tug of war between making a simple blaster to appeal to the masses, or a flight simulator for the smaller core audience. As it stands it on release, BoS does neither element well and unfortunately falls foul to mediocrity. It doesn’t help that it is based on an old direct x9 game engine that is already showing its age (RoF engine).

    The IL-2 brand name, the developers previous RoF tittle and PR suggest a good solid ww2 flight simulator but simple engine start-ups and management, unlocks and experience points for munitions and skins, the ‘Michael Bay Hollywood’ damage model and air-quake style servers limited to 32 players smacks more of a simple but flashy arcade game. Single player content is poor and revolves around getting the aforementioned experience points needed in both single and multiplayer and what’s worse is there is no public mission editor for players to make new content. Worse still, the developers have attempted to hold players to ransom, no mission editor in the future for groups that critique and even a now deleted threat that the game would be cancelled if negative critical scores prevailed hence the many 9 and 10 scores here.

    There are some positives, the graphics aren’t at all bad and the general feeling of flight is rendered ok (despite some colourful bugs), however there just isn’t enough to this title to make it stand-out against the competition never mind justify the price tag for an ageing game engine. Simply put War Thunder does the arcade thing better and Cliffs of Dover and DCS are more detailed simulators - BoS feels lost in the wilderness.

    I bought in as a “Founder” to support BoS and I wanted to like this game. BoS is not terrible but it doesn’t do anything particularly well either and taking into account the contempt the developers have shown for much of their fanbase I give this a 3/10.    … Expand
  5. Siggi
    Dec 3, 2014
    1
    Soviet biased FMs, broken German plane FMs, a laughably shallow DM, an arcade campaign that requires the player to unlock components he's already paid for, no mission editor, hit-sounds that still don't work, inability to tune graphics to best suit ones personal computer hardware and nobody playing online. This arcade game is a travesty and a cynical betrayal of the revered IL2 name itSoviet biased FMs, broken German plane FMs, a laughably shallow DM, an arcade campaign that requires the player to unlock components he's already paid for, no mission editor, hit-sounds that still don't work, inability to tune graphics to best suit ones personal computer hardware and nobody playing online. This arcade game is a travesty and a cynical betrayal of the revered IL2 name it stole to try and con sales. Avoid it.… Expand
  6. CWMV
    Dec 6, 2014
    0
    In early access I was super stoked, but then it was released and the devs showed the utter contempt they have for us, the end user.
    This game, and I do mean game as it is not a simulator of the same level as CoD, was released with awful options that force boring game play with a crap campaign that is not historical in any way, more a series of unrelated single missions.
    Further you must    In early access I was super stoked, but then it was released and the devs showed the utter contempt they have for us, the end user.
    This game, and I do mean game as it is not a simulator of the same level as CoD, was released with awful options that force boring game play with a crap campaign that is not historical in any way, more a series of unrelated single missions.
    Further you must play through this abortion in order to unlock equipment and even skins for the aircraft. None of which are available for single or multiplayer use until you have ground them all out in the previously mentioned terrible campaign that is included in the release.
    And whats more it is impossible to tailor this game to your system. Your options are low, balanced, high and ultra. That is it. Apparently Loft has it in his head that we as a community are too stupid to use this software properly.
    In summation, here is an excerpt from one of my posts at BoS forums:

    "I can't select the best graphics settings for my rig.
    I cannot play a coherent unit based historical campaign.
    I cannot create a coherent unit based historical campaign.
    I cannot play the coherent unit based campaigns created by others.
    I am forced to play a garbage campaign in order to unlock common front line mission essential equipment and skins.
    When a work around is found to the above by running at x16 speed the devs punish us by limiting it to x2.
    I cannot create skins (to my knowledge anyhow, might be wrong).
    I dislike online play.

    So what, exactly, is there left for me to do with this 100 usd boondoggle?"

    I should have used the $100 somewhere else.    … Expand
  7. Tree_uk
    Nov 22, 2014
    2
    Good graphics is about all this has going for it. Rubbish offline campaign, xp points, grinding for unlocks, online is dead, devs treating the fanbase with contempt and threatening to close the game unless things improve.
    Not worth the $60/$90 they are asking, when war thunder is free and with a lot more content.
  8. Jingle_Bellz
    Dec 10, 2014
    0
    Genuinely poor effort. Really bad design decisions and intransigent and combative devs.

    Money down the drain. Wish I could get my money back but not going to happen.
  9. dburne
    Dec 6, 2014
    3
    I have been playing combat flight sims for many years, started with the original Red Baron for DOS. I owned the original IL2, along with all it's expansions up to Il2 1946, along with many other WWII combat sims. The IL2 series remained my favorite.

    I purchased the Early Access Premium version of BOS when it became available, and participated all throughout the Early Access period.    I have been playing combat flight sims for many years, started with the original Red Baron for DOS. I owned the original IL2, along with all it's expansions up to Il2 1946, along with many other WWII combat sims. The IL2 series remained my favorite.

    I purchased the Early Access Premium version of BOS when it became available, and participated all throughout the Early Access period. While I had some smaller concerns, I really liked what I saw, and had very high hopes for this sim. I was and am a fan of ROF, and with BOS being developed by the same guys, I was very excited. Until they released the Single Player system upon us, shortly before the official release. Last time I played it , was the day after the SP was released to us.

    The XP grinding, unlocking items, unlocking airfields, no continuity of a player's career, only what appear to be some QMG missions thrown together, just does not do anything for me - in fact, turns me off to the sim completely. Throw in the graphics presets only in the options - 4 presets one has to choose, with no ability to customize any individual items like bloom, hdr, shadows, terrain, etc. Plus no ability to customize globally difficulty settings for the SP campaign. Want to fly with unlimited ammo while you are cutting your teeth on the sim? Not going to happen.

    If one likes power ups, unlocking items ( that you have already paid for), etc - then you will likely like this sim. If you are more used to what you got with previous WWII combat flight sims in terms of campaigns, careers, then you may well be disappointed like myself. Especially if you are coming from the IL-2 Series itself. I myself just can not see this sim as they have billed it " The continuation of the legendary IL-2 Series".

    I am giving BOS a score of 3 here. I feel that is generous on my part, it does have nice graphics and for the most part the flight physics seem really good, but what pulls that score down from me is - I no longer play it, and have no desire to play it in it's current state. I will keep an eye on it going forward and see if maybe something changes that might lure me back to it.    … Expand
  10. Terribleone
    Oct 27, 2014
    3
    I have played flight games and sims since falcon 3.0. I like many others backed Il2 BOS because of 777 studios great work with Rise of Flight. I thought it would be a reskinned ROF set in WW2. I would expect movement forward, new ideas, and new improvements to what Il2 1946, and ROF offered.

    Instead it is a step backwards. Instead of focusing of making a complete study sim, they    I have played flight games and sims since falcon 3.0. I like many others backed Il2 BOS because of 777 studios great work with Rise of Flight. I thought it would be a reskinned ROF set in WW2. I would expect movement forward, new ideas, and new improvements to what Il2 1946, and ROF offered.

    Instead it is a step backwards. Instead of focusing of making a complete study sim, they focused on game elements, unlocks tied to a quick mission style campaign. You are part of no squadron, and can pick and choose randomly what you fly. It really is a quick mission generator with a skin trying to give you the impression of a campaign. Calling it that almost feels generous.

    The camera effects are great, head movement from G forces and maneuvering are great. Combat is over the top Hollywood. Everything burns instantly. There is no such thing as a self sealing fuel tank in BOS. Planes go down very fast, AI seems about as good as ROF. Feeling of flight is not on par with Cliffs of dover or DCS. In fact the feeling of flight is the #1 issue with the game for me. It feels wrong, but the camera masks it well. Sound is good, graphics are alright, good lighting, and textures which seem 4 years old.

    It could be a good game for a fast 10 min quick mission, but the feeling of flight, unlocks, and mediocre cockpits keep me away. Whats left with the price of extra aircraft doesn't the ability to stand on it's own. Modders have made Cliffs of dover superior in every way....and they don't get paid.    … Expand
  11. Skoots
    Nov 22, 2014
    0
    Until the developers listen to their core community, this title is not going to the be successor of IL2. It really is a shame. If they wanted to blow the doors off of the sim genre, they should have taken all the things everyone loves about IL2 and CLoD with the TF mods and implemented them into this title. I understand change is hard for some people and the ones frustrated with this titleUntil the developers listen to their core community, this title is not going to the be successor of IL2. It really is a shame. If they wanted to blow the doors off of the sim genre, they should have taken all the things everyone loves about IL2 and CLoD with the TF mods and implemented them into this title. I understand change is hard for some people and the ones frustrated with this title might seem that way, but it really is just a case of bad implementation of non sim ideas into a "sim" game.

    Instead of trying to draw in the WT crowd or think they know how to draw in the younger gamers, could you imagine if they put that time into building an out of this world immersive SP campaign?

    I play lots of games, from the late Darkfall Online to the FPS Insurgency to titles on the WII U to RO. The bottom line is GAMEPLAY will always win. If you don't have solid gameplay and depth to your game it will fail.    … Expand
  12. Flying_Penguin
    Oct 27, 2014
    2
    I've bought or played every IL-2 product ever produced, but this is the first time I can't bring myself to recommend one. At every step in the evolution of the IL-2 franchise there has been a sense of ambition, of a desire to make the "next big thing" in flight simulation, the original (even on release) blew the competition out of the water in terms of fidelity and capability, Birds/WingsI've bought or played every IL-2 product ever produced, but this is the first time I can't bring myself to recommend one. At every step in the evolution of the IL-2 franchise there has been a sense of ambition, of a desire to make the "next big thing" in flight simulation, the original (even on release) blew the competition out of the water in terms of fidelity and capability, Birds/Wings of Prey were good simcade games, Il-2: CLoD aimed to be more realistic, more in depth and more beautiful than everything that had come before. CLoD was let down by shoddy project management and a restless publisher and it took a while for Team Fusions to rescue it, but at least there was the ambition to be the final word in WW2 flight sims.

    BoS, whilst pretty, seems to have lost that ambition. The fidelity level is somewhere between CLoD and War Thunder, the single player is lacklustre and arcade inspired (even the original Il-2 linear story driven campaign would be preferable), the community is in an unhealthy state and the developers seem to be aiming for the mid-core War Thunder Air Quake crowd.

    This is not what I (and many people) hoped for in an Il-2 successor, and that makes me sad. :-(    … Expand
  13. il2_player
    Dec 5, 2014
    1
    Terrible for a sim, ok for a game. Trouble is it was sold as a sim, with the developers only dropping the unlock and xp bombshell just before the release.
    No point in complaining on the forum, or asking for a refund, because its ban city over there. Now we wait to see if the lead developer follows thru with his threat to cancel the game later this month...
  14. Moider99
    Oct 26, 2014
    1
    I can't recommend buying this when its been confirmed a much cheaper (€10) version is about to be launched. They locked a thread about it on the official forums because so many customers who bought this game for $60 and $90 were rightfully unhappy.

    On YouTube there is a video of a 109 flying like an RC plane doing impossible moves and you can do endless loops in a he111 - so it's hard    I can't recommend buying this when its been confirmed a much cheaper (€10) version is about to be launched. They locked a thread about it on the official forums because so many customers who bought this game for $60 and $90 were rightfully unhappy.

    On YouTube there is a video of a 109 flying like an RC plane doing impossible moves and you can do endless loops in a he111 - so it's hard to believe the 9 and 10 scores here. The developers have forced their idea of how to play this game on customers, you can't select your own graphics options just presets like an XBOX game, you can't select them game options you want just two presets easy and expert and you have to play single player to unlock 'powerups' for multiplayer.    … Expand
  15. x15
    Oct 31, 2014
    1
    This is a far cry from the il2 series. They only milked the that name to mislead people about what this game is.
    They had available to them two flight sim engines with almost everything done. They chose to go with the most limited six years old engine.
    That's fine, as long you at least get what was already available in the engine. But looks instead of developing the Rise of flight engine    This is a far cry from the il2 series. They only milked the that name to mislead people about what this game is.
    They had available to them two flight sim engines with almost everything done. They chose to go with the most limited six years old engine.
    That's fine, as long you at least get what was already available in the engine. But looks instead of developing the Rise of flight engine and add more features to it, they decided to chop off stuff as time went on. At this point Battle of Stalingrad is an extremely limited game, where players are forced to play a certain absurd way.
    Gone are the custom skins, gone is the mission, builder, gone is the ability to customize your graphics settings and they even removed the f11 free camera for some obscure reason.
    The career is boring to tears and the players have to focus on the unlocks instead of getting immersed in the action.
    The multiplayer also got a hard hit recently. The maximum number of players allowed in a server being reduced to 32.
    But the worst part about this game is the patronizing and borderline dictatorial attitude of the developers. From deleting thousands of posts on the forums, to locking game content paid at premium price in an absurd offline only unlock system, to threatening to shut down everything if users don't post stellar reviews.
    I wouldn't recommend this game to anyone.    … Expand
  16. Otto_von_Otto
    Oct 27, 2014
    2
    I give BoS a 3, for the graphics (although the cockpits are nowhere near as good as Cliffs of Dover) and the fact that it works with only a few CTD's. It had a lot going for it, but seems to have fallen at the final hurdle with unlocks, XP points, and some questionable flight models.
    If you want a game, this is it, although it will cost you $50-$100. War Thunder, which it is similar to,    I give BoS a 3, for the graphics (although the cockpits are nowhere near as good as Cliffs of Dover) and the fact that it works with only a few CTD's. It had a lot going for it, but seems to have fallen at the final hurdle with unlocks, XP points, and some questionable flight models.
    If you want a game, this is it, although it will cost you $50-$100. War Thunder, which it is similar to, is free.
    If you want a sim, Cliffs of Dover is where its at.    … Expand
  17. Priller
    Oct 30, 2014
    1
    Early-access purchasers were promised a sim, what we have now is an arcade game with shallow DMs, soviet-biased FMs, broken MP and an SP campaign about as interesting as watching paint dry. And never mind "soviet-biased" FMs, the FM allows planes like the He111 to do infinite loops. In expert-mode! And then the unlocks. This is where you cannot use the content you PAID for until you'veEarly-access purchasers were promised a sim, what we have now is an arcade game with shallow DMs, soviet-biased FMs, broken MP and an SP campaign about as interesting as watching paint dry. And never mind "soviet-biased" FMs, the FM allows planes like the He111 to do infinite loops. In expert-mode! And then the unlocks. This is where you cannot use the content you PAID for until you've grinded your way through the dreadful SP 'campaign'. It's not a campaign, the campaign is nothing more than a QMB-generator, in which you're lucky to see more than a handful of planes and tanks to shoot at. That's because the Digital Nature engine cannot handle AI objects very well.
    Then we have the absence of the ability to set-up graphics settings. That's because BoS is basically a console-game dressed up for the PC. The lack of a mission-editor, even a basic one.
    This game brings nothing to the PC. It belongs on the consoles. Shallow arcade dreck and the worst betrayal of the IL2 name since 1C dumped Cliffs of Dover.    … Expand
  18. Rebel352
    Nov 16, 2014
    0
    Take the positive scores, and throw them all away- the developers of this team are threatening to shut the entire project down with no refund to anyone if the score didn't improve. They have consistently made poor design choices from the "early access" consisting of afternoons in the middle of the week, to incorporating an unlock system a-la world of tanks that perpetually brokeTake the positive scores, and throw them all away- the developers of this team are threatening to shut the entire project down with no refund to anyone if the score didn't improve. They have consistently made poor design choices from the "early access" consisting of afternoons in the middle of the week, to incorporating an unlock system a-la world of tanks that perpetually broke multiplayer.

    Everything they do, and everything they are, is a direct contradiction of what they promised to deliver. When called on it, they hold a gun to the sim that you paid money for's head, and tell you to write good reviews because they need "comrades, not customers".

    We haven't even broached the technical aspects of the game yet. Massive biases to the Russian aircraft (in every aspect- flight stability, performance, firepower), coupled with bombers that can do infinite loops right from the runway, huge holes in the damage and flight modelling, ballistics, all contributing to a 180 degree turn from what the original was billed as.

    This is not a flight sim, and you can barely call it a game. If, however, you still subscribe to the antiquated notion that games are supposed to be "fun", then you can't really call it that, either. It is by far the greatest insult ever levied against the flight sim market, and only made worse by its creators' treatment of the community. These people make Oleg Maddox look kind and flexible, and Putin benevolent.

    I wish I had rolled up my money and smoked it rather than give even a stinky ruble to these...."gentlemen".

    Good day.    … Expand
  19. ebola
    Oct 27, 2014
    1
    The last time reviews got posted here the devs asked fanboys to post good reviews. Ignore the fanboy 10 fest and read the comments about the poor flight models which you can find on Youtube. This is not IL-2 its a poor imitation.
  20. Auva
    Oct 24, 2014
    3
    Well, well, well,
    there we are the second time on Metacritics maybe time for a little history session before I explain my review and my score. Now, everything started in the Early Access when they released the Singleplayer campaign. It was told us to get a really great immersive campaign, with a pilot which joins different squadrons and we get told the Battle of Stalingrad. There will be    Well, well, well,
    there we are the second time on Metacritics maybe time for a little history session before I explain my review and my score. Now, everything started in the Early Access when they released the Singleplayer campaign. It was told us to get a really great immersive campaign, with a pilot which joins different squadrons and we get told the Battle of Stalingrad. There will be unlocks and everything will be great... now then they released the campaign. In short, its not even a campaign. And so the uproar began, people were saying that this is not right and bad. And the first round on metacritics began with a bad scoring of the game from desatisfied customers. The reaction of the devs? They released a post, that if the "true fanboys" of this genre won't start a crusade against the negative votes they have to shut down that game in dezember. So essential, the Developers of the Game threatened the PLAYERS that they will shut down the game if they don't make positive votes - hence so many positives votes here. :)
    Anyway they fastly closed this here, and now after release the second Battle of Metacritics will beginn... And again the Holy Crusade of the Fanboys is marching....

    Anyway, lets talk about the Game or Simulation or yeah what is it now?

    First off, this is not a real simulation anymore. It feels like a War Thunder Simulation Battle but with a little bit more simulation. So for me its more or less a great flying game, but nothing more. But this was pretty much stated many times of the devs, that the Simulation-Crowd is not their core customer base they want to have. Funnily, this Simulation-Crowd is the one who mainly brought into the game, and gave them their Early Access Money.

    What does the game good?
    - Well the graphics are okay, they are not top of the notch for 2014 and a PC game but they are not that bad either. Some textures are pretty low ress, the colour of everything is washed out and a little bit to much grey in my opinion. If you use SweetFX than you can make a pretty good looking game out of it, but the main problems with low res textures is still there. I mean come on, its 2014 we should expect a little bit more!

    - The game is stable, so hence I don't give it a 0-2 because its stable. Thats great isn't it? It runs!

    Anything more? Well, yeah it works but thats all nothing really outstanding, what overcomes any expectations If you buy a Flight game/simulation in 2014! THATS IT!

    Now the negative Side:
    This will be a little bit more, and I only can state my point of view and what is not right with the game.

    Flight Models:
    Well, here is a lot of work still to do. It doesn't feel like I'm flying fighter planes. Every plane is pretty tail heavy which is completly **** You can't even trim the 109 G2 to a straight flight because its so **** tail heavy.

    The German Planes are making strange snap rolls when flying hard dives: It is explained by one Dev that this is because the german fighter could achieve a higher g-force but funnly a Yak-1 can follow you with the same maneuver without any problem...

    Which leads me to my biggest dissatisfaction: Cherry Picking, well the devs aren't posting any sources they used, and I can understand that because well some sorces weren't cheap or are freely in the internet. But then making such cherry picking infavour for the VVS-Planes is not right! For example: The Notleistung of the 109 F-4 was only restricted in the manuals for a short time. In game we got appx. one Minute of it. In the VVS Manuals for the LaGG3 it is said that they shouldn't dive faster than 650 km/h. But because there is ONE report of a pilot which is not confirmed that he really was that fast they can easily dive above 700 km/h without any damage at all. And this goes through every plane in favour of the VVS. Hey the La-5 or LaGG3 had fuel tanks in the wings and suffered heavy controls but they roll faster than a FW190...

    This leads me to the next point, some VVS Flightmodels are real UFO's. Especially the YAK-1. It loses zero energy, can make maneuvers like a UFO and much more. Or look at the FW190, it can do a **** Cobra-Maneuver right after the take-off. The Flight physic is broken.

    I have to come short, but there is a lot of things which aren't right or doesn't work right. The campaign is just generic generated missions without any immersion. You could even change the sides after every mission. We don't have a dedicated Sever yet, no Full Mission Builder. We don't know if we can have skins or how. You are FORCED to play the singleplayer to get unlocks for the multiplayer. We have arcadish unreasonable unlocks which are comepletly meh but could be great campaign rewards. The GUI is just a bad design and not even good.

    All in all its a 4 of a 10. And I don't compare that game with any other games. There Is a lot of potential, but I doubt the devs will use it.    … Expand
  21. Johnny_Red
    Oct 25, 2014
    1
    This game was/is advertised as a combat flight simulator. I bought into the early access pretty early and was very impressed with the way it looked and handled. I posted how impressed I was on the forums. Being so early in development I was expecting some improvement over time and some evolution. Friday's came with some updates, New planes etc. But they also came with
    1. The removal of    This game was/is advertised as a combat flight simulator. I bought into the early access pretty early and was very impressed with the way it looked and handled. I posted how impressed I was on the forums. Being so early in development I was expecting some improvement over time and some evolution. Friday's came with some updates, New planes etc. But they also came with
    1. The removal of graphics options, in their place 3 presets because the developers think their players are too stupid to tinker with their own computers.
    2. Arcade like HUD, presumably the devs think the player base is too stupid to look at the actual cockpit instruments they have modeled. Reading the forums, some folk are looking for tablet app's to show their instruments when there is a cockpit on screen, so I guess the devs have the target audience they were looking for.
    3. Unlocks, power ups, call them what you like. They are a gamey feature. Some folk are saying they are the first step in the introduction of in-game purchases/microtransactions/pay to win features. Time will tell on that, but the signs are there for sure. The devs and forum moderators think the paying customers are too dumb to just jump in the aircraft and fly and must go through flight school to get unlocks. I **** you not, read the forums.
    4. No improvement of flight models.
    5. An empty campaign that the paying customer is forced to go through to access the field modifications locked into the power up/unlock system.

    The textures are low resolution, the game engine is dx9 and with 2 years of development there has been no improvement. DX11 cards have been on the market for a long time. The folk who play flight simulators are always looking for the best fps and invest a lot of money in their hobby. I'm pretty sure 90% of the player base have dx11 systems.

    Flight simulations are a cult. They bring out the fanatics. The devs threatened to scrap the project if the reviews on this site weren't favourable. The scores of 9-10 you see here are from the kool-aid drinkers.
    This is not a flight simulator and it is NOT a worthy successor to the original il2 by Oleg Maddox. It's an arcade shooter aimed at the warthunder crowd and that is a shame.
    I asked for my money back, stating that the game is not the simulator it was advertised to be. That the introduction of power ups have no place in a simulation. Eventually they agreed and refunded my premium early access $90. They will not look into unlocks, they are there to stay. My refund is testament to that.
    I give it a 1 and only because they gave me my money back    … Expand
  22. ultimatemann
    Oct 28, 2014
    0
    I am very sad to buy this game. Bad flight model, bad damage model.
    I thuoght this game is successor of IL2:STURMOVIK 1946.BUT IT ISIN'T!
    Overall I cant recommend this game at all. If you have any love for the genera then your money would be best spent elsewhere supporting people who make flight simulations instead of junk like this.
  23. Johnny2
    Oct 24, 2014
    0
    This is a huge disappointment. The unlocks are a joke. Might as well fly War Thunder or any other arcade game. It was supposed to be a sim, but it is an arcade game. Too bad they did not live up to what they promised.
  24. Anzac
    Oct 23, 2014
    4
    This game, and I call it a 'game' as opposed to a sim, claims to be the next iteration of the venerable IL series which set the benchmark for flight combat simulation on PCs for years. It is not. Far from it. Yes, it has very well developed flight models and the graphics are superb. This is all to the good. But, very significantly for those looking for a true successor to the IL series,This game, and I call it a 'game' as opposed to a sim, claims to be the next iteration of the venerable IL series which set the benchmark for flight combat simulation on PCs for years. It is not. Far from it. Yes, it has very well developed flight models and the graphics are superb. This is all to the good. But, very significantly for those looking for a true successor to the IL series, bad design decisions late in its development introduced gamey and arcade characteristics to the game. You have to grind through pointless missions, for example, to unlock certain points and weapons, planes etc. Like a War Thunder experience. As a single player, you will be left sorely dissapointment. If you like arcade WT-ish type games, with better flight physics, then this is probably the game for you. If you want a deep, well designed simulation, then stay away from BoS.… Expand
  25. Stiglr
    Oct 24, 2014
    1
    Graphics are not bad but the xbox style presets stop you from really getting the best visuals on your pc and its only DX9.

    I like to play online but you can't access all the weapons until you unlock them in the single player. The community spoke out about this over a month ago and they just ignored them which is generally what they do if you criticize or point out a problem. The only    Graphics are not bad but the xbox style presets stop you from really getting the best visuals on your pc and its only DX9.

    I like to play online but you can't access all the weapons until you unlock them in the single player. The community spoke out about this over a month ago and they just ignored them which is generally what they do if you criticize or point out a problem.

    The only people who can run a server are the fanboys who dont criticise, one guy that did was stopped from running one, just search their forums and you can see that. No mission editor either so you just play air quake and not real battles.

    There are some really weird flight model issues that if you search on youtube will show examples of planes doing things they cant in real life. A weird bias against luftwaffe planes that when questioned gets you banned on their forums e even after you post performance stats. One of the developers scared the community a few weeks ago into giving them good scores here by threatening that the project could close in december if scores continued to be low.

    Its sad to see the IL-2 name sink to new lows. I won't give this a 0 but my score is lower because of the fanboy 10 scores.    … Expand
  26. MarxStax
    Oct 23, 2014
    3
    NOT a remake of the classic.

    Sadly 777/1c has used the IL2 name in an attempt to sway people who loved the original to buy this. The only thing in common with the old IL2 is the name and its a WWII flight game. This is not a good sandbox type sim. This is not an immersive WWII air combat sim. Its very linear, and very strict. You can forget it being old IL246 with updated graphics.    NOT a remake of the classic.

    Sadly 777/1c has used the IL2 name in an attempt to sway people who loved the original to buy this. The only thing in common with the old IL2 is the name and its a WWII flight game.

    This is not a good sandbox type sim. This is not an immersive WWII air combat sim. Its very linear, and very strict. You can forget it being old IL246 with updated graphics. You can forget doing a COOP campaign, or a good SP dynamic campaign. You can expect a HUD that is out of star wars, and a campaign about as fun and interesting as watching grass grow.

    The devs are trying to get the War Thunder crowd, and having the sim crowd pay for development.

    Good:

    1. Graphics are nice. NOT CLoD graphics, but better than old IL2.
    2. FM are ok. Not great but passable.
    3. Land graphics are nice. It IS all snow, but its done well.
    4. 8 regular plane is nice.

    Bad:

    1. SP campaign is horrible. Its a bunch of quick missions. No historic squads, no pilot info, no squadmate info, and no dynamaic campaign. Blow up and airfield in one mission, its back the next.
    2. Always on connection. You have to be connected to the 777servers to play the SP campaign, and access your profile.
    3. No full mission builder. Forget making your own missions. They *might* release one later down the road....maybe.
    4. No Dserver for MP. Again they might release one later....maybe. For now enjoy the slim list in different timezones, and mostly just quick dogfights.
    5. Unlock and XP. Yes, in order to unlock different loadouts you HAVE to the play the SP campaign. This even goes for online players. You are forced to play the boring SP campaign to get weapons and skins.
    6. Graphic presets. No custom graphics settings. Why? According to the devs people are too dumb to set up their graphics options.
    7. Hollywood smoke and damage effects. No planes go down without huge plumes of smoke and fire. To the point of over the top.
    8. Simplified damage model. Hitboxes without internal componet damage.
    9. Old digital nature engine running the game. Using DX9 tech. Severely limits how many objects can be in a battle. Dont expect to see large bomber formations, or large scale ground/air battles.
    10. Limited modding. User made mods have to be approved before it goes into the game, including skins. This is another reason for the always on master server.
    11. The development team. 80% of "founders" who bought the early access game did not want XP and unlocks. Everyone gave them feedback, but they basically said too bad. You play the game the way we want you to. Same with the graphics presets, and no custom setting in campaign. They think they know better on how you play the game than you do.
    12. No triple screen support. There is not one "sim" from racing to flying that has been out for the last few years that does not support triple screens. Well, here you are.
    13. Price. For what you get, simple dogfight MP, random generated quick mission campaign, a quick mission builder, no dserver, no full mission builder, and no way to pick your graphic settings, its just a shallow game.

    The only saving grace is hoping that next year modders can make this game more of what made old IL2 fun. Considering the restrictions by the devs, that might not ever happen. We can hope.

    In the meantime CLoD with Team Fusions patches, and IL21946 with HSFX mods, are much better (and way cheaper) alternatives to get a good WWII sim fix.    … Expand
  27. Einfall
    Oct 23, 2014
    4
    This rendition of IL-2 has a long, long way to go before I would suggest it for purchase by a hardcore simulation fan but I would likely recommend it if you are a casual gamer just getting in to the genre.

    On the foundation: The feeling of flight is well captured with the Digital Nature engine, but some of the nuances in flight modeling are questionable at best and are hotly (and    This rendition of IL-2 has a long, long way to go before I would suggest it for purchase by a hardcore simulation fan but I would likely recommend it if you are a casual gamer just getting in to the genre.

    On the foundation: The feeling of flight is well captured with the Digital Nature engine, but some of the nuances in flight modeling are questionable at best and are hotly (and normally, unprofessionally) contested by the developer. Second to that, there is no transparency in the documentation used to draw the conclusion on why the VVS historically overperform and don't suffer from production quality issues like it should be modeled, but any changes in flight modeling initiated by the community requires complete disclosure of sources and a whole lot of tooth pulling. The damage model is absolutely horrendous and is built primarily around HP counters and badly modeled break-points, black 2D holes on the wings, no spars in the wing, hitboxes, etc. The simulator is built around a terrible and embarrassing XP system designed to make you toil away to unlock standard loadouts. The "campaign" is a slightly-more-advanced Quick Mission Builder, is not dynamic and completely lacks any form of historical/squadron-based immersion - the only difference QMB and the "campaign" is that AI are placed on the map for you and you are dealt a very generic, repetitive series of missions/briefings that have no effect on the outcome of the battle. Not to mention, repetitive flight paths/objectives. Achieving victory in the campaign is repetitive as the criteria for completion is always the same - meet target at action point, shoot, fly to exit point. AI is deplorably broken and will not function (even when commanded to do so) in the campaign. Hit sounds and feedback do not perform properly and were dismissed with poor excuses about game-engine limitation. Overall, the things that BUILD a flight simulator are ultimately underwhelming and not so convincing.

    For the MP guys: Digital Nature has difficulty providing the large-scale multiplayer experiences that we have come to expect in the IL-2 series and equally proves to be the largest limiting factor for the entire experience. If you are expecting SoW, SEoW or any other large-scale/dynamic multiplayer experiences, look elsewhere. I am not convinced the engine will ever support them.

    777 as a company is deplorable and incredibly difficult to work with or give the benefit of the doubt to, due to all of the times they managed to shoot themselves in the foot. Their communication is poorly translated (from Russian) and the cultural differences between Russian society and the Western consumer will leave you feeling undermined and dismissed if you are ever granted an audience to make a claim. Jason, their American business partner (and the only major redeemer to their communication), has had to clean up their publicity/business mistakes more than once.

    TL;DR - Stay away for years. It will take that long to mature, if it ever does.    … Expand
  28. Masterjts
    Oct 24, 2014
    1
    This is a mediocre sim at best. The flight models have huge holes, the damage model is a joke and the ballistics is lacking. It has huge huge historical inaccuracies and is heavily russian biased. The terrain is fairly small and because the theater is Battle of Stalingrad the ground is covered in snow which means there is absolutely no variety in visuals. Even if the game's graphics wereThis is a mediocre sim at best. The flight models have huge holes, the damage model is a joke and the ballistics is lacking. It has huge huge historical inaccuracies and is heavily russian biased. The terrain is fairly small and because the theater is Battle of Stalingrad the ground is covered in snow which means there is absolutely no variety in visuals. Even if the game's graphics were top notch, which they are not, the game would look bland and boring. On top of that the game does not even give you a full set of graphic's options because the developers do not thing the community is smart enough to configure their computer's properly. (do a search and you can find the exact quote on the topic.)

    Overall I cant recommend this game at all. If you have any love for the genera then your money would be best spent elsewhere supporting people who make flight simulations instead of junk like this.

    The Legend Returns! ? Please, if anything this is the final nail in the IL-2 coffin.    … Expand
  29. secret_squirrel
    Oct 23, 2014
    3
    Meh, I really want to give this game more but I cannot.
    The graphics are for the most part ok. One can really see the low quality of the textures when sitting in the cockpit. I'm guessing it was a toss up between performance and quality when using a game engine which still uses DX9. they chose performance. It's 2014, why not chose DX11? A poor development decision, and not the only one.    Meh, I really want to give this game more but I cannot.
    The graphics are for the most part ok. One can really see the low quality of the textures when sitting in the cockpit. I'm guessing it was a toss up between performance and quality when using a game engine which still uses DX9. they chose performance. It's 2014, why not chose DX11? A poor development decision, and not the only one. "power ups"? The developers have been in the flight sim game long enough to know that Multi-player is a huge part of the appeal of ww2 combat flight simulation for the punters. How can the dedicated servers,when the arrive, run COOP missions when the player base "power up" level is all over the place? It's mind boggling that the devs chose to implement such a bad idea.
    Flight models are not the worst but they are certainly not the best. This is NOT a combat flight simulator. It's somewhere between warthunder and il2 1946. It's an arcade flight shooter. Warthunder players there is no mouse aim and it's not free but if you have a joystick and you don't mind spending money to grind your way to "power ups" You may find it a small step up from warthunder.
    I really wanted to like this game, I really want to see potential in it but the developers seem to have taken no notice of the paying early access customers and made some pretty poor decisions. I don't hold out much hope for further development, aircraft, maps. The developer threatened to shut down the project when some bad reviews appeared. Who can tell if there will be further development when, one of the guys running the show, shows such a lack of faith in his own project?
    Meh and only meh.    … Expand
  30. Mike999
    Oct 24, 2014
    1
    This sim isnt even close to be an IL2 46 successor as advertised. Limited engine for creating MP missions. Often poor MP performance on high end machine. Thers no mission editor, customizable skins or custom video settings (??!!). The FMs seems nice but nothing much better than old IL2. Clouds look odd and cockpits are not much better than modded IL2 46. Default skins and weapon and otherThis sim isnt even close to be an IL2 46 successor as advertised. Limited engine for creating MP missions. Often poor MP performance on high end machine. Thers no mission editor, customizable skins or custom video settings (??!!). The FMs seems nice but nothing much better than old IL2. Clouds look odd and cockpits are not much better than modded IL2 46. Default skins and weapon and other modifications can be unlocked only via MP grinding (xp points) which doesnt fit into this genre. Im sorry I ever bought this. Their other game RIse of flight is much better, both visually and in terms of performance.… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

36
#36 Most Discussed PC Game of 2014
53
#53 Most Shared PC Game of 2014

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
74

Mixed or average reviews - based on 7 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 7
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 7
  3. Negative: 0 out of 7
  1. Pelit (Finland)
    Jun 14, 2015
    74
    Il-2: Battle of Stalingrad boldly seeks to renew the genre by adding modern game design elements to the admittedly often sterile genre of flight simulators. Unfortunately not only does the bold attempt fail spectacularly, the developers also seem to have completely forgotten what made the original Il-2 a legend. The Rise of Flight legacy shows in the rather impressive visuals and physics modeling, but strangely a lot of its nice features didn't make the cut either and the “sequel” falls short of its predecessor in many ways. [June 2015]
  2. GameOver.gr
    Feb 10, 2015
    70
    The excellent handling and the immense realism that Battle of Stalingrad offers, manages to balance out the poor single player campaign and some of its design flaws.
    Read full review
  3. PC PowerPlay
    Feb 8, 2015
    70
    The lack of content and generous helping of bugs can be easily forgiven thanks to the developer's high reputation. [Feb 2015, p.16]
See all critic reviews »