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. Jaklar
    Oct 23, 2014
    6
    Been playing simulators since "Jet" on the Atari 400, RoF fanatic (with all planes owned)...so I was really looking forward to the devs getting a hold of this franchise and hopefully moving this long-troubled franchise in the right direction. Such is not the case, I fear. Game feels half-assed, hampered with deeply questionable design choices, an intrusive and inelegant interface, datedBeen playing simulators since "Jet" on the Atari 400, RoF fanatic (with all planes owned)...so I was really looking forward to the devs getting a hold of this franchise and hopefully moving this long-troubled franchise in the right direction. Such is not the case, I fear. Game feels half-assed, hampered with deeply questionable design choices, an intrusive and inelegant interface, dated graphics and an uninspiring campaign system.

    The flight-models are good...but that's about it. Doesn't merit the price tag and ultimately feels like a huge step backwards for both the dev and the IL-2 franchise.    … Expand
  2. Tektolnes
    Dec 4, 2014
    6
    Have to revise my score down from 8 to 6. Looks like the Devs just don't want to listen to people and make some quick common sense decision to improve this game's reception. Unlocks shouldn't apply to those who pay full price. Custom graphic options not being present and with no plans to change this policy is ludicrous. Badly implemented SSAO ruining the game's looks at high / ultraHave to revise my score down from 8 to 6. Looks like the Devs just don't want to listen to people and make some quick common sense decision to improve this game's reception. Unlocks shouldn't apply to those who pay full price. Custom graphic options not being present and with no plans to change this policy is ludicrous. Badly implemented SSAO ruining the game's looks at high / ultra settings. Autopilot stuck to 2x time compression so the cheaper Russian buyers can't blaze through the dull campaign unlocks.

    There's a good core game here but Loft has made some very bad calls about some major aspects of the game design. It would be easy for the devs to remedy these decisions with virtually no work on their side but Loft appears to be digging his heels in as he knows better than everybody voicing their complaints apparently. Hopefully somebody can make him come to his senses and things can turn around but I'm not overly hopeful at this point. If they keep these same policies I won't be buying any future releases and with DCS WW2 and CloD TF 5.0 on the way there's plenty of other quality choices in the market.    … Expand
  3. b45t4rd0
    Oct 26, 2014
    6
    The good: Graphics are really good for being directX 9. The crash landings are done really well. The sounds are also really well done. The Flight Models are pretty good. Flying the campaign in full real can be pretty intense. The bad: MP only via their test servers, no mission builder, SP campaign could be better. Overall synopsis, this still runs way smoother and has less bugs than CLOD.The good: Graphics are really good for being directX 9. The crash landings are done really well. The sounds are also really well done. The Flight Models are pretty good. Flying the campaign in full real can be pretty intense. The bad: MP only via their test servers, no mission builder, SP campaign could be better. Overall synopsis, this still runs way smoother and has less bugs than CLOD. The flight models and difficulties almost get to the CLOD level and this can be played in full real. If they add a dynamic campaign that I can play online with friends, add a mission builder, forget the points and unlocks, then this could easily be a 9. Until then I think a 6 is fair.… Expand
  4. The_truth_2014
    Oct 27, 2014
    6
    This game is not worth to call it a simulation. The sovjet planes are so overmodelled, Stalin had won the war within days with just a few of them :-) Seriously, the German planes, which were famous for their topnotch engineering and quality fly like crap, whereas the sovjet planes fly like on rails. And all evidence brought to the developers during early access phase didn't better theThis game is not worth to call it a simulation. The sovjet planes are so overmodelled, Stalin had won the war within days with just a few of them :-) Seriously, the German planes, which were famous for their topnotch engineering and quality fly like crap, whereas the sovjet planes fly like on rails. And all evidence brought to the developers during early access phase didn't better the situation at all. Quite the contrary was the case. They demanded documents for each single bit the community claimed (although it is common knowledge), but never proved themselves with supporting documents for their phantasy flight models.

    So if you want to have a gamey game, get it. But if you are looking for a proper flight simulation which reflects the true history, then you better wait for another try of a development studio. DCS has a big potential in terms of honest flight models, and has probably a better chance to be sincere and honest, because the development isn’t Russian…    … Expand
  5. Osis
    Nov 24, 2014
    5
    Initially I thought I was getting a updated version of the classic version of il-2 Sturmovik and it appeared during development that we were on the right track. But at the 11th hour the developers added an unlock system that has completely killed my interest, safe to say that if you are a Multiplayer only type then this is not the game for you.

    I do see potential, but frankly I am just    Initially I thought I was getting a updated version of the classic version of il-2 Sturmovik and it appeared during development that we were on the right track. But at the 11th hour the developers added an unlock system that has completely killed my interest, safe to say that if you are a Multiplayer only type then this is not the game for you.

    I do see potential, but frankly I am just not playing the game and the reaction to the playerbase by the developers is troubling. Overall it is probably the best game I will not play and I think at least has had a positive effect of moving people to Cliffs of Dover. Keep in mind I have flown in excess of 1500 organized Multiplayer missions in the original il-2 as pilot Lipfert.

    If they are going to force a single player unlock system on you, then they really should had made it a very interesting experience. The word on the street is it is frustratingly boring in it's present form and I have basically been in a holding pattern.

    I am giving this a 5, because of the reaction from the development team during the release to the playbase in question. Will give an updated review in one month and see if anything interesting develops.    … Expand
  6. Toxin1
    Feb 4, 2015
    5
    Good looking planes, weather, tracers, flight and damage models. Released without mission builder or ability to host multiplayer games unless you have a Dedicated server (still pending release to rest of the customers). No Oculus support and limited Single player content as mentioned already.
  7. Bongodriver
    Oct 23, 2014
    5
    So IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad has finally arrived, many people praising it's realistic feeling of flight, sadly none of them have ever experienced the real feeling, this game has some of the strangest flight modelling I ever experienced, damage modelling has some nice touches but is very simplistic visually, the game looks nice enough, the DX9 game engine hasn't done too bad but it is waySo IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad has finally arrived, many people praising it's realistic feeling of flight, sadly none of them have ever experienced the real feeling, this game has some of the strangest flight modelling I ever experienced, damage modelling has some nice touches but is very simplistic visually, the game looks nice enough, the DX9 game engine hasn't done too bad but it is way behind some of it's contemporaries, it is still a game with arcade style features despite a huge community protest, it is still missing many key components like a full mission builder and Oculus rift support.… Expand
  8. Buddeye
    Jan 24, 2015
    5
    IL2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad (BoS) in 10 words or less

    It’s a PC flight game being released November 2014. OK, I'll tell you more: BoS in 100 words or less It’s set in WW2, 1942, in Russia, with planes from Germany flying against planes from Russia. You can buy a version with 8 planes for 50 bucks/Euros, or with ten planes for 90 bucks/Euros. You can play in either ‘normal’    IL2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad (BoS) in 10 words or less

    It’s a PC flight game being released November 2014.

    OK, I'll tell you more: BoS in 100 words or less

    It’s set in WW2, 1942, in Russia, with planes from Germany flying against planes from Russia. You can buy a version with 8 planes for 50 bucks/Euros, or with ten planes for 90 bucks/Euros. You can play in either ‘normal’ or expert mode. Normal mode is like War Thunder Arcade mode, and Expert mode is like Realistic mode, just even more realistic.

    The Stalingrad map is flat, white, and snowy, with flat, white snowy bits, and icy rivers. And snow. Great for framerates on older PCs, a bit boring after you have flown over it a few times.

    You love War Thunder/World of Warplanes, so why would you buy this?

    If you have a gaming PC, mouse and a joystick (needs programmable joystick), you have 50+ bucks burning a hole in your pocket, and are looking for a more ‘realistic’ flight game than WT/WOW, this could be worth a look.

    But buy it on sale. For what you get, it is overpriced: 8-10 aircraft and you are forced to play the crappy offline campaign in order to be able to get all the aircraft options in multiplayer. Seriously dumb idea, ruins an otherwise good flight game.    … Expand
  9. Arealsimmer
    Nov 1, 2014
    5
    This game is an Arcade with a dash of simulation. The unlocks IMO are a joke and a ploy to target a certain audience. I think this game could have been better and its a shame it has the IL2 stamp on it.
  10. EiToro
    Oct 23, 2014
    5
    i think this game a huge back step from a simulator for example CloD. They want to meet both the casual and the pro pilots requirements. Everyone know its impossible to achieve. Some FM model awful, like 109s negative G. And a russians planes originally was much harder to keep on the air than this game.

    Noting more just a fair Arcade game in this stage, but far from a sim. It has named    i think this game a huge back step from a simulator for example CloD. They want to meet both the casual and the pro pilots requirements. Everyone know its impossible to achieve. Some FM model awful, like 109s negative G. And a russians planes originally was much harder to keep on the air than this game.

    Noting more just a fair Arcade game in this stage, but far from a sim. It has named sim just because you have a cockpit. Push the throttle then soot em' all thats of the content, the fan made mission better than the built-in. Available combat tactics so limited, litte mainstream and childish. Maybe the bombers has proper engine management (so-so).

    First look the game eye-candy, but you have to have a high end comp to run it well when you facing the crowds. The devs have promised 100/server, now 75/server barely can maintain. And about the campaign. Random generated stuff without conception. Few chapter, but dont try to find logic in it.

    I think they want to compete with War Thunder, but originally was IL-2 the game of sophisticated pilots not the casual ones.

    Conclusion:
    1. Casual player wont buy it because the controlling devices.
    2. For a Hardcore players it a weak game.    … Expand
  11. DonKojote
    Dec 28, 2014
    5
    It's a decent effort , unfortunately there are design decisions that are truly unexplainable. First of all there are unlocks here that you can only achieve through playing rather dull single player campaign.

    There is no custom graphics options or a way to customise HUD. There is no mission editor yet , and there is no way to host your own servers. Both of these features are on the    It's a decent effort , unfortunately there are design decisions that are truly unexplainable. First of all there are unlocks here that you can only achieve through playing rather dull single player campaign.

    There is no custom graphics options or a way to customise HUD.

    There is no mission editor yet , and there is no way to host your own servers. Both of these features are on the way sometime in 2015 and will hopefully revitalise online experience.

    Oculus Rift support was promised but there is just excuses currently.    … Expand
  12. mjbroot
    Dec 2, 2014
    5
    --GRAPHICS-- 8.5/10

    Very good with the exception of forced SSAO and other postprocessing. There are NO custom settings. Just 3 console like presets. Workarounds to switch off SSAO's and other PP have been actively stopped and patched by Devs. --SINGLE PLAYER-- 2/10 Game features unlockable field modifications for your aircraft. These apply in SP & MP. You need to grind your way    --GRAPHICS-- 8.5/10

    Very good with the exception of forced SSAO and other postprocessing. There are NO custom settings. Just 3 console like presets. Workarounds to switch off SSAO's and other PP have been actively stopped and patched by Devs.

    --SINGLE PLAYER-- 2/10

    Game features unlockable field modifications for your aircraft. These apply in SP & MP. You need to grind your way through them if you want to use them in MP which is not much fun at all.

    There is NO traditional campaign with a backstory, continual career progress or medals. Only a quick mission builder and "campaign".

    The "campaign" is a simplified quick mission builder. A series of disjointed, generated missions. You choose your side, airplane, airfield, mission type & duration for each mission. The only purpose of this is so you can grind through to earn XP to unlock aforementioned unlockable field mods. Without exception, every mission has 4 waypoints.

    1. Start at Airfield (or in air)
    2. Enter "Mission"
    3. Target Area
    4 . Exit "Mission"

    The waypoint system enforces the XP grinding system - you need to fly through waypoints to earn XP. You earn XP only on easy or realistic difficulty. The custom setting doesn't give you any XP points.

    Many people didn't like this fun killing feature that was introduced at release (not being there during early access). So they set their plane at autopilot and 16x time compression and let the pc do the grind for them.

    At the same time the devs decided to reduce time compression to 2x maximum(!). These 2 events are apparently unrelated. However this made auto-grinding unfeasible and also makes the flight through waypoints on longer missions (more XP) boring.

    A "Autopilot off when enemy is near" feature would have made more sense.

    All of the above makes singleplayer in it's current form an utterly boring experience.

    --THE COMING MISSION EDITOR-- ?

    There is light at the end of the tunnel however as a proper Mission Editor is in the works. It will allow players to script, place objectives, waypoints, etc. When this tool is released, new and complex missions are expected to be released by members of the community, with one already in existence.

    It is a sad new paradigm where the players have to do the devs job to bring about a creative campaign. And don't have the tools to do it at release none the less.

    --MULTI PLAYER-- 7/10

    Multiplayer can be good solid fun, especially on a good server and with friends. There is no dedicated server tool for all players yet(will be in future) to host their own server so current choice is limited.

    BoS can host a limited number of players on a server. Originaly 64, then reduced to 32 and now again lifted to a slightly larger number of 48. Don't expect 100 player servers any time soon.

    --FLIGHT MODEL-- 6.5/10

    The flight model received a lot of praise and part of it is justified. The game recreates a feeling of flight like no other. Visual and audio clues give you a feeling like you're in the air. Alas - you're in the wrong aircraft. The feeling of flight is based on the dev's previous work on Rise of Flight and it does show. The airplanes feel like they are 500KG and not 2500KG. Your airplane rarely stays still. It's constantly jittering as if it had partially and asymmetrically deployed flaps (or indeed was a light airplane) The planes from WW2 were more then capable to fly in a straight line without jittering, the thrust to weight of these planes,and their design and construction allowed for it. Watch a POV flight video that had a properly mounted camera (no vibration) and you'll see what I mean.

    In short you always feel like you're in turbulence, which is appealing to some people but doesn't reflect reality of what it was like to fly a metal plane at 400kmh. The actual turbulence and wind is however nicely modeled, it's just that it never completely goes away for one second.

    There are squabbles over roll rates, turn circles and climbing performance of various planes, but that's the way it is with every sim.

    --DAMAGE MODEL-- 6/10

    Eye candy. Lots of smoke, lots of explosions, fire, etc. But it is effects for the sake of physical/historical accuracy. Machine gun fire lights up fuesalages. Single cannon round hits cause critical damage where they wouldn't and every other hit results in some sort of smoke coming of the enemy a/c. It's nice to look at, but not very accurate.
    --SUMMARY-- I've played the original IL2 Sturmovik. I was hoping for this to be a continuation of the IL2 spirit. It's not. I'm disillusioned. A lot of good features have been forcibly taken out and fun killing features introduced for no reason. If you've been expecting a new il2 sturmovik then this is not the game for you. If you're new to the genre and want a good place to start or coming from WT then yes this is a good game to get started.    … Expand
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. robtek
    Oct 23, 2014
    4
    First thing: disregard the 0,1, 9 and 10 scores, those are either fanbois, praising their idol to heaven or people with a axe to grind. IMO of course :D
    As I bought the game very early I fell into the trap to assume that it would be a improved IL2-1946 and at least as good as the abandoned IL2-Cliffs of Dover.
    I was wrong! While this game sports very nice graphics and sounds, it lacks    First thing: disregard the 0,1, 9 and 10 scores, those are either fanbois, praising their idol to heaven or people with a axe to grind. IMO of course :D
    As I bought the game very early I fell into the trap to assume that it would be a improved IL2-1946 and at least as good as the abandoned IL2-Cliffs of Dover.
    I was wrong!
    While this game sports very nice graphics and sounds, it lacks in the sim department.
    The flight model gives imo no real feeling of weight of the planes, especially when landing they float and float, very unlike as in real life where I occasionally dumped a Cessna the last 20 - 30 cm because of the stall.
    Not so here, too fast and you bounce and you have to become really slow to reach the stall.
    The FM has too many discrepancies, FW 190 roll rate, FW 190 Cobra manoeuvre, in general the twisty reactions of the axis fighters and rock steady (felt) reactions of the VVS fighters.
    The DM needs to be reworked also, attacked planes are loosing wings or other major parts waay to easy. Almost every hit gives at least a major leak, a fire, or with cannons a major structural damage.
    That disregards that at least 70% of the fuselage is empty and has no critically load bearing structures.
    The DM is clearly made for gamers, not for the sim crowd, as success is easy and spectacular.
    If you want a flight game -> you've found it, and a really good one.
    If you want a sim -> stay with IL2-Cliffs of Dover or wait for DCS WWII or even stay with IL2-1946.
    Same if you want to fly as a group, BoS doesn't deliver that, at least for now.
    Mission building will be available in the future, we'll see. Collapse    … Expand
  16. 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
  17. Wizzleteats
    Oct 23, 2014
    4
    I bought in very early into the early access release of the game based on the strengths of the studio's previous release, Rise of Flight, and the promise from the developers that the game would strongly focus on the single player aspect.

    I was very, very disappointed when, very late in the development cycle the single player "campaign" was finally released. I put the term campaign in    I bought in very early into the early access release of the game based on the strengths of the studio's previous release, Rise of Flight, and the promise from the developers that the game would strongly focus on the single player aspect.

    I was very, very disappointed when, very late in the development cycle the single player "campaign" was finally released. I put the term campaign in quotes because there really is no campaign to speak of. The "campaign" is basically a random mission generator that is very repetitive in nature, bug-ridden, and ultimately unfulfilling as there is absolutely no sense of continuity between missions. You choose your starting base, the type of plane you wish to fly, and then a basic mission type (intercept, escort, ground attack, etc) from one of 5 options and the game then generates a semi-random mission. The victory conditions for each mission type are always exactly the same and there's very little variety between them. Flight plans are nearly always the same 4 point diamond pattern (start, 1st waypoint, action point, 3rd waypoint, home). The briefings are generic, repetitive, and lacking important details. They're also full of errors. It often informs you that your target will be at 500 meters when they turn out to be at 5,000m or vice versa.

    The AI in the missions is broken. Friendly ground attack AI wingmen will not attack targets, no matter how many times you order them to. They'll just circle over the target until they're shot down by AAA, furn out of fuel, or you RTB. Enemy AI fighters almost never engage bombers or ground attack aircraft if escorts are around. Air-to-air AI is a bit better in that the AI will engage the player but the challenge level is low. They're all too easy to shoot down and never seem to present much of a challenge at all. There don't seem to be different skill levels between pilots. They all fly in a uniform and predictable fashion.

    Even if they do manage to shoot you down, it doesn't really matter as there's no penalty for failing the mission. The reason for this is that you don't actually create a single, online pilot. It's a truly baffling omission.

    Even the most rudimentary of campaigns in other flight sim titles allow the player to create a virtual pilot and then track their progress throughout the campaign. Even Rise of Flight allowed this. Battle of Stalingrad does not. You don't create a pilot. You don't join a squadron. There are no historic markings, bases, aces, or dynamic battlefields. It doesn't matter if you shoot down 2 enemies of 20, nothing will change on the battlefield. Nor does it matter if every single one of your AI wingmen is shot down. The game doesn't keep track of them. They have no names and there's no penalty for losing them. As the AI kind of sucks anyway, there's absolutely no point in caring about what happens to them. They tend to be more of a threat to you than an aid anyway as they will sometimes ram you if you're both chasing the same bad guy. Rather than creating an immersive, historically accurate representation of the battle with player and squadron stats being tracked and updated, the developers came up with a truly idiotic system wherein the player is expected to grind for XP in order to earn unlocks. The system lifted straight out of an MMO or Battlefield-esque FPS and has no place in a flight sim.

    Your only goal in the game is to earn enough XP to unlock plane modifications such as rockets, bombs, or new plane skins. Earn enough XP and you can unlock the next of 5 chapters in the campaign. These chapters are largely pointless as the battlefield in each chapter is completely static and you're always fighting over the same map with the same weather regardless. The only difference is the position of air bases and front lines. It's all just crushingly dull. What makes it even worse is the fact that the developers have removed choice from the player.

    For the longest time during the pre-access stages, the players had the ability to select custom difficulty options to tailor the game experience in such a way as to get the most enjoyment out of the sim. For some unknown reason, the developers took the difficulty customization away from the campaign portion of the game and instead force the player to select either "normal" or "expert" difficulty. I prefer to play in full-realism mode with external views turned on but I can no longer do so in the campaign. I have no idea why they refuse to let me.

    The unlock system carries over into multi-player as well. If you want the planes and unlocks for use in the online portion of the game, you'll have to grind through the single-player portion in order to earn them. The MP community has suffered as a result as players can't join missions if they don't have the unlocks required.

    It's a huge disappointment because the flight dynamics are great. Shame the game itself is so bad. Avoid it.    … Expand
  18. 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
  19. Con
    Dec 20, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The long awaited WWII flight sim from 777 , for me this is a hit and miss flight sim ,

    The Good ..........
    We have good graphics especially at night dawn and dusk .
    decent sound but needs work on impact sounds on aircraft .
    Good quick mission builder. Easy to use .
    Good flight models tweak your joystick settings .
    eight aircraft to choose from with tail gunners for multiplayer .
    Large map .
    Easy setup GUI.
    Good for the new comer to flight sims .

    The Bad ........
    poor campaign and the unlocks ,
    no ground war going on ,historical
    no squadron historical
    no pilot ranks historical
    no real history to connect too .
    Basic hit boxes on FM .
    visuals in combat ..seem Arcaded

    The Ugly........
    Unlocks .

    For me it's all about history , this is nothing like Rise of flight , were you had good campaigns and real mission history involved . Squadrons , pilot skins ect , ect .... The more I play this game the more frustrated I become , of what should of been , could of been . Shouldn't of been .    … Expand
  20. Lealison
    Mar 22, 2018
    4
    hello, not sure i d buy this game again. bads and goods version 3.01

    -there is good things that fan boys tell you so i ll talk about what they dont feel important you to know -good graphics if you got powerful system, 3G vram or less wont, if you can even start the game -lower graphic setting from high to medium can make game ugly very fast, specially clouds, and shimmering, without    hello, not sure i d buy this game again. bads and goods version 3.01

    -there is good things that fan boys tell you so i ll talk about what they dont feel important you to know
    -good graphics if you got powerful system, 3G vram or less wont, if you can even start the game
    -lower graphic setting from high to medium can make game ugly very fast, specially clouds, and shimmering, without giving good performance boost.
    -many new player complaint cause game crash, not start etc...
    -need internet connected to play single player career,
    -after a mission done you can have a message internet failed and your stats does nt count
    -even with walk around, some user got in game stutters with card as 980 and stronger
    -even if good fps, clouds often stutters (like 1 fps) immersion breaker
    -planes in front of clouds are often barely visible, look like 800 x 600 resolution (z-buffer thing
    problem) only sim i know with this problem, since long time they say it may stay like that, not realistic
    -SP flight leader wont wait for you and you may have to fly combat power all the time
    -saw some reports ai take some much time to take off, that flight leader doe s nt have enough fuel for all the mission because the waiting
    -fighters flight don t use formation , for a sim, it is not realistic, 1946 and COD do better
    -almost no communication between leader and wingman, or what it is said is useless, again 1946 and COD you have many option to communicate with AI,it is less realistic than older games, again
    -
    -track ir, open track problem in update 3.01, many got the problem just right after the update, the
    tread on forum got around 2000 view and Dev keep saying they did nt do this
    -critics on forum are welcome if you also say you like the game, dev works hard, you like them
    etc.. go see by yourself if i m lying
    -veterans on forum are fast to say to new guy s to stop talking about something already discuss by
    them years ago, but new guys with problem thread are not very popular, again see your self on the
    forum
    -i just talked about few problems from many others i remember just now, i think a part of the problem is they listen too much a group a few people who play online and it s not representing the majority who play alone in peace at home after work or else, i really wish you go on their forum, you ll learn a lot about the game .

    i do play the sim with a free 3rd party campaign generator , PWCG so i can make use of almost the 200$ spent in this game, i dont say i regret but i live in the hope they will fix things, last update is a big disappointment for that, i m lucky i can play it, i seen comments that people leave the game a time in hope the game will be fixed and they will be able to login ... well they have more patience than me.
    I really hope they slow down with the rig with the new theaters, it s time to stop, adjust and fix everything that a consider the basics, AI behaviors , AI communication , missions correctly done graphic optimization etc.. only way to me to be the best and stay in business for always    … Expand
  21. 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
  22. Vaxx
    Oct 23, 2014
    3
    If you like your WWII sims like a sandbox, with a strong single player dynamic campaign, historic and interesting MP including Co-op, look elsewhere. If you like random quick missions campaign, non-historic squads, air-quake MP, and xp points in your game....this might be for you.

    Could have been good, but BoS made too many bad decisions. Starting with the fact you have no custom    If you like your WWII sims like a sandbox, with a strong single player dynamic campaign, historic and interesting MP including Co-op, look elsewhere. If you like random quick missions campaign, non-historic squads, air-quake MP, and xp points in your game....this might be for you.

    Could have been good, but BoS made too many bad decisions. Starting with the fact you have no custom graphics setting. Nope, you get presets. You have to be connected to the 777 master server for your profile and to play the SP campaign. In the campaign you cannot set a custom setting. You get two options.

    So the SP campaign BoS gives you is as follows:

    You pick your plane (no historic squad to choose). You pick an airfield (again not historic to plane type). No pilot name, no squad info. You pick between short (air start) or long (ground start). Now at plane setup, all your skins and "upgrades" (ie removed headrest, wing cannons for the 190) are "locked". So you take off/or air start and you have a silly non-historic way point system. Your starting point. Your first way point. Your "Action Point". And your "Exit Point". Yes, your action point is where the enemy will spawn, where you have to shoot 2 planes (yes...you have to shoot 2 planes its in the briefing ). Your exit point is what you have to reach to have a successful mission. Now you can land or just hit ESC to end the mission. You will know this by the bright flashing text on your screen telling you. Then you get your XP points, and a little measure bar showing how much XP you got for the mission. You get enough you can unlock a skin or a new modification. No AAR report. No info on the front. Nothing else. Its that generic.

    Nothing dynamic. Nothing interesting. A snore fest.

    Now you will have to do this SP campaign to unlock anything for your planes. This includes people wanting to play online with unlocks. You are forced to play this shallow campaign in order to unlock things for online use. So not only do the SP players get screwed, but so the MP ones.

    Now, lets see what we can do in building our own missions and campaigns, since the devs gave us nothing on their end. Oh, never mind you cant. There is no full missions builder. It might come later, but no idea when. Nice.

    There is also the Digital Nature engine. A modified one used in RoF. Considering large amounts of air/ground cannot be made with it, this concerns me. Without having access to the Full Mission Builder, its not known what can be done with it. It seems so far that massive battles are not possible. Small scale is what you will have to deal with. Thats not for me.

    Spent money on Early Access of BoS in hopes that it would continue the IL2 series. It didnt. It went far to make sure it didnt. MAYBE in 6month to a year it would be worth it. As it is right now it does not offer anything that I enjoy in my sims from IL2 orginal modded to CLoD TF modded.

    If you are like me, wait. Then wait some more until modders make this game enjoyable. Then see if it has made any progress.    … Expand
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Airdrop01
    Jun 16, 2015
    3
    I've waited to write this all through early access and for a looooong time beyond. They have yet to provide any type of remotely immersive single player experience of any kind. It is indeed a shame because the game is beautiful. Save yourself the money and go to the art museum instead. This is truly pretty but truly boring. The single player is just flat out awful. I don't needI've waited to write this all through early access and for a looooong time beyond. They have yet to provide any type of remotely immersive single player experience of any kind. It is indeed a shame because the game is beautiful. Save yourself the money and go to the art museum instead. This is truly pretty but truly boring. The single player is just flat out awful. I don't need Falcon 4 or European Air War but this is truly the worst most boring single player game ever of this genre. 3.0 because it looks pretty.… Expand
  28. SimFlight22
    Oct 23, 2014
    3
    First off, if you see a 10 score, know that it is a biased "review" started from the official forums by the fanatics. Yes, go look up the official BoS forum and look at the campaign started by the fans. Its a disgrace. Its far from a TRUE score.

    Sadly, this game cannot stand on its own merits, therefore gets inflated by the forum users. Bottom line is this is not worthy of using the    First off, if you see a 10 score, know that it is a biased "review" started from the official forums by the fanatics. Yes, go look up the official BoS forum and look at the campaign started by the fans. Its a disgrace. Its far from a TRUE score.

    Sadly, this game cannot stand on its own merits, therefore gets inflated by the forum users.

    Bottom line is this is not worthy of using the IL2 name. From the arcade unlocks and xp points to the generic campaign. This is nothing like the good old IL2 1946.

    The main fault? The campaign. Supposedly 80% of BoS was centered around this part. Its arcade, boring, and just plain bad. Its random quick missions over and over again with no pilot stats, and no real squadrons from that time period. In fact, there are no squadron marking in the game. The campaign is not dynamic like Dgen or DCG for Il21946. It gets dull fast, but if you want unlocks you have to play it for xp points. Yes, xp points in a WWII "sim". This also carries over to multiplayer. You want to use unlocks and skins online? Go grind your xp in single player. It wouldnt be so bad if it was actually fun.

    Custom campaign options are also out. Custom gfx setting are also out. But having to be connected to play the single player campaign is in.

    There is also no dedicated server. You will not be moving your squad from another game. Nope you have a select few servers, that are at peak pretty barren. There is no mission editor either. You will not be creating missions. Again 2 things that old IL21946 did, and did well.

    Its sad when a company takes a name like IL2 and makes it War Thunder 2.0, then tries to sell it to the sim market. Its an insult.

    People looking for a great sim experience might want to look at IL21946 (5-10 bucks) and get it modded. Want something more pretty? Cliffs of Dover with the Team Fusion patches (5-10 bucks). For $20 you can have tons more than BoS can offer right now, in single player and mulitplayer without spending $60 + bucks for BoS.    … Expand
  29. 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
  30. 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
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 »