This is what i would like Uncle Oleg to build for us :)

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

Dear Uncle Oleg,

I like very much the fascinating WWII related products you have made for us

and i would like you to make us some more. :)

I would like to have

1) IL2 +

2) Something for Submarines (Silent Hunter + Other Comercial & Battle Ship simulator)

3) a quality Tank & other vehicle simulator (always with your product quality) +

4) a first person combat sim (something nice :) but with the simulation quality of flashpoint)

All together combined (maybe diferent titles but under a unified scheme of some sort ..),

where one could have a 24/7 Non -stop On-line Campaign with a Humangus map!

ThanKS!

[danjama]

Like WW2 Online but by Oleg !

[JG27CaptStubing]

Yeah and they will be able to sell it to like 2000 guys at the most... Sorry charlie our genre is very small these days.

$ equals making products for consoles that you use for 40 hours and then sell them another game 2 months later.

WWII Online sucked. I like the premise but the execution blew. In addition it's hard to get people to drive 20 mins to die in 1 second. Thats why the EU was a 3rd the size.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Sure, and I want Uncle Oleg to build me a Spitfire in 1/1 scale with Lego blocks. Sorry mate, that's not how things work around here...

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

Sure, and I want Uncle Oleg to build me a Spitfire in 1/1 scale with Lego blocks. Sorry mate, that's not how things work around here...

where is "here" chief ? :P

[ElAurens]

Gaga, indeed this is what Oleg is working towards.

SOW:BoB is merely the first step.

[41Sqn_Banks]

In addition it's hard to get people to drive 20 mins to die in 1 second.

More like driving 1 month to die in 1 second for the submarine drivers ;)

Same thing with walking around after bailing out. Some human needs at least 30min to run 10km, 60min is more realistic for the average human. Now the 1x1 squares on the Il-2 map are 10x10 km. Who want's to walk these distances in real time?

[Bobb4]

Dear Uncle Oleg,

I like very much the fascinating WWII related products you have made for us

and i would like you to make us some more. :)

I would like to have

1) IL2 +

2) Something for Submarines (Silent Hunter + Other Comercial & Battle Ship simulator)

3) a quality Tank & other vehicle simulator (always with your product quality) +

4) a first person combat sim (something nice :) but with the simulation quality of flashpoint)

All together combined (maybe diferent titles but under a unified scheme of some sort ..),

where one could have a 24/7 Non -stop On-line Campaign with a Humangus map!

ThanKS!


Not hard to do at all?
ARMA and ARMA2 have shown the possiblity. WW2 online have shown it is viable and Oleg's screenshots have shown he has taken as much care with ground models as with those in the air.
Add to that the success of theatre of war and you could quiet easily see a third party developer joining them all together.
Would it be a financial success?
Would you pay to be a grunt, tanker or plain sailor in a persistant online universe?
I think the run and gun brigade would get bored very easily and start demanding chainguns and choppers.
Imagine a naval landing, you as a grunt spending twenty minutes in a landing craft and as the craft drops it's doors you take a bullet to the head.
The third or fourth time that happened you would quit...
I would have a ball, played WW2 online and loved it. But I am realistic enough to know that the graphic's sucked. Everything was always one promise away from improvement?
But what the hell, the chinese have purchase Battleground Europe now so who knows

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Where is "here"? Well, by "here" I meant the real world.

[danjama]

In a way, i have my own version of what you're proposing already in action in my own head.

I play il2 for my pilot fix and i then go to Red Orchestra for my infantry and tanker fix. This system works well, and is probably easier than waiting for a decent all-in-one to come out!

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

Well this what I had in mind …

Everything starts on the ground.

The first guy to cross – move over – the “enemy” line triggers “Ragnarock” :P

People start shooting and disperse in safe positions and pill boxes ….

Now the Artillery will try to clear out the Situation and the other part answers with Tanks!

Now everybody is sending messages for Air support. At last!!!

In the meanwhile out in the sea, convoys start forming and moving …both sides have asked for Supplies ..

(Supplies also come with Truck convoys and Airdrops.)

However these messages are passed on to the Submarine units as well ..

Yes it will take them 3 days to reach their destination … but there’s always the Recon Air Units … I believe they’ll get pretty busy.

I have no idea how on earth someone could sail for 3 days .. maybe he would have to rely on Auto-Mode while he’s at work …. I really don’t know … Anyway …

The coolest thing to have though, it would be the ability to pass from one weapon to the other while on-line ..

For example :

I get shot in my AC and I bail …ok very nice!

Now somehow I want to pass from IL2 to the 1st person situation and go on with a possible safe landing parachuting …

Now I want to be able to be Airlifted or fight – drive my way back to my base or …
Join the people on the ground possibly …or what have you …

Oh! And I forgot … it must get dark for at least 2-3 hours if not the full night package.

Now when you get holographic technology move the package to Star Trek type
Holographic room type of thing (holodeck was it called?  ) and no one will step out of his house for ever more!! LMAO

Parse that! Data! :P

[41Sqn_Banks]

This sounds pretty much like the Battlefield series. Hopefully Oleg will never get down to that arcade level.

"Swichting weapons while online." C'mon, in no instance a pilot mounted a tank and went to Berlin ...

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

I beleive the word "arcade" has never been used so far only the word "simulation".

Furthermore we must never forget the fact that we are always sitting in a comfortable armchair ... so let us not go over the top .... eh? :)

[41Sqn_Banks]

"Arcade" was refering to the Battlefield series. There are some games that follow that concept, but none of them is a simulation. Why is that? Time and money are limited resources.

[Bobb4]

"Arcade" was refering to the Battlefield series. There are some games that follow that concept, but none of them is a simulation. Why is that? Time and money are limited resources.
Arma and Arma2 are pure ground war simulation in my book with limited air appeal (arcadeish to a degree).

[KG26_Alpha]

I think some ground/sea interaction is planned for BoB at a later stage :o

If its a switchable option I'm all for it so long as it don't detract from the original "flight" concept.

There's been a hankering of mine to be able to use the vehicles in IL2 for ages, be it tanks ships artillery, so long as It's done properly and regards all performance modelling correctly.

Hmm imagine the whining, its bad enough with just aircraft let alone all the other stuff to moan about ;)

[rakinroll]

I would prefer playable AA guns and tanks for coop mission only. :grin: And i think fully playable ground forces makes an air combat simulation a dream. :(

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

I want to make clear that, it makes no sense to comfront me as i'm bringing into the council a busines plan.

- In fact i couldn't care less if it's worth the money & time

- I only want to have nice toys for my extra time, that are as realistic as possible.

- Let us not take the perspective of the Authority in Game busines and Computer code but only of the end user. Makes discusion easier i think.

[zapatista]

some of the optimistic ones amongst us are still speculating oleg might add in some form of integration with other sims, possibly tanks or other mobile armour, maybe ships, but a fps element is prrobably the least likely next step.

oleg definitely previously speculated along the lines of integrating these other aspects of war sims with his flight simulator project, but some other companies have aimed for this before and found the bone to large to chew. it is possible that some of the delays with olegs project are related to this aspect, and one of olegs colleagues posted a couple of years ago in another flightsim forum about "driving a tank to london" in a fictitious successful german invasion scenario. at the time this was referred to as something they were working on, and had already integrated, but there was no further mention of it later on.

right now the pessimists are even doubting the BoB project is still in progress, i tend to be on the optimist side, albeit with the help of some regular supply of armagnac to keep the spirits up, and still hope that when in the next months we finally get further news regarding BoB it will surpass our dreams. the game engine and grafix have been totally revamped from the original BoB idea (just compare the 2e 1946 dvd artwork with some of the screenshots from work in progress from the last year or so), and i think oleg has still persevered with some sort of 2e sim integration project (naval ? strategic control of war resources and ground troops, tanks etc..), but that this expansion aspect will be built into the servers only and will be added on as an expansion at a later date (either by 3e parties or oleg himself). did i say i was an optimist ? :)

time will tell

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

Briliant! We're all on the same frequency! There's light at the end of the tunnel ..

[HFC_Dolphin]

Though the idea is nice, like others said I don't think it's financially viable (as long as we expect a quality of at least IL-2's standards).

Furthermore, maybe it's only me, maybe I'm getting old, but maybe we should all move away from the 24 hours playing concept as it is too bad for our health :P
Most people say that are playing IL-2 only as a hobby, but in fact they are online at least 5 hours per day and spend at least another 5 hours per day with the game (in forums, skinning, etc.)
Trust me, this is not healthy and I don't want to imagine how many more junkies would be added if such a concept came in life lolol

Anyway, again as others said, most probably the SoW's engine is planned for exactly the interoperability that OP asks.

S!

[virre89]

You're dreaming to hard..
If someone could create a game containing very realistc simulation for all types of parts it would've been done, his aiming at trying to make a very very realistic flight sim.

Arma is a SOLDIER simulator , it is not a heli, tank or airplane simulator even tho driving vehicles in arma is way more realistic than in arcade shooters its in no way hardcore realism. For instance flying the Ka50 in arma2 would never come close to flying the KA50 in blackshark.

Oleg is no god , his in head of a development team trying to make the best ww2 flight sim and to make an engine than can be utilized in many areas.
Games cost to be made and you've to aim it at some type of audience. He doesn't have endless hours and endless amount of money to spend it making the worlds most content rich game, you've to realize there is limitations..

[Blackdog_kt]

There could be a solution to the time scale problem. It could be possible to have supplies,convoys and ground forces, as long as they were AI. A map interface to control them could be utilised and then it would play like a strategy game at that level.

So what's the fun in that you'll say. Well, instead of sailing the seas for a whole month or driving that tank for 2 days, have an option as to what unit to join in the ground/sea war. This way aircraft will still need to take off, fly to target, fight and land, but the ground forces will be AI with the ability to take control of one.

I know it's not very realistic in the sense of a purist sim fan, but then again we already have this in dogfight servers. People die all the time, respawn and the only thing that happens is that a player and plane "ticket" is deduced from their team's total count. I see no reason why it couldn't be made for ground units in the future, as long as time and resources permit.

I think it was hinted at that in BoB you would be able to join coops in progress and take the place of an AI plane. Well, that's exactly the same. You don't need all that time to get to the front. As soon as your little soldier dies, you choose to respawn as part of the same unit. Of course, units get depleted. But supply convoys and trains are moving to the front, so you can add a counter for reinforcements. For example, you want to spawn in a regiment/company/platoon that's suffered casualties and all the places are taken. You hover the mouse over the unit icon in the map (a map with filters to choose what units you want to see) and it tells you "next round of reinforcements: 25 soldiers in 10 minutes", in which case you can wait it out. Or it says, "100 soldiers in 3 hours" in which case you choose another unit because the one you picked has been effectively overrun. The campaign AI then retreats that unit if there are no human players left in it, or a player issues the retreat order from the map, or you could even retreat yourself as part of that unit with enemy armor and aircraft chasing you down (now that would be fun!).

The spawning system for aircraft would remain the same to encourage players to use ground units. If you could spawn in the plane of your choice 10 km from the battlefield as the infantryman can, then everybody will choose to use planes and nothing else. Also it would keep it realistic on the grand scale of things. For example, you might set up a CAP in the event that your guys need to fend off enemy CAS aircraft, or set up a flight of Jabos or bombed up P47s to loiter over your ground forces in case they need help. Something might happen and you get action, or it might not and you just fly back to base. Or maybe there's no friendly aircraft close and you need to race to the ground units and help them. Lot's of possibilities here that will make it interesting.

I think that combining a persistent battlefield that runs for a few weeks in a combined arms simulation will be doable in the next few years as far as technology is concerned. I used to play a subscription based online game set in space that had 10 times as much complexity. Of course it didn't take 2 weeks to travel from one end of the map to the other thanks to the space story setting (stargates, wormholes, etc) and it didn't need to model real world physics to the extent a flight sim does. That's why the only way to keep this realistic in a WWII setting without making it boring is to use AI ground units that the player can take over. They travel on their own, you take control of them when they are close to the action.

But then again, the bottleneck will lie mostly with our PCs trying to display a furball over a tank regiment that's attacking an infantry position, not the server so much. True, a server that needs to push positional data for so many objects will be taxed, but it's still a bunch of numbers (coordinates and vectors). The question is how feasible it will be for the client's PC to turn that positional data into a few hundred riflemen fighting on the ground with artillery, tank and air support without turning into a slideshow. And last but not least, the biggest limiting factor will be a developer's capability to pull this off against financial and time constraints.

But we can still dream, can't we? :grin:

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

Wow! mate!! you've thought it out completely!! :)

Ok!! i buy that :)

[Bobb4]

There could be a solution to the time scale problem. It could be possible to have supplies,convoys and ground forces, as long as they were AI. A map interface to control them could be utilised and then it would play like a strategy game at that level.

So what's the fun in that you'll say. Well, instead of sailing the seas for a whole month or driving that tank for 2 days, have an option as to what unit to join in the ground/sea war. This way aircraft will still need to take off, fly to target, fight and land, but the ground forces will be AI with the ability to take control of one.

I know it's not very realistic in the sense of a purist sim fan, but then again we already have this in dogfight servers. People die all the time, respawn and the only thing that happens is that a player and plane "ticket" is deduced from their team's total count. I see no reason why it couldn't be made for ground units in the future, as long as time and resources permit.

I think it was hinted at that in BoB you would be able to join coops in progress and take the place of an AI plane. Well, that's exactly the same. You don't need all that time to get to the front. As soon as your little soldier dies, you choose to respawn as part of the same unit. Of course, units get depleted. But supply convoys and trains are moving to the front, so you can add a counter for reinforcements. For example, you want to spawn in a regiment/company/platoon that's suffered casualties and all the places are taken. You hover the mouse over the unit icon in the map (a map with filters to choose what units you want to see) and it tells you "next round of reinforcements: 25 soldiers in 10 minutes", in which case you can wait it out. Or it says, "100 soldiers in 3 hours" in which case you choose another unit because the one you picked has been effectively overrun. The campaign AI then retreats that unit if there are no human players left in it, or a player issues the retreat order from the map, or you could even retreat yourself as part of that unit with enemy armor and aircraft chasing you down (now that would be fun!).

The spawning system for aircraft would remain the same to encourage players to use ground units. If you could spawn in the plane of your choice 10 km from the battlefield as the infantryman can, then everybody will choose to use planes and nothing else. Also it would keep it realistic on the grand scale of things. For example, you might set up a CAP in the event that your guys need to fend off enemy CAS aircraft, or set up a flight of Jabos or bombed up P47s to loiter over your ground forces in case they need help. Something might happen and you get action, or it might not and you just fly back to base. Or maybe there's no friendly aircraft close and you need to race to the ground units and help them. Lot's of possibilities here that will make it interesting.

I think that combining a persistent battlefield that runs for a few weeks in a combined arms simulation will be doable in the next few years as far as technology is concerned. I used to play a subscription based online game set in space that had 10 times as much complexity. Of course it didn't take 2 weeks to travel from one end of the map to the other thanks to the space story setting (stargates, wormholes, etc) and it didn't need to model real world physics to the extent a flight sim does. That's why the only way to keep this realistic in a WWII setting without making it boring is to use AI ground units that the player can take over. They travel on their own, you take control of them when they are close to the action.

But then again, the bottleneck will lie mostly with our PCs trying to display a furball over a tank regiment that's attacking an infantry position, not the server so much. True, a server that needs to push positional data for so many objects will be taxed, but it's still a bunch of numbers (coordinates and vectors). The question is how feasible it will be for the client's PC to turn that positional data into a few hundred riflemen fighting on the ground with artillery, tank and air support without turning into a slideshow. And last but not least, the biggest limiting factor will be a developer's capability to pull this off against financial and time constraints.

But we can still dream, can't we? :grin:


It is all very do-able already. Remember the planes overhead are human so computational power is not needed other than who, where and what!
I agree though most needs to be ai controled on an abstract basis. Controlled by real-time strategy freaks.
You then have ongoing points of interest to cater for your human player (ground soldier, tanker or artilary gunner). The take over of existing units is the key. No spawns at rally points, you just slide into a grunts shoes and off you go.
WW2 online did a similair thing creating nodes, but required too much human involvement.
Ground war
Simpily put senior officers play a strategic wargame.
Senior and some Junior officers play a real-time strategy game.
Junior officers and grunts play the FPS (real soldier simulation) spawning where clashes between forces arise taking direct control of assets like tanks etc.
You mesh the flight sim over the top based on exactly the same criteria
Air war
Simpily put senior officers play a strategic wargame.
Senior and some Junior officers play a real-time strategy game.
Junior officers and grunts play the flightsim (real pilot simulation) spawning where missions between forces arise or operations have been planned, taking direct control of assets like planes, airfields etc.
You mesh the Navy sim over the top based on exactly the same criteria
Simpily put senior officers play a strategic wargame.
Senior and some Junior officers play a real-time strategy game.
Junior officers and grunts play the Naval (real ship simulation) spawning where missions between forces arise or operations have been planned, taking direct control of assets like ports and ships.
All three elements need only link when their overlapping roles meet.
All three elemnet run on different servers with a fourth server tracking movement and attack ranges of everything merging the sims only when they meet key criteria. For example a bomber flighs over or within range of a battlefield. It is merged with the ground war simulation for the length of time it is in the vicinity and is visible. once it leave the area it just becomes a binary track on the main server until it re-appears.
Having written this it sounds more complicated than it actually is.

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

So you're inserting another layer here right?

I think what you just described is the complete round up of all kinds of players under a single scheme!

Not half bad ..!! :)