S!

csThor..I know what you mean. But we know a LOT more than Lufties or Raffites at the time. And BoB started strategically earlier, in France already. I am sure everyone has read their history ;)

Say a player is Geschwader Kommodore of SKG210 and destroys the Home Chain and/or other radar towers succesfully, opening a path for the bombers. How can RAF then direct full force on attacking bombers? And if all the frontline fields are bombed useless LW would have air superiority over southern England etc. Of course a VERY simplified example, but you get the pic ;)

Falcon 4.0 and Falcon 4.0:Allied Force has the dynamic campaign that has not been surpassed by any sim yet. Rowan's BoB II has one too yet it has limitations on LW side as it was primarily aimed to be RAF side. Nevertheless dynamic. What SoW will have is to be seen, but high hopes that not a series of canned missions where previous outcome has no effect on next etc. Would be dull if you bombed a Sector comm center hampering Sector Command operations and in next mission all is good again..

SoW delivers a totally new experience after IL-2 in many areas, as seen on updates. Let's hope other areas are up to it as well. Content is a big part of ANY game. So fingers crossed and thumbs up SoW will become THE bench for the next decade and beyond.

I remember what turned out to be a very active debate in a poll over at the zoo. Oleg had asked Faustnik to do the poll, to find out what would be perfered dynamic campaign or etc.:grin:

So? Numerical superiority alone is not a guarantee to win a battle. Ask Dareios III at Gaugamela, ask Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro at Cannae, ask Marshal Bazaine at Mars-la-Tour. All of these enjoyed a convincing numerical superiority before the battle ... and still suffered a crushing defeat. Numerical superiority gives one side merely more options but they still have to employ them in a meaningful way.

First its Erprobungsgruppe 210 (http://foorum.mexxoft.com/images/smi...ruekte_008.gif) and my response would be "So?". You're still a subordinate to Luftflotte 2 and get your operation orders from there. So you don't have a say in what's your target and all you can do is fulfill the order as good as you can while keeping your men alive.

So we're back at the strategic decisions which are being made by people who aren't flying combat missions anymore. Besides the Luftwaffe did not have the insights we have today, the significance of the Radar stations was not understood and they were difficult to hit so after a while it seemed wasted effort to go after them. But again ... this is not on the layer a flight sim can and should depict, this is strategy.

I don't understand why people bring up Falcon 4 for a good campaign. Yes, it had a brilliant engine with a lot of dynamics but it utterly failed to create immersion for me. Maybe I'm too old-school but I happen to severely dislike switching units and flights, free choosing of missions, entering cockpits while already airborne and a general lack of anything that makes me believe I am a small pilot in a great conflict. In that respect, meaning making me believe I am part of a living and breathing world, I still rate Red Baron II as the very best campaign I ever played.

S!

SoW will be at level of a squadron then, understandable. In Rowan's game you can play as a strategic game too, thus change outcome of the BoB. Even in SWOTL you could ;)

I merely gave a simplified example that IF the 210, for example, had been successfull then the bombers would have a bit more time before being intercepted. That is a lot in terms of warfare. Damage is done already if the attacking force is egressing.

Why Falcon 4.0? Because it has a dynamic campaign, plain and simple. Everything around you went on even you would just sit and watch the map. You were a mere asset in the war. That is what still makes F 4.0 great.

What would be a let down in SoW is that it would be a scripted series of missions with an outcome written in stone regardless your actions. Just let the plane Autopilot all missions, what's the difference? Just a game with exceptional graphics but that's it. We've seen BoB before and would SoW be any different in that string? Been there, done that.

With extreme sarcasm..Was the wait of 6 years worth at all when all we get is fancy graphics and a set of features, but with no real content? Why fly for Luftwaffe at all when the only challenge would be not to die in the string of canned missions? That would offer zero replay value as the outcome is already known.

Above statement aside I believe SoW will offer a lot more and be the next sim to fly for years to come. Oleg and his team pulled this off with IL-2 so SoW will be no exception.

All of this is just too speculative. When Oleg is ready he tell tell us. Whatever the fact, we'll have the other 1n short order anyway. There will be mission builders building missions, and I won't be surprised to see a version of DCG for SOW eventually. We'll soon be inundated with every possible outcome of the battle........

That, in itself, is not a virtue but a part of it. Quite frankly if the devs fail to transport that stuff (= what we call immersion) then the effort, while laudable, is a failed effort. And Falcon 4 was a failed effort in my opinion as it was as interesting as watching paint dry.

Here we disagree. I very much consider the idea that flying alone (and the performance of a single pilot to boot) could influence a confrontation such as the BoB is ludicrous to the umpteenth degree.
What I want for the campaign is accuracy in the details ... meaning for example that an Oberstleutnant (such as "Vati" Mölders) had authority over his Geschwader but he had no say in the general conduct of the battle. Various ranks have various layers of responsibility (my phrase) and I'd like to see that represented ... I want, to make a long story short, a good representation of what the everyday life of a pilot was like back then ... and not some gamey "let's ignore that Göring and Hitler are idiots and win the BoB with our knowledge and hindsight". :roll:

^^
This,

pretty much sums up my way of thinking as well. I do hope all you said here makes it into SoW. Having control of your own squadron and not taking part in overall war changing decisions sound just right to me if BoB is to be focused on historical accuracy.

Also, last time I heard this is a plane simulator and not a strategic game. ;)

With all due respect, Foo'bar, it is not that obvious since we all know that Oleg still have plenty of features that we have'nt seen yet...And when you watch an official interview with Oleg, we assume ( :rolleyes: ) that what is shown is from SOW. Someone unfamilliar with SOW's development could have been mislead....

And let me take this occasion to congratulate you personnally for your impressive contribution to SOW ! :grin:

Salute !

S!

Maybe Falcon 4.0 soon turns real, seems the northern guys are bullying around. We flew Falcon 4.0 online as co-op, started from the cockpit with pre-flights and all. That added a LOT to the immersion. Falcon still has stood the test of time, not even the DCS series have gotten even close to it as they lack the dynamic campaign. But sure do have the fidelity in systems etc. now, especially with A10C coming.

As said, we do not know what SoW will be except you can not win as Luftwaffe pilot. Fair enough IF everything else is done exceptionally well. Fancy graphics and fidelity do not mean a squat to me if the rest is poop or done halfarsed. But this is not the case with Oleg I think ;) He has put a lot of time to this and I am eagerly waiting for SoW, even some of my writings might be cynical or sarcastic.

Could this campaign engine be built with a multi-cpu desktop computer.

Say using months July, August, and September.

Input known time, day, altitude, target, for each mission for both sides.

Let the AI play out the battle with the limited input of the player or players.

A damage model that stays damaged for the approximate time of repair.

If some parts of the chain home command were damaged then some flights would not be vectored to the right location making interception a matter of guess and luck.

Some flights would not take off due to damaged airfields, although the large open fields used by the RAF would be almost impossible to completely disable for any period of time.

Off-line the player would be able to stop, fast forward, etc the campaign.

The addition of military ground transport, train routes, etc would add alot of burden, but in this day of multiple CPUs it may be possible.

It should be possible for a mulitcpu computer to just keep track of the grid locations of moving aircraft and vehicles that are not in visual contact with the player.


I suppose keeping track of AI battles going on over different areas of a large map would be a nightmare of data, unless some formula was used for the outcome of air battles with no player involvement in the area.


I know this is awfully simplified, and when you get into the details it probably isn't possible at this time.

Edit.

While the campaign is going on around you, the option to select an airfield, number of aircraft in your flight, loadout, especially if you want to take a flight over the channel to France to look for targets of opportunity. Where there are triggers to launch interceptors if your spotted. The options could be almost limitless. Or missions like a lone Ju88, going deep into England, to attack a Damn site. Doing these missions with the knowledge that there is a full on war going on around you can be very immersive, not knowing what you will encounter.