It'd be helpful if we knew how much memory the video card had :cool: (or is it still too speculative as Luthier said?)

Hi Oleg,

thx for the recent update, the hurricanes and sim lighting effects look very good !

can you plz give some insight in the dynamic campaign engine the way it is being finalized right now ?

1) can a campaign server run 24/7 for several months with people joining for a few hrs to fly missions and then rejoining a week or 2 later again and see how the campaign itself has progressed with other gamers having played on it ?

2) will the choice of missions have a similar interface to falcon-4 where you see a listed of "tasked missions" and you can choose a specific one you like (combat patrol, bomber escort, enemy fighter/bomber intercept, "free flight" from any airfield, etc..).

3) will blowing up bridges and railways reduce the supplies reaching the enemy front lines and reduce their fighting ability (including supplies to airfields, preventing enemy planes from refueling and rearming there)

4) can we later on also expect to fly cargo planes in BoB ? so that airfields or troops that are low on supplies can be resupplied by players ? (might not be immediatly important for BoB, but will be for Stalingrad, italy, and north africa campaigns)

5) you mentioned before your dynamic campaign server will have a semi-rigid progress sequence where the eventual outcome of the BoB is predetermined for the english side to "win" (or germans failing would be more accurate), will this campaign server program be open to 3e party editing so we can make servers with an uncertain outcome ? (this would not be for every player action to have a different battle outcome, but big issues like "keeping the english airfield south of london closed due to sustained heavy attack for 2 months", or "enemy looses 80% of their combat aircraft and resupply can not be done fast enough with new pilots and aircraft" etc, and another 5 or 6 pivotal events like that could be listed/triggered like that which alter the outcome of the BoB)

thanks for all your effort and perseverance with this project, cant wait to start flying in the new scenery and environment :)

Regarding a dynamic campaign, I have yet to play a better one that the one in BoB-WoV. In my opinion, that is the bechmark to aim for.

Campaign-wise BoB and BoB2 were strategy games. The campaign in said game(s) was woefully misplaced in a flight sim as for a flight sim the realistic environment is limited to the tactical aspect: flying and maybe commanding a unit (up to Geschwader size). Decisions as you have to make in BoB/BoB2 belong to the ranks of the Generals and those don't fly on a regular basis or at all.

The campaign coming closest to perfection in the sense of creating immersion was the ancient Red Baron 2 campaign. While not really dynamic it was dynamic where it counted: you always believed you were in a living and breathing world and not an isolated little aircraft in a big empty room nor were you forced to make decisions which have nothing to do with what a flight sim should simulate.

@ zapatista: Online mission selection is a good idea but offline it should be an option (or better yet: not even present). In Falcon you could jump in between units and roles, jump to the cockpit of an already airborne flight and in my eyes that's utterly destructive for any kind of immersion. To me the campaign of SoW has to be historical first and foremost which means you have one pilot belonging to one unit (unless transfered) who get's orders and doesn't make them.

Has anyone heard if we will get a option for the level of haze in SOW?...would be good if we could have a choice of height and level for haze in the QMB and FMB.
Alot of the BOB books ive read talk about sometimes the haze being quite bad...esp near london...Oleg?

You are wrong in some respects. You can be the commander in BoB2, but you have the option to change and just be a pilot; in which case the campaign is just like Red-Baron-2. As a pilot, you just concern on your own squadron and the campaign plays out, quite randomly, around you. Of course the campaign starts off in a similar way, but every move affects the outcome.
;)

re: gamer choice of missions in dynamic campaign engine

@csThor

that is a very very limited perspective of a campaign "engine" (its more a linear set of missions then), and i am fairly confident oleg has a much broader view on this (as he should, since most potential customers want bigger/more options of what a ww-1 combat sim should be)

nothing wrong with as part of the options having what you ask for (since some other die hard realists will want this to, sticking to one squadron and try and keep their pilot alive as long as possible), and i suspect it is included, but it would be a total waste of 80% of what will make BoB such a revolutionary sim environment if they limit it to that so narrowly.

i dont remember the details of the red baron campaigns, but personally i am hoping fror a combination of the falcon4 type server and "mig alley" (the old rowan sim from 10 yrs ago). this means you can select a number of missions from a "task board" once you join a server, like
- fighter combat patrol in a sector
- fighter intercept mission to engage enemy bombers/fighters in grid XYZ
- free flight from any airbase in any sector, where you can only choose a specific aircraft from what is available at that base
- downed pilot resque at sea (hopefully, but oleg says not immediately included probably)
- special mission to drop air supplies to french resistance, or land in france and pick up downed pilot saved by the resistance
- patrol over channel with anti shipping munitions to hunt for enemy shipping
- intercept stuka raid heading for radar installations
- etc

it wouldnt be to complex for programmers to have a "virtual scenario" of the 4 months of the whole BoB, and have several 100 events that unfold in a historical manner (as i believe oleg has already indicated iirc they are working with). so when you join a dynamic campaign server (or run it on your own pc in solo), then this scenario is unfolding already with multiple events in progress. the "task board" can then offer you to participate in a number of those events, each being in their own stage of unfolding, which makes it almost an obligation you end up "in the cockpit in flight" for some of those (not trying to be cynical, but in your "1 pilot identity in one squadron" scenario you might actually then sit at an airfield without being tasked for many days or hrs, which isnt realistic either)

and with the earlier suggestion i made for a more falcon-4 type mission selection, because the dynamic campaign engine keeps progressing in time, any week you join to select one of those missions, they will be in a very different environment with very different events encountered.

the good thing about the mig alley campaign engine is that you could significantly block enemy supply lines by targeting bridges and railways etc, or roads with truck convoys. this then affected the enemy ability to fight on the ground and their fighting strength, resulting in the frontline moving one way or the other. you could also close down enemy airfields and force them to relocate their aircraft to rear airfields (lengthening their flight time to the front line or interception of your flights, and hence affecting the campaign outcome etc)

i dont either see anything wrong with including some of the falcon-4 type "jump into a flight" type action in the options when you select a flight, since not everybody has always 4 hrs available to make a "pure" mission taking of from a french airbase, climbing to altitude, circle for bomber formation to arrive at meeting point, escort bombers for 30 min over channel, and then have 5 min of fun fighting it out with brittish fighters (where you either get near instantly killed or have to immediately fly back for 30 min return trip on low fuel).

the good thing about the Falcon-4 dynamic campaign server is that you could choose the type of mission you liked THAT DAY for that gaming session. most people that buy il2/BoB dont want to (and shouldnt be forced to) just stick to one type of "combat flight sim" scenario where it is always the same type of action (eg as a fighter go shoot at some other fighters and do a dogfight)

remember, most people reading this current board are older il2 users of the more fanatical type, who are more hardcore in what they want. trying to force ALL BoB-il2 users into that rigid format of following 1 pilot career will/would seriously limit sales. there is for example a significant number of ex ms-fs-X users who would enjoy flying some VFR missions in high quality plane models with good scenery and might want to simply fly supply missions (knowing that providing those supplies to a specific location makes a difference in the outcome of the unfolding game scenario) and not just "shoot em up" type missions. and many of us "combat types" might just have 1 or 2 hrs a few times per week to do some virtual flying and would prefer to choose the action/mission type we most enjoy for that day. being forced to ALWAYS follow a single "Fritz career" from flight 1 to 22 where he meets his death would be rather boring imo.

I don't really see how a dynamic campaign will work if the result is fixed? I'll feel like I have nothing to play for really because I know that my side will win (or lose).

@ zapatista

Is it? In my opinion a campaign should first and foremost try to depict an approximation of what real pilots back then went through every day. This means it has to model their normal days, it has to model the fact that they were members of armed forces with a hierarchical system of responsibilities and decision making layers, were assigned to a certain unit (with the possibility of being transfered) ... Essentially all the little pilots were simply small wheels within a much much larger engine and didn't have an influence on decisions such as strategic goals, political considerations or technological developments. They were on the sharp end of a very long spear ... and this is what a campaigns should try to simulate.

The mistake you make is that you throw offline and online campaigns into one pot. Your list is comprehensible and sensible for online campaigns, but as I outlined offline campaigns should try to achieve a much different goal. Online you may go for a different outcome if you want to because the campaign is already non-historical per default. Online campaigns do not necessarily depend on AI-made decisions (such as target selection) since the player is free to do whatever he pleases. Offline such behavior isn't possible (since the mission is tailored to the player's input) and offline is also susceptible to "external factors" such as moronic high-command decisions, geopolitical influences, economical factors etc ... All of which are far outside the scope of a flight sim but which have 99% of influence on the outcome of a military campaign while the player itself has 1% influence at best (if at all). A single pilot can't change the outcome of the BoB when all the relevant factors came from another sphere of responsibility ...

I think I have an idea how to campaign in SoW.
The idea of an interface as the falcon4 and good, but you must think that this is a simulator of the 2WW, and that did not exist at the time of electronic monitors, to monitor the tactical situation of war.
You must think as if you are in your airport and your commander gives you 'orders.
In 'Airport, there were radios for communication maps to plan the route and there were the first types of radars.
The British did not monitor for monitoring the whole situation ENGLISH. but they had a map, and women with the wooden poles, according to radio communications coming from trains, troops or flocks, or been aware of the position the target on the map. NOT EXIST TV monitor or digital displays. FALCON4 war and modern electronic monitor.

What I like about BoB2 is, when playing the commander, hearing he waafs's and the controllers vectoring flights etc and also hearing the relative raf squadron leader's answer.
As the player, it's nice to be in conversation with the controller and also to hear what's going on around you when the map is shown. You can even hear them moving in the background! As footsteps can be heard as messages are delivered. It is the most immersive moddern simulator of this type in my opinion.

oleg has already stated (after many questions on this exact point over many years) that with his (current) version of a "dynamic campaign engine" unfolding a scenario over the BoB period, it will NOT be possible to alter the eventual outcome of that small war (ie germans dont succeed in gaining air supremacy, dont squash the brittish airforce, and cant launch a sea born invasion fleet)

to some extent that makes sense, since he cant model "a butterfly in amazonia flapping its wings causing a hurricane in alabama", the small individual effect we have on events in one BoB flight shouldnt be able to alter the war itself, no matter what we do

I think at least the option to get into the plane already in flight would be good for people who dont have much time or only want to have a small break between other work. I liked the system of offline campaign in Falcon4 exactly because I could fly from cold cockpit, from runway or from the air and I could pick the mission I wanted. Maybe this can be limited for SOW only for the current squadron, so that it could be more historically correct. For example you are assigned a mission. Then you press accelerate time and watch the action in map view. Then you stop the accel. or hit fly when you think the flight is near the action. By this, you save the computing power needed, so you can have maybe 100 time acceleration or more. So in 10 to 15 seconds you can be directly in action.

your poor english has made you completely misunderstand why the example of "falcon-4 type mission tasking" was being suggested in the earlier post, it has NOTHING to do with "modern technology" being used.

For the Battle of Britain it wouldn't be too hard. All you would have to do is at the appropriate dates start transfering German units to the East.

From my understanding of events (and I am not an expert and there are gaps in my time line and understanding of the details) Once it was clear that the RAF had not been wiped out, Hitler decided to go on with the "Big Show" which was the invasion of Russia. England could not (at the time) put a substantial force into Western Europe so there was better places to invade.

Cheers!

Loock this video English not use eletronic monitor or Video not exist TV in ww2.
Only falcon4 use monitor for map eletronic and tatical situation.
English use RADIO COMUNICATION and TELOPHONE and MAP whit woman intelligence.
The idea of interface style falcon4 in SoW is negative because WW2 from MODERN ELETRONIC WAR is different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zVRey2XEs&NR=1

I'd like to have the option to have both a historical result and also a result based on the way the campaign plays out. In this sense, you wouldn't have to do loads flying as an RAF pilot, but you'd still be under a lot of pressure in order to ensure you don't lose (although historically I hold the belief that an invasion would have been impossible, regardless of whether the RAF was defeated or not).

Quite frankly:

No single pilot could exert as much influence on the flow of battle to change the outcome. Especially not when the most influential factors that affected the outcome have nothing to do with pilot performance.

After gaining air superiority it would have been possible, but I would have isolated them from any support for a year or so to wear them down and drain the public moral. Churchill could have made as many speeches during that time as he liked, but as you can't live on words a lone, he would have been overthrown eventually and the new government would have come to terms with Germany, just like the French did.

maybe not, but having gamers sit behind a pc monitor and recreating the battle in 2010 is very different from beaming somebody back in time and having some new pilot step into another pilot's place during 1940

there are several ways you could radically affect the outcome of the BoB with the 20/20 hindsight we have now :) i'd even say that with 100 dedicated flightsimmers working together (which already happens on some large il2 campaign servers we have now), you could tip the balance in germany's favour by for ex:
- knowing where churchill is in the south of england at a given time and day, and carpet bombing that are. his death will affect British moral significantly
- wiping out all British radar installations as a sustained push, blinding British fighter command (which the germans never did and they kept underestimating the importance of British radar up until the end)
- keeping the bomber attacks focused on southern airfields and radar installations, and not switching to civilian targets like london.

that should be enough to tip the balance :)

so yes, one flightsimmer couldnt make a difference, but 100 organised ones could (combined with being able to task bombers/fighters for their side in the game campaign settings)

Oh,yeah?
And...casually asking, this PC of yours is...?:confused::cool:

I think differently...they could have forced the country into submission, but an actual invasion verged on impossible. It could never have been achieved via paratroopers, and an invasion via the sea would have been better except this, too, would have been impossible.
I read a book by, i think, Derek Robinson about this which is extremely interesting ;) it certainly brings to mind the flaws in sea-borned invasions.
However, the RAF's defeat would have been demoralising and so this could have led to submission.
Thankfully we'll never know! :D

I rely on having no invasion at all. Vast parts of France didn't see a German presence as it was not needed. Vichy managed to secure German interests there just fine. Same would have worked for Great Britain. There were enough possible leaders that would have happily cooperated with the Germans to fight the communists. Invasion would have meant suppression and a constant German force to be stationed in Great Britain. What a waste of man power. Clever politics will win you a war, not brute force. Force your enemy on his knees and then lent him a helping hand, works wonders.

People likely thought I was jokeing, but I was not.
Some of the posters here want to have an invasion of britain possible if they shoot down 100 spitfires.

A big fat QFT!

SoW is a game/sim, there will be many people with thousands, even tens of thousands of hours behind the stick, so either side could be at an advantage just depending on who's online at any given time. also Unlike in real life, in a game, people can choose weather to follow orders or just piss off and do their own thing.

and thats just the player side of it... now... lets day you blow up 20 ships one mission... the map rolls... if its not a dynamic campaign and the missions are fixed... how will it know to take out those 20 ships next mission?

If a player does not have the time to do a full mission in IL2 he can always use the time skip facility to take him to the next waypoint. Used repeatedly it can dramatically reduce the mission duration and automatically returns to normal time when in range of the enemy. I would assume something similar will be included in SoW

@ Oleg

Information has been sent. If you need them in higher resolution let me know.

It is partly true, but I think when time skip is used, all parameters like flight model are calculated. This reduces the maximum possible time compression. If this isn´t true and SOW will use simplified model for time skip, then I didn´t tell anything :cool:

And also sometimes you would like to skip take off for time shortage.

Thanks for your hard work Oleg,
I'm sure the final product will repay you for your efforts.
my question is: in the realization of SOW have you ever considered to implement and facilitate your job with 3rd party 3d engine? I post this link related to a 3d planetary engine found on the net, it seem interesting
http://outerra.com/
what is your opinion?.
Cheers

Operation Sealion was clearly possible. There are historical records of the movement of barges and other assorted ships from occupied countries that give clear credence to an actual plan that was being implemented.
Would it have been successful, well that is a big what-if.
If one is to look at Japan, the axis certainly had the expertise to carry it off.
If the Luftwaffe had won the battle for air superiority over the UK they could have closed the channel to enemy ships.
The sinking of the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse clearly indicate how well the British fleet would have faired with out overwhelming air superiority.
Not saying it would have been a cake-walk but one has to remember that France was a super-power stronger than the UK and it’s population/government quit when it became clear all was lost.
My guess is even a half-hearted landing on British soil would have lead to a British surrender/armistice.

Research what it would have taken for an invasion force to invade England as it is quite interesting. To think; crossing the channel would be hard, there is the Navy and even sporadic attacks by the RAF. To be safe from the Navy, the landing scraft would need destroyers to protect them, but they can't travel anywhere near the landing-craft because they would be tipped over by the ships wake. So there would be no close sea-borne protection for the landing craft.
The time to cross the channel in this way was reportedly over 12 hours, and so picking the time of day would be tricky. Plus there is the weather to take into account, and the number of landing craft (and soldiers) needed to make an invasion this way, it really is not feasible in my opinion.
I am more of Zorin's opinion that English defeat would lie in submission, rather than all-out annhialation or invasion ;)
Quite interesting really :cool:

Not really as many troops as you think...
Remember Dunkirk had just taken place and the British army was in a shambles

"The loss of so much materiel on the beaches meant that the British Army needed months to re-supply properly and some planned introductions of new equipment were halted while industrial resources concentrated on making good the losses. Officers told troops falling back from Dunkirk to burn or otherwise disable their trucks (so as not to let them benefit the advancing German forces). The shortage of army vehicles after Dunkirk was so severe that the Royal Army Service Corps (RASC) was reduced to retrieving and refurbishing numbers of obsolete bus and coach models from UK scrapyards to press them into use as troop transports. Some of these antique workhorses were still in use as late as the North African campaign of 1942"

Sec State for War dated June 18th 1940 -
The number of men in the Army at Home today, including
Dominion troops is about 1,313,000, made up as follows:-
Field Army Troops ex B.E.F.- 275,000
" " " in U.K. 320,000
Air Defence 151,000
Coast Defence 13,000
Home Defence Battalions 42,6000
Holding Battalions (under disposal instructions to make up Field Force Units) 49,000
Training Units (half to make up Field Force Units) 365,000
Misc. Establishments 59,400
Canadians 22,000
Australians and New Zeaianders 16,000
Grand Total 1,313,000*
The average monthly intake is just under 50,000 under the
National Service Act, and about 27,000 volunteers.

* '
Note. From the point of view of immediate use it must be
realised that apart from the 90,000 about to be called
up, Air Defence of Great Britain and coast defence
amount to 164,000 while some 150,000 of the grand
total have less than two months service. The total
figure includes 45,000 R.A.M.C. , 45,000 RAOC*,
and 130,000 R.A.S.C , who are not trained to fight.

I think based on these figures (not my own research) it would be unlikely the British army would have been in any state to repel even a smallish (300 000) strong Axis force.

Obviously it all depended on the Channel being Royal Navy free

Well, it certainly is quite interesting stuff. Then there's the idea of whether the USA would have stepped in or not...

Doing what? With no base east of the Atlantic, sending any ships would have been pure suicide.

Maybe sending reinforcement over? Additional air support? I don't know really :P
It's all speculative.

I don't think there can be any doubt that the Royal Navy would have annihilated any invasion fleet and it would probably have suffered severely in doing so. If anyone questions whether they had the will then read some WWII naval history. The Royal Navy proved time and again that it was prepared to suffer severe losses to get the job done. (examples: Dunkirk, Crete, Malta, Arctic Convoys).

There was something a historian once said, and it is something that I agree with, and that is that RAF victory against the Luftwaffe was essential from a morale point of view, but realistically it was never 100% essential to stopping an invasion (unless of course Britain chose to throw in the towel before-hand) ;)

its uncertain the navy could have been a decisive factor in blocking the invasion, however valiantly it would have tried to delay it

once the germans had air supremacy over the south of england (and most of the rest of england presumably therefore), any major shipping action by the British in the channel would have been easy prey to torpedo attack and dive bombers

whatever glorious action the British navy had in the previous locations mentioned (except for dunkirk which was a special case, because the germans largely delayed their final push including massive air commitments on channel shipping and evacuating troops on the beaches), the British navy in those other events was able to have those success only because neither force could have a significant permanent number of planes over their enemy, or have exclusive air dominance)

iirc wherever navy action was a dominant in ww2, it almost always meant it was far out of reach of enemy lands (except of course in the pacific where the aircraft carrier strategy was decisive in naval battles, but even there yet again whomever had air supremacy or dominance over enemy shipping, it could pretty much sink them at will)

i more or less concur with the current main view of history, Brittan might have "won" BoB, but it was largely because of german mistakes (not constantly targeting radar, switching from enemy airfield targets to civilian terror attacks etc..). the 6 months delay it caused in a potential invasion also allowed the evacuated troops to get reorganized, and then potentially be able to repel the invading forces (also uncertain, but more plausible then the navy doing it on its own).

I think it was a draw, not a victory. Germans simple decided to not go on. In a moment the RAF was almost depleted and ll not survive another day until Hitler 'geniality' decided to stop attack RAF facilities and start to attack citties and civilians. This give a breath to the almost dying RAF.

Another strategic failure was not capture Malta and deny allies of resconstitute their forces there. In the end I think that luftwaffes had not the effective to battle in so many fronts.

Almost dying RAF ? From what I understood, only a part of the RAF had her bases under attack, the part based south of London, near the coast. A good part of the RAF bases was out of the range of the 109s. And the RAF did not only included No.11 group, even if it had the majority of the fighters (as far as I know).

The RAF was having a very hard time replacing pilots.

At Crete the Luftwaffe had total air superiority yet failed to stop the destruction of the sea borne invasion fleet by the RN. The Luftwaffe and Italian Air force had total air superiority for much of the time during the Malta siege but failed to prevent Malta being resupplied and re-armed.

The Luftwaffe could effectively keep out naval forces during daylight but could not stop action during hours of darkness. Naval forces kept north of the Thames and west of Isle of Wight would have been out of effective reach during the day but still close enough to intervene off the invasion beaches at night. Forces based at Harwich would take 2hrs to reach Dover at 25knots (depending on tides). Any German attack on Harwich would be outside of range of effective fighter cover.

Agreed.

Once German air supremacy would have been established, all the Navy would have done is dash out off any British harbours in reach of the Luftwaffe and run for save havens in the US. There would have been no point, apart of being stupidly heroic, to stay and be bombed to bits.

Additionally, I would say it is save to assume that if BoB had been won by the Luftwaffe, the carrier projects would have been finished and therefor the Atlantic and especially Iceland would have been no save place for any US or joined US/British efforts of establishing a foothold there.

At Crete there was one Luftflotte - there were two and a lot more Stukas present in France in 1940. The outcome can't be extrapolated by picking some other battle and try to take its results and slot them in place for the battle in question.

Not to mention that at Crete the distances were somewhat longer ... and were constantly getting longer for the german AC as the RN moved to the south of Crete. In the case of a potential invasion of England the RN would have come to the germans.

But again trying to guess the exact outcome is reading the tea leaves.

1. Crete and Malta would have been not supplied if mainland Britain had been isolated.

2. The U-boats would have made sure no British ships even got close to any German landing operations.

You not remember DODECANNESO island.
Italy have the island to south east of greece during ww2 you remember island of RODI? yes Rodi is italian island territory.
http://www.dodecaneso.org/Dodecanneso.htm
http://www.dodecaneso.org/ukexspedition1941.htm

-- U-boats might have had a limited impact and maybe sink a few boats but fast moving surface craft would get through and create havoc. Britain had around 60 destroyers alone in Home waters at this time.

The RAF even if "defeated" in BoB would not have ceased to exist. It would probably have been withdrawn to the north and kept in being to resist the invasion.

Climb into the cockpit, hit autopilot, hit time skip. No problem!

I largely go by the evidence of Norway, Create and Malta. Invading Norway, that bastion of naval power, destroyed the surface fleet of the Germans.
What where they going to do the first night of the invasion when the Royal Navy hit their transports at the beaches?
Britain was never in any danger of being invaded, they were in danger of capitulation, which was the only chance that Germany ever had to win the war.
People capitulating. Once countries decided to fight for real. The germans and the japanese were going to lose. And not lose gentle, like the other time. This time it was going to leave a mark.

The book was "Invasion 1940", and Robinson is quite clear in his opinion that the Germans weren't prepared for launch a real invasion, and if they had been, the invasion would have been at night (this was the German plan). Meaning neither the RAF nor the Luftwaffe would have been a factor. However, the RN would have destroyed the invasion fleet, since the German navy consisted of 5 destroyers, and assorted E-boats.

I don't think anything would have lead to an invasion, or submission.

binky9

As far as I am aware, the Germans had no purpose-built landing craft, only converted Rhine barges with improvised bow-ramps that would have been towed across the chanel by tugs and other ships! In anything but the most benign of weather this would have been hazardous to say the least! If the Royal Navy had got in amongst this lot I believe carnage would have been the result.

Why do you lot actually believe they would have launched an invasion? It was part of the act to convince the British that an invasion was planned. There have been uncounted numbers of made-up plans, operations and of course you needed to convince the enemy by throwing them a bone or two.

If Hitler really would have wanted to invade Great Britain, he would have done, mad as he was. But that was never his plan, he hoped for the British to settle on a surrender, just like France.

He switched from bombing airfields and such to terror bombing and the lot to get results. He had a master plan and that did not include Britain be that stubborn to give in. He could have easily continued bombing airfields and leveling every airfield in the south of England to the ground, but it didn't produce the results he was after.

Terror bombing and the dawn of an upcoming invasion were the means he thought good enough to brake the British moral and force Churchill into an agreement. Though as we know, that never happened and Hitler turned towards Russia, leaving Britain behind. He must have had great faith, due to the very successful early u-boat campaign, that they would starve sooner or later anyway.

And up till 1942 there was little coming out of Britain to concern him. Occasional raids and all that but no major effort, expect the shot in the foot called Dieppe Raid, but that was it. Only as the 1000 bomber raids started, he must have regretted not putting Britain under heavier pressure and postponing Barbarossa.

I had thought that the first bombing of civilians was an accident. Then the ones that followed, were revenge raids.

You just summed up human nature.

I'm not even sure how relevant the invasion argument is here, but since it's going anyway, I'll jump in. Believe it or not, I have to throw my lot in with Zorin. I've long been of a mind that Hitler had no intention of defeating Britain in the first place, but only to back them into a corner and get them to see "reason" and get with the program and send a bunch of blond haired blue eyed boys to fight alongside his blond haired blue eyed boys against the communist horde. Sea lion was a half-hearted plan at best, and probably was never meant to actually be executed. The U-boats did a very good job of suppressing England as a base for any attacks against Europe, right up until the outcome of the war had already (arguably mid '43) been decided, so had all of Hitler's grandiose plans come to fruition as planned, England would have never been more than a minor nuisance. Unfortunately for Hitler, he didn't seem to realize that he was messing with two places where they produce people equally as stubborn and stoic as the Germans, and also there was the minor problem that he was batshit crazy and hindered his own plans more than anyone else could have.

I'm sitting in a deck-chair just outside an airfield's OPS room somewhere in England, looking through specs of new computers, waiting for that phone call from Oleg to SCRAMBLE!!!! I know it will be 64bit OS and probably a ATI card but do i go desktop again or laptop? or even tablet???? .. waiting and watching that phone! ... RING!! RING!! .. AK!(tense) .. head pops out "tea's up!" ... PPTTTtttttttttt!!! <:(~~~

BTW, those He111 and Condor look great!

,

Srry for going off topic

Dear Pilots,

Would you mind to open a specific topic, say "1940, Invasion of Britain: a dream or a fraud?" ??????? Am I eccentric, or we have a couple of pages of OT's?

This thread is about the screenshots posted last Friday, in case you didn't notice it. I hate so much to crawl pages of nonsense to find an interesting answer by Oleg ....

Admins, hellooooo?

I had a posting up last night making a point of all the off topic postings.

THought it sounded a bit harsh so I took it down.

Like you mentioned.. the topic for this thread is:

Friday 2010-06-25 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

Postings should relate to this, and not become history lessons or other discussion.

History lessons and other discussions that are IL2 or SOW related can be done with new threads on this forums.

I don't think Oleg pays much attention to an update/discussion thread after the first day, because all the previous threads have turned into OT mumbo jumbo after a couple days.

Create your own thread, but don't denigrate the quality of an existing thread with OT postings.

More fantastic screenshots, many thanks, always look forward to the Friday updates.

Still no official website or release date...and it's 1st July today..2010 is slipping away...

As for the invasion discussions, I think the most important point is that we British really thought that there would be an invasion if we didn't win the Battle Of Britain..there was no Eastern Front and Germany and Russia were allies.

Moving onto propellers, does anyone know facts/figures of how many RAF Spits and Hurris had the constant speed prop in BoB? I'm re-reading books about Bader, Stanford-Tuck, Lacey etc.. looks like most if not all had it?

Aslo it seems many also had a floating carb device to allow negative 'G' without engine starving of fuel fitted during the battle - facts/figures? - and will this be modelled in SoW:BoB or ?
( sorry if it's been discussed before..! )

See you all at Flying Legends on the 10th ??!!??!!

Take some good pictures or video. Then post them.

It is always a big treat to view them.

I didn't think it was harsh at all. Like others here, I get annoyed with people who can't stay on-topic and derail threads such as this one.