Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday 2010-12-03 Dev. update and Discussion

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Friday 2010-12-03 Dev. update and Discussion (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=17538)

NO DUCKSFORD!
say it isn't so, those button clickers have won again.

Everybody just calm down! LOL! Hasn't it struck anyone that there might be several "versions" of the map? Like we have in IL-2 where some bases are on one version and not on the other i.e the Guadalcanal maps. Just a thought :grin:

First time poster, long-time builder and player.

This is a significant update, thanks very much Oleg and team for showing us the guts of the game.
Very interesting stuff, and things will get more interesting when we actually start to build missions and campaigns.

Some quick comments:

*The size of the map is very impressive. It's more than I dared hope for, thank you.

*I'm glad to see triggers will finally be a part of the FMB. This will allow for so many more scenarios to unfold in a mssion as opposed to the old FMB.
I don't know if the question has been asked, but will the triggers be area triggers or event triggers, or maybe a combination of both?

*I like the look of the new FMB. It looks instantly familiar...which is a good thing.

Thanks again for the update.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nearmiss (Post 203098)

Klem

You have made some very good points.

Oleg may be able to address your concerns. Possibly a while after the initial release with an enlarged map, which could release as a patch.

Then again, for security reasons the actual map for BOB SOW may not be what we are seeing in the screenshots. Afterall, the SOW is about the Battle of Britain. It just doesn't make sense for a BOB to not have all the groups covered.

Afterall, many users already have large amounts of ram, high performance video cards, and multi-processors. It has been my understanding the map sizes have been restricted principally to allow persons with lower spec systems to use the sim.

Oh NO!! Just when it had all been sorted! (nearly) ;)

I can't see that being the case Nearmiss. Are you suggesting that you were hoping for the map to go all the way to Scotland (and presumably then include Norway too - sorry that old Norwegian horse has been flogged pretty hard by me these last few days :) ), to cover anywhere that saw ANY action at all in the BOB?

(I believe the first German aircraft to be shot down in Britain was up north [either Scotland or north of England?])

Or, do you mean that it should just include the SW and up to the midlands?

There are a lot of cities to include in a bigger map - if they're all going to be done to the same standard as London it's going to take a LONG time, and for what real benefit? How many times will people re-enact a raid on Hull?

Also, the secrecy argument has been used a few times before by people who have a hard time believing that their personal idea of what the game would be isn't going to happen. I don't buy it. :)

By the way, where is Oleg when we need him?;)

Hopefully not bothering reading the last 5 or so pages.

Lol well said.

I understand why some ppl are frustrated, Oleg should say something on this as clearly some of us were expecting a larger map.

Personally I would have liked the south west to be present but I'm not too bothered.

I would happily play this game with the present map. Just give it us asap, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flatspinman (Post 203164)

hopefully not bothering reading the last 5 or so pages.

+100%

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ploughman (Post 203061)

I was looking forward to bombing Weymouth, but Southampton'll do nicely. And Sidcup of course, coming to get you Sidcup.

Thanks for the update, looks like more lost weeks in the mission builder ahead.

What about Slough? (;))

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 202864)

But you're back into 'what if' scenarios again.

That was my main point before (someone else also made the same point talking about the campaign - as an individual pilot or even a squadron commander you have no real influence in those kinds of questions. You just follow the orders handed down from Group or higher level)

When flying a mission in il2 or SOW you will be given a briefing - your instructions - there is no lee-way. You don't get to choose what targets to attack and you don't get to say that your superior's strategy is rubbish.

The jump to allowing the player to decide targetting and strategy is really a jump to a different game (or a different level). It is something that was never in il2 for instance.

It seems that BOB will restrict a player to fulfilling the role of an individual pilot / squadron commander. You will take part in missions and endeavour through use of tactics and skill to succeed. You won't get to decide the strategy, targetting, etc. If you want a realistic campaign that reflects the experience of the real-life pilots then this is accurate.

If we want a sim that allows us to be Keith Park or Leigh Mallory I think we need a different game, or a massively expanded game that would include resource management elements (pilots, aircraft) and require the player to manage locations for squadrons along with targetting and how the squadrons are used.

Personally speaking, I would love to have a game that covered all of those levels. I just realise how big a leap beyond il2 that would be, and I don't think we're going to get it.

this has got off-topic somewhat, but it all comes out of the debate about the map - the type of game we are going to get determines the type of map we need

I agree with you. The thing is, i agree because i'm mostly an off-liner. For an online server running realistic missions, the limited initial scope of the new series will mean that lots of mission builders will want to delve into slightly what-if territory.

In that case, the player does in fact shape and decide strategy by the way he's building the mission. Not to mention that if the new multiplayer mode that's been talked about is in fact what most people think and hope it will be (an online dynamic campaign, like DF and coop mode mixed together with supply considerations and monitoring thrown in), the impact of players on deciding the overall strategy becomes even more.
If we think of having this sort of DF server that runs weekly scenarios instead of missions spanning a few hours, it's obvious that there will be no predeterimned briefing like there is in co-ops and single player campaigns, no definite orders, but the players will form up on ad-hoc missions of their own in an effort to achieve the objectives as efficiently as they can.

Give players, any players of any game, the competitive incentive and they will soon come up with a lot of variations that the people in charge back in the day missed or simply didn't want to risk trying.
In that sense, i have a feeling we'll see a hugely succesful use of the 110 for example, with most people using them as fast fighter bombers and for fighter sweeps ahead of the main bomber stream, tactics that were never used in the real battle.

I do agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere and the game released. However, it would be good to know that if a community made and limited in size map of sufficient quality could be made for the "missing" territory, that it could be incorporated into a patch that joins it with the rest of the official map, just like community submitted aircraft made it into IL-2 in the past. I guess this solution would please everyone in the long run ;)

Edit: I see you guys beat me to it :grin: