Is what Im sayin! I mean said! S! ;)

Ah yes, i read your post i just thought it needed to be repeated!

Agreed 100%!

Based on some of the folks in this forum it needs to be repeated over and over and over an.. well you get it! ;)

Well, to my knowledge it was discussed and planned by MG to make aaa guns playable.

I have some small doubts if this will really interest ppl beyond a certain trial time to satisfy their curiousity (might be boring to just SIT there and wait for a bomber to fly by).

But: It is indicating the direction.

I do think it would be possible to make tanks playable with the necessary degree of detail to stand ground agains common stand alone tank sims. I also think this is more appealing than a flak gun.

Timing differences are a big problem.

It would be real fun for a tanker or destroyer captain to take his vehicle to the battleground for 30 to 60 min., only to get wasted by a Stuka he didn't even see.
At least the destroyer would have some aaa.

+1

Same old fps just better graphics, better unlocks......a ton of unlocks. No voice at this point, seems alot like call of duty. I dont think the game play is as good as bf2. Miss the squading up with the same group of people in your old faithful type server. Still not used to it I guess and it ctd quite often, almost as much as clod.

Depends. To be honest, there were times I more then wished for some guns to man and shoot some vulching buggers down. Could make the whole game more interesting from this PoV and give vulching a bit more credibility.

Playing tanks on the other hand requires the modelling of infantry and all kind of vehicles to really make sense, with artillery in the background to call upon, at least if taken with the same seriousness as the airwar is. IF done right, however, and combined with the flight engine and some good coordination between the two, the result could be truly epic and make this game a real seller not just along the flightsim crowds. Lots of ARMA and Battlefield players out there I imagine that are outgrowing the arcade genre and look for something more demanding.

They'd basicly need another team or even a company to concentrate on this aspect alone.

The biggest problem would be the network traffic, i imagine.

It is already problematic with the units in CoD now on a full server, there would be x times the objects.

Can't see this happening in the near to middle future.

Cliffs of Dover is NOT just a Flight Simulator.

Cliffs of Dover is a combat simulator with a high-spec combat flight simulation within it.

What has been done before - and is still being done - is the addition of a reasonable standard of ground war vehicle simulation to enhance the flight combat/simulation aspect which is still the main focus. It is not the same as trying to be a WWII-online all-things-to-all-men and fail on all aspects.

The ground war already exists in a limited AI form. The opportunity to jump into an AAA emplacement and defend your airfield, especially in scenarios that add realism by giving you limited air lives, adds another element to the game and it does not need to be sophisticated. Likewise, driving tanks or troops (or having defendable/defeatable AI doing it) to capture a base or other objective by driving simple vehicles including manning AAA wagons, or dropping paratroops from Dakotas that need to be flown, with a definition of 'capture' within the game, enhances the flight combat aspect of CoD. End games like 'capture' are needed to enable the air war to have meaning. It does not need to extend to a FPS ground army war, estabishment of forces on the ground would be enough. You cannot take ground from the air and the air aspect is enhanced further by having to attack or defend those ground forces.

If you limit 'winning' a mission to just shooting down all the other aircraft or just flattening buildings and walking away you are in the wrong game/mindset. But I wonder how many 'its only a flight sim' guys have ever experienced a broader simulation than that.

Oleg always wanted it to be more than just manned aircraft and if CoD is to survive it needs to compete with the other on-line air war games which is where its longevity will lie. Offline play becomes stale after so many times playing it and people move on to something else once it has been exhausted. Only on-line play is continually unpredictable.

Also, think about the current business model where income is only from the short life release of a new phase of CoD which takes ages to develop. Its a poor business model and more needs to be made from all that input and what do you do when you run out of history to simulate? It may be fine for the guys that are game-hungry and move on after a while to something else, leaving CoD behind, but if MG could develop CoD into a MMO, then support it with a powerful server supporting a few hundred players and charged a low monthly subscription for those that were interested in large scale play, they would have a steady income and I would bet money that many of our players would take it up and players currently on other MMO air combat sims would take it up too because its a better simulation. At the moment there is, I think, only one half-decent air combat sim that is a MMO game. Those that aren't interested can simply continue as they are.

And don't tell me it can't be done due to connection speeds, a few short years ago people were fighting to get 1Mb down/200k up. Now 30, 40, 50Mb down and 2, 5, 10Mb up is widely available. The clever part is designing it so that current generation PCs (which we'll all have in a couple of years time) can handle it.