A fair question...I'm not against everything first person (please see the post I just made).

To answer your question...I would just like to maintain the flight-combat integrity of the series. A good flight-combat-sim is a constant work in progress...the job is never done. I'm afraid that if we open up the "SoW" series to include FPS combat that it will water down future development of the flight aspect of the game. All features should support the simulation of the air combat experience.

Their are some features I would love to see worked into the games interface...one feature I would love to see would be in support of full scale on-line campaign mode. I think it would be interesting if ground-vehicles/tanks could be controlled (guided) by a "general" in real-time combat mode. A strategic gaming type of thing...this would support a "reactive-gaming" environment in support of an "air-tactics" strategy in campaign mode...ONE strategic gaming interface in control of ground movement for each side...Teams could route and time supply lines (convoys,trains,trucks), gather tanks & support vehicles for assaults, or react to flanking maneuvers... Allowing a human to react to changing conditions on the ground would enhance any air combat experience... flight recon sorties would hold real value. Flying escort missions as bombers take out a train/supply station would have a real effect on the game.

AND with a human guiding the strategy and placement of ground vehicles it would become very difficult to predict "AI" movements (= long life for the game)...

Kind of the intent of my post. As far as the "pistol-wielding rogue" aspects are concerned, I rather that option (if it ever does come to pass) be unarmed as well. Escape and evade is best done with stealth afterall. The hard part would be the slow, gruesome crawl through no man's land in the middle of the night.

Does anyone else remember the UK TV series "Manhunt"?

I think what is overlooked by the people who promote a combined land - sea - air - simulation is the different time scale of the scenarios. a plane takes at most 30 min. to target (in il2), a tank would have to drive 2 to 4 hours and a ship would have to sail a few days. Thats rather impractical for online - gaming, imagine a skipper after sailing a few hours meets a swordfish or respectively a stuka. And i bet with a realistic DM nobody would take a sherman vs a tiger or even panther.(ok maybe when the tiger cannot move because he is out of fuel)

When a tank is out fuel, it is still just as dangerous, unlike a fighter. With tanks, one hit (from within range) is usually a kill. The thing about Shermans was they were easily better than the Mark three panzer, and cheap to build. The only Sherman that was any good against the Mark four panzer, Tiger or Panther was the Sherman-firefly.

I do like the occasional FPS, but when I want a change from that I want to fly, and I don't want that flying to be in an FPS.

Well you have to realise that not all allied/axis units should start from the same area... as it was in real life... Once in the theatre of operation the ground units where mainly found near the front line and their supply base/rolling units were not far behind. So they did not roll out from an air base 40 miles away... but from a supply "depot" mearly a few km back of where the action was... This was also true of GIs.

Ships are another thing all together. For BOB, if only the chanel is modeled then they should not have to go to long before seing some action, as it is a norrow strech of sea. Open seas could pause a problem, but as we are looking at online here, maps should be made to prevent the situation you are describing.

Ya, I was mirroring your sentiment...maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

No, don't worry. As soon as he comes closer to 3 km, the bofors will start shooting at him like mad, and so will the 88's. I don't think one lone guy with a 9 mm can come close enough to a starting aircraft to do that. Besides, with a Luger, how far can you fire ? Max 30 m for a precision shot, right ?

As soon as AA starts to fire, that lone ranger is dead.

I really think a sea/air/land simulation can be done with the SoW engine. Just look at WW2 Online. It's really ugly, but you have a lot of people playing it because they can chose every possibility they want. It's true it's boring to drive at slow speed in a tank for half an hour to see action, but if you have the "Start from a Depot" option, then it will surely be more interesting.

Aircrafts can start from distance. Or who knows ? If the leading "general" of our airforce forgot to order the evacuation of an airfield threatened by an enemy army, then the aircrafts could take off under fire for a very close air support action....

And then, it would be very important for ground forces to have these bloody AA halftracks with them to protect them from bombing. And also friendly aircrafts to protect them.

I think this would do a lot for the community. And in another point of view, look at all the FPS fans that would suddenly sit in a cockpit having to fly with real FMs and not arcade FMs.... Look at all these easy preys..... Meeting aces would be way rarer. And that would make he fun even better.

@oktoberfest

yes it would be fun to have "realistic" balances of 95% rookies vs 5% aces :-)
but sadly it would change back really fast to 95 % aces vs 5% rookies as it is now.
In my opinion the "usual" fps - player has a short attention-span, so if he (or she)
crashes a few times at take off or gets shot down soon if he manages to start the
game wanders into the trash - bin.
Just imagine that half-track aaa-gunner who has driven, say 5 to 15 min. to that airfield
and now realizes that he is the primary target for all jabos or even fighters with nothing
else to do.
To be an gamer in any halfway realistic simulation requires a certain kind of stubborness
that most people just dont have, at least for a game.
What i want to say is that the market for difficult (realistic) games is not that big that
our wish-list might not be affordable in view of the cash-return.
But it is a nice dream.