I think Blackdog hits on a very good point in that the "unexpected" interaction between the player and virtual world can be a tremendous factor in immersion and overall gameplay fun.

Furthermore I think I would be reasonably correct in saying that from a realism standpoint the unexpected/opportunistic targets and or threats was a big factor in real operations.

csThor, I fully agree with you, and I think you have hit the nail on the head. Ever since I have heard of BoB:SOW, my one concern was that Oleg and crew could provide an immersive and flexible campaign.

Nearmiss has already mentioned "BOB II Wings of Victory" earlier in the thread.

"Shockwaves BOB II WOV with the new 2.07 patch.....
Currently, the BOB II WOV has a campaign engine,which allows the player to jump into the battle at will or fly within the same squadron time and again. There is good flexibility for level of player participation."

This much improved sim has a great and atmospherically done campaign, that leaves the strategic direction in the hands of the player. This translates thus:

"Playing as the Luftwaffe, I've set up several large Stuka raids against the coastal radar stations, so that a blind corridor can be punched into Britains defences. Now I can jump into a Stuka cockpit, to throw my weight into the Germanic effort.

Some time later...

The end of the virtual day draws to a close, and I can feel some pride in my efforts and those of my A.I. Luftwaffe eagle buddies as I survey the smoking ruins of a once fully functional radar mast. My efforts feel rewarded when I see that the following day, that particular radar station is still fubar, which means that I can progress along my particular plan in bringing the elusive RAF to their knees..."

As an addendum, the atmosphere while flying in BOB II WOV is also top notch. It feels like you're flying over wartime Britain, thanks in large part to the radio speak, and attention to detail to the landscape and aerodromes (all fully authentic).

I can only hope that Oleg listens to threads like these, and realises that everything that surrounds the actual flying is also important (it's the other half of the 'story'), and that he can take great leaps and bounds in the improvement of his sims by focussing more of his attention to this area.

Whenever I think back and remember the great flight sim games that I have thoroughly enjoyed (Pacific Air War, Red Baron 2, Lucasarts Battle of Britain, European Air War, Falcon 4), they all share the common thread of real motivational factors behind the actual flying, usually with atmospheric and player led dynamic campaigns.

Fingers crossed,
BobTuck.

A couple features leap to mind for online play that would allow for more immersive play.

One, the ability to spawn IN FLIGHT. Using something we are all familiar with, coop play in Il-2. DF maps have all player aircraft, no moving AI in il-2. Coops have AI units. What would be really useful would be the ability for a hybrid (using Il-2 terminology) DF-coop map/server. You could join at any time like a DF map, but the planes would be assigned in the mission to take off only during specific windows. Say the He111s head to britain. The window might be time=0 to time=10 minutes (15, 20, whatever). The players that are in the server when the map starts hop in their bombers, taxi, TO, and form up like a DF map, UNLIKE a DF map, the remaining bombers in the squadron not occupied by players are AI (like a coop). 20 minutes into the map, a new player signs on, unlike a coop. There are zero planes at the base he can fly, but he CAN take over one of the AI He111s inflight. the same would be true for all planes. So you could have an online "DF" map where 3 squadrons of bombers and as many squadrons of fighters attack a target with 2 defending squadrons of fighters—all takling off at the beginning of the map like an il-2 coop—and a 3d squadron on scramble with a later start time. Any players joining mid mission hop into an AI plane in progress, and if a player is shot down, he can elect to respawn into a remaining AI (stats would be tracked as a unique pilot).

Second, an idea that targetware has. The "disengagement circle." You have a point where players on online maps can despawn, and are considered RTB, but only if their remaining fuel, oil, etc (taking leak rates into account, too) allows them too. Very useful for large maps. Such a system also has a setting so that such a despawn is only allowed if no enemy units are within some server set range, so if you are beating a retreat to the mainland with a spit on your six, no warping away.

tater

BobTuck

Sorry, but I think the example of WoV is the worst possible to choose for an immersive flight sim campaign. WoV has essentially a strategy game campaign but it lacks everything I expect from a flight sim campaign. I do not want to be a General who commands his forces from a desk but a pilot doing his bit with the responsibilities my rank gives me.

tater

While I agree with most of your post I can't see much sense in that "spawn in flight" stuff. I'm a fundamentalist in that sense - a flight begins with take-off and ends with the landing. Those who "come too late" for a planned mission may spawn as gunners of the human pilots in said mission, but I'm not thrilled by the idea to let them spawn as pilots.

Why not? In the system I propose, they don't appear out of nowhere, they take over AI planes that are already there. The server can remark the time the mission started for anyone that doesn't want an airstart. That's all it is, an airstart for latecomers, but WITH the group.

SOW could have AI 10X better than il-2, and you know what, the AI would still suck compared to real pilots. You have a couple hours one night to fly a coop scheduled into your family time. You start the mission with 7 guys. Not ideal, but better than offline. A few minutes in, another coop lets out, and 16 guys become available, why no design a system that would allow—allow, not compel—mission designers and server hosts to have coop style play with players coming in over time.

If they new player chose to fly bombers or escorts they'd know they'd be getting into an airstart situation. If that was offensive to their sense of immersion, they'd either not have logged in to a mission in progress in the first place, or they could join the "scramble" squadron and TO later in the mission when the bombers show up on radar.

Choices for mission builders are a universal good.

There is no possible downside to considering "out of the box" systems for mission builders, mission builder MUST be lateral thinkers to make things work with the limited tools they are usually given. More options is ALWAYS better.

tater

TBH I do not really see human players as superior to AI ... for my perception of how the flying should be organized. Of course AI is limited to the routines it was programmed with and it's also unable to learn, but it lacks one thing that makes playing with a larger number of humans sometimes hazardous: AI does not have an ego that needs to be stroked.

The way I see it active AI units are needed in the SoW dedicated server for manning all the aircraft human players do not want (in realistic numbers): bombers, Stukas, recon, transports etc. ;)

Actually, I don't disagree, one thing AI does very well in particular is bombers. They stick with the group as AI. That's the beauty of a spawn in flight though, instead of the DF server paradigm of planes taking off alone (after the first wave of the scenario TOs at once), then forming a stream of planes that crash into the enemy in a meeting engagement, you'd get coop style groups, but with the variability of human pilots.

A few human pilots here and there make all the difference in the world. They are a "force multiplier" for AI and immersion.

Anyway, not all servers would use the technique, and not on all missions, but it none the less useful, IMO.

Also, any technique we imagine before hand WILL be used in novel way by someone resulting in something different than we had every imagined.

All I can say is, if they're still debating or are undecided as to what will be included, then we'll not see it until 2010.

No it wont be boring and superficial.

That is a purely emotional response with no evidence to support the assertion. A shame, because I really do hope you are right.