Will SoW be boring and superficial?
 

The Il-2 series is pretty. I have no doubt that SoW will be very pretty too. The weather will change. The AI will occaisionally sh*t their pants and the FM's will be great.

And we'll all go around, doing the same things as we are doing now. Just in a more detailed environment.

But really, don't you think there should be more to the future of air combat simulations than just cookie cutter dogfights and dropping a stick of bombs? Do you really just want to play the exact same pair of missions all over again for another five to ten years ?

What if other mission perameters were coded in? What other options could we get?

Maybe instead you'd like to pilot a Lysander for SOE. Fly over to France at zero altitude in the dead of night. Alone in the dark, you would struggle to find 'that little field' marked on your map and glide into it, engine off so as not to alert the Jerries.

Perhaps you'd rather fly a Storch, evacuating wounded from the combat area. Or maybe spotting for the artillery? What if you could give directions and targeting information to ground units?

What about unarmed photo recon? Take your Blenheim across to France to take photographs of the invasion barges. Photographs that the campaign generator can judge and pass you on.

Coastal Command perhaps? Why not have a crew that can actually call out the sightings of distant ships and other objects and give an intelligent description of their range, type and heading?

Or nightfighters with AI radar operators that can actually guide you to the kill?

Wouldn't you like to try to fly a danerously overloaded Ju-52 into the icy landing strips of Stalingrad one day? Or a C-47 over the Himalayas?


There has to be more to this genre than, fly to waypoint and shoot stuff down. Or fly to waypoint and drop some bombs. There has to be. :(

Agree 110%

thrilling of air combat wasn't always the encounter with enemy, weather and navigation, for example, can be very demanding too.
I think that what we really want is the feeling of being part of a huge organization such as an air force (RAF of Luftwaffe).

Well said i couldn't agree more ...

I think who want more real stuff should join USAF ;) until there won´t be some kind of 3d helmets or electrodes connected to our brains, we will be still staring on 19´flat screens. I will definitely enjoy this gaming a lot when being retired.. :cool:

Byw some guys from our squadron started to fly the gliders, the real stuff ;)

I wouldn't be suprised if a bit of that is already in the works. I must say that I am impressed with your list, I think I would try all of those things at least once.

That is a good list and does sound good, and a refreshing change from what we have been doing. If it can be done in such a way where you can actually feel the pucker factor, that would even better.

Feathered-
Excellent post! I also enjoy more than just flying to point "A", shoot or be shot and then fly back to point "B". While on-line flying can give you more of a "group sense" it still doesn't supply the additional challenges you mention. I have found myself trying to make more challenging missions by adding little things...I made a mission where you scramble off the carrier to intercept incoming Zekes, the twist being limited fuel. I placed the intercept point about ten minutes from the carrier and adjusted the fuel level where you only have 18-20 minutes depending on how hard you fly. Then it's back to the carrier and usually a dead stick landing...while this can be challenging, it still doesn't get to the point your describing. I would especially like Recon type missions in unarmed aircraft...these types of missions are near impossible in IL-2 with the all seeing AI; very unrealistic that you can't escape and evade using natural terrain, clouds and your flying skill.

wg

I would imagine as the SOW series expands, mission building will only far more interesting and flexible than the current series.

I too like the ideas that you have put up. Ive always like the Lysander and think the challenges put forth in those "noncombat" missions you describe are not only interesting to me, they would add another fold to the realism involved in missions.

I agree, too.

Not that I'm bored of it, but I would welcome any kind of "change" to the usual workload, as suggested by Feathered: other tasks, other responsabilities, new mission goals...

Just to remind you/us (it could very well be the change-from-usual-routine step #1) Oleg posted some time ago that we'll have a 2-seat trainer...
That sounds very good to me, also in this perspective.

Very thoughtful post, Feathered. Being able to fly any or all of your proposed missions would be very realistic and they remind me of many missions flown, for real, in the past. There was actually one similar mission, very early on in IL2, involving flying an He 111 into a very mountainous 'strip' to rescue a crew that had force landed. I haven't been able to find it for several years, unfortunately, but the realistic 'pucker factor' was high. Let's hope that Oleg and his crew are reading your post and will explore the possibilities of building your suggested missions . . .

I agree. Anything that gives a sense of purpose and as sense of impacting the game world is key. I also like the idea adding support for improved transport, liason, recon, ASW and SAR missions. People will build aircraft for these purposes, I'm sure of it.

This is what i always missed most...

Agreed 100 % :cool:

All of this is very good ideas and hope that even some comes possible. Anyway I been flying IL-2 many years (offlline ;) but some day comes to online ;)...)

It is heartening to see so many people feeling the same way about this. I just hope that Oleg and the team do too.

Taking the SOE Lysander mission type as an example, certain parameters would need to be coded in to make it work convincingly. Most particularly target waypointing and ground unit AI behaviour.

Imagine this:

Having crossed the Channel in the dead of night, you bank and circle "that little field" that you were directed to in the briefing. The target has a rendezvous time (get there too early and the enemy ground units will arrive before your friends do). At the appointed time you get a flashlight signal from the from the ground. (Hidden Target Complete). You cut the motor and sideslip in. The game engine is designed in such a way that it can recognise just how close the player is to the rendezvous point when their aircraft rolls to a stop. When you are on the ground, the clock is ticking. Land close to the friendlies and there is not long to wait. The further you are from the landing point the longer you have to sweat it out. If the friendly units make it to your aircraft, you get the Mission Complete and you can get the hell out of there.

While this is going on, you have AI enemy ground units that are smart enough to detect your presence and converge on your location. Maybe they will get there first....

Similar mission building parameters can be used for air-ambulance missions or supply drops, providing the builder can vary the duration of the stay on the ground. It is a simple enough idea, but versatile and effective. It just needs devs who care enough about it to put it into practice.

"...Land close to the friendlies and there is not long to wait. The further you are from the landing point the longer you have to sweat it out. If the friendly units make it to your aircraft, you get the Mission Complete and you can get the hell out of there."

This alrerady exists within the Bellum On line war code and is used for On line pilot rescue.

If we'd only get enough scripting possibilities when making missions (I believe Oleg has stated that we'll get some "triggers/events") we could make some more interesting single and coop missions, if we can script events in dogfight missions also would be very cool...

Agree... reconnaissance, rescue, transport, "liaison" missions...

Maraz

Totally right
 

Yep, I hope Oleg and is team read this post. From all the suggestions users gave, this is the most important. If Oleg wants to hook people as hard as IL2 Sturm he should deffinitly consider unarmed/recon/support air missions. They are to me as important (and cool) as armed missions wheter dogfight or bombing.

Btw this is my 1st post .. great community and great game! Hi all! :grin:

Big Jakes

@ Feathered_IV

If you want full immersion with all the features you described in your post, play WWIIOnline or Warbirds...but you have to pay to play in a campaign!:rolleyes:
So...do you really want that Oleg read your suggestions so that we have to pay every time we want to play a mission online...as in those games?:confused:
Anyway I hardly hope Storm of War will develope in a better way in time than IL2 series introducing some or all the features you suggested! ;)

Condor or Catalina missions! S&R, Anti-Shipping, ASW...


Maybe this is worthy of a poll of some sort? Just to show Oleg that there is ample interest in these kind of missions...;)

Agree 100%. Dogfight can be boring, we need different mission types.

Coding in these kind of missions would help win over some of the diehard FSX users too. Oleg needs to do that if he is going to survive. He's not going to be able to retire early on the contributions from our little lot. :)

All good points Feathered, and obviously the desire for more was the driving force behind the developement of "scripted" servers as we know them now (using both FBDaemon and Server Commander). Regardless of the diversity of the offline, single-player campaigns, I doubt I'd fly them much. 99% of my flight-sim experience is online as I feel the interactivity with other human pilots is much more immersive.

I have very little patience for AI pilots, but that's just me. As long as there are people interested in enriching the flight-sim experience there will be post-release improvements including official patches, new skins, 3rd party mission-generating programs and server scripting programs that will keep things fresh and interesting for potentially years.

Give me a much more detailed DM with higher LOD's, reinforce the FM according to accredited data, generate beautiful landscapes (that are mostly accurate) and a place to fly online and I'll be a happy camper.


TB

Ground unit damage models, and in the case of ship, AI, needs to be FAR superior to Il-2 to help maintain interest. As long as players can fly bomber/attack aircraft, this is the case since their primary targets will be mere cartoons otherwise. Take ship attack in il-2. It's boring knowing that you can always sink a DD in one pass with a fighter as long as it carries a big bomb. The DD never evades, the bomb ALWAYS sinks the ship.

Mission builders should be given more control of the AI, too, since in campaigns, AI oddities ruin immersion. Ie: in RL, an airfield attack for minimum alt B-25s would be come in, line abreast. At max range, open fire with the MGs—no particular targets, kick the rudder a little and spray unless a target is right in front of you. Get over target, drop parafrags (207 of them, not 40 ;) ). Egress target area and head home.

In il-2, they'd not shoot on ingress to target. They'd drop their parafrags (though since they form line astern, the rear planes must climb to avoid the lead ones, and by the 3d plane they are barrel rolling while they drop). They'd then turn around and come back and strafe. A mission that should be one pass with minimal losses will likely result in the squadron being nearly wiped out. Not immersive.

Mission/campaign builders need a handle to control the AI. They need the ability to tell the AI to make "1 pass only." They need to be able to tell the AI to fly and attack within certain parameters even if the AI doesn't like it. Ie: a radio button for a given waypoint that says "ignore AI safety" and the planes do as they are told, even if the AI thinks it is too dangerous (like flying at 15m alt and dropping a 500lb bomb). Ideally, assuming the AI code has various variables that are tweaked by 1C to get them to behave in a desired way, those values should be available in a config file, perhaps one that is mission specific. You might design a campaign where for the good of the campaign, the min alt that the AI considers safe is 5m, but for another over some very hilly terrain, you might set it to 140m (current in il-2 I think from testing b-25 skip bombers).

tater

Do you want to have some fun?

You need to get the old MSFT CFS2 and work with the mission builder that is par excellence. You cannot imagine the things that can be done with a combat flight simulation game until you do.

There is also a very vibrant community of users for the CFS2 at http://sim-outhouse.com
Users are still building missions and campaigns, aircraft, scenery, skins for that great old sim.

There are of course a couple things that will never be fixed unless MSFT decides to either release the source or do an upgrade of the CFS2.

The CFS2 AI are just not competent, but there are workarounds. The scenery has limitations. The online game is no more, which is just as well it was so full of cheats. It is now possible to fly in any war theatre in the world as CFS2 includes all the war theatres.

You can still have an enormous good time, because the mission builder tools are absolutely awesome. You can build all kinds of situations for on-the-fly, navigation, etc. into your missions.

The Shockwave BOB II WOV with the new 2.07 patch has the best AI performance of any flight simulation game ever. Shockwave and the community devs have turned the old Rowan's bob into a significant combat flight simulation game. Currently, they are working on a Coop Online addition to the sim. This is great, because if you can fly with a squadron of real people against the awesome AI of BOB II you are going to be into almost real world scenarios. You'll get to fly against the largest mob of bombers and fighters you can imagine and be into some of the most immersive (close to actual) combat you can imagine.

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. There are plans in the works for a competent mission builder, but they are too busy with a new addition to the sim now to build it.

The strength of Oleg's Il2 has always been the Online play. The current mission builder has been OK for building Online play missions, because the players on each side of the conflict are real people. AI performance doesn't have to be much, because the AI doesn't do that much in Online play.

If Oleg is finally going to really address the Offline game competently he has some tough competition. He will have to provide a mission builder equivalent to the MSFT CFS2 or Jane's WW2 Fighters, and he will have to spend some real effort to measure up to the Shockwave AI performance engine. I hope he will do it, because it would set the bar for Combat flight simulator games.

Don't get me wrong The IL2 series is still viable for players. I went back to the old MSFT CFS2 right before the Pacfic Fighters was released. I don't enjoy furr balls. I love building missions that recreate almost real world situations, how they would and did evolve during the war. I do the BOBII WOV for the best AI performance and boy does it improve your combat flight skills. It also supports 6DOF in TrackIR.

I hang around the IL2 boards and occassionally load up the IL2-1946 and do some flying and fighting. I still enjoy all the great replay features in IL2 and being able to go back over my flights to see what I did wrong,etc. I've bought all the IL2 series and still get a kick out of it, but not like I did for the first 3-4 years after it was released.

I have read of Il2 being described as soulless. Maybe true. I remember flying a MCFS2 campaign many years ago where you have to protect transports leaving an island base. The transports were carrying wounded and were taking off. Then the zero's flew in.... a very immersive mission. A little text can really change your feelings about a mission.

I am hoping for a dynamic campaign with a variety of missions but I do believe that the core of the sim is dogfighting !

I am a major IL21946 fanboy but the scripted campaigns were horrible and the dynamic campaign text is mostly non immersive. I do not mind daily front patrols, I am interested in historical accuracy but put a little info in the mission description ! I make my own in the FMB to make up for this.

There are so many things you cannot do with the IL2 FMB. One good example... Pokriskinin flew the P-39 against the Germans and was very successful, because he applied tactics. He would send in the P-40s to attack German Bombers, but he would stair step his P-39s at higher altitudes. Then when the German fighters came in each flight of P-39s would drop into the fight at different times with high energy levels against the German fighters. You cannot duplicate this in IL2, because all the AI aircraft will jump into the battle. Only the player and sometimes his wingman can be held out of the fight. The P-39s were very effective when proper tactics were applied, but in IL2 when all the fighters jump into the furrball the German fighters will always win.

When you build a mission to attack ground targets the AI will persist to attack until they are bingo or out of weapons. During the war fighters would rarely attack ground units more than once, because the odds of getting hit were very high if they persisted to attack. I've had missons where my entire flight and all other friendly flights were eventually destroyed by Flak. I couldn't do anything to prevent the suicide. LOL

There are nowhere near enough programming tools in the IL2 FMB to build anything close to for real combat. The FMB is fine for building a setting for Online missions, because you human players can be told to disengage and they will. You can apply any tactical play as well, because humans can receive and act on good instructions.

Of course, if you just jump into hyperlobby you'll just furrball unless you get involved with a squadron that has other goals.

Excellent post F_IV. I noticed one of the new combat add-ons for FSX has: horrors! no fighters or bombers, but does have a Me 323, and a number of German gliders, and it is all war missions of various types. The FSX add-on with fighters is for WWI and also has a "height climber" zeppelin. Navigating a 1917 "height climber" mission at high altitude from Germany to London would require incredible skill. Just coping with the winds and the blackout would be enough (will the add-on black out city lights?).

I look forward to somebody having missions with night bombers flying from the UK to targets deep in Germany. Just dealing with weather and malfunctions (not to mention finding the target in 1939-42 without the better-trained navigators and technical aids which came in 1943) would be job enough. Right, a PBY patrol would be great. North Atlantic patrol in a Coastal Command Liberator or Fw 200 or Ju 290. Radar night fighters vs bombers would be a real challenge. How about flying the Hump in C-46, C-47, or gas tanker Liberator (the father of one of my friends flew one of these "Booms," as they called them)? If you run into a JAAF fighter, you had better have a plan! Ju 52 over Crete---what a mincing machine, C-47 over Normandy, how about flying a Horsa to land right by Pegasus Bridge? I would really like this. Land a German glider on top of Eben Emael. Flying patrols out of the Aleutians---the worst flying weather in the world. Fly an Oboe equipped Mosquito precisely to drop target markers over a city. Fly an X Gerat-fitted Heinkel 111H to put incendiaries or bombs on targets covered by overcast. These would move the system away from gaming to being a real flight simulator. You would get a real education in how the systems of WWII aircraft worked.

There has to be more flying and less routine cookie cutter arcade brawling.

@leitmotiv
youve brought it on the point for me.
thats what i would really love.
to be a good pilot with all the handicaps those obsolete technik has,
that would be the real challenge in this game.
and that includes of course real CEM.

If you could takeoff and land in the horrible weather of winter 1943-44, not to mention find a bomber using "Zahme Sau" tactics, you would be an ace pilot of a Bf 110 night fighter! This would be great stuff.

Well, FSX can now support combat, but this first combat add-on is very primitive. Wait 'til really top of the line companies like Shockwave start to produce combat versions of their FSX models---hoo boy!

http://www.abacuspub.com/catalog/s765.htm

Thanks for the encouragement leit' ;)

I found this you tube footage of an FSX Oil-rig rescue op.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcE17...eature=related

Il-2 is nowhere when compared to even this basic out-of-the-box mission. As several people have posted already, there are plenty of last gen sims that are able to handle more imaginative mission scenarios. I sincerely hope that Maddox games give this the thought and care it deserves.

This is why I found it very interesting that Gennadich ported their DR1 and some scenery from KotS into FSX and packaged it as a "Christmas present" to the community. You just don't go promoting your work in your competition's front yard without first opening a dialogue, or getting your lawyers together at least. Something is definitely cooking between MS and the Gennadich Team. :!:

MS would love to re-enter to combat market, but they don't want to do the grunt work. Gennadich have the stuff, but no corporate backing. Each side would stand to do very well indeed out of joining forces.

And by the way, have you noticed that the GT forum has been taken down again in the last 48hrs....?

Ehm, for a start, this is my first post on this forum as I've just joined.
Secondly, why are you discussing combat on FSX on a 1C forum? Combat in FSX will never be worthy of polishing the shoes of IL-2 (If IL-2 was a person) ;)

Now, the general impression I get of what people want is: more, more, more... well, in short anyways...

What I would like to see is the implementation of a select group of the online gaming community, who can carry the message from players on to 1C and Oleg. My personal opinion is that regardless of eyecandy in SoW:BoB, I won't be content with having less aircraft than I have today; having the soundmod and the bombermod brings me up to the region of 300 flyable aircraft!

I don't know what maddox games and others think about the fact that users have found a workaround to making the AI aircraft flyable using cockpits from existing aircraft and changing the sounds to more realistic sounds, but I think there should be no AI only aircraft in the first place and I reckon most people if not all would agree on that.

But from all the stuff I've seen from SoW:BoB so far, I'm most certainly going to invest in it! Keep it up guys, and listen to your users, for we are your salaries ;)

Along this line of thought, I remember reading some indication that radio operators would have a real role in interaction with the pilot, depending of course on how meaningful this interaction is would add at the very least better immerision.

Also, with the FSX video post above, I wouldn't think that it would be so unreasonable for BoB to have some sort of sea rescue missions or roles, as it would be historically applicable to both sides, example: find the Blenheim crew before they drown or are picked up by Nazi patrol in rough seas.

46 Is now so primitive in terms of the art of rendering the entire spectrum of effects, no matter what comes from the FSX system will be vastly superior to a rather tired and ancient product. If this doesn't excite all but the most die-hard 46 gamer, you don't care for airplanes:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IOC8rvxDNJM

As for no AI, this would make BOBSOW into an online-only item, and that would mean a flying RED ORCHESTRA. God forbid that. That would guarantee the missions would never be advanced beyond the stereotypical model of mass dogfights and some bomb droppers for fighters to attack.

leitmotiv please stop promoting FSX here,are YOU trying to start a flame war? which you will ultimately lose?,I saw nothing great about that heli rescue,that could be done in xbox360 also maybe you should go play that.

That is the reason I posted it. I also thought it was very much like something very much like you'd find on an X-box. But you will find nothing even close to it in a Maddox game. And cetainly nothing that can compete, even with something as simple as that.

I'm sure you understand where I'm going with this. I am hoping that Oleg and his team will surpass it in SoW. I am tired of the same two mission types over and over. No one is trying to put down this sim. It is just a matter of drawing attention to what has been missing in the soul of the Il-2 series, with a fervent hope it will be addressed in the next offering.

I don't know what your even doing here anymore leitmotiv apart from trying to stir the S**t!
If BOB is not what your looking for don't buy it & stop trying to turn this place into the zoo.

Getting back on topic...

I very much hope that AI intelligence also extends further than just the pilots and gunners too.

Currently aircraft follow a predetermined path until they blunder into each other. Then a fight begins. I'm hoping that some kind of central intelligence will be present in SoW too. You cross the enemy lines, fighters are directed to your location/ transports are ushered away etc. Flying below radar height would suddenly mean something from a tactical point of view. Rather than just the isolated skirmishes of the Il-2 series, I'd like to see the enemy hive-mind represented.

No, No and No!

The community is actually releasing new graphic features, and if you say that it is old in terms of graphics, then clearly you haven't tried to change the config.ini file. You can set antialiasing far far up, water effects up, in other words, this 5'ish year old game will look like it hit the market a year ago, or possibly with a better system than I have, today! allaircraftarcade has 6.000+ members, loads and loads of great mods for this supremely excellent game.

And I quote you again: "As for no AI, this would make BOBSOW into an online-only item"

Read what I mean, not what I write! I meant that NO AIRCRAFT should be flyable by the AI only, meaning the player should have access to all planes in the game, not that AI should be removed:!:

I do fly FSX quite often, but being a pilot myself, and seeing how it reacts to the enviroment and simulates different events and situations, I feel that FSX has a lot to learn from IL-2, so stop promoting that game here, go to the relevant FSX forum, please. We don't want a flame war in here, because you will inevitably lose.

With all due respect this is a combat flight simulator,I'm not sure what more you want from the il2series it does what it says on the box,sure you want more dynamic missons but just how far do you wish to go>?

I'd like to see it go so far as to incorporate all the mission types outlined in the first post. :-P

It would indeed be nice to see time period and side specific tactics being used by flights. I remember numerous accounts of flights attempting to outclimb each other for quite a while before the fight. Or two flights entering into a turning fight (but in a single large circle) and slashing one pass ambush attacks being conducted.

Anything that could add meaning to transport, escort, strike, recon or liason flights would also be of value. Hopefully the triggers will allow for displaying text with conversations between crew members at certain times or even audio files.

It would also be nice if it became possible to have some plot branches in the linear campaign or even the ability to change text based options in the briefing screen (and thus alter future events in the mission).

I only request a SDK, map and object creator/editor. The FM's can stay as is. :)

I'd particularly like to see the night fighters modeled with AI that works. Even more, I'd like the multiplayer code set up so two players can crew the same plane. This would be great for bombers like the Ju 87, and for planes like the Defiant and Me 110. It would also make the night fighter experience really cool.

cheers,
Ratsack

I hadn't followed this thread but now that I've re-read the initial post I started thinking. And actually I think there are a few issues that may cause some disappointment.

I've played Il-2 since the initial demo came out and I've had contact with Oleg for even longer. All this time has formed a picture of the team "Maddox Games" in my head - and that picture is not all nice and cosy when it comes to inspiring gameplay. To me Maddox Games seems to consist mostly of "engineer developers" and not "gamer developers" as they seem to approach the problems of a combat flight simulation from the purely technical POV. They're going to great lenghts to simulate aircraft, weapons and flight but they never seemed to put any ressources into advancing the gameplay, to allow for a broader and more versatile mission base. Even DGen was an external development and so it had to deal with not being an integral part of the game's engine. Oleg himself said more than once that he has no use for dynamic campaigns and greatly prefers hand-made static campaigns because of their greater accuracy and to some degree he was right.

The problem of this POV is that seems to be diametrically opposed to what his target audience in "the West" thinks. I am not sure if I'm merely rehashing old stereotypes, but there seems to be the tendency within russian (or eastern european) development teams to go for the minimalist approach regarding gameplay. The hardware they want to simulate was often displayed in great accuracy and detail, but the gameplay part - the single missions, the campaigns, the online modes etc - always seemed to lack the same amount of enthusiasm and thoroughness. Is that the result of a drastically different POV in the russian simulation community? Or do the russian developers really think that simmers are satisfied just with well-simulated aircraft?
I mean what made the "great sims of the past" so great? Aces over Europe, Aces of the Pacific, EAW, Red Baron ... They're not even remotely comparable to what modern sims could achieve (tech-wise), but they have earned their special place in our hearts because they had immersive and capturing gameplay!

Maybe I'm doing Oleg and his team a disservice, but I think they should really take a look at the "blockbuster sims" of the past and why they had the following they had. If the russian market is content with just a fundament for dogfights and making missions so be it. I, however, know that there's more to a good combat flight sim than just a perfect FM/DM and astonishing visual effects. It has to have an offline campaign that does not rely on aftermarket products to be immersive and it needs to "weave a net" that captures the player's imagination. My 0,02 € ...

I pretty much agree on the analysis about some of the older sims mentioned. I still remember Red Baron 1 and 2, Secret weapons of the luftwafe, aces of the pacific, aces over europe, etc.

For me, the best sim would be a hybrid between IL2 and European Air War. If you can combine the FM/DM/graphics from IL2 and the immersion factor from EAW, you'll have a real blockbuster on your hands. EAW is an old game by today's standards but it has a lot of things i'd like to see in a future project from Oleg.

First of all, the AI actually follows orders, complex orders. There was a very detailed method of controlling your wingmen to make concentrated attacks before breaking off, by use of the "rejoin" command. If you issued a disengage command they would do that and join up with you. However, rejoin tells them to stay in formation but not disengage. Which means that if you issue an order to attack bombers and then immediately tell them to rejoin, your wingmen will stay in formation while you circle around those bombers and they will attack whatever the formation's course presents them with. Ie, you can make head on attacks against a group of 36 bombers with as many as 12 planes in your flight in EAW.

Another thing is the menu graphics in most of the old sims. For example, there was a briefing room/tent with the map, then you clicked somewhere on the edge of the screen to go to the hangar where you could see some planes being prepared, then exit the hangar to fly. These don't even have to be real 3D images, just some static screens showing representative areas in an airfield. The top aces chalkboard in Red Baron, the Dora running engine checks in the background in EAW, your squadron roster showing your AI wingmen's kills and who is missing/killed/captured, all of these things add a lot to making you feel you are actually there and not in front of a computer monitor in your room.

Another thing is the ability to have random encounters with air and ground targets. This could be done by giving the FMB a series of parameters that it can then randomise. For example, scripting a 30% chance that a flight of 109s will spawn 10kms from you and bounce your escort group on the way home. Or even better, they spawn on the ground at a suitable airfield while you are heading in, they set up CAP under instruction from German ground control and wait for you to turn for home before attacking you. All in all, a detailed AI will open up more options for tactical variety.

Very good posts of csThor and Blackdog
+10

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.

Good points all.. but I think we may see a lot of that with BoB.. If I am not mistaken there will be triggers in it... That alone would make for interesting missions.. especially if you could proggram in a certain amount of randomness... even in QMs. I also thik that to implement the recon photo option... and for it to really work well.. we would need to be able to pull up a brief... like the map now... and perhaps the recon photos could be limited to a certain size and be stored in a separate place within the mission files.. much like each individual mission map is called up. It is certainly doable... Didnt F117 Night Hawk have recon photos in it? I sem to remember that..

Another aspect that would greatly benefit offline play is a kind of Renown System. Something like what is available in Silent Hunter 3, which btw gracefully managed to avoid the corny CFS3 roleplaying element.

At the moment in the Il-2 series, you fly missions and get kills and rise up the ranks. But it is meaningless in any broader sense, other than whether you get to fly at the back of a formation, or whether you fly at the front. Your success or failure has no other significance.

What if as a neophyte pilot in SoW your aircraft is the war-weary crate that no one else wants?

What if as you gain experience and become an asset to the unit you get entrusted with a better aircraft? How would that be?

What about if you rise to the rank of Flight, or even Squadron Leader? Higher rank means higher responsibility. Perhaps the amount of work you would be expected to do in between missions will become even greater. You would need to manage your pilots and personnel. Allocate your flights, request replacements, and give commendations. Instead of just gawping at the briefing screen before a mission, what if you could actually issue orders to your pilots before the mission begins? You could assign your pilots objectives, waypoints, altitude and strategies. How would that suit you?

And what if you became an ace? A real experten? You would have your pick of the ground personnel. Your aircraft would be top of the line. Your renown would ensure that new aircraft and equipment would flow in. Requests for reassignment or replacements would be looked on favourably by Command. Experienced pilots would request transfers to your unit....

Honestly, am I reaching for the effing stars here??? :confused:

Actually, a cool recon idea would be to have a recon plane loadout possible. Then a recon missio type where you are assigned a target. You fly passes, and the "weapon" takes images at the same time it "shoots" targets visible in the swath. The game could then count the number of units "hit" with the invisible camera bullets, and present that information on the next briefing. Useful for online war type play.

IMO a "recon loadout" is not really the way to go as the aircraft assigned to recon units were often specially designed for the job and/or had special equipment on board. IMO creating both close-range (tactical) and long-range (strategical) recon aircraft variants for player use would be much more realisc. Anyone fancy artillery direction while flying a Hs-126 over the front? ;)

Yes, obviously purpose modified planes would be prefered where appropriate. I didn't mean putting it on any plane, but for the guys who build the actual planes. They make it look like an F-5 instead of a P-38, then to make it function as a recon plane, they add the "recon weapon" loadout to it.

So I wasn;t trying to imply that any plane would be a recon plane with a mouse click, simply that such a loadout would exist in the toolkit for people building the actual aircraft.

That said, I seem to recall spitfires with cameras behind the cockpit shooting laterally. That would be an easy "loadout" type change, perhaps.

I'm wary of "crutches" like that as they tend to become the end-result. I'd prefer a solid and historical representation.

Excuse me?

What is the crutch, exactly? I suppose then having a Hispano-Suiza gun as a unit to be placed into the functionality of a plane is a "crutch." Instead, every plane built for SOW should force the guy making that plane to have to make an entirely unique engine, weapon system, etc., instead of reusing them like IL-2 does.

That's a "loadout."

Everything in the game is just a piece of code, pointed to someplace. A plane looks like a fighter, and functions like one because it has an engine pointed to in the fmd file. Planes with the same engine share the same emd (engine) file. Guess that's a "crutch."

If you want proper recon missions for things like online wars, you need a camera "weapon." The game actually has LOS (trees, buildings, etc have a collider), so you can easily make a weapon that shoots like a shotgun—if the plane used lateral cameras, the "gun" would be pointed in the right direction, with the spread pattern of the "shotgun" matching the FOV of the camera. Any targets (side based) that are hit by the invisible shotgun get marked on a map the game keeps internally. It can then use this to generate follow up missions.

DCG uses road networks and abstracted forces to move the front along, this is a similar tool, but creates the possibility for player interaction in the recon process.

Inability to "think outside the box" is the primary reason we have stale content.

Building a perfect replica plane isn't enough.

People who work on this stuff should take a break from computer games and play old wargames for a while. There is much goodness there to borrow.

You misunderstand me. Most of the aircraft configured for the recon role were permanently equipped as recon. What I mean is not to have a "recon loadout" but dedicated recon aircraft types - so not just a P-38 with cams but a F-5 and no Ju 88 A flying as recon but a Ju 88 D. Doing it "right" would certainly force the developer to think things through - including spending brain time on how to incorporate recon missions into gameplay ;)

My appologies, I thought I made it clear that dedicated recon types would be prefered. If a given plane only became a recon platform via replacing one or more weapons with a camera, with no real changes, the sticking the camera in as a load would be fine.

I'm sure bombers were used this way in the SWPA since they were short on planes. They'd stick a camera up in the glazed front of a B-17 and take pictures. If there were fighyters so modified, then cut a new window behind the cockpit and add the camera load (if they knew that was a variant, they could make the figher with the camera hole waiting, then create the recon variant by opening the hole, sticking the camera in, and dumping ammo/guns as needed.

These voices of agony are definitely justified.

I strongly believe that we are hostage to the wishes of the trigger happy bunch that is single minded and obsessed with shooting at something and watch it blow.

It's very sad that this regime of halfwits is the the main stream that decides for the rest of the virtual pilots that want & need more than riding the fastest AC & shoot at something without this helping them to solve their real life "Shortcomings" if you know what I mean ...... :)

We definitely need and expect more than just overmodeled Allied AC and undermodeled Axis AC to make a game interesting....

One really important AI capability required for the BoB is British RADAR.

Not some kind of icons on the map that move with GPS precision in real time, but actual RADAR the way pilots would experience it. You get scrambled. You get radio reports telling you where to go, NOT telling you where the enemy is, necessarily.

The FMB need to have the ability to control what, and how radar data is given to a given squadron. In general, they need to have the ability to have time based messages of any kind desired (ideally with a folder you can simply add audio files to). Triggers could also be used to call audio files.

Reach 20k feet, and a trigger goes off saying, "proceed NW to London and climb to angels 23." When you get inside some radius near london (applied in the FMB), a trigger vectors you somewhere else, etc.

Failure to properly implement RAF command and control would shatter immersion, IMO.

Another technical feature that affects immersion. Kill crediting.

Video game instant, perfect score keeping is very weak, IMO. Kill credits should be based upon if the plane had a gun camera in RL, if another, friendly aircraft was within some range to confirm the kill, and also if the kill was made over home territory where you can examine the wreckage.

Ideally, it would be neat to see a debriefing screen after a mission. You'd be asked a series of questions on the screen and you answer via pull-down menus.

It would use the questionnaire to credit you with kills and damages based upon confirmation rules. Damages would be taken at face value, probably. Unconfirmed kills would get damage credit. Note that online, your debrief could affect the kill crediting of a friendly player.

tater

"..... Note that online, your debrief could affect the kill crediting of a friendly player."

For that reason I would hope that the game might include an option to pass on using this system, not that I can find anything wrong with it, just because I can imagine a lot of fliers not co-operating.

Imagine a scramble and melee at 20,000 feet. I engage an enemy and down him (well I can wish ;) ) and this is witnessed by one other person. However, this person gets blasted in next minute and leaves the arena (as so many do) without filling out a debrief. I think this would cause a little 'tension' in Hyperlobby, don't you?

It certainly has promise for offline and perhaps squadron matches online though, a nice idea

cheers

B

one thing that shurely was hated by all pilots is paperwork, especially debriefs.
one needs really to tend towards masochismus to do that in a game one plays for fun.

It's one screen with a handful of pulldowns. My guess is that you'd fill it out in maybe 10-15 seconds, tops. I realize 15 seconds is too long for many to wait to get into the next dirt-brushing furball, but such servers would not chose to use this option.

I, for one, would be fascinated to look at server data for claimed kills vs real kills.

Like any ideas, these are TOOLS that mission/campaign/server/online war builders can chose to use.

tater

I have to agree with robtek - for general use this would cause more headaches than necessary. For a limited environment, say a scenario with a fixed number of participants who are both trustworthy and serious simmers, this might be an interesting feature. But for the "general masses", most of which couldn't be @rsed to fly anything but the latest über-plane in a 500ft-gangbang between the two closest bases I'd say it's a wasted effort. And I certainly would not want to go through it every single time I fly.

So: Option - Yes! Mandatory - Hell no!

I was thinking more for campaign play, actually. Would be interesting to play all the way through a campaign with claimed kills, and see at the end how many were real.

You could have the "confirmed" setting by friendly planes a campaign builder setting as well. Meaning some sort of ini file that you could change. Like a campaign builder might set it pretty sloppy, ie: if you make a claim and there was a friendly nearby, you get credit.

Be funny to see a campaign where guys claim 100 kills, but it turns out that many were just damages, or some other plane actually got credit.

This feature might be interesting in a continuing online-war where the players are organized
like in ADW

^^^ Agreed. Online war players are not the furball mentality that would be put off by 15 seconds away from combat.

Remember that the thread was about being "boring and superficial." I find it interesting that in that context anyone would have a problem with something MORE immersive to the campaign. You land, you get debriefed.

Another idea, seems like a no-brainer. Make the format of the briefing screen extremely moddable. Allow for any normal file types to be linked into the briefing. Meaning a campaign designer could put videos in if they wish, even flash files, jpgs of real BDA images, etc. Allow for a debrief screen as well.

Give the designers open-ended tools.

tater

The first post sounds like it came out of a good Ken Follet novel. :)

Er, thanks ;)

Feathered - what a nice idea of yours.
 

Hi Feathered and everybody else.

What a great and fantastic idea. If what you originally wrote and suggested in this thread could be implemented in the game, on-line as well as single player, it would become more of a dynamic campaign game, than the static il-2 game – on-line gaming can be a bit boring from time to time (identical objectives on different maps).

I imagine, after having read your thread (I got inspired), that 1 or 2 (or perhaps multiple) players could choose to fly secret missions (other missions than the usual bomber and fighter-sweeps, provided on-line pt.).
These different missions could be photo-recon (gather intell.) missions or the like over enemy territory, much like what feathered suggested, and if handled correctly, thus unlock new and more ‘hidden’ objectives (multiple objectives on each map).

The ‘hidden’ objectives could also be hidden to the enemy forces and should be very difficult to complete (an alternative, to the main objectives), but by completing these new ‘hidden’ objectives, one could simply win the map.

The ‘hidden’ objectives (type and position) could be chosen and placed randomly by the ‘program’ (the game), so that no 2 missions would be alike.

(Hopefully, you all get my point) – again, a very original, interesting and inspiring post…


DK-nme

So let me get this straight

having dogfights and dropping bombs is boring and superficial? Is that what I'm reading?

Gotta disagree 100%. Just because some people are jaded and "bored" does not mean that these things are boring...just that you're bored with them becasue you've done them a lot. Also, I have to say that if this is a sign of a "superficial" combat flight sim, then what exactly give a combat flight sim depth? A career mode for a trans-Atlantic cargo pilot? Don't lose sight of the whole idea behind this type of sim, just because you've flown a bunch of missions that are the same

Dogfight servers and offline missions that present you with cookie cutter "dogfight strafe and bomb" missions that are all alike seem to be the issue, to me

This is not to say I think that ops should be strictly fight fight fight fight fight. I didn't happen that way. But the premise of this whole thread is that the way the sim works is a problem, not that the types of missions in it are not viable- but what is said is that what we do now is boring, and shallow

Having a greater range of missions is a good goal and I want it too. But let's not lose sight of the fact that combat is what combat flight sims are all about

Get more variety in the missions, absolutely. But this "Boring and superficial" thing? You guys are flying some really poorly constructed ops if you ask me

I think the issue for online is that in il-2, there are only 2 types, DF, and coop. DF invariably becomes streams of planes that collide in a meeting engagement. Fresh planes are constantly added. The very first sortie is frequently the most interesting because everyone can TO at once.

Coops solve the serial spawning problem at the expense of new blood being able to come in at will.

It has been suggested before to allow players to spawn into AI planes in flight. Oleg said this would be in SoW. This is a HUGE boon to online since it bridges the gap between coop and DF. Really, the best of both worlds. I could imagine a server where at 10pm MST I might login to the server and find a mission in progress, but with NO PLAYERS logged in. I select a B-25, and poof! I get an airstart with the squadron en route to Buna from PM. A few minutes later, another pilot joins me. A little after that, a squad night loads up a half dozen flying japanese.

This would allow the immersion of well-constructed coop missions with more realistic ops, AND the ability to join in the middle of the mission.

In my example above, one of the japanese pilots gets shot down by a tail gunner on his first pass. With this paradigm he can respawn, he'll just take over an AI plane in flight.

Former Older, your lack of vision is deeply dissapointing. :(

Oleg will never prosper banging out the same two mission types over and over again. I doesn't matter where you place your waypoints or what planeset you choose. I just isn't enough. Oleg knows this now. The whole experience of developing the Il-2/FB and the clamour for new content has proven that his next sim will have to be massively expandable or he will die.

You think developing Il-2 Sturmovik was so amazingly lucrative for him, he's going to use the same strategy again???

If he is going to make a decent living out of this (SoW) he needs to give the game far more substance than his present sim has. Detailed graphics and modelling, however brilliant, will not put his son through university. He needs to declare war on Microsoft and try and steal the flying-club crowds that make up the majority of FSX's fan base. Not the 747 vs ATC flyers, but rather the short-hop enthusiasts who want to take a Tiger Moth from Croydon to Dover, or some other vintage aircraft through a thunderhead. He needs to build in the perameters to satisfy both the dogfight and the vintage enthusiast crowd.

Don't kid yourself thinking that Oleg will ever retire comfortably on the few pissing dollars that you and I will send his way. Remember the flight sim convention that Mystic Puma filmed awhile back? Rows and rows of companies representing their wares for additions to Microsoft's FS series. Thousands of enthusiasts standing three deep at those booths, while Oleg and Luthier sat on plastic chairs in the corner with an early beta of SoW and just a handful of il-2 fans stopping by.

He needs to expand his fan base massively to survive. He knows this. Are you suggesting that he will provide such a complete combat experience, that new players will flood in? From where? From Counterstrike and Quake servers?
No. If he is going to win over anyone in large numbers, it has to come from the already massive FS community and industry. These people are already predisposed to the notion of flight sims. Oleg just needs to capture the vintage aircraft market by doing it better than MS can. Let them have their passenger jets and flights into Los Angeles, but Oleg needs to take a big bite out of the rest. Five years from now, we need to see every third-party commercial release both FSX and SoW compatible. We need thousands of enthusiasts at flight sim conventions standing three-deep at booths selling wares for SoW.

The Storm of War doesn't need to be over the Channel. It needs to be an all-out assault on Microsoft. Some people are quite content to take off, hit 8x time skip and pick their nose all the way to the target. But that won't make Oleg rich. It will hardly shift 35000 copies before SoW goes into the bargain bin.

Hehe. Half a bottle of Vin de Vitriol when I wrote that. You get the gist though ;)

I had a hang over while I was reading it, so it made perfect sense to me. I fear everyone else might be out in the cold though. :))

Answer to tater
 

Hi Tater and everybody else.

I find ur idea even better than mine. Hopefully, Oleg and his team is already considering development changes like these (Feathered and ur ideas, i.e.)...


DK-nme

What rubbish. You're raving here, I didn't post half of the things you are talking about; but you behave as if I had said them. Your comments about imagination are utter tripe- sorry, but you have no idea what you're about on that count. Quite to the contrary, you are the one who is shackled into one way of thinking. if the booze has worn off, you can see where I advocate not only a better system in the sim, but mission types in addition to just fight fight fight fight

I know you, and you know me. Have for years, if you haven't figured out who I am yet. Not only do I have missions that are in excess of "fight strafe bomb" in campaigns I make, but they have been out for over a year. Unarmed recon, escort in heavy weather with no enemy contact but difficult navigation, etc. So excuse me when I say you're off in left field, you just don't know what I said- which is not exactly MY fault, now is it? I can quote my last post to refresh your memory of what I DID say if that helps you out

Post when you're sober, or don't post. It doesn't impress me when you rant and rave about things I'm not talking about, especially when you post drunk. And doubly so when your only excuse is 'you get the gist'

No, no I don't. Maybe I would if I had defended limited mission types, simplistic ops, and cripplingly mundane mission goals. But since I didn't do that, I can't quite understand your crazy moon-talk. And as I have proved by doing it, you can address those limiting factors to a degree in this sim- but again, if you are still in a boozy haze- I am NOT saying that the system we have for making missions in this sim is a good one- what I AM saying is that it seems that you're flying some really dull boring and unimaginative missions

Ignoring most of your raving (or was it a rant?_LOL)...I gotta say that I never thought of IL2's "saving grace" being in the form of FSX...although Oleg has said many times that "BoB SoW" will be "much more open" to 3rd party add-ons and that we will be given "tools to do some modding with" after the "BoB" release...

I don't think that this whole idea of yours is an either or scenario. The "flight sim" and "flight combat" scene is a pretty small world and I think that their is a pretty good chance that anyone who would be interested in these games would just buy both of them, but I do think that their is a slightly better chance of expanding the customer base from the combat side of the argument more then from the flight-sim side...

I DON'T see "BoB SoW" becoming a FPS (please no, ever) however I could see the potential for expanding the "BoB SoW" battlefield to include a strategic element. My thought is that on-line games could have (real) humans commanding the movement and actions of tank columns, artillery battery's, ships, (with the option of being able to target the enemy from a flak gun or a tank turret) and maybe even supply. Perhaps targeting the enemy could be a team effort with downed pilots taking over from the AI (and communicating on team speak)... I don't see the "BoB SoW" game becoming a Strategic computer game (or like "WW2 on-line") but I do think that on-line missions, co-op's and campaigns would be a lot more challenging if the ground defenses or tank column's had a human brain behind them... Just imagine bombing campaigns or search and destroy ground pounding party's where the enemy has a real brain (cunning and foibles included) :)

Apologies Former Older (Chuck_Older?) you are right that I did indeed write in reference to stuff that was not in your own post. Sorry about that! The thought that Oleg really needs to win a large portion of MS's client base to turn a decent profit has been on my mind for some time. I digressed there quite a bit :(

MS is still remarkably indulgent towards the FS genre for such a huge company. I wonder how nasty they would get if Maddox Games started to make inroads into their 'showpiece'.

having just started to play IL2 and having loved playing EAW, I was thinking the same thing, would be great to have a hybrid of the two. While some things are better for sure in IL2, EAW has some things that would make IL2 better and make you feel you are actually there

briefing room and the chatter, the hanger, even seeing the medals/bars you have been awarded and a tune playing are some of the things I liked about EAW etc

it is just a line saying you have received a medal in IL2, bit boring and hardly exciting.

would like to see you receive promotions too something even EAW didn't have, rather than just saying you have been promoted.

anything to make you feel like you actually there is a BIG plus

SoW could go even further and show litle video clips of you receiving medals/promotions, that would be fantastic, when it comes to giving a game marks out of 10, that is what could make the difference between a 9 or 10, it would for me, its the extras that count ;)

though I didn't play Jane's WW2 Fighters much ( had problems ), that also had extras that were great, showing the stats and clips of planes etc

in regard to the actual thread ideas, I also think it's a good idea to have a variety of missions, of course combat would make up most of the missions, but some different missions would add to the game for sure ;)

I liked very much video clips in Falcon3.0 when you were captured or succesfuly resqued, just taxiing while mission is loading... Or just stedy painted screens like in B-17. Some kinde of any mix of such situation scenes adding immersion very much. And realy i am missing that in IL-2. Would be very good to improve this part of game in SoW serie. Also i think it will add some ratings and also sales.

Older games had a lot of extras, because processing power was low and they couldn't show off with the ingame engine. For example, if i'm not mistaken there were promotion and medal animations in Red Baron but not in Red Baron II.

It seems that while games became more realistic looking during the actual gameplay, a lot of things that were there to spice things up got omitted. The best extras in Dynamix games (red baron, aces of the pacific, aces over europe) was the menu screens detailing squadron life, the progress in the front lines, the top aces chart, the ability to request a transfer, 1 on 1 duels with an ace and painting your biplane to the color of your choice.

In EAW, the best thing was the believable AI. Sure, IL2 might have a more advanced AI but they do some pretty silly things every now and then. In EAW i even saw that wingmen of different skill levels were also different in how they they followed me. A novice would lose track of you and fall back sometimes in the heat of the action and rejoin a while later, while a veteran would be glued to you while you were going through maneuvers.

The best thing however when interacting with the AI was the detailed chatter, straight out of a movie, and the fact that you could issue some really complex orders that actually worked 90% of the time. I had a USAAF career going on starting as a lowly lieutenant and getting promoted to captain just as the first mustangs got delivered.

Let me tell you, there's nothing better for a flight leader in an offline campaign to split your 12-plane squad into 3 different flights around the bombers, send one into an aggressive sweep ahead, have another one in close escort and take your last flight of 4 ponies in top cover duty where you can monitor the whole affair. The AI wingmen followed orders so well that in many occasions i would go high and direct them towards totally annihilating the opposition, long after i had expended my ammunition (especially when intercepting bombers in a 190, a lot of times we could wipe out an entire box of 32 bombers).

:!:

You sound like you have never flown online. The reason I have flown this sim since it came out was because of the online experience. All the facets of it have kept my interest. Most recently, within the last year, I have started flying an online war campaign. I get a career, and I get orders, and I have a mission to which if I fail, the team as a whole suffers. It differs from offline because in offline AI don't offer the same sort of realism to the opponent.

Fly online my friend, and you will see a whole new world. If you have flown online (Which you probably have, but I suspect it's coops) then try a running server which meets your fancy.

I have flown online for years. I will grant you that the online-war scenarios have more available options than single player and single mission servers. But that is exactly my point. It only serves to illustrate how lacking the mission-based server and single player experience is. It is not constructive to just say, Ah well, fly AW's then.

Yes, there is fun to be had. Yes, it get that. There is a level of immersion. I get that too. But it needs to be taken up to the next level. Honestly, am I the only one who can understand this?

I understand your position 100% F_IV---you want a complete experience---boom, man management, and bureaucracy. Most people are in these "flight simulator" games for the boom.

My hope is that the SOW system is going to be far more realistic than that to which we are used with IL-2: Radar night fighters, night bombing with sophisticated weapons (flares, target markers, Gee, X/Y-Gerät, etc), and so on.

Well thats what sims are about, it's hard to compare to reality i don't think any pilot found any REAL excitement fighting for their lives in deadly dogfights.

A flight sim is a flight sim and should be mainly focused on combat being realistic, we and everyone who play theese combat sims won't be tierd of fighting and flying since it's what its all about.

And with the new engine it will be more realistic than ever.
But i agree on that more factors could play a bigger roll , still it dosn't matter for me.

Sheesh! Alright then. For the benefit of online players who have neither the imagination, nor the ambition to think of anything beyond what we have now, I'll spoon feed you another concept.

Working Radar Control in Online Play:


You log on to an SoW server and join the game. A mission is already in progress. On the briefing map, you can see that there are plots all over the board.

You select RAF and choose a Spitfire flying out of Hornchurch. The server auto-generates you the callsign Baker, Blue Three.

Entering the game, you taxi out of your revetment and scramble immediately. Climbing hard, en-route for Dover you ask control for an intercept vector. You key in the commands for this (promising yourself you will get around to sorting out the voice activation system one day soon. Everybody says it's amazing).

You key in: Tab> 1> 3> 2. "Hello Control> This is Baker Blue three> Requesting vector."
Using voice samples similar to those in the old Il-2, the AI controller replies, "Hello Baker Blue three. Steer 160. Bandits inbound at angels zero. Range 40 miles. Over" The AI controller has appointed you a "channel" based on your location on the map. Not everybody hears the same control messages, thus avoiding clutter. A pair of Hurricanes nearby have heard this however, and change course to intercept.

"Hello Baker Blue Three. This is control. Are you recieving me? Over."

Ah whoops! Unlike the Il-2 series, this controller actually requires a response to communications. If you do not respond to calls he will keep calling you, before finally giving you up as lost.
You key in: Tab> 1> 3> 6. "This is Baker Blue Three. Received and understood."

Minutes later, speeding across the feilds of Kent, you key in a request for an update from control.
"Hello Baker Blue three. Steer 160. Contact faint. Bandits at angels zero. Range 20 miles. Over"
They are holding course then. Twenty miles would put them just north of New Romney...

Suddenly the AI control breaks in:
"Hello Baker Blue three. Bandits now heading two zero. Steer oh seven oh. Buster!"

You acknowledge and open the throttle wide, swinging onto the new heading. Your heart skips a beat as two Hurricanes flash across your nose.

"Hello Baker Blue three. This is control. You are right on top of them."
You dip your wing. Can't see a bloody thing. No, wait...there they are! Three fast moving shapes. Darting across the town of Ashford. Rooftop height. Me110's from Erpro-210, making a run for Biggin Hill. You key in the last call - a tallyho to Control. Saftey catches off. Gunsight on. As you half roll into the dive, the gunner of the rearmost 110 is already firing......

Ye sounds like you want more realistic communication and navigation.
Why not i'd love that as well, but what i was reffering to with more other realistic aspects such as turbulens, winds and anything a pilot could be exposed for.

But for things like walking around the airfield that i've seen players hoping for , i hope god sake not i don't want OLEG and his team putting any effort into such things , please mainly focus on making a flight sim not anythin else, i admit that it would be cool but it's nothing neccssary and should have very low priority.