Friday Update - December 9, 2011

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by Insuber

No quick fix. As Luthier has answered before: the launcher crash is due to some bad code of the gfx engine. The new gfx engine will solve that issue.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27848

It was here that it was stated as fixed but "not ready for the world".^

It can't be worse than what we already have. Its THE major issue right now for online players!



As for "Battle for Moscow" I suppose we are talking Operation Barbarossa. I also suppose fighting will concentrate around the lynch pin of Smolensk with the Luftwaffe facing off against the GIAP of the VVS. The G stands for Guard - meaning they are elite, they were the best Russian pilots in the best available aircraft, proberbly YAK's and maybe some MIGG's.... So not really just more land units but actually a very interesting scenaireo. Also wasn't moving land war what what multiplayer players were asking for?!


We can have all the bells and whistles you want but with out the basic online stability its a single player game. I am not alone on this issue and I am sure some more from MP will add to this soon.

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by BlackSix

13. Can you introduce a system of military ranks and awards?


14. Will you do further work on weather effects (rain, thunderstorm and so forth)?

You can hold your breath on those. If it won't be in the game, it won't be in the sequel... at least not for me.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

As for "Battle for Moscow" I suppose we are talking Operation Barbarossa. I also suppose fighting will concentrate around the lynch pin of Smolensk with the Luftwaffe facing off against the GIAP of the SVV. The G stands for Guard - meaning they are elite, they were the best Russian pilots in the best available aircraft, proberbly YAK's and maybe some MIGG's.... So not really just more land units but actually a very interesting scenaireo. Also wasn't moving land war what what multiplayer players were asking for?!

For the record, or for anyone interested, it's VVS which comes from the Russian Военно-Воздушные Силы which is transliterated to Voenno-Voszdushnye Sily.

Soviet fighter regiments were given the label IAP, from Истребителныий Авиационный Полк or Istrebitelnyi Aviatsionnyi Polk. Regiments distinguishing themselves in combat through great valor or success were given a new designation as a "Guards" regiment, and labelled GIAP/GvIAP from Гвардеский Истребительный Авиационныи Полк or Gvardeski Istrebitelnyi Aviatsionnyi Polk. Being designated a Guards regiment was a very high honour indeed.

Apologies to Russian members about my spelling; my Russian isn't great.

[CardboardSword]

I for one will be seriously disappointed if the two are not merged installs, but I'll admit, I'll buy it anyway. One of the first things I thought when I booted up CloD was oh my God, imagine how much fun this will be once more planes are available (I'm not much of a Spit guy)! With every plane feeling so different I'm looking forward to seeing how new additions will behave. I quite like the Russian crates (especially the mig-3, although I haven't the foggiest clue why haha), and I would love to get my hands on a centerline 20mm for the 109 without fussing with all that convergance mess.

Having said that though, I think it's absolutely terrible both in a business sense and in a customer service sense to not give CloD all the features that were promised. If it's simply a matter of a patch coming out for CloD at the same time BoM is released then that's all fine and dandy, but if those who choose not to buy the sequel/add-on/whatever you want to be anal about calling it can't get all the features that were supposed to be in the game in the first place, well that's just not right and I expect betetr from a team that relies so heavily on its relationship with its customers.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27848

It was here that it was stated as fixed but "not ready for the world".^

It can't be worse than what we already have. Its THE major issue right now for online players!



As for "Battle for Moscow" I suppose we are talking Operation Barbarossa. I also suppose fighting will concentrate around the lynch pin of Smolensk with the Luftwaffe facing off against the GIAP of the SVV. The G stands for Guard - meaning they are elite, they were the best Russian pilots in the best available aircraft, proberbly YAK's and maybe some MIGG's.... So not really just more land units but actually a very interesting scenaireo. Also wasn't moving land war what what multiplayer players were asking for?!


We can have all the bells and whistles you want but with out the basic online stability its a single player game. I am not online on this issue and I am sure some more from MP will add to this soon.

As far as the launcher crash you misunderstood Luthier's answer, he said what I said. The "overall feature" is the new gfx engine in which the launcher.exe bug is "simply not present". As far as the Battle of Moscow, it was code named Operation Typhoon by the German army. It was concentrated in the Moscow district, West from Moscow. Barbarossa was the blitz invasion of Russia, few months before.

cheers,
Insuber

[Dano]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Hopefully the same thing that happened with EA, forced to actually give the product they promised.

There's a world of difference in forcing EA to give an already complete product to forcing 1C to finish all that was slated for Cliffs of Dover.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

For the record, it's VVS which comes from the Russian Военно-Воздушные Силы which transliterated is Voenno-Voszdushnye Sily

Yea sorry I was typing from memory and I dont care much for the Russians

Originally Posted by Insuber

As far as the launcher crash you misunderstood Luthier's answer, he said what I said. The "overall feature" is the new gfx engine in which the launcher.exe bug is "simply not present".

However it is fixed.... I just see everyone pushing for dynamic weather and FM's/DM's... If we cant multiplay for more than 30 mins or so we might as well not play at all...

Originally Posted by Insuber

As far as the Battle of Moscow, it was code named Operation Typhoon by the German army. It was concentrated in the Moscow district, West from Moscow. Barbarossa was the blitz invasion of Russia, few months before.

cheers,
Insuber

Thats a shame, I just thought as there was no battle for Moscow because the German advance fell 30km(?) short it would really be about the advance before hand... A Smolensk map would have made a great campaign map... Bf109 vs Yak 1's, I16's and Miggs...

[flyingblind]

Thanks for the update. I guess the positive people will see it as positive and vice versa for the negative. Oh well.

This bit made me laugh:

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.

An excellent answer. Nearly wet myself.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

But there are laws at least in my country about bait and switch. Asking someone to pay for a different product which contains the something they advertised in a current product, is deceptive and illegal. Wonder if the maybe 35 guys that post regularly in this forum would count as "class-action" or not, lol.

What exactly is missing that was promised? Actually promised and not just discussed. And again, what possible good do you actually see it doing other than forcing the premature end of sims from Luthier and 1C or are you actually that short sighted that you think they have a fully working sim at the office just waiting for somebody to take legal action against them before release?

[Dano]

Which of those do we not have?

I'm not 'bashing' anyone, just curious as to what good you actually think it would do to create a further financial burden on a company that is in a niche market and has obviously already had issues.