Friday 2010-12-03 Dev. update and Discussion

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

I'd say Manston, but thats only cause i live 2 miles away, lol.

Hornchurch, Biggin Hill, Tangmere, Debden, theres loads of important airfields, no one was more 'important' or 'famous' really.

From across the pond here, I think it is safe to say that the one that most history buffs here would most easily recognize is Biggin Hill. Until I did some research in the BoB, that was the case for me.

If asked, of course, most Americans would answer that Biggin Hill was where the Hobbits lived.... .

Guys (and Gals), we are only seeing the first part of the SoW series. We know it will be expanded if it sells well. Have a little patience. If Oleg tried to please everyone with the first installment, the sim would never be finished.

Splitter

[Thunderbolt56]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

In all these cases the problem is not in interface, but in understanding of process, sequence and principles.

This says it all. I flew IL2 for about 3 years before I finally decided to learn the FMB. The best way for me was to get on TS with some others already proficient in its use and in about 30-45 minutes had enough understanding and knowledge to create a few missions for our server (greatergreen).

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Maybe just a bit. Its a tool, not the game, even it ios integrated in the game. It should looks like a tool really.

I don't care that much about the looks of a tool even though it would be nice with tool ribbons in the upper part that change depending on the object you selected on the map... And good right click context sensitive menus!

I remember my first time in the IL2 FMB - took me 10 minutes to understand how to create an object... Which is 90% of what you do

[kendo65]

Ok guys, now we want the map to be changed AND the fmb.

Anyone got any other 'deal-breakers' that are absolutely going to ruin the game for them

I'd like to request Oleg to include Norway so that the Luftflotte 5 bomber types don't feel left out.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Maps and map landscape items

It will be possible to add these items later. Oleg, has mentioned there will be ability for users to build maps.

Also, on large maps Oleg will add landscape items over time...or provide a way through FMB for users to add them.

The limitations of size for the original release maps may never have area enlarged, but if you have the ability to add airbases it should be possible to create an airbase on the map. I know such airbases may not be in exact locations, yet distances we fly aren't really handled as real world anyway.

...

I think Oleg said that the user base would only be able to create small maps and that the developers would reserve the large maps for themselves.

So, there really won't be a later solution to the absence of Duxford as far as I can see - even if someone were to make an 'extension' map to the north, there wouldn't be any way to link it to the main map (?)

The real problem here (with the map and the fmb...and soon no doubt a score of other things too) is that as more detail on the real game comes out, people are going to find those perfect, cosy dreams of perfectibility, that thrived in the absence of any real information, starting to look a bit shaky.

The game is going to involve compromises. Better learn to deal with it.

The inability to fly out of Duxford will, it seems, be one of those compromises. But surely the role of the Duxford squadrons can be adequately represented through use of air-starts and delayed arrival times over the main theatre to the south (as actually happened in reality).

p.s. Duxford wouldn't be the first airfield I would have named - wouldn't even make the top 5. Sorry.

[klem]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Ok guys, now we want the map to be changed AND the fmb.

Anyone got any other 'deal-breakers' that are absolutely going to ruin the game for them

I'd like to request Oleg to include Norway so that the Luftflotte 5 bomber types don't feel left out.

kendo, my point is that Duxford should never have been a 'deal breaker'.

I don't want to offend Oleg but it is so fundamental to the main defensive Battle, in the South East, that it should be in there. It is not a 'future enhancement' for 'other campaigns', it was an important factor in the Battle and should be in from the start. Not having the one day major NE Coast Luftwaffe raid (2 targets) playable is only a small matter.

I know you're joking about Norway but as an example that was a separate campaign and could come later.

No Duxford in the BoB is like playing cards with all the Jacks removed.

BoB in it's historical sense can't be properly fulfilled or re-enacted/scenario'd without it. OTOH, if people are only interested in big dogfights and shooting down a few bombers over Kent and pretending they are recreating the BoB they won't care, and it won't matter, what fields are or aren't included.

We could of course select a West Country airfield to represent Duxford and have them fly northeast to the edge of the map then turn around and fly south but that's hardly in keeping with Oleg's policy of quality and accuracy.

Please remember that this thread is specifically intended for us to air our views on this week's offering fom Oleg. He's quite capable of answering for himself on such a fundamental point. It's the first time I have seen the map and you can judge from other posts that the Duxford issue is a real concern.

[Freycinet]

Duxford definitely wouldn't in the top 5, that's true. It is also true that 12. group mostly arrived late for the action in the BoB. Still, it would have been nice to have their main stations, but it won't happen so no need to cry over spilt milk. We get so much more!

[klem]

Originally Posted by Freycinet

Duxford definitely wouldn't in the top 5, that's true. It is also true that 12. group mostly arrived late for the action in the BoB. Still, it would have been nice to have their main stations, but it won't happen so no need to cry over spilt milk. We get so much more!

I don't think there is a top 5. The Battle ebbed and flowed with first some airfields taking the brunt or plugging the gap and then others. Sometimes all of them. Some of course had higher 'scores' and fame than others. The key sector stations were Hornchurch, Kenley, Biggin Hill, Tangmere, North Weald, Northolt, Debden, Duxford, etc.. PLUS their satellites/subordinates like Manston, West Malling, Hawkinge, West Hampnett. If you say 'Tangmere' you are also saying 'West Hampnett'. I wouldn't be able to split Hornchurch, Kenley, Biggin, Tangmere, Manston, Duxford, Hawkinge and West Malling and I'm not sure about some others but that's 8 anyway that played key roles in the Battle.

[LukeFF]

This observation about the map was made at SimHQ:

I have a bit of a quibble with the inclusion in the SoW map of the Bassin d'Atlantique between Calais and Dunkerque, a feature that was constructed after the war. The whole coastline from Gravelines to Dunkerque was just open beach and dunes in 1940.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3150692

[kendo65]

Hello Klem - I've taken the liberty of re-ordering elements of your post so that i can address the different issues a little more easily

Originally Posted by klem

Please remember that this thread is specifically intended for us to air our views on this week's offering fom Oleg. He's quite capable of answering for himself on such a fundamental point. It's the first time I have seen the map and you can judge from other posts that the Duxford issue is a real concern.

Understood - my reaction may have been a little on the strong side. I wasn't trying to defend Oleg though - the opinions were purely my own

Originally Posted by klem

...

No Duxford in the BoB is like playing cards with all the Jacks removed.

BoB in it's historical sense can't be properly fulfilled or re-enacted/scenario'd without it. OTOH, if people are only interested in big dogfights and shooting down a few bombers over Kent and pretending they are recreating the BoB they won't care, and it won't matter, what fields are or aren't included.

I think that our differing opinions about this reflect the debate that has been going on regarding the campaign game: some people want to be able to make strategic-level decisions for the German side - to be able to direct the air campaign with a view to changing the outcome, i.e. a German win. Others think that this is out of place - that the campaign should reflect the perspective of a single pilot (or squadron at most).

I'm probably in the latter camp. Though I wouldn't be averse to a strategic-level sim of the battle - I think that SOW's (and Il2's) emphasis is naturally on the small-scale air combat.

So I don't really think that SOW BOB is going to be able to re-enact the battle on that strategic level where the player can alter the outcome by use of 'Big Wing' tactics, etc. That large-scale recreation of the battle requires a different game I think. The map for that game should include all of Britain and the German bases in France and Norway. The player would also need to be able to choose where to base his squadrons - eg the German commander could withdraw his forces in Norway and use them as reserve for the main attack across the Channel. It really would be a game on a whole different level.

Given that Oleg isn't going that route, what should he attempt to do with the game map given his limited resources?

I think that he has to provide a representative setting - a stage - for the tactical / individual raid-level air combat that the game can recreate well. That really means the map recreates a portion of the south-east of England.

It doesn't preclude the use of 12 Group squadrons in the missions - I think I'm right in saying that although their bases may be off the map, they fought their engagements on it. It means that if the game won't be attempting to refight the battle on the strategic level there is not really a role for the 'what-if' scenarios that some people would like, and there is no need for the 12 Group bases.

Originally Posted by klem

I don't want to offend Oleg but it is so fundamental to the main defensive Battle, in the South East, that it should be in there. It is not a 'future enhancement' for 'other campaigns', it was an important factor in the Battle and should be in from the start. Not having the one day major NE Coast Luftwaffe raid (2 targets) playable is only a small matter.

I know you're joking about Norway but as an example that was a separate campaign and could come later.

You are right about the minor nature of the northern raids and about my mention of Norway, but the point is that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The reasons I've given above explain why I think Oleg has it roughly right.