Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by III/JG11_Tiger

Zapatista, I get what you mean, but my squad flew ongoing campaigns against AG51 for a couple of years and we enjoyed many of the features you require, unfortunately there was a need for quite a bit of planning input, but we had tanks running out of fuel etc and supply was important to keep airfields active and many more features, maybe Oleg could speak to the developers of SE, as knowing one of the team that created SE, I am fairly sure that a lot of what you require could be added if SE was built into SOW, it will be interesting to see what maddox games comes up with.

then you need to provide information like that to Oleg if you want to have any hope BoB will be better then il2 in that regard, because right now that is not going to be the case. maybe some of the previous work done on SE can be of some help to oleg, presuming that resource is provided to him for free. maybe the person that designed it can do some part time consulting for Oleg and get SE type functions/features implemented in a true dynamic way.

oleg had a post at the ubi forum a couple of years ago asking people to vote if they wanted a dynamic campaign or scripted missions, but it wasnt clearly explained what a true dynamic campaign is and the fake-real crowd was chirping loudly they wanted 100% "realism" in missions, not being smart enough to understand the full benefits of a dynamic campaign engine server that can run 24/7 over 4 monts with "tasked missions" (like falcon 4 does). meaning a server can run on its own over 4 months, letting you join at any time, and once logged on you get a list of the types of missions that are being tasked and you can select one you like, or simply select any airfield to start from (choosing an airfield with no missions tasked means you could do "free flying" from that location)

after the votes were in oleg stated he would plan on a scripted campaign, not a dynamic campaign, so that means a limited progressively evolving list of pre fabricated missions that run in a rigid fashion, and there is no 24/7 server at all. it also means the missions will always be exactly the same.

personally i would favor oleg trying to buy the "campaign engine rights" from mig alley or falcon-4 (in the same way he sold the il2 AI engine rights to the console developer of BoP), and expanding on it. if he is not going to do that he needs to include the skeleton of a true dynamic campaign engine right now into BoB, and allow the fan base to expand on it.

if any of you have any hopes in that direction, this is the time to start letting oleg know what you want and why, and help him with free resources to implement it. complaining later will be to late, and you wont get it for the next 8 to 10 years either.

[csThor]

@ zapatista

I am afraid you're looking at the issue through a pink-tinted set of glasses. While I have never been a big follower of Falcon 4 (I'm much more into props) I did lurk in various forums and the stories I've heard painted a much different picture. Microprose struggled to get F4 out at all, simply because the campaign engine caused them major headaches and swallowed time and money like a black hole. It is certainly no coincidence that Microprose went out of business not long after the release ... Longevity in the community doesn't necessarily mean the same for the company - as Microprose shows "perfectly". And quite frankly - I'd like to have Oleg and Co around for a long time.

Secondly I disagree on a few of your points, simply because they run contrary to some key points of what I'd call a good campaign. I never really liked the clinical and technocratic way of the campaigns in Falcon 4 and Rowan's BoB - no pilot personality, no sense of squadmates, no promotion and medal system (and therefore no system of hierarchized responsibilities) ... This is not what I envision for a good campaign.

And as for Scorched Earth ... IMO its creators made the grave mistake of trying to incorporate everything and nothing at the same time. They mix stuff from the strategic realm (factories etc) into a purely tactical environment - titanic "No Go!" in my book - while leaving out the supply installations which would fit into this environment perfectly (supply routes on Army/Corps/Division level & supply dumps). Basically SE was a good idea which was overloaded and mixed with stuff Il-2 can't really display realistically. But that's just my own opinion ... being an old and grumpy nitpicker.

[cmirko]

Originally Posted by csThor

And as for Scorched Earth ... IMO its creators made the grave mistake of trying to incorporate everything and nothing at the same time. They mix stuff from the strategic realm (factories etc) into a purely tactical environment - titanic "No Go!" in my book - while leaving out the supply installations which would fit into this environment perfectly (supply routes on Army/Corps/Division level & supply dumps). Basically SE was a good idea which was overloaded and mixed with stuff Il-2 can't really display realistically. But that's just my own opinion ... being an old and grumpy nitpicker.

it seems like you haven't seen newer versions of SE. Supply dumps and supply in general is integrated in SE for more than 6 months....

S!

[Baco]

Cs Thor, Falcons 4.0 is a perfect depiction of how a pilot gets orders and how it executes them. and it does have ranks and medeals, even a pilots compleat log. Falcons 4.0 campaign is still the best dynamic campaign in any simulation bar none. It´s that simple. And What brough Microporse, and the rest out of buisnes was bad managment, not complicated software. If not you would be cheking your balance on the phone with your bank now a days don´t you think?.

Still all the arguments for a static campaign are compelatlly mute, since a dynamic campaign a la Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe (Lucas Arts, 1980´s) would fit perfectlly in Il-2, for instance. And you can still have perfect historically correct missions made out of the Mission Editor.

Oleg is always worried about other companies stealing his ideas, but in my humble opinion, he is missing some of the "new standards" for flight simulators: clickable cockpit and dynamic campaigns, that will be key in the future if not now.

Then aggain maybe he has a way of incorporating such a campaign to SOW series in teh future.

[csThor]

@ baco

So real liefe pilots can switch between squadrons, choose missions they want to fly and enter the cockpit inflight?

I think you misunderstood my words. I didn't argue against dynamic campaigns - I argued against placing Falcon 4 on a pedestal as a shiny example when - in my opinion - the campaign presentation was very basic and uninspiring at best. It did not create immersion for me, it lacked everything which draws me "into" a campaign. Red Baron II never had an underlying engine as F4 did, but it had a nearly perfect presentation which created enormous amounts of immersion. In comparison Falcon 4 was sterile and soulless.

[grecobd]

I think the best dynamic campaing of all time was the MicroProse 1942 pacific air war, which had a summary for each campaign and a great Immersion with briefings as the EAW, and you had really afraid for his life if the pilot was dead or MIA you no longer could fly with him, had to start from the beginning without medals, kills or promotions. It was with that you really nervous when you get at a numerically disadvantage , and if you was at damage plane, you had to fly to your front side before bail or your pilot would be considered as missing in combat also what the force to resume with a new one with the profile from zero. it had no buttom of refly.

excuse my english, and talk about a game of the years 90s, but its one of the few games that i keep up today with its original box on my shelf saved with the il2 sturmovik

[AdMan]

Sounds like you are working on a masterpiece Oleg, so far BoB SoW seems like everything I could wish for, a couple questions:

1. Will the new FM allow for simulating mach tuck? I don't believe I have ever experienced tuck in IL-2 with planes that have the tendency to do so.

2. In IL-2 all coastlines are sandy beaches, will there be any rocky shorelines on SoW maps? I would love to see those nice waves crashing into cliffs and rocks from above

3. is the possibility of having US aircraft at some point completely out of the question???

[KG26_Alpha]

Oleg + 1C team

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.

I remember IL2 when you shot a plane small bits fell off it and it lost control then went in, If I remember it was around the v4.?? that the "Hollywood Effect" appeared.

I hope this has been removed for BoB SoW.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.

this was a concern after watching some of the BoP gameplay footage, a particular scene where a plane disappears in an explosion - a way too small explosion might I add, the explosion was actually smaller than the plane itself. Also the explosion was static, meaning it didn't keep traveling with the speed and trajectory in which the plain was traveling, just "poof" and it was gone

otherwise a great looking game tho

[Antoninus]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Oleg + 1C team

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.

I remember IL2 when you shot a plane small bits fell off it and it lost control then went in, If I remember it was around the v4.?? that the "Hollywood Effect" appeared.

I hope this has been removed for BoB SoW.

Planes could already break apart or explode in Il-2 and FB 1.0 and it could happen in RL as well. Besides your gunnery skills the frequency mainly depends on the caliber of your weapons. Use machineguns and you won't see structural failures or explosions as often as when using 30 mm cannons with exploding shells, which are arguable overmodeled. I've not noticed any change during the games evolution.