Friday 2010-11-26 Dev. update and Discussion

[SlipBall]

Chivas..That sounds cool...I wish one of the up-dates would go into detail about the heart and soul of the game. It would be a nice break from the weekly screen shots.

[Dietger]

Greetings.

Well I see it more like Flanker35M here.
Falcon4 was a total dynamic strategy game with 3D build on top of it.
That was very impressiv! You just have to like US jets though
I loved it.

As for BoB.
I strongly hope to see more then just srcripted events that I have to play with!
Sperrle, Mölders or Pohl doesent matter The combination of a complex strategic, dynamic developement (in real time, as it was in F4) based on user input (your missions flow by yourself) is the kick.

Atleast, I'd like the idea to be able to chose my targets, like Flanker35M pointed out. It would be easy to get the home chain at the canal with stukas/JU88 at night and so on.....

So, to make it worth the effort, what you do HAS TO MAKE AN IMPACT.

Or why else putting in any effort?

A scripted campaign based on historical missions was already in orginal IL2.
But as I see it, it wasnt one of its strong points.
Hopes are high to see something more convincing in Olegs Battle of Britain.


Cheers Dietger

[Foo'bar]

Originally Posted by kalimba

And when you watch an official interview with Oleg, we assume ( ) that what is shown is from SOW. Someone unfamilliar with SOW's development could have been mislead

Okay, your piont as someone who spends every day quite some time here in forum I can't believe that others don't do the same

Thank you!

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Dietger

Greetings.

Well I see it more like Flanker35M here.
Falcon4 was a total dynamic strategy game with 3D build on top of it.
That was very impressiv! You just have to like US jets though
I loved it.

As for BoB.
I strongly hope to see more then just srcripted events that I have to play with!
Sperrle, Mölders or Pohl doesent matter The combination of a complex strategic, dynamic developement (in real time, as it was in F4) based on user input (your missions flow by yourself) is the kick.

Atleast, I'd like the idea to be able to chose my targets, like Flanker35M pointed out. It would be easy to get the home chain at the canal with stukas/JU88 at night and so on.....

So, to make it worth the effort, what you do HAS TO MAKE AN IMPACT.

Or why else putting in any effort?

A scripted campaign based on historical missions was already in orginal IL2.
But as I see it, it wasnt one of its strong points.
Hopes are high to see something more convincing in Olegs Battle of Britain.


Cheers Dietger

Keep in mind that all is connected...so whether you take out a spot light, radar, or command you will have an effect...at least, this is my understanding.

[Stiboo]

Oleg has said that the FMB design will be very similar to IL2, but with a few more toys to play with, I think the SoW campaign will be very similar to IL2's DCG.

But with the Battle Of Britain only lasting a few months the missions could be much more detailed.

One other thing, I was looking at a screen shot of the Beaufighter the other day and I don't think the first RAF squadron went operational with it until late 1940, and were not up to speed until Jan 1941....so prehaps Oleg is also covering the night air war into 1941 as well ?

( think there was a screen shot of He111 in night scheme? )


Does anyone remember any comments on night combat?

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Dietger

Greetings.

Well I see it more like Flanker35M here.
Falcon4 was a total dynamic strategy game with 3D build on top of it.
That was very impressiv! You just have to like US jets though
I loved it.

I didn't. Ok mostly because it was buggy as hell and only years of community work and a second commercial release finally managed to fix it (coincidentally, the same is true for Rowan's BoB ). But what people usually don't see (mainly because it sure gives a great and immersive environment to play around in) is that it's not very realistic. Still works ok for a ficitional setting, but creating such a system within the historical constraints of WW2 would be a nightmare. Just check how great this worked out for CFS3, where Germany and the UK would invade each other every few months...

Also consider that whatever campaign system SoW will come up with has to work with other theatres as well - the Battle of Britain is rather simple here because it lacks a ground war, front lines and tactical ground attack missions.

Sperrle, Mölders or Pohl doesent matter The combination of a complex strategic, dynamic developement (in real time, as it was in F4) based on user input (your missions flow by yourself) is the kick.

Again, for a flight sim the strategic level of Falcon4 is quite nice, but as a strategy game it's rather weak, and I personally don't want to be forced to play a not-so-great strategy game so I can play the flight sim beneath it.

So, to make it worth the effort, what you do HAS TO MAKE AN IMPACT.

Or why else putting in any effort?

Work on your kills score, help keep your squadron alive, or simply try to survive. Plenty of incentives without changing history

A scripted campaign based on historical missions was already in orginal IL2.
But as I see it, it wasnt one of its strong points.
Hopes are high to see something more convincing in Olegs Battle of Britain.

On the other hand it didn't keep it from being successful. While those other flight sim companies with dynamic campaign systems have all gone out of business...


Anyway, what Oleg has hinted at is a very open mission system that will hopefully provide options for 3rd party campaign systems. There were also hints for a customizable interface (I think HTML was mentioned in that context but it's been a while) so such campaigns could be integrated in a much better way than with Il2. And the missions themselves should be much more interesting with more trigger and scripting options. Although much of this is still rumours I have no doubt that we'll see some very complex (and dynamic) campaigns after release.

[Necrobaron]

I guess this is dangerously close to going off-topic (if it isn't already) but while I agree that a single pilot almost certainly could not change the course of events to earn a German victory, in a truly dynamic campaign, who is to say that other ahistorical, though plausible, events don't transpire on a larger scale to change the outcome?

For the Luftwaffe, what if there's a greater occurence of missions to destroy the radar sites or an even greater emphasis on airfield attacks? I'm no BoB historian but my understanding is that at one point the RAF was hanging by a thread and it doesn't seem that implausible to me that it could be possible for someone to get a German victory, however unlikely, if the right missions are generated.

For the RAF, what if there are more wasteful missions generated that needlessly puts their air assets at risk and in turn aids the Germans in further diminishing their ranks? On the other hand, what if RAF air crews, by luck or other means, inflict much heavier losses on the Luftwaffe and the BoB is effectively over sooner than it was in reality?

The very nature of a purely dynamic campaign means that no one's experience is exactly the same. To me, a good compromise would be to have a series of scripted, purely historical single missions for each side and also offer a dynamic campaign where anything could theoretically happen. The only constant would be that both sides start with whatever airpower they had in the Summer of 1940. What happens after that is up to the campaign generator, pilot performance (AI and human), and luck.
________
Uggs

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by Necrobaron

I guess this is dangerously close to going off-topic (if it isn't already) ...

I am wondering that myself - is this too much OT? Please delete my post if so.

Originally Posted by The Kraken

Work on your kills score, help keep your squadron alive, or simply try to survive. Plenty of incentives without changing history

Exactly. When I play SoW I which to be a part of history, not change it to what might have happened. There are other games that do that.

I am all in for destroyed objects being destroyed in the next mission, plus some deviations of what happened (like prolonged attacks on airfields), but for a change in how the Battle ended - not my cup of tea.


As far as IL2's single player goes - I have never really been able to get into the mood there. Not even remotely like what for example EAW offered. It all felt too "synthetic". If I haven't discovered how good online game play was I would probably never given this game so much attention. Then again, I didn't try much of the custom built campaigns.

In any case, I do hope SoW will stand out here.

[nynek]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

SoW will be at level of a squadron then, understandable. In Rowan's game you can play as a strategic game too, thus change outcome of the BoB. Even in SWOTL you could

I merely gave a simplified example that IF the 210, for example, had been successfull then the bombers would have a bit more time before being intercepted. That is a lot in terms of warfare. Damage is done already if the attacking force is egressing.

Why Falcon 4.0? Because it has a dynamic campaign, plain and simple. Everything around you went on even you would just sit and watch the map. You were a mere asset in the war. That is what still makes F 4.0 great.

What would be a let down in SoW is that it would be a scripted series of missions with an outcome written in stone regardless your actions. Just let the plane Autopilot all missions, what's the difference? Just a game with exceptional graphics but that's it. We've seen BoB before and would SoW be any different in that string? Been there, done that.

With extreme sarcasm..Was the wait of 6 years worth at all when all we get is fancy graphics and a set of features, but with no real content? Why fly for Luftwaffe at all when the only challenge would be not to die in the string of canned missions? That would offer zero replay value as the outcome is already known.

Above statement aside I believe SoW will offer a lot more and be the next sim to fly for years to come. Oleg and his team pulled this off with IL-2 so SoW will be no exception.

---
With all due respect to You Flanker but I think You made cardinal mistake comparing real history events SOW with totally fictional time frame Falcon game. In the past, dynamic campaign was all over my lips. I wanted to be in charge and see effects of my shooting. Thing is after a while I found Mission4today site and I started dwld some of Their stuff. One day I found myself in Hurri plus 3 against 20+ Heinkels with 12 Bf as a bodyguards. And You know what, I didn't have time ponder about what'll be tomorrow because I was hard at thinking (about 5 second) how to stop those bombers and SURVIVE. Flanker I'm sure You witnessed some forum wars about FM, lack of ashtray in Galland Bf and so on and on. We strive for realism in performances, looks, ballistics so why not in HISTORY. Our holly grail in this game should be to finish a game alive and if it is too easy for You turn off or on those buttons in realism and try to fly campaign from the day You bought the SOW.
That's my personal view on those things what You thinking ?

nynek

[JG52Krupi]

Has Oleg mentioned damage from debris, i was just playing ROF and a tail plane surface broke off and hit my engine destroying my prop .

Also will the shadow of the aircraft be real time i.e. if my aircraft has the tip of the wing or a aileron blown off will the shadow show the damage.