No, no, no!

I am talking about substance to the Battle of Britain! What part don't you understand?

Of course BoM is the sequel and will add more substance to the series.

But it will add nothing to the Battle of Britain.

Do I have to repeat myself again? Stop making yourself look stupid. Cliffs of Dover is the Battle of Britain, Battle of Moscow is the Russian Front.

The point I, and others, have been making is that the BoB aspect is being abandoned. No more campaigns, improved voice-packs or anything to improve it.

Pure gold.. The guy who has resorted to calling me names more than once in this thread alone says I am bashing people! Too funny! That or he thinks just because I don't agree with his glass half full view of the world I am bashing him as aposed to disagreeing with him

...........Calm down dear:rolleyes:

You don't know that!

The Brit's sold Spits to the USSR so chances are a new version of the Spit might be added in the Russian addon (figers crossed it is a 100 oct version) that could be used in a BoB mission

But one thing is for sure each and every sequal adds more to the BASELINE of the game engine..

So if not this sequal than the next may add something that can be used in a BoB campain!

For example, IL-2 Pacific Fighters added the PACIFIC! But at the same time it added Britt versions of the F4, F6 and F4u that could be used to simulate the usage of such planes in Brit carrier euro missions

What is so hard to understand about this?

Good points there El Aurens. I suppose MG always tended to go for the technical engineering aspects of the flight-sim experience over the immersive gameplay elements even in the original il-2. Because of that I did have my doubts as to the depth of play that would be available with COD before release. I had hope though especially with talk of a dynamic campaign - until about two weeks before release. One difference with original il-2 is that the community filled the gap with countless single missions and immersive offline campaigns. Nothing on that scale as yet for COD.

Philip, I'd advise you to stop trying to convince Aces on any of this. You've expressed your honest opinion here. Anyone reading the forum can take it on board and make their own judgement of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking Aces is interested in any kind of real engagement or honest exchange of views on this. If you answer one of his points he will only substitute it with something else in the next post...and for the majority of open-minded people on the forum his views are irrelevant.

So we have a Spitfire 1B missing from the game. Were these used in the Russian front? Not that I'm aware of.

I can't think of any other spits that have been omitted, nor aircraft in CloD which could be used in Russia which will benefit my experience. A Hampden, a flyable Defiant etc would be gold. But not for the foreseeable future.

My point is that CloD itself is not exactly finished from an offline perspective. I want to the game to expand in as many avenues as possible, but BoM would most likely sell a lot better if CloD was finished first and had the credibility to show that the next game would be just as good. The case at hand is that we're hoping BoM won't be just as bad.

Note that in all my previous posts I have said time and time again that it's good the sim expands in this way. As you suggest it adds a lot to the previous titles.
But currently there is no proof that anything useful will be added to CloD to benefit it. Hence why it has been abandoned. If the next expansion was in the same theatre, it would allow them to add directly to it.

Now that's why the SDK could be so useful. Third parties might emerge to do the job many of us wish the team had done before.

Phew that took a long time to get across (and I've reworded this post about ten times now).

@Kendo. didn't see your post mate, but you're exactly right.

But how many rabbits will you have to kill to turn into tokens to upgrade to the new epic Spitfires?

The developers basic strategy is almost the same as the original series, except they planned to build tools for modders, and a more robust game engine to use in a number of different ventures. Still the basic strategy was to build a game engine and release a number of new theaters and aircraft based on that game engine. With patches inbetween to fix bugs and maybe add some new content.

This hasn't changed, except for one major setback. The sims game engine wasn't finished and working. This has thrown a major spanner in the works. If the game engine had been working everyone would have been happy and the next sequel would be just around the corner. IF the sim survives this setback you will see a succession of theaters, aircraft, tools for modders, and maybe even an MMO.

The one thing you are right about is the loss of respect by many in the forums, but that can easily be regain IF and When the game engine is fixed. Personally I'd rather they lost a little respect with a chance to regain it, than the cancellation of the sim.

The strategy is the same, but the situation is different. (As you rightly say, Chivas).

Is what I said

To which I say DUH