Suggestion: forget multiplayer focus on sim for single player
 

It seems in the current situation that it is a bridge too far to get multiplayer working 100%and make the ultimate WW2 simulator.

Personally I absolute do not like multiplayer circus, the one with the best connection and PC has always the better chance. For me is the best simulator experience the single player with good developed AI. I have included a poll to give your vote on this. Consider the difficulties the developers are facing at the moment.

I personally haven't played online much because I'm not that good of a pilot and as soon as I take off I get shot down. Playing off-line is easier, more enjoyable and more comfortable for me but after a while it gets old because AI in IL-2 (and even the old series) is not very well programed and is mostly predictable.
In the long run, I would want to fly online more because combating humans is more fun than shooting down AIs, i'll just have to get better.

The idea of campaign is not very appealing to me because you are gonna be doing the same thing: flying the airplane, no matter what campaign you're in, or what battle you're fighting. It's not like a campaign in a strategy game where u do very different things for different situations. So campaign maybe good for a little bit, and I'll still end up in the hyperlobby.

I think the devs are on the right track focusing more on multiplayers. :grin:

Everybody like good MP. BOB have bad MP: game is too hardcore for me (play in original IL-2 for 7 years), and i can not find good servers with easy settings, plus this stupid interfase, bugs and so on...

I think both have their merits and i voted accordingly, despite the fact that i'm a primarily offline flier.

I did use to rack up a few weeks of online flying every few months with the previous series and i liked it because it's a different set of challenges.

It's still early days but the fact that it's possible to plug programming language code straight into the sim bodes very well for the future, to the point that i suspect we could some day have a dynamic campaign engine working both offline and online. Heck, if i knew how to properly code in C# i'd probably be working on a campaign module right now.

This would be good enough to get me to fly MP more, because the main reason people do unrealistic things in MP is that they don't have a suitable framework that demands realistic gameplay from the players. If exaggerated gameplay styles carried a relevant and realistically accurate penalty in MP, then at least the people flying in high difficulty servers would also fly in a more realistic manner.

For example, if bombing the factories and attacking supply convoys, trains and vehicles meant that my base would be low on fuel, spare parts and ammo to the point that i'd have to be taking off with reduced load-outs that limited my effectiveness, then i'd be more inclined to fly a proper CAP than head for the nearest mid-channel furball.

I would take care of my aircraft and try not to take unnecessary risks, because ending the mission would place my aircraft back into the airfield's pool of available airframes and if it was damaged it would be moved to the maintenance hangar and be unavailable until supplies came in and repairs carried out, limiting the amount of aircraft my team could fly from that airfield.

I would properly support my teammates in bombers because their success would mean benefits for me in the long run, eg fighting against 109s that have to take off with reduced fuel loads, etc etc.

I did do these things in IL2 as well but that was just a personal gameplay choice of me and certain like minded players because there was no long term goal, usually the longest running missions on most DF servers lasted 3 hours or so. In most cases on the same server you would see half the people dogfighting just for fun and the other half actively going after mission objectives in an organized manner.

Coops were more structured but had their own drawbacks because it was a very rigid and unflexible situation, limiting the players to flying a certain mission without the possibility of improvising on the spot or carrying out ad-hoc sorties they would think up themselves to achieve objectives in a more efficient manner.

Now that both MP modes have been merged into one it's possible to have the flexibility of DF with the AI support of Coop in one mode and with the scripting tools and how the engine works it's very possible to have official and 3rd party campaign modules as a separate layer on top of the base sim, providing us with what's needed to fly with consequences that will have a tangible and often immediate impact on what we're able to do on each sortie.

Now there's really nothing wrong dogfighting for the heck of it, it's just not everyone's favorite gameplay style, some people prefer having a sense of purpose behind the fighting itself and that's where the structured environment comes in.

For example, i'm a terrible dogfighter so i avoid dogfights and this results in me remaining a terrible dogfighter :-P
However, i'm a more or less good to above average marksman that can get comfortable with certain aircraft armaments with a bit of practice and pull off good snapshots, i'm an ok tactician which means i will usually score less kills by avoiding dangerous situations but i'll also die less and for CoD in particular, i have a relatively sound understanding of aircraft operating principles which lets me squeeze a bit of extra performance out of my aircraft.

For me to be able to employ what i'm good at in MP, i have to fly in a way that doesn't focus on getting a steady tracking shot from someone's six. Having an environment that rewards each player for using his strong points would massively improve gameplay and the overall level of competition by introducing more variables into the mix.

For this to happen though we must move along the path that the sim's engine itself has carved, merging both MP modes and then using the same underlying architecture for SP, or in Luthier's words "SP in CoD is like flying MP with a single human player in a server full of AI, the code behind it is the same in both cases".

That's why i voted for both, because it seems that they're actually interwoven to the point that it wouldn't make sense to split them up at this point in development.

While I'm predominately an online player, I agree with Blackdog's assessment and voted for both.

Cheers

Goanna

I think 1C needs to do a "do over". Pretend that the game hasn't really been released yet and re-release it in a year or so when it is polished. I think this can be done successfully with some coordination and small bribe/payments to web masters at various flight sim sights around the globe. Simply have them delete all postings since April this year related to CLoD. If someone brings up videos of the game to argue the point, just say those are concept videos from an alpha/beta version of the game and have nothing to do with the actual game. I think most of us who have paid for the game are willing to go along to prevent a disasterous release in the U.S. Also, if there is a way to time the re-release shortly after Nov 2012, I would do that too.

No, I'm not drunk.

The way I see it is some would have made the purchase with either Single or MP in mind. Others would have made purchase with both in mind.

Focusing on one or other leaves the other out in the cold which I could not support.

I voted both.

Cheers

SB

Single player with good builded and accurate historical missions and campaigns. For MP I prefer to use FS9, FSX with Vatsim and sometimes a hour there in COOP at Hypperlobby with IL2 1946 for fun and change of air.

what an uncalled for commentary, this should get you banned at lea st

I really don't think so!

I'm tired off all that "US release" talking... The sim was developed in Russia, was sold in europe and other places around the world... Why people keep talking like the US market have "higher standards" than other markets? It's not true at all.

I listen a lot of nonsense about the european release... Like european customers are "guinea pigs"... Now you dislike some joke about the north american market? Gimme a break...

This sim is a masterpiece, in any market!

I love playing online but I find that living in Australia you are hard pressed to find a server that has a low ping, full realism settings and isn't empty.

Currently COD only seems to have about 7 servers and only one has an acceptable ping (Syndicate). However since the hotfix/patch fiasco I can't seem to find anyone on the Syndicate server when it is evening in Australia during the week. The other night there were 5 people on it, I joined up and they all left within a minute of me joining :(.

I'm suffering from the MP sound bug, and now to make matters worse I lose FFB when I pull the trigger in MP. So multiplayer is dead for me at the moment. Single player is starting to get tiring as the AI is just too aware.

As MG said the sound is going to take months to fix, I think they should try to make SP as enjoyable as they can, by giving us more control over AI settings in the Quick missions etc, and the dev team need to work on toning down some of the AI's behaviour.

The U.S. release is psychologically important because it creates a mental barrier between the hope that this game will be fixed and devastation that it never will. Of course, we all know that July will be here soon...too soon really to get the game fixed. Hence, I suggest that 1C will consider my re-deployment strategy described above to extend everyone's hope for this game. It's very simple strategy. We all just say ourselves in your quiet voice, "the game hasn't come out yet, it's coming out next year". Then the webmasters around the world delete everything on CLoD. Then next year 1C delivers the change, a fixed game. It will work. I know it.

i fly everyday online and its amazing
but personally i want singleplayer most
more campaigns and missions please:grin:

Voted SP.

I would be fine with a re-release but why the media blanket campaign instead of being honest? Something like "our game has some serious issues, we will release in the west when they are fixed" and that's it.

I mean, what you describe won't ever work for one simple reason: you can't actually hope to control what's being posted all around the internet :-P

Even if the main flight sim community forums go on with what you propose, they don't have 24/7 moderation and posts will slip through, it's easy as pie to get a personal blog up and running and link it on my forum sig, not to mention the avenues of things like facebook, youtube, etc...good luck bribing those to take down CoD related content and discussions, as they will either refuse outright or ask for way too much that 1c can't afford.

Long story short, what you describe is a non-enforceable censorship ;)

On another note, don't count on me to retype every single FAQ/tutorial/guide i've posted on this forum if someone goes ahead and deletes the lot, i assume this goes for others too. ;)
In other words, this will destroy whatever pool of community knowledge base we managed to built up to now, so i definitely disagree with this strategy.

On to the poll results, as of the time i'm making this post we have "both" in the lead with MP and SP sharing 2nd place with an equal amount of votes. If that doesn't place equal importance on both aspects i don't know what does :-P

It could be by design to ensure 1C gets as much feedback as possible from the beta testers. In other words, create an artificial deadline for US release to put the pressure on the beta testers to give as much feedback as possible over pre-scheduled period of time (e.g., 3 months). ;) Anyway, I agree with you, that the deletion process would not be entirely manageable, and indeed potentially perceived as unfair to those who have typed a lot the last few months. I think this is where the "community manger" comes into play. Still waiting for that to develop. I do hope that when/if they re-release, they go back and call it BoB SOW. CLoDy CloT kinda sux. ;) I wonder if we should do another poll: Question:"As a beta tester, would you support a re-release strategy?" I would vote yes, most definitely. My delete key is ready for action!!!:)

Although I play almost never singleplayer, I voted to support both. MP for myself and others and SP for those who like SP.

~S~

Both. Definately both.

I enjoy making little film clips offline, using the FMB usually and getting this right is important for me (a guide to the new fmb is needed!).

I've already completed the RAF 'campaign' in the game, but also love getting online on a Friday night with some cans of beer and having a good laugh. Flying against real people will always be a more engaging experience than flying against AI.

I respectfully disagree. Unless you can find me the RAF player who will agree to flying in tight Vees instead of the more flexible Rotte/Schwarm ... I believe one can't realistically recreate historical operations simply because the absolute majority of the players doesn't know the details of said operations nor would they follow the procedures and tactics of that era when it would go against their common sense.

Military operations are being conducted by strict hierarchical entities and flight sims are a means to spend one's freetime - not to reenact historical operations. If one seeks this he'll only be able to find it offline - for the AI will do whatever he wants without moaning, whining and complaining. ;)


That I - unfortunately - have to agree with.

the multi is the more important in this kind of flight sim.

solo part is important ok but look. if il2 sturmovik is still play after 10 years it is not because of the offline part!

That's highly doubtful ... the only reason why one may think online has greater numbers is because they're visible (and noisy in various message boards) - the mass of players staying offline isn't visible.

+1

-1

I believe that your knowledge about multiplayer is limited, indicated by the use of the word "circus".
If a pilot comes online in a situation where connection speed counts, he has made a error already, except herefrom are the so called "Air-Quake-Server" wich can only be used for stress release but not for flight-simming, imho.
On Mission-oriented server's you'll find such a variety of missions, situations and challenges that a silicon-chip without human input is not able to deliver.
A offline mission is historical correct, if good, and challenging! Once!
One can even fly it multiple times and be better with hindsight, but challenging that isn't anymore, imo.
Imo, offline is good for the first addiction, as it was for me with il2, and later maturing to be able to fight the real challenges online.
Offline has it part, but longevity it brings only to history-buffs, and there aren't so many of them.
All this refers to il2 46, of course, but there will be more servers for CoD as this sim matures.

even if the offline community was the greater numbers.

it is not them who make live a sim like il2 during 10 years. i know very few people who plays only offline il2 during ten years... most of them play at il2 since 1946.

the onlline community and virtual squadron are people who make a lot of things... (i don't speak about modding) but look SEOW. for me it is things like SEOW who can make live il2 during some years again

but to come back to the subject of the post. focus on offline will be a terrible mistake.

Words og wisdom there. This kind of sim will need both.

Except that in my experience the majority of the players don't want to be challenged - they want the same aircraft types for the same kind of missions with the same kind of people and woe betide you if you point out that their planeset is anything but historical. People want the classic fireplace-slippers-pipe kind of feeling, like I said on the QL board a long time ago.

I find this steady oooohing and aaaahing about online and how superior it is to offline extremely patronizing.

Sad though that we have to even have this thread?

IL2 (Original and onwards) was/is a great online multiplayer experience as it is really easy to find a server and join (although I use Hyperlobby does anyone remember the "AllSeeingEye" game browser?).

I find getting together with a group of pilots is really pot-luck at the moment, then you have to hope the settings are what you like, but they are not anywhere as intuitive as Hyperlobby is :(

I do really want both working but I sometimes think that this is going to be a very long fixing process, so currently it's a wait and see, but hope that the money doesn't run out before it's fixed :(

However I am already thinking how many variations can be released like the original Il2 did?

Cliffs of Dover: Forgotten Battles

Cliffs of Dover: Pacific Fighters

Cliffs of Dover: Complete Edition

Cliffs of Dover: Ultimate Edition

Cliffs of Dover: 1946

All of which are paid for upgrades but will I am sure add fixes at a premium price?

Time will tell but I do hope to see this product succeed as for the damage model and lighting alone it is incredible....makes me wonder why they just didn't make IL2:1946 HD which would have added the more detailed models and lighting...but kept the rest useable.

Cheers, MP

I love both aspects SP and MP, but one of the things I really miss is the cooperative play, Ive had some fantastic experience's with squad mates flying together in missions we have made in old IL2.

One of the biggest problems we have with MP at the moment other than that of the sound bug is steam dropping the servers, just as your getting into the fight all of a sudden your disconnected, its an absoloute nightmare. Hopefully sometime down the line Steam will be dropped and we will be able to use Hyperlobby.

I bought the game for multiplayer. Since online campaigns in IL2 I can never return to flying alone. Experiencing a 4 man squad commencing a supply/bomber hunting mission is something hard to express with words. And now, a full BoB online campaign seems to be few months away.

I see it simpler maybe, offline - training, online -advanced.

Buzpilot what have you said...

Run away before the offline pilots get the pitchforks out...

I agree :D

*pulls pitchfork* :twisted:

Pardon the strong words, Buzpilot, but utter BS. ;)

This attitude is one of the things I don't like about some onliners. They think online is inherently superior just for the presence of other human players, but while nobody denies that AI will never be as unpredictable as a human being that is not a sign of inferiority - just difference. Because, IMO, online is simply sportive competetive flying without much regard for history (varying in degree, though, and in varying disguises) while offline I can actually enjoy what I like about PC games - the story behind the operation(s).

Quite true csThor.

To be honest the only thing not working in cod online at present and ignoring the low 45-50 fps is the sound issues, if only they could get a temporary fix fir that I would've happy.

You are one of the pilots from the Staffel assigned to support a Stuka airstrike to fend off the T34 attacking our main airfield. You`re short on fuel, with only two 109G10, the rest being 109G6early. If you fail, the AF falls to the red side and you`re forced to retreat another 50km of the frontline to the west. This will also rid your tank columns residing near Moscow of any resources. How`s that for a story?

Player attitude would still ruin it. ;)

csThors a cheat... ;)

The reds have uber Russian aircraft...

Why does the fw190 have a bar covering half the front window...

One day this is the moaning that will fill this forum.

Oh no! I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. LOL

What I dont like specially in MP is some types of crazy things. Some examples of my experiences:

-I have finded Zeros over Stalingrad

-Battle of Britain with players in P-47 Thunderbolt.

-In some mission V-VS vs Luftwaffe , 90% of the Luftwaffe(blue) pilots were in Yak-3s.

-FW 190s in combat patrol over Okinawa.

Etc, etc, etc

Exactly for that I prefer Single Player, correct and historical accurate.

That, you find ONLY on Air-Quake (TM) Servers!
Those are worlds apart from Mission-oriented Servers and usually have WW-View (TM) enabled.

I think csThor is being a bit too negative towards MP. I've only ever flown in a couple of full switch servers back when we didn't have CoD yet, but i didn't see so much of a problem with player attitude.

Yes, it exists to a certain degree and yes, some times concessions have to be made to get a level playing field for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's completely ahistorical. I think csThor just had some bad luck and happened to encounter more of it than i did :grin:

On the other hand, there are also MP fans who are too dismissive of the SP aspect and i disagree with them as well.

The way i see it is very simple:
SP is for getting a realistic depiction of a theater of operations and realistic behavioral patterns of air forces and pilots on a strategic and tactical level, for example RAF flying in Vic formation early on in the battle or Luftwaffe ignoring the airfields and going after London later on. It's for things like orders of battle, stations/squadron placement and mission profiles.

MP is for getting a realistic depiction of pilot behavior within the actual combat engagement. It's for getting a believable set of responses by the guy in front of your guns.

The only way to successfully merge the positive points of both is to fly in a dynamic online campaign with players that will agree to do things like they were done back then even if it gives them a disadvantage. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but good luck maintaining that on a large enough scale to have MP qualify as historically accurate in the majority of cases.

A significant number of people do fly that way in online wars but another significant number fly the way Danelov described and as such, i can't just ignore the statistic and claim MP is accurate by default. MP is as accurate as the players themselves and the mission designer/server host want it to be, in fact, even if the mission designer does set out to do things a certain way it still doesn't work out if the players don't go along with it.

That's the main point csThor is arguing and in that he is entirely correct: the AI will shut up and do as its told within the constraints of its ability, while a human player will do what it takes to win. This is what makes human vs human competition more thrilling but at the same time it results in the RAF not flying in Vic formation ever and the Luftwaffe never changing their targets and keep hammering the airfields: we get believable piloting while the battle/operations in the theater play out in a way completely different to history.

I still like it because a properly orchestrated MP event is the ultimate "what-if time machine" available with today's technology, but it's a far stretch calling it a recreation of the actual battle. It's a recreation of the means used to wage the battle and not the battle itself, because the means end up getting used in a different manner 99% of the time.

I like both SP and MP because they are different, but neither one can give 100% of what's needed in 100% of the cases to be considered the pinnacle of realism. And this is why i don't only consider them equally important (each one tends to complete what's missing from the other one), but i also like to alternate between the two.

My attitude towards MP is the result of four or five years worth of experiences with online gaming. And five more reading various server message boards. :-P

MP all the way. SP vs. AI is for those that have never flown / participated in a well organized Online event.

I am a singleplayer/offline flier. I have not tried offline play, so I can't speak intelligently on it at all.

However, I completly enjoy my experience with this game so far. I can get over the bugs as I read alot about this game before I bought it. I expected to have alot of problems, but honestly, have had a very good time with this so far. I expect alot of fixes and improvements, and those will come with time.

I hope that they work on both sides of the spectrum so that we can all enjoy this game to the fullest. I believe that there is alot of potential and look forward to seeing if they can push this game to its limits.

Focus on both parts are equally important IMO but the day MP becomes the number 1 priority for the devs it's bye bye for me. I agree with csThor all the way, I don't want to be dependent on other people for my own gaming experience. When I play ANY games (except WoT) I want to do it my own way and at my own pace. This is all a matter of taste that's why I don't condemn MP in anyway and expect onliners to be just as tolerant towards my taste and opinion. Long live MP!, just stay away from my SP ;).

The solution maybe is well informed host or builders for MP missions with his basic data available.

-As example: C.A.I.(Corpo Aereo Italiano) fly his first mission Oct 24, 1940.

That mean any Regia Aeronautica aircraft is available for MP mission before this date.

-Jabos were first used by the Erp.Gr 210(including E-4Bs), Jul 19, 1940.

That mean any Jabo available, for all other units excepting Erp.Gr 210 before this date.

-The Bf 109E-7 entry in service with the I./LG 2 in August 1940.

That mean any E-7 available before this date y only from this day for this unit.

Same for entry in service of Spifires MK II or Hurricane MK II, etc, etc,etc.

Multiplayer is the only way to experience the heat of the battle with 20+ of you on
Roger Wilco/ventrillo/Teamspeak ( +++++) <<<insert comms of your choice
coordinating a bomb run or strike attack,
the mud movers cursing the fighter jocks (no escort cover)
the fighter jocks cursing the mud movers for being alll over the place (hard to escort)
then debriefing afterwards to see how everyone saw the battle from their perspective and what events unfolded.

And of course the satisfaction of getting a virtual kill on one of your long standing team mates or enemy squadron pilot.

1 human kills worth 100 AI

Skulking around alone in a DF server looking for a low level crippled smoker,
or doing the conga with some over the shoulder shooting trying to add to your points tally
is far from my idea of online flying.

Lets hope CoD gets multiplayer sorted fast :)

.

Playing online, even in the most carefully structured historical war, with the most serious & dedicated enthusiasts, I cannot escape all the 21st century chatter about PC's, pings, track IR, teamspeak, AI, pets, spouses, etc. etc. It ruins the experience for me. If I'm in a mission in Summer 1940, I don't want to hear or see anything that isn't in existence in 1940. It's nothing against the great guys doing the online wars, the problem is my own puritanism about putting myself 100% in 1940, at least in what I see and hear from my monitor and speakers.
Like csThor, I'm only interested in seeing/hearing the history in it's most basic and starkest form possible. In any case, according to Oleg, it was well documented years ago that the huge majority of Il-2 users were strictly offline, a fact that Ilya is surely aware of. I suspect MP is considered the "low hanging fruit" at this point when rebuilding the AI is apparently such a herculian task.

Nice. Brought back some memories for me for sure. The most kicks I got was every time when someone yelled help 20km from me. 7mins later, after navigating just by the map on FR settings I spot the guy and his stalker, I smoke the red bastid and escort my damaged team mate to rtb. Priceless.

Well, Life is always a trade-off and so is playing this game. But in my opinion, the focus of the development should lie on the sandbox and the tools, enabling the community to provide the needs of the players - singleplayer and multiplayer. And with the new system, in which AI controlled aircrafts are more or less the backbone of the theatre, the issues to be worked out, are easy to find. Therefore I would not sperate MP here - SP there, I would focus on the common intersection of both elements.

In 1946 there were little chances to experience tactical engagements of player groups, acting as a team as you would guess a wing or "staffel" would have done in real. Those experience were mostly restricted to coop-online-wars like AFW, VOW, SEOW and the like. AI was an integral part of this immersion, simply because you cannot fill a server with enough minded players. But that was also the setback of the system. You had to wait for the players to join and get ready and if you only have one hour sparetime to play, you don´t want to spent this hour in the lobby, waiting for the ranks to fill. Now, we have the possibility to fill a map, with randomly happening missions and I believe and I am going to test, if it is possible to build a map and missions in a way, that the lone wolf pilot, taking off to shoot something will not find his satisfaction on that server. I am gathering information at the moment, to rebuilt the english channel outfit of german and british airfields, with the correct squadrons and airplanes for time frames I set to monthes as a trade-off. So there is a map for May, June, July, August and September, on which the palyers can only take off from airfields with the plane of the squadron which was actually operating from this airfield in that time frame. I found out that it is not easy to get accurate data for the planes which were flown at the accurate time, but as I said, there must be trade offs. One problem which I am facing is, that acutally bomber airfields are not even available on the current map. The next step would be to design realistic submissions for this maps, which reflect the everyday life of a fighter/bomber pilot that days in the given constrains. And so AI is here again the backbone of the happening. The goal is to provide a server, which enables virtual squads to operate and train in a surrounding, in which flights have to be planned, lead and navigated as closly as possible to what is necessary to give the best immersion into the time simulated. Due to the wide spread theatre, the long flight times and the nature of the missions. it should be unlikely to meet a lone wolf player just looking for the next trigger action. This is what I and my squadmates are aiming at and want to realize some day. I expect such a server design to lead to a rather rarely visited server, but our main focus will lie on the chance for virtual squads to have a ground for organized flights and training with or against other virtual squads, without having to wait for coops to fill.

I also like the airquake severs for some occasionally fun-action, but I simply missed in 1946 a FR server, orientating on historically circumstances on which groups could experience an inch of immersion without having to build a coop mission, and now we have the chance to integrate coop-like missions into a server with randomized enviromental hazards, which is great and just needs to be optimized. The rest, dynamic, static campaigns for SP, Career mode etc. can be provided by the community I am sure, the developer should focus and the frame work, tools and stability.

Love multiplayer in flight sims but let's face it,COD's multiplayer is a joke at present,just look at the threads re the problems.

After installing Jafa's sound mod,I certainly would'nt want to go back to the awful stock sounds either,not that I can,now I have this mod added to my sim.

So at present I'm content to live without it,but it would be nice to play online once the devs sort out better sounds and all the other problems associated.

the reason for me for flying 100% online is to share the expereince with other players (and some of them became friends over the years in IL2) on VoiceComms !
Its not the AI, i flew mostly COOP wars (who else would fly all the 16 B-17s in a 1944 scenario over germany or the B5N over Pearl :D ), its just so that after a few minutes alone in front of PC screen in a cockpit i am bored to death.................

But flying in a Bomber, 150km to target and 150km back (if possible ;) ) with guys on comms flying other bombers and escorting fighters - that makes for me a good mission.
Its the men, not the machine - as 'someone' said in the past, even when ment in another meaning, it fits for me in CombatFlightsims :D


A very important point is that 1C has to enable the community to MAKE the gameexperience. That is mostly the FMB (working and documentation). A few days (if not from the very first) the Hyperlobby was full of IL2 COOPs in 2001. It sure had its faults, but the gameexpereince was there !
CoD is leaving the most players here alone IMHO. I dont build mission in the moment with CoD , and that after building hundreds of missions in IL2 the last years :(
AND, it enable a lot of people creating singleplayermissions and campaigns. You just have to check sides like mission4today many people build missions with IL2.

Adi_Galland (head of Desastersoftware) summerized it in the german ubi form quit good: the way 1C decided to make the FMB of CoD has reuced the amouint of people able to build missions in CoD a lot in comparison to IL2.
At least it lacks documentation and who can be sure that now made expereinces (mainly with this script system) in the FMB are still correct after a few patches ?!

btw, RoF has a very similar proplem i think, a very complex FMB - but at least it has a documentation (but i dont know how good this is !).

Well said!

It has been many years that I played the online wars in IL2 but they were fantastic until it just got crazy competitive with people using every exploit they could in order to win. There were people reading the mission files so they could see data they weren't meant to, then there was the stupid use of smoke and landing lights it utterly ruined the aspects that I loved which was to get the best of both worlds with a dynamic campaign but with human piloted aircraft.

There is no getting away from the fact that the diversity of human pilot skill and the fact that we all make mistakes is superior to any AI but then human nature will always try to find short cuts and exploits in order to win. This is what makes flying against humans so great but so frustrating.

I think they shouldn't focus on one or the other but at the same time they should be smart. The community can and will do a better job that the devs in certain areas (missions, campaigns, online wars etc) which is why the tools must be there for them to get on with it. I think they should just keep focused on the game play aspects, FM/DM, fixing things that are broken and making it possible that both on and offline pilots can have a good experience.

So if the community is to make offline campaigns then maybe there needs to be stats and medals etc for the offliners and the AI must be as good as possible. Obviously for the onliners they need the MP to be fixed and then make it possible for wars and coops etc.

Both are important. I don't see why it should be an either/or situation.

That was exactly my point and i'm glad you explained it in more detail.

The new engine makes no distinction between MP,SP,DF or Coop, it's all based on the same underlying code, so let's just focus on the sandbox tools and the rest will come together nicely. ;)

Like it's already been said there's a trade off in all of this: complexity is increased and to do the new features justice there's a learning curve involved with the new FMB and scripts so it will take some time before we start seeing creative use of the supplied tools, but just the fact that we can do so much more makes it worthwhile in my personal opinion.

+1