Friday 2009-10-23 Screenshots Update discussion thread

[JVM]

Hello Oleg!

Talking as we are about missions and campaign, I just would like to give here an extract of an old thread initiated by "Feathered IV" which has just recently surfaced; I do not like too much the way this thread evolved with time but the initial post had interesting views concerning modes/missions which would add a lot to game immersion:

"What if other mission perameters were coded in? What other options could we get?

Maybe instead you'd like to pilot a Lysander for SOE. Fly over to France at zero altitude in the dead of night. Alone in the dark, you would struggle to find 'that little field' marked on your map and glide into it, engine off so as not to alert the Jerries.

Perhaps you'd rather fly a Storch, evacuating wounded from the combat area. Or maybe spotting for the artillery? What if you could give directions and targeting information to ground units?

What about unarmed photo recon? Take your Blenheim across to France to take photographs of the invasion barges. Photographs that the campaign generator can judge and pass you on.

Coastal Command perhaps? Why not have a crew that can actually call out the sightings of distant ships and other objects and give an intelligent description of their range, type and heading?

Or nightfighters with AI radar operators that can actually guide you to the kill?

Wouldn't you like to try to fly a danerously overloaded Ju-52 into the icy landing strips of Stalingrad one day? Or a C-47 over the Himalayas?"

I think creating (or being able to create) missions like this (or even integrating them into a campaign) would add immensely to game's interest!

Do you think it will be possible in the SoW series?

Thanks a lot,

JVM

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by JVM

Hello Oleg!

Talking as we are about missions and campaign, I just would like to give here an extract of an old thread initiated by "Feathered IV" which has just recently surfaced; I do not like too much the way this thread evolved with time but the initial post had interesting views concerning modes/missions which would add a lot to game immersion:

"What if other mission perameters were coded in? What other options could we get?

Maybe instead you'd like to pilot a Lysander for SOE. Fly over to France at zero altitude in the dead of night. Alone in the dark, you would struggle to find 'that little field' marked on your map and glide into it, engine off so as not to alert the Jerries.

Perhaps you'd rather fly a Storch, evacuating wounded from the combat area. Or maybe spotting for the artillery? What if you could give directions and targeting information to ground units?

What about unarmed photo recon? Take your Blenheim across to France to take photographs of the invasion barges. Photographs that the campaign generator can judge and pass you on.

Coastal Command perhaps? Why not have a crew that can actually call out the sightings of distant ships and other objects and give an intelligent description of their range, type and heading?

Or nightfighters with AI radar operators that can actually guide you to the kill?

Wouldn't you like to try to fly a danerously overloaded Ju-52 into the icy landing strips of Stalingrad one day? Or a C-47 over the Himalayas?"

I think creating (or being able to create) missions like this (or even integrating them into a campaign) would add immensely to game's interest!

Do you think it will be possible in the SoW series?

Thanks a lot,

JVM

I think most will be possible, including Himalayas itself.
But probably that will do third party.
Our goal to make the good basis for the future upgrades and changes, including best work from third parties. It is more heavy task than to make just single one season/christmas game.

In this point of view MS FS reached great result with third parties. And instead, shown degradation with the MS CFS with third partie's chaos. Our goal - to learn experience of both MS sim series and our own experience with Il-2 series and to make the system that will be long life-able with the great and right support from third parties... which would not damage fair online gameplay without cheating. So some control from our side we will keep of course.

[Forgottenfighter]

If it will succesfull

Of course it will be successful , thanks for the reply.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Wow -- this is a true information fest ! I think we get more than enough compensation for the long silence. Thank you Oleg !

[Feuerfalke]

Wow, you truly know how to make us HOT for your new product.

Will SoW have Onlinestats, Budylists, voting systems, ingame serverbrowser etc? (probably going too much into details here )

Well, I can't tell you how glad I am that the focus turned to multiplayer, now. It really is a major factor for longterm playability and a living community. Two thumbs up, especially since being rather frustrated with other titles like... well, RoF has already been mentioned so without the intention to go OT, I just don't understand why a purely online-playable game has no dedicated server, no possibility to join running sessions, etc. and I absolutely have no idea, what made neoqb think patching up multiplayer gameplay is a secondary objective and pushed it back even further down the line...

[JVM]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

I think most will be possible, including Himalayas itself.
But probably that will do third party.
Our goal to make the good basis for the future upgrades and changes, including best work from third parties. It is more heavy task than to make just single one season/christmas game.

In this point of view MS FS reached great result with third parties. And instead, shown degradation with the MS CFS with third partie's chaos. Our goal - to learn experience of both MS sim series and our own experience with Il-2 series and to make the system that will be long life-able with the great and right support from third parties... which would not damage fair online gameplay without cheating. So some control from our side we will keep of course.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to reply...we are a long way of talking the screenshots themselves, aren't we? Thanks again for accepting to deviate so much from your initial intentions!

JVM