The bigest mystery in forth comming SoW - The Humans...

[proton45]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56

That wouldn't be so bad, but I'd be o.k. with it if there were a count-down timer that started as soon as you touched down in your chute to make your way back to friendly territory or if it only allowed that function (i.e. pistol gunnery) while you were in your chute. That would prevent some bored slacker from just flying over to an enemy airbase and running around in "first person mode" picking guys off at their airbase with his luger or .45 and snickering at his ability to pwn until he gets kicked from the server...and under the right circumstances, it WILL happen. That's just one example of why I do NOT want FPS capability in this FLIGHT sim.

There are inherent differences between shooters and flight sims whether you want to see the light or not.

We don't really need guns for a realistic "FPM" escape feature... in the real world (I hate that term_LOL), by the time you where shooting the game was over. Most successful escapes through enemy territory where done by avoiding the enemy. If your shooting to stay alive your either dead or a prisoner (already).

IMO I could almost live with a "run-only" "first-person-mode" (with realistic "human" damage modeling and enemy "line-of-sight"). Their would be several advantages to a feature like this...movie makers would like it, FP escape scenarios, and just plain old exploring (Oleg & crew are making a beautiful world for us to die in...It might be nice to explore the maps before blowing it to pieces_LOL)

[Thunderbolt56]

Originally Posted by proton45

We don't really need guns for a realistic "FPM" escape feature... in the real world (I hate that term_LOL), by the time you where shooting the game was over. Most successful escapes through enemy territory where done by avoiding the enemy. If your shooting to stay alive your either dead or a prisoner (already).

IMO I could almost live with a "run-only" "first-person-mode" (with realistic "human" damage modeling and enemy "line-of-sight"). Their would be several advantages to a feature like this...movie makers would like it, FP escape scenarios, and just plain old exploring (Oleg & crew are making a beautiful world for us to die in...It might be nice to explore the maps before blowing it to pieces_LOL)

Kind of the intent of my post. As far as the "pistol-wielding rogue" aspects are concerned, I rather that option (if it ever does come to pass) be unarmed as well. Escape and evade is best done with stealth afterall. The hard part would be the slow, gruesome crawl through no man's land in the middle of the night.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56

The hard part would be the slow, gruesome crawl through no man's land in the middle of the night.

Does anyone else remember the UK TV series "Manhunt"?

[robtek]

I think what is overlooked by the people who promote a combined land - sea - air - simulation is the different time scale of the scenarios. a plane takes at most 30 min. to target (in il2), a tank would have to drive 2 to 4 hours and a ship would have to sail a few days. Thats rather impractical for online - gaming, imagine a skipper after sailing a few hours meets a swordfish or respectively a stuka. And i bet with a realistic DM nobody would take a sherman vs a tiger or even panther.(ok maybe when the tiger cannot move because he is out of fuel)

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by robtek

And i bet with a realistic DM nobody would take a sherman vs a tiger or even panther.(ok maybe when the tiger cannot move because he is out of fuel)

When a tank is out fuel, it is still just as dangerous, unlike a fighter. With tanks, one hit (from within range) is usually a kill. The thing about Shermans was they were easily better than the Mark three panzer, and cheap to build. The only Sherman that was any good against the Mark four panzer, Tiger or Panther was the Sherman-firefly.

I do like the occasional FPS, but when I want a change from that I want to fly, and I don't want that flying to be in an FPS.

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by robtek

I think what is overlooked by the people who promote a combined land - sea - air - simulation is the different time scale of the scenarios. a plane takes at most 30 min. to target (in il2), a tank would have to drive 2 to 4 hours and a ship would have to sail a few days. Thats rather impractical for online - gaming, imagine a skipper after sailing a few hours meets a swordfish or respectively a stuka. And i bet with a realistic DM nobody would take a sherman vs a tiger or even panther.(ok maybe when the tiger cannot move because he is out of fuel)

Well you have to realise that not all allied/axis units should start from the same area... as it was in real life... Once in the theatre of operation the ground units where mainly found near the front line and their supply base/rolling units were not far behind. So they did not roll out from an air base 40 miles away... but from a supply "depot" mearly a few km back of where the action was... This was also true of GIs.

Ships are another thing all together. For BOB, if only the chanel is modeled then they should not have to go to long before seing some action, as it is a norrow strech of sea. Open seas could pause a problem, but as we are looking at online here, maps should be made to prevent the situation you are describing.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56

Kind of the intent of my post. As far as the "pistol-wielding rogue" aspects are concerned, I rather that option (if it ever does come to pass) be unarmed as well. Escape and evade is best done with stealth afterall. The hard part would be the slow, gruesome crawl through no man's land in the middle of the night.

Ya, I was mirroring your sentiment...maybe I didn't make that clear enough.