It is easy to spot the person that does not have an intellectual argument to address the topic at hand..

Just look for the guy that has to resort to attacking the messenger..

Why?

Because they know they can not attack the message! ;)

Ah I see where you are confused..

Note I did not say the development strategies are the same as IL-2..

It was Luither than said the the development strategies are the same as IL-2, with regards to how they are going to handel sequals

Hope that helps!

Well then I guess they missed the part where to have a successful sequel, you shouldn't have a first title that is a joke and universally thought of as being short on support, features, and is basically the worst release in a decade. Someone is definitely confused...that's for sure.

Well I know calling it a joke is the thing to do for you and yours..

Which is fine, your welcome to your opinion

All in all I am just glad I was able to help you understand what it was Luither said wrt sequals

S!

The main difference is that Forgotten Battles and all the other titles were essentially complete and had achieved their (more limited) goals before the series moved forward.

The Battle of Britain was such a well-defined historical engagement with a distinctive atmosphere and varying strategic/tactical goals that any successful simulation needed to provide the capacity to recreate both individual engagements and give some feel of the overall campaign by including a career mode. The potential for exciting gameplay was HUGE.

There is good evidence that the developers goals for the game were to provide something along these lines. Luthier had a detailed (several hundred pages if I recall) design document for the planned dynamic campaign.

The enforced (?) early release and subsequent difficulties obviously killed any possibility of this being completed to schedule. We have instead got a threadbare, dryly technical simulation of the aircraft that took part in the battle flying over a mediocre (in my opinion) map of the area of operations. There is next to nothing in the way of gameplay, missions are incredibly few in number and limited in scope, the much-needed dynamic campaign is unfinished, historical atmosphere is negligible. The game fails totally in recreating any feeling of what it would have been like to take part in the Battle of Britain.

Compared to the original vision and any reasonable estimation of what a decent BOB sim should be able to do COD is woefully incomplete. And here is the main point - the fact that it is no longer the developer's intention to supply those missing elements does mean that the original vision and intention for COD has certainly been abandoned. We have the planes and a map. We don't have a decent BOB sim and we aren't going to get one.

Backdated game engine tweaks from BOM won't change that fact.

So what part of 1C saying they are going to finish CoD before the sequal are you still struggling with?

Did you even read my post?

If so you certainly didn't engage with any of the main points.

If you want to have a discussion about it then at least deal with the points raised instead of playing your usual games.

Lol im starting to think Ace of Aces is actually working for UbI and has been given the mission to ignore anything anything bad about the game and only claim the opposite... Some people just dont see the forrest for all the trees... Game is broken= fact. There is lack of support or intrest by the developers to fix it as fast as possible=fact.

Not only read it but went as far as to quote it..

Hope that helps!

I've stated my opinion already.

You're entitled to your point of view Aces.

Nothing more to say.