Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by csThor

The difference will be in the framework - the GUI, the interaction between AI and user, the campaigns, the single missions, the online part etc ... Incorporating unusual types is not going to draw more non-hardcore simmers than a solid gameplay part. This is where SoW will succeed or fail.

My English is probably much worse than I thought.

The autogyro is not to attract non-hardcore players or those not interested in perfect historic contects BUT it will demonstrate to 3rd Party-Developers what the engine is capable of and bind them to the product, increasing variety and support quickly. In a way exactly what you said: the autogyro will prove if the framework is good enough to stand above IL2-limitations like the problem with the multi-engines planes!

Non-hardcore players however are attracted by variety and fun. Maybe they will like the autogyro, yes, but I doubt they will buy BoB solely because of the autogyro.
On the other hand, if you present them in brutal pure and perfectly historic way the planes that flew in Britain, they'll walk right across the shelf with SoW:BoB and to the 10 bucks-pyramid and get 1946, because from their point of view they get the same aircraft for a fraction of the money.

And gameplay, AI, RADAR, communication, complex interactive campaings? That's for hardcore-players, too, but not for people who start the game and use the quick-mission builder 99% of the time.

So, for the hardcore-simmers, SoW will succeed and fail with all what you said above, but for the casual player it is most important to ensure a great variety of gameplay and planes in a quick time, maybe including those that are out of the ordinary.

Just consider how many people whine on this board that there is no Mustang or FW190 in the initial release, to see the importance of the initial success of the SoW-Engine in many different aspects of the game.