Friday 2010-12-03 Dev. update and Discussion

[klem]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Ok guys, now we want the map to be changed AND the fmb.

Anyone got any other 'deal-breakers' that are absolutely going to ruin the game for them

I'd like to request Oleg to include Norway so that the Luftflotte 5 bomber types don't feel left out.

kendo, my point is that Duxford should never have been a 'deal breaker'.

I don't want to offend Oleg but it is so fundamental to the main defensive Battle, in the South East, that it should be in there. It is not a 'future enhancement' for 'other campaigns', it was an important factor in the Battle and should be in from the start. Not having the one day major NE Coast Luftwaffe raid (2 targets) playable is only a small matter.

I know you're joking about Norway but as an example that was a separate campaign and could come later.

No Duxford in the BoB is like playing cards with all the Jacks removed.

BoB in it's historical sense can't be properly fulfilled or re-enacted/scenario'd without it. OTOH, if people are only interested in big dogfights and shooting down a few bombers over Kent and pretending they are recreating the BoB they won't care, and it won't matter, what fields are or aren't included.

We could of course select a West Country airfield to represent Duxford and have them fly northeast to the edge of the map then turn around and fly south but that's hardly in keeping with Oleg's policy of quality and accuracy.

Please remember that this thread is specifically intended for us to air our views on this week's offering fom Oleg. He's quite capable of answering for himself on such a fundamental point. It's the first time I have seen the map and you can judge from other posts that the Duxford issue is a real concern.

[kendo65]

Hello Klem - I've taken the liberty of re-ordering elements of your post so that i can address the different issues a little more easily

Originally Posted by klem

Please remember that this thread is specifically intended for us to air our views on this week's offering fom Oleg. He's quite capable of answering for himself on such a fundamental point. It's the first time I have seen the map and you can judge from other posts that the Duxford issue is a real concern.

Understood - my reaction may have been a little on the strong side. I wasn't trying to defend Oleg though - the opinions were purely my own

Originally Posted by klem

...

No Duxford in the BoB is like playing cards with all the Jacks removed.

BoB in it's historical sense can't be properly fulfilled or re-enacted/scenario'd without it. OTOH, if people are only interested in big dogfights and shooting down a few bombers over Kent and pretending they are recreating the BoB they won't care, and it won't matter, what fields are or aren't included.

I think that our differing opinions about this reflect the debate that has been going on regarding the campaign game: some people want to be able to make strategic-level decisions for the German side - to be able to direct the air campaign with a view to changing the outcome, i.e. a German win. Others think that this is out of place - that the campaign should reflect the perspective of a single pilot (or squadron at most).

I'm probably in the latter camp. Though I wouldn't be averse to a strategic-level sim of the battle - I think that SOW's (and Il2's) emphasis is naturally on the small-scale air combat.

So I don't really think that SOW BOB is going to be able to re-enact the battle on that strategic level where the player can alter the outcome by use of 'Big Wing' tactics, etc. That large-scale recreation of the battle requires a different game I think. The map for that game should include all of Britain and the German bases in France and Norway. The player would also need to be able to choose where to base his squadrons - eg the German commander could withdraw his forces in Norway and use them as reserve for the main attack across the Channel. It really would be a game on a whole different level.

Given that Oleg isn't going that route, what should he attempt to do with the game map given his limited resources?

I think that he has to provide a representative setting - a stage - for the tactical / individual raid-level air combat that the game can recreate well. That really means the map recreates a portion of the south-east of England.

It doesn't preclude the use of 12 Group squadrons in the missions - I think I'm right in saying that although their bases may be off the map, they fought their engagements on it. It means that if the game won't be attempting to refight the battle on the strategic level there is not really a role for the 'what-if' scenarios that some people would like, and there is no need for the 12 Group bases.

Originally Posted by klem

I don't want to offend Oleg but it is so fundamental to the main defensive Battle, in the South East, that it should be in there. It is not a 'future enhancement' for 'other campaigns', it was an important factor in the Battle and should be in from the start. Not having the one day major NE Coast Luftwaffe raid (2 targets) playable is only a small matter.

I know you're joking about Norway but as an example that was a separate campaign and could come later.

You are right about the minor nature of the northern raids and about my mention of Norway, but the point is that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The reasons I've given above explain why I think Oleg has it roughly right.

[1.JaVA_Sjonnie]

Very nice FMB stuff here

Should I anticipate the next LLTM to feature SoW?

[kendo65]

I'm also thinking that triggers / scripting could be used in creative ways to reflect the use of 12 Group squadrons.

Admittedly, that won't give those who want to fly in one of the Duxford squadrons the experience that they want, but it could maybe reflect their role in the battle reasonably well?

[dflion]

Originally Posted by kendo65

I'm also thinking that triggers / scripting could be used in creative ways to reflect the use of 12 Group squadrons.

Admittedly, that won't give those who want to fly in one of the Duxford squadrons the experience that they want, but it could maybe reflect their role in the battle reasonably well?

Looking at the full area of the BOB map, I think Oleg was in a real 'quandary' (difficult situation). If you move the map up to include Duxford (see map attached) you cut out the Normandy beachhead. I think the map size probably is limited (due to programming) and Oleg went to the maximum.

Kendo has given us the answer, using 'scripting' we can include 12 Group effectively in the the battle, though they would be in an 'airstart scenerio'.

Looking at the map I have attached, let's hope some 'budding map maker' will include 12 and 13 Group in a new map.

Let us all be thankful for what Oleg and his team have done and move on. I would be grateful for some more feedback on the FMB.

DFLion

[Sutts]

We've got to remember that the FMB is included in the package and with this we can create any type of mission we like. In this way we are acting a bit like a general aren't we?

With regards to Duxford, I'd like to know what happens when we fly off the map? I could be wrong but I seem to remember Oleg saying that the land masses of the entire globe are already in the engine...hence the edge of space views we were treated to once. This could mean that the entire UK is already in there but only populated with textures in the extreme south.

With this in mind it MAY be possible for modders in future to introduce a correctly placed Duxford, perhaps with limited terrain features depending on memory limits etc.

Just a thought.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Sutts

We've got to remember that the FMB is included in the package and with this we can create any type of mission we like. In this way we are acting a bit like a general aren't we?..............

kendo, this is my point. Missions can be created by us in which we can decide strategy, distribution of forces, tactics etc. We aren't a slave to the mission generator. But without the resources (Duxford for example) we can't meet the true extent of even just the defensive aspect of the BoB. We may have to settle for a poor fix, another airfield and routing 'rules' to represent Duxford but it's not very realistic and I'd like to know what Oleg thinks.

If anyone is thinking 'realism fanatic' or 'that's way beyond IL-2', well, that's what I expect from a 21st century simulation that has taken over 6 years to create. A massive amount of work has gone into the FMs, FMB, getting the aircraft, vehicles and the grass looking right etc., but not even having an appropriate map is a bit fundamental.

Picking up on DFLion's thoughts on map size restrictions, what happens when we get to the 8th Air Force bombing campaign stretching from England to Berlin? I don't suppose many people will want to sit in a B17 for 4 hours (a scaled down 8hrs?) but that has been done in other air war games. It's a subject for the future but the map size question is likely to arise again.

[klem]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Hello Klem - I've taken the liberty of re-ordering elements of your post so that i can address the different issues a little more easily
...............

I generally agree with what you say. I'm not talking about change of Strategy. The Axis Strategy for defeating Britain was the destruction of the RAF through the air battle that became known as the BoB, to be followed by the landings in the SE. That would remain the Strategy.

The 12 Group Squadrons/Big Wing question was more a matter of Tactics. Should they have been thrown at the bomber formations wherever they could be found or used for defence of the 11 Group airfields (as they were - well, supposed to have been)? Would the former have resulted in an earlier more decisive victory over the LW and possibly even prevented the Blitz through the destruction of many more enemy a/c even though they had already bombed the airfields or would its non-protection of the airfields have left them devastated and inoperable on a larger scale and earlier than they were, leading to defeat of the RAF? Perhaps it became a moot point as soon as the LW switched to attacking London but if you were Herman Goering and had the benefit of hindsight you'd have kept attacking the airfields and then the case for how to use the Big Wing could have been critical and argued in either direction. At least we have the opportunity to try out both arguments.

So, back On Topic, a Duxford is going to be needed.

[kendo65]

But you're back into 'what if' scenarios again.

That was my main point before (someone else also made the same point talking about the campaign - as an individual pilot or even a squadron commander you have no real influence in those kinds of questions. You just follow the orders handed down from Group or higher level)

When flying a mission in il2 or SOW you will be given a briefing - your instructions - there is no lee-way. You don't get to choose what targets to attack and you don't get to say that your superior's strategy is rubbish.

The jump to allowing the player to decide targetting and strategy is really a jump to a different game (or a different level). It is something that was never in il2 for instance.

It seems that BOB will restrict a player to fulfilling the role of an individual pilot / squadron commander. You will take part in missions and endeavour through use of tactics and skill to succeed. You won't get to decide the strategy, targetting, etc. If you want a realistic campaign that reflects the experience of the real-life pilots then this is accurate.

If we want a sim that allows us to be Keith Park or Leigh Mallory I think we need a different game, or a massively expanded game that would include resource management elements (pilots, aircraft) and require the player to manage locations for squadrons along with targetting and how the squadrons are used.

Personally speaking, I would love to have a game that covered all of those levels. I just realise how big a leap beyond il2 that would be, and I don't think we're going to get it.

this has got off-topic somewhat, but it all comes out of the debate about the map - the type of game we are going to get determines the type of map we need

[Rattlehead]

First time poster, long-time builder and player.

This is a significant update, thanks very much Oleg and team for showing us the guts of the game.
Very interesting stuff, and things will get more interesting when we actually start to build missions and campaigns.

Some quick comments:

*The size of the map is very impressive. It's more than I dared hope for, thank you.

*I'm glad to see triggers will finally be a part of the FMB. This will allow for so many more scenarios to unfold in a mssion as opposed to the old FMB.
I don't know if the question has been asked, but will the triggers be area triggers or event triggers, or maybe a combination of both?

*I like the look of the new FMB. It looks instantly familiar...which is a good thing.

Thanks again for the update.