|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
03-05-2008, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I'd particularly like to see the night fighters modeled with AI that works. Even more, I'd like the multiplayer code set up so two players can crew the same plane. This would be great for bombers like the Ju 87, and for planes like the Defiant and Me 110. It would also make the night fighter experience really cool.
cheers, Ratsack 
|
|
#2
03-05-2008, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I hadn't followed this thread but now that I've re-read the initial post I started thinking. And actually I think there are a few issues that may cause some disappointment.
I've played Il-2 since the initial demo came out and I've had contact with Oleg for even longer. All this time has formed a picture of the team "Maddox Games" in my head - and that picture is not all nice and cosy when it comes to inspiring gameplay. To me Maddox Games seems to consist mostly of "engineer developers" and not "gamer developers" as they seem to approach the problems of a combat flight simulation from the purely technical POV. They're going to great lenghts to simulate aircraft, weapons and flight but they never seemed to put any ressources into advancing the gameplay, to allow for a broader and more versatile mission base. Even DGen was an external development and so it had to deal with not being an integral part of the game's engine. Oleg himself said more than once that he has no use for dynamic campaigns and greatly prefers hand-made static campaigns because of their greater accuracy and to some degree he was right. The problem of this POV is that seems to be diametrically opposed to what his target audience in "the West" thinks. I am not sure if I'm merely rehashing old stereotypes, but there seems to be the tendency within russian (or eastern european) development teams to go for the minimalist approach regarding gameplay. The hardware they want to simulate was often displayed in great accuracy and detail, but the gameplay part - the single missions, the campaigns, the online modes etc - always seemed to lack the same amount of enthusiasm and thoroughness. Is that the result of a drastically different POV in the russian simulation community? Or do the russian developers really think that simmers are satisfied just with well-simulated aircraft? I mean what made the "great sims of the past" so great? Aces over Europe, Aces of the Pacific, EAW, Red Baron ... They're not even remotely comparable to what modern sims could achieve (tech-wise), but they have earned their special place in our hearts because they had immersive and capturing gameplay! Maybe I'm doing Oleg and his team a disservice, but I think they should really take a look at the "blockbuster sims" of the past and why they had the following they had. If the russian market is content with just a fundament for dogfights and making missions so be it. I, however, know that there's more to a good combat flight sim than just a perfect FM/DM and astonishing visual effects. It has to have an offline campaign that does not rely on aftermarket products to be immersive and it needs to "weave a net" that captures the player's imagination. My 0,02 € ...
|
|
#3
03-05-2008, 01:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I pretty much agree on the analysis about some of the older sims mentioned. I still remember Red Baron 1 and 2, Secret weapons of the luftwafe, aces of the pacific, aces over europe, etc.
For me, the best sim would be a hybrid between IL2 and European Air War. If you can combine the FM/DM/graphics from IL2 and the immersion factor from EAW, you'll have a real blockbuster on your hands. EAW is an old game by today's standards but it has a lot of things i'd like to see in a future project from Oleg. First of all, the AI actually follows orders, complex orders. There was a very detailed method of controlling your wingmen to make concentrated attacks before breaking off, by use of the "rejoin" command. If you issued a disengage command they would do that and join up with you. However, rejoin tells them to stay in formation but not disengage. Which means that if you issue an order to attack bombers and then immediately tell them to rejoin, your wingmen will stay in formation while you circle around those bombers and they will attack whatever the formation's course presents them with. Ie, you can make head on attacks against a group of 36 bombers with as many as 12 planes in your flight in EAW. Another thing is the menu graphics in most of the old sims. For example, there was a briefing room/tent with the map, then you clicked somewhere on the edge of the screen to go to the hangar where you could see some planes being prepared, then exit the hangar to fly. These don't even have to be real 3D images, just some static screens showing representative areas in an airfield. The top aces chalkboard in Red Baron, the Dora running engine checks in the background in EAW, your squadron roster showing your AI wingmen's kills and who is missing/killed/captured, all of these things add a lot to making you feel you are actually there and not in front of a computer monitor in your room. Another thing is the ability to have random encounters with air and ground targets. This could be done by giving the FMB a series of parameters that it can then randomise. For example, scripting a 30% chance that a flight of 109s will spawn 10kms from you and bounce your escort group on the way home. Or even better, they spawn on the ground at a suitable airfield while you are heading in, they set up CAP under instruction from German ground control and wait for you to turn for home before attacking you. All in all, a detailed AI will open up more options for tactical variety.
|
|
#5
03-05-2008, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think Blackdog hits on a very good point in that the "unexpected" interaction between the player and virtual world can be a tremendous factor in immersion and overall gameplay fun.
Furthermore I think I would be reasonably correct in saying that from a realism standpoint the unexpected/opportunistic targets and or threats was a big factor in real operations.
|
|
#6
04-07-2008, 12:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
briefing room and the chatter, the hanger, even seeing the medals/bars you have been awarded and a tune playing are some of the things I liked about EAW etc it is just a line saying you have received a medal in IL2, bit boring and hardly exciting. would like to see you receive promotions too something even EAW didn't have, rather than just saying you have been promoted. anything to make you feel like you actually there is a BIG plus SoW could go even further and show litle video clips of you receiving medals/promotions, that would be fantastic, when it comes to giving a game marks out of 10, that is what could make the difference between a 9 or 10, it would for me, its the extras that count  though I didn't play Jane's WW2 Fighters much ( had problems ), that also had extras that were great, showing the stats and clips of planes etc in regard to the actual thread ideas, I also think it's a good idea to have a variety of missions, of course combat would make up most of the missions, but some different missions would add to the game for sure
|
|
#7
04-07-2008, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I liked very much video clips in Falcon3.0 when you were captured or succesfuly resqued, just taxiing while mission is loading... Or just stedy painted screens like in B-17. Some kinde of any mix of such situation scenes adding immersion very much. And realy i am missing that in IL-2. Would be very good to improve this part of game in SoW serie. Also i think it will add some ratings and also sales.
|
|
#8
04-08-2008, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Older games had a lot of extras, because processing power was low and they couldn't show off with the ingame engine. For example, if i'm not mistaken there were promotion and medal animations in Red Baron but not in Red Baron II.
It seems that while games became more realistic looking during the actual gameplay, a lot of things that were there to spice things up got omitted. The best extras in Dynamix games (red baron, aces of the pacific, aces over europe) was the menu screens detailing squadron life, the progress in the front lines, the top aces chart, the ability to request a transfer, 1 on 1 duels with an ace and painting your biplane to the color of your choice. In EAW, the best thing was the believable AI. Sure, IL2 might have a more advanced AI but they do some pretty silly things every now and then. In EAW i even saw that wingmen of different skill levels were also different in how they they followed me. A novice would lose track of you and fall back sometimes in the heat of the action and rejoin a while later, while a veteran would be glued to you while you were going through maneuvers. The best thing however when interacting with the AI was the detailed chatter, straight out of a movie, and the fact that you could issue some really complex orders that actually worked 90% of the time. I had a USAAF career going on starting as a lowly lieutenant and getting promoted to captain just as the first mustangs got delivered. Let me tell you, there's nothing better for a flight leader in an offline campaign to split your 12-plane squad into 3 different flights around the bombers, send one into an aggressive sweep ahead, have another one in close escort and take your last flight of 4 ponies in top cover duty where you can monitor the whole affair. The AI wingmen followed orders so well that in many occasions i would go high and direct them towards totally annihilating the opposition, long after i had expended my ammunition (especially when intercepting bombers in a 190, a lot of times we could wipe out an entire box of 32 bombers).
|
|
#9
03-05-2008, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
csThor, I fully agree with you, and I think you have hit the nail on the head. Ever since I have heard of BoB:SOW, my one concern was that Oleg and crew could provide an immersive and flexible campaign.
Nearmiss has already mentioned "BOB II Wings of Victory" earlier in the thread. "Shockwaves BOB II WOV with the new 2.07 patch..... Currently, the BOB II WOV has a campaign engine,which allows the player to jump into the battle at will or fly within the same squadron time and again. There is good flexibility for level of player participation." This much improved sim has a great and atmospherically done campaign, that leaves the strategic direction in the hands of the player. This translates thus: "Playing as the Luftwaffe, I've set up several large Stuka raids against the coastal radar stations, so that a blind corridor can be punched into Britains defences. Now I can jump into a Stuka cockpit, to throw my weight into the Germanic effort. Some time later... The end of the virtual day draws to a close, and I can feel some pride in my efforts and those of my A.I. Luftwaffe eagle buddies as I survey the smoking ruins of a once fully functional radar mast. My efforts feel rewarded when I see that the following day, that particular radar station is still fubar, which means that I can progress along my particular plan in bringing the elusive RAF to their knees..." As an addendum, the atmosphere while flying in BOB II WOV is also top notch. It feels like you're flying over wartime Britain, thanks in large part to the radio speak, and attention to detail to the landscape and aerodromes (all fully authentic). I can only hope that Oleg listens to threads like these, and realises that everything that surrounds the actual flying is also important (it's the other half of the 'story'), and that he can take great leaps and bounds in the improvement of his sims by focussing more of his attention to this area. Whenever I think back and remember the great flight sim games that I have thoroughly enjoyed (Pacific Air War, Red Baron 2, Lucasarts Battle of Britain, European Air War, Falcon 4), they all share the common thread of real motivational factors behind the actual flying, usually with atmospheric and player led dynamic campaigns. Fingers crossed, BobTuck.
|
|
#10
03-06-2008, 01:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A couple features leap to mind for online play that would allow for more immersive play.
One, the ability to spawn IN FLIGHT. Using something we are all familiar with, coop play in Il-2. DF maps have all player aircraft, no moving AI in il-2. Coops have AI units. What would be really useful would be the ability for a hybrid (using Il-2 terminology) DF-coop map/server. You could join at any time like a DF map, but the planes would be assigned in the mission to take off only during specific windows. Say the He111s head to britain. The window might be time=0 to time=10 minutes (15, 20, whatever). The players that are in the server when the map starts hop in their bombers, taxi, TO, and form up like a DF map, UNLIKE a DF map, the remaining bombers in the squadron not occupied by players are AI (like a coop). 20 minutes into the map, a new player signs on, unlike a coop. There are zero planes at the base he can fly, but he CAN take over one of the AI He111s inflight. the same would be true for all planes. So you could have an online "DF" map where 3 squadrons of bombers and as many squadrons of fighters attack a target with 2 defending squadrons of fighters—all takling off at the beginning of the map like an il-2 coop—and a 3d squadron on scramble with a later start time. Any players joining mid mission hop into an AI plane in progress, and if a player is shot down, he can elect to respawn into a remaining AI (stats would be tracked as a unique pilot). Second, an idea that targetware has. The "disengagement circle." You have a point where players on online maps can despawn, and are considered RTB, but only if their remaining fuel, oil, etc (taking leak rates into account, too) allows them too. Very useful for large maps. Such a system also has a setting so that such a despawn is only allowed if no enemy units are within some server set range, so if you are beating a retreat to the mainland with a spit on your six, no warping away. tater
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
