PDA

View Full Version : Is BoB - SoW giving the players enough variation in term of planes?



WildeSau1975
05-09-2007, 04:48 AM
Hi all,

Please dont get this post wrong - I don't want to criticice the decision to make the next generation WWII combat flight sim after 1946 a Battle of Britain game but I am just wondering what people think if this theater is giving enough variety of planes to fly.

What can we expect as planes to fly beside Bf109, Bf-110, Ju-87 and eventually a medium bomber like the Heinkel 111, Do-17 or Ju-88 and the Spitfire and the Hurricane and eventually the Bristol Blenheim for the british side?

Wouldn't another theater offer much a wider number of planes to fly?

I am aware of the fact that there will be add ons and third party or user made extensions but they wont come that soon after release.

As said, I am a fan of the Battle of Britain theater myself but think that a part of the players think that there are not enough variations of planes and maps to choose from.

What do you think? Wouldn't a game giving us the situation in 1943 in Europe (the Luftwaffe fighting against US and British bombers/fighters) attract more players?

I am looking forward to your opinion.

And more I am looking forward to get Battle of Britain - Strom of War - which certainly will be a very good product.

Michael the WildeSau

SaQSoN
05-09-2007, 05:01 AM
The number of aircraft types, available in the game upon the release doesn't depend on the depicted theater, but on the productional abilities of the developer.

Thus, no matter, which ToW will be selected, the varaety will be about the same. In case of the BoB, it will be also closer to a historical situation.

WildeSau1975
05-09-2007, 05:14 AM
But you agree on the fact that for developing a game settled in Battle of Britain theater there are not that more options available to implement as the planes I mentioned (of course you can add 1 or 2 planes to both sides) and that the 1943 theater would offer much more options (beside the planes already mentioned all US planes, and for the Luftwaffe planes like Fw190 variants and more Bf109 variants, etc.

As said, I am sure there will be add ons published by either Maddox games or third party companies with other planes and maps but just wanted to hear what others think of choosing the BoB theater as the follower for Forgotten Battles.

WildeSau

XyZspineZyX
05-09-2007, 06:19 AM
SO what you are saying is that without a wide variety of planes to choose from, the sim will have less of a chance to be successful

In effect: screw the history, screw the detail, screw the scope, all we want is planes planes planes

If the "planes planes planes" simmers are who we lose, then GOOD. Buh-bye. Don't want them. If that's all some people care about, a huge selection of flyable planes, then they aren't my type of "simmers" and they can watch their asses so the door doesn't wack their bee-hinds

Also-

The Battle of Britain is not the end-all and be-all of the sim, WildeSau

Some people still don't "get" that.

BoB will be supported by additions just like FB was. As you recall, we got new planes (lots of them) from time to time, as well as new maps and whole new theatres of war

Everyone calls Storm of War:Battle of Britain "BoB", and I really think that many many people still think that BoB will be the Battle of Britain, and that's it, a static BoB scenario, and that's all.

It's not. "BoB" gives a false impression that the scope of the Storm of War series will make a static Battle of Britain scenario, and that's it. "BoB" will start the Storm of War series, and then expand

WildeSau1975
05-09-2007, 08:25 AM
BBB462cid, thanks for your feedback. But you seem to missunderstand part of my message.

I am not saying that the sim won't be good because there are not that many planes available - I just thought that there might be many people being distracted by this who think different than you, myself and many other simmers. But to say who cares if they dont buy the game is wrong - Maddox games needs to revenue to be able to develop new versions and this is only possible if enough people buy the game.

But I think that even the most hardcore simmer is after a certain time looking forward to get new planes to fly.

And of course I am very positive too that there will be many add ons and new planes to choose from as well.

So, I am very happy with getting BoB and I am sure that there will be very attracting other pieces of software being released for us.

Michael the WildeSau

csThor
05-09-2007, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
The number of aircraft types, available in the game upon the release doesn't depend on the depicted theater, but on the productional abilities of the developer.

Thus, no matter, which ToW will be selected, the varaety will be about the same. In case of the BoB, it will be also closer to a historical situation.

Now, SaQSon, I think you're off the right path by a fair margin. Unless you say, as BBB462cid put it so eloquently, "screw history" you are always limited by the scope of the chosen setting. It makes no sense to have a marvelous F4F-3 when your ToW is the southern part of the Eastern Front in mid-1942. It makes no sense to have a marvelous Bf 109 F-4 when the ToW you're depicting right now is the Southern Pacific. If you have both areas depicted both planes I mentioned are valid, but no plane should be seen outside its "environment" (= timeframe, location, historical involvement etc).

stalkervision
05-09-2007, 09:31 AM
If I had designed this series I would have choosen first to start with Poland and the early european conflict which ends with France being defeated. Then go on to the Battle of Britain in the next series..

XyZspineZyX
05-09-2007, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Unless you say, as BBB462cid put it so eloquently, "screw history" .

I took honors English at the Collegiate level! I gots me a way with words, I does

Freelancer-1
05-09-2007, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
SO what you are saying is that without a wide variety of planes to choose from, the sim will have less of a chance to be successful

In effect: screw the history, screw the detail, screw the scope, all we want is planes planes planes



I can't help but to look at '46 and think the above is exactly what people will be expecting.

Plenty of planes and screw the history.

Maybe a bad precedent for expectations of future releases. Then again maybe people will look past that. I dunno.

For myself I'd be more than happy to start out with a few really well modeled planes that are an improvement in every way from what we have now, than the alternative.

And I have faith that that is what we are going to get http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

FritzGryphon
05-09-2007, 10:24 AM
BoB will have plenty of planes in that all the major combat roles will be present, and for all nations.

This is a huge improvement over the original IL-2, which had no bombers, and virtually nothing for the German side. Better than LO:MAC with it's questionable balance between sides, which will get even worse with Black Shark.

The list of (planned) flyables as I understand it is such:

109E
Bf-110
Ju-88
He-111
Ju-87B

Hurricane
Spitfire
Blenheim

CR42
IAR
Br-20

In addition to whatever flak or other cool things are included.

I don't think any other game has ever had such a comprehensive and complete flyable plane set in the release version, and for 3 nations. Not to mention the unmatched quality we are sure to see.

If BoB never has another plane added to it, I would be happy with these. I'm not looking forward to SoW becoming another bloated, buggy plane fest where, predictably, everyone only flies the uberplanes.

SaQSoN
05-09-2007, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by WildeSau1975:
But you agree on the fact that for developing a game settled in Battle of Britain theater there are not that more options available to implement as the planes I mentioned (of course you can add 1 or 2 planes to both sides) and that the 1943 theater would offer much more options (beside the planes already mentioned all US planes, and for the Luftwaffe planes like Fw190 variants and more Bf109 variants, etc.

As said, no matter how much options offer one theater over another, the number of planes, actually implemented, depends on the productional abilities of the developer and will be the same for either theater.

Thus, dear csThor, if a theater "A" had in the reality 30 major types participating, making, say, 20 of them into the game, will be more historically correct, then doing a theater "B", which had 100 major types, but will have in the game only 20 of them.

And this was the reason behind selecting Battle of Britain.

So, I really do not understand why you want to "screw history" and put Bf-109G into the Pacific...

csThor
05-09-2007, 11:20 AM
I am not questioning the choice of the BoB as first installment. I never have - in fact I do agree with the reasoning precisely because of BoB's limited scope. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have interpreted your words as a lack of historical relevance in the choice of planes to design. Of course there's always the limit of what the development team can achieve with the time, money and manpower they have at their disposal, but to me historical relevance is a key in deciding which project (= plane, ground object or ship) should be given development time when there's the choice between several. What you wrote looks to me like an assembly line production of models without looking at historical relevance - "let's just do what's KeWl" ...

EDIT:


So, I really do not understand why you want to "screw history" and put Bf-109G into the Pacific...

I don't and never will. I was looking at the way the Il-2 product line got "merged" during the course of its life. So having a product depicting the Eastern Front of 1942 and another product depicting the PTO of 1942 would mean two alternatives:

a) A merged install as 1946 ultimately represents.
b) Separate installs.

I remember Oleg talking about his plans for the SoW engine and mentioned a similar "AddOn policy" as with Il-2 - either merging the products into one install or separating them into different installs. I simply don't think an amount of players worth mentioning would go for separate installs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chivas
05-09-2007, 12:08 PM
BOB was chosen for a few reasons, I guess some are:

It is a relatively small theater with just a few primary aircraft. This allowed them time to integrate their new engines Aircraft, Cockpits,FM,DM,Terrain Engine,Weather,etc.

Its one of the first and most well known theaters. Starting with Poland and ending in France would be popular with just a few simmers who know their WW2 history. There was a group doing an add-on for this period but don't know how that stands. After BOB the later theaters could be incorporated in a somewhat cronalogical order.

With some of the hard work being done, it should free up resources to build Aircraft, FM, Cockpits, and Maps, for later larger theaters.

~Salute~
Chivas

Chivas
05-09-2007, 02:07 PM
Initially I don't think the number of aircraft will be a factor. For most there will be such a wow factor going on in the new benchmark of combat flight sims that they will be quite happy until the Med add-on.
On-line most people fly no more than a few different aircraft because your skill level has to be quite high to compete.
Be that as it may, the SOW series should continue until there are more and better modelled aircraft than even the IL-2 series had.

KOTS may give SOW some very steep competition in combat flight sim market. Its all good.

SirPapps
05-09-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
SO what you are saying is that without a wide variety of planes to choose from, the sim will have less of a chance to be successful

In effect: screw the history, screw the detail, screw the scope, all we want is planes planes planes

If the "planes planes planes" simmers are who we lose, then GOOD. Buh-bye. Don't want them. If that's all some people care about, a huge selection of flyable planes, then they aren't my type of "simmers" and they can watch their asses so the door doesn't wack their bee-hinds


Woah um. a little harsh don't you think? Im not saying im 'one of those people' but thats how some people have fun, and unless they really start to whine about it, they deserve some respect. I mean, it's a game - people who like many planes and have money to burn may buy it. If they hate it, they can return it.

major_setback
05-09-2007, 04:42 PM
I'm not making a point, just filling some blanks (I'm not saying we will get all of these aircraft!):

We've seen development pictures of at least two types (marks) of Spitfire, the one with the wing 'ridges', and the one without:

With :
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/Image00002.jpg

Without:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BoBImage2.jpg

hopefully we will get a couple of Bf109s too.

We've got the Fiat G50 cockpit, so it's a good bet that that will be a flyable. Also the Br20.

G50:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/Fiat_G50_3.jpg

Br20:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_PILOT_05.jpg


We have seen pictures of the Heinkel AND Ju 88 cockpits:

Ju88:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/Ju-88A-1_13.jpg

He111:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/He-111H-2_Pilot_9.jpg

There will be a couple of different Blenheims, at least one seems as if it will be flyable:

Blenheims:

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/Blenheim20MK-IV_01.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/Blenheim20MK-IF_02.jpg

Cannon packed:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/Blenheim20MK-IF_01.jpg
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/Blenheim20MK-I_02.jpg

Blenheim IV cockpit:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/Blenheim_MK-IV_Cockpit_6.jpg

We also have the aerobatic plane.

LEXX_Luthor
05-09-2007, 08:09 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

THANKS WildeSau1975 -- great question. The initial BoB theater seems to have a healthy planeset -- including Italian! If Oleg is successful, he may get more resources to mod more planes. Alternatively, there is Oleg's thoughts on opening aircraft to modding in the BoB And Beyond series.

Don't get put off by The BBC462's bitterness toward the combat flight sim community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Many people look at combat flight sims as "arcade" as they generally model the same overcooked burned out dogfight game airplanes time and again -- the true meaning of overmodelling. As a military aviation enthusiast, I had always looked at The Sims as pure Slop junk because there was so much more to aviation history than just the "flight sim" P-51Doras and F-16 (NATO codename Falcon). The first time I got excited about any The Sim and purchased one was back in 1995 when I saw the Su-27 Flaker on the CD box cover -- and I don't like Flakers or any post-modern digitalsuperHUDjetfighter. But it was Russian and that was new. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Of course, it was a Russian development team, so that Russian bias was refreshing to me and I jumped on it when I saw the box cover. I ignored all other The Sims since then until I saw I-16 and MiG-3 were modelled in Maddox Eastern Front.

The first goal should be to make ALL combat aircraft flyable -- this "AI Only" is getting so 20th Century now. Later, the "details" can be added later if needed -- more Perfect Polygons, More FM, More DM, etc...all good stuff.

smatchimo
05-09-2007, 08:51 PM
Chivas hit the nail on the head. It sounds as though this is going to be the first of the next generation flight sims. I know FSX is breaking ground in graphics, but it sounds as though the flight models arent much different. I will be buying that title as soon as hardware i can afford is available to run it in its full glory and I'm sure any bugs or hardware/directX issues are ironed out.
This is not a "FSX is great or not thread", I just didnt want you guys to think I forgot about ya.

If most of Olegs plans for this sim are realized, we wont need a ton of different A/C to keep it interesting. And I believe as w/ IL2 the game will be expanding and improving for years to come.

I started playing IL2 when the original demo was released. THAT LONG ago and I still play the game on a regular basis. I'm afraid BOB is going to put the final stake in my "social life" coffin.

So even though we will only have a few A/C to begin with, they might just be as close to the real thing as we have ever seen or virtually piloted. And there looks to be a good variety of flyable options, such as fighter, bomber, dive bomber, but I am not exactly sure what the final list of flyable A/C is going to be.

Cheers!
-and dont sweat it if people get offended a little quickly around here, the game is just that good. IL2 isnt flawless(nothing is) but I think BOB is going to be a big step towards perfection. And only having to concentrate on a small number of A/C will make it that more achievable.
These are just my expectations, I know we cant really judge the game till we play it. Good Luck Oleg and crew, thanx for the years of simming, looking forward to more.

bengal
05-09-2007, 09:47 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Hi Guy's,

I'm finding this discussion a little bit confusing, (not unusual), Regarding your impressions of the scope of SOW.

Even if SOW were to stick pretty rigidly too the BOB time frame, (Which one would reasonably doubt it will), There is still an enormous number of relevent, and interesting, German, British and French Aircraft that can be applied to this period.

Gladiator, Beaufighter, Hampden, Wellington and if someone is to tackle the task, Sunderland, Just too name a few British.

And oh the joy if they include the humble "Tiger Moth" or "Avro 504K" for training!!!

The He 100 and Ar 196 Springs readily to mind regarding the Germans. And I'm sure you guy's can come up with many more.

Certainly the English and French coast's will have too be mapped. Not forgetting that the British mounted a serious campaign against the invasion forces building up in the French ports.

What a field day you could have doing D'Day if and when the later a/c are incorporated!!!

As for the Bay of Biscay battles. Man they were as intense as any other battle of WW2.

Anyway guy's, these are just some of my thought's.

But here's one more.

What if someone took on the task of Improving/Converting the existing content in Il2 1946 so that it can be incorporated into SOW/BOB.....Hmmmm, now that get's ones pulse racing. An all encompassing version Worldwide platform. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Could we call it "Storm of War. Sky's Aflame"

Have Fun Guy's,

Bengal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chivas
05-09-2007, 11:55 PM
Hi Bengal

It would be too much work to convert the existing aircraft. Its easier to build new ones as they are far more complex. SOW will eventually include all the major WW2 theaters and most major aircraft. This will probably amount to more aircraft that is currently in the IL-2 series.

~Salute~
Chivas

smatchimo
05-10-2007, 02:06 AM
Basically, I'm just agreeing, that w/ a lot of "first time in a flight sim" plans for SOW, it will be much more possible to develop and fine tune these features if ya dont have a huge list of A/C to perfect at the same time.

Simply put, in the beginning I would rather have only 2 or 3 flyable A/C, if that meant they were far and away the best 2 or 3 flyable A/C ever modeled and designed for my home PC. As appose to a bunch of A/C that are just a little better than what we have now. What we have is amazing considering how long ago this game was originaly developed, the jump in PC power alone since then is going to add dimensions to SOW not possible only a few years ago. This, combined with Oleg and crews experience and talent,well, you can see why I'm hoping for a new level of flight sim. I just dont want them sidetracked by the MORE,MORE,MORE...NOW,NOW,NOW crowd.

I know SOW offers more than 2 or 3, I was just stressing my point and am more than content w/ what is planned for the initial release. And will be incredibly thrilled if only half of what Oleg has in mind makes in to the sim eventually, let alone initially. The man has set some impressive goals and will redefine the genre if he pulls them off.

Cheers!

LEXX_Luthor
05-10-2007, 10:45 PM
BoB seems near "complete" with aircraft because there were simply not that many types in the 3 month battle. The only real major aircraft not to be flyable with initial releace seems to be the Do-17. Butt, that's my fave bomber of this era.


Smatch::
Simply put, in the beginning I would rather have only 2 or 3 flyable A/C, if that meant they were far and away the best 2 or 3 flyable A/C ever modeled and designed for my home PC.
We guess the 2 aircraft -- the same burned out "flight sim" SpitFire and Email dogfight shooter planes. More "detail" -- More Polygons -- and still nothing changes.

Unfortunately, "more perfect" aircraft modelling won't make simmers happy. The bitter will still goto webboards and bicker, the majority of potential customers will still see nothing but the same overbaked 2 or 3 "flight sim" planes being overmodelled again and again at the expense of real immersive game features. Both light and hardcore simmers found the same enjoyment or more with combat flight sims 15 years ago. Why? Shucks, TAGERT poasted that he/she paid hardcore 1500$ a month (adjusted for real inflation, not CPI) in the late 1990s to play Online with 10 year old flight models and 10 year old polygons. TAGERT was a very happy simmer last century despite the old FMs and Less Than Perfect Polygons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

stalkervision
05-11-2007, 07:01 AM
How about a version called "BoB 1942" a "what if version" if the battle of Britain had lasted on for a few more years into the war or even a BOB 1946! Then we could get all kinds of neat German and British and American jet aircraft... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WildeSau1975
05-11-2007, 07:49 AM
Hi stalkervision,

Although I am more interested in historic campaigns, it would be interesting to see this kind of plane set. But we would get sometime the same kind of planes anyway in the future when add ons/updates for BoB SoW are being released.

Cheers,

Michael the WildeSau

Afreaka
05-11-2007, 10:20 AM
All the planes in the world is not going to make any difference unless the game is just that.
Even with only an initial release including only one super detailed me-109 and a spitfire it could potentially still be worhty. The benchmark for all future expansions. That is if the enviroment(lights and sound), scalability, modding and all that geeby geeby is second to none.
Sure the north african map is neat from the cockpit from my Kawanishi. But so are all the other. Planes and maps that is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Philipscdrw
05-11-2007, 12:34 PM
What's so great about having a huge variety of aircraft to fly? It's the mission that's fun, not the aircraft you're sitting in to do it (mostly).

Escorting bombers is much the same if you're doing it in a Spitfire or a LaGG-3 or a P-51. Strafing trains is much the same in the I-153 and P47 and Mosquito. A heavy bomber is a heavy bomber whether it's a TB-3 or B-17.

I don't fly around saying 'Hey, I'm sitting in a Tempest, isn't this fun', I fly around saying 'Hey, I shot down that guy who was attacking my friend, I strafed that column, I got all my wings removed by that guy who I mistook for a friendly' and it doesn't really matter if the aircraft I'm doing it in is a P-51 or an I-16.

XyZspineZyX
05-11-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by SirPapps:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
SO what you are saying is that without a wide variety of planes to choose from, the sim will have less of a chance to be successful

In effect: screw the history, screw the detail, screw the scope, all we want is planes planes planes

If the "planes planes planes" simmers are who we lose, then GOOD. Buh-bye. Don't want them. If that's all some people care about, a huge selection of flyable planes, then they aren't my type of "simmers" and they can watch their asses so the door doesn't wack their bee-hinds


Woah um. a little harsh don't you think? Im not saying im 'one of those people' but thats how some people have fun, and unless they really start to whine about it, they deserve some respect. I mean, it's a game - people who like many planes and have money to burn may buy it. If they hate it, they can return it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't think it's harsh. Sure, it's how "some people" have fun, but you're only looking at one end of the thing:

In flight simulation, there are a lot of people who like to have "their fun" by making things historically correct.

What you're saying is that it's proper for the casual simmer's interests to actually take precednce over the serious simmer's interests- their fun means I can't have my fun- and in a flight simulation, which by it's nature is supposed to be more than a casual thing

There are plenty of games that just give players "their fun". Therea re plenty of WWII "games" out there, I do not care to have my sims turned into WWII Online because it is 'correct' to allow all types of players "their fun"

If the player doesn't want a simulation, they shouldn't buy one. Sims shouldn't be dumbed down to cater to casual players by alienating their serious enthusiasts

In this case, more planes WILL be added- just not on initial release. Relatively few flyables will be available when SoW:BoB comes out

But that is just initially

The developer is right to restrict flyables initially if that means a better and more correct product

Gamers have a whole, huge market. if they want a flying WWII game because that type of more casual play is "their fun" then they should buy Blazing Angels, not a flight simulator

Nimits
05-11-2007, 04:49 PM
P-51Doras and F-16 (NATO codename Falcon).

There is no such thing as a "P-51Dora." "Dora" is a German nickname for -D model aircraft, and should not be applied to US or Western Aircraft. It's the "P-51D," or simply the "Mustang." Similarly, while "Falcon" is technically the offical name of the F-16, nobody in the US calls it that. F-16 pilots (or military) in general refer to them as "Vipers" or, less generously "Lawn Darts."

LEXX_Luthor
05-11-2007, 05:33 PM
F-16 pilots (or military) in general refer to them as "Vipers" or, less generously "Lawn Darts."
Correct: its "Viper" to pilots. But the F-16 replaced the F-5 (NATO codename Freedom Fighter) as the NATO weapon of mass proliferation. NATO decided it may be wise to devise a codename if Viper pilots had to meet the F-16 at some future time. Thus the NATO "fighter" codename of Fighting Falcon.

you know, like...

***ot
Fishbed
Flagon
Freedom Fighter
Fighting Falcon
etc...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-11-2007, 06:04 PM
Phillips::
What's so great about having a huge variety of aircraft to fly? It's the mission that's fun, not the aircraft you're sitting in to do it (mostly).

Escorting bombers is much the same if you're doing it in a Spitfire or a LaGG-3 or a P-51. Strafing trains is much the same in the I-153 and P47 and Mosquito. A heavy bomber is a heavy bomber whether it's a TB-3 or B-17.

Indeed, that "(mostly)" shows there is more going on, and that others may not wish to fly the same aircraft as you, or play the same theater of war as you (gosh -- play a different server -- community split -- can't allow that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif), even though all war theaters share many types of "missions."

The Ussian developer would model "in detail" the P-51Dora. The British developer (it would be nice) would model "in detail" the Spitfire and Email. As we found out the last few years, the Russian developer would model all the P-51Dora, Spitfire and Email, and the LaGG-3, although at "less detail" than asked for here.

That "less detail" reveals the juicy part here ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The flight model "fanboys," generally online -- some offline -- here bash Oleg for his lack of flight modelling abiity for one or another type of aircraft -- depending on what plane each "hardcore" FM fanboy flies (usually a traditional "combat flight sim" plane). But then they claim that Oleg makes "the best" flight models when some ask for open aircraft modelling. Even though Oleg has made so many aircraft flyable with "less detail," Oleg is suddenly "best" and "most detailed" except for the aircraft each (bitter) hardcore FM fanboy flies -- the flip flops are fun to watch, hehe...

ImpStarDuece
05-11-2007, 06:18 PM
Well, the variety of aircraft is actually quite broad in SoW:BoB:

We should get at least:

1 single seat biplane fighter (CR42)
3 single seat inline engine monoplane fighters (Spit, Hurri, 109)
1 single seat radial engine fighter (G.50)
1 twin engine fighter (Bf-110)
1 twin engine light bomber/night fighter (Blenheim)
2 twin engine medium bombers (Ju88, Br-20)
1 single engine dive bomber (Ju87)
Plus, there have been rumours of:

2 single engine biplane trainers (T Moth and Jungeman [?])
1 single engine turret fighter/night fighter (Defiant)
1 autogyro
2-3 medium bombers (Welly, He-111, Do17)

I've seen statement to the tune that SoW:BoB could include up to 35 flyables. I'll take, for convenience sake, that this means several 'flyables' will be the same aircraft in different versions.

Take the 190E3/4, Spit I/II, Hurri I/II, Ju88A1/5 and there are 8 'flyables' with 4 basic cockpits (minimal changes).

LEXX_Luthor
05-11-2007, 06:34 PM
And more Battle of Britain specific aircraft will probably come after initial releace. However, other theaters require ALOT of aircraft types. The number of aircraft types in 1941-1945 Pacific is mind blowing. I don't know why SaQsoN and csThor almost came to blows on the first page here, as they seemed to say the same thing, but with a different language perhaps.

Pacific theater may have to be broken into multiple addons. Or, Oleg could open the aircraft to modding. Even better is Tagert's Theme where Oleg can sell aircraft in addons he mods himself in Moscow. As long as Oleg can pump out the aircraft with no limit, including aircraft like He-100D and MiG-3U for non-historical campaigns, and pump out historical 1930s Spanish Civil War/Khalkin Gol aircraft, we won't need open aircraft modding so much. The Beyond part of BoB And Beyond should last maybe ten years. That's alot of aircraft that can be made.

tagTaken2
05-11-2007, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
There are plenty of games that just give players "their fun". Therea re plenty of WWII "games" out there, I do not care to have my sims turned into WWII Online because it is 'correct' to allow all types of players "their fun"

If the player doesn't want a simulation, they shouldn't buy one. Sims shouldn't be dumbed down to cater to casual players by alienating their serious enthusiasts

In this case, more planes WILL be added- just not on initial release. Relatively few flyables will be available when SoW:BoB comes out

But that is just initially

The developer is right to restrict flyables initially if that means a better and more correct product

Gamers have a whole, huge market. if they want a flying WWII game because that type of more casual play is "their fun" then they should buy Blazing Angels, not a flight simulator

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Nimits
05-12-2007, 02:17 AM
But the F-16 replaced the F-5 (NATO codename Freedom Fighter) as the NATO weapon of mass proliferation. NATO decided it may be wise to devise a codename if Viper pilots had to meet the F-16 at some future time. Thus the NATO "fighter" codename of Fighting Falcon.

"Falcon" and "Freedom Fighter" are not NATO code names; they are offical aircraft nicknames assigned to the aircraft by the USAF. NATO does not assign codenames to its own assets (I guess they figure if we built it, we should be able to figure out what it is). English codenames, and in the case of missiles, NATO number systems, are used for Russian/"Red" aircraft and weapons systems, which often have native names or designations that are difficult to pronounce or differentiate for most speakers of western languages. Fighters are given nicknames beginning with "F", Bombers with "B", etc. SAMs are given an "SA-" number, surfaces to surface missiles an "SS-" number, etc. Talk to some Russians about a Foxbat or an SA-20, and they might not know what the heck you are talking about, as they have different designation systems.

Bearcat99
05-12-2007, 07:27 AM
I think that what SoW:BoB will lack in aircraft it will more than make up for in gameplay. Plus we will still have 46.... which IMO will probably wind up being one of the longest running titles around when it is all said and done.

willyvic
05-12-2007, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
... Plus we will still have 46.... which IMO will probably wind up being one of the longest running titles around when it is all said and done.

I heartily agree. New users are appearing at a rate not seen since the release of the original IL2. And without a competing title of the same genre on the horizon I believe this game will endure for many years to come. We've coming into our prime and are weathering it beautifully.

WV

XyZspineZyX
05-12-2007, 12:47 PM
But Bear, don't be under the impression that BoB will only feature the few flyables it has on release. Additional flyables will be modelled, and when new theatre types are introduced, we will get corresponding planes, too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ElAurens
05-12-2007, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
But Bear, don't be under the impression that BoB will only feature the few flyables it has on release. Additional flyables will be modelled, and when new theatre types are introduced, we will get corresponding planes, too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

To use the vernacular of another forum dweller; "Agree 100%".

Even during the actual Battle of Britain the opposing sides were flying a multitude of types that get no glory in the popular conception of the BoB. Various seaplane/flying boat types, attack aircraft, cargo and liason types, and of course my beloved Curtiss Hawks.

Open you mind to the possibilities.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Chivas
05-12-2007, 02:48 PM
I'm quite sure Bear is aware that the SOW series will have a very large contingent of aircraft. He was refering to the initial release of SOW BOB with a huge increase of immersion with advanced FM, DM, Terrain, and Weather...that would negate any initial lack of aircraft.

LEXX_Luthor
05-12-2007, 06:31 PM
Nimits::
"Falcon" and "Freedom Fighter" are not NATO code names; they are offical aircraft nicknames assigned to the aircraft by the USAF. NATO does not assign codenames to its own assets (I guess they figure if we built it, we should be able to figure out what it is). English codenames, and in the case of missiles, NATO number systems, are used for Russian/"Red" aircraft and weapons systems, which often have native names or designations that are difficult to pronounce or differentiate for most speakers of western languages. Fighters are given nicknames beginning with "F", Bombers with "B", etc. SAMs are given an "SA-" number, surfaces to surface missiles an "SS-" number, etc. Talk to some Russians about a Foxbat or an SA-20, and they might not know what the heck you are talking about, as they have different designation systems.
hmmm, you made me wonder what the new NATO codname is for F-14.

LEXX_Luthor
05-12-2007, 06:49 PM
SirPapps::
BBB462cid:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
SO what you are saying is that without a wide variety of planes to choose from, the sim will have less of a chance to be successful

In effect: screw the history, screw the detail, screw the scope, all we want is planes planes planes

If the "planes planes planes" simmers are who we lose, then GOOD. Buh-bye. Don't want them. If that's all some people care about, a huge selection of flyable planes, then they aren't my type of "simmers" and they can watch their asses so the door doesn't wack their bee-hinds

Woah um. a little harsh don't you think? Im not saying im 'one of those people' but thats how some people have fun, and unless they really start to whine about it, they deserve some respect. I mean, it's a game - people who like many planes and have money to burn may buy it. If they hate it, they can return it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/thumbs.gif http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/thumbs.gif

Spot on SirPapps. Serious flight simmers and military aviation enthusiasts enjoy flying aircraft never made before in flight sims, and always welcome the chance to fly new aircraft in new scenarios or historical theaters never made before. Thanks! And, don't be put off by -- indeed -- the harsh insults and self-advertised "hardcore Pro Simmer" webboard slogans poasted here against the sim community and WW2 aviation fans. We all know that Maddox is not a BF42 or WWOnline developer.

Yes! More planes, planes, planes covering Spanish Civil War and Mongolia -- if not from Maddox, then from serious and enthusiastic 3rd Party modders who are interested in aviation and history.

Gatt59
05-14-2007, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
The list of (planned) flyables as I understand it is such:

CR42
IAR
Br-20


I hope you mean BR.20M. So no G.50bis in the planeset? At least the G.50bis could have a (very little) chance against the early Hurry.

IAR?

FritzGryphon
05-14-2007, 09:23 AM
You're right, its G50

Dtools4fools
05-17-2007, 09:09 AM
Yes! More planes, planes, planes covering Spanish Civil War and Mongolia

True for me. I think there are two different players: the online player who got his (few) favourite ride(s).

Then those who like to fly different planes because they do like planes...all planes...

To me I hope they will NOT give us a hundred 109, Spits and Stangs this time. Make one for each important time frame one 109E, one 109F, one 109G and one 109K will do for the entire war...
Then use the resources to make more DIFFERENT planes flyable.

Rather than having 8 different Spits and 109's in BoB I would prefer just one Spit, one 109 and ONE MORE new flyable plane.

IF they move from BoB to the med lot of BOB planes still can be used and additional new planes would include first US planes (P-40 for example).

Next sequence then could be somewhere were those planes can be used too - be it the pacific or eastern front.
Eastern front and Pacific being large scenarios they will most likely be split up in several sub-scenarios. At least I hope so...!

****