PDA

View Full Version : Why Are There No Troops



billclarke1
12-12-2004, 03:48 PM
When this game was created why were we not given the ability to put troops in the battlefield ? What is the point of close air support when all you have is armor to attack ?

ianboys
12-12-2004, 04:13 PM
Legal reasons - it would have had a higher age certificate so lost part of the audience.

Tater-SW-
12-12-2004, 04:19 PM
Lol, you can drop 5000kg bombs on civilian cities, but some legitimate combatants on the front would givbe a higher age rating. People who write stuff like ratings are so utterly clueless.

tater

WTE_Dukayn
12-12-2004, 04:24 PM
ah but the cities dont have people in em, just buildings.

sapre
12-12-2004, 07:21 PM
Hmm...
Firing a 20mm shell and blasting a pilot to piesces, Turning a aircraft into a flaming ball and burning the pilot to the death, shooting a bailed out pilots, turning a tank crew into a pile of meat is allowed and strafing a troop isn't?
A typical hypocritism.

VW-IceFire
12-12-2004, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:
Hmm...
Firing a 20mm shell and blasting a pilot to piesces, Turning a aircraft into a flaming ball and burning the pilot to the death, shooting a bailed out pilots, turning a tank crew into a pile of meat is allowed and strafing a troop isn't?
A typical hypocritism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But you don't see it...its barely even implied. Except if you chute shoot. Which is possible.

Still...the ratings game is important. They want maximum exposure for a very small market game so you have to make a few comprimises.

actionhank1786
12-12-2004, 07:44 PM
I agree the troops would be nice, but compramise had to be made.
And shooting the plane is just that, it's a plane. Sure it's got a pilot but it's a plane.
Houses are "empty"
and the tanks went to fight on their own accord http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ElAurens
12-12-2004, 07:53 PM
There are mortars with crews in the FMB now...

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

PF_Coastie
12-12-2004, 07:53 PM
Bullcrap! It all comes down to framerates and modeling. Its a flight sim. Air strikes are made against buildings, vehicles and vessels......NOT People. They do have people running from vehicles which is enough in my opinion.

ElAurens
12-12-2004, 08:05 PM
Actually the real problem this creates is in the Pacific. The Japanese rarely used tanks, and really did not have many good trucks either. So the only way for ground attack to work in the Pacific is to have non-historical formations of Japanese armor, and truck convoys/concentrations that are all out of proportion historically.

Latico
12-12-2004, 08:17 PM
static Object #288 morter crew

There are also some armed bunkers that could pose a problem for advancing columns on beachheads and inland advances. Not to mention artilary pieces and MG nest.

From the air, I doubt that you'll be able to see troops anyway. I have enough trouble spotting armor and artilary. LOL

TC_Stele
12-12-2004, 08:32 PM
Whaat? Because of an age rating?

IL2, from what I've seen, has been well liked by an older audience who appreciate WW2, the aircraft that were in them, and by what I feel as a higher intellect of individuals.

Yet, when I went to Gamestop I saw nothing but teenaged kids and younger buying GTA San Andreas which consists of the player pointing a shotgun at a bystander and blowing him to bits.

Aztek_Eagle
12-12-2004, 08:36 PM
ratings are the resons why there is so much terrorims in the world

Tater-SW-
12-12-2004, 08:57 PM
All the guns are crewed now as well, it clearly cannot be ratings.

tater

Oilburner_TAW
12-12-2004, 09:12 PM
strafe a troop transport truck convoy...soldiers will sometimes get out and "run for the hills"

DarkCanuck420
12-12-2004, 11:23 PM
Call of duty:UO is rated the same. and you can use a flame thrower to torch people, shoot people in the eye, and down south.
A flight sim without death? strange, and if you think that they decided to not put soldiers into the game for rating reasons a) some games you can turn on parental controls, i.e. no gore b) the target market for flight sims is over then the age it would be restricted to.

i like to practice against fighters and then a whole bunch of para-planes,fill them up and use them for target practice you can see em all up out and the plane twists in flames toward the ocean.

first person shooter have the same rating. i want to see people get hit by .50 cals, big bombs, and rockets!

get some, get some! ahahah!
how do you shoot women and children? (wouldnt be allowed in a game)
easy you just don't lead em so much.
aint war hell, haha!

================================================
You Dont Get A Scar Like This From Eating Pineapple

x6BL_Brando
12-13-2004, 03:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i want to see people get hit by .50 cals, big bombs, and rockets! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go join the Army.

pettera
12-13-2004, 04:12 AM
The real reason is probably not the rating but the CPU and graphics requirements. A reasonable batalion (and target) is about 1000 men. A regiment or division about 3-10 times larger. Modeling a reasonable sized battle is way beyon what is possible with todays technology.

Also note that for every tank or AC there are probably 100 persons in the battlefield. Pretty hard to accomodate that in a large scale scenario.

I think some troops have been added in PF namely crews arming guns.

The rating is not part of problem. However, remowing the "hakenkreuz" from the German AC are. The Russian version appearently ships with it.

Petter

PS. Horses are actually more important since they where reasponsible for the majority of the transport at the Eastern Front.

CKY_86
12-13-2004, 04:15 AM
imo i think we should get troops, it would add great imersion & i dont think it would affect the age rating at all because we have troops manning the guns on carriers/battleships & they are able to be shot at an destroyed so what diffrence would it make if troops were running accros the ground?

ianboys
12-13-2004, 06:32 AM
The reason is ratings (and remember different countries have different laws) as anyone who has been at this a few years will tell you.

The things like crewed mortars have slipped in without anyone official noticing. The important thing as far as ratings are concerned is that you see no dead bodies and that you are attacking a mortar or ship, not the people.

FF_Trozaka
12-13-2004, 10:16 AM
Its really too bad they couldn't give us troop columns on foot with horses or donkeys. I recently was making missions around the Kokoda Track in New Guinea. Although it is modelled on the map, it gives you a very nice road cut right through the jungle. Historically speaking(from what i have read about it), this Track was innaccessible by truck and the Aussies had to cut their way thru with machetes and haul supplies in by donkey and hired locals. I wound up having to use truck columns. Sheesh!
History is re-written! Jungles had roads and no people were killed in WWII. Now if you will excuse me, my 13 year old needs the pc to beat up ******s and shoot cops in GTA. LOL

Fennec_P
12-13-2004, 10:34 AM
You'll find a lot of objects have crew, likes ships and vehicles columns.

But I don't think you can kill any of these. Like, when you destroy a ship AA gun, the crew simply disappears.

The gore=1 feature is also removed, for the few planes that once supported it.

Just the parachuting pilot you can kill, which confuses me to no end.

Latico
12-13-2004, 10:36 AM
Personally, I think it's a Frame rate issue. Oleg warned that some of us may have to turn down the graphics settings to eliminate the gun crews on the ships in lue of game performance. Imagine the hit it would have on fps with divisions of infantry moving around and shooting on the ground.

Remember the hit we got from all the AA and AAA before the Dev's reduced the smoke trails of the rounds and gave us the ability to adjust ROF? And NOW you want to add infantry on the ground shooting?

Obviously some people don't know how to use their imagination. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

fuser59
12-13-2004, 11:25 AM
Salute FF-Trozaka...

From my own Post I submitt my opinion from the post I made in Oleg's Ready Room. Here is part of that post. The link can be accessed here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=9741018052

"Salute Bananimal65!

I am also hopeful that Oleg and his development team will take into account those of us who would really like to have the "events during simulation" revolve around a visual pilot. I dont want to sound critical on this issue, but the one thing missing in the IL2 series is probably the most important of all... The Humans! I would also like to note that during mission loadup that the Human is the Last thing loaded, not that he is valued as such a low priority object I hope... LOL!

It would be my highest hope that with the new engine in BoB, We would be able to move around within the simulation using our Pilot. Everything would revolve around him as it would in a FPS sim. Let him be able to be somewhat unique for each player so that we could give him "skins" using different Faces/Nationalities/Medals & Ribbons/Uniforms, etc.

Let the Pilot be somewhat animated and give him/her the ability to walk around, gesture to others, climb into aircraft, bail out, be injured/killed, hide, control the aircraft, fire weapons, crawl and walk around in bombers, drive vehicles and tanks, swim, fire personal weapons such as sidearm's and so on!

The immersion of the sim will not be complete without the inclusion of the humans

Colonel BM357_Fuser

DarkCanuck420
12-13-2004, 11:26 AM
It makes sense from a perfromance stance not to have infantry. however, you wont be able to see the infantry (size/cammo) unless you are close to the ground. so they wouldnt have to be rendered until closer in. it sure would demand a lot from your pc. maybe specific missions where the only focus is to bring support, drop a bomb/strafe em.

IL2Canuck
12-13-2004, 11:41 AM
...oh Boy, threads discussing people in the game usually get shut down. I agree totally with this great game needing people. It offends many on this board to discuss it but to see even limited amounts of activity would really add to the immersion, in my opinion.

I know the PC would take a hit on frames...so?, some may want it, some may not, OPTIONS !!!

I think it would make a great add-on, lots of details to turn on or off. We will have it in the next couple of years...oh yes.

Ok time to get back to the arguing, glad to see some like the idea though.

CHEERS.

MajorBloodnok
12-13-2004, 11:55 AM
Forget people, what about the wildlife. I demand antelope and jungle dwelling orang-utang.

Bakelit
12-13-2004, 12:00 PM
I'm a virtual fighter pilot by heart, not so much a ground pounder or bomber.

I don't see any achievement for myself in killing the poor footsloggers of any nation.
I remember my grandfathers stories about US Jabos shooting them up, wounding one of them, maybe thats why.

Infantry was in the first release of Red Baron II and Flying Corps Gold and Mig Alley where they would even run around burning when subject to a Napalm attack.
Call it hypocritical, or far from reality but I never enjoyed killing little men. Wrestling down or surprising the "other" aircraft, yes.


Besides think of the game engine and how it would brake down even good systems if done convincingly.

FF_Trozaka
12-13-2004, 12:51 PM
my point is more of a historical accuracy observation. the same company who says they will not give us an airplane (kate as example) because they can't get enough documentation to make a gauge panel that would be historically accurate for it would have you believe that you could just jump in a truck and drive from Port Moresby on a well manicured road to the opposite coast. AFAIK this just was not so. There are many, many instances in the Pacific War where trucking supplies anywhere was impossible. The only way was by pack animal or carrying it by hand.
I just find it curious that they are so adamant about historical accuracy of aircraft panels but will readily "fudge" the historical accuracy of maps and how things really were done.
I not complaining, mind you, i love the sim, i just find some of these discrepancies odd.
S!
(backhanded Kate whine, lol)

MajorBloodnok
12-13-2004, 02:05 PM
Look, a jungle tranportation infrastructure whiner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Latico
12-13-2004, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FF_Trozaka:
my point is more of a historical accuracy observation. the same company who says they will not give us an airplane (kate as example) because they can't get enough documentation to make a gauge panel that would be historically accurate for it would have you believe that you could just jump in a truck and drive from Port Moresby on a well manicured road to the opposite coast. AFAIK this just was not so. There are many, many instances in the Pacific War where trucking supplies anywhere was impossible. The only way was by pack animal or carrying it by hand.
I just find it curious that they are so adamant about historical accuracy of aircraft panels but will readily "fudge" the historical accuracy of maps and how things really were done.
I not complaining, mind you, i love the sim, i just find some of these discrepancies odd.
S!
(backhanded Kate whine, lol) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand your desire for accuracy, but we have to keep in mind the limitations of the engine and OUR PC systems. In order to adaquitly protray gound troops within the game AI must be programmed into the squads for movement and laying down small arms fire. The engine would also have to calculate this, along with casualties taken by the squads, in order to define whither we get a mission accomplished or failure.

Another thing to remember that it was hard for the ground troops to see IJ infantry in the real war because of the dense jungle. The Japanese apparently were masters at cammoflaging themselves and their war machinery. Allied forces didn't see the enemy allot of times until the Japanese fired on them from only a few yards away. On the larger Islands of the Pacific, IJ infantry usually didn't put up much resistance against Allied beach landings, often retreating into the mountains where they were a real pain to root out of their caves. It also gave them the high ground advantage.

To get an idea of the ground war check this site out.
Army History Brochures (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/collections/WW2-Broch.htm)

You will find info on both the PTO and ETO there.