PDA

View Full Version : The overall quality of IL-2: a ground-pounder's POV



msalama
05-25-2007, 07:17 AM
S! all and have a nice Friday, too.

Now we've heard the whines, seen the threads gone bad, seen the ban hammer swing, etc. but why is it that us ground attack jocks never complain that much - we don't, do we???

Well I don't at any rate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif And here's why:

* The overall quality of this sim is indeed great for me. Heck, the AA is dangerous, the ground equipment plentiful, and the action quotient high - you don't believe me just take up an IL-2 or a Stuka and experience it yourself, provided that the map / the mission is good!

* I'm not _that_ interested in whether this or that fighter is a wee bit overmodelled, because they will _still_ always be much faster / more manouverable than me anyway. No - what I rely on instead is them not finding me at all whenever possible. This is not to say that I don't fight back if I get bounced, but it still kind of gets me out of the ultra-competetive loop you fighter guys are in - and that loop, mind you, is precisely what causes many of those modelling wars to start in the first place, isn't it?

* Ain't no way this sim is perfect, nor will it be. Thus there're some credible modelling wars going on, too, but why should I care? I've always felt that the IL-2, f.ex., is modelled pretty well, and corresponds accurately enough with what I've read about it so far.

So in conclusion I'd say that us ground pounders have it pretty good all told IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif What's your opinion?

Bearcat99
05-25-2007, 07:20 AM
Well said... and might I add that down low this sim has no equal yet....

amilaninia
05-25-2007, 07:22 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Deadmeat313
05-25-2007, 07:25 AM
Agree 100% http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


T.

MEGILE
05-25-2007, 07:30 AM
Honestly... it could be better.

It is the scaling which KILLS immersion for me...
in WW2OL buildings in particular, and trees, and roads are sized well and as such is pretty dang immersive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op3Q3nDNqAY&mode=related&search=

This video demonstrates what Im talkin about

Everyone is a human btw, including the AAA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Not perfect by any means.. but good.

Crash_Moses
05-25-2007, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
S! all and have a nice Friday, too.

Now we've heard the whines, seen the threads gone bad, seen the ban hammer swing, etc. but why is it that us ground attack jocks never complain that much - we don't, do we???

Well I don't at any rate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif And here's why:

* The overall quality of this sim is indeed great for me. Heck, the AA is dangerous, the ground equipment plentiful, and the action quotient high - you don't believe me just take up an IL-2 or a Stuka and experience it yourself, provided that the map / the mission is good!

* I'm not _that_ interested in whether this or that fighter is a wee bit overmodelled, because they will _still_ always be much faster / more manouverable than me anyway. No - what I rely on instead is them not finding me at all whenever possible. This is not to say that I don't fight back if I get bounced, but it still kind of gets me out of the ultra-competetive loop you fighter guys are in - and that loop, mind you, is precisely what causes many of those modelling wars to start in the first place, isn't it?

* Ain't no way this sim is perfect, nor will it be. Thus there're some credible modelling wars going on, too, but why should I care? I've always felt that the IL-2, f.ex., is modelled pretty well, and corresponds accurately enough with what I've read about it so far.

So in conclusion I'd say that us ground pounders have it pretty good all told IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif What's your opinion?

Amen, Brother! Bombs away!

S!

Bewolf
05-25-2007, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
S! all and have a nice Friday, too.

Now we've heard the whines, seen the threads gone bad, seen the ban hammer swing, etc. but why is it that us ground attack jocks never complain that much - we don't, do we???

Well I don't at any rate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif And here's why:

* The overall quality of this sim is indeed great for me. Heck, the AA is dangerous, the ground equipment plentiful, and the action quotient high - you don't believe me just take up an IL-2 or a Stuka and experience it yourself, provided that the map / the mission is good!

* I'm not _that_ interested in whether this or that fighter is a wee bit overmodelled, because they will _still_ always be much faster / more manouverable than me anyway. No - what I rely on instead is them not finding me at all whenever possible. This is not to say that I don't fight back if I get bounced, but it still kind of gets me out of the ultra-competetive loop you fighter guys are in - and that loop, mind you, is precisely what causes many of those modelling wars to start in the first place, isn't it?

* Ain't no way this sim is perfect, nor will it be. Thus there're some credible modelling wars going on, too, but why should I care? I've always felt that the IL-2, f.ex., is modelled pretty well, and corresponds accurately enough with what I've read about it so far.

So in conclusion I'd say that us ground pounders have it pretty good all told IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif What's your opinion?

Actually, I disagree. As a dedicated bomber jock I have to say I am pretty dissapointed by the options given to us. The very same bombsight for almost all bombers is a beginning, and goes on over the lack of bomb interval modes towards the lack of any of the the electronical assitances usually available (Radar, the german "Leitstrahl", etc)
There are also way too few commands for your AI bombers, their behaviour odd at best at times.

I personally feel bombers beeing greatly neglated compared to their fighter cousins and their inclusion only improvised.

Wolkenbeisser
05-25-2007, 08:45 AM
Ich liebe es auch, Dreck zu bewegen! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 08:47 AM
I agree with the original poster.

I still load up the qmb Il-2M3 a couple of times a week to smash armour.

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 08:51 AM
Megile, does that mean I can cause havoc by machine gunning infantry players on the ground?

I would so love that

Deadmeat313
05-25-2007, 08:59 AM
I reckon we should get a good "Ground Pounders is Porked" discussion going. I'll get us started...

Ahem. Mslama, do you not agree that the WTFPWN abilities of the IL-2 is distictly incongrous with the OMGBBQ capability of the Mosquito, since the latter is not equipped with the JP-233 FFS-HAX! weapon, which the latter was historically fitted with on all operational squadrons numbered 23 through 351 in the RAF.

I may have charts, somewhere.

My sources and web-fu are so reliable that any form of disagreement with my findings will be derided as laughably incorrect. Furthermore, the game must be considered unplayable until OLEG comes round to my house and fixes everything.*


(*ie : sets the fuses on my RS-132 rockets correctly, and cleans the fluff out of my keyboard.)


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

Ernst_Rohr
05-25-2007, 09:12 AM
Deadmeat, you damn near made me snort coffee all over my keyboard!

Great post! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JtD
05-25-2007, 09:22 AM
I actually think that the ground pounding by now is about the weakest part of FB.

- ground objects damage modelling - a joke
- ground objects AI - a joke
- quite a few gameplay features - jokes
- aircraft loadouts - insufficient and partially wrong
- ground graphics - worst portion of game graphics

You know, I'd be totally happy if BoB did no improvements to planes and flight model but would beef up the ground attack objects of this game. With little effort, this could be made a couple of 100% more enjoyable.

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 09:30 AM
Yes, teh Battle of Britain should have been more about ground attack. Let's do that.

Deadmeat313
05-25-2007, 09:31 AM
Well it already looks like the ground detail has been ramped up by an order of magnitude in SoW:BoB.


T.

JtD
05-25-2007, 09:43 AM
3D model looks great, but will there be improvements behind the better looks? If I can still sink a boat with gunfire and have the rest of the convoy sink because it is rear ending the boat, I don't need cockpits that can be used as a historical reference.

carguy_
05-25-2007, 11:01 AM
No matter what as a ground pounder you`ll be owned many times repeatedly every 2-3 missions so what`s there to whine about?

Deadmeat313
05-25-2007, 11:03 AM
If I'm in a Fairey Battle I'd expect nothing less. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



T.

ElAurens
05-25-2007, 11:19 AM
As the BlitzPigs specialty has always been ground pounding I have to agree with msalama.

Be it airfield pwnage, tanks/cars/trucks that need luvin, ships that need taken down, or trains that need blasted, the sim delivers.

There is nothing more satisfying than a flight of 4 or 5 BlitzPigs swooping down in Ki61s and putting an equal number of enemy ships on the bottom, then escaping to do it again. Or a flight of A20s fanning out over the North African desert laying waste to the Afrika Korps.

Be sure.

Chris0382
05-25-2007, 11:21 AM
tHIS GAME HAS been a special fun experience. Not perfect as it would cost a lot more and need expensive hardware.

Thanks to all who have made the campaigns and the programmers who have made the game.

Tally hoe

JtD
05-25-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:

Be it ... ships that need taken down... the sim delivers.

So far I failed to sink a Japanese cruiser.

Hanglands
05-25-2007, 11:49 AM
1."us ground attack jocks never complain that much - we don't, do we???"

2."just take up an IL-2 or a Stuka"

3."I'm not _that_ interested in whether this or that fighter is a wee bit overmodelled"

4."what I rely on instead is them not finding me at all whenever possible"

5."I'd say that us ground pounders have it pretty good all told"

"What's your opinion?"

1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.

I recently rediscovered the early Il-2s, and am looking forward to beginning a dynamic Stuka campaign.

Worf101
05-25-2007, 11:50 AM
Bomber pilot, A-20, P-38, P-47 Jock here. All I have to say is "Bombs Away" and "RED WINS!!!"

No, it ain't perfect, but it'll do till the holo-suite comes along.

Da Worfster

ElAurens
05-25-2007, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:

Be it ... ships that need taken down... the sim delivers.

So far I failed to sink a Japanese cruiser. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only due to your own lack of immagination.

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

I didn't say the sim was perfect. Yes, we all know there could be more ship types, ground units, horses, etc...

But overall the series has delivered more fun/immersion/satisfaction per dollar spent than any other hobby of mine, by a huge margin.

BTW, the Kirov makes a good stand in for a Japanese light cruiser.

Hoatee
05-25-2007, 01:53 PM
Agree with Megile regarding WWII online regarding scaling. But one could perhaps have found a better analogy in Lock On - it'a a sim with the same subject as IL2 but in a different timeframe and where the scaling is right.

Also WWIIonline is expensive - you pay on a monthly basis. And no offline mode - not even LAN.

Roblex
05-25-2007, 02:00 PM
Well said... and might I add that down low this sim has no equal yet....

As a fellow mud mover I can agree that IL-2 is a great game but I cannot agree that it is better than WW2-OL when you get really low. It just can't! ; WW2-OL was designed to look good to soldiers and provide hedges , trees, long grass, ditches, hills & dips to hide people & tanks in. When you land back at base in WW2-OL you are skimming over the hedge lined roads & between the trees just before touchdown which is exactly how it feels from my experience flying from grass strips in Kent.

Obviously IL2 gives you a lot of other things that WW2-Ol cannot but not that. Sorry! http://wildroad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/outtahere.gif

EDIT

I just found this on Youtube and it belong sin a Groundpounder thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg

IWOOT!

Friendly_flyer
05-25-2007, 03:02 PM
This sim started out as a ground attack sim. It is still what it does best. Personally I'm partial to the Hurricane Mk.IIc with it's four 20 mms.

...and I don'f mind it's outflown and outurned by most of my aerial oposition.

Bearcat99
05-25-2007, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Honestly... it could be better.

It is the scaling which KILLS immersion for me...
in WW2OL buildings in particular, and trees, and roads are sized well and as such is pretty dang immersive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op3Q3nDNqAY&mode=related&search=

This video demonstrates what Im talkin about

Everyone is a human btw, including the AAA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Not perfect by any means.. but good.

True.. it could always be better.... and yes the scaling is one thing that has always been a sticky for me.. but once you get up high it doesnt even matter...

MEGILE
05-25-2007, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Hoatee:
Agree with Megile regarding WWII online regarding scaling. But one could perhaps have found a better analogy in Lock On - it'a a sim with the same subject as IL2 but in a different timeframe and where the scaling is right.

Also WWIIonline is expensive - you pay on a monthly basis. And no offline mode - not even LAN.

Good point. LOMAC does get it right.. but the Crimean peninsula is pretty sparse object wise, and the monthly fee is irrelevant in the context (although i agree it is a Pain in the ash)


Originally posted by Bearcat

True.. it could always be better.... and yes the scaling is one thing that has always been a sticky for me.. but once you get up high it doesnt even matter...

I assumed this was about low altitude fighting...

and regardless, WW2OL still beats IL2 for high altitude bombing... because you don't get that terrible fog, you get multiple cloud layers, and the ground objects are still largely visible.

I am NOT bashing IL2... its every bit the air to air simulation. But CAS is WW2OL's strength one of many, but there are plenty of weaknesses be sure.

I can only agree with these words:


Originally posted by Roblex:

WW2-OL was designed to look good to soldiers and provide hedges , trees, long grass, ditches, hills & dips to hide people & tanks in. When you land back at base in WW2-OL you are skimming over the hedge lined roads & between the trees just before touchdown which is exactly how it feels from my experience flying from grass strips in Kent.

The screen shots from SOW:BoB looks promising, the ground textures are fantastic.. but I'd like to get a closer look at scaling.

I_KG100_Prien
05-25-2007, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoatee:
Agree with Megile regarding WWII online regarding scaling. But one could perhaps have found a better analogy in Lock On - it'a a sim with the same subject as IL2 but in a different timeframe and where the scaling is right.

Also WWIIonline is expensive - you pay on a monthly basis. And no offline mode - not even LAN.

Good point. LOMAC does get it right.. but the Crimean peninsula is pretty sparse object wise, and the monthly fee is irrelevant in the context (although i agree it is a Pain in the ash)


Originally posted by Bearcat

True.. it could always be better.... and yes the scaling is one thing that has always been a sticky for me.. but once you get up high it doesnt even matter...

I assumed this was about low altitude fighting...

and regardless, WW2OL still beats IL2 for high altitude bombing... because you don't get that terrible fog, you get multiple cloud layers, and the ground objects are still largely visible.

I am NOT bashing IL2... its every bit the air to air simulation. But CAS is WW2OL's strength one of many, but there are plenty of weaknesses be sure.

I can only agree with these words:


Originally posted by Roblex:

WW2-OL was designed to look good to soldiers and provide hedges , trees, long grass, ditches, hills & dips to hide people & tanks in. When you land back at base in WW2-OL you are skimming over the hedge lined roads & between the trees just before touchdown which is exactly how it feels from my experience flying from grass strips in Kent.

The screen shots from SOW:BoB looks promising, the ground textures are fantastic.. but I'd like to get a closer look at scaling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing beats strafing a truck full of troops in that game.. Or making sure I had overhead cover when I was in a tank, nothing sucked worse than getting bombed.

Lots more teamwork usually goes in to each mission too.. The "Solo Cowboys" soon learn that it's a quick way to eat up supply and spend more time respawning than fighing.

Though the flight model in WW2OL is ****e. People think Spitfires are UFO's in IL2.. doesn't hold a candle to the X-wing like capabilities they have in WW2OL. But I digress.. Each has it's ups and downs and I enjoy both games for what they bring to the table.

I've got my fingers crossed that SOW has more to offer the bomber-jocks. We shall see.

msalama
05-26-2007, 04:58 AM
Well level bombing is perhaps a bit lacking and the scaling sometimes off, granted, but I actually had something to the tune of this (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/IL-2_groundpound.ntrk) in mind when I wrote my original comment. Doesn't really get much better IMO - a HUGELY cool gig that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Aaron_GT
05-26-2007, 05:48 AM
It is the scaling which KILLS immersion for me...in WW2OL buildings in particular, and trees, and roads are sized well and as such is pretty dang immersive.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op3Q3nDNqAY&mode=related&search=This video demonstrates what Im talkin about

Nice video.

A few questions:

1. Why DB7s rather than Bostons?
2. Are the trees and hedges still flat planes rather than 3D? That's the main immersion killer for me when playing infantry.
3. The problem with the campaigns is that it too often tends to be too much of a disorganised quake-like affair - not enough big, bold, planned movements.

stansdds
05-26-2007, 06:00 AM
This sim is not perfect, but I have yet to see a perfect sim. IL2 was originally designed as a ground pounder sim, hence the designation IL2. Low level fighters were a necessity since that is where the IL2 flew. I think the IL2 series does this very well. The addition of high altitude operations is fair, but this sim was not designed for such things. It's remarkable that it can even do as well as it does!

Other sims offer third party maps, campaigns and aircraft, but have you ever tried a coop with those sims? IL2, due to its locked nature, makes online flying far easier and more enjoyable. No, we don't have flyable four engine heavies, but this sim was not designed for such things.

Are all the flight models perfect? Nope, but again, I have yet to see the perfect sim. Is it finished? I think it is. Time has definitely caught up with the IL2 game engine. I hope that the Storm of War series will show improvements in flight models, number of aircraft in the skies, variety of flyable aircraft, better offline dynamic campaigns and expanded theaters and larger maps.

Badsight-
05-26-2007, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
What's your opinion? apologists really suck

their opinion of the good or the bad is meaningless , they just want to read a nice happy forum

Crash_Moses
05-26-2007, 07:25 AM
Come to think of it, my PBJ could use a cannon. But other than that...

MEGILE
05-26-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:


Nice video.

A few questions:

1. Why DB7s rather than Bostons?
2. Are the trees and hedges still flat planes rather than 3D? That's the main immersion killer for me when playing infantry.
3. The problem with the campaigns is that it too often tends to be too much of a disorganised quake-like affair - not enough big, bold, planned movements.

1 - I think the DB7 is the variant the FaF used. I'm not 100% sure.
2 - Mostly flat IIRC... been a while since I played
3 - It is hard to coordinate 100s of people naturally.
But I believe squads do a pretty good job of organising attacks when they want to.
It did used to annoy me when no one seemed to want to coordinate an attack.. but when they do happen, they go pretty damn big.

TBH I'm not the right person to ask about that.. because I never got into a WW2OL squad... I don't know any friends who play it.. so I just usually go with the flow when I play.

tigertalon
05-26-2007, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
Ahem. Mslama, do you not agree that the WTFPWN abilities of the IL-2 is distictly incongrous with the OMGBBQ capability of the Mosquito, since the latter is not equipped with the JP-233 FFS-HAX! weapon, which the latter was historically fitted with on all operational squadrons numbered 23 through 351 in the RAF.

I may have charts, somewhere.

My sources and web-fu are so reliable that any form of disagreement with my findings will be derided as laughably incorrect. Furthermore, the game must be considered unplayable until OLEG comes round to my house and fixes everything.*

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

msalama
05-26-2007, 08:10 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif @ Deadmeat

msalama
05-26-2007, 08:15 AM
apologists really suck

And what exactly makes me one in your opinion?


their opinion of the good or the bad is meaningless, they just want to read a nice happy forum

Credit where credit's due, that's all. As I said I think this is a great ground attack sim, and expressed my views accordingly. Feel free to disagree, though, and thus help in making this forum a little less nice and happy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
05-26-2007, 08:41 AM
1 - I think the DB7 is the variant the FaF used. I'm not 100% sure.

It was - maybe I was confused by the intro saying "617 squadron" so I assumed it would be RAF.


2 - Mostly flat IIRC... been a while since I played3

If better graphics (H&D2 or ARMA) could be combined with the WW2OL concept, plus more buildings that can be used by ground troops it would help WW2OL a lot.


- It is hard to coordinate 100s of people naturally.

Of course. This is where all the systems fall down. I think a more hierachical system (ok, there are ranks, but I am not sure it totally works) with someone playing at the strategic level (think BoB II) and then automatic generation of missions below it which you have to spawn into, with squadron leaders being able to select a mission for their whole squadron to be filled exclusively might be better. It's always a problem as you say.[/quote]


TBH I'm not the right person to ask about that.. because I never got into a WW2OL squad...

Neither did I. I was on the beta test team, though, so maybe I bear some responsibility for its flaws! Haven't played it in years, though.

MEGILE
05-26-2007, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:


Neither did I. I was on the beta test team, though, so maybe I bear some responsibility for its flaws! Haven't played it in years, though.

Ahhh some of the features may have changed since you last played then.

The game isn't quite a FFA as I think you imagine.

Allied and Axis leaders are able to play Attack Points, and Defend points (2 each I believe) on towns on the front lines.
Further, you can only take flags in those assigned towns.... so despite the fact youa re -playing over Europe.. the action focus around a handful of specific areas at a time.

Not counting the strategic bombing offensives though... you can go bomb British Factories anytime you feel like, and vice versa for german factories.

I_KG100_Prien
05-26-2007, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is the scaling which KILLS immersion for me...in WW2OL buildings in particular, and trees, and roads are sized well and as such is pretty dang immersive.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op3Q3nDNqAY&mode=related&search=This video demonstrates what Im talkin about

Nice video.

A few questions:

1. Why DB7s rather than Bostons?
2. Are the trees and hedges still flat planes rather than 3D? That's the main immersion killer for me when playing infantry.
3. The problem with the campaigns is that it too often tends to be too much of a disorganised quake-like affair - not enough big, bold, planned movements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I played in a squad for awhile, and when a big operation involving several different squads happen it's a well coordinated affair, and when you catch defenders off guard it can be quick and decisive. It was awesome rolling towards a town with tanks and towed artillery, setting up outside the town, waiting till dawn and ATTACK!.

Really impressive to see tanks and infantry working in support of each other.. Aircraft in the sky providing support, and it all being coordinated.

I miss that game, but don't feel like paying the monthly fee to play right now.

BfHeFwMe
05-26-2007, 10:12 AM
visibility issues are a bit poor, 6DOF and the new stuff in SoW may fix that, but the main disappointment is with the in built continuity and campaigns. You hit a bridge and there's not much value, slam a factory with no effect.

Actually the third party guys who've done the most in attempts to fix this, truly sad.

Aaron_GT
05-26-2007, 10:29 AM
Sounds like some of the strategic stuff in WW2OL has been adressed which is good. What would be nice would be pay-per-play rather than a monthly fee. I might play once a month at most so the monthly fee is too much for that.

msalama
05-26-2007, 10:37 AM
You hit a bridge and there's not much value, slam a factory with no effect.

Yep, that's true. Still like the ground-pounding stuff however http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Wouldn't hurt to have some strategic built-in content in this sim though, you're right about that...

Aaron_GT
05-27-2007, 02:03 AM
The question is how much strategic content, and in what sense. If it is like CFS3 where you can be a hero and turn the tide of the war with a single mission against a generic ammo dump it would be a bit silly!

Some of the online wars work pretty well with mission generation, and so on, but you have to be 'on your honour' not to mess up a mission just to spite the side for which you are playing.

In terms of offline play, though, it would be nice for the mission generation to be a bit more like DCG and even more than that - i.e. more life of the battlefield and in the air if you roam around a bit, although it should be at realistic WW2 troop densitites. I suppose the thing that has limited this is the ability of just one PC to control everything and still run flight dynamics. Maybe we'll have to wait for our quantum computers!

msalama
05-27-2007, 04:09 AM
The question is how much strategic content, and in what sense. If it is like CFS3 where you can be a hero and turn the tide of the war with a single mission against a generic ammo dump it would be a bit silly!

Ummm... well definitely not in that sense IMO. But how about something simple like a possibility of defining a target area and its type so that attacking, say, a factory area would give you points on buildings destroyed too?

MEGILE
05-27-2007, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
What would be nice would be pay-per-play rather than a monthly fee.

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

I gave up to for the moment.. I may go back when new features have been added to try them out, like I did when Paratroopers were included

Hoatee
05-27-2007, 05:09 AM
With this WWII online discussion going on, I might as well add a few more points of criticism.

First, 'Allied and Axis leaders are able to play Attack Points, and Defend points (2 each I believe) on towns on the front lines. Further, you can only take flags in those assigned towns.... so despite the fact you are playing over Europe.. the action focus around a handful of specific areas at a time.' That's definitely an improvement imo.

Second, the ranking system : Has that been changed or explained even? Are there any clear definite rules yet as to how many points you score for downing a bandit, in order to gain promotion in rank so as to be able to lay your hands on that Me109E4/SpitfireMk1 that you always wanted to fly?

Thirdly, banning policy is severe. Last time I played, I had just signed up for a year and was banned after playing for just a month - without any refund of my sub fee (that's a loss of 11 month's playing!). That's what I call robbery. There are some very vindictive people within the WWIIonline community.....A couple of years after the fact and I am STILL banned.

Fourthly, (related to the last), somehow a second annual subscription fee was deducted from my credit card (and which I did not authorize) soon after I was banned. Fortunately, I was able to have that fee refunded.

Fifthly, you have to 'pay to say' on WWIIonline forums. And there are rules against denigrating the game on the GMX forums, which leaves only this forum to voice my ire.

There appears to be a breach of trust on both sides - I don't trust them anymore and they don't seem to trust me....

MEGILE
05-27-2007, 05:16 AM
I don't think the points system for ranks has become any clearer. And on that thread, i hate it when I down an EA, to RTB and find 0 kills in the list.

About the banning... I have no idea, I was never banned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have heard about the WW2OL forums, and that no criticism is allowed... but I've never seen this in action so I don't know either.
I wouldn't be surprised however if the forums had their fair share of fanboys, as every sim doesn.