I apologize, I shouldn't have reacted to what was an obvious troll.

To get the thread back where it was, I found this quote very well voicing what I tried to say a page previous.



It would be great if v6 of Pat's offline campaign does feature the Camel in more of a ground attack role (as a "bomber" ;-). Contrary to the FM and GFX, this is a part where RoF could take a slice out of FE2 in the way the ground war dynamically reacts to airborne attacks, where each successive mission changes when ground units are either hit or successfully defended by friendly air.

That, coupled with a Photo Recon and Arty Obs "module", would allow to really influence the ground battle. It doesn't have to be fully ahistorical development either ("Germans push British into the Sea"), but minor derivations in the frontline (for example in the 1918 spring push) could result from player actions and give actually the feeling that there's a war going on with an actual objective. Which in turn would provide an incentive for flying the large bombers and the twin seaters.

No worries Colonel.

If I may make a leap of logic, the success of incorporating more aircraft that do not directly involve dog-fighting would involve a BIG increase in the ground element: targets, both moving and stationary. Charging masses of tga men over-the-top would be very cool!

Since even getting windsocks at the airfields is a challenge, then I suspect it will be up to the 3rd party community to make this happen. I may be misinterpreting the general state of things, but since the SDK hasn't transpired yet...

Speaking of more ground targets: It would then also be nice to have the aerodromes populated with parked AC (I can't quite believe they would all have been in a tent all the time when not flying)?

A heap of ground targets to hit, with an influence on the next generated missions, is exactly what would make this game truly multi-dimensional.

Agree about the parked A/C. They shouldn't have to be flyable, so polycount etc. could be reduced since they are simply targets.

Not sure if you meant this, but hitting targets in one mission, then STILL seeing them hit in the next mission would be very, very cool for multi-dimensional aspect OVER TIME, i.e. bridges still out, pockmarked airfield, burned-out wrecks etc. I know, I know, a big resource hog, but oh to dream of where this could go!

What you mean is "Persistent Damage" and it might be nice, but is indeed quite a resource drain. Although for objects like Bridges, Trainstations and so on, in theory doable (the game needs to store an ID of each destroyed object and "destroys" the object at the loading of the next mission when the map is generated).

What I mean is (yeah, I know, another FE2 reference...): When you hit the parked AC of a Dr1 Squadron, they might be ineffective the next day and day after. You might see no or less patrol activity by that squadron. When you hit a ground troop (could be represented by tanks, lorrys, maybe even groups of soldiers) then your side might be able to push the frontline a little. Or at least, if the game doesn't want to deal with a moving frontline, it would mean that you're tasked to somewhere entirely different the next day - or have to go back to the same place.

All this is fairly standard as far as dynamic mission generation goes. I'm not talking of a "one pilot wins the war" style campaign, or a "continous time" dynamic campaign, just that the mission generator will change variables on follow-up missions depending how you did in the previous ones.

In FE2, this is all modelled. Shoot down many of a certain enemy squadron, you might not seem them for a week. Kill ground targets, then your side will be able to hold their trenches more easily. Even supply and storage areas are modelled, influencing readyness of certain units when hit. IL-2 introduced a similar system in Forgotten Battles, it wasn't the best, but it worked.

RoF is a damn fine flying and fighting experience, but after most missions I never feel I'm getting the "big picture". And especially with bombers and two-seaters, it matters a lot to feel that there's an actual war going on which you are a part of.

When I was a kid my father shared with me his love of old aeroplanes and he built what were then stick and tissue models of WWI planes, when we went to the Hobby Shop there were many types to choose from and either were intended as rubberband power or very small "thimbledrome" engines. Most of the types offered I'm sure many of you could name off easily, From Thomas-Morse Scout to the Fok.DVIII, DH9's and Curtiss Jenny's. Your average person with any knowledge of WWI in the air would most likely not recognise any of the many rare types we would like to see and to expect 777 to reproduce all of them is unfair but a nice sampling of what was well known would be nice and especially some of the 2 seaters. That coupled with a campaign system and this sim will truly rock.

I've been reading Peter Harts WW1 history books lately. He does a good job of tying what's happening in the air with the ground action, the aerial stuff is always driven by the ground situation. Till mid 1918 all aerial activity is to support the troops on the ground directly. Scouts only exist to protect army corps arty ranging and recon aircraft.

He talks a lot about flyers seeing the Battle raging below them, observing specific events, changing the course of the battle on occasion mostly with artillery ranging or attacking strongpoints that were holding up the infantry. That's what's missing from ROF, and other sims as well to be fair. I want to be able to see those battles taking place beneath my plane and feel that I'm involved with a larger conflict.

+1

Hi, sorry to exhume this thread. there been any update on what the next aircraft will be after the gotha?

i'd like to see the bristol fighter at some point.

That looks like a flying aircraft hangar! An airborne aircraft carrier! That looks strangely familiar, did it exist in reality anywhere? That thing is cool.