Is this game going to be approachable to the casual simmer or is it hard core only?

Will most certainly be both.

Being fun for newcomers (and old timers too) is the reason why I made this proposal at the ubi forums:

Hi!

I have a small suggestion for multiplayer that may sound a bit silly at first, but all of us that played multiplayer in the old game F29 Retaliator by DID will know it was a lot of fun... It may be that nostalgia is playing tricks with me but hear the propopsal out before calling me nuts

F29 Retaliator was released by Ocean in 1989 and was developed by DID (they later did EF2000 and F22 TAW that where better remembered for good reasons). F29 was not much of a sim but the graphics where rather nice back in 1989 and it was extremely fast even on 286 computers. I had a blisteringly fast 386-33Mhz back then and a friend of mine had a 286 so we hooked up our computers with a serial cable for our first multiplayer sim experience. We sat there for hours in awe about how cool it was to play against each other and not the computer AI...

The multiplayer "Head to Head" mode was really fun and fast paced, and I have not seen it since. This is how it was played:

You started in one end of a rather small square map and immediately got an order on your HUD to attack a target like "Bridge at C7". Both player got the SAME taget. If you got it first you got a point for it. If you hit the wrong target the opponent got a point. You could naturally shoot down the opponent too but you got no points for that. However, you only had five planes so getting shot down to many times was a way to lose the game. The major drawback was that you had to restart on the ground at your base while the opponent was up there chasing the next juicy ground target for a point... If you where approaching that bridge and saw that the other player was closer to it than you and on his way destroying it, it was naturally a good thing to switch to AMRAAM's Dogfights happended quite often but getting the ground targets was always top priority. After a target was eliminated another random target popped up on both your HUD's so it was maybe wise to get to the east if the target was far west and your enemy would get it anyway. After the last target was blown up you got a nice bonus if you where the first player to land (or beeing the last survivor). Like I said, it was REALLY fun, and in no way realistic

My proposal is to include a "just for fun"-mode like this in BoB. Make a small square map with a lot of ground targets. Make the server pop up a message about the next target and let the teams duel it out. Maybe set the end of game to ten targets or so (configurable) and then everyone hurry back to land for a bonus...

Pros:
* It is actually really fun even with just two players (make the map small!). With just 6 players or so I guess it will be VERY fun. That is seldom the case on todays online servers.
* Complete focus on team play - no way to win as a lone wolf in an über fighter!
* High tempo and concentrated fights with just one target at a time.
* Interesting tactical choices to be made for succesful team play. Should 2 bombers and two fighters be used or maybe all out fast fighter bombers? Few chances of hitting the target but high speed and manouverability. Some targets naturally needs the heavy guys... How to use the fighters? Etc...
* No points for fighter jocks should actually bring a more realistic focus on the game play - get the bombers to the target or lose! Still the fighters will be essential to win, just like IRL.
* Rewarding for good pilots. I guess the good ones will really be able to shine in this mode as you can never be lucky and just soar high above the battle and boom and zoom planes low on ammo on their way back to the base... Good bomber pilots will be worth their weight in gold and we will not see the online servers filled with trigger happy LA-7 pilots (and absolutely not in BoB )
* I guess rookie pilots will like it too, as it's rather easy to understand what the objective is and you may still be able to do something good and feel that you contributed to the win. It's the team that wins and not the solo aces...

Cons:
* In no way realistic (but what the heck, it's for fun!)
* Trouble may arise with odd number of players, especially if there are few players (like 3!). A way to eliminate this in an interesting way is if the AA guns are mannable. If you join a server as an odd player you will automatically man an AA gun close to the next target. The boring thing about beeing AA gunner is that there may not be any enemy planes coming your way. Not in this case! After the target is eliminated the AA gunner will be moved to the next... It could actually be some people that likes this a lot - so why not add the AA team as a third team to players that likes the Quad 20mm:s


What do you think? Any old serial cable guys that remember how fun it was? It should be easy to implement with some server side hacks so I guess it's rather easy to add it to the old IL2 engine too...

/Mazex

That sounds like a pretty cool mode actually.
Might draw the FPS crowd in for a bit of fun.

I'm all for anything like this.

Flight sims need to appeal outside the hardcore sim crowd.

Free Flight mode just stooging around England, maybe pop over the Channel and back, nice day out with tea and scones at Croydon International Passenger Lounge (small shed smelling of creosote with insane old woman pouring tea and small dog licking its er, lips) with the sun going down west of London

Without any artificial aids like icons and SATNAV I mean. Eyeball, compass and airspeed only - following railway lines and rivers.

How juicy does that sound forget combat

Ming

When one is following railway lines and rivers, compass and airspeed are unneccesary factors (okay, the latter must be maintained above stall speed).

I doubt one would look down and say "Oh, it's Big Ben! I must be doing 170 mph! Which means, naturally, that I'm on a course of 46 degrees. Put those together, and I'm over London! Hurray!"

Likewise, if the "realism" crowd elbows their way in too far, you'd be pestered with chatter and radar headings and Winston begging to know where to post squadrons.

When one is following railway lines and rivers, compass and airspeed are unneccesary factors

As long as you're following them in the right direction?

You have clouds and mist, rain and snow in America do you mate?

I doubt one would look down and say "Oh, it's Big Ben! I must be doing 170 mph! Which means, naturally, that I'm on a course of 46 degrees. Put those together, and I'm over London! Hurray!"

Now now Dart we're all free to enjoy the sim as we will mate no need to take the mickey that sounds quite reasonable to me but then I can see Big Ben from where I am

And you were over Chelsea anyway which isn't quite London it's more Moscow.

if the "realism" crowd elbows their way in too far

What's he on about anyone? Who are these people? We only asked for a compass and a windsock

Ming

Oh, Ming, us old Artillery folks only need to know where the sun is and the time on an analog clock to know which way to the top of the world.

Plus, Great Britain, IIRC, is an island.

I'll land nav it just like I did when driving around Puerto Rico - if you see nothing but water in front of you, drive away from it. Continuing forward has little advantage.



Home court advantage. If one runs out of fuel, put her down on Farmer Smith's field.

If the weather is incliment, ask to stay the night. In the barn.

And hope the daughter is overmodeled.

id like to see
civilians walkin, drivin....
bird strikes, low level will never be the same
telephone/power lines

telephone/power lines

Must have yes please good point...

Great Britain, IIRC, is an island

Biggest carrier in Europe

British Isles we are Dart so many carriers they can't bomb them all is the idea. Mind you the Channel Islands are out for holidays this year. And France, Belgium. 1939 was a really bad time for caravanners. Bird spotters fared better "It got sucked into a propeller at 30ft I'm putting that down as a European swallow"

need to know where the sun is and the time on an analog clock

In the dark

You USA chaps and your insistence on daylight bombing so that's what it's all about. Over here we use the lodestone and moss on the trees hence the twigs in the undercarriage

Ming

The casual simmers, as with Il-2/PF, will certainly be pushed away by the dedicated community who thinks that if you don't fly with full real/highest difficulty everything you may as well just go play "Quake" (a very popular comment) while swearing "it's a sim, not a game". NOT. It's a game, just a different genre. I guess they have some sort of psychological aversion to the notion that THEY PLAY GAMES. :rolleyes:

I'm the semi-casual flyer. I want a full FM/DM/weapons modeling. I don't want to use complex engine management. I want labels. I want the ability to use external views or turn off the cockpit (since the "real" cockpit views are 100% too restrictive compared to the real thing). I want AI that plays by the same rules I do, not given cheats so that it's "challenging".
If the AI can't be competitive with a seasoned player, make those settings reflect that. Instead of "ace" or "realistic" for the highest level (which cheat like a thug in poker) call it "extra difficult", which is accurate. Make "real" a mid-range setting where you need not worry about a plane you're chasing going into a vertical climb, slamming on the brakes and dropping to 10 kts, then turning away and outaccelerating you in 5 seconds when their plane is a 1939 model and yours is a 1944 that should be able to wipe the floor with them with only minimal effort. Zeros are nigh on unbeatable thanks to the fact that they can boom and zoom YOU in your P-38!

In short, I want the options to do things the way I want without worrying about how to beat the AI's cheats (ie "gaming the game") so I can use REAL tactics. I don't care if plane X can't climb to XYZ in however many minutes, I care if plane X is faster but less maneuverable compared to plane Y as THAT is what determines the nature of combat, not flight test points!


The Jedi Master

In my opinion appealing to a "casual gamer" is rather easy speaking of simplistic settings. Keeping those shouldn't be hard. Appealing to a hardcore simulation community is way harder.

Jedi, You allready have all that in IL-2. So whay won´t it be in BoB?
Well, except the fair playing AI FM of course, hehe.

But, if we have to admit it´s a game...(never )
Why can´t you call the level of dificulty that´s reasonable for you: "medium" ?

What´s in a name anyway

The blanket settings never work.

I don't want the FM or weapons dumbed down. I want the AI smart, but not cheating and called "realistic." I just don't want that all to mean I can't have labels or external views or blah blah blah. I want SOME things real, but as people disagree about what else is exactly "real" I don't think that should be foisted upon us. I don't think that should be called "medium."
I think turning off external views or the no cockpit view is UNrealistic. Many others agree, while yet others disagree.

Also, too many sims trying to get it done for the hard crowd don't do their homework for the beginner crowd. Serious bugs or failure to be fun often mar their experience.


The Jedi Master

Yes Jedi Master I agree. I was one of the padlock = realitic option crowd.

But that is why they´re called dificulty options, Not realism options, I belive.

Anyway, yes, by all means, the casual gamer should be adresed too, in order to gain new memebers for the genere.