PDA

View Full Version : Ground Targets in BoB - Looking at F4 Campaign



Recon_609IAP
09-21-2005, 06:02 AM
A squadmember of mine wrote this about the difference between the IL2 and the F4 campaign setup:

"The biggest difference of F4AF campaign and IL2 dynamic campaign (or DCG €" does not matter) is that whole set of army units is present in the simulation simultaneously! Whether you are in strategic mode €" looking at campaign map or flying your mission €" does not matter! All these tanks, infantry, artillery , planes, SAMs, ships €" everything is right there where you are! This is I think fundamental difference. IL2 campaign engine €˜simulates€ presence of all these troops on the map. But you cannot see all of them when you are flying. Also you can only encounter so many planes/flights. And because all this stuff €˜lives€ in F4AF campaign world it really feels like war. Enemy could surround some of your army divisions. Your command will try to help the siege, enemy will try to reinforce their forces in the area. It really feels cool. "

This is very very excellent - and a call for immersion which this would bring. I would love to see this in BoB engine.

Recon_609IAP
09-21-2005, 06:02 AM
A squadmember of mine wrote this about the difference between the IL2 and the F4 campaign setup:

"The biggest difference of F4AF campaign and IL2 dynamic campaign (or DCG €" does not matter) is that whole set of army units is present in the simulation simultaneously! Whether you are in strategic mode €" looking at campaign map or flying your mission €" does not matter! All these tanks, infantry, artillery , planes, SAMs, ships €" everything is right there where you are! This is I think fundamental difference. IL2 campaign engine €˜simulates€ presence of all these troops on the map. But you cannot see all of them when you are flying. Also you can only encounter so many planes/flights. And because all this stuff €˜lives€ in F4AF campaign world it really feels like war. Enemy could surround some of your army divisions. Your command will try to help the siege, enemy will try to reinforce their forces in the area. It really feels cool. "

This is very very excellent - and a call for immersion which this would bring. I would love to see this in BoB engine.

csThor
09-21-2005, 08:48 AM
Sure ... as long as you have a real pilot personality attached to a squadron without the ability to jump to every mission you like. That's gamey in my eyes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Recon_609IAP
09-22-2005, 09:24 PM
Good point. I could see some liking both - would be a good option http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hobnail
09-22-2005, 10:39 PM
Hmm...it would be good yes.

But the Battle of Britain is reasonably unique (in terms of combat in the age of flight) in that there was little or no tactical dimension to the ground war and little more of it at sea. These were better understood as strategic considerations operating around assets supporting the tactical aspect of the battle, the airwar above SE England.

In other words, if I was a hard pressed developer trying to get my product out, I don't simulate the handling characteristics of the flag on the flagpole just as I might not develop a fully working, breathing, living few thousand sq km of land and sea units tied into a logistics network if the scenario doesn't call for it.

Just a thought, although I hope that the planned commercial longevity of the next "engine" ensures such a campaign engine is included.

stubby
09-23-2005, 09:29 AM
BOB engine for BOB should probably model it's dynamic campaign system to that used by BOB:WOV. Mainly focusing on shipping, industry assets, delivery of fresh planes and pilots, moral, political overtones of protecting airfields and factories instead of civilian areas, etc..

BOB engine for BOB other theaters like Western Front, African Front, PTO, or Eastern Front, would be best served to use the F4 model with extreme flexibility to allow low end machines to scale down the ground war densities to ensure optimal playability. It would use many of the attributes of the BOB war system but many added dimensions of air/land/sea war that really didn't apply to BOB from July - October 1940.

NAFP_supah
09-25-2005, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hobnail:
Hmm...it would be good yes.

But the Battle of Britain is reasonably unique (in terms of combat in the age of flight) in that there was little or no tactical dimension to the ground war and little more of it at sea. These were better understood as strategic considerations operating around assets supporting the tactical aspect of the battle, the airwar above SE England.

In other words, if I was a hard pressed developer trying to get my product out, I don't simulate the handling characteristics of the flag on the flagpole just as I might not develop a fully working, breathing, living few thousand sq km of land and sea units tied into a logistics network if the scenario doesn't call for it.

Just a thought, although I hope that the planned commercial longevity of the next "engine" ensures such a campaign engine is included. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing how BoB will be the basis for further expansion, also to area's where tactical ground support work was very important, I think it is better to get the campaign engine right from the beginning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IVJG51_Swine
10-01-2005, 07:43 AM
I agree Recon, 100 percent!!