Keep new aircraft out of the patch?

[willgamer]

Almost every poster wants the change to differentiate aircraft. [:)]

The devil, as usual, is in the details. [8|]

As these details are debated, please move that change to a later patch. [:-]

The patch lists fixes, events, AI, interface, map OOB, and other improvements that I'm turning blue waiting for. [X(]

I'm afraid that trying to include changes to aircraft types, including all its downstream effects, is a bridge too far ([:D]) for the first major patch.

Please test and issue the patch without the aircraft changes. [&o]

[borsook79]

ToW is far from perfect as far as its design goes. I do not agree that devs should be this conservative about it, if there is a chance to improve the game do it. One such change per patch (and that's the only major "addition" in this one) is a safe pace.

[Uxbridge]

Yes, go for the fighters. I like to try this game now. Not wait another two months. [:)]

[Anraz]

The die has been cast and now we  can only move onwards to the patch which is almost forged and will be sent to the betas in a few days.

[JFalk68]

Not that my vote counts much, but I want fighters and tactical bombers in now also

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

I'm afraid that trying to include changes to aircraft types, including all its downstream effects, is a bridge too far ([:D]) for the first major patch.

Please test and issue the patch without the aircraft changes. [&o]

I agree! I fear that we're making a major error here. As Chocolino has pointed out, the scale of the game precludes the kind of differentiation that we are talking about making by dividing air units into bombers, fighters and TAC units. An attack by an Air Fleet, or even an air division entailed a number of different aircraft types, all operating as a combined force. It no more was a homogenous group, segregated by combat role, than a panzer division was 400 Mark V tanks.

Would someone please tell me if a p-47 is an interceptor or a ground attack aircraft? I bet Gabby Gabryszewski would tell you that you're full of s*#t. What about P-38's? Fighter or TAC? Dick Bong wouldn't agree with you. How about the Me-262? It was designed as a light bomber! We're really missing a bet here.

The correct solution to this problem is to do the sasme thing that we did with both land units and naval units. We've differentiated between motorised and leg units -- they have more or less movement points. Naval units are battle units or patrol units or carriers. We dont even bother to differentiate between an 11 inch gun pocket battleship and a 6 inch light cruiser. We need to concentrate on the real differences in aircraft types.

The differences in aircraft units are how they are used and their ranges. We should have strategic bombers, medium bombers and fighter/bombers. You wouldnt allow a unit such as Kampfgeschwader 51 with its Ju-88's to fly an air superiority mission, but you could certainly task the US 56th Fighter Group to beat up an air field or escort a B-24 raid.

So we should do just that. Give bomber units a parenthisized (8) combat factor. This would be a defensive value if attacked, and also it's ground attack value. Non-parenthisized values (fighter bombers) could attack other aircraft, and perform ground attack missions at 25% of its interceptor strength.

And if you really have to make a change, let's change something really important! As Uxbridge has pointed out, the real difference in aircraft was operational range. As I suggested months ago, we should have each tech level aircraft have additional range. That was the real, operational difference in aircraft types. Each succeeding generation of piston powered aircraft had longer legs (operational ranges.) The US AAC waited for over a year for the P-51 before they could succesfully strike deep into Germany. And they werent waiting because it was tactically superior to the P-47. They were waiting because the P-47 didnt have the range to fly long range escort missions.

We havent done ANY testing on these ideas. When did we start doing BETA teasting on the released game? We have no idea what the long range effect on the game will be. Is this such a big problem that we have to shove it out the door to be tested by the community?

And here's something else that no one else has mentioned. THE PLAYER CANT CHOOSE WHICH AIR UNIT PERFORMS WHICH ATTACK!!! We're going to make this niggling changes that really dont signify any real world differences, but the Computer is still going to decide which one of your bombers is going to do your ground support mission! There's something to fix if you really have to fix something! How is the machine going to decide if your ground attack misssion is going to be tasked to your JU-87 group or the JU-88 level bombers?

If we're going to do this kind of shot in the dark modification of basic code, WE HAVE TO PUT A VERSION NUMBER ON THE TITLE SCREEN! We're going to end up with a completely confused hodge-podge.

Would someone please tell me if a p-47 is an interceptor or a ground attack aircraft?

[Champagne]

We've got to trust the Game Developers here. We've got to trust Doomie and Crew to get it right.

[SeaMonkey]

[left]Wastelands needs to push this design to the max, its their Alpha for "Bitter Glory", ToW is the test bed.  Let them experiment, be supportive, and eventually we'll all get a truly well thought out game engine in the form of BG [8D].[/left]

[JFalk68]

Michael the Pole, I believe the range of aircraft is going to be based on tech level

[RandomAttack]

I agree with Willgamer.  Bottom line is don't risk breaking the existing game to add all these "features" that are probably important to only a small subsection of the intended audience.  There are some vocal and informed people here, but there are a lot of the "unwashed masses" out there (I count myself) who would like to see the original game fixed prior to it morphing into a testbed for good ideas.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

[left]Wastelands needs to push this design to the max, its their Alpha for "Bitter Glory", ToW is the test bed.  Let them experiment, be supportive, and eventually we'll all get a truly well thought out game engine in the form of BG [8D].[/left]

Really! [:@]

I had no idea I was just paying to be a Alpha tester for another game. [8|]

Bitter Glory, indeed...[:(]

[Anraz]

 

ORIGINAL:  Michael the Pole   And here's something else that no one else has mentioned.  THE PLAYER CANT CHOOSE WHICH AIR UNIT PERFORMS WHICH ATTACK!!!

A player can choose a air unit and a target. You miss one of the most important changes in the following patch. Anyway you could just sent a PM to me and I would explain it to you...

[doomtrader]

Guys,
for your information
Bitter Glory and ToW are completly different entities.
BG has been made solely by us since the first design page.
ToW engine has been first serviced and later licensed by us.

[Anraz]

OK let me add two cents and therefore clarify some things.


ToW differs from Bitter Glory in many aspects. Starting the first is a casual strategy and the second is “ the ultimate ww2 sim”.... so BG is much more complicated then ToW. It has stacking, roads, detailed logistic system, roads, command structure, ships, planes, tanks  designing,  various resources, diversed industry, sets of doctrines and country specific settings, units described in dozens of parameters, dynamic weather system, animated models... and more. Notice I have written “it HAS”! Also I could enumerate technical differences like DirectX in ToW versus OpenGL in BG, but they are less interesting for players.
(Anyone can click in the link in my signature and read some more information).

The paradox of the situation is that form my point of view BG HAS many obvious things , which,  giving nature of the code of the ww2 engine are impossible to add even in the patch.

As I said ToW was just a casual strategy ready to compete with such games as SC or CEAW. Obviously it is improved according to the voice of community and till today I thought  it is a good thing...

So if SeaMonkey writes the ToW is a test bed for BG I can only say wittily that indeed it is in the same degree as sewing up a flesh wound during surgery on heart

[Michael the Pole]

AMEN![&o]

[SeaMonkey]

Double Amen! And make sure that all the surgical instruments are accounted for before closing the wound.[:)]

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: willgamer

I'm afraid that trying to include changes to aircraft types, including all its downstream effects, is a bridge too far ([:D]) for the first major patch.

Please test and issue the patch without the aircraft changes. [&o]

I agree! I fear that we're making a major error here. As Chocolino has pointed out, the scale of the game precludes the kind of differentiation that we are talking about making by dividing air units into bombers, fighters and TAC units. An attack by an Air Fleet, or even an air division entailed a number of different aircraft types, all operating as a combined force. It no more was a homogenous group, segregated by combat role, than a panzer division was 400 Mark V tanks.

Would someone please tell me if a p-47 is an interceptor or a ground attack aircraft? I bet Gabby Gabryszewski would tell you that you're full of s*#t. What about P-38's? Fighter or TAC? Dick Bong wouldn't agree with you. How about the Me-262? It was designed as a light bomber! We're really missing a bet here.

This kind of game is always a bit abstract. And it is not that air units were homogeneous, one assume different proportion of aircraft types, and different priorities given to each unit represented as different "kinds" of units within the game. And Me-262 was meant to be a fighter, was a fighter it was another of Hitler's brilliant own ideas to try and make a bomber out of the design...

[Anraz]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

And make sure that all the surgical instruments are accounted for before closing the wound.[:)]

We will