Vaxxtx Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Il-2 was great if you're a real WW2 aircraft anorak with its endless list of planes and technical details, but did it really capture the heart and soul of any one particular campaign? No I don't believe it did. It was more of a one-stop shop for aircraft nuts with largely similar missions and scenery across the board. I just wanted to comment on this one part. I am very confused with how you can say 46 did not "capture the heart and souls of one particular campaign" and "largely similar missions and scenery". Thats just totally untrue. To start with, you have a pilot, historic squadrons, historic skins, as well as stats for all those squads. Its very immersive. Just 3 examples of vastly different scenery, and very good campaigns in detail. From dynamic to historical and static. http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,41494.0.html http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,42192.0.html http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,41443.0.html Or just look at missions4today for hundreds of campaigns from snowy East front, Summer Westfront, blue water Pacific Islands to dusty Afkrika, Just saying. I have NO problem with BoS keeping focus on one part of the East, but I wish it was done (or will be done) in a more immersive way, and not the souless generic way its portrayed now.
PantsPilot Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Or perhaps you could cut out the pointless ad hominem comments? Not whilst I live in a democracy where there is freedom of speech and I'm not saying anything inflammatory.
unreasonable Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 If it's not coming from the developers then you really don't have to give it a lot of weight. You missed the important part of that line: "That is why the "wait and all will be OK" line is unconvincing, and in all fairness, not forthcoming from the developers." I do not give it a lot of weight, I am just tired of seeing it trotted out by forumites as a catch-all answer whenever someone mentions shortcomings in the game. 1
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Not whilst I live in a democracy where there is freedom of speech and I'm not saying anything inflammatory. I can tell you from personal experience that doesn't always count.
BraveSirRobin Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 You missed the important part of that line: "That is why the "wait and all will be OK" line is unconvincing, and in all fairness, not forthcoming from the developers." I do not give it a lot of weight, I am just tired of seeing it trotted out by forumites as a catch-all answer whenever someone mentions shortcomings in the game. What do expect people to say, that we're all doomed? Of course people hope everything they want will eventually be added.
PantsPilot Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 I just wanted to comment on this one part. I am very confused with how you can say 46 did not "capture the heart and souls of one particular campaign" and "largely similar missions and scenery". Thats just totally untrue. To start with, you have a pilot, historic squadrons, historic skins, as well as stats for all those squads. Its very immersive. Just 3 examples of vastly different scenery, and very good campaigns in detail. From dynamic to historical and static. http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,41494.0.html http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,42192.0.html http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,41443.0.html Or just look at missions4today for hundreds of campaigns from snowy East front, Summer Westfront, blue water Pacific Islands to dusty Afkrika, Just saying. I have NO problem with BoS keeping focus on one part of the East, but I wish it was done (or will be done) in a more immersive way, and not the souless generic way its portrayed now. Just my opinion, because I felt il-1946 was a "jack of all trades and master of none", because I thought it tried to cover TOO much without the real in-depth analysis of any one campaign. Like I said just my opinion. In BOS the whole game is geared up to just one place and immersion is hence total. In the end il-1946 was possibly a victim of its own success and I reckon had it carried on intergalactic space combat was only a matter of time away!!
Zak Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 I'd like to warn you against discussing moderation publically in this thread (or in any other). If you wish to complain pelase do it in a proper way by telling me about that.
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 In BOS the whole game is geared up to just one place and immersion is hence total Except for the lack of some key aircraft and addition of some not so key aircraft, the lack of the ground war which is what Stalingrad really was....maybe
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) Are you quoting yourself? Really? What are you quoting? Edit: Oh that........so I didn't want to type it all out again.......why would I? I just repeated a valid point I made considering it was practically a prediction of what actually is happening. Edited November 14, 2014 by DD_bongodriver
Vaxxtx Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Just my opinion, because I felt il-1946 was a "jack of all trades and master of none", because I thought it tried to cover TOO much without the real in-depth analysis of any one campaign. Like I said just my opinion. In BOS the whole game is geared up to just one place and immersion is hence total. In the end il-1946 was possibly a victim of its own success and I reckon had it carried on intergalactic space combat was only a matter of time away!! I dont know. I only play LW or USN campaigns, since the begining of IL246 to today. I have had not that issue of thinking jack of all trades since I only play 15% of what is offered in terms of campaigns. But the ones I do play I see them as a mastered campaign that includes a very intimate relation to the particular campaign.
PantsPilot Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Except for the lack of some key aircraft and addition of some not so key aircraft, the lack of the ground war which is what Stalingrad really was....maybe I'm seriously hoping the Bf-110, Ju-52, Ju-88, Yak 7, il 4 etc. will be released at some point as pay-ware. I believe a I-16 has already been developed. Patience grasshopper! Think positive it makes yer feel a lot better.
unreasonable Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Not whilst I live in a democracy where there is freedom of speech and I'm not saying anything inflammatory. The forum is not a democracy, eventually the moderators will no doubt do their thing in this thread, and what you are saying is inflammatory. Ad hominem comments by definition reduce any argument to a barrage of more or less derogatory comments, insinuating bad motives, ignorance or stupidity in your interlocutor rather than addressing the substantive issues. This is all the more absurd in an internet setting where you know next to nothing about the people with whom you are debating. This makes any kind of reasoned debate and any meeting of minds impossible. It is needlessly confrontational and cannot possibly serve any useful purpose. 1
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 I'm seriously hoping the Bf-110, Ju-52, Ju-88, Yak 7, il 4 etc. will be released at some point as pay-ware. I believe a I-16 has already been developed. Patience grasshopper! Think positive it makes yer feel a lot better. it started positive, then I saw plenty of stuff not being addressed and some bad design choices, so I reserve my right to be a bit sceptical.
PantsPilot Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) I dont know. I only play LW or USN campaigns, since the begining of IL246 to today. I have had not that issue of thinking jack of all trades since I only play 15% of what is offered in terms of campaigns. But the ones I do play I see them as a mastered campaign that includes a very intimate relation to the particular campaign. Comes down to we all have our own opinions I guess. I prefer the sole focus on one campaign approach personally - removes the temptation to fly 109's over Gaudalcanal! The forum is not a democracy, eventually the moderators will no doubt do their thing in this thread, and what you are saying is inflammatory. Ad hominem comments by definition reduce any argument to a barrage of more or less derogatory comments, insinuating bad motives, ignorance or stupidity in your interlocutor rather than addressing the substantive issues. This is all the more absurd in an internet setting where you know next to nothing about the people with whom you are debating. This makes any kind of reasoned debate and any meeting of minds impossible. It is needlessly confrontational and cannot possibly serve any useful purpose. Unreasonable by name unreasonable by nature lol. Ever heard of the saying "pot calling the kettle black" chum, or perhaps if there isn't a fight you'll damn well start one!! Now calm down dear. Edited November 14, 2014 by PantsPilot
unreasonable Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 What do expect people to say, that we're all doomed? Of course people hope everything they want will eventually be added. Well we are all doomed in a way, but that aside, there is a big difference between hope and expectation. I hope that all the things I want will be eventually be added, but I expect that some of them will not based on experience and what we have so far been told. So when people say that everything will come, I say maybe, maybe not (with reasons). If I am wrong it will be a pleasant surprise. Hard to see why that should trigger such a response.
PantsPilot Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 says PantsPilot lol I'm starting to see how you got yourself banned now mate!
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 I'm starting to see how you got yourself banned now mate! Oh do tell.
PantsPilot Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) I'm starting to see how you got yourself banned now mate! I did try discussing possible future planes for BOS with you to try and calm you down, but oh no you had to keep inflaming things.......... Edited November 14, 2014 by PantsPilot
[KWN]T-oddball Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Aaagh that screenshot again!! All that says is BOS is from the il-2 developers stable, in other words the team that brought you il-2 1946, nowhere does it say that its going to be a remake of that old classic. COD was from the same stable - was that anything like 1il-2 1946? Of course not. Are you saying that you expected a remake of the original massive game in a fraction of the timespan? Yet surely you knew that wasn't the case many months ago or whenever you came aboard. Bos is from the Rof stables not IL2 (unless Oleg is working with Jason) ok let me clear some things up for you , the original IL2 was in development for 4 years , CLoD was in development for 7 and BoS done in a little over a 18 months...notice I did not say development. I will let Oleg himself explain. Doug: Some people in the flight sim community are concerned about the future and well-being of Storm of War: Battle of Britain claiming it has been in development much longer than they expected, so there must be something wrong. Can you put their mind at ease and say that Storm of War: Battle of Britain’s future is bright, and there is not a reason to be concerned for the project? Oleg: First, a reminder that IL-2 Sturmovik was in development for over 4 years before it was released. Then many years of modifications and adding new features in add-ons followed. Without the right engine design to allow modifications in the beginning of the IL-2 project, we would never have seen the IL-2 series come to life. But keep in mind IL-2 Sturmovik was only one title. The Storm of War series engine and the first product, Storm of War: Battle of Britain is many times more complex than the engine in theIL-2 series. Also, the content itself is in some cases a hundred times more complex than in the IL-2 series. And that is not all. We have added new features into the Storm of War series engine that will give Storm of War a long, long life. Maybe even longer than the IL-2series engine. We are building for the “next level” of quality and features. This takes much more time in development than it takes for one product title. Another benefit of having the Storm of War series engine — we will have 1-1.5 years production time for each follow-up title. Future titles from the Storm of War series will see the market with much less time in development compared to the initial release of theStorm of War series engine and the first series title, Storm of War: Battle of Britain. Jason did exactly what Oleg had envisioned, is there anything wrong with that? of course not why reinvent the wheel when you can go "off the shelf" what this game should really be called is "RoF: Battle of Stalingrad edition" but for marketing purpose's they (777) were given rights to use the IL2 tag. The IL2 franchise pretty much died when Oleg left and they canceled CLoD, what we are playing here is an extension of the Rof franchise, re-branding does not always work as planned and I think that had Jason just announced a WW2 extension of RoF that %90 of the problems,fighting and expectations we are seeing would not exist. 1
BraveSirRobin Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Hard to see why that should trigger such a response. Not sure what response you're referring to. But from what I've seen your expectations of what the development team is going to tell you about future changes is not very realistic.
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) I did try discussing possible future planes for BOS with you to try and calm you down, but oh no you had to keep inflaming things.......... Inflaming things? by repeating a similar joke to you?......yet yours is clearly just a joke right? well it could have been until you edited in the condescending remarks afterward. Edited November 14, 2014 by DD_bongodriver
PantsPilot Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Bos is from the Rof stables not IL2 (unless Oleg is working with Jason) ok let me clear some things up for you , the original IL2 was in development for 4 years , CLoD was in development for 7 and BoS done in a little over a 18 months...notice I did not say development. I will let Oleg himself explain. Jason did exactly what Oleg had envisioned, is there anything wrong with that? of course not why reinvent the wheel when you can go "off the shelf" what this game should really be called is "RoF: Battle of Stalingrad edition" but for marketing purpose's they (777) were given rights to use the IL2 tag. The IL2 franchise pretty much died when Oleg left and they canceled CLoD, what we are playing here is an extension of the Rof franchise, re-branding does not always work as planned and I think that had Jason just announced a WW2 extension of RoF that %90 of the problems,fighting and expectations we are seeing would not exist. So why are some people expecting BOS to be il-2 the second then? il-2 1946 was in development its whole life so radical were the changes, Team TD and all that.
unreasonable Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Not sure what response you're referring to. But from what I've seen your expectations of what the development team is going to tell you about future changes is not very realistic. Actually my expectations of what the development team is going to tell us about future changes is very limited, whether this is realistic or not we shall see. My hopes for what they might tell us are obviously greater, but they are just that, hopes.
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) So why are some people expecting BOS to be il-2 the second then? Because it is being marketed as the next generation of the series. About What is Battle of Stalingrad?IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad is the next generation of the legendary IL-2 Sturmovik series that has set the standard for PC combat flight games for more than ten years. http://il2sturmovik.com/about/ Edited November 14, 2014 by DD_bongodriver
PantsPilot Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Inflaming things? by repeating a similar joke to you?......yet yours is clearly just a joke right? well it could have been until you edited in the condescending remarks afterward. LOL you yourself edited your reply!! It wasn't edited in afterwards I just typed my comment in the quote box by mistake. You are becoming paranoid! Listen I enjoy flying and that's what I'm going to do now as this is akin to trying to watch acrylic paint dry in the rain Tatty bye..
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 LOL you yourself edited your reply!! It wasn't edited in afterwards I just typed my comment in the quote box by mistake. You are becoming paranoid! Listen I enjoy flying and that's what I'm going to do now as this is akin to trying to watch acrylic paint dry in the rain Tatty bye.. What?
PantsPilot Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Because it is being marketed as the next generation of the series. My last comment then I really do have a life beyond here; BOS was essentially from the 777 stable so how could it be il-2 the second? Game set and match I believe.
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 My last comment then I really do have a life beyond here; BOS was essentially from the 777 stable so how could it be il-2 the second? Game set and match I believe. in your mind yes, despite the quote from the developers own about page to the contrary.
BraveSirRobin Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Because it is being marketed as the next generation of the series. That does not mean it's going to have all the features of the original game.
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 That does not mean it's going to have all the features of the original game. I know
Yakdriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) But COD carries the il-2 name, yet you wouldn't compare that with il-1946 would you? At the risk of overly repeating myself; il-1946 was the result of over 10 years of development and BOS has just been released. It is like comparing 2 cars from Ford that came out over 10 years apart; by your logic they should be exactly the same. If Ford did that imagine the outcry. Listen you prefer the old game, but your not allowing for all the extra work that went into it to make it so good, why don't you hold back a little until the extra features are released, then see if you like it more? At the moment all this whining, sorry negativity is going to do is put potential purchasers off and kill the whole series before its even started. Perhaps unfairly. BOS has just been released. Look up the definition of patience. Of course BOS was never meant to be an exact sequel of il-2 1946, that wasn't stated anywhere by the devs and no amount of showing screenshots is going to prove that. You always knew the limited planes and theatre scenery offered by BOS from the very start, so why did you buy it? As i said, i compare a STURMOVIK PLANE GAME to another. Not a Spitfire vs Emil plane game. The IL-2 is the centerpiece of both - or almost. and yes. i only compare the very first Original IL-2 to BoS. Not what is today called 1946. But i have enough Il-2 experience, enough faith in the Project and enough patience to put another decade forth to wait for its evolution in a 1946-2 or something, complete with carrier ops, malta siege and a mighty eight. edit- the only piece where i do not have faith in is the flightsimmers/users. those scare me. Edited November 14, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon 1
Yakdriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) I'm seriously hoping the Bf-110, Ju-52, Ju-88, Yak 7, il 4 etc. will be released at some point as pay-ware. I believe a I-16 has already been developed. Patience grasshopper! Think positive it makes yer feel a lot better. +1. This - attitude, patience and faith. and the indication of "shut up and take my money!" I like what you say, and encourage others to think along the same lines. Edited November 14, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) Nah, 'shut up and take my money' just means go ahead and make as many bad choices as you like it seems. there are at least 2 monumental cock ups that 90% of polled users don't like that have been pushed on us, I don't want any more, my money stays in my pocket for now. cue Dakpilot and BraveSirRobin in 5.....4.....3.....2....1 Edited November 14, 2014 by DD_bongodriver 1
BraveSirRobin Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 What? Do you actually think I care what you do with your money? I don't. In fact, I would encourage people who don't like this game to move on with their lives.
DD_bongodriver Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 I would encourage people who don't like this game to move on with their lives. Lead by example.
BraveSirRobin Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Lead by example. I like the game. I don't like unlockables, but it's not enough to get me to walk away.
Recommended Posts