Jump to content
HeavyCavalrySgt

Battle of Moscow: To Buy In or Not To Buy In, THAT is the Question!

Recommended Posts

I also find it strange that some people seem to have a crystal ball, or somehow have read all the code and proclaim that they can see that there is no way that BoS can be improved, in the same way original IL-2 was improved from 16 people online and the basic "sim" that it was in its first iteration..it (original IL-2) certainly has little relationship to IL-2 1946 patched to latest version

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I'm not claiming I know the code or any of that. Im just curious about what it is he's referring to engine wise that he thinks is lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not claiming I know the code or any of that. Im just curious about what it is he's referring to engine wise that he thinks is lacking.

 

Was not suggesting that you were saying that at all, ;)  it just seems to be a generalised statement from many others that somehow BoS will, or never can be improved or developed past what it is now at present. Surely common sense and past experience from other titles shows that there are possibilities to improve game engines beyond what could be expected, original IL-2 being such a case in point :)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, gotcha.

 

The only things I see as concerning limitations are AI aircraft in MP servers. Dev design choices are another matter entirely, which I think people get both mixed up. This engine is well capable of doing what it set out to do.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Pre-oder and ask for changes or concerns how this work together? :o:  I dreaming....with a pre-order you accept all changes & decision that was made in the past and are made in the future. You are 100% happy with the game like it is now! Why you expect they should change something?  It is everytime the same same like in other games ask for changes or concerns and still buy pre-order the games to support this style. 

 

The development is in russia you could expect a huge money boost because the rubel is low. You paid 80$ they get 4500 Rubel that are 2x BoS Premium.  Lets see what they do with this boost and how the game benefit from this boost? I expect not much because all are happy.

 

For my part I'll wait and see.

Edited by Superghostboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also find it strange that some people seem to have a crystal ball, or somehow have read all the code and proclaim that they can see that there is no way that BoS can be improved, in the same way original IL-2 was improved from 16 people online and the basic "sim" that it was in its first iteration..it (original IL-2) certainly has little relationship to IL-2 1946 patched to latest version

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

IL-2 1946 sure had limited potential..... it wasn't at all like you could add Korean, Vietnam, and Afghanistan era supersonic jets, helicopters, hoverjets, especially as the game was designed as a WW2 sim....  nope nope nope.   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IL-2 1946 sure had limited potential..... it wasn't at all like you could add Korean, Vietnam, and Afghanistan era supersonic jets, helicopters, hoverjets, especially as the game was designed as a WW2 sim....  nope nope nope.   ;)

 

The original IL2 was nothing like what you had with 1946.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original IL2 was nothing like what you had with 1946.

 

 

I said nothing about the original.

 

People said that both the original and 1946 had limited potential, and they were proven wrong.

 

This game has already has shown that it is much more capable that the one in 1946. Things like the FM, DM, and graphics, all of which are certainly outdated in old IL-2, are not an issue here.  IL-2 1946 is nearing the end of it's potential, projects like the F/A-18, F-16, and Tu-95 are clearly straining the limits of what the game can do.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure what Blitzpig meant by 'limited potential'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh dakpilot was just trying to make the point that way back in 2001 no one would have expected it to have become what it did with 1946 and back then people probably said it had limited potential as well especially as we couldnt even host more than 8v8 at one point :D IL2 actually started life as a single aircraft simulator hense it being called IL2 Sturmovik, they then added a few aircraft like P-39, 109 LaGG etc before the release. In the same way as IL2 the only (or main thing) thing that limits BOS/ROF is our computer performance. As long as they can get the funding the series should have legs :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BoS netted us a WW2 re-skin of a WW1 sim with very limited potential

 

That's hardly the case. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my online perspective it is entirely the case.  And I know my offline fellow virtual pilots certainly think so too.

 

Limited to no AI aircraft flying on multiplayer servers. (Not to mention no people on them either).

 

Just where are all the ground targets anyway?   This is supposed to be the Battle of Stalingrad. 600,000 German troops and all their gear/vehicles/etc...  All I see is the same empty, lifeless ground like we have in RoF.

 

Outdated graphics API that wont' be supported forever.

 

Inability to host without external program and tedious activation procedure.

 

Insanely complex mission editor.

 

No ability to scale settings to suit individual user's computers.

 

No ability to set individual settings for gameplay because, well I can't figure that one out, but they don't want us to have anything but what they think is best.  Why?

 

The aircraft and map look great, but there is more to a successful title than pretty models, and sadly right now all we have are pretty models.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ground object issue is a strange one. What is the problem with trucks in BoS? Nobody seems to make a mission that contains them. Are they resource hogs or just not as kewl as tanks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's hardly the case. 

 I guess you missed the video of a HE 111 taking off and doing a loop like a DR1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still would Like to see a quick mission setup more like Il2 1946. Sometimes I just like hoping on, flying a few, and hoping off. Felt like the old system was more streamlined for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand why people hang around only to bash this game. It's way beyond constructive criticism now and obviously just attempts at trolling.

 

If I don't like something, I surely don't spend every waking moment on the Internet trying to argue that my opinion about it is more correct than anyone else's.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I guess you missed the video of a HE 111 taking off and doing a loop like a DR1

 

In January 11, 1944 the B-17 "Hit Parade" (SN: 42-39957) from 305th BG, 366th BS flew a full loop.

In February 19, 1945 the B-17 "Satans Mate" (SN: 42-31677) from 385th BG, 549th BS flew a full loop.

So your point is?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will buy it only if there will be career mode similar to ROF with historical units and skins and historical medals and awards.

I regret that i bought BOS. Its only a quick mission builder with achievements

 

+1.

 

I only play offline for various time and flexibility reasons, and until there's a decent SP campaign (and here the benchmark for me is WOFF then perhaps PWCG for RoF and then RoF's own campaign), I will, regrettably (having bought everything 1C, 777, etc. have ever produced) not be buying BoM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limited to no AI aircraft flying on multiplayer servers. (Not to mention no people on them either).

 

Just where are all the ground targets anyway?   This is supposed to be the Battle of Stalingrad. 600,000 German troops and all their gear/vehicles/etc...  All I see is the same empty, lifeless ground like we have in RoF.

 

 

I've noticed this. I've flown a few missions online and struggled to find ANY enemy at all. Maybe its the time of day I've joined the mission or whatever but I would've thought the area west of Stalingrad should be teeming with Wermacht infantry, trucks and tanks. But its quite bare. I end up having to try and find the german airfield instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1.

 

I only play offline for various time and flexibility reasons, and until there's a decent SP campaign (and here the benchmark for me is WOFF then perhaps PWCG for RoF and then RoF's own campaign), I will, regrettably (having bought everything 1C, 777, etc. have ever produced) not be buying BoM.

 

Thats it. +1!

 

Not everone is single or jobless and has got the time to spend more than 2 hours a day in front of a PC. In 2015 a game should supply lots of immersion and atmosphere. Look at the lovely briefings of good old "European Air War" and youl'll know what I mean...  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3_EHMaSGfg

 

What is more: Oleg Maddox from IL-2 once stated that more than 95% of buyers of IL-2 were offline-players, so where are the sp campaigns?

Edited by Wuerger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree the SP content must be improved, I'd be both cautious and sceptical of 15 and 10 year old examples/quotes.

 

The new generation of gamer, us fliers excepted, are almost entirely online players. This is the crowd the game must garner whether we like it or not. SP for most of them will be an intro to the multiplayer arenas. It is, I would imagine, why the DEV's have proceeded in the manner they have.

 

On the positive side, Jason has been quoted as looking to improve SP and is seeking a coder or more to create a campaign. If you are one of those hobbyist coders you can apply. Otherwise we have to wait for some in the community to take it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how people always compare the games of late to the awesome games of old. if us gamers want that quality back EVERYONE of us needs to STOP giving companies money in advance ( NO MORE pre-purchasing).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how people always compare the games of late to the awesome games of old. if us gamers want that quality back EVERYONE of us needs to STOP giving companies money in advance ( NO MORE pre-purchasing).

 

I have no interest in going back to the games of old.  Have you looked at video of the original Red Baron game?  Back in the day I thought that game was fantastic.  Now it looks like crap.  Lots of people here are looking at the past through rose colored glasses (and probably complaining that the rose coloring isn't the correct shade).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Look at the lovely briefings of good old "European Air War" and youl'll know what I mean...  

 

 

 

There is a good trip down memory lane.  It is funny how something like a checkbox that says "limited supplies" or "limited aircraft" can look so good.

 

When BoS was announced with an immersive SP campaign, I really expected something like this, or The Mighty 8th or even RoF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no interest in going back to the games of old.  Have you looked at video of the original Red Baron game?  Back in the day I thought that game was fantastic.  Now it looks like crap.  Lots of people here are looking at the past through rose colored glasses (and probably complaining that the rose coloring isn't the correct shade).

Considering there are lots of people still playing games from the past (46, WOFF, EAW) I am not sure how it could be looking at the past through rose colored glasses.

 

In the very least there is something that made the games of old fondly memorable. I have not played BoS for a while, and still have nothing that stands out as amazing even trying to look through rose colored glasses....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new generation of gamer, us fliers excepted, are almost entirely online players. This is the crowd the game must garner whether we like it or not.

 

You are absolutely right.

 

The new generation of gamers also wants the fast success and victory. It's the generation of consumers with no endurance and patience. They hate realistic sims with the necessity of hundreds of hours of reading and learning how to handle this and that. Maybe that's the reason of small number of online gamers in BoS (see parallel thread) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering there are lots of people still playing games from the past (46, WOFF, EAW) I am not sure how it could be looking at the past through rose colored glasses.

 

 

The only reason that people playing EAW aren't looking at the past through rose colored glasses is because they're still living in the past.  I owned EAW.  It was great for 15+ years ago, but it doesn't compare to the new games.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing things about code and the gaming engine and this and that...but the truth is...a significant part of what is missing in BOS is the historical documentation of the battle....the individual units, air bases, photos, markings, rosters, specific missions objectives, any semblance of actually belonging to the times......This doesn't take DX12....or special coding techniques, or fancy gaming computers...just some time and attention....Historical skins provided by third party......historical missions...objectives...like Veterans's missions....will gradually improve this.....

 

The reason we tend to reflect back to the old...is that the historical research base was present...It does not take a fancy program or computer to show us this kind of information and the "get with the times" argument is a moot point, if....... getting with the times means flying sterile, generalized historical missions...I think I'll just define a CFS from my old timers perspective

Edited by JagdNeun
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing things about code and the gaming engine and this and that...but the truth is...a significant part of what is missing in BOS is the historical documentation of the battle....the individual units, air bases, photos, markings, rosters, specific missions objectives, any semblance of actually belonging to the times......This doesn't take DX12....or special coding techniques, or fancy gaming computers...just some time and attention....Historical skins provided by third party......historical missions...objectives...like Veterans's missions....will gradually improve this.....

 

The reason we tend to reflect back to the old...is that the historical research base was present...It does not take a fancy program or computer to show us this kind of information and the "get with the times" argument is a moot point.  If getting with the times means flying sterile, generalized historical missions...then I think I'll just define a CFS from my old timers perspective

Well to be fair, the game is a work in progress Im not trying to bash the game here just want to point out some problems in the logic here.

 

To have historical missions, we are talking about a LOT of ground units and some advanced mission triggers.  Considering AI is a complete no go due to the lack of BoS optimization designers are being held way back.  You can choose what route that needs to be fixed, but you are saying we dont need something when in fact we do if you want it to be even near historical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 any semblance of actually belonging to the times......

 

I get that feeling every time I fly over Stalingrad in BoS.  I will admit that I have a lot of trouble spotting unit markings from up there, so I can't be sure that the robots shooting at me have the correct insignia.  I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no interest in going back to the games of old.  Have you looked at video of the original Red Baron game?  Back in the day I thought that game was fantastic.  Now it looks like crap.  Lots of people here are looking at the past through rose colored glasses (and probably complaining that the rose coloring isn't the correct shade).

 

Yes, there are many people with rose colored glasses they don't see or won't see how step by step things get worse. 2009 we could have BoS with a partnership agreement. But 1C had better Ideas and what happend they lost money a lot for nothing years later. We can't change what happend years before but what we can do is to learn what happend years ago and look into the future that this never happen again. :salute:

 

What politics we have with BoS. All what was not popular they remove it. From where they known that this was popular or not. Can I see this with my own eyes that this feature nobody use or how many before? No, I can't. I need to believe them what they say. I believe nothing if I don't see this with my own eyes! This BoS Campaign is not the time and our money worth.  But they throw our money for something what is in our eyes not popular at the current state but for them this is popular. A year is past and the BoS Campaign System was not improved and now BoM get this style, too. This is not what all wanted and this is not what we expected from a Campaign. Nobody wanted the Unlocks and be forced to play a boring Campaign. But this is what we get and this is what we paid for. This is popular. All love the Campaign, the Unlocks and the perks because it is popular. We had a lot fun during the Early Access before they started with the Campaign + Unlocks + 32 player count. Now we stay with 48 player count maybe forever and still they don't told us the reason why. And the promised 100 player count is far far away. We have big maps to explore but they are still a empty space. Why big maps if we have a very small player count? A yes because this is popular. :rofl:

 

What we see how restricted BoS was made compared to RoF. Feature from RoF were removed and 360 degree design changes appear.  Why support this way this style? To hope for better days. I never forget the best days from BoS Early Access were we had a lot fun before they started to annoying us with Unlocks + be forced to play a boring Campaign, the reduced player count from 64 to 32.  See, who started this. Why support this?

 

What happend can't be ignored because it is the truth that hurts. :(

Edited by Superghostboy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...I'm going to agree with you on that BraveSirRobin.....the graphics are there and I do get the immersion from that....  It's what offsets so much of the other......Glad you're sleeping well, and that unit markings...which is just one of many things I mentioned...doesn't bother you.  I think you'll find a consensus from a lot of CFS immers...that what I referenced previously does  in fact make the SP aspect of the game somewhat...sterile.  Don't get me wrong...I can live with it, knowing that it will improve to the standards of all the "old" CFSims......

Edited by JagdNeun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are many people with rose colored glasses they don't see or won't see how step by step things get worse. 2009 we could have BoS with a partnership agreement. But 1C had better Ideas and what happend they lost money a lot for nothing years later. We can't change what happend years before but what we can do is to learn what happend years ago and look into the future that this never happen again. :salute:

 

Sorry, but [snip]

 

FSM'S COMMENT: He is clearly not a native English speaker but if you take the time to read, his meaning is fairly clear. There is no need to denigrate a fellow member's language ability. 

Nor is there any need to up-vote someone for doing so. This is the International Forum, not the Native English Speaker forum. Make the effort.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing things about code and the gaming engine and this and that...but the truth is...a significant part of what is missing in BOS is the historical documentation of the battle....the individual units, air bases, photos, markings, rosters, specific missions objectives, any semblance of actually belonging to the times......This doesn't take DX12....or special coding techniques, or fancy gaming computers...just some time and attention....Historical skins provided by third party......historical missions...objectives...like Veterans's missions....will gradually improve this.....

 

The reason we tend to reflect back to the old...is that the historical research base was present...It does not take a fancy program or computer to show us this kind of information and the "get with the times" argument is a moot point, if....... getting with the times means flying sterile, generalized historical missions...I think I'll just define a CFS from my old timers perspective

 

Well to be fair, the game is a work in progress Im not trying to bash the game here just want to point out some problems in the logic here.

 

To have historical missions, we are talking about a LOT of ground units and some advanced mission triggers.  Considering AI is a complete no go due to the lack of BoS optimization designers are being held way back.  You can choose what route that needs to be fixed, but you are saying we dont need something when in fact we do if you want it to be even near historical.

I'm not trying to bash either. I also don't think we can paint the new 'gamer' with quite so broad a brush either. The new gamer is really a pretty broad spectrum in age, maturity and interest. We probably aren't getting a lot of snifs from the GTA or FPS crowd. Interestingly, I have no interest in th Battlefield series now that it is cops and robbers, either. I've been really into that series since BF2. We are getting sniffs from the WT crowd and we need to figure out how to draw and retain them while honoring the past. That is a challenge. 

 

I think many of the things we are looking for will be included eventually. Some of it will be dev supported but much of it will be user made or a hybrid or the two. I'd love to see the historical stuff included. It would be nice to have videos and historical news pieces in the briefings. I do miss that kind of stuff of old.

Edited by HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The new generation of gamer, us fliers excepted, are almost entirely online players. This is the crowd the game must garner whether we like it or not. SP for most of them will be an intro to the multiplayer arenas. It is, I would imagine, why the DEV's have proceeded in the manner they have.

 

 

Sorry, you are not absolutely right. If you look at the lists of best selling PC games you will see that SP only titles still have a huge representation, not only in AAA titles but also in the newer kickstart funded, smaller titles which are reinvigorating PC gaming freed from the lowest common denominator approach of the big studios.

 

Series like The Witcher or The Elder Scrolls are not going to go away either: actually the Elder Scrolls Online was something of a flop.

 

What is true is that these games, and the top selling MP games, do one or the other thing extremely well, and do not fall into the trap of doing both indifferently.

 

I suspect that MP only might be the right way to go for the BoS series, but if it does you will have to go back to a subscription payment model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...I'm going to agree with you on that BraveSirRobin.....the graphics are there and I do get the immersion there.  It's what offsets so much of the other......Glad you're sleeping well.

 

I'm not seeing the offsets.  You were never going to get the entire battle of Stalingrad, or even a significant part of the battle.  It's too much for a desktop PC to process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing things about code and the gaming engine and this and that...but the truth is...a significant part of what is missing in BOS is the historical documentation of the battle....the individual units, air bases, photos, markings, rosters, specific missions objectives, any semblance of actually belonging to the times......This doesn't take DX12....or special coding techniques, or fancy gaming computers...just some time and attention....Historical skins provided by third party......historical missions...objectives...like Veterans's missions....will gradually improve this.....

 

The reason we tend to reflect back to the old...is that the historical research base was present...It does not take a fancy program or computer to show us this kind of information and the "get with the times" argument is a moot point, if....... getting with the times means flying sterile, generalized historical missions...I think I'll just define a CFS from my old timers perspective

This!

 

Hit the nail on the head with this post. The developers obviously were counting on the community to fill in the gaps in mission content, which is fine given that's how IL2:1946 is known as being so awesome today...but they're failing horribly at facilitating the very aspect of community involvement they're counting on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, the game is a work in progress Im not trying to bash the game here just want to point out some problems in the logic here.

 

To have historical missions, we are talking about a LOT of ground units and some advanced mission triggers.  Considering AI is a complete no go due to the lack of BoS optimization designers are being held way back.  You can choose what route that needs to be fixed, but you are saying we dont need something when in fact we do if you want it to be even near historical.

Then we agree...The so called old CFS ims all had this......For me personally......I'm just saying....that this new age mindset ....of us older players being so out of date with the new age technology as to be out of step with what makes a good CFS.  That's just plain silly to me.

Edited by JagdNeun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing the offsets.  You were never going to get the entire battle of Stalingrad, or even a significant part of the battle.  It's too much for a desktop PC to process.

You miss the point....You are just agreeing with what I'm trying to say....all that stuff I mentioned....doesn't take any real processing....It's basic information stored in simple format....career trackers, markings, historical photographs, real rosters, real bases with authentic squadrons assigned flying historical planesets....None of that takes anything super to process.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought just because i can afford it with no money worries, plus the P-40 was a no brainer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss the point....You are just agreeing with what I'm trying to say....all that stuff I mentioned....doesn't take any real processing....It's basic information stored in simple format....career trackers, markings, historical photographs, real rosters, real bases with authentic squadrons assigned flying historical planesets....None of that takes anything super to process.  

 

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the battle on the ground.  If you're referring to mission briefings, then I don't really care.  It makes no difference to me which Guard squadron aircraft that I'm shooting down or being shot down by.  I'm flying over in a war over Stalingrad against relatively well modeled aircraft.  That's more than enough for me.  My eyesight isn't good enough to see the unit markings on the aircraft, and I probably wouldn't care even if I could see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the battle on the ground.  If you're referring to mission briefings, then I don't really care.  It makes no difference to me which Guard squadron aircraft that I'm shooting down or being shot down by.  I'm flying over in a war over Stalingrad against relatively well modeled aircraft.  That's more than enough for me.  My eyesight isn't good enough to see the unit markings on the aircraft, and I probably wouldn't care even if I could see them.

I understand.  Salute :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...