Planes, Tanks, and Troops...

[Gump]

A sim with a more complete scenario. Yep, the issue of CPU/GPU load speaks loudly against it. BUT....
.

...There are some very nice games already developed for each of these types of combat sims. Has anyone ever considered making these sims/games (or similar) have some kind of portal that can be traversed by players/data from one type (ie: planes) to the other (ie:tanks), or other (ie:troops)?

...the idea is, if the player chooses a tank, he opens up the 'tank module' (ie:WoT) and plays in that 'game', but can see the (simplified models) planes/troops that is ported from the other sims. i dont know if/how the bombs guns interaction between them all would work, but surely its possible.

.

seems that would enable a fuller warfront scenario, engage more players of different interests, open up some interesting new situational opportunities, etc.

.... for instance:

downed pilot either captured, killed, or escapes back to homeland.

troops capturing airfields.

tanks used with troops, and against them.

planes used against troops.

?

[Urra]

Honestly, what got me interested in this sim/game and I still hope to see in this one at some point in the future is idea of a bunch "meaning many - 30+" bombers making a long distance bombing raid along with their (10+) cover escorts. Being met of course by a sizable axis fighter group (20?) trying to stop them from reaching the target.  If this could be done I would each my right shoe along with the shoelaces...

[Pharoah]

This can be done but usually via online squads and on an organised night. The most I've done is being no 4 in a 12 a/c bomber formation (flying B17s) being defended by about 10 fighters vs about 15 enemy a/c (another online squad) on a private IL2 1946 server. Sure graphics weren't the best (compared to BOS) but boy was it fun. Most of my time was spent focused on keeping formation and I almost screwed up the bomb drop (dropping on the leader) when I realised I'd forgotten to open my bomb doors (doh!!). Formation flying is so much fun...tiring but fun. We only flew the one mission that took about 30 mins each way but by the end I was exhausted but satisfied. That was about 10 years ago I think but I still remember it as being 'up there with the best'. For me, graphics without playability = short shelf life.

[ACG_pezman]

I have been barking up this tree for years now but no one seems to think the model has any merit.

 

I think the dev's should take a tip from DCS and make the base game (Maps, Units, AC, Tanks, etc...) available as a free download that gives you:

 

1. The Maps (so you never have to skip a round)
2. The AI Units (all tanks, planes, vehicles, infantry)
3. Your choice of one free aircraft (either BF-109 E7/MC 202/I-16/LaGG-3)
4. Access to tanks and infantry to play (first person shooter style & basic models only; More advanced vehicles and weapons will be bought from the IL2 store)

Now add a flag-pole to every city on the map and allow players to capture/lose cities, connect owned territories with a colored line (like it is now) and you have a front line.  Also add some voice chats that could call for support, air strikes, close air support, etc... for the ground pounders and we can have a very immersive experience.

 

Just imagine:

 

You're flying in a 2x flight of BF-110's/Pe-2's with a bunch of light air-to-ground ordinance just waiting for someone to call.  You see the voice chat of some friendly units in Novomaksimovskiy requesting air support as they try to re-take the city from a panzer unit.  In this small city there might be 15 infantry players and a few tanks each, but still, when you get close to target they friendlies pop some colored smoke to mark their positions and tell you that everything north of the smoke is enemy.  As you approach the target AAA begins to fire on you and your wingman, getting pretty damn close too, just as you release a pair of bombs with your wingman doing the same.  You look back and see the explosions the find that you have killed three enemy units.  Rinse and repeat then head home.  Maybe you saved the day, maybe you dropped to far south of the smoke and caused some fratricide, or maybe you took a burst of 37mm AAA and spiraled in.  Hell, maybe you bailed and survived... better find those friendlies before the enemy finds you. 

 

However, as OP has stated, we all understand that the AI is to resource consuming for the game to optimize and display all that without lag, but if it could I would love to see this type of Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Combat Simulator.  I guess ARMA II and III come close, but it's just not the same.

[Gump]

yeah, p3zman, some very immersive and involved scenarios would be possible, not to mention some cross-pollination of players and potential increase in game sales.

.

so far, i've heard some very good reasons why a plane sim would NOT want to add all the extra combat sim capability, including PC/server processing demands too high, players want to pay for only planes, development time/effort greatly increased and dissipated from core interest.

.

but it still sounds like such an awsome experience potential.... that's why i suggested the possible solution of  loosely 'tying together' sims/games that specialize in each area. kind of a 'linking' of 'modules'. in other words, linking BOS with WoT (world of tanks) with (call of duty)(maybe red orchestra 2) - (i just picked popular titles cuz i dont know much about these types of sims).

... the idea is that the player has only 1 sim operating on his PC/server, so the PC/server won't be overloaded and he can get an excellent gaming/sim experience for the particular type of combat he is immediately engaged in (planes,tanks, or troops). however, some kind of bidirectional data-packet communication link with simple-model entities/activity to the other sims would add sufficient graphics to represent those activities in the present sim/game. 

.

in effect, the gamer/sim'er would need to purchase 3 different games if he wanted to play 3 different types of combat. but that is good, in that he only pays for what he wants, the vendors sell more games, the devs have an easier time per game (less bugs, quicker updates, etc).  also, it would expose the players of other popular titles to another sim/game title which may lead to cross-pollination of interests and game sales. if a "call of duty" gamer was seeing the various tanks and planes, and effects of such, he might be awful interested, eventually, in getting involved in the other games. in other words, BoS would not have to process complex tank or personnel sim models to involve the quality play that is going on in the tank and troop games. instead, BoS would just have simple models representing those entities/acitivites that are updated real-time from/to the other games.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Gump

[GrendelsDad]

I am not joking when I say I would love to jump in an AAA gun or even better be in the lead of a convoy of trucks...hook up the G27 and make suply runs between cities...only if i knew there was a  threat to avoid as well.  I  am probally in the minority but I think this would be a nice change of pace...especially if I could get out of my truck and run around as well...Maybe drive myself to an airfield and jump in plane.  All of PEZs ideas sound awesome.  I'm sure there  are a few out there that would enjoy these things.

Edited May 5, 2016 by 6./ZG1_GrendelsDad

[SAG]

Think about what StarCitizen wants to do: full FPS game, Full SIM game and Full META (capturing territories) game, but instead of outer space we would have a WWII scenario. now thats my dream :D

[Pharoah]

unfortunately I don't think our computers and/or graphics cards are up to that sort of level of detail without some sort of trade off. The closest we have to this is ARMA 3, but even then it has limitations (don't even mention FM in that game! lol). That and the old Battlefield are the closest things to an 'all in one' scenario (I'm ignoring WW2 online). However imagine the processing power required to replicate current BOS or BF visuals for multiple players on a large map all at once. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying there are trade offs. I do like the fact we have tanks as well as a/c in BOS/BOM but its not fully fleshed out like a more indepth tank game is I think. If they did add infantry, you'd want the experience to be immersive and well done like BF or ARMA or even Day of Defeat or it'll be a real let down.

 

I'm hoping one day that we do have a full 'all in one' with proper damage/FMs/etc for air/land/sea so I can actually captain a Frigate or DD or CL online whilst watching air battles way above.

[Gump]

unfortunately I don't think our computers and/or graphics cards are up to that sort of level of detail without some sort of trade off. The closest we have to this is ARMA 3, but even then it has limitations (don't even mention FM in that game! lol). That and the old Battlefield are the closest things to an 'all in one' scenario (I'm ignoring WW2 online). However imagine the processing power required to replicate current BOS or BF visuals for multiple players on a large map all at once. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying there are trade offs. I do like the fact we have tanks as well as a/c in BOS/BOM but its not fully fleshed out like a more indepth tank game is I think. If they did add infantry, you'd want the experience to be immersive and well done like BF or ARMA or even Day of Defeat or it'll be a real let down.

 

I'm hoping one day that we do have a full 'all in one' with proper damage/FMs/etc for air/land/sea so I can actually captain a Frigate or DD or CL online whilst watching air battles way above.

.

my original question, though, asks if a certain method could accomplish this complete scenario by NOT making it an "all-in-one" package. BoS does not need complex models to represent troops, tanks or ships. WoT does not need complex FM's to represent planes, etc. ...all the games/sims really need (in my idea) is enough communication between them to know how (location speed direction) to represent an entity (plane,tank,troop,ship) and/or activity (explosion,gunfire,crash). the particular game being played can represent the entity with its own 'model', which would NOT be complex if it's not a core participant of that game.

.

If this is possible, it would relieve the need to have massive processing power, like you mention and is a commonly known obstacle. even now, we cannot have many, if any, AI planes in popular MP servers because of the extra processing load each additional (complex) FM creates. but that is because the AI plane iterations all employ the same complex FM that the players' planes employ. ... if a game employed simple models for certain entities, this processing load would be reduced, possibly enabling a complete scenario. ... a pilot in BoS does not need to see an operationally complex troop/tank/ship model, but a simpler representation of that model would suffice, while the complex model is employed in the actual game with that activity as the core (ie World of Tanks).

.

can that work? would that solve the processing power issue (and other issues)? the 'modularized'-specialties-with-simple-communication approach to a comprehensive experience is my question. 

.

i'd think we could see much more if we had a game that specialized in planes for the plane experience, a game that specialized in tanks for the tank experience, a game that specialized in troops for the h2h combat, a game that specialized in ships for the ship experience. if we could get them to communicate together, and represent one another's entities with simple models that don't bog down the core game, we should be able to get something very interesting.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Gump