Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ATAG_RibbsATAG_Ribbs

Ideas for a believable ground war

Recommended Posts

With this title focusing on the ground war, I really believe the Devs need to make every effort to make us believe that there is a raging war going on below us.

 

1 Tanks moving and firing realistically.

2 support columns moving realistically.

3 Damage models with inertia! ( No static damage models please!) So unrealistic..

4 Simple soldier models. Running from vehicles at least..even if there isn't going to be Infantry.

 

I'm sure there is more.. lets here your ideas on how you think the ground war could be improved... Since its going to be the main focus of this title. S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already know that we can't get animated soldiers so I'd go for:

 

-Tanks and vehicles that are visible at a distance. I'm not sure about in RoF, but in IL2 you have to be on top of something before you can see it, it seems. This

  makes ground attack even harder.

 

- Static soldier groups. It'd be handy to have little squads of soldiers that you could place in trenches or behind sandbags. Ideally they would be able to fire.

 

  Infantry, heavy weapons teams,soldiers sitting, soldiers standing, tank crews, ground crews. If they can move, hooray, but even static they give an impression of

  life. I'm a fan of the ones in modded IL2.

 

- Thinking of RoF's current front with it's ongoing artillery barrages, how about ongoing (but sporadic) tracer exchanges in the ruins. They wouldn't necessarily

   need to cause damage, just to add the impression of activity.

 

- Clutter. I'd really like to see detritus spread around the battlefield and rear areas. War uses up stuff and leaves that stuff all over the place.

 

- If we're going to have frontline textures similar to those in RoF, it'd be good to have them look populated.  I guess these will look substantially different anyway just

  due to the nature of the fighting.

 

- Big smoke columns. Actually, just thinking, I like the pall that hangs over RoF's battlefield. Something like that would be cool over the ruins of the city, but I'd also  

  really like big smoke columns for some situations.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well just as important would be what goes on, on the water! Even for Stalingrad, remember the red army transported troops across the Wolga.

So it would be just as interesting to have barges, and small boats, that have a damage model. Some where maybe only pieces fly off, others that catch fire, or explode, others again that sink very slowly or very fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice Ideas! Keep um coming! :) I really like the Idea of haze or smoke slowly building over a battlefield after time. Carnage left behind etc. Objects need to despawn after time to make room for more objects... maybe these 2 ideas could be used together in some way. ( question for someone with more ROF experience).. is the terrain engine allow for craters on runways that will cripple any aircraft using the runway?.. just curious. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem, erm, 'a certain WWI air combat sim' does boats. Had river barges for a long time, and I sunk I light cruiser today. Just sayin...  :ph34r:

 

Edit. Entirely off-topic screenshot:

2012_12_26__7_18_29_zps1e4b8f1c.png

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the ground targets (tanks, vehicles, and the like) need to have a crazy accurate movement/damage model. I certainly think that the level of accuracy for such things should be defined in more descriptive terms. The fidelity of the flight simulation portion of the game is probably where most of the power should go, but since we are looking at a ground war with a lot of potential ground targets, I agree that there are a few things that should be key, specifically when it comes to the interaction with air units.

 

1. Agreed that ground targets need to be visible at a reasonable distance for aircraft to set up attack runs. These aircraft are going to be moving much more quickly than the ones in RoF so some attention needs to be paid to the view distance for the dots. This should also be looked at in relation to cover. Targets that are behind cover shouldn't be as visible from distance. IE if a dot shows up early before the cover (trees for example) then the cover is useless. I'm not entirely clear how it works in RoF, but this sort of thing definitely needs to be reviewed for the faster aircraft, as mentioned.

 

2. I think the damage model need not be as accurate as determining which of the tires you shoot out, but it I definitely think it should be able to cope with strafing vs. bombing. A strafing run in many flight sims is a useless endeavour because the game will only model damage on ground targets if it's over a threshold to destroy them. I'm thinking of strafing an exposed artillery position. The guns might not be damaged by a bunch of 30cal bullets, but the gunners certainly would be. Or for example, shooting up a transport column with guns and killing drivers. The vehicles might still be there, but if you're good with your guns you should be able to do something. So I guess I'm just looking for targets to have two levels of damage - damage done from bombs that could destroy the target outright, and damage done from guns that could eliminate the personel.

 

3. Reaction to attacks. I would like to see ground targets that react in interesting ways to being attacked. Either taking evasive action, or being routed, or whatever. What would be really cool would be to see little animated people running away from damaged vehicles (simple stick figure animation would be fine, sorta like the bail out animation when your pilot jumps out of the aircraft and runs before diving to the ground in the old IL-2). Or at least a condition that you can use in the mission builder that if a unit is attacked, you can give it new orders (if attacked, then X).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like those ideas. I agree that super complex damage models wouldn't be needed if your 2 types were included.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they need not be "super complex" but they need not be like in IL2 either, stationary wrecks stayed permanently, or moveable vehicles that had become wrecks disappeared with in seconds, just need to think of crashed aircraft on runways, those used to disappear with in seconds so that the following aircraft could land as if nothing had happened. Of interest would be thought thinking of runways, that bomb craters would remain a certain time, making landing difficult, to very challenging. This was something missing in IL2 where you could bomb airfields with the largest bomber fleets, and still any aircraft could land there as if nothing ever happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - persistent damaged/destroyed objects and craters would be good. In modded IL2 they're features I like.

 

 

Another idea - destroyed and damaged vehicles and objects for mission builders to place on the map, especially ones with different kinds of damage, eg burnt out, tipped over, turrets blown off, etc. They really add to the look of the ground war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trick is to narrow down what we want vs what we think is acceptable. Like it or not, there's going to be limits.

 

I'd love to have craters from bombs that affect runways, but that might be tricky to do. Deformable terrain certainly will not be in the scope of the game. Maybe some kind of object or texture with different qualities gets placed where the bombs hit that could approximate a crater is possible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if BoS is a new game performance limits are there. Try to simulate EVERYTHING at highest level and every PC stalls.

So developers need to be careful how accurately different things need to be implemented.

Since it's a flight sim, IMO air battles have priority over land/sea warfare.

So having planes moving realistically is more important than tank moving equally realistically and so on.

 

My wish on how to improve things from IL2 level:

It would be nice if ships/boats would also react to air attack, trying to avoid being easy target.

Boats often changed course and some big ships were able to use defensive smoke for hiding.

 

http://www.thegermanwarmachine.com/daybyday/images/1942/hiryu.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i totally agree on what you guys are saying.. but i started this thread as a place to gather ideas for making the ground war as Realistic as possible hince the as possible part. I realize there is limitations, and so does most people. Stay with the ideas and let the DEVS decide whats not possible with budget/time /limitations...thanks B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i totally agree on what you guys are saying.. but i started this thread as a place to gather ideas for making the ground war as Realistic as possible hince the as possible part. I realize there is limitations, and so does most people. Stay with the ideas and let the DEVS decide whats not possible with budget/time /limitations...thanks B)

 

This is the point, really. 'realistic as possible' isn't the objective. 'Realistic as practical, while actually making a profit' is, if this is going to be a long-term project - and spending inordinate amounts of time and money going for the last bit of realism right from the start isn't the best approach. This is going to be a compromise, because any successful simulation funded from game-players pockets has to be. Modelling the battle of Stalingrad without including what was going on on the ground would be stupid - but, in an air-combat simulation, modelling details you can't see from the air isn't much more sensible. We'll need ground vehicles for sure - but we don't need to be able to read their serial numbers...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AndyJWest: that is exactly what I had in mind as well. There are ground war sims that pretty much ignore what is happening in the air and even those have to make compromises when simulating events at grass root level.  I see playability more important in a flight sim game than simulating tiny details that most players never see (but which may use huge amounts of CPU anyway).

 

Like in my previous post I mentioned ship AI reacting to air bombing. *From air* I can see a ship changing course, and may appreciate it, but I probaby cannot see 50% increase in ship's 3d modeling detail simply because I have to avoid flying too close to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's a flight sim, IMO air battles have priority over land/sea warfare.

So having planes moving realistically is more important than tank moving equally realistically and so on.

 

 

So are you suggesting the sim should be reduced to fighters only? Guess it is hard to imagine that there are also people who don?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you suggesting the sim should be reduced to fighters only? Guess it is hard to imagine that there are also people who don?

Edited by slm
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all thinking the same way.. I guess I just didn't choose my words very well. The "possible " in the phase I used was in reference to what they can do with the the limited time and budget they have right now. I'm not asking for individual license plate #s.. I would really like to see damaged vehicles and tanks have inertia,( meaning if its in motion when damaged or destroyed it will role to a stop if destroyed or damaged) seeing a vehicle that is traveling down the road get straffed or bombed and just switching to the damaged model instantly.. is such a letdown to me...not to mention it looks horrible. I hope the get they get creative.. and make it look right. ( Throw in some little guys running for their lives also...heh..just sayn ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that I think might work would be somewhat of a hitpoint system.  Not like the DCS system where each shot does X amount of damage but something else.  The idea is to have armor ratings where weapon Y will cause no damage to the ground target but weapon Z will be able to damage.  I think this would be somwhat of a straightfoward approach and would be realistic enough for ground targets to be destroyed with reasonable realism while minimizing work load for the devs.  It would allow a blend of the classic IL-2 and the current IL-2 CloD damage model systems where it would be possible to damage a target enough to disable it without altogether destroying it.  I can't really speak for RoF ground details since I haven't flown that for a while (redownloading it right now ;)) for in comparison. 

 

I also would like the ground models to be just under the par of IL-2 CoD if possible since I'm probably going to be flying close to the ground most of my time in a ground attack aircraft.  But I would say it doesn't need to have all the random little details of CoD like the license plate #'s unless it is easily programmed.  I personally think a slight restraint should be shown in terms of number of features so they don't get over their heads but there are some definates that I think that need to be included.  Like some sort of level auto pilot for level bombers and working bombsites that won't crash the game and other things.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...