Devs! Ever considered letting the Axis win sometimes?

[InProgress]

6 minutes ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

There's no way your pilot could change course of the war that much. Even if you are second Hartmann in career. If you want a game where your decisions change the history, you need to play as a general, not a pilot. 

What if he would shot down hitler plane?

[Swing]

24 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

Okay, found you one. With some fresh paint here and there, it should be like new! ...

 

 

Aaaargh...yes please give us a Zeke...

[Stryker07]

All this talk of Zekes, this right here is the bird I am anxious for in a Pacific release. I know the one in the pic is an FM-2, but none the less a Wildcat.

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Jason will steer the ship where it needs to go.

 

Midway is something everyone knows, and I'm sure that it would come with more than just the Midway map...I was never worried about that.

IF this all happens according to plan, and IF the Zeke is released early I'll make a short Darwin campaign using the Kuban map (since we have the P-40)

It's early days to be planning that though.

 

I just want the damn Zeke - gimme gimme gimme...and I do want to fly it from a carrier again as well.

I feel good about whatever happens.

Nah. I would start with Pearl Harbour. Lots of carnage, well known setting with high public interest to draw newcomers as new sales in. Not so many different planes necessary (5 per side) and it will be an overall good sales test if the theatre of war floats.

Edited April 10, 2018 by sevenless

[Gambit21]

Well "Battle of Pearl Harbor" would make for a short campaign build at least.

[Pupo]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Well "Battle of Pearl Harbor" would make for a short campaign build at least.

 

So would "Battle of Bodenplatte"

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

Pearl Harbor

 

FIFY

[PatrickAWlson]

 

4 hours ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

There's no way your pilot could change course of the war that much. Even if you are second Hartmann in career. If you want a game where your decisions change the history, you need to play as a general, not a pilot. 

 

General AND pilot is the BoB model.  I would envisage two or more personas.  One general and one or more pilots.  In effect it would be a PWCG campaign wrapped inside of a strategic campaign.  Not easy, but already been done so it's certainly possible.

[Aap]

9 hours ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

There's no way your pilot could change course of the war that much. Even if you are second Hartmann in career. If you want a game where your decisions change the history, you need to play as a general, not a pilot. 

 

I guess the point was not that much that a single pilot could change the war, but more about the point of not knowing what is to come. Because there's no way an ordinary pilot could predict  in September 1942, for example, if Battle of Stalingrad would be won or lost eventually.

[J2_Trupobaw]

9 hours ago, InProgress said:

What if he would shot down hitler plane?

Ok, that could lead to German victory ;). 

 

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

 

General AND pilot is the BoB model.  I would envisage two or more personas.  One general and one or more pilots.  In effect it would be a PWCG campaign wrapped inside of a strategic campaign.  Not easy, but already been done so it's certainly possible.

Ok, I meant a Heer general. I don't see Luftwaffe personnel changing the outcome on their own, unless they are a Reichsmarschall... 

EDIT: KEMP: Fair point. More of a  randomly decided battle with you thrown in. That would be interesting.

Edited April 11, 2018 by LsV_Trupobaw

[56RAF_Roblex]

11 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Let's not get too serious about this.  We all know how the real war turned out. 

 

The idea is a different kind of game where a strategic element is introduced along with the tactical (Battle of Britain anyone?).  Here's a back of the envelope design proposal:

 

Start on the Moscow Map. 

....

etc. etc.

 

I like the idea of this...as a server rotation.  Not as a replacement of the Career as this thread is about.   That was not a slap down by the way.  It does sound like  a lot of fun as a dogfight server.   It might need some tweaking after a few plays eg you might find the Russians constantly winning the first map which would keep ending the war too soon.  Unlikely though as on other servers the Russians usually lose the early maps and I suspect there might be an element of 'Let's allow them to win this one so we can fly the Stalingrad planes and defeat them there instead.' ;-)

[HBPencil]

The OP's suggestion reminds me of a sim i had on me ol' Amiga 500, 'Their Finest Hour' in which you could bring about the invasion of the UK if you were successful in most of your missions when flying with the LW or failed too often with the RAF. So, so long ago...

[sniperton]

Paul Lowengrin's DCG for 1946 is a nice example of how a dynamic campaign works. AI Ground units move from location to location, destroying enemy ground units, or being destroyed by enemy ground units. E.g. if you pick out the ATGs, your tanks will easily overrun enemy artillery. Or if you fail to destroy an enemy supply column (or bridge on its way), the enemy forces will be reinforced and your proceeding units will be halted by increased opposition. The frontline is changing from mission to mission according to how the ground war goes on, which is affected by how the air war goes on. Pat could do it for BoX, but it's a lot of programming, and I'm not sure that BoX mission logs provide all the needed info for keeping track all the units on the battlefield. 

[56RAF_Roblex]

45 minutes ago, sniperton said:

Paul Lowengrin's DCG for 1946 is a nice example of how a dynamic campaign works. AI Ground units move from location to location, destroying enemy ground units, or being destroyed by enemy ground units. E.g. if you pick out the ATGs, your tanks will easily overrun enemy artillery. Or if you fail to destroy an enemy supply column (or bridge on its way), the enemy forces will be reinforced and your proceeding units will be halted by increased opposition. The frontline is changing from mission to mission according to how the ground war goes on, which is affected by how the air war goes on. Pat could do it for BoX, but it's a lot of programming, and I'm not sure that BoX mission logs provide all the needed info for keeping track all the units on the battlefield. 

 

Doesn't (didn't?) TAW work on a similar basis?   I can rarely get into the server due to its popularity so I am a bit rusty about the mechanics but I seem to remember there being tank columns and supply lines and the actual moving of front lines being a result of how many tanks managed to survive the journey and besiege an enemy city.       Finnish Dynamic also has its front lines moved based on actual individual tank v tank combat so damaging the defences or reducing the number of attacking tanks and reducing supplies affects the tank battles which affects the  ground war and thus the overall wars outcome.

[LLv34_Temuri]

1 hour ago, sniperton said:

I'm not sure that BoX mission logs provide all the needed info for keeping track all the units on the battlefield. 

Any object that is destroyed will have its final coordinates in the logs. Otherwise no location coordinates are placed in the logs.

[RAY-EU]

It would more historycally accurated 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

[seafireliv]

In my earlier days way back in early IL2, I didn`t know much about the Stalingrad Campaign in reality. So when flying that and I saw that the Germans had actually taken almost literally the whole of Stalingrad, I thought it was a dynamic `what if` element of the game taking place. I had had no idea that the Germans had taken so much of the city in real life to still lose it.

[PatrickAWlson]

1 minute ago, seafireliv said:

In my earlier days way back in early IL2, I didn`t know much about the Stalingrad Campaign in reality. So when flying that and I saw that the Germans had actually taken almost literally the whole of Stalingrad, I thought it was a dynamic `what if` element of the game taking place. I had had no idea that the Germans had taken so much of the city in real life to still lose it.

 

In real life they held it for some time.  It's the area all around the city that was the problem

[Wolfram-Harms]

9 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

In real life they held it for some time.  It's the area all around the city that was the problem

 

...and the harsh continental-climate winter the German army was simply not equipped for at all.

...and the fact that the German supply lines were far overstretched in the Stalingrad advance.

...and the sheer will of the Russian army to stop them at this point - at all costs. (And they lost many young good men there, and many good women too...)

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[RAY-EU]

More soviet planes ... , one of the reasons was the number of soviet soldiers vs axis soldiers that where in inferior of number in every geographical context as Russia like the biggest county of the world giving the option chance to Japan  of bombing the Russian most important factories of the east instead of the pacific ride after   pushed to attempt Pearl Harbour , divided and  vincis ( Germany west vs Russia vs East Japan  better probably success than Geramny vs Russia and Japan vs EEUU another geographical context surrounded far away by Oceans ... ) By giving this  example of More than 100.000 soviet tanks  with logistic supply  of fuel , vs about 27.000 axis tanks with very poor logistic supply  no fuel or diesel ( in Stalingrad died more than 2.000.000 germany soldiers trying to get the petrol refinery for logistical supply by the volga river without accomplished) meanwhile the germany factories were bomb by allies and the luftwaffe planes had to go back to defense Germany from allied (EEUU and British) bombers rides .

Principaly Give the victory to Russia .

 

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000005.html

Edited April 12, 2018 by RAY-EU