Ground Vehicles

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, HiIIBiIIy said:

Do you own a copy of Flying Circus, or you in this sub forum to troll ?

NOYFB

[Guest deleted@83466]

I'm a registered user of this forum, with access to all public subforurms on this website.  I'll post on this subforum or any other I feel like posting in.  Go read the discussion again Hillbilly, I think the reasons for my interest in this particular subject is quite clear, and explained multiple times.

Edited September 17, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[HiIIBiIIy]

2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

I'm a registered user of this forum, with access to all public subforurms on this website.  I'll post on this subforum or any other I feel like posting in.

Same here, but I have no interest in the WW2 stuff so I don't post, or read it.

[Cybermat47]

3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Go read the discussion again Hillbilly, I think the reasons for my interest in this particular subject is quite clear, and explained multiple times.

 

You’re saying that you think adding WWI ground vehicles would be a bad idea, because it wouldn’t be profitable for the devs, which I agree with.

 

The people who oppose our viewpoint are in the minority and not on the dev team, so there’s no chance of the devs actually spending money on making playable WWI vehicles, and the whole argument is pointless because neither side is going to convince the other, so why is it still going?

 

Hell, you’re probably going to read this and just reply with some snarky comment, so why am I still here?

[BraveSirRobin]

6 minutes ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

 

You’re saying that you think adding WWI ground vehicles would be a bad idea, because it wouldn’t be profitable for the devs, which I agree with.

 

The people who oppose our viewpoint are in the minority and not on the dev team, so there’s no chance of the devs actually spending money on making playable WWI vehicles, and the whole argument is pointless because neither side is going to convince the other, so why is it still going?

 

Hell, you’re probably going to read this and just reply with some snarky comment, so why am I still here?

 

If you agree with him why the hell are you arguing with him?

[Guest deleted@83466]

16 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

If you agree with him why the hell are you arguing with him?

 

I get that a lot ?

[Cybermat47]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

If you agree with him why the hell are you arguing with him?

 

4 hours ago, Stumble said:

SeaSerpent-  It's a discussion. Why do you try turn everything into a bloody argument? Please show me a thread on this FC forum where you haven't started an argument from simple disscussion. Just give it up. Please.

 

Calm down. 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

6 minutes ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

 

 

 

Don't hide behind someone else.  Why are you arguing with him if you agree with him?

[Cybermat47]

23 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Don't hide behind someone else.  Why are you arguing with him if you agree with him?

 

Because I agree with his opinion, not the way he’s expressing it. I have yet to see him in a debate where he doesn’t end up using snark instead of logic... which is weird, because he strikes me as an intelligent person.

 

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

2 minutes ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

 

Because I agree with his opinion, not the way he’s expressing it. I have yet to see him in a debate where he doesn’t end up using snark instead of logic... which is weird, because he strikes me as an intelligent person.

 

 

Frankly, and I'm dead serious here, I think you have some fundamental issues with communication, especially when it comes to understanding the context in which certain things are said. 

[Cybermat47]

Just now, SeaSerpent said:

 

Frankly, and I'm dead serious here, I think you have some fundamental issues with communication, especially when it comes to understanding the context in which certain things are said. 

 

Probably, I do have Asperger’s syndrome, my apologies if I misunderstood anything.

 

Regardless, no hard feelings about all this.

[BraveSirRobin]

5 minutes ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

 

Because I agree with his opinion, not the way he’s expressing it.

 

 

How he expresses it isn't really your problem.  If you agree with him, but still argue with him, you're just trolling.

 

 

2 minutes ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

 

Probably, I do have Asperger’s syndrome, my apologies if I misunderstood anything.

 

You also need to stop hiding behind that, too.  If Asperger's is that big a problem for you, maybe you should read more until you understand the context and criticize less.

[Stumble]

On 7/26/2018 at 9:53 AM, Trooper117 said:

God... can we have just a WWI flight sim please, no tank driving, no messing with AA guns, just an honest to goodness flight sim, like in the old days... thank you God.

 

Hey mate,

 

I know this was a long while ago, but I do just wanna say that yes - they should be focusing their time on the actual flying - however one thing that RoF lacks is the feeling of being there during a war. Quite a big one at that. Flying over the battle field just feels very strange in RoF since it seems like nothing is going on below. This lack of activity makes RoF seem so 'Empty'. I'm not too sure how the devs could go about it efficiently, but I'm sure it'll make a heck of a difference if they have a little go. 

 

S!

Edited September 17, 2018 by Stumble
Changing to present tense. RoF is still a game ?

[=AGW=Master]

19 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Get your facts straight kid.  If you wish to play semantic games, it went from being a cordial "discussion" to a "bloody argument" when AGW guy didn't like what I had to say and responded with:

 

 

 

No it stopped being a cordial discussion when you used fallacious argument tactics. You literally used a straw man argument in your first post here to derail the thread and win the discussion. I presented a viewpoint where I said it would be nice to have player controllable machine guns and flak. You responded with "[to] most people... driving a rickety truck around just doesn't hold much appeal. "

 

Which is a strawman argument. That I called you out for in my next post. You were taking my argument and picking the single worst thing about it and saying no one wants that. It's the equivalent of someone arguing against ww1 airplanes by saying, "no one wants to have diarrhea while flying in an open cockpit in freezing temperatures." It's TRUE and yet still has no context to the actual discussion.

 

The discussion was never about, "Man, wouldnt it be amazing to drive around on a under detailed flat empty landscape at 10mph for a few hours just to drive between fields!" It was about, "Manning a MG or Flak truck to defend your airfield would be nice."

 

At which point you drug the discussion very far from it's basis using other fallacious argument tactics. You've also insinuated yourself as a lead spokesperson for the player base as a whole and insinuated expert insight into the development and financial situation of the game designer. All of this to attempt to give yourself credibility so you can present more fallacious arguments...

 

Like others have said, you are literally just here to argue. So feel free to argue. it's an open forum but it not going to stop me from calling you on your bs.

Edited September 17, 2018 by =AGW=Master

[Guest deleted@83466]

People can read the discussion and judge the progression of the discussion for themselves.  There were no strawmen in my argument, my responses to things that were said before me were absolutely on target and relavent, and there were no fallacies in my reasoning.  The point made over and over again is that I think your desire for a WWI vehicle would be time poorly spent for the developers, and far from being a minority viewpoint, it seems there are quite a few that share this opinion indeed.  At this point, this thread is the equivalent of someone picking their nose and then rolling the boogie between their fingers, waiting until it's dry enough to flick somewhere. 

 

Like I said, good luck with your crusading vision for the game! ????

[=AGW=Master]

I'll be sure you mention you when they announce a wwi flak truck. ?

[Guest deleted@83466]

23 minutes ago, =AGW=Master said:

I'll be sure you mention you when they announce a wwi flak truck. ?

 

If that happens, then it happens. Sometimes when a baby cries enough, the parent will give her a lollipop just to make her stop.  But it won't change my position that I'd rather see the developers concentrate on other things, or that it was time/money that would have been better spent elsewhere, for things that are much more commonly in demand.

Edited September 17, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[=AGW=Master]

German Soldiers with mobile 7.7cm Rheinmetall anti-aircraft gun c.1917

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by =AGW=Master

[MiloMorai]

 

 

[Stumble]

Ohh yes please!!!! Can we please have elephant flak guns!!! 

 

Now that is definitely something worth the devs pausing work on the actual flying!!!

 

Just imagine... 

 

 

Mhmm... How would they have these elephants at the western front. 

 

Maybe not...

 

 

S!

[BraveSirRobin]

I have bad news for you Plank.  They’re probably going to put most of their resources into the product that generates the most revenue.  That is almost certainly WW2 related products. 

[BraveSirRobin]

2 minutes ago, Plank said:

So you agree then that FC is a dead duck?

If they do not "spend" any resources on it , as you state, then what is it?

 

 

It’s a way to move the RoF planes and content into their updated game engine, and generate some extra revenue in the process.  It doesn’t mean it’s “dead”, it’s just probably not get as many resources as WW2 products.  

[=AGW=Master]

25 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I have bad news for you Plank.  They’re probably going to put most of their resources into the product that generates the most revenue.  That is almost certainly WW2 related products. 

 

That is true. To be fair their cash cow right now is going to be ww2. They even farmed out the ww1 stuff instead of making it in house so they could focus on the ww2 stuff.

 

But, they are planning to do an AAA vehicle pack. They could easily add in a ww1 generic flak truck and a ww1 AAMG truck. Both of those vehicle types being produced 1916-1918 also saw use in various places in ww2. So technically they could produce something, in the AAA pack that could be used in FC as well as any of their ww2 packages with only minor changes to the skin.

 

The whole idea of having ww1 tanks... that is probably stretching it as far as production goes. I'd wait and see about how well TC is received before I pushed for that. But player man-able AAA is direly needed IMO for online play. It has the added bonus of also being usable across products and eras if they pick the proper ones to do.

 

They have already stated they ARE going to do player man-able AAA. It wouldnt be that much work to do a Model TT with a MG mount or 7mm flak mount. They will already be working on those vehicles as AI anyways. And they will already be working on the system required to make them man-able for their ww2 AAA. It's not that implausible that they would also do a few ww1 AAA.

[BraveSirRobin]

They could do lots of things.  But forcing people who want WW2 content to also take a WW1 flak truck that they have no interest in seems unlikely.  We can’t even get lots of Wehraboos to fly Russian aircraft.  

[Cybermat47]

Not sure if there’s even going to be much of a market for the WWII flak vehicles either, to be honest. I don’t think many people would enjoy trundling along in order to get one or two hits on a low flying aircraft now and then.

[BraveSirRobin]

I think there will be  big demand for the flak vehicles.  Especially if we can spawn in at airfields that are being vulched.

[Guest deleted@83466]

42 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

They could do lots of things.  But forcing people who want WW2 content to also take a WW1 flak truck that they have no interest in seems unlikely.  We can’t even get lots of Wehraboos to fly Russian aircraft.  

 

I don't have any interest in a Flak Truck, but I'm sure lots of people would pay good money for Flak Elephant.

[BraveSirRobin]

I would buy a flak elephant if I can use it to stomp one of the airfield zombies.

[Cybermat47]

7 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I think there will be  big demand for the flak vehicles.  Especially if we can spawn in at airfields that are being vulched.

 

True, I hadn’t considered that. Could also come in handy for some zealous traffic control

[Guest deleted@83466]

3 minutes ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

 

True, I hadn’t considered that. Could also come in handy for some zealous traffic control

 

The sales pitch for playable flak trucks due to the preponderance of "vulchures" was made on page 1 of this thread.

[Feathered_IV]

Player controlled flak guns will end up having to be dumbed down quite a bit to be anything near as useful as an AI one.  Otherwise the player will be aiming with dead reckoning without any rangefinding equipment or direction.  Unless there's all manner of arcade helpers it seems unlikely they would hit anything.

[Cybermat47]

56 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

The sales pitch for playable flak trucks due to the preponderance of "vulchures" was made on page 1 of this thread.

 

Ah. This is what I get for deciding to stay up late for the past few months 

 

37 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Player controlled flak guns will end up having to be dumbed down quite a bit to be anything near as useful as an AI one.  Otherwise the player will be aiming with dead reckoning without any rangefinding equipment or direction.  Unless there's all manner of arcade helpers it seems unlikely they would hit anything.

 

Yeah, it seems like player controlled flak would be more of a deterrent than a credible threat, unless we get those arcade helpers.

 

I suppose that you could get away with the arcade features by saying that other members of the gun crew are using rangefinders etc, similar to how the arcade navigation system in the Silent Hunter games can be justified by the captain giving orders to the NPC navigator, who then does all the work.

[=AGW=Master]

If you wanted to neuter them you could have another vehicle with a flat bed with the range finder. So at best it takes two people to have accurate flak. But really i'd think a simple command that gives a chat buffer readout of distance is enough. Just hover over an airplane with the site. Press a button. Range comes back a few seconds later.

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

[unreasonable]

9 hours ago, =AGW=Master said:

If you wanted to neuter them you could have another vehicle with a flat bed with the range finder. So at best it takes two people to have accurate flak. But really i'd think a simple command that gives a chat buffer readout of distance is enough. Just hover over an airplane with the site. Press a button. Range comes back a few seconds later.

 

 

 

Why not make the player POV the range finder, from which you dial in a fuze setting, elevation and direction and the gun fires when ready. As though you were the officer commanding the gun(s) not the individual gun layer.  This is after all how actual AAA is controlled, except for the low level automatic weapons.

 

On 9/18/2018 at 7:29 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

I would buy a flak elephant if I can use it to stomp one of the airfield zombies.

 

I would buy a flak elephant too, but to stomp on the airfield zombies they would have to made into actual 3D figures like infantry. As of now, they are just animations: you can taxi right through them as though they are ghosts.

 

 

 

[MiloMorai]

This would be the kind of AA guns used to defend airfields from vulching.

 

[Feathered_IV]

10 hours ago, =AGW=Master said:

If you wanted to neuter them you could have another vehicle with a flat bed with the range finder. So at best it takes two people to have accurate flak. But really i'd think a simple command that gives a chat buffer readout of distance is enough. Just hover over an airplane with the site. Press a button. Range comes back a few seconds later.

 

 

 

"Engaging Fokker, it's close!!!"

[=AGW=Master]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

This would be the kind of AA guns used to defend airfields from vulching.

 

 

But throw it on a model tt flatbed for slight mobility.

[MiloMorai]

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1/ww1-british-tanks.php

 

For other combatant vehicles, click on WW1 Tanks

[=AGW=Master]

THORNEYCROFT J-TYPE LORRY WITH 13 POUNDER 9 CWT ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUN 1915

 

Pierce-Arrow Armoured Lorry

United Kingdom (1914)

Vickers Naval 2-pdr automatic gun

 

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1/gb/Pierce-Arrow.php