How a mission should be like for you

[=27=Davesteu]

Since we already have a poll if you are a online or offline player, I also would be interested how a mission should be like for you.
In this poll it's not relevant if you fly offline, coop or on a Dogfightserver just what´s important for you to like the current map.
Thanks for your voting,

Dave

[LuftManu]

Thanks for the poll. Hope the editors take a look.

 

1: Historically and fun in a perfect MIx.

 

2: Historically Distances, I want to use an Strategy or Try to enter by the six of the enemy positions and I need time and space.

 

3: I Leave if I dont like it, but always keep an eye if the stuff that I dont like its Fixed/changed,and being objective I have respect for all of the time the guy expended on editing the mission.

 

Salute!

[=27=Davesteu]

Thanks Manu, same as I would do!

 

Dave

[Rama]

I'lm not sure everybody has the same understanding of "historically correct" for a mission. My understanding is that "historically correct", for a mission, means it represent a mission that has really been flawn during WW2 (and that has been historically well researched), with same objectives for both side, same number of identical plane types taking of from where they did historically, etc....

That's why I answered "I don't care".

If a mission comes from a mission creator fantasy and uses historical plane types for the period the mission was supposed to be flawn, it's ok with me... but maybe that's what others understand by "historically correct"?

I'm even very ok with "what if" scenariis. I played some on old IL2 time (I remember some missions featuring mercenaries flying in imaginary post-war local conflicts) that brought lots of fun. The interest of the mission, has long it is believable, even in imaginary conflicts, is more important to me than respecting to the word and the comma some historical squadron diaries.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I enjoy a variety of missions, lone ones and short ones, just-for-fun and historically accurate. As ling as mission makers churn out a wide choice of missions (or I can make my own), I'm happy.

[Callsign_Apeman]

Not sure your exact meaning on "historically correct".  Do you mean recreating an actual WW2 mission, or avoiding something like War Thunder where planes from every country and year are all mixed up together in the same battle?

 

I pretty much want my missions to be nearly instant action. One thing that used to put me off the missions in ROF and IL-2, was having to spend 10 minutes on auto-pilot with accellerated time on to get to the "fun" parts.  I play a lot of different games, and if this one has me sitting around bored for 10 minutes before anything happens, I'm going to be playing something else instead.

 

There need to be different options to suit different people. I know some pilots enjoy flying long distance in real time. I personally don't, but I respect that other people do.

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

Well I am very much for the historically correct ones. I usually try every mission to see how they are like.

But I do leave missions that have a too strong "arcade" touch to them. Where strategie plays no roll.

Since I belong to the nuts who love to fly bombers, I like the option to plan various courses and so prehaps avoid

lurking enemy fighters. Missions where I am left with no option but to fly through the thick of the enemy fighters

I leave very fast.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I pretty much want my missions to be nearly instant action.

 

That's where "scramble"-style missions come in.

 

"The Jerries are coming, go, go, go!"