Building a player base for WW2

eg. realism vs balance

 

 

 

Realism versus balance is BS. If we're talking about a simulator, it's realism without a versus, full stop.

Realism versus balance is BS. If we're talking about a simulator, it's realism without a versus, full stop.

 

That's a good point. When we go to multiplayer (PvP parts of it at least), DCS ceases to be a simulator since it doesn't simulate authentic real world conflicts. Instead you get military fantasy with Red vs Blue setups and gameplay that is supposedly fair to both sides.

 

Certain tier II or III or IV militaries suddenly become very capable, the Gazelle mistral is severely limited, Gazelle scout versions gain a capability to deploy complex ground equipment, and so on.

If we had the proper ground units I'd be making mission

since it doesn't simulate authentic real world conflicts

 

 

No, but all available assets should be modelled true to life without any bias regardless. How people decide to use those assets, however, is their decision.

Having to buy an asset pack, map and then a A/C puts me off DCS WW2 and I love ww2 flightsims. The cost is just a bit high.

There are competitive products that are very good if not better in someways - ppl dismiss them for being "sim-lite" which I totally disagree with - no more sim-lite than FC3 planes.

 

Its a shame because DCS does some things really well - for my 2cents I think a bundle pack of normandy, asset pack and an axis and allied plane would be a good idea, with nice discounts.

I don't know where that conclusion came from? I don't know of any but 1 WWII module being planned by a 3rd party, everything else is coming from ED's WWII team, including new maps.

 

As stated, it was a guess, not a conclusion

no more sim-lite than FC3 planes

 

Won't mention any names, but the ones I've tried have been pretty arcadish - too forgiving, no engine torque to speak of, etc. You could spin the machines allright, but the spins felt scripted without any dynamics at play whatsoever. So calling them sim lite is far from an exaggeration IMO.

 

The cost is just a bit high

 

What you're getting here is fully modelled AC. With the competition, you'll get anything but. So the cost isn't actually that high really.

There are competitive products that are very good if not better in someways - ppl dismiss them for being "sim-lite" which I totally disagree with - no more sim-lite than FC3 planes.

 

 

You just countered your own argument by comparing "arcadish flight sim X" to FC3. The details of the systems modelling as well as the CFD flight model is pretty unique, certainly for a combat sim. It's even (much) better than "almost professional" flight sims like FSX / P3D, especially regarding the flight model.

 

Regarding costs, I'm not going to argue with you, but theoretically speaking, a person could just buy a single module and be done with that. Not that that works in reality...

Theoretically, one could have a complete WW2 setup with Normandy 1944 Map + WWII Assets Pack ($60) + 1 Aircraft of your choice $50, total $110, or -50% in a sale.

I think $55 is perfectly fine for what you are getting. The problem is, you'll end up with wanting all other modules as well, plus new joystick, plus VR, plus new computer to handle the VR etc. etc. That's where it get's expensive!

Realism versus balance is BS. If we're talking about a simulator, it's realism without a versus, full stop.

 

That's a good point. When we go to multiplayer (PvP parts of it at least), DCS ceases to be a simulator since it doesn't simulate authentic real world conflicts. Instead you get military fantasy with Red vs Blue setups and gameplay that is supposedly fair to both sides.

 

It's an excellent point...

 

On the other hand, all military conflicts involving a major power have been extremely one-sided since the Korean War. I'm not sure it's any fun to play for the underdog in, say, the Gulf War. Or even Vietnam.

 

But we have to keep in mind that DCS is not intended to be the most fun multiplayer experience. It's intended to be the best simulator possible, and then let the player figure out what to do with it.

 

When it comes to module development, the focus should (in my opinion) be on accurate reproduction of an aircraft. Not about it's value in multiplayer or even historical fit compared to certain available maps or other aircraft. Although obviously there is some room with regards to choosing the version to be modelled.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Zius

I use the asset pack every single day when making missions and campaigns.

I would certainly miss the things it brings to the table like flak and guns, soldiers, B-17G.

The cost of admission is great value and a must have for WWII simulations.

No regrets here. It is the cost of 2 pizza pies. Well worth it.

No regrets here. It is the cost of 2 pizza pies. Well worth it.

 

agreed.

 

heck, even 3 pies would be fine.

 

you’ll be flying wwii long after the pies are gone.

Sale is the key

 

I've bought normandie and WW2 assets in a sale, but never really used it.. I often fly on Burning Skys WWII server, and as long as there are no ww2 units, I guess nobody will feel "forced" to buy the modules. But I also agree, that you should be able to fly in WW2 environments, but not create anything without buing the packs. And we need a few more planes... Not special OP planes, but planes wich are compareable.. I mean the 109 (if well flown) can outrun and outclimb anything atm... as a spit you must have luck to get a new pilot into a turning fight, or a veteran not spot you in the first place...

 

 

Maybe they should just release some compareable variants of the Spit / 109 / Mustang / 190.. the I16 can't be taken seriously anyway.

Yeah. Getting the K4 and D9 in DCS was a ridiculous decision. Something like the 190A8 (which we're getting thank God, that will be an insta-buy for me) or the 109G6 would have been far more reasonable.

Yeah. Getting the K4 and D9 in DCS was a ridiculous decision. Something like the 190A8 (which we're getting thank God, that will be an insta-buy for me) or the 109G6 would have been far more reasonable.

 

 

Wait until the Me262 comes out... lol

 

 

As soon as the FW190 A8 is released, Storm of Waw server will dumnp the 109K4 and the FW190 D9, and replace them with the 109 A8.

If that deters LW fliers then that's just too bad. The historical matchup is more important than filling the server with players. AI will be used to flesh out the air-space if the humans wont do it.

I'm waiting for the new damage modeling to be more active on the WW2 frontlines.

Wait until the Me262 comes out... lol

 

 

As soon as the FW190 A8 is released, Storm of Waw server will dumnp the 109K4 and the FW190 D9, and replace them with the 109 A8.

If that deters LW fliers then that's just too bad. The historical matchup is more important than filling the server with players. AI will be used to flesh out the air-space if the humans wont do it.

 

 

still weird tho the k4 isnt faster in a dive than a spit

 

 

Why would you remove airframes from a server? All these aircraft faced each other in boddenplatte. Oops wrong forum. Ya and the fact a k4 can’t outdive a spit in dcs.... one of many inaccuracies

Why would you remove airframes from a server? All these aircraft faced each other in boddenplatte. Oops wrong forum. Ya and the fact a k4 can’t outdive a spit in dcs.... one of many inaccuracies

 

 

:thumbup:

still weird tho the k4 isnt faster in a dive than a spit

 

 

 

I see the spit get an early jump on the K4, so initially the spit has the lead. Its a shallow, low altitude dive and still the K4 catches and passes the spit at the bottom.

 

Whats wrong again?

i havent been playing that much lately, but in the past i had better chances to run away from a spit in a 109 than now thats for sure, other players felt the change too. i read that the G6 was much better in a dive, so im just curious what changes were actually made. Her is a snippet i just coppied:

 

Dive19. Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.

 

Relating everything else the G6 was inferior to the Spitfire LK IX

 

 

 

more testing would be a good start :D

 

i dont have any kind of books or data, guess i am guilty^^

 

 

i´ll leave it to this and hopefully everything is simulated perfectly - i tend to not be the rant guy - here i am :)

Edited May 17, 2019 by rogonaut

Why would you remove airframes from a server? All these aircraft faced each other in boddenplatte. Oops wrong forum. Ya and the fact a k4 can’t outdive a spit in dcs.... one of many inaccuracies

 

 

1. Well, we don't have the F86, the F14, the F18, the Viggen, The Yak54, the I-16, the Uh1H either. Removing two more is a drop in the ocean.

 

 

2. becasue I can

 

 

3. "balance" be damned, this isn't war thunder

 

 

4. SoW aims to be historical as far as we can. We'll use the airframe designations that fit with the missions we have, which are set in Normandy between 09 and 15 June, 1944.

 

 

 

5. Other servers already go for the catch-all approach. There no requirement for duplication.

 

 

6. The people who do actually fly regulalrly on SoW all know where to voice their opinions about the server and the mission set.

still weird tho the k4 isnt faster in a dive than a spit

Not at all. IIRC from my aerobatics years, initial acceleration is related to gravity in first place, then engine power. I remember if you didn't catch up with leader in manoeuvres before start you wouldn't until the end because gravity is the main factor, and we were flying the very same aircraft. So yeah, great test of the obvious result you should get in a scenario like that :thumbup: .

 

 

S!

1. Well, we don't have the F86, the F14, the F18, the Viggen, The Yak54, the I-16, the Uh1H either. Removing two more is a drop in the ocean.

 

 

2. becasue I can

 

 

3. "balance" be damned, this isn't war thunder

 

 

4. SoW aims to be historical as far as we can. We'll use the airframe designations that fit with the missions we have, which are set in Normandy between 09 and 15 June, 1944.

 

 

 

5. Other servers already go for the catch-all approach. There no requirement for duplication.

 

 

6. The people who do actually fly regulalrly on SoW all know where to voice their opinions about the server and the mission set.

 

 

Sounds like your limiting yourself keeping your realm in the normandy invasion period. Why when the map is totally inaccurate for that period anyways... Your boat :doh:

Sounds like your limiting yourself

 

 

Limiting ouselves is the whole point of it, so yes, seems like you've grasped the concept.

 

It takes me about 2 months to build a mission and any one mission can only be set on one day. . . I try to follow the specific events of that day with unit placements and what parts of the front are active, and I try to replicate weather where possible.

 

The plan is to eventually have 5 to 10 missions in sequence following the day-by-day post invasion battle, so it would be like an online campaign.

 

But, time for me to edit the missions is limited.

 

I could just throw all the airframes in over two airfields and put some tanks half-way between them. But that's already available elsewhere. There's not the player base to replicate that.