PDA

View Full Version : Realism vs Realism, and why imo Salmo's map is a huge step forward



Zisi
Sep-13-2013, 02:36
Arguments regarding realism seem to crop up in every game that advertises "realism". Generally, specifically around features that are themselves obviously unrealistic. Debate over Project Reality's kit system, or Arma's lack of jumping, is a great example from my other interests. In the case of Salmo's map, Operation Home Plate, some have argued that random upgrades among other things are "unrealistic".

Well, yes they are. However lets think about some other unrealistic aspects of the game and other maps for a moment.

* Tanks and ships that don't move quickly or realistically defend themselves for example.
* The quantity of aircraft & other assets.
* The lack of organized command and control.
* The lack of personal risk.
* Mostly static maps that do not respond in any realistic way to your presence.
* Most objectives have no impact on the players whatsoever
* Lack of ground communication should an area come under attack
* One of two planes might take minimal damage after plowing into each other
* On most maps currently the spot of water right off Hawkinge coast is apparently very important to both sides.

I'm sure anyone could think of many other things to add to the list, but the core point is we are playing a game that is inevitably highly unrealistic overall.

Most other maps have objectives all over the place that require a real concerted effort by a good number of people to actually finish before the time limit. Moreover in most cases these objectives have no impact whatsoever on the players themselves. There is no "war effort" and loosing that train station down in wilmington won't mean you have less to eat next week. Has anyone here ever seen someone actively defending Wilmington, or other far flung objectives?... Right nobody cares, on either side. If someone does go there it's out of purely personal interest, maybe to practice bombing or strafing where they know nobody else will be.

So the game is unrealistic, the question is what things do we want to be as realistic as possible? For me the answer is likely the same as most here, I want the air combat to be rather realistic. To do this the motivations of the players need to be somewhat objective oriented, not deathmatch oriented.

Salmo has accomplished this by creating objectives out of the airfields themselves, and AI bomber groups that do actually do something useful. Red has a direct interest in protecting their airfields, blue has a direct interest in destroying them. Red has an urgent interest in shooting down bombers, blue has a real interest in protecting them.

Certain aspects of the map may not be "realistic" but it results in more actual realism in the air than in other maps where people don't care at all and the map ends on a timeout.

Talisman
Sep-15-2013, 14:06
Arguments regarding realism seem to crop up in every game that advertises "realism". Generally, specifically around features that are themselves obviously unrealistic. Debate over Project Reality's kit system, or Arma's lack of jumping, is a great example from my other interests. In the case of Salmo's map, Operation Home Plate, some have argued that random upgrades among other things are "unrealistic".

Well, yes they are. However lets think about some other unrealistic aspects of the game and other maps for a moment.

* Tanks and ships that don't move quickly or realistically defend themselves for example.
* The quantity of aircraft & other assets.
* The lack of organized command and control.
* The lack of personal risk.
* Mostly static maps that do not respond in any realistic way to your presence.
* Most objectives have no impact on the players whatsoever
* Lack of ground communication should an area come under attack
* One of two planes might take minimal damage after plowing into each other
* On most maps currently the spot of water right off Hawkinge coast is apparently very important to both sides.

I'm sure anyone could think of many other things to add to the list, but the core point is we are playing a game that is inevitably highly unrealistic overall.

Most other maps have objectives all over the place that require a real concerted effort by a good number of people to actually finish before the time limit. Moreover in most cases these objectives have no impact whatsoever on the players themselves. There is no "war effort" and loosing that train station down in wilmington won't mean you have less to eat next week. Has anyone here ever seen someone actively defending Wilmington, or other far flung objectives?... Right nobody cares, on either side. If someone does go there it's out of purely personal interest, maybe to practice bombing or strafing where they know nobody else will be.

So the game is unrealistic, the question is what things do we want to be as realistic as possible? For me the answer is likely the same as most here, I want the air combat to be rather realistic. To do this the motivations of the players need to be somewhat objective oriented, not deathmatch oriented.

Salmo has accomplished this by creating objectives out of the airfields themselves, and AI bomber groups that do actually do something useful. Red has a direct interest in protecting their airfields, blue has a direct interest in destroying them. Red has an urgent interest in shooting down bombers, blue has a real interest in protecting them.

Certain aspects of the map may not be "realistic" but it results in more actual realism in the air than in other maps where people don't care at all and the map ends on a timeout.

You say the random upgrades introduced by the map maker are unrealistic and then appear to be saying that this is OK because there are other unrealistic things in the game. However, the unrealistic things that you list come with the game as things that we generally cannot change and have to live with if we are to play CloD. Personally, I find the unrealistic random upgrades purposely introduced by the map maker to be a totally unnecessary unrealistic addition. To intentionally introduce something unrealistic is a different matter than having to live with the unrealistic limitations of the game. Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to be saying that it is OK to intentionally introduce more unrealistic situations because there are already unrealistic situations that we cannot change. It seems like you are saying that 2 wrongs make a right. Please correct me if I have misunderstood what you are saying.
I think it is reasonable to expect that all flight simulations will have some things that are unrealistic due to the limitations of simulation. However, I do not think that this provides that much of an excuse to then add more unrealistic content as a matter of course, especially when the map maker has the opportunity to positively make things as realistic as is reasonably practicable. I would rather see a positive choice to try and make things more realistic than what I see as a negative choice to make things even less realistic. I am not against fantasy maps, as they can be fun, but I think that any unrealistic additions by the map maker should be fair to both sides concerned. The last time I looked at the Homeplate map, I found the unrealistic random upgrade situation to be bias in favour of the LW, as only superseded outdated early Spitfire types were available at the start of the map. In contrast, the LW had/has Me 109 types available from a later time line from the start.
Thus, I found the map to have an unfortunate anti Spitfire smell about it, even if the attempt by the map maker to produce a more BoB feel is to be applauded IMHO.

Also, for the record, I am one of those pilots that will provide CAP over remote targets on the edge of the battle map and I have seen others do the same. It is not always as rewarding as something like vulching an enemy airfield, but it is perhaps a little more realistic.

Zisi
Oct-09-2013, 04:34
Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to be saying that it is OK to intentionally introduce more unrealistic situations because there are already unrealistic situations that we cannot change. It seems like you are saying that 2 wrongs make a right. Please correct me if I have misunderstood what you are saying..

More or less, yes. More specifically, I am saying that sometimes adding certain technically unrealistic aspects to gameplay can actually enhance the realism of other aspects that you may care more about. In this case, the random upgrades themselves are unrealistic, yet they randomly make certain airfields important, and players are thus incentivised to bomb / protect those airfields more than others. The result of this is air conflict that is itself more realistic due to fighting over an objective that directly affects them. Cooperation is more greatly incentivised, attacks are more concentrated, communication becomes more important.

In real life there were many reasons why defending / attacking certain objectives would matter. In the game there are very few ways to actually reach out and make a player care. Airfield destruction combined with the random upgrades does this. You may be willing to fly halfway across britain to defend an objective that has no tangible effect on anyone on the off chance of catching someone over the next few hours that might actually attack it, but most are not, I'm not, and I consider myself to be pretty objective focused. That said, if someone is attacking the airfield I get my 100 ia 100oct's from? Yes I'll be doing everything I can to stop it, it gives you something to lose.

Zisi
Oct-09-2013, 04:44
One other thing actually. In every community focused on "realism" simulation, regardless of topic people generally fall into one of two camps. For some realism is more about reenactment, having realistic scenarios, people making realistic decisions regardless of current day knowledge, military ranks, terminology, etc.

The other camp generally cares more about the realism of the fight, they want the tools themselves to be realistic, but fundamentally play to win and will use whatever advantage they can discover.

I am of the latter category, I care about the realism of the resulting fights not the realism of the scenario that produces them.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-09-2013, 04:52
Hi Entelin,

The issue of how maps/ missions are put together has gone around and around many times. Remember, we're dealing with the restrictions of (1) game mechanics, (2) server capacity/ connection and (3) player gaming styles and (4) the time people have available to respond to criticisms and make adjustments.

Suffice it to say that the people who run the server do not (at the moment) necessarily have the time to spend the many hours needed to make missions, especially with all the work on the patch. So...

Here's a suggestion;

1. Try making some missions yourself and submit them to the server.

2. If you are not able to do the above (because of skill or time) why not write the brief for your ideal mission? You can then post the brief on the forums, to see if someone who is able to make missions will start working on your suggestion.#

3. Volunteer to be involved in the testing sessions for new missions. There are plenty of mission critics out there, but when we host a testing session for a new idea, hardly anyone shows up????

Reddog has been slowly building up to releasing a new mission. It started with some questions on the forum about an idea. This was followed by some small and then larger testing sessions. Each session has resulted in minor changes to the map/ mission parameters. The mission will soon be ready for release. But even then, no-one can be 100% certain that the mission will fly, that it will be enjoyable to both sides.

4. Why not look at joining a squadron and participating in one of the online campaigns that go on? These are the "next level" in CloD missions.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-09-2013, 05:00
I care about the realism of the resulting fights not the realism of the scenario that produces them.

Perhaps a description of what you think constitutes a "realistic fight" would help?

Are you describing a 50+ bomber raid at 18,000ft over southeast London and the docks, tracked by observer corps and radar, closely escorted by 109s and then intercepted by 12+ groups of hurricanes and spitfires?

Are you describing a rolling fur-ball, mid way between the two sides, at low altitude comprised only of fighters?

Are you describing constantly under-threat RAF bases, with reinforcements being directed in, en masse, from rear fighter bases?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-09-2013, 05:16
* Tanks and ships that don't move quickly or realistically defend themselves for example.

This is a bit of an immersion killer. Hopefully future patches will help deal with this. It's not strictly a mission/ map thing.


* The quantity of aircraft & other assets.

Are there too many or too few? Remember, the servers are limited (mission file size). Too many objects will kill the server.


* The lack of organized command and control.

RDF would help this.
Teamspeak is also a great aid in resolving this. If you're not on TS, then you're not on the radio, think of it like that.


* The lack of personal risk.

This is always the same with games. Some things can be done to add greater dis-incentive to recklessness. Landing points would be nice (i.e. you only score points if you make it come alive).


* Mostly static maps that do not respond in any realistic way to your presence.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you perhaps propose examples of the desired situation?


* Most objectives have no impact on the players whatsoever

Why not propose an "impact"?


* Lack of ground communication should an area come under attack

I'd like to see an observer corps in place, which would identify aircraft under 10,000ft, which are passing over specific areas. Hwoever, let's not forget that TF have mentioned the possibility of controllable ground vehicles and flak guns. Maybe we will see people starting to man them, and calling out on TS when they see enemies?


* One of two planes might take minimal damage after plowing into each other

This is a game code issue. Maybe we can look to patches for a resolution?


* On most maps currently the spot of water right off Hawkinge coast is apparently very important to both sides.


This is a function of distance. Always, in online games the players who want fast action head straight to the enemy's closest point. The inevitable result is a fur-ball, typically over one team's forward base. Very difficult to rectify this. But you suggestions would be welcome. What do you propose?

Salmo
Oct-09-2013, 09:30
<snip> Personally, I find the unrealistic random upgrades purposely introduced by the map maker to be a totally unnecessary unrealistic addition. To intentionally introduce something unrealistic is a different matter than having to live with the unrealistic limitations of the game. <snip>

With COD mission architecture, it's entirely possible to make a single battle on a server run for months, and have various engagements occur roughly according to historical timeframes. I could make aircraft upgrades very realistic indeed, by scheduling the battle to run from (say) June 1940 till August 1940 (ie a single battle running for 60 days instead of a few hrs) with new aircraft models introduced at times corresponding to their exact introduction at various airfields at various times.

Such a scenario is probably not what most players want to see on a server however. Since Operation Homeplate runs for just 5 hrs or so maximum, aircraft upgrades are only 'representative' of changing aircraft models through the BOB period.

SoW Reddog
Oct-09-2013, 10:37
With COD mission architecture, it's entirely possible to make a single battle on a server run for months, and have various engagements occur roughly according to historical timeframes. I could make aircraft upgrades very realistic indeed, by scheduling the battle to run from (say) June 1940 till August 1940 (ie a single battle running for 60 days instead of a few hrs) with new aircraft models introduced at times corresponding to their exact introduction at various airfields at various times.

Such a scenario is probably not what most players want to see on a server however. Since Operation Homeplate runs for just 5 hrs or so maximum, aircraft upgrades are only 'representative' of changing aircraft models through the BOB period.

That'd be awesome. Can you have it ready for say Thursday afternoon? :D Just Kidding!

Although I don't like every feature of Homeplate, it's still IMO the best mission I've played online.

Talisman
Oct-09-2013, 11:09
With COD mission architecture, it's entirely possible to make a single battle on a server run for months, and have various engagements occur roughly according to historical timeframes. I could make aircraft upgrades very realistic indeed, by scheduling the battle to run from (say) June 1940 till August 1940 (ie a single battle running for 60 days instead of a few hrs) with new aircraft models introduced at times corresponding to their exact introduction at various airfields at various times.

Such a scenario is probably not what most players want to see on a server however. Since Operation Homeplate runs for just 5 hrs or so maximum, aircraft upgrades are only 'representative' of changing aircraft models through the BOB period.

The issue I have with your Homeplate map is that the principle Spitfire of the BoB was the Spit Mk1a (known as the Mk1 to start with and retrospectively designated 1a) with 100 Octane fuel. A Spitfire upgrade for Homeplate would more accurately be represented by upgrading from 1a to MkII at an appropriate point.

However, for some reason you have decided not to provide the principle Spitfire type flown throughout the BoB from the start of the map. Britain went to a great deal of effort to provide Rotol propellers to front line squadrons in the South of England ready for use in the BoB. You have correctly provided Hurricane aircraft with the Rotol prop and 100 Octane fuel from the start of the map, but not the Spitfire; I wonder why. You have also decided to match 109 E-3 aircraft against earlier period pre BoB standard Spitfires from the start of the map.

That is why I find your map to be anti Spitfire, anti RAF, anti Britain and bias in favour of the LW. Homeplate would work just as well if you provided the proper Spitfire type from the start of the BoB on your Homeplate map

I like most of what you are doing to provide good maps, but not when they come across as anti Spitfire, anti RAF and anti Britain in terms of upgrades and unhistorical match up with LW aircraft. I can still enjoy flying Homaplate, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth that a map maker, who could do better, wants to provide unrealistic aircraft matches between the RAF and LW sides.

Currently, Homeplate is not as representative as it could be in terms of historic upgrades for RAF types in the BoB and you have not responded well to feedback on that account.


Talisman

Zisi
Oct-09-2013, 13:05
Suffice it to say that the people who run the server do not (at the moment) necessarily have the time to spend the many hours needed to make missions, especially with all the work on the patch. So...
The purpose of my post was not specifically to criticize any particular map, but rather to respond to some criticism I've read about Homeplate and don't agree with, and also why I personally love the map. I gave the examples of unrealistic aspects of the game, to highlight the fact that there are many things already that are unrealistic out of necessity for the simulation, or are simplified/abstracted because they are just not important to the simulation.


Perhaps a description of what you think constitutes a "realistic fight" would help?
The more teamwork is present, the more realistic a fight becomes in my opinion. The fights are always going to be in an unrealistic context for all the above reasons. My main point here is that most of the fighting on most maps does not occur due to any particular objective. For the most part, nobody is trying to accomplish anything other than having fun dogfighting. For me a realistic fight is where most people are directly incentivised to work together, not via server rules or anything like that, but naturally as a result of mission design, scoring, and gameplay. This teamwork tends to happen more on Homeplate because, for one, more people fly bombers, and protecting them is just simply more needed. (nobody needs to protect a lone bomber flying on the deck to some place 75mi away that nobody is going to be defending). Also because the red side actually has something to loose should they fail to defend their objectives. A higher degree of teamwork is inevitable given those incentives.


With COD mission architecture, it's entirely possible to make a single battle on a server run for months ...... Such a scenario is probably not what most players want to see on a server however
Also, steam crashes, hackers, etc. I agree completely though as cool as it would be to do something like that, it's more fun for a map to last a short period so a player can feel the map progress and his participation in the relatively short period one has to play.


The issue I have with your Homeplate map is that the principle Spitfire of the BoB was the Spit Mk1a (known as the Mk1 to start with and retrospectively designated 1a) with 100 Octane fuel. A Spitfire upgrade for Homeplate would more accurately be represented by upgrading from 1a to MkII at an appropriate point. .....

That is why I find your map to be anti Spitfire, anti RAF, anti Britain and bias in favour of the LW. Homeplate would work just as well if you provided the proper Spitfire type from the start of the BoB on your Homeplate map .....

Two things, atm as far as I can tell the spit II is just flatly inferior to the Ia in most every way. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but my time to 20k is essentially the same on both planes, and the Ia seems to still be faster in straight and level flight at 20k while being a boatload faster at low altitudes. The Spit I isn't as bad as you might think its pretty fast, and below 10k it performs just fine. I usually fly on the red side, I don't think its unbalanced in favour of the LW at all. Also this is all only terribly relevant right at the start of the map, the 100 Ia upgrades come out pretty quick.

Keep in mind, that while the LW may have somewhat of an edge in fighters, if they want to win the map a good number of them have to be flying bombers, while the RAF can fly nothing but fighters. You cannot protect bombers solely by bouncing with 700kph of energy alone, and if you fly lower, you open yourself up to being vulnerable to the more numerable spits that will all be concentrated on the coast. So I have to disagree with you completely on that point.

ATAG_JTDawg
Oct-09-2013, 13:39
Since the introduction of the T.F. Patch you can not hack unless you are the best hackers out there , TF put anti cheat , (Colander) locked you out of places the hacks use. an I don't want to tell you the other ways ATAG , Has an is taking , to stop the cheaters , :thumbsup:

Zisi
Oct-09-2013, 13:43
.... You have correctly provided Hurricane aircraft with the Rotol prop and 100 Octane fuel from the start of the map, but not the Spitfire; I wonder why. You have also decided to match 109 E-3 aircraft against earlier period pre BoB standard Spitfires from the start of the map.

I am not going to attempt to argue historical points. It's easy to get caught up in what things are called what, and what those things were in real life. In real life people did whatever they could to gain an edge in the situation they were faced with. The later G variants of the 109 for example were heavier due to increased armor plating and did not perform as well in energy fighting as the earlier models (if I recall correctly). The plating was necessary to survive attacking late war allied bomber groups, but made it a worse dogfighter.

Hypothetically, say we had a late war scenario where players had the option of using a G variant (assuming my above statement is correct), but as is the case now, most players still flew fighters. If a player flew a G variant in this case would it be "realistic" or "historical"? In name only. If our simulator's mission & incentives were applied to real life, they also would not use the G variants (or even have built them).

------

Another more directly applicable example: I was having a discussion with some the other night about the merits of various ammo types and things. Granted this will be changing in the next patch in some way but right now the best allied ammo to use is white tracer, and nothing else. Unless you don't want tracer, then you would use AP and nothing else. Various people responded in various ways, one responded that he preferred to use a more "Historic" loadout, including a mix of ball, dewild, etc. In name, hes right of course, that mix of names & labels were used in real life. However they used that mix for a reason, because they thought it was effective (and in many cases cost/supply effective). Ball ammunition could be caught by the wing, bounce around inside, the ap rounds could puncture tanks and allow dewild to cause fires, etc. Heres the catch: Much of that is not simulated. Ball ammo isn't bouncing around in your wing, and as far as I can tell mixing ap rounds into a dewild belt actually lowers the chance of a fire. Dewild atm cannot cause any damage other than fire, it cannot even kill the pilot.

I'm not complaining and I present this for the sake of friendly discussion, also as I mentioned ammo is getting some attention in the next TF patch which is pretty cool. Regardless though a "historic" loadout, that is only historic in name, is not in fact historic, because the effects that these ammo types have is not itself historic. The effect of pure white tracer may actually be a more historic result than the historic mix of other labels atm.

------

To bring this back to the Spitfire I and Homeplate, hopefully I illustrated above my general line of thinking. I'm all for realism, but I'm for realism in the resulting gameplay (which for me is largely defined by teamwork, focused on success, not reenactment), I don't get hung up on what specific things are called. I know that I enjoy having a reason to fly something other than the Ia 100oct, and a map where blue is incentivised to fly about 1/3 bombers is a great way to make that option available imo.

ATAG_Headshot
Oct-09-2013, 14:27
Since the introduction of the T.F. Patch you can not hack unless you are the best hackers out there , TF put anti cheat , (Colander) locked you out of places the hacks use. an I don't want to tell you the other ways ATAG , Has an is taking , to stop the cheaters , :thumbsup:

I think he meant hackers bringing the server down, not cheating in game. Sort of like the kitten hacker.

Zisi
Oct-10-2013, 02:03
It's easy to see why. You can't.

Responding for the purpose of being understood and thus necessarily repeating myself: I don't argue points purely related to historical reenactment because *relative to* gameplay I don't care about it.

Check this out, I'll solve the whole problem: Operation Homeplate is a hypothetical mission where the Germans bombed coastal airfields just 1 hour before the first Ia variants were available.

I think it would be great to have a fully realistic scenario with thousands of players in the air and on the ground lasting weeks, but obviously thats not possible for numerous technical reasons. The result is that any mission we think of for clod will be completely and utterly hypothetical. It doesn't matter if the mission even happens to be historic on paper if the result is that everyone is flying spit Ia 100 octs dogfighting off the coast of Folkestone. It thus becomes *in practice* a hypothetical mission where a handful of people roam around dogfighting each other.

But when one makes a hypothetical mission where a variant exists that wasn't technically present during BoB? Well drop everything thats not historic!.... Really? At least homeplate encourages more cooperation, and player manned bombers. In my book thats a win overall for the part of realism that matters to gameplay.

Zisi
Oct-10-2013, 03:01
I think he meant hackers bringing the server down, not cheating in game. Sort of like the kitten hacker.

Oh now I understand JT's reply XD
Yes this is what I intended to mean.

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-10-2013, 03:34
Responding for the purpose of being understood and thus necessarily repeating myself: I don't argue points purely related to historical reenactment because *relative to* gameplay I don't care about it.

Check this out, I'll solve the whole problem: Operation Homeplate is a hypothetical mission where the Germans bombed coastal airfields just 1 hour before the first Ia variants were available.

I think it would be great to have a fully realistic scenario with thousands of players in the air and on the ground lasting weeks, but obviously thats not possible for numerous technical reasons. The result is that any mission we think of for clod will be completely and utterly hypothetical. It doesn't matter if the mission even happens to be historic on paper if the result is that everyone is flying spit Ia 100 octs dogfighting off the coast of Folkestone. It thus becomes *in practice* a hypothetical mission where a handful of people roam around dogfighting each other.

But when one makes a hypothetical mission where a variant exists that wasn't technically present during BoB? Well drop everything thats not historic!.... Really? At least homeplate encourages more cooperation, and player manned bombers. In my book thats a win overall for the part of realism that matters to gameplay.

I agree with you with your line of thinking. I think throwing some of the other elements in adds to the fun, even without the historical accuracy always being the number one goal. I could understand if there was a huge balance issue going on, as most wouldn't like to play that way.. But in a mission like Homeplate where many of the blues strike with bombers and reds coming to defended English territory, having the regular Mk1's in there for an hour isn't hurting anyone. I personally love the mission and hope to see more like it.

Talisman
Oct-12-2013, 09:36
I agree with you with your line of thinking. I think throwing some of the other elements in adds to the fun, even without the historical accuracy always being the number one goal. I could understand if there was a huge balance issue going on, as most wouldn't like to play that way.. But in a mission like Homeplate where many of the blues strike with bombers and reds coming to defended English territory, having the regular Mk1's in there for an hour isn't hurting anyone. I personally love the mission and hope to see more like it.

Homeplate is a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly. EDIT - It would appear that there is to be a new Homeplate version 2 mission that I have not flown yet.

The Good:

Historic BoB mission map scenario focused on the RAF defending and the LW attacking, with different but historically appropriate mission objectives for each side. RAF having to focus on defending by mainly taking down LW bombers and LW having to focus on destroying RAF Fighter Command on the ground and in the air. Great, thank you very much :))

The Bad:

By design, the mission map is not fair and equal at the beginning in terms of the the historic match up between the principle front line Hurricane and Spitfire variants that actually took part in the BoB. Nor is the Spitfire vs Me 109 match up fair and equal in historic terms at the start of the map, because the map maker has penalised the RAF by restricting the RAF to unrepresentative out dated pre BoB Spitfire types. In contrast, historically representative LW fighter variants are freely available as soon as the mission map starts.
During the BoB, the principle front line Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft used the same Merlin engine, the same Rotor prop design and the same 100 Octane fuel. This was a major part of the war effort in Britain at the time that has been purposely ignored and ridden over rough shod by the map maker. The map maker has deliberately decided not to represent this RAF strength at the start of the map; in my view, this makes a mockery of history and the British Commonwealth war effort. I would not wish to see German technology and war effort treated the same way.
Most map makers try hard to provide fair and equal treatment in terms of historic aircraft match up for each side. However, with Homeplate, historically fair and equal treatment for both sides, in terms of RAF vs LW fighter type match up, has been sacrificed at the start of the map on the alter of providing unrealistic upgrades for a single map mission.
If unfair and unequal treatment is to be accepted on this map, it may not bode well for the future; I do hope that this is not the thin end of the wedge. I can understand why a map maker might want to try and make their work stand out from the crowd, but a map that is not fair and equal by design is a bad thing because, even if the map has some other good elements, it can corrode trust in the integrity of map makers. That is not so much fun :((

The Ugly:

The unrealistic Spitfire upgrades make the mission map very gamey. It constantly makes me think I am in a game rather than a simulator. For me it spoils immersion to have messages advertising that an upgraded aircraft variant is now available at an airbase near you! Come and get it while stocks last, LOL. I can do without unrealistic aircraft upgrades and see them as an unwelcome and unnecessary 'gimmick'.
I like to think that CloD is more of a historical combat flight simulator rather than a game that controls your progress along a set route and awards a prize to give you an incentive to continue participation. I already have enough incentive to want to fly an historic combat flight sim thank you.
I think that upgrades are more suited to campaign flying than single map missions. Campaigns can better reflect the passage of time over a number of weeks in a more realistic way. I feel like the upgrades in Homeplate are trying to fast-forward me in a matter of minutes through a battle that took place over a number of weeks!
When I have a couple of precious hours to spend flying CloD, I am looking to simulate a couple of hours in the life of a BoB pilot, flying a principle aircraft of the battle, over a couple of missions; not an unrealistic fast-forward through months of battle flying in a matter of minutes. I am not looking to grind out time in a pre BoB aircraft type before I can progress to the real thing. Rather, I am looking to fly a principle aircraft type of the BoB and fly in simulated historically based combat. If time is to be fast-forwarded, I think it is better to experience it at the next map rotation on a server, or through flying a campaign over a number of weeks. I do hope that I will not have to fly a Tiger Moth for ten minutes at the start of the next Homeplate map to show I can fly before I can actually take to the sky in a principle fighter aircraft of the BoB.
Yes, it is nice to fly the older aircraft types, but not nice to be unrealistically disadvantaged and restricted to out-dated aircraft in a competative combat situation and not be given access to the principle aircraft of the BoB. That is Ugly and not so much fun for one of the sides :((

Zisi
Oct-14-2013, 15:18
By design, the mission map is not fair and equal at the beginning in terms of the the historic match up between the principle front line Hurricane and Spitfire

the map maker has penalised the RAF by restricting the RAF to unrepresentative out dated pre BoB Spitfire types.
It's fair, if not tilted somewhat in favour of red (and I mostly fly red). The germans need to fly across the coast to engage, and fly about 1/4 bombers to win the map. This means that they will generally be at a numbers disadvantage. The Spit I 100oct is inferior yes, but absolutely competitive with the 109's, it's pretty fast. The hurricane is of course on the map, but nobody flys it. There were a ton of them historically but they were flatly inferior to the 109 and spit. Would you be ok with the map somehow forcing red to fly 80% hurricanes and 20% spits? Because THAT would be genuinely unbalanced, though technically slightly more realistic.


During the BoB, ........ this makes a mockery of history and the British Commonwealth war effort.

The unrealistic Spitfire upgrades make the mission map very gamey. It constantly makes me think I am in a game rather than a simulator. For me it spoils immersion to have messages advertising that an upgraded aircraft variant is now available at an airbase near you! Come and get it while stocks last, LOL. I can do without unrealistic aircraft upgrades and see them as an unwelcome and unnecessary 'gimmick'.
The whole game makes a mockery of history by that metric. If we wanted to make something actually historic, I'm sure we could find some small skirmishes to recreate, we could all take up the names of those in the battle and try our hardest to get shot down by the right people, in the right order and manner. Though, I suspect that gamers are generally not very interested in historical reenactment. Rather we tend to be interested in the hypothetical, what could WE do given a certain situation. What would have happened if Germany, or the RAF did x,y, or z? Instead of what they actually did, instead of what was historic.

For example: What would have happened if Germany attacked coastal airbases with a trickle of bombers one hour before the first rotols were available with a handful of random pilots that mostly run around on their own looking for fights with RAF pilots doing the same? Well, now we know!
:)

vranac
Oct-14-2013, 16:20
It's fair, if not tilted somewhat in favour of red (and I mostly fly red). The germans need to fly across the coast to engage, and fly about 1/4 bombers to win the map. This means that they will generally be at a numbers disadvantage. The Spit I 100oct is inferior yes, but absolutely competitive with the 109's, it's pretty fast. The hurricane is of course on the map, but nobody flys it. There were a ton of them historically but they were flatly inferior to the 109 and spit. Would you be ok with the map somehow forcing red to fly 80% hurricanes and 20% spits? Because THAT would be genuinely unbalanced, though technically slightly more realistic.


:)

AKA_Recon
Oct-14-2013, 17:47
It's fair, if not tilted somewhat in favour of red (and I mostly fly red). The germans need to fly across the coast to engage, and fly about 1/4 bombers to win the map. This means that they will generally be at a numbers disadvantage. The Spit I 100oct is inferior yes, but absolutely competitive with the 109's, it's pretty fast. The hurricane is of course on the map, but nobody flys it. There were a ton of them historically but they were flatly inferior to the 109 and spit. Would you be ok with the map somehow forcing red to fly 80% hurricanes and 20% spits? Because THAT would be genuinely unbalanced, though technically slightly more realistic.



The whole game makes a mockery of history by that metric. If we wanted to make something actually historic, I'm sure we could find some small skirmishes to recreate, we could all take up the names of those in the battle and try our hardest to get shot down by the right people, in the right order and manner. Though, I suspect that gamers are generally not very interested in historical reenactment. Rather we tend to be interested in the hypothetical, what could WE do given a certain situation. What would have happened if Germany, or the RAF did x,y, or z? Instead of what they actually did, instead of what was historic.

For example: What would have happened if Germany attacked coastal airbases with a trickle of bombers one hour before the first rotols were available with a handful of random pilots that mostly run around on their own looking for fights with RAF pilots doing the same? Well, now we know!
:)

Lol

Talisman
Oct-15-2013, 11:17
It's fair, if not tilted somewhat in favour of red (and I mostly fly red). The germans need to fly across the coast to engage, and fly about 1/4 bombers to win the map. This means that they will generally be at a numbers disadvantage. The Spit I 100oct is inferior yes, but absolutely competitive with the 109's, it's pretty fast. The hurricane is of course on the map, but nobody flys it. There were a ton of them historically but they were flatly inferior to the 109 and spit. Would you be ok with the map somehow forcing red to fly 80% hurricanes and 20% spits? Because THAT would be genuinely unbalanced, though technically slightly more realistic.



The whole game makes a mockery of history by that metric. If we wanted to make something actually historic, I'm sure we could find some small skirmishes to recreate, we could all take up the names of those in the battle and try our hardest to get shot down by the right people, in the right order and manner. Though, I suspect that gamers are generally not very interested in historical reenactment. Rather we tend to be interested in the hypothetical, what could WE do given a certain situation. What would have happened if Germany, or the RAF did x,y, or z? Instead of what they actually did, instead of what was historic.

For example: What would have happened if Germany attacked coastal airbases with a trickle of bombers one hour before the first rotols were available with a handful of random pilots that mostly run around on their own looking for fights with RAF pilots doing the same? Well, now we know!
:)

Zisi,

1. How is it fair and equal treatment at the start of the map between the Spit and Hurry aircraft when one of them is provided to a lesser standard when they both should have the same engine, prop and fuel at the same time?

2. How is it fair and equal treatment between the RAF and LW fighters at the start of the map when the RAF are given earlier Spit types to fly and the LW are given later aircraft models?

3. Are you trying to say that it is not fair that the LW need to fly across the coast for the BoB?

4. Are you saying that there is no need for an underlying principle of fair and equal treatment, as far as is reasonably practicable, in terms of historic plane set match up is concerned in a competitive combat flight sim map?

5. You appear to suggest that aircraft percentages on a map could be controlled to historic levels, but are you sure that this would be reasonably practicable or desirable? Especially given that the LW BoB force for the operation was geared for attack, so had many more bombers than fighters and the RAF was geared for defence and had many more fighters than bombers; therefore, the percentage of LW pilot slots on a map would need to be geared to many more bomber pilots than fighters. Are you sure that you would want to see percentages followed to the letter? If percentages were applied, then we would see fewer LW fighter pilot slots than bomber slots and hardly any 109 E4N aircraft, that is for sure.
Also, I believe I am correct in saying that British aircraft production outperformed German output over the period of the battle. British production was focused on fighters and replacements were always available for lost aircraft. The LW had a much slower replacement rate across a wider range of aircraft types.

6. Regarding you remarks about the Hurricane. If the British fighter control room and radar was better represented in CloD, the Hurricane would be more effective, as it historically was in the BoB. Without this British force multiplier, the Hurricane is not able to be used to full effect. The British had the best integrated system of air defence in the world at the time of the BoB and the Hurricane and Spitfire were elements of this wider system. Currently, this system is not able to be represented in full. Also, I believe I have read on the forums that the Hurricane my be under represented in terms of flight model and performance in CloD, but I leave that issue to others far more knowledgeable on the subject.

7. Finally, CloD is a combat flight sim based on history, so I would have thought that reasonably practicable positive choices in favour of history would be better than negative choices by design in terms of historic aircraft match up. Would you not agree? It is the underlying principle of fair and equal treatment to both sides, as far as is reasonably practicable, using history as a guide that I am trying to draw attention to here. Even if a map is to be fantasy, that is ok proved there is reasonably practicable fair and equal treatment to both sides. Full fair and equal treatment to both sides can only be achieved if both sides have all aircraft types on CloD available to them and have a mirror image map and target set up. However, when a map is more historically based, as in BoB RAF vs LW, then the only way to underpin fair and equal treatment is to provide the correct historical aircraft match up to make it historically fair and equal. I am sure that when we get to fly later in the war, the LW fans will want to fly the FW 190 and would not like to see it excluded from a map when it should be there on a historic time line bases. Frankly, if the LW was treated the way the RAF is treated on Homeplate and the boot was on the other foot there would be hell on! So lets not make excuses, like "I like to fly the old aircraft and they are competitive"; the point is that it is the 'principle' and without doubt reds are penalised at the start of Homeplate for the reasons I have stated.

Basically, RAF or LW, if we spawn in on a map and find we cannot chose to fly the principle aircraft types of the time and/or battle being represented then surely there is something wrong?

Happy landings,

Talisman