Jump to content

Flight commander III ?


redflag
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry for being so rough, but I think you're completely wrong with DiF.

People will not stick to this game because they use to play 3D flight sims and you are offering them a strange recall of Over The Reich (but with 2D like cards)...

If you can let me to give you an advice, You had better to start from FC II (BTS) and Battle of Britain (Talonsoft), forget the sub tactical level and make the revolution in this freezed airwargame world: operationnal and tactical scale, each player acts as a wig commander and launches raids or patrols , dogfight are played by the computer (when it occurs because history shows that few dogfights occured in fact).

And don't forget that the aim of airwar is to launch bombs (Douhet, Mitchell, etc).

PS: Hope that one day somebody will work on FC III ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redflag,

Thank you for the advice, but I disagree.

I think there is a large crowd of people, like myself, who like WWII dogfighting. Flight sims are great, but there is another fun aspect to gaming those situations. That is what DIF presents.

In DIF, thoughtful tactics, short and long term decision making, and developing a group of green pilots into legendary aces with heroic histories is the core of the game.

Another key aspect is the online player interaction. Players will be able to team up and battle other players, escort bombers, intercept bombers, earn medals, gain experience points, and buy a wide selection of skills for both their leaders and wingmen.

The operational level of air gaming is fun. No doubt about it. But, getting into the cockpit and twisting, turning, diving, and blazing away at enemy fighters is also fun.

At some point, adding an operational level to DIF is a great idea, and we will seriously look into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK

Just to add that I'm a long airwargame player (Air Force, Flight Leader, Air Power system, Speed of Heat, Hornet Leader, AirWar, Rolling Thunder, Aces of Aces, Red Baron etc) and that I'm myself working (alone) on an operational game (sea, land, air but centered on air and naval warfare) covering 1890 to 1945 (kind of Harpoon but not a real time base, it will probably never go out, but who knows..) and that I never got the feeling with the cards system of DiF , this is not an opinion on the game itself smile.gif

Last but not least (and that's my challenge for my own production), don't forget the Mac world please ;)

Sincerly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi redflag,

so if I understood you correctly, you're saying that you don't like tactical games and therefore don't like DIF? If I understood that right, then we're in agreement here smile.gif

DIF is a VERY tactical game. But instead of quick reflexes in your hand, it requires quick reflexes in your brain. Play with the 10 second per phase timer and you'll find yourself facing some very tough tactical decisions.

DIF is for people who like the challenges of air combat, but are struggling with flight sims. I am one of those people. I don't value pixel shading, quadruple buffering and FSAAAAAA much, and besides that flight sims simply do not offer a whole lot - a vibrating joystick and a flat screen somehow fail to give me the illusion of flying an airplane. Maybe I just lack imagination.

Strategy games like DIF (or Charles' Flight Commander 2, Achtung Spitfire etc.) on the other hand give the player the ability to experience the fun and challenge of a dogfight (or escorts, intercepts...) in a different way. That's not to say that flight sims aren't fun. They are, I play a bunch of the latest ones from time to time. But they highlight one aspect only of aerial combat, and games like DIF highlight another. Both can be a lot of fun.

There'll be a beta demo soon for DIF. Download, play and find out smile.gif

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot say that I dislike tactical wargames since I'm fond of Combat Mission ;)

But as a long playing air wargamer, I never found the real taste of air combat (because it's quite impossible to simulate, that's why I think that ops games should give a better feeling of the true air war).

Another thing is that during the WWII there were very few dogfights (unlike during the WWI), people used the shoot and run tactics (it was safer...), dogfight was only one aspect of the air war when the main objectives were air sup or strike or interdiction (and so on).

Anyway, I don't mind playing dogfight, I'm just wondering if the ops scale shoud not be more developped , which hasn't be the case since FC II, even if a new game, unfortunately only for Mac, is incoming: War over Vietnam :(

ps: I used also to play to Squad Leader (Mmm, with that you should guess my age smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by redflag:

I cannot say that I dislike tactical wargames since I'm fond of Combat Mission ;)

But as a long playing air wargamer, I never found the real taste of air combat (because it's quite impossible to simulate, that's why I think that ops games should give a better feeling of the true air war).

Another thing is that during the WWII there were very few dogfights (unlike during the WWI), people used the shoot and run tactics (it was safer...), dogfight was only one aspect of the air war when the main objectives were air sup or strike or interdiction (and so on).

Anyway, I don't mind playing dogfight, I'm just wondering if the ops scale shoud not be more developped , which hasn't be the case since FC II, even if a new game, unfortunately only for Mac, is incoming: War over Vietnam :(

ps: I used also to play to Squad Leader (Mmm, with that you should guess my age smile.gif

Very few dogfights?....you haven't read the right books. There were plenty of dogfights. Many planes were involved and at times few planes involved. I guess though for this to progress properly is your definition of dogfight and what that entails....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I told before, I mean dogfight as the opposite as hit-and-run for example, literally running after the tail of the other one.

I'm no trying to explain that there were no dogfights, I just think that dogfight wasn't the main way to fight in the air during the WWII.

Of course lot of books focused on dogfights but specialized authors (like Mike Spike or Christopher Shores) have shown that most of the victories were achieved by surprise (hit and run assault for example).

The dogfight tactics were a speciality of the japanese naval air force (because they were very well trained, see Sunburst by M. Peattie) or applied by Republican pilots during the Spain war (quickly given up when facing the new incoming Bf-109), but for most of the green pilots it was a suicidal tactic (quite impossible to master).

It was different during the WWI, the technology allowed quite only dogfight tactics because airplane could hardly endure high G-forces and could hardly accelerate.

It makes me thinking that DiF should be very well fitted to WWI aircombat ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been playing the DIF card games for a few weeks and really enjoy them. As I get older, I don`t seem to do that well with flight sims. In regards to dogfighting, they were very prevalent. But in DIF the mission could be protecting bombers, bombing missions, attacking ships etc. with some airplane to airplane combat.

I am really looking forward to the game, although I am also getting ready for the debate on airplane performance and power values. But I guess that is another topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...