Jump to content

Don't release this game without...


ZONN
 Share

Recommended Posts

I agree! A battle editor mode where you can choose terrain types and customise forces is well worth a delay! A historic WW2 RTS is nothing without a skirmish/battle mode. Campaignes only last a little while, skirmish mode can be played for years! (imagine CM without a battle mode URK!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As nice as it would be to have that feature......it will not be in the release version.

They are thinking to release an enhanced scenario editor after the game release. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no final word about a map editor yet. Because maps are supposed to be not as "simplified" as they were in CM - map making is not that simple either....

Uwe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Reichenberg:

As nice as it would be to have that feature......it will not be in the release version.

They are thinking to release an enhanced scenario editor after the game release. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no final word about a map editor yet. Because maps are supposed to be not as "simplified" as they were in CM - map making is not that simple either....

Uwe

1C is a totally different creature from BF, as developers go. It has a history of releasing sims/games that are highly proprietary in nature and dependent on payware add-ons for additional features and content.

Its IL2FB/Ace Expansion Pack/Pacific Fighters/1946 series of software packages evidences this. All are narrow in scope and lacking in "modibility." This quality of 1C's software packages is particularly pronounced when compared to other titles, MSFS for instance.

In short, if you want more or better tools for expanding play possibilities in ToW, expect to pay for them later on. Likewise, if you're looking for additional vehicles or weapons types, keep your wallet open. It's 1C's game, and they'll milk it for all it's worth.

PoE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sarge77:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Flanker15:

Yeah don't vote the Republicans back in, they suck at diplomacy tongue.gif

Yea, let's get Madiline Not-so-bright back in to have more wine with Kim Jong-ill.

Appeasement will not work Flanker. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

Its IL2FB/Ace Expansion Pack/Pacific Fighters/1946 series of software packages evidences this. All are narrow in scope and lacking in "modibility." This quality of 1C's software packages is particularly pronounced when compared to other titles, MSFS for instance.

I disagree. While maybe not that moddable, neither was Combat Mission, and to me Forgotten Battles came with more than plenty of content and a mission editor. Lack of map editor is a shortcoming in this type of game, but it's very different from modability (where you create totally new units to the game, not just graphics).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

Its IL2FB/Ace Expansion Pack/Pacific Fighters/1946 series of software packages evidences this. All are narrow in scope and lacking in "modibility." This quality of 1C's software packages is particularly pronounced when compared to other titles, MSFS for instance.

I disagree. While maybe not that moddable, neither was Combat Mission, and to me Forgotten Battles came with more than plenty of content and a mission editor. Lack of map editor is a shortcoming in this type of game, but it's very different from modability (where you create totally new units to the game, not just graphics). </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Patrocles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge77:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Flanker15:

Yeah don't vote the Republicans back in, they suck at diplomacy tongue.gif

Yea, let's get Madiline Not-so-bright back in to have more wine with Kim Jong-ill.

Appeasement will not work Flanker. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by wolf66:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Patrocles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge77:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Flanker15:

Yeah don't vote the Republicans back in, they suck at diplomacy tongue.gif

Yea, let's get Madiline Not-so-bright back in to have more wine with Kim Jong-ill.

Appeasement will not work Flanker. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, there were no flyable Devastator, Avenger or Kate in the PTO version!
If I remember correctly, the Kate and the Devestator did not have good examples available to make an authentic cockpit. But it's been quite a while since I've was lurking around the IL-2 forums.

The Avenger was a purely monetary decision. Northrop/Grumman apparently likes to protect their trademarks. My recollection of that story is that UbiSoft actually PAID Northrop/Grumman when they came knocking regarding their trademarked content in Pacific Fighters. Ubi then passed this cost onto 1C and Maddox Games. Thus, they refused to add any more Northrop/Grumman content.

Don't the aviation companies pretty much throw their trademark around at model-making companies as well to rake in some fees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...