• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Airplanes!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
World War 2 online looks really interesting, it looks (from what I've seen) like it would be the exact kind of game I've always wanted, I haven't actually played it though, as I don't like the idea of subscription based games and the graphics look pretty awful ...

Back on topic, I really like the idea of aeroplanes with infantry and tanks on huge maps etc.
it would be insanely cool playing as a dive-bomber pilot, taking out :IS2:s:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#42
guzz60 said:
World War 2 online looks really interesting, it looks (from what I've seen) like it would be the exact kind of game I've always wanted, I haven't actually played it though, as I don't like the idea subscription based games and the graphics look pretty awful ...

Back on topic, I really like the idea of aeroplanes with infantry and tanks on huge maps etc.
it would be insanely cool playing as a dive-bomber pilot, taking out :IS2:s:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It was cool about 9 years ago. It's called 1942. Although expect 1943 to be released in about a month or two on the PC.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Pierre Chang, Chadwiick and Snuffeldjuret
Upvote 0
#43
guzz60 said:
World War 2 online looks really interesting, it looks (from what I've seen) like it would be the exact kind of game I've always wanted, I haven't actually played it though, as I don't like the idea subscription based games and the graphics look pretty awful ...

Back on topic, I really like the idea of aeroplanes with infantry and tanks on huge maps etc.
it would be insanely cool playing as a dive-bomber pilot, taking out :IS2:s:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It used to be a really fun game, though always had it flaws. These days there's basically no reason to play it since the game's player numbers have been dwindling due to the crappy engine/graphics, lag, and continued subscription cost. And it's no fun to play a virtual WWII when there are 3 dudes fighting over a random town.

A few years back I had some really good times with it, but even on my NICE PC the game ran like crap. No way was I going to pay a subscription cost for that.

I really want them to make a new version of the game on an updated engine. Or someone else to do it for them. That would be great, because WWII OL really is revolutionary.
 
Upvote 0
#44
Nezzer said:
Cool, but it has a crosshair and looks like it takes a few shots to kill someone :D
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a simulator but it definitely isn't arcade, and it has realistic bullet damage so if you hit someone in the leg they can't run anymore etc. they won't survive a hit to the head/ torso. Game is much more fun if you play as AA, Tanks, or planes.
 
Upvote 0
#45
Knighted said:
It was cool about 9 years ago. It's called 1942. Although expect 1943 to be released in about a month or two.
Click to expand...
I absolutely loved 1942, but when they came out with 1943... I was disappointed it wasn't PC, it didn't feel like the game I wanted to play and I couldn't play against the AI the game was a shocking disaster for me.
 
Upvote 0
#46
Nezzer said:
Cool, but it has a crosshair and looks like it takes a few shots to kill someone :D
Click to expand...

I've never seen a crosshair outside a sniper scope, tank or airplane in WW2online, so I have no idea what game you are looking at.

And it only takes one good shot to put someone down, with smgs it'll take 2-3 rounds just like in real life, but the hit detection usually forces you to fire a good 10 rounds into a guy just to make sure he's dead.

A bit ironic, that you could tell a pro from a noob from the difference in how many bullets he pumps into a guy. You'd think the noob would pump more in, but it's actually the opposite. It's the noobs who don't put enough rounds into a corpse who die. :eek:

There are a few battles in WW2OL that i'll never forget. Absolutely epic. Dozens of men popping smoke in a field to evade tanks. 100 men all huddle together running on the same path between houses in order to avoid some nasty ack ack aimed at us. Absolutely epic having 25+ men hiding on the corner of the house waiting for the smoke to expand and for someone to give the order to run like hell.
 
Upvote 0
#48
Hypno Toad said:
It'd take roughly two minutes to fly across the largest possible RO map at 350 km/h.
Click to expand...

so that means if you cutting in straight line would be 2 min,and if your circeling around the map would beclose to 4+ min.,thats not bad at all!!!

I doubt we will see such a thing iven if TWI release few maps more down the road,maeby RO3 if they take their time developing it for 4 years,things may happen.

I dont think fighter planes will break the game,it will make it iven more realistic,but as long as there is descent spawn period for the planes,or maeby 1 plane per map on each side 2 at the most after loosing the first one you have to waith 20+ min for the next plane.That also would add another class to the infantry which would be the pilot class.
 
Upvote 0
#49
SolitarioSoldat said:
so that means if you cutting in straight line would be 2 min,and if your circeling around the map would beclose to 4+ min.,thats not bad at all!!!

I doubt we will see such a thing iven if TWI release few maps more down the road,maeby RO3 if they take their time developing it for 4 years,things may happen.

I dont think fighter planes will break the game,it will make it iven more realistic,but as long as there is descent spawn period for the planes,or maeby 1 plane per map on each side 2 at the most after loosing the first one you have to waith 20+ min for the next plane.That also would add another class to the infantry which would be the pilot class.
Click to expand...

I do hope you realize how big that map would be.

Adding planes just for the sake of having planes, which would be the case if planes got added to RO, is just silly. If TWI decided to redefine what RO is and make it far more large-scale, then you can start talking about adding planes.
 
Upvote 0
#52
Chadwiick said:
I shall say it again, this is why I said airplanes in RO coming in stores to you, march, 2019. :D
Click to expand...
But see you're missing the point. It's not really about technical limitations, game engines, or player numbers. It's about Red Orchestra's roots. The game has always been about infantry first with some tanking on the side, and I don't see why the devs should stray from that path.

There is simply no way to include pilotable planes in keeping with the same level of scale and realism that can be found in Red Orchestra. Period.
 
Upvote 0
#54
There's really no technological issue with having planes or the maps to support them in RO.

That said, theres no way to implement planes effectively into existing maps. If you take a mod like Rising Storm, where ideal maps could consist of Atolls and such, I think you could effectively integrate airplane support into beach maps. For instance, when players are coming in for a beach landing, a few higher ranking players could do some strafing runs on Japanese vehicles and emplacements for a few minutes, and then the planes could fly off and the people could respawn on the ground for infantry fighting.

I think scripted (yet player controlled) strafing runs would be neat. Since you are not actually entering or exiting planes, there wouldn't need for a myriad of complicated animations or hyper detailed interiors.

If not player controlled, it would be nice to see some bot controlled planes in a few maps. In mods like RS and IC:V bot controlled planes or helicopters would be a great addition
 
Upvote 0
#55
hockeywarrior said:
But see you're missing the point. It's not really about technical limitations, game engines, or player numbers. It's about Red Orchestra's roots. The game has always been about infantry first with some tanking on the side, and I don't see why the devs should stray from that path.

There is simply no way to include pilotable planes in keeping with the same level of scale and realism that can be found in Red Orchestra. Period.
Click to expand...

Why don't we make Civilization a first person shooter

and COD a RTS? That worked well for Halo..............................
 
Upvote 0
#56
hockeywarrior said:
But see you're missing the point. It's not really about technical limitations, game engines, or player numbers. It's about Red Orchestra's roots. The game has always been about infantry first with some tanking on the side, and I don't see why the devs should stray from that path.

There is simply no way to include pilotable planes in keeping with the same level of scale and realism that can be found in Red Orchestra. Period.
Click to expand...

Unless they had the technollogy to include hundreds of players at once.
 
Upvote 0
#57
Unless they had the technollogy to include hundreds of players at once.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with it.

The ticket/reinforcements illustrate the true number of people coming to the fight. It's unlikely 300-500 people would be on the same battlefield at the exact same time, reinforcements are the substitute for huge player numbers. In a game of 64 players, generally 500-600 soldiers have fought and died by the end of the round, so these are 500 person battles.

Player numbers have nothing to do with airplanes, as when one person dies, another reinforcement takes his place. The number of soldiers is defined by the number of reinforcements. You can still have planes on these maps and be realistic, just as you can have respawns and be realistic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#58
Hypno Toad said:
That has nothing to do with it.

The ticket/reinforcements illustrate the true number of people coming to the fight. It's unlikely 300-500 people would be on the same battlefield at the exact same time, reinforcements are the substitute for huge player numbers. In a game of 64 players, generally 500-600 soldiers have fought and died by the end of the round, so these are 500 person battles.

Player numbers have nothing to do with airplanes, as when one person dies, another reinforcement takes his place. The number of soldiers is defined by the number of reinforcements. You can still have planes on these maps and be realistic, just as you can have respawns and be realistic.
Click to expand...

Thats true, however you can't implement aircrafts in RO and keep them at a realistic level and thats that, i refer to separate Inf,Tank sims VS flight since they've to be done on a different scale. IL2-Cod should take care of any needs for ww2 flight combat and beyond that its just the next huge layer of realism itself I mean, the tanks has a certain user complexity but the planes have an even more insane complexity to them that would if done right take a very long time to implement in RO as well, especially if you want fm,dm, aerodynamics etc to behave realistically.

Sorry to say but I can only visualize planes in RO if they were implemented in a way similar to 1942,bf2 which means unrealistic, and that would stray away from what RO is, hence why we don't see them plus the fact that its a whole new area to explore, model and researach.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#59
Hypno Toad said:
That has nothing to do with it.

The ticket/reinforcements illustrate the true number of people coming to the fight. It's unlikely 300-500 people would be on the same battlefield at the exact same time, reinforcements are the substitute for huge player numbers. In a game of 64 players, generally 500-600 soldiers have fought and died by the end of the round, so these are 500 person battles.

Player numbers have nothing to do with airplanes, as when one person dies, another reinforcement takes his place. The number of soldiers is defined by the number of reinforcements. You can still have planes on these maps and be realistic, just as you can have respawns and be realistic.
Click to expand...

I was talking about 500 in game players in the sense of filling a big playable area. While the game might feature a lot of deaths. For planes to work you need a big playing ground to allow for some abilities to manoeuvre. And with a max of 64 people being alive at any given time probably won't cut it.
 
Upvote 0
#60
I'm getting tired of this, heres the point of my argument in an easy to read form. I keep having to repeat myself.

- There is no technological limitations prevented planes for theoretically getting made, and being put to practical use in gameplay
- Planes do not need to have airfields, they can come into the map during scripted events, already in flight
- While (attack) planes are possible, and feasible gameplay-wise, they do not suit RO's style of gameplay, nor would they fit in with the current style of RO map. That does not mean they wouldn't work for an RO mod or custom map.
- It is possible to make maps large enough to support aircraft, the maximum map size for RO translates to over 100 square kilometers, flying from one end to the other at a realistic speed would take 2.5 minutes, provided you wanted to include that much space.


While pilotable planes do not make sense for RO's general gameplay, I think that semi-scripted AI attack aircraft would be nice, such as dynamic bombing raids or an attack plane that will strafe tanks and infantry clusters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: samol
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu