I never played RO and i am very excited about RO2. I know there is no planes at release but i really do hope they are added. I came from BF2 where planes were a lil overpowered. I think in a WW2 setting planes can be balanced well as they are much slower and they could be restricted to cannons and anti tank missiles. I would love to fly some WW2 planes and do strafing runs on a bunch of scattering Russians ;P
Planes
- Thread starter Napkin
- Start date
Simply put, BF2 has planes but they are not realistic as say IL2 planes. Red Orchestra content is intended to be realistically portrayed so planes would be something that would not fit in without feeling arcade like.
Upvote
0
Let's put it in other way: to make the aircraft reasonable in any even remotedly realistic sense to actually make it possible to have reasonable dogfights and make good use of real aerial tactics or so we would need maps where it would take atleast 2h to drive with generic vehicle from one end to the another with on-road speed, otherwise we'll have same situation as Forgotten Hope had for BF42 with few planes (Bf-109 being the worst offender) where you'll spend 80% of your time just turning in circles so you don't fly off the map borders and usually you couldn't fly more than 15-30 seconds straight before finding map edge - and to take even further consideration the aircraft speeds in FH (or BF or even in BF2) are not exactly that high. If we would take average BF2 map, add Bf-109\MiG3 and aim for average 4-6km altitude cruise speed you would speed off the map probably under 10 seconds.
Upvote
0
So the only way to do it realistically would be to put you in a plane that fly over the map, and once you reach the other end of your map you'll have to wait X seconds to get into a new plane and fly over with?
Perhaps could work with bigger maps, but smaller ones would probably be a bit annoying. Not much dog fighting anyway ^^.
Perhaps could work with bigger maps, but smaller ones would probably be a bit annoying
. Not much dog fighting anyway ^^.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Okay, to put it simply: RO 2 wont have player controlled planes cause the maps are not big enough.
Upvote
0
Correct, or rather, the maps are not big enough to impliment them propperly.
Upvote
0
Even then it would be rather pointless, sure you could get them in the air, but there just woulden't be any room to fly around in, so you'd allways fly around in large circles, and not have the room to do propper realistic dog fighting (and besides, how's that helping your team win the map anyway?).
This is the same problem BF1942 had, the planes just felt like an afterthought, something that was put in there just for it's own sake, just because they could, and whilst players may have had some fun with them, moreso as BF1942 never did aim for the same level of realism as RO, they ultimately didn't really serve any practical purpose, they where just for the lulz really.
In a game of the scale of WWII-Online, planes have a purpose and a place, but in the much smaller scale of RO and the BF series, i find them to be pointless fluff, all for it's own sake, devoid of realism or any real purpose, and for the sake of keeping RO both fairly realistic and upholding a coherent objective based mode of play, i agree with TWI's reasons for keeping them out of the game, it just could not be done good enough on this scale, it could not be done as realistic and nice as the Tanks, and would feel out of place.
Some things just aren't worth doing unless you can do them justice, and i'd say this is one of them.
Upvote
0
Sir you never played a high competitive match .Planes ownd everything if you had the skill.
And don't call a bommer like the B17 useless
(planes wtf)
Upvote
0
Indeed i have not, nor shall i.
But that doesen't negate the fact that having planes circling around the same 8 square kilometers (if even that) is, ultimately, not what WWII air combat was about, and if the planes where to be modelled with any semblance of realism (which RO demands), they would cover that much ground in mere seconds before having to turn back (Mig-3, Yak-1b, LaGG-3, La-5, BF-109G2, FW-190A2, all of them capable of 400+ Kph in late 1942 ~ early 1943).
If it can't be simulated propperly, then why bother? This is why we have flight sims.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Planes ownd everything if you had the skill.
And don't call a bommer like the B17 useless
Yes if you like cartoon planes which can divebomb you while the pilot jumps out into his chute ( just about 3 feet from the ground ) as the plane crashes and explodes, lands and stabs you inside a second....please, just no!!!
Damned kiddy arcade games!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Planes ownd everything if you had the skill.
And don't call a bommer like the B17 useless
It really is a scale issue. You wouldn't have a strategic bomber like a B-17 attached to a single company. You wouldn't even have a tactical bomber attached to a single company. If you're lucky, you could call in an attack plane, like a Sturmovik, but I doubt it would spend 100% in your company's orbit just waiting for your platoon leader's orders.
The only place I could see planes coming into use is on HUGE tank only maps (possibly community created maps on the scale of Orel or Black Day in July). But then that brings up the gameplay issue of having to have AAA or rely on fighter cover to take out ground attack planes.
Do the BF planes implement realistic aerodynamics? Do they stall below stall speed, do pilots experience black and red outs, do they have realistic roll and clime rates, do you trade speed for altitude and vice versa, does turning radius depend on speed? I don't know, I've never played it, but if they don't have that type of fidelity, I'm not interested.
Upvote
0
LOL, no fidelity at all, you can fly into the ground and literally step out at the last second a la bugs bunny
Upvote
0