Call of Duty, Silent Hunter, Panzer Commander?

[lengro]

The only thing that "combines" is relevant data like the position of a carrier, an airplane, or a bullet.

My herotic AH pilot has just jumped out of a plane and landed safely. Here he is:


But alas, these bad guys - playing their CoD game - are at the same map x,y,z-coordinates - in their game - and start shooting at me!


Now, you please interface the epic fight where I run around an AH map - shooting with my .45, while the CoD players - in their game - with highly detailed enviroment tries to get a clean shot at me.

[BigKev03]

If HTC could afford to enter into a support contract with any of these games/companies it would be possible to share some things.  The problem to this is the cost!!!!  For $15 a month I am happy with what I get.  I wouldnt want to see the cost of my membership go up drastically in order to pay for the contract.  And I am sure that HTC would not want to pay the big $$$$$ needed for a cotnract like this.  For only $15 a month as much as I spend on the computer playing this game it is the best investment I have made in years!!!

BigKev

[muzik]

My herotic AH pilot has just jumped out of a plane and landed safely. Here he is:
But alas, these bad guys - playing their CoD game - are at the same map x,y,z-coordinates - in their game - and start shooting at me!

Now, you please interface the epic fight where I run around an AH map - shooting with my .45, while the CoD players - in their game - with highly detailed enviroment tries to get a clean shot at me.

Be careful where you jump!

Again, some of you guys display the foresight of worms. First of all it would be a lot less work for hitech to model a slightly more agile pilot than it would to add a tenth of the items that CoD would instantly offer. Secondly there could be conditions set forth that discourages killing downed pilots unless of course you fail to surrender. And third, you bailed in enemy territory dude. You're captured, live with it! YOU GET ANOTHER PILOT    duh duhduh  And quit crying for fluffs sake, it's a game!

If HTC could afford to enter into a support contract with any of these games/companies it would be possible to share some things.  The problem to this is the cost!!!!  For $15 a month I am happy with what I get.  I wouldnt want to see the cost of my membership go up drastically in order to pay for the contract.  And I am sure that HTC would not want to pay the big $$$$$ needed for a cotnract like this.  For only $15 a month as much as I spend on the computer playing this game it is the best investment I have made in years!!!

BigKev

How do you know what the contract is going to cost, it doesn't exist and nor does any example to go by does there? You fail to see the depth of this idea. There are M-I-L-L-I-O-N-S of CoD players. If even 10 thousand new players got as addicted to playing in our MM maps as we have, hitech would make a fortune (exaggeration) and would be expanding his operation, hiring new programmers, and working on giving you all those wish list items you've ever drooled over. I dont think hitech would even need to increase the cost and here is why.

Games like CoD and SH are bought and played FREE even in the online environments. Once a guy has bought the game and gotten bored with the missions he may or may not spend years playing this game online. If he does then the developer may make more money if they come out with a newer version and this loyal customer buys it. But how much money do they spend supporting that version and for how long? I dont know the answer to that. It obviously doesnt stop them from making a profit, but without a doubt cuts into profit to some degree. Ok so they made some money on sales. Then sales stopped. Now what?

By licensing HTC to charge for arena play they get continued profit on a version of the game that they have already worked out many if not all of it's bugs. Yes there will be some teething pains when they accept the deal, but they now have hugely more interesting game with a group of people that pay to play for (oh who is the longest running player of AH, AW and Warbirds?) 15 or 20 years! So hitech charges everyone the same 15 bucks to play, but instead of 3k players he has 20k if not a 100k. Silent Hunter doesnt have much of a following their cut would be considerably less. They would likely be giddy to get a deal at all.

If HTC offered them 1/100th of his $15 it would be more than they make with a game they dont sell anymore wouldnt it? So how do you figure he would have to raise the rate? HTC could end up with a game that blows every bit of the competition out of the water. If so, a million players is not out of the realm of possibility.

it COULD work.

THATS ALL I WANNA HEAR FROM YOU!

HLA is not built with bandwidth reduction in mind. For example, last time I checked it used 128 bits for position (to model the earth), while games usually get by with 16 or 32 bits. HLA is great for it's intended audience, but bandwidth-sensitive games is not one of them.

Barring some major changes over the last year or two...

Although the concept could apply, if you could get the game makers to agree to it. If you share a common state-replication scheme, and your maps are gameplay-identical (which is not the same as saying graphically identical), it COULD work.

JK,  Like I said, not a programmer. I am assuming when you say bandwidth sensitive that means that AH already has a high volume of data that needs to go from my pc to the server and back again? And the HLA increases that load asside from the additional players? I dont even know where bandwidth reduction comes in. I am asking with all due respect because you sound more level headed than some around here and like you know what you're talking about.

So now we have a lot more bullets flying around and a lot more players. I'm sure that adds a great deal, but a base cap could limit the number of spawners and control that I'm sure.

[lengro]

Be careful where you jump!

You do have humor, good! 

Again, some of you guys display the foresight of worms. First of all it would be a lot less work for hitech to model a slightly more agile pilot than it would to add a tenth of the items that CoD would instantly offer. Secondly there could be conditions set forth that discourages killing downed pilots unless of course you fail to surrender. And third, you bailed in enemy territory dude. You're captured, live with it! YOU GET ANOTHER PILOT    duh duhduh  And quit crying for fluffs sake, it's a game!

May I in AH drive my new tank over those evil CoD guys in the above picture - or should more rules be changed in both games?
Please describe how it would look in CoD when AH forwards the x,y,z-coordinates of this tanks motion. Remember the low-poly (almost flat) AH world.


I hope you can see the next picture, its a night attack in bad weather in SH. The captain goes for a surface attack because he knows he is hidden in this bad and dark weather:

But then I come along in AH in clear daylight in my B25 and notices he is about to attack some ships, so I drop a bomb in his head.
How should this be interfaced - or should we change more rules in both games?

[CptTrips]

HLA is not built with bandwidth reduction in mind. For example, last time I checked it used 128 bits for position (to model the earth), while games usually get by with 16 or 32 bits. HLA is great for it's intended audience, but bandwidth-sensitive games is not one of them.

Barring some major changes over the last year or two...

Although the concept could apply, if you could get the game makers to agree to it. If you share a common state-replication scheme, and your maps are gameplay-identical (which is not the same as saying graphically identical), it COULD work.

MonkGF,

First, this is not “necessarily” a wish of mine or one that I am lobbying for.  Although it is intriguing, and something I’ve thought a lot about over the years.

To Lengro’s assertion that this would be impossible, apparently you and I know its not.  It’s done all the time in the defense world.  When I worked at the big defense contractor in FW, I had some exposure to HLA(granted a number of years ago).  I saw different simulations, written in different languages by different companies, running on different hardware platforms in different parts of the country, simulating the same scenario simultaneously.  

Each simulation might have drastically different representations of the world as its needs dictated.   A tank simulator in California might have an exquisitely detailed ground component it renders as its armor units rolls across the farms and villages of the Fulda Gap.  An F-16 simulator in FW might have a much lower resolution model of the terrain (but sufficient for its needs) and the armor units might be low polygon boxes. And over a GA Tech, a Battle Space Management System might only be showing everything as icons on maps and nodes of information on complex diagrams.  

You are correct that the original intent of HLA was to serve an audience that has totally a different expectation of resolution and fidelity.  But a couple of points:

1.   Latency is much more important that bandwidth in simulation.  Data pipes are fatter by the year.  We’re not all on 28.8 modems anymore.  The things you had to do to minimize packet size 10 years ago might not always be necessary.  Example, I have several game programming books that had whole section on how to simulate floating-point math using integers because math co-processors were not common back then and floating-point math was computationally expensive.  I’m not sure that’s really relevant nowadays.  Sometimes changing technology invalidates a whole class of concerns.

2.   HLA is only a specification (although there are some prefab implementations).  It’s not necessary to swallow it whole.  But if I were attempting something similar, I would certainly use it as a starting point.  It’s a good overall design pattern that has had a lot of the issues of interfacing heterogeneous simulation platforms thought through carefully by a lot of really smart PHD types.  However you could take the basic architecture and rules and modify it for optimization if you wanted to.  But it’s a proven model at least.

Regards,
Wab      

[CptTrips]

In my opinion, the issues are really more legal and business case oriented, rather than technical.

HOWEVER:  if you were going to hold a gun to my head and make me say something silly  :

The intruiging scenario would be for the WWIIOnline guys to take over responsibility for all the ground actions, and let HTC handle the Air Action in a unified battle space.

(Yes, its been suggested before.)


Wab

[lengro]

To Lengro’s assertion that this would be impossible, apparently you and I know its not.  It’s done all the time in the defense world.  When I worked at the big defense contractor in FW, I had some exposure to HLA(granted a number of years ago).  I saw different simulations, written in different languages by different companies, running on different hardware platforms in different parts of the country, simulating the same scenario simultaneously.  

Each simulation might have drastically different representations of the world as its needs dictated.   A tank simulator in California might have an exquisitely detailed ground component it renders as its armor units rolls across the farms and villages of the Fulda Gap.  An F-16 simulator in FW might have a much lower resolution model of the terrain (but sufficient for its needs) and the armor units might be low polygon boxes. And over a GA Tech, a Battle Space Management System might only be showing everything as icons on maps and nodes of information on complex diagrams.  

Wabbit, remember the OP is talking about interfacing the existing games Aces High, Call of Duty, Silent Hunter and Panzer Commander into a common environment. They are not designed from the ground up after HLA standards.
More examples:
SH - Try to attack an AH carrier in heavy fog - but the AH carrier sees the sub in clear daylight.
AH - win the war loads a new map. Those AH units will suddenly disappear in the other games.

What I'm trying to make clear for the OP, is that you need to design the games from the ground up - from a common design specification - to make them work together.
Units moving on ground need the same ground obstacles and hiding places - there have been plenty of debates in AH when some tried to hide behind trees others couldn't see. SH uses night - AH does not - time must be the same.

When you follow a specification method like HLA - all this is taken care of - you then already has designed the interfacing, and then you can mix a flightsimulator with a tank simulator. Its all about design standards. But this has nothing to with what the OP suggest.

Edit:
ops - removed bad SH example, which relayed on offline play.
 

[BigKev03]

Be careful where you jump!

How do you know what the contract is going to cost, it doesn't exist and nor does any example to go by does there? You fail to see the depth of this idea. There are M-I-L-L-I-O-N-S of CoD players. If even 10 thousand new players got as addicted to playing in our MM maps as we have, hitech would make a fortune (exaggeration) and would be expanding his operation, hiring new programmers, and working on giving you all those wish list items you've ever drooled over. I dont think hitech would even need to increase the cost and here is why.

Games like CoD and SH are bought and played FREE even in the online environments. Once a guy has bought the game and gotten bored with the missions he may or may not spend years playing this game online. If he does then the developer may make more money if they come out with a newer version and this loyal customer buys it. But how much money do they spend supporting that version and for how long? I dont know the answer to that. It obviously doesnt stop them from making a profit, but without a doubt cuts into profit to some degree. Ok so they made some money on sales. Then sales stopped. Now what?

By licensing HTC to charge for arena play they get continued profit on a version of the game that they have already worked out many if not all of it's bugs. Yes there will be some teething pains when they accept the deal, but they now have hugely more interesting game with a group of people that pay to play for (oh who is the longest running player of AH, AW and Warbirds?) 15 or 20 years! So hitech charges everyone the same 15 bucks to play, but instead of 3k players he has 20k if not a 100k. Silent Hunter doesnt have much of a following their cut would be considerably less. They would likely be giddy to get a deal at all.

If HTC offered them 1/100th of his $15 it would be more than they make with a game they dont sell anymore wouldnt it? So how do you figure he would have to raise the rate? HTC could end up with a game that blows every bit of the competition out of the water. If so, a million players is not out of the realm of possibility.

THATS ALL I WANNA HEAR FROM YOU!

JK,  Like I said, not a programmer. I am assuming when you say bandwidth sensitive that means that AH already has a high volume of data that needs to go from my pc to the server and back again? And the HLA increases that load asside from the additional players? I dont even know where bandwidth reduction comes in. I am asking with all due respect because you sound more level headed than some around here and like you know what you're talking about.

So now we have a lot more bullets flying around and a lot more players. I'm sure that adds a great deal, but a base cap could limit the number of spawners and control that I'm sure.

Dear Lost one, what you fail to recognize is that a contract like this is not as simple as saying all three games could be accessed for one fee.  In contracts (which I do for a living) there are a lot of unseen costs that people like you dont see nor understand.  For example if HTC signs a contract to support this idea they will have to pay a royal fee to the other game companies as the rights of the game do not belong to HTC.  To offset this cost to HTC they have to either take the cost out of pocket or raise revenue to cover it.  Where would they raise revenue??  Higher monthly fee.  In addition, the cost to upgrade the infrastructure at HTC to support all this costs money as well.  And when you talk about combining three games into a shared environment then you have the possibility of three different royalty rates or a three way split of income.  I doubt HTC (as it is not that large of a company) would want to take the investment risk of a venture such as this when their is no data to support the outlays in capital to do this.  Buidling the capital to do this in one hurdle then the specifics of a contract to do this would probably be to much for HTC to even want to consider as their market share in it would not lead them to a strong negotiating position.

[CptTrips]

Wabbit, remember the OP is talking about interfacing the existing games Aces High, Call of Duty, Silent Hunter and Panzer Commander into a common environment. They are not designed from the ground up after HLA standards.
More examples:
SH - Try to attack an AH carrier in heavy fog - but the AH carrier sees the sub in clear daylight.
AH - win the war loads a new map. Those AH units will suddenly disappear in the other games.

What I'm trying to make clear for the OP, is that you need to design the games from the ground up - from a common design specification - to make them work together.
Units moving on ground need the same ground obstacles and hiding places - there have been plenty of debates in AH when some tried to hide behind trees others couldn't see. SH uses night - AH does not - time must be the same.

When you follow a specification method like HLA - all this is taken care of - you then already has designed the interfacing, and then you can mix a flightsimulator with a tank simulator. Its all about design standards. But this has nothing to with what the OP suggest.

Edit:
ops - removed bad SH example, which relayed on offline play.
 

If I misread your tone I apologize.

I will however, challenge you assertion that the sims have to be built from the ground up to HLA standards.  

It is quite common for HLA layers to be bolted-on to existing simulations.  That was assumed in the HLA design.  Messaging internal to the local simulation can be translated and forwarded to the HLA space and information from the HLA space can be received and translated in to forms the local simulation understands.  All that can be encapsulated in a layer and hidden from the rest of the local simulation.  (in the AH context that would be handled at the main server and normal AH clients would not be able to tell the difference.)

I would assert that a well designed simulation is already not that different from HLA concepts. (Probably the trickiest part is AH is procedural based and not object oriented.  Object oriented is easier to retro fit I imagine, but I know some of those defense simulators were probably written in C or Assembly!   )


As to your other points, I don’t see any special technical problems.  I assume AH would tell the SH client the time of day and the weather conditions.  SH would render accordingly.  Certain features like time-acceleration available in single player mode would be disabled in AH compliant mode.  

AH can inform supporting sims of the scenario start, end, swap to another maps and starting conditions, etc.

I am assuming of course that a special product version or addon would be released for these games to add the HLA layer and supporting logic and constraints as well as the maps.

Again, I personally don’t see the technology as being the fundamental road block.  In my opinion, its all the legal and business case issues to work out to justify the effort.

An WWIIOnline/AH symbiosis might almost be worth it.  Each has a core competency they excel in that the other supports but isn’t their main talent.  And they are in the same town (Sorta).  And they’ve had a past working relationship (I don’t tknow tho it that is a advantage or disadvantage depending on the baggage ).  

Regards,
Wab

[lengro]

If I misread you tone I apologize.

no need to, sir - your input is most welcome

I will however, challenge you assertion that the sims have to be built from the ground up to HLA standards.  

It is quite common for HLA layers to be bolted-on to existing simulations.  That was assumed in the HLA design.  Messaging internal to the local simulation can be translated and forwarded to the HLA space and information from the HLA space can be received and translated in to forms the local simulation understands.  All that can be encapsulated in a layer and hidden from the rest of the local simulation.  (in the AH context that would be handled at the main server and normal AH clients would not be able to tell the difference.)

And that works very well for server-client based systems, where the servers can do all the decisions. But remember that the netcode in AH is primarily peer-to-peer: planes colliding is all decided at the clients, and the result then forwarded to the server - hence different outcomes on the clients.

I would assert that a well designed simulation is already not that different from HLA concepts. (Probably the trickiest part is AH is procedural based and not object oriented.  Object oriented is easier to retro fit I imagine, but I know some of those defense simulators were probably written in C or Assembly!   )

True, I've done my share of assembly programming back in the days, and if the design had to change during the coding proces, it was often easier to start again than trying to fix. When I learned OO programming, I never looked back  

As to your other points, I don’t see any special technical problems.  I assume AH would tell the SH client the time of day and the weather conditions.  SH would render accordingly.  Certain features like time-acceleration available in single player mode would be disabled in AH compliant mode.  

AH can inform supporting sims of the scenario start, end, swap to another maps and starting conditions, etc.

I am assuming of course that a special product version or addon would be released for these games to add the HLA layer and supporting logic and constraints as well as the maps.

Thats the point, the games the OP mention has all to be changed to accommodate a common environment. They have to agree upon for example:
* should we get rid of knits, rooks and bishops, or should the other games implement them?
* is it ok to see an american P51 shoot an american P47 down in the skies of Cod?
* Is it ok for a german type 7C u-boot in SH to get strafed by an AH ME262?

In military simulations the above game considerations don't apply - the common framework is typically based on realworld scenarios - but we are talking existing games where the fun and playability factor is a key goal in the design - and that they handle very differently.

When the games converge to a common framework, it starts to make sense that they share common components when possible - it makes software versioning easier, often resulting in more robust applications.

Again, I personally don’t see the technology as being the fundamental road block.  In my opinion, its all the legal and business case issues to work out to justify the effort.

An WWIIOnline/AH symbiosis might almost be worth it.  Each has a core competency they excel in that the other supports but isn’t their main talent.  And they are in the same town (Sorta).  And they’ve had a past working relationship (I don’t tknow tho it that is a advantage or disadvantage depending on the baggage ).  

Regards,
Wab

I too like the idea - it just has to be done the right way - and we agree on many points. But I still think that building a new common framework, handling a highly standardized world environment, running at a server farm, is the right way to approach this. Many existing components from the different games can of course be modified and recompiled - existing 3D models can be rebuild to common standards and so on. But this is no longer interfacing the 4 games the OP mentioned, this is a complete new online game.  

Regards,
lengro

Edited for clarity

[CptTrips]

Lengro,

I think you misspoke.  I’m almost 1000% sure AH is client/server.  Yes, each client executes its own collision detection, but then communicates its results back to the server to be distributed to other clients.  Clients do not communicate directly to each other.  P2P is not scaleable enough for MMOG.

Maybe COD, SH etc would be more applicable for AVA or scenario support to avoid the oddness of P51 on P51 combat?

I don’t agree that to support inter-simulation communication you would need to share code bases.  You only need a common communication protocol.  Interface definitions can be versioned.  There would be too many Intellectual Property issues in sharing feature code.  And I don’t think it’s necessary.
 
We do agree that some new code would have to be written on both sides to support the interaction.  That’s unavoidable and the cost that would have to be justified.  And I’m not sure it is justified, except for maybe the WWIIOnline scenario, which has is own issues.

Regards,
Wab

[lengro]

I think you misspoke.  I’m almost 1000% sure AH is client/server.  Yes, each client executes its own collision detection, but then communicates its results back to the server to be distributed to other clients.  Clients do not communicate directly to each other.  P2P is not scaleable enough for MMOG.

I'm pretty sure I once read that when planes are close, their positions were transmitted directly from client to client - but I'ts very likely that I'm wrong.

Maybe COD, SH etc would be more applicable for AVA or scenario support to avoid the oddness of P51 on P51 combat?

yes, the strategic and tactical goals has to be streamlined for all the games.

I don’t agree that to support inter-simulation communication you would need to share code bases.  You only need a common communication protocol.  Interface definitions can be versioned.  There would be too many Intellectual Property issues in sharing feature code.  And I don’t think it’s necessary.

Nor should you agree when you are right - nothing wrong with encapsulated private code talking through standard interfaces.
I was thinking in terms of cost efficiency - as in the companies should merge together. I'm a bit scared of the thought that it's an alliance, what if one gets mad, and pull their plug...

Regards,
lengro

[Motherland]

On top of everything else, if the other companies mentioned wanted to do something like this, they'd most likely choose Il2 for the flight simulator instead of a small studio game like Aces High.

[muzik]

May I in AH drive my new tank over those evil CoD guys in the above picture

... captain goes for a surface attack because he knows he is hidden in this bad and dark weather:

...so I drop a bomb in his head.
How should this be interfaced - or should we change more rules in both games?

Yes, Im pretty sure CoD models running down infantry for a kill, which means if you are using a tank in any sim and you run over a generic troop in AH that's actually a player in CoD, he dies.

There ARE NO RULES in CoD, SH. Those players simply blow stuff up. The war is managed only in AH.

You keep bringing up environmental issues like it is a problem. It is not. The host of any kind of internet game determines the conditions of the game. Weather effects can be turned off, if it is daylight in AH then it will be daylight in SH. This is not a problem.

In my opinion, the issues are really more legal and business case oriented, rather than technical.

The intruiging scenario would be for the WWIIOnline guys to take over responsibility for all the ground actions, and let HTC handle the Air Action in a unified battle space.

Exactly right, but that is not to say that it won't be somewhat labor intensive.

I think if WWIIonline wanted a better flight model they would do it themselves. I am sure they will fight to own this market seeing how they were the first to come out with what we are looking for.

Wabbit, remember the OP is talking about interfacing the existing games into a common environment.

SH - Try to attack an AH carrier in heavy fog - but the AH carrier sees the sub in clear daylight.
AH - win the war loads a new map. Those AH units will suddenly disappear in the other games.

Units moving on ground need the same ground obstacles and hiding places - there have been plenty of debates in AH when some tried to hide behind trees others couldn't see.

Again the games DO NOT INTERACT DIRECTLY, they merely exchange data through a translator.

And again, environmental issues (time, lighting, fog, maps, map changing due to victory) are determined by the host. They are easily controlled.

Im not even going into a debate about "hiding behind trees...and not seeing." Those are determined by the accuracy of the maps or other bug issues.

You are trying to say this is not possible, but you keep bringing up issues that are minor bugs that only result AFTER YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED the very thing you say cant be done. So it seems that you agree that it can be done but with minor problems. GREAT, then we agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Lost one, what you fail to recognize is that a contract like this is not as simple as saying all three games could be accessed for one fee.  In contracts (which I do for a living) there are a lot of unseen costs that people like you dont see nor understand....

Dont tell me what I dont understand. If you are a contract lawyer which you seem to be hinting at, then you are well aware that none of the parties involved in a contract MUST use your services and if 2 people decide that it would be beneficial to take advantage of each other without charging a penny to do so, THEY CAN. It is THEIR decision how to conduct their affairs and no one else's.

As for Hitech having to pay "royal fees" (what is that, a REALLY big "royalty?") That is also somewhat incorrect. CoD is a player owned game. Players can play it where they choose. If they choose to pay a professionally administered server, they have that right and CoD has no claim to those fees. I am well aware there are other factors involved but I am not going to argue with you about them, so dont even bother.

Now I dont know what rules CoD has about creating custom maps or modifying the software, but I am sure this is where fees will start to apply. But you seem to think that makes it expensive. It does not!

What I am suggesting is that Hitech "host" CoD game play on his servers. He technically would be making money for the use of his professionally administered servers. He does NOT have to pay those game companies to do so. Where the kicker comes in is when he uses their name to advertise and the game needs to be modified for whatever purpose, then and ONLY then is hitech liable for royalties. I am not going to argue the complexities of this. We both know it can be done.

You talk as if when hitech approached CoD, they would have him over a barrel. There are plenty of first person shooters out there and all of them are struggling to stay afloat and continue their products. I haven't seen a new WW2 version of CoD for a LONG time (not that I've looked or care). They are the ones at a disadvantage. They have FAR more competition than hitech has in his genre. They have a product that has lost most of it's appeal because games like Modern Warfare are kicking their tulips on consoles. If someone came to them with a plan to revive and keep their product alive with minimal effort on their part, do you think they are going to haggle? Buddy, if you are a business expert, I hope for your sake your luck outweighs your expertise.

This venture would offer those games new life and profit they would not otherwise have. He is also ADDING VALUE to CoD by integrating the games and creating a form of game play they have never achieved alone! If they wanted to create big servers of their own, they would have done so. And maybe they dont ever want to.....   Hitech- "NEXT FIRST PERSON SHOOTER PLEASE. How do you do sir? Step into my office. How would you like to strike a blow to your competition and grow your game?"

On top of everything else, if the other companies mentioned wanted to do something like this, they'd most likely choose Il2 for the flight simulator instead of a small studio game like Aces High.

WROOOOOOONNNNNNNNG  Il2 has 200 aircraft or so and I dont think they would want to have to create that many planes. Plus Il2 is NOT a massively multiplayer game and none of the games mentioned except for WW2online have a system in place for large scale warfare. ..."YAY we just went from 60 players to 90 players, YIPEEEEEE"    If they were going to do this at all, they would have done it wouldnt they? You see, that's the benefit of beating the competition to the punch! You get the best position in the market before they do.

I'm pretty sure I once read that when planes are close, their positions were transmitted directly from client to client - but I'ts very likely that I'm wrong.

yes, the strategic and tactical goals has to be streamlined for all the games.

Regards,
lengro

1 Even if it was client to client, it still has to go through hitechs server. (that doesnt exactly sound like client to client to me but Ill take your word) It still doesnt matter. ALL aircraft in the game are AH players on AH software. Aircraft in any other game is merely a rendered model of the plane so that those players are seeing US attacking them on the ground and they have something to shoot at! They DONT get to fly aircraft from CoD even if CoD had a flight model, which it doesnt.

2 NO stretegic play is determined in AH only. Players in CoD or SH will participate in the war by shooting and destroying things, but it is the AH software where the war actually exists. If FPshooters are destroying a town, AH players may drop troops....uh well, there are already troops all over town arent there? "quick ten of you guys run into the map room" I guess the base is ours  


How's this for your little bail out scenario Lengro?...  Ok you bail out of your plane at 2k above ground. You pull up your clipboard as you descend. You now have 2 options. Tower out and take whatever decision is made for you or select "SWITCH GAME." You now have 15 minutes to exit AH and open CoD. When you open CoD and log on to the AH server a pop up comes up asking if you want to "CONTINUE BAIL OUT." You select yes and you log back on at the same position as when you bailed. Now you are playing CoD with your lil 45. But your adventure is just starting. If the enemy doesnt see you, you can run away and try to return to base. You can call your buddies to come pick you up in a jeep and drive you back to friendly territory where you will land your flight and prevent a more severe loss of points. But if upon landing your chute you quickly get overrun by enemy soldiers you now have a choice to make. If they come within yelling distance they will issue a surrender command. They cant shoot you because it's against the geneva convention, but when the window that asks "surrender?" comes up and you dont respond in a certain amount of time, they can fire. Or you can just go out in a blaze of glory. If youre lucky enough to kill one and get his gun you could rack up some infantry perkies! If they shoot you without a surrender request they end up back in their HQ being court marshaled.

I dont know why youre still fighting it dude  


Wabbit and Monk have nailed my intentions precisely it seems.

[EskimoJoe]

Either way, I don't want to download another 10+ gigs for a piss-poor game thing that probably wont work and will be filled with whining, screaming CoD kids on my crappy Alaskan internet