Respondendo a um gringo "For Fun", o Dante-JT disse que o JT sera simulador até onde puder:
Q
1) Will Argentine anti-air units attack their own forces?
2) Will bomb fusing be player controlled?
3) Can snake-eyes be used any Argentine air group or just the naval air groups?
4) How will recon and exocet employment work? Or will we just get a canned mission to fly to a specific point and let them fly?
5) Will distance and fuel consumption be accurately modeled? I mean during the landing at San Carlos basically there was only 20 minutes total Harrier CAP time in every hour(10 minutes each on station by two separate two-ship elements) because the carriers moved so far out to protect from exocet strikes. The Argentine forces were equally limited in the AO even with aerial refueling en route. Not sure how fun it will be making long transits for a few scant minutes in the AO, especially for more casual simmers.
A
1) this is important, it's the reason for the bright yellow stripes you see in Argentine aircraft. It may go like this: at the beginning of the campaign, when there is no yellow stripes yet, you're in danger of being hit by own AAA. Specially at the first two weeks of the campaign. In these days, a Mirage guy was shot down and killed at Port Stanley (Captain Garcia Cuerva), and an A4 pilot killed at Goose Green (Lt Gavazzi). Then the textures will change (yellow stripes) and AA personal briefed about yellow stripes, so it may not happen anymore or not with the same frequency.
2)This is interesting, I had requests for this, it's technically possible to code it that way indeed. Would we leave the player in the dark regarding it (historical), or give some clues?
3) Just the naval air groups
4) recon will be needed in order to get targets marked for a second sortie (this time an attack sortie), in the linear campaign. In the dynamic campaign we foresee, which may run technically like an strategy game in background, recon is a huge issue, it's Fog of War related: only fixed (static/strategic targets ie airbases and cities) appear in the map at start. Mobile enemy units will only be drawn in map if a recon plane was within sensor range of 'em. So, it may affect directly in the Exocet/Super Etendard missions, which I repeat, will not be canned, this is one of the reasons the Super Etendard/Exocet combo and missions will be available only in the full boxed release with the campaign next year.
It was dependant of Neptune planes, getting intel on the position of any british vessel, which will then have the position ploted to the player in the campaign's room. It will be basically a game of watch and wait, quite different and extremely relying in the 'dynamicness'. Once the Neptune recon plane spots a potential naval target, get its coords radio'ed back to HQ, and a symbol will appear in the campaign map screen. Player will then set it as the mission target, gets a SUE flight, edit its waypoints, loadout, verify weather forecast etc. This is a good example of the JT planned dynamic campaign gameplay.
5) This is a polemic point indeed. It's one of the reasons we'll be starting with the shorter ground attack missions (specially the ones starting at FOB San Carlos), while the full missions you mention will be left for the full release, specially with dynamic campaign in the background. There's a lot to do in those long transits anyway, and a lot of parallel activity to look at or be informed/reported of.
Speaking of Argentina equipment, one thing people from argentina asked, is if we're able to simulate the random equipment failures they suffered in nearly any sortie. It's common to read reports of their sorties and it's always something like "Number 4 had to abort because of electrical failure, so the package moved ahead with 3 airplanes." This IMHO should be an option, on/off failures. Want full realism, to experience the frustration of those pilots? Have failures enabled.
Regarding fun and accuracy, this is another polemic point. When we call JT a "simulation", when talking to veterans, it's viewed with regard and some respect. When we call it "game", it's viewed as a form of inferior media, and even disrespectful for those who fought in the actual war! So, I've learned to always call it a simulation. But the "fun" in a simulation is to represent reality "as is", no matter if it was boring or not. This is a philosophical discussion that we may have for hours. smile But summing up, when we tried to promote JT as a game and approaching game publishers, it failed, we lost a lot of time by barking up the wrong tree. When we stated "it's a simulation" and looked for a simulation company (Aerosoft), it all went smoothly. So, lesson learned.
Interessante o último paragrafo.
Sokol1
