Game:

The Spam Club

» The Spam Club - Reviewed Games - Comments / Discussion - Wings (1990)
ReplyNew TopicNew Poll

Wings (1990)

Posted at 14:27 on August 9th, 2014 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8541
Quote:
Past wars have the tendency of being romanticised as a clean struggle between upstanding gentlemen. The more modern, the more industrialised the war, the smaller the danger of this happening. World War 1, with its trench and gas horror, is quite clear in this respect. You'd think… until you tilt your view upwards to the sky. It was the very first major war where aircrafts played any role at all. Industrial technology? Virtually non-existent. All those pilots were more daring adventurers than soldiers, weren't they?


Read more...
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted at 17:39 on August 9th, 2014 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Moderator
Retired Gumby
Posts: 987
Quote:
Well, it's (partly) in your hands how many pilots this squadron will have lost at the end of the war. […] It has to be admitted that the longer you managed to keep the same character, the more painful it becomes to lose him, after all (again, a very organic method of motivation).

That's exactly what I am missing in Red Baron. The only time when you notice that you aren't the only actual person fighting this war is when one of the aces stationed with you joins you on a flight. And he will most cetainly be shot down… yet you just don't care since in the end he is as anonymous as all the other pilots.

Quote:
Does anyone really believe that the success of any single mission will be enough to change the outcome of a war of this scale?

Well, yes and no. On the one hand it might be more realistic, if your mission doesn't influence the outcome of the war. On the other hand it's kind of frustrating if it makes no difference at all, if you succeed or fail. Personally I think if you want to have a decent campaign mode at the very least the mission parameters of one of your next missions should depend on your performance.
-----
Dear Sir, I object strongly with the last thread, and the next post.
Posted at 16:40 on August 20th, 2014 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8541
Originally posted by Herr M. at 17:39 on August 9th, 2014:
Quote:
Does anyone really believe that the success of any single mission will be enough to change the outcome of a war of this scale?

Well, yes and no. On the one hand it might be more realistic, if your mission doesn't influence the outcome of the war. On the other hand it's kind of frustrating if it makes no difference at all, if you succeed or fail. Personally I think if you want to have a decent campaign mode at the very least the mission parameters of one of your next missions should depend on your performance.

What I think would be a good compromise is to simply (keeping in the example) have your squadron destroyed or disbanded if performance is not sufficient, but still keep the war's outcome as it happened historically.
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
ReplyNew TopicNew Poll
Powered by Spam Board 5.2.4 © 2007 - 2011 Spam Board Team