Flight Commander 2 is HOT!
Daniel Evans
at FC2. This is basically Air War/Air Superiority on a
computer. It has a campaign system, and a large plane
database.
Daniel
KevinRohr
Daniel Evans
a campaign(the campaign has a fixed number of days, and a fixed number of
missions each day, but the battles are random and based on previous sucesses).
The game is 2D lookwodn display, with aircraft controls in the upper right of the
display. There you complete commands to perform maneuvers with the aircraft,
including climbing, diving, split-S, immelmans, rolls. Other maneuvers are
completed by combining these fundamental types. The game details electronic
warfare, high-G maneuvers and provides for fairly good ground defenses.
Some of the parts of the game are not controllable by the player, for instance
you only have one bomb selection, which represents either a single large bomb
or a group of smaller bombs(the design notes say the plane will be loaded
with the appropriate load for the plane type and target). In addition
rockets are handled in the same way, you simply add a rocket load(each load
is enough to attack one target, and some planes can carry as many as 15 loads).
The plane is considered to be loaded with the correct type for the plane,
nationality and target. However, I wish I could choose different types
of loads. For instance I would like to have alot of smaller bombs for infantry,
or a single large bomb for a bridge. In the current game the current
bomb load of an aircraft is usable against all targets. This is a small
problem, since a real plane outfitted with cluster bombs would not attack a
bridge as a secondary target. The planes can also carry ECM pods, fuel
tanks(important!) and laser pods.
Game play is excellent, and the computer handles all the things I hated from
"Air Superiority", such as missle movement, chaff and flares. There are
serveral advances options, which make the game much more realistic, and I
admit I disliked the game until I turned them all on. However, after all the realism
options are on the game is essentially "Air Superiority", "Air Strike", except
the computer always handles ground defenses(which is boring anyhow, I hate being
a target).
The aircraft selection is excellent, with the only significant missing planes
being the following: B-52, A-37, A-1. There are also the scenarios from
"Top Gun", which are a blast to play.
B.J. Law
Daniel Evans <d...@develop.bsis.com> wrote:
>
>Some of the parts of the game are not controllable by the player, for instance
>you only have one bomb selection, which represents either a single large bomb
>nationality and target. However, I wish I could choose different types
>of loads. For instance I would like to have alot of smaller bombs for infantry,
>or a single large bomb for a bridge. In the current game the current
THough I too would have liked a choice of at least large and
small bombs, I believe the designers were looking for simplicity in this
area. Basically: "Who cares, drop it and watch things go boom."
What I don't like about the bombs is that you don't even have to
fly over your target! You can drop these things out of your plane at a 45
degree angle from your flight path about two miles away (don't remember
the scale. Sorry) They really ought to go straight down or more like the
cannons. This makes things a little easy.
>
>Game play is excellent, and the computer handles all the things I hated from
>"Air Superiority", such as missle movement, chaff and flares. There are
>serveral advances options, which make the game much more realistic, and I
>admit I disliked the game until I turned them all on. However, after all the realism
>options are on the game is essentially "Air Superiority", "Air Strike", except
>the computer always handles ground defenses(which is boring anyhow, I hate being
>a target).
I agree. I've got a bunch of these games and I just can't play
them. Especially Air Superiority. 1) got to figure out all the rules and
remember to use 'em and b) got to teach someone else. These things rule
when they play themselves.
Actually, I think the flight engine is based more on Avalon
Hill's flight sim game Flight Leader. It's much simpler than AS, though
it's not as accurate. The main thing is that FL is more ASuperiority than
AStrike in that it too does not have ground attacks.
>
>The aircraft selection is excellent, with the only significant missing planes
>being the following: B-52, A-37, A-1. There are also the scenarios from
>"Top Gun", which are a blast to play.
Top Gun? I guess I haven't been playing enough.
--
----------------------------------------------------------Up the Irons!
H: u921...@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca B: la...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca
Be Seeing You.
Marv Conn
It is just like a board game. You start in a setup with what look
like little counters in a board game. Then you plot the moves for
these counters.
I guess you could say that it is a board game without dice and
tables. It a fun strategic type of game, not much of feel of
flying though. Its great against another player using the PBM
option. It a little rough to use, but it works fine. I have only
had the game lock up on me once in a bunch of game.
Marv Conn
> being the following: B-52, A-37, A-1.
And maybe the Backfire, Badger and Bear bombers too.
One bad point is that the starting range always seems to be the same.
robin.kim
>> The aircraft selection is excellent, with the only significant missing planes
>> being the following: B-52, A-37, A-1.
>
>And maybe the Backfire, Badger and Bear bombers too.
I didn't even notice the absence of strategic bombers until I read this. Could
it be because the game system doesn't support tail guns?
>One bad point is that the starting range always seems to be the same.
I agree it would be interesting to have some engagements start out at
longer ranges.
Since the author of the game seems to read this newsgroup, I have a
couple of questions/comments I'm hoping he might answer/address.
First, the review in Strategy Plus talks about how a few bugs were
discovered in the initial release and the author, Charlie Moylan,
addressed them with a patch in a just few days. I've looked at a few
of the usual FTP sites but have not seen it anywhere. Does such a
patch exist, and if so, what does it fix and where can I find it?
Second, should the Harrier really be able to hover indefinitely going 25 knots
when its engine gets knocked out by enemy fire? :^)
Third, and this is just a nit, but I find it difficult to pick out the
current plane in the orders phase when it has been damaged because the
dashed white outline no longer appears (perhaps this only occurs at
lower zoom levels).
Fourth, I think maybe the ability of any plane to go from level flight to
a vertical climb in one move should be treated as a high-G maneuver. It
is actually harder to do this than doing a 90 degree level turn since you
are fighting 1 G of gravity on the way up. The same is true when pulling up
from a vertical dive into level flight in one move. Going from a vertical
climb to level flight or level flight to a vertical dive in one move is more
understandable since you get a gravity assist.
Fifth, I'd be curious to here your thoughts on why the aircraft roll
(attitude and roll rate) were not included in the simulation. I
realize it would probably make the game quite a bit more cumbersome,
but if you really do plan on making a WWII add-on, this would become
very important. One big drawback of this lack in the present game is
that changes of direction while in a vertical dive are treated as turns
(so you can't change more than 45 degrees without doing a high-G turn,
split-S, or Immelmann) when in reality they are unloaded rolls. At
corner speed a nimble fighter like an F-16 can easily roll 180 degrees in
a second, never mind the 7.5 seconds in a turn. Was this a necessary
abstraction to deal with the game turn length?
Despite these complaints, I really enjoy this game tremendously. It is
a fine piece of work! I can talk about 20 things I like about the game
for every gripe I've listed above. I plan on writing a short review for
the flight-sim newsgroup in hopes of generating some cross-over interest.
Daniel Evans
> tables. It a fun strategic type of game, not much of feel of
> flying though. Its great against another player using the PBM
> option. It a little rough to use, but it works fine. I have only
> had the game lock up on me once in a bunch of game.
If the game locks up(which is very rare and may be fixed with the 1.01 patch)
The menus till work, and I have been able to save the battle. I can then
exit and restart the game at the same point.
Daniel
Daniel Evans
The aircraft start the game close enough to the target ships(< 100 hexes)
so that I can launch ASMs on the first turn.
BTW, I have generated several Korean era battles, these are the most fun.
Getting into a turning battle after being bounced by a couple of MIGs is
a real challenge. Also Vietnam battle can be a real challenge, since the
rules of engagement really limit the effectiveness of RHMs.
Is anyone interested in getting a bundle of scenarios from a ftp site?
Daniel
Charlie Moylan
>Is anyone interested in getting a bundle of scenarios from a ftp site?
which will let players make their own campaigns and set-piece battles.
The idea will be to let people create their favorite historical or fictional
engagements and then upload them to ftp sites or on-line services and
distribute them to the Flight Commander 2 community at large. Free and
(nearly) unlimited new scenarios! Watch for the Mission Builder in about
2 months.
Regards,
Charles Moylan
Big Time Software