›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

General: World of Warplanes Site Takes Off

SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
in News & Features Discussion

Wargaming.net has announced that the official web site for its upcoming aerial combat game, World of Warplanes, has launched. The new site features screenshots and information about World of Warplanes with new information set to be added as the game's development continues.

The website available at www.worldofwarplanes.com will feature the first in-game screenshots and will further introduce world of warplanes with renders, videos, and other materials to keep players in touch with the latest development updates. World of Warplanes will feature a wide range of warbirds, each of them unique in their effectiveness and behavior.. Virtual pilots will choose from three main warplane classes - single-engine light fighters capable of engaging enemies in close dogfights, heavy fighters with their deadly straight attacks, and strafing aircrafts, the fearsome threat for ground targets.

Find out more at the link above.

image


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


Comments

  • Master_M2KMaster_M2K Member Posts: 244

    Well I didn't expect this already. I only just heard about the game's existence last month. Anyways, I'm more excited about this game than WoT. Tanks just didn't do it for me and I really can't wait to do some F2P dog-fighting.

    Shame the site doesn't load properly for me.

    image

  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Member RarePosts: 3,476

    Site not loading

    image

    " Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who  Would Threaten It "
                                            MAGA
  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129

    Originally posted by Elsabolts



    Site not loading

    image


     

    It was very slow for me too. Seems to me that I remember World of Tanks being slow at first. Also, they may be experiencing a lot of traffic since it just launched today. :)


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832

    Well, at least this makes a bit more sense then World of Tanks. Fighter vs Fighter combat did sort of exist in it's own world. Whereas ground combat that only features armor and doesn't take into account infantry, at guns, artillery, air power, etc....is pretty much pure fantasy...and doesn't acount for probably 75 percent of the tactics involved with armor.

    I mentioned this in the topic on World of Tanks, but the US tank doctrine for almost the entire war was that our tanks were not built or intended to engage enemy armor...that was the role of the dedicated AT arm (even if that often didn't work out very well).

    Fighter vs Fighter action is more realistic....although I do hope they also feature bomber escort missions as well as ground support missions....as those were both important roles for fighters/FB's in WWII, in addition to the pure Air Superiority stuff.

  • ArcheminosArcheminos Member Posts: 283

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2



    Well, at least this makes a bit more sense then World of Tanks. Fighter vs Fighter combat did sort of exist in it's own world. Whereas ground combat that only features armor and doesn't take into account infantry, at guns, artillery, air power, etc....is pretty much pure fantasy...and doesn't acount for probably 75 percent of the tactics involved with armor.

    I mentioned this in the topic on World of Tanks, but the US tank doctrine for almost the entire war was that our tanks were not built or intended to engage enemy armor...that was the role of the dedicated AT arm (even if that often didn't work out very well).

    Fighter vs Fighter action is more realistic....although I do hope they also feature bomber escort missions as well as ground support missions....as those were both important roles for fighters/FB's in WWII, in addition to the pure Air Superiority stuff.


     

    While I understand your point, that wouldn't have made a fun game I don't think. A lot of boys growing up played Tank commander while in a cardboard box, and even if WoT is not historically accurate, it's still a fun free diversion. And World of Warplanes looks beautiful so far, but I am still hoping for a World of Battleships.

  • sakersaker Member RarePosts: 1,458

    Originally posted by Archeminos





    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2





    Well, at least this makes a bit more sense then World of Tanks. Fighter vs Fighter combat did sort of exist in it's own world. Whereas ground combat that only features armor and doesn't take into account infantry, at guns, artillery, air power, etc....is pretty much pure fantasy...and doesn't acount for probably 75 percent of the tactics involved with armor.



    I mentioned this in the topic on World of Tanks, but the US tank doctrine for almost the entire war was that our tanks were not built or intended to engage enemy armor...that was the role of the dedicated AT arm (even if that often didn't work out very well).



    Fighter vs Fighter action is more realistic....although I do hope they also feature bomber escort missions as well as ground support missions....as those were both important roles for fighters/FB's in WWII, in addition to the pure Air Superiority stuff.






     



    While I understand your point, that wouldn't have made a fun game I don't think. A lot of boys growing up played Tank commander while in a cardboard box, and even if WoT is not historically accurate, it's still a fun free diversion. And World of Warplanes looks beautiful so far, but I am still hoping for a World of Battleships.


     

    Heard noise that some kind of ship battles is their next thing. Though I would prefer some other company do these as I'm not a fan of how these people have done tanks at all. No idea if subs will be involved, I personally want subs!

    BTW some other company does already have a World War II fighter plane MMO out, can't remember what the name of it is. It's some eastern market ftp. No idea if it's any good either, just bringing it up. These people's in development title is not the only game in town.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    Interesting idea but they should have set it in WW1 instead of WW2. The WW1 aircombat was more close up and personal and I rather fly a Fokker DVI (yeah, I don't mean DVII, I prefer rotary engines) or a Nieuport 17 compared to a Spitfire or ME109 any day.

    Yeah, I am a huge fan of WW1 aircombat and a rather fanatic "Blue max" player. 

    WW2 combat is interesting as well but there are reasons that anyone who is asked to name a combat pilot mention "The red baron" and not Hartmann or Galland. 

    And while the lone knight camparision is mostly a myth there is a core to it and therefore would work better for a MMO.

    Besides, with WW1 you could more or less custom paint your own plane (even though englishmen had plenty of restrictions) after you had your first victory and I like that as a MMO fan. :)

    WW2 planes are rather boring and colorless in comparision.

  • KhalathwyrKhalathwyr Member UncommonPosts: 3,133

    Nice, looking forward to this!

    "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."

    Chavez y Chavez

  • gorillaz951gorillaz951 Member Posts: 160

    Could they honestly not have thought of another name for an MMO besides containg "World of War-"? 

    image
    image
    Currently playing: Star Wars: The Old Republic, World of Warcraft, Dota 2, League of Legends

    Waiting on: Blade & Soul, Guild Wars 2, Tera, Kingdoms of Amular, Firefall

  • odinfishodinfish Member Posts: 40

    Personally, I'm interested in seeing how this game pans out. :-)

  • Cik_AsalinCik_Asalin Member Posts: 3,033

    World of Tanks (lobby-system, limited maps, third-person shooter) and now World of Warplanes (same).  Has mmorpg "Jumped-The-Shark"?  :)

Sign In or Register to comment.