Tell the AI or Ownship where Enemy is

[Werewolf13]

Is there a way to make a target ship show up on the map of ownship or tell the AI where the player controlled ship is?

What I'd like to do is make it so that if a neutral unit gets attacked by a side then the attacking unit is revealed to the player or vice versa.

I know there's a reveal bearing action in the doctrine language but that isn't really enough.

This is for an arena type MP mission I'm tinkering with. Doing this would force the players to do good classifications and to set torpedoe presets the way they should be rather than willy-nilly firing off torps in recon mode.
I don't think you can do that, however I made a work around sometime ago. You can trigger the creation of a group of helies which attack the sub who destroyed the surface.
I've played two missions online where that is exactly what happened. Two of 4 players immediately launched a spread of 4 each and cut them loose after about 4k yards. When I asked them why after the game they said to spook player subs into evading and making noise so they could be found easier.

Pretty gamey - IMO there ought to be a penalty for being GAMEY!

Annoying! :nope:

[Miika]

If I understood you correctly, you can use script "enter solution...". It will show the player ship(s) the targets, plus you can use some uncertainty, show the target as hostile/friendly etc.

An example is in my mission "FF Surface Sweep", regarding the hostile subs whose position is linked to the player with certain inaccuracy.

Miika

[OKO]

and if you want total accuracy, use the "engage" instruction => this will give the real position of the target to the concerned platform, a show truth position.

[Werewolf13]

I will try the engage thing for AI units and show solution for player controlled units.

What I want to do is make it so that if a player controlled boat attacks a neutral that other player controlled or AI controlled units immediately know where it is and launch on it.

That ought to force player controlled units to be real careful around neutrals.

Why do it this way? Because in MP games no one looks at the score when the game is over they only care about who sunk who! :arrgh!:

[goldorak]

I will try the engage thing for AI units and show solution for player controlled units.

What I want to do is make it so that if a player controlled boat attacks a neutral that other player controlled or AI controlled units immediately know where it is and launch on it.

That ought to force player controlled units to be real careful around neutrals.

Why do it this way? Because in MP games no one looks at the score when the game is over they only care about who sunk who! :arrgh!:

Instead try applying penalties to the subs that hit civilian boats.
For instance you could script that the offending platform loses the TA for x minutes, or it loses it launch tubes for y min, etc...
Nothing worse than being in multiplayer and blind as a mole. :D

[OKO]

I will try the engage thing for AI units and show solution for player controlled units.

unfortunaltly, this doesn't work for human players :shifty:
you need a link
So you could use solution for an AI platform, transmitting this contact on the link ... for example
Maybe hard to make a working solution here ...


What I want to do is make it so that if a player controlled boat attacks a neutral that other player controlled or AI controlled units immediately know where it is and launch on it.

ok : if side 5 (neutral) attacked by side 2, then run script
script => platform2 engage platform 1; platform3 engage platform 1
do that for each AI

then, as they will know the target position (engage script give them the real position) they will send the link to you after some minutes.
But of course, you will need the link to see the ennemy position


That ought to force player controlled units to be real careful around neutrals.

yes
another possibility is to create an "accident" if the engage neutrals => damage system propulsion + torpedo tubes for 30 mn for example, or even sonars ...
there is quite some possibilities in fact.


Why do it this way? Because in MP games no one looks at the score when the game is over they only care about who sunk who! :arrgh!:

this depends mainly on mission objectives
It's the creator work to find real and interesting objectives.
This editor allow you this near as you wish.
But a good MP mission need really hours and hours of work
And are supposed to be often updated, as you improve in mission editing.

one example of objective : give a datum to a civilian (objective blue) and a kill civilian objective to the red.
This way red sub need to snake and avoid ennemies to win the game
there is lots of objective examples, but they are the real key to make a MP mission interesting for both sides.

[Werewolf13]

this depends mainly on mission objectives
It's the creator work to find real and interesting objectives
I don't disagree with you at all OKO but the unfortunate reality is that unless one belongs to one of the virtual fleets (and usually not even then) MP games usually boil down to free for alls.

I was a member of Seawolves for both Fleet Command and Sub Command and even with them the most popular form of MP was the free for all or team go get 'em mission. It was difficult to get folks to play in a mission where genuine team work was required to achieve some real world goal.

It is very possible as you correctly point out but to do so would IMO require the mission to last longer than most MP players are willing to invest or the action would be limited.

In MP - any kind - not just the Sonalysts games - it seems the quick action knife fight type of game is the most popular.

I have a few ideas why this is so but they're none too complimentary to the average game player so unless specificaly asked I'll just keep them to myself.

[SeaQueen]

I don't disagree with you at all OKO but the unfortunate reality is that unless one belongs to one of the virtual fleets (and usually not even then) MP games usually boil down to free for alls.


I've noticed that too. That's why I think the best MP games are 1v1 encounters. That way, if you want to play with a lot of people, they have to play multistation. Even then... it really only makes sense to break it up certain ways. For example, I think the same person who has sonar, should also have weps and TMA. Someone else should drive the boat.

[goldorak]

I've noticed that too. That's why I think the best MP games are 1v1 encounters. That way, if you want to play with a lot of people, they have to play multistation. Even then... it really only makes sense to break it up certain ways. For example, I think the same person who has sonar, should also have weps and TMA. Someone else should drive the boat.

If you do it your way, multistation is boring and not worth it.
The concept of multistation is to have the same amount of fun, not one player having fun and the other not doing anything for the rest of the match.
But I understand your point of view, most sub players coming from sub command (or from virtual fleets experiences) etc... are "selfish" (its not an insult) and still don't grasp DW multistation.

For instance I play a lot on the sub in mutistation with Fandango and I have control of Sonar station, Ship control, Radar, Radio&Esm while Fandango has complete control over TMA, weapons, periscope and sam launcher.
It works ideally this way, its fun for the 2 of us and the two of us interact a lot during the game.
Its really fun and adds a totaly new dimension to the multiplayer experience.

[MaHuJa]

About sub multistation - there are some cases where two stations can give a "synergy effect".

For example, whoever has the HFAS should also have ship control, if there is a minefield. Else he also has to create lots of manual contacts on top of those crosses so that whoever has ship control sees where they are. (Or use "normal" active sonar, but that announces where they are, after all.)

Whoever has sonar has a unique realtime perspective on where the weapon is heading relative to the target. If the torpedo has passed the target line, it's time to resteer it. Or, for the situations when the enemy knowing your bearing (unable to shoot back, etc) keep the torpedo along the LOS to the target.

[Molon Labe]

this depends mainly on mission objectives
It's the creator work to find real and interesting objectives
I don't disagree with you at all OKO but the unfortunate reality is that unless one belongs to one of the virtual fleets (and usually not even then) MP games usually boil down to free for alls.

I was a member of Seawolves for both Fleet Command and Sub Command and even with them the most popular form of MP was the free for all or team go get 'em mission. It was difficult to get folks to play in a mission where genuine team work was required to achieve some real world goal.

It is very possible as you correctly point out but to do so would IMO require the mission to last longer than most MP players are willing to invest or the action would be limited.

In MP - any kind - not just the Sonalysts games - it seems the quick action knife fight type of game is the most popular.

I have a few ideas why this is so but they're none too complimentary to the average game player so unless specificaly asked I'll just keep them to myself.


I'm always looking for a "good" game as opposed to cage matches and knife fights, and I feel your pain.

[OneShot]

Multistation on the P-3 offers a lot of fun too. One player doing the Pilot/Tacco while the other doing all of the Sensors. And both got their work cut out for them. I had tons of fun playing games together with Beer or Smuook on Multistation. Check around, you should find one or two AARs of those games on the CADC, Subsim or OW.

And yes, I prefer a nice cooperative game over Knife fights / Free for all any day. Especially with all platforms involved, like FFG/Helo, P-3 and a sub on one side vs. some subs and whatnot on the other.

[OKO]

this depends mainly on mission objectives
It's the creator work to find real and interesting objectives
I don't disagree with you at all OKO but the unfortunate reality is that unless one belongs to one of the virtual fleets (and usually not even then) MP games usually boil down to free for alls.

I was a member of Seawolves for both Fleet Command and Sub Command and even with them the most popular form of MP was the free for all or team go get 'em mission. It was difficult to get folks to play in a mission where genuine team work was required to achieve some real world goal.

It is very possible as you correctly point out but to do so would IMO require the mission to last longer than most MP players are willing to invest or the action would be limited.

In MP - any kind - not just the Sonalysts games - it seems the quick action knife fight type of game is the most popular.

I have a few ideas why this is so but they're none too complimentary to the average game player so unless specificaly asked I'll just keep them to myself.

Well, the only thing I could say is ... chose your friends on internet ! :yep:
I use to play different simulations online for years (10 years already ...), and have a group of friends which I always play with, on various games and simulations, except for some very occasionnal times.

When I go to gamespy, it's mostly to find some new juicy targets because there isn't enought people on game to my taste.
But I always host, so always choose the maps and the settings (with my 11.5mbps/1mbps bandwith).
In the case I see people disconnecting, I write their names on my ban list
They could disconnect only once without giving me a good reason, but they need to explain me why they did if they want to join again.
So, at this time, there is lots of people on gamespy not authorised to join my games (not that much, I just counted and they are only 9 at that time).
I just kick them from the gamespy room if they try to come back.
Once kicked, they couldn't rejoin.

And this way, good players enjoy to join serious games, with nice peoples and real scenarios, and not dumb FFA missions with disconnecters.

Anyway, most of the time, I play with friends and not unknown people.
Mainly because of the problem you mentionned above, it's not that often that I'm ready to lost time to meet new people, just because I'm very often disappointed

But everyone have a chance to participate if he ask.
the skill level is not the factor, the good spirit and respect for other players (so, no disconnecters ...) are the only desired things to join my games, whatever the level or the knowledge on this simulation.

I'm lucky enought to have 99% of time only desired people on my games, but finally, that's not really luck :roll:
More a time selection effect.

Anyway, here, at subsim, you could meet very nice (and skilled) players for online games.
You could be sure at 95% (but the last 5% should have a chance to join) if you meet someone on gamespy that doesn't come on this board, he will be a quaker FFA player, so, select people here !

And start to built your group of nice people.
It's quite a long way, but a very nice one.
Not only for games but also for other things.

For example, in one month, I will take the palne to see one friend at 800km of me because he invited me.
I never saw him, but as we have same online interest, we decided to meet.

At Paris, where I live, I know more than 10 people IRL I previously met online.
I meet them at aerial meetings, restaurant or going to see them for WE, or a LAN ...

So definitly, I built my own bubble to have more interesting life on internet, with only people I choose (and who choose me also of course)
But I do that for 10 years ...