Molon Labe
01-26-07, 03:23 PM
Can you tell I'm a little excited about 1.04?
I'm hoping that maybe things will pick up around here now that the patch is released too, and I'd like to do my part to move things along by pumping out a few more missions. So here's an idea I've been "kicking around the office."
Force on Force Scenario
General Concept: Two opposing sides with equivalent Orders of Battle are positioned in a nearly symetrical environment. The OOB for both sides are well rounded such that victory will require mutual support between platform classes. The forces of both sides begin a significant distance away from each other and must transit a significant distance before they are able to achieve their objectives. Because the initial tactical situation is at a very early stage, the method through which the objectives are acheived are determined by the players, rather than set up by the designer.
Specific Working Concept: Sea Lanes of Communication: Two fictitious neighboring states, armed with US (and Russian and/or Chinese) platforms, are engaged in a war of attrition are are at a stalemate. The side which is able to resupply its forces before the other will achieve a breakthrough. A fixed number of merchant vessels are inbound to both sides ports, and will arrive at approximately regular intervals over the course of several hours (the current working proposal is 4 hours, although that can be variable based on interest and might be limited by practical design issues). The naval forces are charged with denying the enemy merchantmen access to their ports while protecting their own SLOC.
Design Advantages
A. Balancing
1. Patrol Area Size: Balancing the P-3 in many scenarios is incredibly difficult. The main reason for this, as SeaQueen and GDT participants have mentioned, is that the patrol area in the typical scenario is too small. Detection of any subs in that area is a near certainty. This scenario concept seeks to solve the problem, in part, by increasing the size of the patrol area--this working concept has patrol areas approximately 80X100nm.
2. Multiple mission demands: The need to conduct offensive and defensive operations at the same time over a large area means that platforms may have to divide their time and/or loadout on different tasks. This is particularly true for the P-3, which might be needed for recon or ASUW and and be ordered to leave buoy monitoring to FFG's or helos for a time--which both makes the bubbleheads' lives a little easier if the airdale gets distracted, and gives the airdale something else to do besides watching buoys for hours on end. (It's also an opportunity to put LW's enhanced SLAM-ER to good use.) FFGs may have to switch between ASW and missile defense, helos between ASW and scouting, and subs may have to deal with ASW, ASUW, and Strike tasking over the course of the mission--making the mission more interesting and forcing the players to make tactical choices (and tradeoffs).
3. Mutual support/Unit-Counter unit relationships: The involvement of 3 platform classes creates an approximate unit relationship triangle: FFG-->Air-->Sub-->FFG. You must depend on your teammates, and they depend on you.
4. Sub choice tradeoffs: Since subs can potentially have surveilance, ASW, ASUW, or Strike tasking, and face significant threats from air and subsurface platforms, the sub choices present a tradeoff dilemma. The Seawolf will perform best in open water against noisier subs, and has the best chance of being undetected while transiting. But it has substantially less ASUW and Strike capability than the Akula and 688I. The Akula is particularly fearsome at ASUW, but is much more easily detected by sonobouys and US towed arrays than the US subs. (assuming LW/Ami use).
B. Dynamic "mini-campaign"
If I get it right, then the "campaign" should not necessarily unfold the same way every time. Different sides will be able to chose how they deploy their forces to acheive victory. Such choices include whether a platform will be used offensively or defensively, whether to attack relatively unprotected targets or to engage enemy forces head-on, and what the best method of attack against the objective shipping will be (blockade near port, aerial, surface, or subsurface missile attack, torpedo attack...mines?)
C. Decisons under time pressure with imperfect information
The size and complexity of the mini-campaign allows more emphasis to be placed on intelligence and the "sensor war" than in a typical scenario. Specifically, the players will not have specific targeting information on the target ships. They will have to be identified through a combination of intelligence updates, deduction, and sensor information--and the enemy has a lot to say about what sensor information you can get. Shooting carelessly could result in severe consequences if a neutral is hit, and due to the length of the mission, wasted shots hurt too. On the other hand, opportunities to take the shot may be fleeting.
D. Time-flexibility: This particular version presents the possibility of having an agreed-upon time limit shorter than the full duration. It can take the form of "most arrivals in X time" or a "race to X ships," for example.
Design Disadvantages
A. Time.
Even with flexible time criteria, the minimum time needed to accomplish anything will be significant. It is doubtful that objective targets can be reached before the 2 hour mark, unless I screw up and open the door to unpreventable missile strikes early on. I think most would have to aside a weekend afternoon for this.
B. Possible lulls in the action.
Long transits for FFGs and subs might mean long periods of boredom. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the potential for air attack, or stumbling into an enemy vessel, is always present.
C. Limited Dynamic elements.
The goal of keeping both sides equivalent means there are some elements that aren't very random. Starting positions of combattant vessels will be pretty much known--what isn't known is where they'll have moved to by the time of first contact. Approximate symetry and regular arrival times mean that the locations of the target ships will also not vary too much from mission to mission.
D. Number of players
This won't even begin to pay off without at least 4 players, and won't be what it was intended to be without at least 6. Ideally, 10+.
E. Time to build
This won't be done anytime soon. In trying to keep the target ships as dynamic as practicable, and to provide intelligence updates and related scripting unique to the types and locations of the target ships, there's a lot of dynamic groups and triggers that need to be set up...and tested and troubleshot. RL's going to keep me busy for a few weeks too.
F. Complexity:
The lack of the involvement of the KISS-principle means that there is a significant chance that the mission will need significant post-release tweaking to adjust for bugs, design failures (as in, did not get the tactical result I was aiming for) and various unanticipated problems.
G. Severity of certain casualties:
The power of certain platforms--two in particular (can you guess them both?) Means that their numbers must be limited (as it stands now, to one of each on each side) to prevent undermining the goal of mutal support being the key to victory. That also means that the loss of either of these platforms could tip the balance very quickly. This means that the mission may not be for everyone--as some people find tactical restraint very difficult. The alternative, however, is increasing the number of ALL platforms, and thus increasing the number of players needed for this to work well...
H. Mod versions:
The effect of the change in balance between the stock game and LW/Ami almost certainly means that two versions of the scenario will have to be released. In particular, differences in AEGIS, Maverick, and SS-N-27 ASM performance will require significant defensive adjustments (As could any change in ASM performance in future versions of LW/Ami). The working version described so far is, of course, intended for use with LW/Ami.
I. Realism:
Obviously, this type of scenario doesn't even pretend to be based on any sort of RL possibility. It is artificially set up to create a balanced and challenging MP experience with the playables we have available.
So, before I embark on this journey, do you guys think it's worth it?
I'm hoping that maybe things will pick up around here now that the patch is released too, and I'd like to do my part to move things along by pumping out a few more missions. So here's an idea I've been "kicking around the office."
Force on Force Scenario
General Concept: Two opposing sides with equivalent Orders of Battle are positioned in a nearly symetrical environment. The OOB for both sides are well rounded such that victory will require mutual support between platform classes. The forces of both sides begin a significant distance away from each other and must transit a significant distance before they are able to achieve their objectives. Because the initial tactical situation is at a very early stage, the method through which the objectives are acheived are determined by the players, rather than set up by the designer.
Specific Working Concept: Sea Lanes of Communication: Two fictitious neighboring states, armed with US (and Russian and/or Chinese) platforms, are engaged in a war of attrition are are at a stalemate. The side which is able to resupply its forces before the other will achieve a breakthrough. A fixed number of merchant vessels are inbound to both sides ports, and will arrive at approximately regular intervals over the course of several hours (the current working proposal is 4 hours, although that can be variable based on interest and might be limited by practical design issues). The naval forces are charged with denying the enemy merchantmen access to their ports while protecting their own SLOC.
Design Advantages
A. Balancing
1. Patrol Area Size: Balancing the P-3 in many scenarios is incredibly difficult. The main reason for this, as SeaQueen and GDT participants have mentioned, is that the patrol area in the typical scenario is too small. Detection of any subs in that area is a near certainty. This scenario concept seeks to solve the problem, in part, by increasing the size of the patrol area--this working concept has patrol areas approximately 80X100nm.
2. Multiple mission demands: The need to conduct offensive and defensive operations at the same time over a large area means that platforms may have to divide their time and/or loadout on different tasks. This is particularly true for the P-3, which might be needed for recon or ASUW and and be ordered to leave buoy monitoring to FFG's or helos for a time--which both makes the bubbleheads' lives a little easier if the airdale gets distracted, and gives the airdale something else to do besides watching buoys for hours on end. (It's also an opportunity to put LW's enhanced SLAM-ER to good use.) FFGs may have to switch between ASW and missile defense, helos between ASW and scouting, and subs may have to deal with ASW, ASUW, and Strike tasking over the course of the mission--making the mission more interesting and forcing the players to make tactical choices (and tradeoffs).
3. Mutual support/Unit-Counter unit relationships: The involvement of 3 platform classes creates an approximate unit relationship triangle: FFG-->Air-->Sub-->FFG. You must depend on your teammates, and they depend on you.
4. Sub choice tradeoffs: Since subs can potentially have surveilance, ASW, ASUW, or Strike tasking, and face significant threats from air and subsurface platforms, the sub choices present a tradeoff dilemma. The Seawolf will perform best in open water against noisier subs, and has the best chance of being undetected while transiting. But it has substantially less ASUW and Strike capability than the Akula and 688I. The Akula is particularly fearsome at ASUW, but is much more easily detected by sonobouys and US towed arrays than the US subs. (assuming LW/Ami use).
B. Dynamic "mini-campaign"
If I get it right, then the "campaign" should not necessarily unfold the same way every time. Different sides will be able to chose how they deploy their forces to acheive victory. Such choices include whether a platform will be used offensively or defensively, whether to attack relatively unprotected targets or to engage enemy forces head-on, and what the best method of attack against the objective shipping will be (blockade near port, aerial, surface, or subsurface missile attack, torpedo attack...mines?)
C. Decisons under time pressure with imperfect information
The size and complexity of the mini-campaign allows more emphasis to be placed on intelligence and the "sensor war" than in a typical scenario. Specifically, the players will not have specific targeting information on the target ships. They will have to be identified through a combination of intelligence updates, deduction, and sensor information--and the enemy has a lot to say about what sensor information you can get. Shooting carelessly could result in severe consequences if a neutral is hit, and due to the length of the mission, wasted shots hurt too. On the other hand, opportunities to take the shot may be fleeting.
D. Time-flexibility: This particular version presents the possibility of having an agreed-upon time limit shorter than the full duration. It can take the form of "most arrivals in X time" or a "race to X ships," for example.
Design Disadvantages
A. Time.
Even with flexible time criteria, the minimum time needed to accomplish anything will be significant. It is doubtful that objective targets can be reached before the 2 hour mark, unless I screw up and open the door to unpreventable missile strikes early on. I think most would have to aside a weekend afternoon for this.
B. Possible lulls in the action.
Long transits for FFGs and subs might mean long periods of boredom. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the potential for air attack, or stumbling into an enemy vessel, is always present.
C. Limited Dynamic elements.
The goal of keeping both sides equivalent means there are some elements that aren't very random. Starting positions of combattant vessels will be pretty much known--what isn't known is where they'll have moved to by the time of first contact. Approximate symetry and regular arrival times mean that the locations of the target ships will also not vary too much from mission to mission.
D. Number of players
This won't even begin to pay off without at least 4 players, and won't be what it was intended to be without at least 6. Ideally, 10+.
E. Time to build
This won't be done anytime soon. In trying to keep the target ships as dynamic as practicable, and to provide intelligence updates and related scripting unique to the types and locations of the target ships, there's a lot of dynamic groups and triggers that need to be set up...and tested and troubleshot. RL's going to keep me busy for a few weeks too.
F. Complexity:
The lack of the involvement of the KISS-principle means that there is a significant chance that the mission will need significant post-release tweaking to adjust for bugs, design failures (as in, did not get the tactical result I was aiming for) and various unanticipated problems.
G. Severity of certain casualties:
The power of certain platforms--two in particular (can you guess them both?) Means that their numbers must be limited (as it stands now, to one of each on each side) to prevent undermining the goal of mutal support being the key to victory. That also means that the loss of either of these platforms could tip the balance very quickly. This means that the mission may not be for everyone--as some people find tactical restraint very difficult. The alternative, however, is increasing the number of ALL platforms, and thus increasing the number of players needed for this to work well...
H. Mod versions:
The effect of the change in balance between the stock game and LW/Ami almost certainly means that two versions of the scenario will have to be released. In particular, differences in AEGIS, Maverick, and SS-N-27 ASM performance will require significant defensive adjustments (As could any change in ASM performance in future versions of LW/Ami). The working version described so far is, of course, intended for use with LW/Ami.
I. Realism:
Obviously, this type of scenario doesn't even pretend to be based on any sort of RL possibility. It is artificially set up to create a balanced and challenging MP experience with the playables we have available.
So, before I embark on this journey, do you guys think it's worth it?