If Sonalysts made a new game...

[fusoya77]

Sonalysts still doesn't have any new news to share, this question is purely for me: (but if I get the chance I will pass the knowledge along)

If Sonalysts was to make a new modern sim, what game should it be like:

1. Fleet Command (many vehicles no stations)
2. Dangerous Waters (one vehicle multiple stations)
3. Other (name a game it should be like)

Also please give 1 new feature that the game must have. Here is example:

The new game should be like DW, with the feature to be able to walk around the ship/sub and see/communicate with crew members.

[Frying Tiger]

Be nice. He's young and impressionable. (grin)

[nikimcbee]

I thought this conversation sounded familiar.:D


I vote for: Something like DW, but Cold War (see something like the Red Storm Rising storyline). The special feature, you could work the de-cyphering equipment; like the enigma machine or what ever they used.
Or a mix of Fleet Command and DW, where you could make strategic decisions, then hot seat in to command as your fleet contact stuff.

WW2 US PT boat game. The special feature for the PT boat game, walking around the boat and being able to use all of the equipment would be cool. (like the radio)

[nikimcbee]

If you need a designer, researcher, writer...:hmmm::D

...willing to relocate:D

[FERdeBOER]

Well, you asked for it...
Like Dangerous Waters but with dynamic campaign, the possibility to navigate worldwide in the same mission, more time compression with auto 1x when something important happens... and more modable.

:D

But some Fleet Command like things would also be great.

[Molon Labe]

I love questions like this. And yeah, you asked for it!

Commercially, I think SCS would be better off with a "strategy" style game like Fleet Command.
Improvements: Logistics.


Personally, I'd like to see a new tactical study-sim like DW. Improvements:


Modular construction intended for the addition of new platforms regularly (great commercial option too; you can have regular expansion packs and charge for them)
Switch from a Submarine-Focus to a Naval-Focus, meaning make Air and Surface warfare just as important as Submarine warfare. This will require updating the physics engine for everything not in the water and upgrading the signals/radar modeling to at least the standard of DW's acoustics modeling.
Mission Editor

Allow placement of objects/triggers relative to the position of a platform, instead of just placement on the map.
Bring back Player Action doctrine
Allow dynamic locations for Formations
Allow destination/approach triggers to fire for bullets/shells (would allow "warning shots" to be detected by sim engine)
Differentiate sonar/radar EMCON
Add a "GoCode" doctrine that would fire a trigger based on player input.


Damage model

For ships/subs, include flooding/buoyancy, and fire. Combining this idea with existing system damage and you have the makings of a DC Central crew Station where you can allocate DC resources and set priorities.



Generally, factor Armor into damage. Reduce/nullify damage to Armored platforms by non-armor-piercing ammunition.


Multiplayer

I practically wrote a book on this. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=124314&highlight=improvements) :D
Short version: rejoin dropped games, save games, security features, Side-separated multiplayer lobbies with a 2D simulation running


Persistent dynamic campaign engine, similar to what is used in Falcon 4.0. (Which will also create the ability to time lapse when not in the 3D world, something badly needed in multiplayer). This is probably the most important improvement that can be made, IMO. Linear campaigns aren't really campaigns at all, and without such an engine multiplayer is limited to engagements that lack realism because of time constraints and lack of continuity.


My wildest fantasy of the "next sim" would be something like Fleet Command that launches something like DW. The idea being that the players could play at the command level to handle deployments and logistics, then move to the tactical level for the fight. A player could even stay behind to provide command and control while the others head to the front lines. Think "massively multiplayer" too--whole wars played out by hundreds of players worldwide.

[TLAM Strike]

Well this is what I would like to see:

Dangerous waters with a new graphics engine and better weapon engagement code (Especially for missiles).

The legacy DW platforms with the LCS, Burke Flt IIA, and P-8 added on the US Side and the Type 052C DDG, Type 054/054A frigates and Z-9C helicopter on the OPFOR side.

Iranian Kilos added.

Kilo realism increased, no TEST-71 in main rack (or in main rack but no wireguide unless fired in proper tubes). Missiles only in Tubes 1 and 2 on boats so equipped. Increased battery endurance. Proper MGK-400EM Sonar on Project 636 boats (four auto tracker + 12 manual, waterfall display), older analog MGK-400 remains for Project 877s.

An "AWACS or CVIC Mode" allowing for one player on each side in MP to play Fleet Command style with the AI units.

Multiplayer campaigns.

Large dynamic Silent Hunter style campaign.

Sub Command style user doctrine language for all platforms.

Weapon inventory tracking on multiple platforms in static campaigns.

Rejoin MP game in progress capability.

Limited sub comms in MP option. (as an option because unlimited sub comms would be nice for training new players.)

In game VOIP and text messaging linked to communications intercept and sonar for underwater comms.

[Molon Labe]

It shouldn't surprise me that you and I are on the same page on this, TLAM! (common experiences with modding and mission design, maybe?)


EDIT: good call on passing the OPFOR torch to the ChiComs too.

[goldorak]

No please, don't make a new game. Build on the one you have already developed.
Start selling addons, the infrastructure is already there so you get to spend only on developing new playable units. Oh and fix bugs in the navalsimengine and maybe just maybe add 2-3 new capabilities into the sim.
How about radar being able to detect periscope mast, esm mast, radio mast etc... ?

Don't start from zero, otherwise I'm pretty confident we will suffer the same growing pains the we underwent with DW.

No dynamic campaign, $ spent on DC means less $ (or no $) spent on more critical issues.

Default campaign a little bit more oomph, and bring back the videos during briefing.

Enhance the mission editor (use a more detailed map so that the panama canal actually exists, as well as the bosphorus strait). Add new triggers, and scripts.

Oh and maybe while you're at it, how about updating those horrbile, horribile and I mean truly horrible 3d models in the usni database ?

Make the whole thing comptabile with XP (it still has over 50% of the maket).

Thats all. :D

[Molon Labe]

Red Pill (http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1218) has some awesome scenario design utilities.
I would absolutely love to be able to save/load certain facilities into scenarios rather than have to painstakingly place them every time.

[TLAM Strike]

It shouldn't surprise me that you and I are on the same page on this, TLAM! (common experiences with modding and mission design, maybe?) Funny I was going to say the same then my wifi started acting up. But yea we both experienced a lot of the same stuff with DW doing all the moding and testing.

Also might have a bit to do with us both doing Clash in the Caribbean and seeing what a real multiplayer campaign could be.


EDIT: good call on passing the OPFOR torch to the ChiComs too. Might have something to do with me modeling half their new units. :O: Plus the Russians really got very little in the way of new ships that can match ours (Maybe that will change when the new Gorshkov is finished). Most of the cold war era ships are bound for the scrappers except for the Udaloys and a few cruisers. The other major OPFORs (Iran, North Korea) got very little in the way of ships that would be interesting to drive except for the midget subs and I see very little marketable appeal in those right now (and plus I can't see very many wartime scenarios with them that don't end with "and she was lost with all hands...")

EDIT: The only other major units I would consider would be Indian and Pakistani but no doubt a flame war would descend upon subsim should playable units of those countries be included. But a Scopene' and U-212/4 subs would be interesting as OPFOR and Blue diesels since India and Pakistan want those but haven't decided on which yet and might not buy (Pakistan is now interested in the Chinese Song class boat and India wants new Russian subs, two words: Logistical Nightmare!)



I would absolutely love to be able to save/load certain facilities into scenarios rather than have to painstakingly place them every time. You can do that right now. This is the easy way. Take the mission file in the editor with the facility you want. Delete everything else and save it as a new mission. Now open it up in a text editor and cut and paste it in to another mission file. Now move it in the mission editor to where you want it. It also helps to make a "base map" of a critical area like I did with the Straits of Hormuz.

[-GrayOwl-]

Sonalysts still doesn't have any new news to share, this question is purely for me: (but if I get the chance I will pass the knowledge along)

If Sonalysts was to make a new modern sim, what game should it be like:

1. Fleet Command (many vehicles no stations)
2. Dangerous Waters (one vehicle multiple stations)
3. Other (name a game it should be like)

Also please give 1 new feature that the game must have. Here is example:

The new game should be like DW, with the feature to be able to walk around the ship/sub and see/communicate with crew members.

Also do not forget about kitchen, with the ship cook. :haha:

[fusoya77]

Sorry I didn't explain why I am asking a question that was already asked. I am still getting use to what I can and can't say on these forums.

Frying Tiger and I were talking about what a new game would be like and I thought it would be more like DW. Also I wanted all the recent suggestions in one spot.

My speculation is for commercial and non-commercial purposes any new game would have to be modern. I would love to do WW2 but its not dual purpose. I am not ruling anything out because we could do purely commercial games (I hope we do).

Now that my reason for posting is done these suggestions are great! I grew up playing PC games and love moddablility. I was just a kid when I made some Duke Nukem 3d levels. I love games that came with level builders, sdks, etc. So I would love the next game to support mods. As for the doctrine files, those are written in a pseudo language, if the game was to support modding I would love for it to implement a script language like Lua for more powerful doctrines/modding. This also seems to be the trend in video games.

DW has such old graphics; I would love a new game XP/Vista/Win7 compatible, all new graphics engine. FC style players commanding DW players in the same persistent server is a great idea also

[nikimcbee]

Did you meet with us at the subsim meeting? FT was there.

[nikimcbee]

I like a good story, plausible storyline: (note, designed to play as both sides)


Korean War Part II: War escalates and China intervenes (surprise, surprise).
China reunification with Taiwan (by force:D). I drafted up a 12 mission campaign for DW, that included the opening moves of the invasion, including an attack on the US. To keep us in our place, so to speak.
Chinese economic collapse:hmmm: from too much competition in the region. China levels the playing field and attacks Japan and South Korea.
Iran moves to cripple the US by shutting down the Middle East oil sea lanes. Russia sides with Iran in a defense pact.
Pakistan switches teams in the War on Terror. India sides with US.
India-China conflict over resources?

[Molon Labe]

You can do that right now. This is the easy way. Take the mission file in the editor with the facility you want. Delete everything else and save it as a new mission. Now open it up in a text editor and cut and paste it in to another mission file. Now move it in the mission editor to where you want it. It also helps to make a "base map" of a critical area like I did with the Straits of Hormuz.

...Which works great until you need to move the map a little bit over in x direction. I'm also thinking on a smaller scale, too. Like just being able to add an airport, SAM site, or power plant with multiple discrete facilities.

I like a good story, plausible storyline: (note, designed to play as both sides)


Korean War Part II: War escalates and China intervenes (surprise, surprise).
China reunification with Taiwan (by force:D). I drafted up a 12 mission campaign for DW, that included the opening moves of the invasion, including an attack on the US. To keep us in our place, so to speak.
Chinese economic collapse:hmmm: from too much competition in the region. China levels the playing field and attacks Japan and South Korea.
Iran moves to cripple the US by shutting down the Middle East oil sea lanes. Russia sides with Iran in a defense pact.
Pakistan switches teams in the War on Terror. India sides with US.
India-China conflict over resources?

If we get a persistent campaign engine, I'll be happy to write those campaigns! :D

[-GrayOwl-]

Sorry I didn't explain why I am asking a question that was already asked. I am still getting use to what I can and can't say on these forums.

Frying Tiger and I were talking about what a new game would be like and I thought it would be more like DW. Also I wanted all the recent suggestions in one spot.

My speculation is for commercial and non-commercial purposes any new game would have to be modern. I would love to do WW2 but its not dual purpose. I am not ruling anything out because we could do purely commercial games (I hope we do).

Now that my reason for posting is done these suggestions are great! I grew up playing PC games and love moddablility. I was just a kid when I made some Duke Nukem 3d levels. I love games that came with level builders, sdks, etc. So I would love the next game to support mods. As for the doctrine files, those are written in a pseudo language, if the game was to support modding I would love for it to implement a script language like Lua for more powerful doctrines/modding. This also seems to be the trend in video games.

DW has such old graphics; I would love a new game XP/Vista/Win7 compatible, all new graphics engine. FC style players commanding DW players in the same persistent server is a great idea also


In your game all is primitive - engine, graphics, phusics (More correctly - complete absence of physics) and even primitive mistakes in the mathematical formulas.

You should create absolutely new game.

But it costs of the big,big money. Which your organization, unfortunately will never spend for game.

IMHO: For SCS - this game has died. For ever.

Game - absolutely not competitive.

PS: Hint for SCS market specialist - It is impossible to earn 1000 $ having spent only 1 cent. :DL

[Castout]

I won't bother to tell you my opinion because there's no game to be expected at all thus it's a moot point.

GrayOwl may be blunt or too blunt but he's being honest and direct something that we must appreciate in a person, the audacity to tell the truth and only the truth in his mind.

[Molon Labe]

Whether the 'next game' is DW 2.0 or FC 2.0, I'd like to see specific FCRs slaved to missile launchers, instead of a the launcher just having a 'requires FCR' flag and checking to see if the platform has any undamaged FCR.

Datalink guidance for AMRAAMs, R-77s, and SM-2s would rule too.

[TLAM Strike]

Datalink guidance for AMRAAMs, R-77s, and SM-2s would rule too.

Not to mention for long range ASMs.

[goldorak]

If Sonalysts is going to go with a DW 2.0 I'd say they better have a hard look at Dr Sid's ComSubSim. Although its not a finished game by any stretch of the imagination, the ship control is superb. And even the DSRV is great together with its underwater cameras. Also a 3d worldwide map together with a vector representation. Take inspiration from the good things the community has done, in Lwami, in RA and in other projects such as ComSubSim.
If updating the 3d graphics proves to be too much do away with it and keep only 2d.
Take inspiration from 688 Sierra Fast Attack as to how design realistic 2d stations, realistic incoming radio transmissions, realistic periscope station etc... And throw here and there 3d animations only linked to specific events.
688 Sierra Fast Attack didn't let you open the 4 torpedo tube doors of the 688 at the same time. Only 2, one port on starboard. Thats a nice touch, it should have been implemented in DW. Also, how about redesigning the fire control station, it has to have much more info. Time to target, intercept course etc... It has to show the intercept course directly on the map.
Don't dumb down the sim, don't do the same mistake Ubsisoft did with SH5.
And yes, try to learn from your past mistakes.

[Molon Labe]

Not to mention for long range ASMs.

Now that you mention it, a lot of those High-Low missiles (Shipwreck, Sandbox, BrahMos) should be able to talk to each other. One flies up, finds the target, sends the targeting data to the others in the line... Impossible to simulate with the existing doctrine.

Again, applicable whether a tactical sim or a command sim.

[Dr.Sid]

Btw. as we are at it .. I really hope to make some christmass release of ComSubSim. Please note the word 'hope'. :damn:

[TLAM Strike]

Now that you mention it, a lot of those High-Low missiles (Shipwreck, Sandbox, BrahMos) should be able to talk to each other. One flies up, finds the target, sends the targeting data to the others in the line... Impossible to simulate with the existing doctrine.

Again, applicable whether a tactical sim or a command sim.

Don't forget the mid course guidance like on the Otomat Mk2, where a chopper can act as a datalink between missiles and ship and allow for re-targeting or course adjustments by an operator.

[Frying Tiger]

Did you meet with us at the subsim meeting? FT was there.

Fusoya77 was not at the meeting, he's joined us since then.

I suspect any new game would be directed at the non-commercial market; the curiosity here is what would be a good focus for any commercial version we might release.

[tonibamestre]

Dear SCS, that is the question! I think a second part of DW would be a success,implementing global covering,more or less accurate ports and more new platforms,thus including full CBGs with operative CVs.
Concerning graphics......well, a better ones that the initial DW with improved effects would be enough.

[Delareon]

And make the game more mod friendly.
Take a look at the SH series. The game survives very very long just by let the community do a great part of the work ;)

Even a good campaign isnt needed on initial release. Just provide us a Editor and the Community will do the rest (or build Campaigns and make them DLC for some extra bucks).

Edit: i would love something like an interior of the ships. What i really miss at the whole DW is just the feeling of sitting inside of the Boat.
I think thats an important thing because of the flavor.

[Illender]

How about dynamic characters? Like you would start at a low rank, and work your way up to fleet Admiral or something like that?
Also, transfer orders. Such as, "take transport to location/base X/ship x, and assume control of vessel X."

And the Great Lakes. Include the Great Lakes.

[Rip]

I will probably end up coming back with a big list after I write this but off the top of my head. More authentic ESM intercepts Better Auto-crew AI. Maybe even some crew communication.

Actual trimming and ballast. Sea state effects on buoyancy and stability. Perhaps broaching if the crew is green. For that matter a crew that gets better as they are drilled and track.

When someone inexperienced plays with auto-crew they need to get the feeling they are the captain and the crew are competent. In DW running auto crew was suicide. Especially sonar auto-crew. If a sonarman couldn't tell the diff between a surface ship and a sub or get me a speed off the turn count he wouldn't last a day on my boat. :D

Whatever it would be make it well and authentic even if you have to charge $200 a copy.

[goldorak]

At $200 a copy, the project is doomed before it even started. :har:

[Takeda Shingen]

I'd pay $200 for a high-quality modern sim, and I am betting that there are a lot of others here that would scrape it together as well. This community is very hungry for something new.

[tonibamestre]

Absolutely right!! I would pay even 500 Euros for innovation and good ultimate aeronaval sim.

:03:

[FERdeBOER]

If I'd pay 200$ for a game it has to be the "Mother of All Games", and even then, I'm not sure if I could afford it... sure not at this moment :nope:. Maybe a "modular" game could be the solution: some kind of a base game (a very good one) that itself is great, but with pay add-ons, like campaigns, new playables, etc becomes superb.
Of course all this without "stealing" capabilities to the base game; it has to be good enough by itself (and with this I mean better than DW): you have to be able to play single and multiplayer without restrictions and the base platforms must be good ones, no sitting ducks; the new campaigns and missions have to be good ones (at least better than the ones an average player can create by him/herself).

I'm not sure if I'm being clear, a short example: Base game: Akula, 688i, Kilo, Orion, Seahawk, Perry, Udaloy. Full database, 10 singleplayer missions and a dynamic campaign. Mission editor. Some kind of DW as it should be (IMHO).
Then in the app store you can buy new platforms (from a wide offer of many countries), more single missions, new campaigns (maybe for new platforms, like: buy Virginia class SSN: 5$ or buy the "brand new Virginia SSN Campaign" for 10$ or 12$ with the controllable Virginia included).
So you can have base game: 50$, 5 new controllables: 25$, a singleplayer-10-mission-pack: 8$, two new campaigns: 20$ and the modding tool: 20$ = 123$

As talked before, being able to mod the game is needed, but for granting people to buy the new controllables and no making them themselves maybe the user-created ones cannot be used in multiplayer or so.

And, of course, the add-ons have not to be expensive at all. I would gladly pay 5$ for a new platform, but not 20$. Maybe seems too low 5$ but If it costs few I will spend more than if it's expensive; I would surely pay 30$ in 2 controllables and a campaign and sure I would not pay 20$ for only one of those.

OK, I bored you enough :zzz:

[tonibamestre]

I bet for that aswell.A base game followed by modular releases adding sceneries(SRTM data + ports and naval stations),and new controllable 3d platforms and systems,thus including surface units also and fully operative Carriers(even though they could cost a bit more).
I think that is the future concerning Combat Sims,if not have a look at Fighter Ops page.

Regards and Merry Christmas.

[Hawk66]

My vote would be for DW 2.0

The main, new, feature: provide a SDK, which allows full control over AI units and not a doctrine language but use a common script language, which is debuggable etc. Also the SDK should allow to alter a scenario that means as a second tool to create dynamic and interesting missions...

[Illender]

I want to be able to launch and land on a carrier.

[Molon Labe]

I wanna take off from a carrier
Sometime before I die
Strap that Viper to a catapult and watch the sucker fly
200 knots in under two seconds
That's my kind of fun
Do a barrel roll right after takeoff
Just like in top gun

But I don't wanna land
Allow me to explain and you'll understand
It ain't about the landing
Why would I care?
You never have a crosswind
and you never have to flare
You got 4 f--kin wires
How can you miss?
I can't think of anything that's easier than this
But once you're on the deck my friend
You're never the same again
'Cause now you're stuck on a boat
In the middle of nowhere
With 5,000 other men!

[TLAM Strike]

I want to be able to launch and land on a carrier. You can do that now in DW with both the Seahawk and P-3. ;)

Strap that Viper to a catapult and watch the sucker fly

I thought a Viper was an F-16. :hmmm:

Unless you are talking about the Vipers launched from Battlestars... :O:

[Illender]

the P-3 can land on the CV? does it hook?
do you have to set the CV as base for thr p-3 or 'hawk?
time to immerse myself again, see you i a week lol

[Molon Labe]

You can do that now in DW with both the Seahawk and P-3. ;)



I thought a Viper was an F-16. :hmmm:

Unless you are talking about the Vipers launched from Battlestars... :O:
It is an F-16. It's a song written by some Chair Force guys. Though the line about no crosswinds and not having to flare would have given that away. =) Yeah, I'm usually a "navy guy" but when you fly Falcon 4 long enough, some of the Air Farce culture kind of seeps in...

[TLAM Strike]

the P-3 can land on the CV? does it hook?
do you have to set the CV as base for thr p-3 or 'hawk?
time to immerse myself again, see you i a week lol

No hook on the P-3, the Carrier landing thing is a bug/feature.

You can land on enemy platforms too.

[zakarpatska]

I vote for a DW 2.0 as well. It could even be an SC 2.0 as I mainly play the submarines.

Early post war submarines would be a great addition so that there could be cold war scenarios.

More realistic and detailed stations would be great as well.

An upgrade to the graphics would be great, but given the nature of the game, not critical.

[Pilot_76]

Basically:

-new DW with the graphics to the level of SH's

- Sonar, Fire Control Stations etc. with the graphics from Sierra's Fast Attack

-single and multiplayer (with the ability to jump in/out anytime) fully dynamic campaign (like Falcon 4.0, DID's Eurofighter 2000 etc.).

- be able to dock at ports and refuel, rearm.

- Just like in SH, navigate through the whole world without loading any maps.

-Walk on the ship/sub (without SH5 bugs of course).

-One thing that I'd like is to have some sort of "Patrol Mode" in peace time. Being given an area to patrol than prep the sub and leave. Than random events might happen such as to spy on some ships, collect data, SAR, to the point of a full war being declared in mid patrol.

-Being able to name the crew and their rank/station.

-1930's to present day Subs/ships to choose from

-A nice PDF called "The Dummies Guide for Firing Solution: From Learning that the World is round to sticking a torpedo in someone's hull plus: a 1600 pages Power Point presentation on TMA: What, Where, How, Why":rock::rock:

[Castout]

It's not going to happen anytime soon.

No commitment, no money, no means, no time, not enough perceived market and unwilling.

On the notion not having enough perceived market interest is that the most successful things in this life don't copy themselves over other successful things but CREATING A NEW TREND is the keyword for having successful at selling anything. Gosh one can make it so that people are made to be irrational enough to buy rocks at ridiculously high price and they will if they think that's cool and many people internalize and support the idea or value.

Been proven by the success of less than quality products out there.

The current lack of simulation games is no indication of the genre being unpopular but an indication of the lack of game developer willingness to develop simulation games. Titles such as IL-2 and Silent Hunter 3 are enough proof that gamers aren't unsophisticated stupid people. Well thought and well polished games in ANY genre including that of simulation will always get appreciated AND WILL DRAW gamers unfamiliar at first to the genre.

[Hawk66]

The current lack of simulation games is no indication of the genre being unpopular but an indication of the lack of game developer willingness to develop simulation games. Titles such as IL-2 and Silent Hunter 3 are enough proof that gamers aren't unsophisticated stupid people. Well thought and well polished games in ANY genre including that of simulation will always get appreciated AND WILL DRAW gamers unfamiliar at first to the genre.

I think in the 80's and early 90's there was no possibility to create games with graphics/sound that attracts the masses. Thus, simulation genre was attractive for game developers, because it provides a good genre for complex game logic. And since most of Amiga/C64/PC owners were techies that fitted well together.

But now the world has changed: More and more users use mobile devices/tablet PCs and the casual user will abandon PCs and will use tablet PCs and similar devices for obvious reasons (simpler to use, most users are no power users, sitting endless hours on PCs)
I've seen studies that also casual users dealing with buisness software (finance etc.) might move to tablet PCs by 2020.

I think the problem is that the casual user wants to play simple games. Nevertheless, there might be market if a naval simulation might provide a 'casual' /stripped down mode with a lower price for that target group.

A naval sim on a tablet PC might be really cool due to its slow pace..the perfect fit for the couch!

[Molon Labe]

OK....:timeout:

What's up with the "Placeholder" forum in the SCS zone? :o:06::o:06::o:06::o:06::o:06::o

[ASWnut101]

Could it...no, no it has to be a mistake of some sorts. Right? Neal?

[OneShot]

Well ... now that would be something out of the blue given the fact that till now nobody got even the slightest whiff of a new SCS Game

[Takeda Shingen]

OK....:timeout:

What's up with the "Placeholder" forum in the SCS zone? :o:06::o:06::o:06::o:06::o:06::o

That was the first thing I thought of when I came to the forums this morning. Was all this new game talk not just talk?

[TLAM Strike]

:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

Is it April 1st Already?

:03:

[Rip]

Oh man, I want to beta test. PLEASE!

I have tons of real life LA class SSN experience and would love to participate in making it an awesome simulation!

Rip
:lurk:

[Castout]

If Sonalysts was making a new commercial game there would already be buzz of it for marketing reasons. Since we do not see that either it is just an early idea or Sonalysts going the way of Wikileaks by selling their navy simulation :O:

[Takeda Shingen]

If Sonalysts was making a new commercial game there would already be buzz of it for marketing reasons. Since we do not see that either it is just an early idea or Sonalysts going the way of Wikileaks by selling their navy simulation :O:

Maybe, but I know Neal, and he does not do things just to do them. I think he knows something.

[Castout]

Maybe, but I know Neal, and he does not do things just to do them. I think he knows something.

I don't want to get my hopes high only to be disappointed.

If Sonalysts are indeed planning to develop Dangerous Waters successor I certainly hope that they vastly improve their engine and give us an even more realistic sim. Dangerous waters when it first came out without the patch was somewhat a disappointment in terms of realism(top exploding on CM, Dead platforms being ignored by torpedo, etc). Personally I certainly wish for Sonalysts to give us a better game than LWAMI or RA/DWX have given the players. And that's a major challenge that could only be met with the implementation of new engine and passion to develop something of a classic. Please don't give us dumbed down Dangerous Waters.

And I just got my hopes higher than I wanted by writing the preceding.

[To be]

Mmm, a placeholder. Why would one even want to create a placeholder, software technology is such that it is not required. Of course if you want to tantalize the crowd, it might be a good idea. :)

[tommo8993]

what we need to ask is, who created this placeholder and why.

also remember about 6 weeks ago sonalyst got $17m for new software for the US navy or something like that.

[Takeda Shingen]

what we need to ask is, who created this placeholder and why.

We know the first part; Neal Stevens. The speculation is over why.

[goldorak]

what we need to ask is, who created this placeholder and why.

also remember about 6 weeks ago sonalyst got $17m for new software for the US navy or something like that.

We know the first part; Neal Stevens. The speculation is over why.

Putting the pieces together its quite obvious that SCS is planning a new game based on some navy sponsored project. The same as DW was.
Wether its going to be a successor to DW, or a totally new thing who knows.
I just hope they make it compatibile with xp and they throw out the window the 10-15 year old graphics engine since at this point its really anachronistic, and maybe concentrate only on 2d stations. 2d art can be very compelling, moreso with the right enviroment (audio, etc...).

[Castout]

Putting the pieces together its quite obvious that SCS is planning a new game based on some navy sponsored project. The same as DW was.
Wether its going to be a successor to DW, or a totally new thing who knows.
I just hope they make it compatibile with xp and they throw out the window the 10-15 year old graphics engine since at this point its really anachronistic, and maybe concentrate only on 2d stations. 2d art can be very compelling, moreso with the right enviroment (audio, etc...).

But you still need 3D when looking from the conning tower or from periscope :D

New engine! No not an improved one but a completely new one pls.

[Pisces]

But you still need 3D when looking from the conning tower or from periscope :D

New engine! No not an improved one but a completely new one pls.Better yet, let them license an off-the-shelf one (instead of self-developed) and focus on the core simulation. More time for patches. ;)

[Takeda Shingen]

Putting the pieces together its quite obvious that SCS is planning a new game based on some navy sponsored project. The same as DW was.
Wether its going to be a successor to DW, or a totally new thing who knows.
I just hope they make it compatibile with xp and they throw out the window the 10-15 year old graphics engine since at this point its really anachronistic, and maybe concentrate only on 2d stations. 2d art can be very compelling, moreso with the right enviroment (audio, etc...).

Don't jinx.

[tommo8993]

now its down as subsim news.... does neal stevens know something we dont?

[Takeda Shingen]

now its down as subsim news.... does neal stevens know something we dont?

Always. Neal always knows something that we don't. That's why he's the man.

[goldorak]

Don't jinx.

What does this mean ? :06: You think I'm on the wrong track ?
Consider this, before the new section was made visible, we had someone from SCS asking informally what we would like to see in a hypothetical new game.
Then we have the news that SCS has received 17 million dollars for a new software project, and finally we have the new section (albeit closed for the moment). Putting 2+2 together makes 4.
Who knows, maybe SCS will go the SH 5 route with a game thats 100% arcade, no more flank speed thank you very much but super speed and other things like that. No more sonar, but an underwater radar as you see in crimson tide. :har:
Its either this or an announcement that they've closed shop, sold all assets to Ubisoft and a new SH 6 The Cold War is coming for the ps 3 and xbox 360. :rotfl2:

[fitzcarraldo]

Sorry I didn't explain why I am asking a question that was already asked. I am still getting use to what I can and can't say on these forums.

Frying Tiger and I were talking about what a new game would be like and I thought it would be more like DW. Also I wanted all the recent suggestions in one spot.

My speculation is for commercial and non-commercial purposes any new game would have to be modern. I would love to do WW2 but its not dual purpose. I am not ruling anything out because we could do purely commercial games (I hope we do).

Now that my reason for posting is done these suggestions are great! I grew up playing PC games and love moddablility. I was just a kid when I made some Duke Nukem 3d levels. I love games that came with level builders, sdks, etc. So I would love the next game to support mods. As for the doctrine files, those are written in a pseudo language, if the game was to support modding I would love for it to implement a script language like Lua for more powerful doctrines/modding. This also seems to be the trend in video games.

DW has such old graphics; I would love a new game XP/Vista/Win7 compatible, all new graphics engine. FC style players commanding DW players in the same persistent server is a great idea also

Yes! My idea is about a modern nuke sub game, with more "simulation". A DW with improved graphics and possibility of modding is a great project!

Regards.

Fitzcarraldo :salute:

[jdkbph]

Wants:
Take the MPS Red Storm Rising story line concept (WWIII during the 80's and 90's), add a war game-esque dynamic campaign engine, then drop it all into an updated Sub Command type SS/SSN simulator.

I actually prefer the high detail 2D controls and displays with all the switches, knobs, dials and buttons.

Eye candy is good - I love the ability to pan around my own boat form the outside, see the sights, watch as the torpedo or missile impacts the target - but not at the expense of any of the above.

Don't wants:
Don't need or want 3D controls, interiors or the ability to walk around inside the boat. Don't want to socialize with crew. Don't need multiplayer.

Oh, and just as an aside.... eSims can ask - and get - $125 a pop for their hi fidelity tank sim SBPro SE. No reason to think your target audience would not be willing to go that far and further for an equivalent sub sim.

JD

[ASWnut101]

Read (notably the last sentence): http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20900/?SID=dc02a66b6dcba880c7b3c9e29b28effc


:D

[Takeda Shingen]

What does this mean ? :06: You think I'm on the wrong track ?
Consider this, before the new section was made visible, we had someone from SCS asking informally what we would like to see in a hypothetical new game.
Then we have the news that SCS has received 17 million dollars for a new software project, and finally we have the new section (albeit closed for the moment). Putting 2+2 together makes 4.
Who knows, maybe SCS will go the SH 5 route with a game thats 100% arcade, no more flank speed thank you very much but super speed and other things like that. No more sonar, but an underwater radar as you see in crimson tide. :har:
Its either this or an announcement that they've closed shop, sold all assets to Ubisoft and a new SH 6 The Cold War is coming for the ps 3 and xbox 360. :rotfl2:

No, no. All it means is that I was being superstitious in saying that if we say it is something that we want, it won't end up being something that we want.

[Delareon]

If Sonalysts made a new game... maybe we get an mysterious placeholder in the forums and Neal let us wait and wait and wait until he shows us that this was just a joke? ;)

[-GrayOwl-]

How much time is possible it will be bought empty promise or unrealizable dreams?

SCS - dead. :lost:

Three guys from SCS could not make decent game. :down: :rotfl2:

And never can make it further.

This conversation proceeds many years.

However even of a normal patch was not issued.

It speaks that SCS is dead. Is really dead.

In time - to collect money on obelus for SCS [Sonalysts]. :rotfl2:

They are more - not developers of games.

Regards.

NOTE: Even mine the grandfather is younger, them software... o-xo xo...

[dd149]

If SCS would be able to show some respect to the community wh has bought their games, they should show it by releasing the "outdated" source code for the community to remove the bugs, but maybe they intend to sell it one more time with cosmetic improvements (but original bugs still included as a bonus...:har:). Pity, with the very active community, I am pretty sure that the interim result would be great and open the slot for a better new game:damn:.

[fredm2002]

I would like to see a highly detailed simulation that will immerse the player into scenerios that mimic real-world hot spots; North Korea, Iran, China, Central America.

Also allow the player to relive the Cold War with a Red Storm Rising type missions.

I would want campaigns that depending on you did, adapt to the actions of the player.

A manual that is 500+ pages thick so I can read about the intricate details of commanding a ship of this level.

Graphics that are state of the art, and will push the limits of today's technology. One that will require and be written for multi-core cpus and be 64 bit to work with more than 2-3 gb of RAM.

I would pay top $$$ for a game like this.

[Takeda Shingen]

If SCS would be able to show some respect to the community wh has bought their games, they should show it by releasing the "outdated" source code for the community to remove the bugs, but maybe they intend to sell it one more time with cosmetic improvements (but original bugs still included as a bonus...:har:). Pity, with the very active community, I am pretty sure that the interim result would be great and open the slot for a better new game:damn:.

I don't know where you have been, but the SCS devs have been on this forum, with this comminity ever since the release of 688(i). Frying Tiger has been here to field questions and give advice, despite the fact that the company has not been involved in the consumer market since that time. Fusoya, a new dev, has come on to this board to interact with this community in the past few months. Back when they were under the Janes label, Kim Castro and company were very receptive to the needs of the consumer, and SubSim, specifically. If anything, I think that they have bent over backward to provide this community with respect. SCS is a class act.

Their code is their code, and they can release or retain it as they see fit.

[tommo8993]

Read (notably the last sentence): http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20900/?SID=dc02a66b6dcba880c7b3c9e29b28effc


:D


i think hes onto something, tactics simulator? fleet command 2? carrier battlegroup commander? surface action group commander?

[Rip]

i think hes onto something, tactics simulator? fleet command 2? carrier battlegroup commander? surface action group commander?


Well if you are going to employ a carrier battle group you will need Chinese submarines to pop up in the middle of the formation. :hmmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

i think hes onto something, tactics simulator? fleet command 2? carrier battlegroup commander? surface action group commander?

Hoping for a sub simulator, but I'd be down with any of that too. :up:

[tommo8993]

i'd personally prefer fleet command 2 (better graphics) but i'd still buy any of the games i suggested.

[Castout]

Better yet, let them license an off-the-shelf one (instead of self-developed) and focus on the core simulation. More time for patches. ;)

Agree. :DL

[JamesT73J]

I'd like to see the same engineering-led approach that works well with 688i and SC. DW got spread a little thin for my liking.

I'd like to stick with the mission approach: DC's are incredibly difficult to do right. That one product has even approached this in the last thirteen years - and still is far from perfect - is warning enough.

Open and extendable architecture is a great asset these days. The engine should offer all parameters for output and allow manipulation via plugins, likewise the interface should be extendable by plugins.

Charging wise, but the game module and platforms (from Sonalysts) would be paid for / subscription. Perhaps a Sonalysts marketplace with freeware & payware additions from the community / third party?

[tonibamestre]

Yeah!! Third party developers could implement new Naval designs,stealh technology and new detection-weapon systems, all these to bring to seas a wide range of multinational platforms.

[oscar19681]

What i would like to see is dangerous waters with upgrade grafics and a 3-d intereur for the sub(s) and possibly ships. It just takes away alot of immersion looking at a 90,s style 2-d screen all the time. But i must confess i would also like to see some sort of carrier sim where you could command the fleet , sail the carrier and plan stikes and even fly the aircraft so some extent.

[dd149]

I don't know where you have been, but the SCS devs have been on this forum, with this comminity ever since the release of 688(i). Frying Tiger has been here to field questions and give advice, despite the fact that the company has not been involved in the consumer market since that time. Fusoya, a new dev, has come on to this board to interact with this community in the past few months. Back when they were under the Janes label, Kim Castro and company were very receptive to the needs of the consumer, and SubSim, specifically. If anything, I think that they have bent over backward to provide this community with respect. SCS is a class act.

Their code is their code, and they can release or retain it as they see fit.
I have no problem with their property, except that the patching was stopped quite soon after relase, letting a lot of bugs unattended. I fully respect their decision to move out of the segment due to lack of resources / profit, but when you see the efforts that the community has done since, a little bit of support would maybe not hurt them and would cement the community around their core sim like it has happened for the SH series (maybe not SH5).

[Rip]

I would be happy with just about anything at this stage. I do hope if it is more Fleet Command than Dangerous Waters that they go more in the Harpoon direction rather than spending too much resources on cute 3rd person graphics.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Also do not forget about kitchen, with the ship cook.

CSCS (SW/AW) Jane Doe: "Hey CAPT, want to try my soup?" (for the tenth time)

CAPT Player: Senior Chief, if you ask me about that damned soup one more time, I'll have you:

- NJP'd
- Have the Master-at-Arms throw your ass in the brig.
- Sent to mast.
- Keelhauled
- Shot.
- All of the above.

---

In all seriousness, I'd pay full price just for the old DW updated with new graphics.

[tonibamestre]

Yes but,a more accurate ports and vessels should be needed,and GLOBAL covering of course,not just single maps.So, a start into the Cold War would be ok,managing full CBGs for later make expansions......decade by decade?

[fitzcarraldo]

In all seriousness, I'd pay full price just for the old DW updated with new graphics.

OK, the same, a DW with updated graphics is a great option.

Regards.

Fitzcarraldo :salute:

[dd149]

1) Vital (absolute bottom line, could be partly done by community if source made available :har:)
- Refine the bugs of core game
- More stable multiplayer structure (seems possible based on RA achievements:D)
- Lwami/RA like database (enriched and community maintainable)
- Refined doctrines based on community development
- Open to developers in order to increase lifetime and enrich the basic game (database structure, game engine maybe some modules only, doctrines) including availability of some extent of documentation
- database/mission editing tools upgrade

2) Icing on the cake (but nice to have and probably a must for commercial success:03:)
- Detailed maps
- Updated graphics (hopefully not jeopardizing model development by community:hmmm:)
- Cold war scenarios / campaign / latest naval hotspots , Korea, Narcos Pirates (can be developed by community)
- Dynamic campaigns

3) Optional (more work involved obviously: why not expansion pack in 2nd step)
- management of additional surface platforms incl carriers and carrier based aircrafts for fleet command enthusiasts

It is a dream but the activity on this thread shows that still a lot of us have interest:yeah:

[Hitman]

I would be happy with just about anything at this stage. I do hope if it is more Fleet Command than Dangerous Waters that they go more in the Harpoon direction rather than spending too much resources on cute 3rd person graphics.

I understand you are fed-up with *real hardcore* LA-class experience, :) but I for one would love to see another sub-simulator :yep:. An updated DW with better graphics (Not necessarily SH5 standards, but at least no more 256 colours please ...), open to add lots of stuff, and with dynamic campaigns for better replayability would be good enough for me :up:

[Bartolomeus]

A new DW in the Cold War Era would be nice.

- with new (and modern DX10/11) graphic engine
- walkable subs and ships (Control Rom, Bridge)
- Dynamic Campaign (large environment as in Silent Hunter
- Multiplayer Campaign

[Castout]

I understand you are fed-up with *real hardcore* LA-class experience, :) but I for one would love to see another sub-simulator :yep:. An updated DW with better graphics (Not necessarily SH5 standards, but at least no more 256 colours please ...), open to add lots of stuff, and with dynamic campaigns for better replayability would be good enough for me :up:

Yeah I'd love another submarine simulator too. An updated DW with new engine.

DW was a vast improvement to SC too in respect that DW now has playable platforms other than submarine(FFG, Plane and helo). It makes great multiplayer game in that way. Just that they provided only blue FFG, blue plane and blue helo and none to play the adversary but submarines. Imagine if they'd give us playable Kirov CG, Ticonderago CG, Japanese Kongo CG, etc too.

Please geeky DW fans you must stop playing alone and start playing online a lot to make this idea feasible.

A new DW in the Cold War Era would be nice.
...

- walkable subs and ships (Control Rom, Bridge)
...



That would scare Sonalysts from attempting anything :DL

[OneShot]

Well,

adding my own 2cts ...

What I love about DW and what convinced me to endure the steep learning curve was the fact that I had the choice to play in something else besides a submarine. I started out with the P3 and Helo and still prefer both of em over any of the other platforms.

So please ... include something else besides submarines.

However what I would love to see in the next game ...


Improved 3d Graphics and updated models but please spare me the walkable sub or ship or whatever. 2d stations like in DW or its predecessors are quite fine with me. Btw. while nice to have, this feature is not really important.
A well documented and powerful scripting as well as an equally powerful doctrine language.
An easily editable and well documented database (maybe even an API for accessing it)
Proper physics both in and out of the water.
A stable multiplayer platform with proper dedicated server support and maybe even the ability to jump in and out of running games (thus opening the way to persistent games)
In other words - please provide us with a stable framework with some basic content which the community then can expand upon.

This certainly can offer you guys some interesting ways of making money with your game ... for example with further paid DLC - like a new playable unit. There are certainly more ways and some of them have already been mentioned in this thread.

Cheers OS

[Takeda Shingen]

A well documented and powerful scripting as well as an equally powerful doctrine language

I'd love to see doctrine language expanded as well. :up:

[ReallyDedPoet]

I am more of a casual gamer, so options that tone down the realism a little. Similar to the Silent Hunter Series :yep:

Sorry if this has already been said.

Edit: and a Submarine Sim preferably.

[TLAM Strike]

Just that they provided only blue FFG, blue plane and blue helo and none to play the adversary but submarines.

The FFG7 and P-3 are used by many countries incl. several that could be considered potential OPFORs. :03:

In fact the Akula, Kilo, FFG-7 and P-3 Orion could be suitable for an India vs Pakistan mission with none operated by the US or Russia or China. I don't think anyone here has made a mission with Pakistan as Blue using the FFG or Orion. Or a mission with an Iranian Navy P-3 Orion. Not to mention South America, there are tons of P-3s down there and we added a number of ships and subs for that region in LWAMI. Someone please have Brazil and Argentina declare war on each other so we can dogfight P-3s!

[Takeda Shingen]

I am more of a casual gamer, so options that tone down the realism a little. Similar to the Silent Hunter Series :yep:

Sorry if this has already been said.

Edit: and a Submarine Sim preferably.

I'd be fine with scalable realism as well, and that does exist to a degree in the previous installments, although it wasn't to the extent that you could find in the SH series; you can't really make your boat invincible. It is fine to accomodate casual players, so long as I can still max out the realism to the level that it was in DW, SC and 688(i). I think the strength of this series really lies in that it is, at it's heart, not a casual sim.

In short, the last thing I would want is for SCS to take the series in the direction that the Silent Hunter series went. Accomodate, but do not sell out the hardcore fan base. It shouldn't need a supermod to make it a real simulation.

[ReallyDedPoet]

I'd be fine with scalable realism as well, and that does exist to a degree in the previous installments, although it wasn't to the extent that you could find in the SH series; you can't really make your boat invincible. It is fine to accomodate casual players, so long as I can still max out the realism to the level that it was in DW, SC and 688(i). I think the strength of this series really lies in that it is, at it's heart, not a casual sim.


I would be okay with that.

My first Submarine Sim was Fast Attack, then I moved onto the Silent Hunter Series. Along the way I picked up Sub Command, but never really got into it or perhaps never really gave it a chance.

[Castout]

With full auto DW can't be easier :03:

[Richard G]

An updated Fleet Command/Harpoon.

[rascal101]

Sorry to be a Fly in the Ointment but I for one see no real interest in a post WW2 naval or sub sim - Possibly air or land war but I cant think of much apart from the Falklands where Naval power did much that was overtly interesting - at least form a gaming point of view - Please do not all yell abuse I mean no insult to the men and women who have served in any Naval forces since WW2

The simple reason is that apart from stalking the odd Russian fishing boat / spy vessel or chasing Russian sub's around at great depth using sonar or other technology, I just don’t see much opportunity for any exciting game play - unless your interested in watching bright green lines go up and down on a small circular screen with a loud ping every now and then

Please don’t all howl at me, it’s just an opinion, but there you are, apart from the Falklands War I don’t think there has been a torpedo fired in anger since the end of WW2 - could be wrong, oh apart from last year by North Korea, but that’s a different story, and not much to base a game upon

HOWEVER - I don’t want to be a complete stick in the mud - how about a WW2 Surface V's Sub, or Surface V's Air and Sub - Apart from Destroyer Command I cant think of any one who's gone for much in the way of sub hunting - IE as a Destroyer / Escort commander hunting U-Boats - and unlike the modern cold war you get to kill, maim and destroy

This should be a historically accurate simulation based on the technology and environment of the times - and not simply trying to recreate some novel or film story line - a random, dynamic campaign if you please -

PLEASE NO STORY LINES - JUST GIVE US HISTORICALLY ACCURATE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT AND WE'LL CREATE OUR OWN STORY!!!

NOW HERE'S WHAT I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE - An updated Great Naval Battles Guadalcanal - if any one remembers this game, I think from the early 90's you could command the Japanese or US Fleets in the Pacific, and, using your air, surface or submarine fleets to find and then wipe out the enemy before they could set up bases or achieve their own strategic missions

The interest of the game was the combination of strategy and possible simulation as you could take command on a strategic level, right down to an attack on an individual ship or plane - You had to use your initiative to search for the enemy and then there was also good old luck if you happened to find the enemy carrier fleet without adequate air cover

This was a really interesting game for us who like some blood and guts and with today’s graphics and AI it could be a real winner with so many different elements

Just my opinion

Best Regards to all SubSimmers

Regards

Rascal

[Castout]

Have you played Dangerous Waters or SC Rascal?

I don't think you have nor have you tried playing the game.

If we were to use your argument then we would not see science fiction and more, the majority of games from racing, to rpg, to action, to first person shooter, to strategy would not be published.

Sub Command or Dangerous waters are not simulating real events nor do they try to do that but the platforms are what they're trying to simulate.

Falcon 4.0 would not be successful either had the point of your argument was valid. Now don't mistake me being rude but that's just how I view it.

And certainly there's no need to highlight your entire posting into yellow to make them noticeable. And I'm not howling at you. You just did that to yourself :-D

[Diopos]

Yes and no !

I fully understand the I-want-to-play-a-real-war aspect, in war gaming in general. On the other hand as we were not blessed with a real naval war the last decades (thank God!!!) simulations are the only way to go. And that is true for both the professional sims (training and planing) and the gaming community. Modern subs, in many aspects, are completely different beasts than their WW2 grand pappies!. If you can decently simulate environmental conditions, sensors, weapons, platforms and their movement you can get a very interesting game, me thinks!

.

[CapitanPiluso]

A new SCS modern warfare game...I would buy it anyway,I keep hundreds of hours enjoying DW and FC :D:D:D

[Takeda Shingen]

Sorry to be a Fly in the Ointment but I for one see no real interest in a post WW2 naval or sub sim - Possibly air or land war but I cant think of much apart from the Falklands where Naval power did much that was overtly interesting - at least form a gaming point of view - Please do not all yell abuse I mean no insult to the men and women who have served in any Naval forces since WW2

The simple reason is that apart from stalking the odd Russian fishing boat / spy vessel or chasing Russian sub's around at great depth using sonar or other technology, I just don’t see much opportunity for any exciting game play - unless your interested in watching bright green lines go up and down on a small circular screen with a loud ping every now and then

Please don’t all howl at me, it’s just an opinion, but there you are, apart from the Falklands War I don’t think there has been a torpedo fired in anger since the end of WW2 - could be wrong, oh apart from last year by North Korea, but that’s a different story, and not much to base a game upon

HOWEVER - I don’t want to be a complete stick in the mud - how about a WW2 Surface V's Sub, or Surface V's Air and Sub - Apart from Destroyer Command I cant think of any one who's gone for much in the way of sub hunting - IE as a Destroyer / Escort commander hunting U-Boats - and unlike the modern cold war you get to kill, maim and destroy

This should be a historically accurate simulation based on the technology and environment of the times - and not simply trying to recreate some novel or film story line - a random, dynamic campaign if you please -

PLEASE NO STORY LINES - JUST GIVE US HISTORICALLY ACCURATE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT AND WE'LL CREATE OUR OWN STORY!!!

NOW HERE'S WHAT I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE - An updated Great Naval Battles Guadalcanal - if any one remembers this game, I think from the early 90's you could command the Japanese or US Fleets in the Pacific, and, using your air, surface or submarine fleets to find and then wipe out the enemy before they could set up bases or achieve their own strategic missions

The interest of the game was the combination of strategy and possible simulation as you could take command on a strategic level, right down to an attack on an individual ship or plane - You had to use your initiative to search for the enemy and then there was also good old luck if you happened to find the enemy carrier fleet without adequate air cover

This was a really interesting game for us who like some blood and guts and with today’s graphics and AI it could be a real winner with so many different elements

Just my opinion

Best Regards to all SubSimmers

Regards

Rascal

That's fine to have that opinion, but modern naval combat and operations are what SCS is all about. The last thing that I would want is for this series to become a Silent Hunter or WIP clone, and I don't think that is something that I'll have to worry about. Sonalysts makes simulators for the USN, and releases them to the public with classified and senstitve areas removed. SCS makes simulators with a capital 'S'; not everyone's cup of tea, but they are very good at what they do.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Wall o' text

Meh, firing deck cannons from a surfaced diesel sub at merchant ships just can't compare to tracking an enemy SSN on a waterfall display, classifying it and wire guiding a torpedo to the target. :yeah:

Besides, there's already an arseload of WWII submarine games on the market, too many to count. It's not everyday you come across a decent modern naval simulator or even an arcadey one at best. The last decent modern naval game (Dangerous Waters) was made around seven years ago. The last WWII submarine game (Silent Hunter V) was released around seven months ago.

I think I can say safely that most of the modern naval simulator players are hungry for something- even anything at this stage.

[fitzcarraldo]

Meh, firing deck cannons from a surfaced diesel sub at merchant ships just can't compare to tracking an enemy SSN on a waterfall display, classifying it and wire guiding a torpedo to the target. :yeah:

Besides, there's already an arseload of WWII submarine games on the market, too many to count. It's not everyday you come across a decent modern naval simulator or even an arcadey one at best. The last decent modern naval game (Dangerous Waters) was made around seven years ago. The last WWII submarine game (Silent Hunter V) was released around seven months ago.

I think I can say safely that most of the modern naval simulator players are hungry for something- even anything at this stage.

I want a modern nuke subsim...I tell SUBSIM: a sub simulator, not a game. With all the (authorized) systems simulated, global navigation, crew management, ports and bases, weather transitions, DC and comunications.

A dream, of course, but...if we have flightsims with good simulator qualities, why not a submarine simulator?. I like a "Subsimulator"!!!

Best regards.

Fitzcarraldo :salute:

[Rip]

Man the suspense is killing me. If it weren't so cold I'd jump on my bike and ride of to Houston. Then get Neal stinking drunk so I can drill him for details. :D

[Myxale]

I thought this conversation sounded familiar.:D


I vote for: Something like DW, but Cold War (see something like the Red Storm Rising storyline). The special feature, you could work the de-cyphering equipment; like the enigma machine or what ever they used.
Or a mix of Fleet Command and DW, where you could make strategic decisions, then hot seat in to command as your fleet contact stuff.


Have to agree! Would love a Cold-War scenario.
Just enough Tech to be engaging and exciting but no super-tech equipment ala 2011, to justify 4 years on a Naval Academy. :doh:

Maybe concentrating on a few submarine types but well modeled technically. And we know from history that the Ice poles are a great play field!

Sh3 + DW =dream child!:88)

[Kaye T. Bai]

The waiting is the hardest part. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItLzdZV004s)

[zamfe]

Three points:


1. It should be the mother of modern sub simulations.
2. It should focus on one maybe two subs and go in fidelity as much as classification allows it.
3. Stations is the only way for a sub simulation.
4. Graphics is secondary. (quaternary :know:)

[Takeda Shingen]

Three points:


1. It should be the mother of modern sub simulations.
2. It should focus on one maybe two subs and go in fidelity as much as classification allows it.
3. Stations is the only way for a sub simulation.
4. Graphics is secondary. (quaternary :know:)

1. Absolutely. Give me SB Pro with subs. I'll even pay a premium for it.

2. I would even be okay with a study sim a la 688(i), F-15, F/A-18. I want it detailed.

3. I can agree. Give me panels that look like the panels, and displays that look like the displays. I don't care about managing the watch, maintaining crew morale or upgrading the galley's cooking. I don't care about walking around a 3-D conn or watching the crew go about their work. Put those efforts into physics and acoutics.

4. 100%

[Raptor1]

I'm hoping for a surface ship sim rather than a subsim, or maybe a surface strategy sim like Fleet Command and Harpoon (Or a combination of both). One thing I do wish they'd have regardless of whether it's a surface or a submarine simulation (Or whatever else) is a proper dynamic campaign, preferably set in the Cold War/a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict.

[Sea Demon]

Prediction.......If this is a new game announcement....it's Fleet Command 2.

[Takeda Shingen]

Prediction.......If this is a new game announcement....it's Fleet Command 2.

Hey!! Long time no see!

[OneShot]

3. I can agree. Give me panels that look like the panels, and displays that look like the displays. I don't care about managing the watch, maintaining crew morale or upgrading the galley's cooking. I don't care about walking around a 3-D conn or watching the crew go about their work. Put those efforts into physics and acoutics.
Amen to that - the 2 times I actually installed and played SH3, the first thing I did was disable the crew managment.

And dont tell me this stuff adds to immersion or realism. In reality there is a watchsystem onboard a ship/boat and everybody knows where he has to be and when. Thats certainly not something that has to be handled by the CO 24hrs.

[Delareon]

Amen to that - the 2 times I actually installed and played SH3, the first thing I did was disable the crew managment.

And dont tell me this stuff adds to immersion or realism. In reality there is a watchsystem onboard a ship/boat and everybody knows where he has to be and when. Thats certainly not something that has to be handled by the CO 24hrs.

Absolutely, the only thing about the crew management which really could be an interesting part is qualifying them to be better operators of the stations. Btw in SH4 the Crew Management was better becauseit was automatet, things like battlestations you have to order as it should be but no more single movement of every little sailor from station to station....

What i want also is an "living" ocean. Hell there are so many fishes and whales and so on out there but even at the campaign missions there wherer rarely some "natural noise sources", also in the other missions there wherent that much. No wonder you have to place them and select a behavior for every single whale or shrimp.... The Ocean should live.

[tommo8993]

so this neal steven who created the place holder, why dont we just ask him.

[Raptor1]

so this neal steven who created the place holder, why dont we just ask him.

We did, and he said:

I am awaiting clearance to post details. :)

[Takeda Shingen]

so this neal steven who created the place holder, why dont we just ask him.

He'll post when he gets permission from SCS. Don't worry; he owns this website, so he's not going anywhere.

[rascal101]

Hi to you and thanks for your considered reply - in short I hav'nt played either, no critisism of the developers, or the players.

In a nutshell, to my mind, a post WW2 sub sim is going to be based on modern naval warfare which is very much a push button kind of thing - Prior to the end of WW2, no matter what field, be it air, naval or land you pretty well had to get up close and personal, and eyball your oponent before you killed them or they did for you, and this for me is the challenge of a sim.

And I kind of agree with you re Sci Fi or role play - the thing is I enjoy games like Flashpoint, or Armed Assault or Aliens V's Preditor or Vietkong, because even though they are besed on more modern concepts of warfare, there is still the element of hunting and eyballing your oponent - I just dont see how this can happen with a sim based on ballistic or wire guided technology -

These games you mention no doubt have some great stuff in them but ultimatly you press a button and something dies....a long way off. I know this is a generalisation but I think you get what I mean - For this reason though I quite like air warfare sims, I never bothered with Falcon 4.0, though I did experiment with a couple of helecopter sims, essentially dont really bother a sim covering combat later than the Korean for the reasons stated above.

Any way to each their own.... I still hold out a hope that some one will publish a game such as I mentioned.

I'm sorry for the brioght yellow - was an accident following a spell check and not an attempt to attract undue attention


Best Regards

Rascal

Have you played Dangerous Waters or SC Rascal?

I don't think you have nor have you tried playing the game.

If we were to use your argument then we would not see science fiction and more, the majority of games from racing, to rpg, to action, to first person shooter, to strategy would not be published.

Sub Command or Dangerous waters are not simulating real events nor do they try to do that but the platforms are what they're trying to simulate.

Falcon 4.0 would not be successful either had the point of your argument was valid. Now don't mistake me being rude but that's just how I view it.

And certainly there's no need to highlight your entire posting into yellow to make them noticeable. And I'm not howling at you. You just did that to yourself :-D

[rascal101]

I suspect you are right and I certainly did not want to offend anyone from Sonalysts - I just wish that we could get some of the games I mentioned - Sure we've had SH3 and 5 but both were so badly constructed they had to be steadily rebuilt fixed by the modders here at Sub Sim.

It would be great if another developer or publisher looked at a WW2 subsim and actually produced something worthwile - with all the elements people have been screaming for on this site for years - any way I guess we shall see what comes next

Best Regards to all

Rascal

That's fine to have that opinion, but modern naval combat and operations are what SCS is all about. The last thing that I would want is for this series to become a Silent Hunter or WIP clone, and I don't think that is something that I'll have to worry about. Sonalysts makes simulators for the USN, and releases them to the public with classified and senstitve areas removed. SCS makes simulators with a capital 'S'; not everyone's cup of tea, but they are very good at what they do.

[goldorak]

Prediction.......If this is a new game announcement....it's Fleet Command 2.


I hope not, I wish they would improve on an already good game DW.
Take the good ideas from Dr.Sid, for instance the ability to scan very precisley around a specific value in broadband sonar with the mouse wheel. Its seems such an obvious and productive feature, but they didn't implement it for DW. :damn:
Use a worldwide vector map with depth information.
Use realistic night vision and curvature of the earth.
Reimplement correctly all data that pertains to tma, and make sure the autotma works realistically (not like now where it basically ignores speed information).
Give us a more precise bearing reading, up to 1/100 of a degree. Make available bearing rate, and range rate. Give correct value of bearing rate and not like now that it is based on the tma solution (this is wrong).
Redesign the fire control station so as to show much more information pertaining to intercept course, depth of torpedo, actually show complete feedback of wire guided torpedos.
Introduce a lot of diesel electric subs, and AIP subs. These are the platforms of the future.
Take example from some of the great advances the RA mod team has done.

Oh yeah, last but not least, considering its a sub game use a good sound library for enviromental and submarines sounds !!!! Not crappy 128 kps mp3. Lets try some good flac files for once. Having a good audio feedback is going to increase immersiveness a lot.

[Kaye T. Bai]

I'm hoping for a sequel to Dangerous Waters, but as I said before, I'll be happy with anything at this point. Fleet Command 2 isn't such a bad concept, as it'll be great fun commanding a modern naval task force of CVNs, DDGs, CGs, FFGs, etc.

[JamesT73J]

Prediction.......If this is a new game announcement....it's Fleet Command 2.

I hope not. I was hoping for a narrower, more detailed focus. Takeda mentioned something along the lines of SB Pro PE - the consumer standard for simulation, in my opinion, with strict focus on what can be modelled well.

[MBot]

Saw this topic mentioned over at SimHQ and thought it is a good enough reason to reactivate this old login :)

I would choose a single vehicle multiple stations subsim set in the cold war (WWIII respectively) with a catchy name such as Cold War Warrior.

The feature I would choose is a persistent world/dynamic campaign (if you can still call that a single feature).

[oscar19681]

Whatever they decide to make , please NO 2-D STATIONS. I mean comeon its not the 90,s anymore and allthough i thought DW was a interesting sim i really hated the cheezy 2-d panels , they were boring and extremly unimmersive. Give us some 3-d stations . I,m not asking for a totally modeled sub like sh-5 or anything but at least give us something like what we had in sh-3.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Maybe I'm just dreaming here, but a walkable sub and interactive crew members would be nice. Just saying. :D

[Takeda Shingen]

Maybe I'm just dreaming here, but a walkable sub and interactive crew members would be nice. Just saying. :D

I completely disagree. The last thing that I would want is for SCS to take the Silent Hunter route. I am completely fine with 2-D pannels, and if I want to manage the mood of the AI, I'll play Sims 3.

[goldorak]

I completely disagree. The last thing that I would want is for SCS to take the Silent Hunter route. I am completely fine with 2-D pannels, and if I want to manage the mood of the AI, I'll play Sims 3.

+1 :up:

Even 15 years later, Fast Attack (and SH I) have 2d panels of such beauty and detail that they blow low detail 3d panels (as seen in SH3, 4 and 5) out of the water. Really just because its 2d doesn't make it irrelevant. By doing away 3d panels, SCS can invest their meager budget for more important things.
A well done 2d panel will always, always be better than a poorly modeled 3d station.

[Takeda Shingen]

+1 :up:

Even 15 years later, Fast Attack (and SH I) have 2d panels of such beauty and detail that they blow low detail 3d panels (as seen in SH3, 4 and 5) out of the water. Really just because its 2d doesn't make it irrelevant. By doing away 3d panels, SCS can invest their meager budget for more important things.
A well done 2d panel will always, always be better than a poorly modeled 3d station.

Absolutely. I'm crossing my fingers that SCS doesn't decide to re-invent the wheel here; they've got a formula that works and all we need is an update.

[JamesT73J]

Indeed, many of the problems faced by the SH devs are directly related to the sheer time spent on the eye candy.

You cannot have it both ways. SCS could update what they already have and I'd be happy. Keep improving the physics and the station fidelity and it's all good.

[tonibamestre]

Yeah,implement global Navigation capability,20 or 30 decent ports + more surface units,DDs,FFGs,CGs and............full operational CVs,starting on Forrestal class and beyond.

[Kaye T. Bai]

I hope Sonalysts updates the 3D models/textures for the surface combatant ships and submarines. Seriously, Dangerous Waters uses the exact same models from Fleet Command.

It kind of kills the immersion when I raise the periscope or stand on the sail and see a hideous monstrosity of a ship. I mean, the Arleigh Burke-class DDG model in Dangerous Waters looks nothing like the one in reality. Maybe I'm a little biased since I got into the game much later after its release.

[Rompedor]

I would like to be a simulation game where you could change with mods. :ping:

Using languages like python or lua. :yeah:

And the community to freely add new platforms and even these could be crewed by adding new stations to play. :up:

I prefer 2d stations because it is easier modeable when we add new platform crewable.

[Seeadler]

2D panels are fine, more details and functionality can be put on 2D panels and it's easier to programm. Most FS9/FSX players switching on approach from the 3D virtual cockpit to the 2D panel or using the 2D panel at all.

DW with updated graphics/shaders for the ocean and environment, more detailed ship models and a common 3D format or importer/exporter to easier add additional models, that's my wish!

[fitzcarraldo]

2D panels are fine, more details and functionality can be put on 2D panels and it's easier to programm. Most FS9/FSX players switching on approach from the 3D virtual cockpit to the 2D panel or using the 2D panel at all.

DW with updated graphics/shaders for the ocean and environment, more detailed ship models and a common 3D format or importer/exporter to easier add additional models, that's my wish!

Same opinion.

Regards.

Fitzcarraldo :salute:

[fatty]

For release, limit to one or a few platforms. Keep the initial costs low. Start out with something simple and well-known, like the venerable 688. After release, start pumping out additional platforms as DLCs to continue generating revenue.

Keep the 2D multi-station interface. It is time-tested. Adding 3D stations or interiors needlessly increases workload.

Time for a graphics overhaul. Everything from environmental effects to platform models.

Ditch the traditional campaigns and go with something dynamic/procedural. Say, a conflict between US/China a la Tom Clancy's SSN. Player is deployed at sea, gets radio messages for new tasking. Tasks might include things like escort task groups, gather intel, deploy SEALs, conduct strikes, raid commerce, etc. Like SH series, player returns to base or whatever to rearm etc.

New platforms should be playable in the campaign. Had fun sinking Chinese destroyers in an SSN? Now you can play the other side of the campaign as a Chinese destroyer, for the low price of $15!

Multiplayer improvements have already been talked about and are badly needed.

[Rip]

I hope Sonalysts updates the 3D models/textures for the surface combatant ships and submarines. Seriously, Dangerous Waters uses the exact same models from Fleet Command.

It kind of kills the immersion when I raise the periscope or stand on the sail and see a hideous monstrosity of a ship. I mean, the Arleigh Burke-class DDG model in Dangerous Waters looks nothing like the one in reality. Maybe I'm a little biased since I got into the game much later after its release.

What are you doing on the sail? Unless you are navigating in or out of homeport there is no reason to be surfaced. This type of game shouldn't be about what you see of the outside world but how data is communicated to you for solving a complex tactical and strategic problem. On a typical six month patrol I doubt we saw more that two craft visually except for navigating in and out of port. I feel that having them sound and react properly is ten times more important than having them look proper.

[Takeda Shingen]

For release, limit to one or a few platforms. Keep the initial costs low. Start out with something simple and well-known, like the venerable 688. After release, start pumping out additional platforms as DLCs to continue generating revenue.

Keep the 2D multi-station interface. It is time-tested. Adding 3D stations or interiors needlessly increases workload.

Time for a graphics overhaul. Everything from environmental effects to platform models.

Ditch the traditional campaigns and go with something dynamic/procedural. Say, a conflict between US/China a la Tom Clancy's SSN. Player is deployed at sea, gets radio messages for new tasking. Tasks might include things like escort task groups, gather intel, deploy SEALs, conduct strikes, raid commerce, etc. Like SH series, player returns to base or whatever to rearm etc.

New platforms should be playable in the campaign. Had fun sinking Chinese destroyers in an SSN? Now you can play the other side of the campaign as a Chinese destroyer, for the low price of $15!

Multiplayer improvements have already been talked about and are badly needed.


A lot of that has to do with another great point that I failed to mention: add-ons. If starting with just a 688 (done right), they could release add-on platforms and people would pay for them!

[fatty]

Exactly. Look at Railworks 2, they have around 70 DLCs between $5 and $40, and still they come. If they can do that with trains, I figure this would be a good way to make a navy game profitable for Sonalysts.

Because let's be honest - all the fancy pants suggestions on the first few pages will never be possible unless the developers are making money.

[scrapser]

I haven't read the entire thread...sorry.

I really liked the concept of Fleet Command. It was sort of a fast food version of Harpoon but the bugs made it frustrating to play. I would like to see another attempt at the concept. Modern naval sims should be strategic since so much of the platforms and weapons are geared towards stand-off engagement.

I have no idea what Sonalyst's forte is but it would be interesting to see what they could come up with by way of a WW2 boat sim.

[Rip]

I haven't read the entire thread...sorry.

I really liked the concept of Fleet Command. It was sort of a fast food version of Harpoon but the bugs made it frustrating to play. I would like to see another attempt at the concept. Modern naval sims should be strategic since so much of the platforms and weapons are geared towards stand-off engagement.

I have no idea what Sonalyst's forte is but it would be interesting to see what they could come up with by way of a WW2 boat sim.

It isn't making WW2 sims. They make highly technical simulations for the military designed to simulate complex sensor and environments and train watchstanders on operating those sensors and commanders on using that sensor information to obtain tactical advantage. WW2 electronics and sensors are so simple compared to todays that I think it would be a waste of some very talented people to end up making a simple visual observation and shoot dumb weapons in a straight line simulation.

Such a thing would be better developed by the normal group of eye candy game developers. You don't need a room full of engineers with PHDs in acoustics and electronic warfare to make a ww2 sim. A ww2 sim is to a modern sub sim what a calvalry sim would be to to DCS (Digital Combat Sim).

In the end there are dozens of developers with the necessary talent to make a ww2 sim, while SCS is one of the very few with the staff that can simulate modern naval warfare accurately.

[Delareon]

...
If Sonalysts was to make a new modern sim, what game should it be like:
...

i think the whole WW2 sim discussion is pointless if u just read the first post carefully.

[Takeda Shingen]

i think the whole WW2 sim discussion is pointless if u just read the first post carefully.

Exactly. Anyone looking for a WWII sim is going to be sorely disappointed.

[Molon Labe]

I completely disagree. The last thing that I would want is for SCS to take the Silent Hunter route. I am completely fine with 2-D pannels, and if I want to manage the mood of the AI, I'll play Sims 3.

I'm with Takeda-sama here. I suppose 3D stations would be nice to have, but it's a very small improvement and they only have so much money to spend.

[zamfe]

The last thing that I would want is for SCS to take the Silent Hunter route. I am completely fine with 2-D pannels, and if I want to manage the mood of the AI, I'll play Sims 3.

That's a nightmare!!

Saw this topic mentioned over at SimHQ and thought it is a good enough reason to reactivate this old login :)

I would choose a single vehicle multiple stations subsim set in the cold war (WWIII respectively) with a catchy name such as Cold War Warrior.

The feature I would choose is a persistent world/dynamic campaign (if you can still call that a single feature).

Mbot from ED forums?

[the_tyrant]

:hmmm:

after some thinking, Most of us are down for anything
just think about it, there are exactly 0 naval sim in development
even the silent hunter and battlestations series have stopped development

I guess we would be willing to buy anything
especially after maybe 1-2 years after silent hunter 5 and battlestations pacific have become outdated

[difool2]

Three words: full dynamic campaign. Let me wander the North Atlantic for a month after a Red Storm Rising type scenario starts to unfold. Let me patrol the Eastern Seaboard in peacetime looking for Russian subs (each successful ID gives you a brownie point or such). A Chinese campaign where I get to lob Tomahawks against Chinese installations while trying to dodge their electroboats.

[Castout]

Absolutely. I'm crossing my fingers that SCS doesn't decide to re-invent the wheel here; they've got a formula that works and all we need is an update.

Indeed I didn't realize how well their formula is until they implemented it for helo, FFG and planes :yeah:. I thought it was going to be awkward especially for the plane and helo but things turned out to be fine strangely :DL.
Now I realize their brilliancy in abstracting systems.

[Scion]

My 2c:

A Fleet Command sequel or the like would be my preference. If feasible with multiplayer compatibility with Dangerous Waters, or the ability to also control platforms in the new game too (existing platforms is fine - this will already be enough work I'm sure).

I would foresee this working by allowing players to command a side as "Fleet Commander" (as set in the scenario - Side 0 through to Side 9 would allow for 10 players - alliances etc to be set by scenario designer). In addition to this, players could control the playable platforms, and would be able to receive instructions from the Human and/or AI fleet commander.

For example - the Fleet Commander would like a player to identify an unknown surface contact. He sends the command via the interface (eg Identify Track 4123), which the player receives as a radio message (Identify Track L123) which would also come as an unknown over the link data. Submarines should only be able to receive orders, link updates or send/receive team chat messages when at comms depth with the radio antenna/floating wire raised, but the fleet commander would also be able to utilise the come to comms depth command.

Support or at least compatibility with Linux (or Wine) would also be a great feature IMHO. Minor graphics improvements would be welcome, but this should be on a basis of what is easy to implement, not what looks perfect. 2D stations for player platforms are fine (although even greater realism à la Fast Attack would be great!). We are dealing with a niche simulator, eye candy is just that - candy. I'm not expecting a 3 course meal.

Comments Regarding Dynamic Campaign:

A dynamic campaign also sounds like a great single player feature. If this is implemented, please also introduce the ability to go to greater levels of time compression (2048x min), with the ability to automatically jump to 0x or 1x TC when a new contact is detected, either by any platform in a FC style simulator, or by the autocrew in a DW style simulator. I can imagine the games' background processing of sonar and other game data would be very difficult at high compression levels, so this would need to be simplified and processed by autocrew in the case of player controlled platforms.

This is just a wish list - I'm already a certain purchaser of any new SCS product, and can't wait to hear further information :)

[Basss]

Nice SDK, like Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 or X. Developers could create new platforms, mods etc.

[Julhelm]

I'd like it if a new game was much more like Fast Attack. Far more playable IMO than 688I or SC and most importantly it has enough atmosphere that you really feel as if you are commanding a crew.

One thing Fast Attack does very well is provide you with sonar crew that call out any new contacts so that you may investigate the situation yourself and assign trackers and tell them to classify contacts. In SC it's either auto crew that locks you out or find every contact yourself. Same with the active intercept and esm.

Also in both Fast Attack and Red Storm Rising an engagement always starts with at least one sonar contact so that you have something to go on. Not so in SC where it's entirely possible to completely miss your objective by heading in the wrong direction from the start and never hearing a single contact!

I suppose 688(i), SC, and DW are great if you are willing to spend years learning every little technical detail in order to be successful. However if I am to buy a new Sonalysts game it would have to have more accessible gameplay and importantly fun. As it is the current games are too unforgiving to be much fun for the casual player like me.

A dynamic campaign with story-enhancing cutscenes like in Red Storm Rising would be icing on the cake.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Perhaps it's possible to please both hard-core simulation players and the casual gamer. In Dangerous Waters, this was already possible to some degree. Tweak with the settings a bit and you can have a hardcore simulator, and an arcade game, such as the "show truth" option where all you have to do acquire the target and fire your ASMs or ADCAPs.

[Takeda Shingen]

Perhaps it's possible to please both hard-core simulation players and the casual gamer. In Dangerous Waters, this was already possible to some degree. Tweak with the settings a bit and you can have a hardcore simulator, and an arcade game, such as the "show truth" option where all you have to do acquire the target and fire your ASMs or ADCAPs.

I am okay with scalable realism as we had in DW, but I think SH5 is a excellent example of what can go wrong when you try to please everybody. My experience with that game, for which I had such high hopes, is why I am so insistent about a new SCS game being a hardcore simulator first. It is what they do best, and I see no reason to mess with it. Sonalysts make most of their money from military contracts, so I don't think they're expecting to move a ton of units if they were to market a new product. I think that they are perfectly comfortable with the product being for a niche market.

[Soundman]

I'd pay $200 for a high-quality modern sim, and I am betting that there are a lot of others here that would scrape it together as well. This community is very hungry for something new.

I've read this whole thread and probably can't add anything to the discussion that someone else has not already stated other than this...

I completely agree with the above statement and would like to expound a little bit. Simulations are what got me into computing to begin with. Janes F-15 was the first piece of software I ever purchased and Janes 688I was second. While I may be guilty of also playing some "games", I'm a "simmer" at heart.

Here's my point....Out of all the sims I've owned (and there are many) I've spent literally and without exagerating, 3500-4000 hours (heck, probably many more) playing Falcon 4.0 through all of it's various (and many) incarnations. I've quite often thought to myself.. "If only they knew what I'd have been willing to pay".

I believe developers are selling themselves short on how much value a good sim has to those of us considering ourselves true simmers. They are continually failing by trying to target "gamers" and "Simmers" simutaneously. THAT, is their downfall.. Do one or the other. A truely good sim will be timeless for all practical purposes and stand the test of time as Falcon has if done right. Granted, I don't hop in the Viper seat quite as often as I used to, but to this day, can't imagine not having the capability to play it. It is IMO, the best all round sim to date when it comes to replayability. If I had to today, would easily plop down another $40.00 to continue using it if I had to. A very small amount considering the many hours of joy I've gotten from it. I'm sure many will agree and this needs to be communicated to deveolpers. Otherwise, "Simulation" as we know it WILL die.

Will gamers pay $200.00 or more for a good sim? Probably not, but on the other hand, how many gamers are going to purchase anything that takes thoroughly reading a manual before useage to intelligently learn operation of the platform? :hmmm:..Not many IMO. So I think they are spinning their wheels by believing gamers will buy these games/sims to begin with, even if charging only 50-60 bucks.

Bottom line.....Create a good package, do it right the first time (out of the box), allow demo play to convince non-believers, promote it well (no problem with this website) and it WILL sell when word of mouth gets around that it's a MUST HAVE. Charge what you must, if it's done well, we WILL buy it! :yeah:

I would like to see Neal (or a moderator) put up a poll about this. If the developers realize that the "sim" community can make up for the lack of sales from the "gaming" community by making a pure, well done simulation, but charging more for the product, maybe they will see things differently.

BTW... Dangerous Waters or Fleet Command. I would be happy to see either. When Fleet Command came out, I loved it, but it was very buggy and don't recall ever finishing a complete online game with anyone, but it was a blast to play online until the game crashed. :D....

Actually, this is one aspect not covered here either... I don't see that many possibilities in a modern sub simulation in respect to online play. Submarine duals are just not that realistic and tend to be arcadish (not to mention boring). However, a new "Fleet Command" has many possibilities with player vs player online and would be sublime. :up:.. Don't get me wrong, I'll take a good subsim any day, it does not require online play.. Shoot, make both of them, guaranteed I'll buy'em both! :yep:

[Reaper51]

I agree 90% with the above post. Google E-Sim Games, or Steel Beasts Pro PE and you'll find that exact business model. You pay $125.00 for their sim, which is constantly being updated, and is considered the tank sim. They also charge $20.00 per update, which was pretty well received.

However, do take note of the stability and support of their product. Trying to charge $125.00 for a buggy, half-assed sim like DW isn't going to get you very far. Also, for the love of God, learn how to design a good mission editor. I consider the junk editor from OFP better than DW's editor.

Lastly, I disagree that a game can't be both a sim and a game while still being very successful. I refer you to SH III. If it's done very, very carefully, it'll work.

[Old Dog]

I would prefer to see something on the order of DW or 688I, but with the addition of the new SSN Virginia Class boats with their capability to engage in Littoral operations, from delivery of SEAL teams to more traditional deep water operations.
http://www.navysite.de/ssn/ssn774.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Virginia_%28SSN-774%29

[Kaye T. Bai]

I agree 90% with the above post. Google E-Sim Games, or Steel Beasts Pro PE and you'll find that exact business model. You pay $125.00 for their sim, which is constantly being updated, and is considered the tank sim. They also charge $20.00 per update, which was pretty well received. However, do take note of the stability and support of their product. Trying to charge $125.00 for a buggy, half-assed sim like DW isn't going to get you very far. Also, for the love of God, learn how to design a good mission editor. I consider the junk editor from OFP better than DW's editor. Lastly, I disagree that a game can't be both a sim and a game while still being very successful. I refer you to SH III. If it's done very, very carefully, it'll work.

Don't be hating on Operation Flashpoint man. But yeah, if SCS is going to charge a couple hundred dollars for Dangerous Waters or a similar sequel, it better be the best damn simulator in history. With Steel Beasts, what you pay is what you get. ;)

Cheers.

[tonibamestre]

Hey Guys,I think Ive got a brilliant idea.Why we ALL THE MODERN NAVAL SIMMERS do not create an account with lets say 100 or 200 $ directed to SCS or whatever any other developers.A new aeronaval simulator creation process could start,DW style with new graphics and techniques,and implementing new ideas,platforms and resources from the worldwide community.

Does that make sense you think?

[Hawk66]

Don't be hating on Operation Flashpoint man. But yeah, if SCS is going to charge a couple hundred dollars for Dangerous Waters or a similar sequel, it better be the best damn simulator in history. With Steel Beasts, what you pay is what you get. ;)

Cheers.

As Frying Tiger mentioned here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1522993&postcount=12, the problem with a high price product is that the user expects a very good customer support and continued development. The question is if SCS will commit to do so.

I think that would only work if SCS develops a new NavalSimulationEngine from scratch, which can be used as a basis for paying commerical(us) and government organizations. As long as the government customers do not request a major update of the DW plattform, thus financing a big deal of the new engine, I doubt that this will work.

@3D
I also do not need 3D graphics at all...they consume a lot of development time and personally I'd like to see the investment going into the engine/AI/scripting possibilities. But on the other hand then you have the problem that almost no casual gamer will buy this sim.

@Content, developed by Community
If SCS would not invest in the content (creating sophistcated (dynamic-)campaigns/missions) and let that be developed by the community after shipment of the product, you have the problem that
- the product gets bad reviews since of missing/only rudimentary content and again casual games will not buy this sim
- if you do not create complex content, you do not have test cases to validate the engine/concept...you face the risk that you ship a buggy product/engine and custom content developer abandon the product since they jump from one showstopper to the other one. You need a 'reference' content template.

What might work is that SCS hires temporarily community member to build content during the production of the sim, because they would be cheaper than full-time staff and there would be a very early (external) feedback cycle.

[Drakken72]

This is my personal focus point :


a mix between DW and FC as it was the simulator TOTAL AIR WAR of the DID, where you could be tactically follow the scenario and could impart orders to all the units on the field, with the possibility to directly pilot a particular unit.



a recent database and complete with all the greatest military strengths to today present.
More stability in multiplayer game with the possibility to save the games in multiplayer mode
***very important ***

Possibility to have an "open" editor to create new unit (with new sensor,weapon ect,ect) optional to make it "control platform" with add already present "bases" stations and allowing to personalize it (labels of the names of the sensors , colours, type of sensors ) etc etc

[NoGoodLandLubber]

A resurgent Russia could be a possibility; but I do like the Chinese angle!
How 'bout a more aggressive Japan or Germany like something out of Harold Coyle's "The Ten Thousand"

[PL_Andrev]

1. Play any unit what you want: submarine, destroyer, battleship... as you wish,

2. Play any side what you want: german, american, japan, british, italian... as you wish,

3. Play multiplayer matches with or against your friends or AI (6 vs. 6) at convoy battles or sea battles at each side as you want,

4. Control other units to avoid enemy submarines like convoy commander, single merchants, carriers,

5. Control several units at this same time - if you want - if not, AI will control them.

6. Use on-deck planes an your Bismarck, Rodney or I-400 to patrol nearest sea, control planes by self for patrol or attack be self with guns, bombs, torpedoes like in Battlestation series,

7. Play single mission by any unit for test, single patrol or career,

8. Develop your career with each nation at submarine or naval fleet,

9. Build you own missions with mission editor like SH3 / SH4 / SH5 which can be uploaded by host to other players, or create your random mission to immediately playing like in SH4,

10. Add easy you own ships or warships / submarines to game like dutch De Ryuter class or russian Szcz class submarine,

Something more?
:D

11. Control you submarine and warship at shallow waters - there are much of shoals which can trap / damage your unit!

12. Use radio to take messages about ships / mine fields / sea supports / protections by fleets,

13. Measure range from enemy by hand and send message by radio to other team to show position of enemy - by part of wolfpack!

14. Select different modes at game "select, shoot, forget" or "full real aiming" by torpedoes or guns,

15. Select different modes at game: "battles only" or "manual searching and attack",

:rock:

[Takeda Shingen]

The SCS mission editor is completely superior to the one from the SH series. Also, again, this isn't likely to be a WWII title. If you are looking for that, you're going to be disappointed.

[zakarpatska]

I think one of the most important things is that Sonalysts needs to do what they think will work. It is their game and they need to drive the concept from what worked in previous games as well as what didn't work. Letting the potential users of the game have too much input will lead to a "Snakes on a Sub" experience.

For what it is worth I own a copy of SB Pro PE, so I am willing pay for a quality simulation.

Those are my feelings today in any case - they may be different tomorrow... :03:

[Basss]

Guys, its only suggestion like "wanna" or does we have any chances to see new sim from Sonalyst (development is strated)?

[Takeda Shingen]

Guys, its only suggestion like "wanna" or does we have any chances to see new sim from Sonalyst (development is strated)?

We don't know, so right now it is all speculation.

[CCIP]

I suspect that rather than going the all-in hardcore route of Steel Beasts, we're more likely to see a modular route that many other developers are taking, which honestly I would encourage. I.e. at first we only get a very basic core simulation, perhaps even one unit type - think new 688 game. Then if things go on, further function is added via add-on packs, DLC, additional sequels and what have you. I hope that if a title is coming, it's focused and functional, without feature creep eating up resources, so that it can be praised for what it is, and then developed in further installments and add-ons later for those who want more. I would much rather operate one very polished unit than 12 semi-finished and inconsistent ones.

[Reaper51]

Hey Guys,I think Ive got a brilliant idea.Why we ALL THE MODERN NAVAL SIMMERS do not create an account with lets say 100 or 200 $ directed to SCS or whatever any other developers.A new aeronaval simulator creation process could start,DW style with new graphics and techniques,and implementing new ideas,platforms and resources from the worldwide community.

Does that make sense you think?

No. If they make a good enough piece of software people will be willing to pay a good price for it. They need to earn the right to ask a lot for a sim, not be handed a large sum of cash so they can make another buggy half-assed game.

The SCS mission editor is completely superior to the one from the SH series.

Go design a Ghost Recon mission in Igor and you'll see what a real editor is. Calling one crap editor better than another crap editor doesn't make it good.

[Takeda Shingen]

Go design a Ghost Recon mission in Igor and you'll see what a real editor is. Calling one crap editor better than another crap editor doesn't make it good.

Having played every Sonalysts simulation since 688(i), I think that the SCS editor is quite good, thank you. If I wanted to play Ghost Recon, I would probably have purchased it.

I don't think DW buggy or half-assed. You should spend some time in the SH series if you want to see some of that. Let's chill out on the negative vibes, okay?

[Kaye T. Bai]

All this talk about a sequel has gotten me nostalgic. Time to fire up the old Dangerous Waters. Installing now... ;)

[PL_Andrev]

The new game should be like DW, with the feature to be able to walk around the ship/sub and see/communicate with crew members.

At first: be realist and listen what players /modders need.

Walking around ship/sub and see/communicate with crew members is very nice but it consumes too much programmers workhours. At Silent Hunter 5 we can see that this is one big mistake.

Answer is very simple:
- put new graphic engine
- made game easiest for noobs (tutorials)
- integrate idea of best mods (RA, Lwami)
- made game more moddable (scripts like at SH5)
- delete bugs or mistakes known at DW,
- use famous solutions at SH / BS series
- support for adding other 3D models by modders

Want to sink Nimitz with my Kilo!
:rock:

[Molon Labe]

IGOR is about 5x better than the DW mission editor. It could be better, but DW's editor is badly lacking in functionality.

[TLAM Strike]

I would like a "Timeline" feature in the mission editor, something to show you all the times your triggers will fire at on one screen.

Oh and anyone want to know why there will never be a Russian ASW aircraft in DW...

This is why!
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/3740/myaviationnetphotoid004.th.jpg (http://img543.imageshack.us/i/myaviationnetphotoid004.jpg/)

:O::O::O:

[Castout]

Oh and anyone want to know why there will never be a Russian ASW aircraft in DW...

This is why!
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/3740/myaviationnetphotoid004.th.jpg (http://img543.imageshack.us/i/myaviationnetphotoid004.jpg/)

:O::O::O:

Umm they only needs to be abstracted to make them believable with realistic performance. :DL

[Corvette]

Fleet Command/DW, whatever. The big thing for me would be a dynamic campaign.

[PL_Andrev]

I don't understand why this game shouldn't based at IIWW? From SH2/DC we have not similar game like it. Whole SH series focused on submarines. Battlestations focused at 'arcade/fun' mode. SH2/DC was not submarine playing only but searching/destroing sub and epic naval battles between all class naval units. What is wrong with it?

At this thread were many non-classical propositions like chineese warships, indian or pakistan... this is this same think which have SH2/DC: different nations to play. I want to play US units vs. US - which game allows it?

What is difference between cold war and IWW? We have this same idea: search and destroy your enemy - no difference excluded better weapon and better sensors. We have no sim with sub playing with DC playing and other heavier units - only at mods for SH3/SH4 (Warship mod, TWSM) - it is for me big chance for new game. At BS we have aiming to other units... but where is fine art of manual range calculation, target course and speed, and firing by main or secondary guns?
So, in conclusion, IIWW is this same game as 'cold war' with worse sensors (max range is optic, first radars), worse non-guidance weapon and other units like CV, BB, CL...

Multiplayer:
I spent many hours with my friend to play SH2/DC. The fleet battles or hunting submarines are very impressive: ships still are maneouvring so hit by gun or torpedoes are not easy. And SH playoers want it - by creation a naval mods for SH like warship mod or unfinished TWSM. Sim, not arcade game like BS.
Do you want OH Perry or Bismarck, RM Littorio, HMS Hood, IJN Mushashi? DW forgot about this differences: nations and units. Fortunatelly mods help it - at one DW game report I found info about french Amethyste.
Good sounds!

Graphics:
Many producers require hi-end machines. But now at the market are: low-end machines, notebooks, netbooks, tablets...
There are clients what want to buy a product if can play at his machines!!!
They are so stupid to see it? SH2/DC was a game where main time was spent at 2D map - 3D was only to manual aiming by gun - this same story with BS campaign - only map for tactics, 3D was for fun.
Harpoon was 2D map and famous playing. DW2 can repeat it.

Mods:
Ok, lets DW2 will be a 'cold war' sim.
My best idea is make a game much moddable - to put IIWW units, IIWW nations and low-end sensors to play IIWW scenarios at DW environment - with adding 3D model support to put new models, new units etc, etc.
Play cold war scenarios or IIWW with mods.
Play for fun!
:rock:

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't understand why this game shouldn't based at IIWW?

Several reasons.

1. This isn't a WWII game series.

2. Sonalysts makes most of it's money from military contracts. My personal bet is that they are contracted to produce a new military sim, and will also market it to the public with the sensitive areas removed like it was with Dangerous Waters.

Again, if you want a WWII sim, I think you're going to be disappointed. I think it is clear that any new SCS product would be a modern warfare simulator, just as you would suspect the Silent Hunter series would be a WWII game. I, and most of us in this part of the forum, would welcome that, since it has been almost 6 years since DW was released.

[CCIP]

Several reasons.

1. This isn't a WWII game series.

2. Sonalysts makes most of it's money from military contracts. My personal bet is that they are contracted to produce a new military sim, and will also market it to the public with the sensitive areas removed like it was with Dangerous Waters.


Let's also not forget something mentioned a couple of pages ago - SCS have quite a knack for modeling complex hydroacoustic environments and sensors, along with complex TMA underlying the torpedo targeting. Their talents would be wasted in a game world where acoustic sensors are crude and torpedo targeting relies on simple mechanical methods, as they were throughout WWII.

Conversely, they've never had expertise nor had a reason to get expertise in modeling naval gunnery (as the main method of fighting), which would underlie any WWII surface simulation (since the idea of controlling surface ships were mentioned). That's a whole different complex ball game and I can't see a reason why SCS, given what they do for a living, would really have any interest in accurately modeling that to a level of complexity needed to be a true simulation.

[goldorak]

I suspect that rather than going the all-in hardcore route of Steel Beasts, we're more likely to see a modular route that many other developers are taking, which honestly I would encourage. I.e. at first we only get a very basic core simulation, perhaps even one unit type - think new 688 game. Then if things go on, further function is added via add-on packs, DLC, additional sequels and what have you. I hope that if a title is coming, it's focused and functional, without feature creep eating up resources, so that it can be praised for what it is, and then developed in further installments and add-ons later for those who want more. I would much rather operate one very polished unit than 12 semi-finished and inconsistent ones.

Well if SCS wanted to design something modular they could have done it with Dangerous Waters. The fact that they didn't even try to sell add-ons, because there was no market to speak off according to them, what makes you think this "abstract" market will suddenly appear for DW 2 (or Fleet Command 2) ?
No, if a DW 2 ever sees the light of day it will be just like DW, not mod friendly at all. And if they start chasing the SH 5 crowd well we can kiss good bye to our beloved simulator.

No. If they make a good enough piece of software people will be willing to pay a good price for it. They need to earn the right to ask a lot for a sim, not be handed a large sum of cash so they can make another buggy half-assed game.


The quality has to be there. 200 $ is a lot to ask for, its a lot whatever way of rationalizing the issue you come up with. No, the good strategy is to design a good game that builds on the strengths of Dangerous Water. Make it a game that extends DW, and costs 60 $. And that already is a high enough price, but not so high that you automatically exclude 99% of your potential market.
And no, 200 hard core simmers paying 200 $ just won't do it.

You have to consider also that whatever game SCS come up with it will have to convince a lot of DW players to upgrade. And whatever you may think of the RA mod, it has definitely raised the bar as to what can achieved with DW. Putting out a 200 $ game is not the way to entice players to upgrade, even hard core players.


Go design a Ghost Recon mission in Igor and you'll see what a real editor is. Calling one crap editor better than another crap editor doesn't make it good.

Go design a mission with the ARMA 2 editor and you'll see how crappy the Ghost Recon one is. :rotfl2: Don't compare apples to oranges.

[goldorak]

I agree 90% with the above post. Google E-Sim Games, or Steel Beasts Pro PE and you'll find that exact business model. You pay $125.00 for their sim, which is constantly being updated, and is considered the tank sim. They also charge $20.00 per update, which was pretty well received.

However, do take note of the stability and support of their product. Trying to charge $125.00 for a buggy, half-assed sim like DW isn't going to get you very far. Also, for the love of God, learn how to design a good mission editor. I consider the junk editor from OFP better than DW's editor.

Lastly, I disagree that a game can't be both a sim and a game while still being very successful. I refer you to SH III. If it's done very, very carefully, it'll work.


Oh please, just because 98% of pc game developers tend to run with the money once the game is released, leaving the players with a half finished, bug ridden game doesn't in any way justify selling games for 200 $.
Boehemia Interactive is an excellent pc developer, they stand 100 % behind their games, they issue patches over patches and enhancements (all free) all over the game's lifetime. Thats how its supposed to be. And the game they sell, they sell for 60 $. No wonder they have good relations with the gamers.
So if SCS is commited to quality and support they only have to look at BI. Arma 2 is niche, and doesn't even exist for consoles.
So if BI can do it so can SCS.

[Reaper51]

Oh please, just because 98% of pc game developers tend to run with the money once the game is released, leaving the players with a half finished, bug ridden game doesn't in any way justify selling games for 200 $.
Boehemia Interactive is an excellent pc developer, they stand 100 % behind their games, they issue patches over patches and enhancements (all free) all over the game's lifetime. Thats how its supposed to be. And the game they sell, they sell for 60 $. No wonder they have good relations with the gamers.
So if SCS is commited to quality and support they only have to look at BI. Arma 2 is niche, and doesn't even exist for consoles.
So if BI can do it so can SCS.

I disagree. SB Pro PE is worth the $125 simply because it's a highly realistic tank sim that's still in development. The thing you need to understand is SB isn't a sim that's going to sell to a large audience. It's a very niche sim that's only marketable to hardcore armor enthusiasts. Granted, this business model isn't for every company, but it works very well for E-Sim.

Also, while I applaud BI's business model, you also have to face the fact that it's a FPS. A FPS, no matter how complex, will still draw far more interest from casual gamers than any niche sim ever will.


Go design a mission with the ARMA 2 editor and you'll see how crappy the Ghost Recon one is. :rotfl2: Don't compare apples to oranges.

Never played Arma, but I'm happy to hear someone else finally figured out how to make a good editor.

[CCIP]

Well if SCS wanted to design something modular they could have done it with Dangerous Waters. The fact that they didn't even try to sell add-ons, because there was no market to speak off according to them, what makes you think this "abstract" market will suddenly appear for DW 2 (or Fleet Command 2) ?
No, if a DW 2 ever sees the light of day it will be just like DW, not mod friendly at all. And if they start chasing the SH 5 crowd well we can kiss good bye to our beloved simulator.

I don't think things are as bad as you point them out to be. Honestly, all of this is speculation, but I highly doubt SCS will be after a mass market. They never had one to begin with. And in a niche market, I would hope that a more focused approach would allow them to spend less resources and make reasonable profit off it.

We'll see, I guess. Honestly, SCS games really only succeeded back in the 90s, when simulations were huge. Since then, marketing this type of game was very difficult, and one reason SCS disappeared as a consumer game developer was that with DW and even SC, they simply did not adapt to the new market. They still built these as though we lived in an era where Janes games sold well.

Since then, the mass-market approach of Ubi with SH5 has also shown to be a flawed if not totally failed one - so if they learned anything from that, it's how to NOT market what's always going to be an inevitably niche game. Meanwhile there are two paths that have emerged and showed to be sustainable for simulation marketing - one being that of IL-2 and, more recently, stuff like Rise of Flight, where new content is developed and marketed post-core-game, or that of Steel Beasts, an almost singular case where the developer sells to a small market at a high price.

I suspect that a (rumored) return of SCS to the market is more likely to take the former path, that's all. BI and ArmA, by the way, have been on that exact path as well.

[Rip]

I've been thinking about this some more. Another thing I would like to see is more message traffic and to have more adaptive message capabilities in the editor. Having fluid variable mission tasking that develops along with the mission would really add to the immersion.

While I am on that subject better physics and buoyancy modeling would help as well. Having trouble maintaining depth in rough sea states and better modeling of ship surfaces and the effect on ship pitch, roll, and yaw. I know I am probably reaching on this since being accurate across very many platforms would be tremendously difficult. But maybe if the capabilities were there the community could create some reasonable data settings.

[TinCanWolf]

Personally I'd like to see Fleet Command 2. I've spent hours with the game, and I absolutely love it, but it's being kind to say it's dated to say the least.

If we went the Dangerous Waters Route a few things HAVE to change:

1.) Most importantly there HAS to be a tutorial mission for each part of the ship, sub, heli, plane, or whatever. That doesn't mean you have to do a TMA for the Akula, the Seawolf, and yada, yada; But you need to present each station and how to operate it for each type of station, and then do ones for units where the station is almost like a completely new set up. Perhaps though you start with one unit and the same station on the next one is like version 2.0 where it doesn't really re-explain the functions, but the new features and a little bit how it works on that unit.

Not having a tutorial on Dangerous Waters killed the game for me. I did okay on Sub Command for the most part, although me and the TMA still fought each other a lot. I'm more of a WWII simmer, but the modern stuff is a ton of fun, but it would be a lot more fun if I understood it.

2.) Go play Great Naval Battles, which ever one is the Guadalcanal one, it's one of the best. Now take everything you've learned from commanding individual units in that game and incorporate it into the new game. The GNB series did a great job with the keep it simple stupid stuff. Also, you have to add damage control. It's just not a true simulation without damage control and repair crews.

3.) Bigger boats. Riding around in a Frigate in DW is a lot like riding around in a destroyer in Destroyer Command. It's a lot of fun being the do-it-all ship, but man it was really easy to get jealous of the big boys. Let us sit in the big boy chair and protect an aircraft carrier or launch a large scale bombardment. I wouldn't mind sitting in a Aircraft Carrier either, but I think that could be a whole game in itself, so I'm not holding my breath. :)

[Molon Labe]

One of the things that makes simulations exciting is if the tactical problems we can create with it mirror the challenges faced by our forces in real life. With that in mind, maybe the "next" sim should focus a bit more on the littorals instead of blue water.

A littoral focus would mean more emphasis on people and less on technology. Small boat operations (such as boarding parties), gunnery, tactical communications, and intelligence become much more important. You'd have to be able to observe and interact with other platforms/crews in ways that go beyond detecting them and shooting at them.

I don't know if there's enough material to make a whole new sim out of this idea, but in terms of the "next" DW you could add an IR/EO station (possibly associated with a CIWS mount), launch VBSS craft from skimmers the same way you launch SOF from subs (and also recall and recover them, just as important), integrate calls to stop and warning shots into the trigger/doctrine system, and go deeper into mine warfare. Or be able to place bombs inside platforms that can detonate, instead of just having a "suicide attack" ramming script. Maybe even make platforms more complex and interactive, such as being able to see equipment on deck, being able to give simple commands to crew/passengers such as move, raise hands, lie down, etc., being able to kill crew/passengers or damage specific parts of a boat, although that may be too far out of the box.

A good measuring stick would be whether the features of the new sim would allow incidents like the Cole bombing, the Cornwall abductions, Somali piracy, or a hypothetical asymmetric warfare campaign in the Persian Gulf to be the basis for a scenario that would be fun to play.

[Basss]

So guys, lets start to write a letter to BOHEMIA INTERACTIVE?

main question, how many peoples going to buy new sim?

pool or roll-call?

[Kaye T. Bai]

Riding around in a Frigate in DW is a lot like riding around in a destroyer in Destroyer Command. It's a lot of fun being the do-it-all ship, but man it was really easy to get jealous of the big boys. Let us sit in the big boy chair and protect an aircraft carrier or launch a large scale bombardment. I wouldn't mind sitting in a Aircraft Carrier either, but I think that could be a whole game in itself, so I'm not holding my breath.

Although Gerald R. Ford-class and Nimitz-class CVNs would be nice playable platforms, I'm hoping for the chance to play as an Arleigh Burke-class or Zumwalt-class DDG or a Ticonderoga-class VLS CG. Speaking of VLS, SCS, please update the Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFGs to VLS standard! :up:

[TLAM Strike]

SCS, please update the Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFGs to VLS standard! :up: Its not really a standard, only the RAN boats have them and those are to be retired soon (two have been already). ;)

If they do that add the Taiwanese version with the HFIII missiles. :yep:

[tonibamestre]

Although Gerald R. Ford-class and Nimitz-class CVNs would be nice playable platforms, I'm hoping for the chance to play as an Arleigh Burke-class or Zumwalt-class DDG or a Ticonderoga-class VLS CG. Speaking of VLS, SCS, please update the Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFGs to VLS standard! :up:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/user_offline.gif http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/report.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/report.php?p=1576163) Although Gerald R. Ford-class and Nimitz-class CVNs would be nice playable platforms, I'm hoping for the chance to play as an Arleigh Burke-class or Zumwalt-class DDG or a Ticonderoga-class VLS CG. Speaking of VLS, SCS, please update the Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFGs to VLS standard! :up:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/user_offline.gif http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/report.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/report.php?p=1576163) Not just Nimitz and Gerald Ford classes would be amazing like playable units,also more complex addons from other Navies, Invincible,Queen Elisabeth,R11,..........and more.

[Reaper51]

Let's not forget Russian Kilos that can fire the Klub family. :D

[Caseck]

Ha, ha, ha... This is all a trick!

"If Sonanalysts Made A New Game..."

It would kick ass! :rock:

I win!

(My vote is for improved DW with Arleigh Burke, Better EW, and definitely sustain and improve the air units. P-8? LCS? I also like the idea of integrating with FC so there wouldn't be "non-playable units." Everything else pretty much as DW, with new platforms and fixes. More robust multiplay I think falls in that category! The more people that have exposure to this multi-player community, I think the more games you'll sell.)

[TLAM Strike]

Let's not forget Russian Kilos that can fire the Klub family. :D

There are none in real life. The only Kilos with non-subroc missile capability are the Chinese and Indian ones with Klub missiles and the Iranian ones with C-801 missiles.

[Reaper51]

There are none in real life. The only Kilos with non-subroc missile capability are the Chinese and Indian ones with Klub missiles and the Iranian ones with C-801 missiles.

True, but you'd be hard pressed to find US Navy subs with ASCM either. Let's face it, if the Russian Navy wasn't dead the Kilo would most likely carry the Klub series. Altho, if the Russian Navy was alive and kicking they'd probably retire the Kilo and start building the Lada..

Also, I demand nuclear weapons! No matter what your view of them in sims may be, you have to admit the game seems a little off without them. I'd like to be able to start scenarios with conventional weapons, with the possibility of escalating to nuclear weapons being fired in anger. Suddenly the Kilos are firing nuclear tipped Starfish, Bears are dropping WE-177 nuclear depth charges, and you never know which one of those inbound vampires is the nuclear variant. Of course, nuclear weapons in SP and MP could be locked. Things would get a little boring if people could just freely nuke anything anytime they wanted.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Nukes would be nice. I remember having loads of fun paying as a VMF Oscar-class SSGN and sinking an entire USN CVN strike grup with one nuclear-tipped ASM. :yeah:

[TLAM Strike]

True, but you'd be hard pressed to find US Navy subs with ASCM either. Let's face it, if the Russian Navy wasn't dead the Kilo would most likely carry the Klub series. Altho, if the Russian Navy was alive and kicking they'd probably retire the Kilo and start building the Lada.. Last thing I want it another reborn Soviet Empire scenario. There is so much possibilities in realistic scenarios that its grasping at straws to do something like that. If they put the Russians in put them in with what they got IRL (that goes for the Akula as well- those external tubes are for decoys!)

Plus even if they did add the N-27, you would only get two tubes fire it on the Kilo.

Nukes would be nice. I remember having loads of fun paying as a VMF Oscar-class SSGN and sinking an entire USN CVN strike grup with one nuclear-tipped ASM. :yeah: Someone didn't deploy the ships in that Carrier Group right... :nope:

[Kaye T. Bai]

Someone didn't deploy the ships in that Carrier Group right.

I cheated and had the ships in a tight formation. Sue me. :O:

[tonibamestre]

Well guys,at this point let me show you this http://www.vrsimulations.com/tacpack.htm With the SDK that will be released later on,giving the chance to implement guided missiles to whatever third party addon, and vessels like the DDG from Deltasimstudio, we can have a quite good and inmersive environment into FSX concerning military stuff.Even more,we could talk with IVAO software developers to keep improving vehicle MTL textures and include not just more air platforms but also naval platforms,so we could connect online sailing a DD,FFG,CVN or whatever.
Another item is underwater in FSX.Perhaps any developer like HIFI or so could implement sceneries below Sea Surface in order to sail Submarines aswell.

[Fish]

http://www.vrsimulations.com/tacpack.htm

Could we only have this graphics in DW.:yeah:

[Fish]

All this talk about a sequel has gotten me nostalgic. Time to fire up the old Dangerous Waters. Installing now... ;)


I did so, but it's a pain in wind 7.:cry:

[goldorak]

Could we only have this graphics in DW.:yeah:

Uhh no. FSX runs like crap. C-R-A-P even on top of the line pcs.
No what DW needs is basic support for anisotropic and antialiasing filtering and high polygon models. With filtering graphic quality goes up, that you wouldn't imagine. Just look at what the graphics are in Dr Sid ComSubSim.
For a concept game they are already ten leagues ahead of DW.

[fitzcarraldo]

Could we only have this graphics in DW.:yeah:

What??? I have FSX and FS9; FSX is FPS eating and needs a very high level PC and graphic card. For a tactical modern subsim, with the level of graphics (exterior camera and periscope-up view) of SH3 or SH4, all OK. More important: r-e-a-l-i-s-t-i-c simulation of combat systems, DC, failures in machines (example: nuke reactor with radiactive loses..jeje). and a dynamic campaign with a mission/campaign editor. Immersivity in a nuke sub required: subtle interior sounds, realistic crew responses (no droid-crew, as SH5), all battle stations possible to make, and global world coverage (I like a journey from Miami to Persian Gulf, with russian-chinese-north korean subs after my propellers...).

Best regards.

Fitzcarraldo :salute:

[Kaye T. Bai]

Hell, having anything close to Flight Simulator 2004 graphics would be an improvement over Dangerous Waters graphics.

[ldc83402]

I'd like to see a naval warfare game involving the US and China, something similar to the Red Storm Rising game of old. Taiwan and Japan could also be involved in the conflict.

[tommo8993]

My bet is still Fleet comand 2 or something similar.

[Kaye T. Bai]

I'd hope for Dangerous Waters 2, but Fleet Command 2 would be nice also; a modern naval RTT/RTS game.

[Rip]

I'd hope for Dangerous Waters 2, but Fleet Command 2 would be nice also; a modern naval RTT/RTS game.


Me as well, but I just thought of something. If FC2 then why the placeholder. This is a subsim forum after all, and we have no forum for the original fleet command. This leads me to believe even further that we are talking a submarine centric sim.

Just my opinion but at least it gives me something to do when I check back daily awaiting word.

[goldorak]

Me as well, but I just thought of something. If FC2 then why the placeholder. This is a subsim forum after all, and we have no forum for the original fleet command. This leads me to believe even further that we are talking a submarine centric sim.

Just my opinion but at least it gives me something to do when I check back daily awaiting word.


You do realise that there is a section of the forum that is named : Sub Command, Fleet Command, & Jane's 688(I).
So yeah the placeholder could definitely be for a future FC 2.
Its still a modern naval warfare game after all.

[tonibamestre]

ITEMS for the next generation Aeronaval Sim:

1-Base Pack,covering entire earth sea mass with accurate elevations and coast lines,around 20 decent well modelated ports and 20 air bases.Both sides Fleets included,US Navy and Soviet Navy,each with 6 or 7 major playable vessels thus including 1 full operative CV.Capability to set weather-sea state conditions.

2-Expansions to more vessels and ports worldwide.Dynamic Shipyards developing new units from other Navies,UK,France,Germany,Spain,Italy,China,Korea, and so on.

3-Concerning CVs,capability to jump into a whatever fighter aboard in order to fly it as a pilot.

Any more ideas?

[fatty]

A CV as a future paid DLC would be cool. Have any of you guys ever played Starshatter? Although sci-fi, the way they handled carriers in that game was good. You controlled the basic manoeuvring of the ship and its task group, and had a special screen for assigning aircraft to packages and sending them on a variety of missions like scouting, strike, escort, etc. etc.

I could see this translating very well into a DW-like interface. Like in Starshatter, you'd have basic control over where the task group goes, and could sortie your AI-controlled planes for whatever you wanted.

[Rip]

You do realise that there is a section of the forum that is named : Sub Command, Fleet Command, & Jane's 688(I).
So yeah the placeholder could definitely be for a future FC 2.
Its still a modern naval warfare game after all.

Actually I never noticed the Sub Command forum also included Fleet Command. I still think a submarine focused sim is twice as likely as a Fleet Command sequel. The only reason for the timing would seem to be the new government contract and I doubt they are paying for the development of another Fleet Command. The only way for to make this profitable would be to leverage the development done for the military sim into a commercial product. I just can't see the military having much use for Fleet Command. they already have complex fleet sims that wouldn't be able to run on a PC.

In any event I would imagine we are very close to finding out.

[zamfe]

In any event I would imagine we are very close to finding out.

Is there really something to come out or is this just market research?

Sonalysts still doesn't have any new news to share..

[schurem]

I would prefer a fleet command type game with modern graphics that are open to modding in both model, textures and database as well as shaders and such. Build it to stand the test of times. Harpoon needs a good and pretty successor.

[Rompedor]

I prefer a simulator like DW.:yeah:

[tonibamestre]

A CV as a future paid DLC would be cool. Have any of you guys ever played Starshatter? Although sci-fi, the way they handled carriers in that game was good. You controlled the basic manoeuvring of the ship and its task group, and had a special screen for assigning aircraft to packages and sending them on a variety of missions like scouting, strike, escort, etc. etc.

I could see this translating very well into a DW-like interface. Like in Starshatter, you'd have basic control over where the task group goes, and could sortie your AI-controlled planes for whatever you wanted.


Yes,would be interesting.Every single CV class built itself in certain detail with ALL its capability(including resuply).A quite good start could be USS Coral Sea,full inmersed into the Cold Era. Following, Forrestal class,Kiev,Minsk,...............

[Kaye T. Bai]

A basic simulation of a carrier operations platform, similar or if not, on the level of the Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG in Dangerous Waters would be nice and shouldn't be that too hard to do. Great idea! :yeah:

[tommo8993]

not sonalyst but this looks promising
http://www.turbotapegames.com/en/games.html
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=179312

[Matrosek]

I want something like Harpoon with playable minesweepers.

[tonibamestre]

High detailed exterior models+ some kind of 3D stations(bridge,CIC,Hangars,Commander room) would be nice :yep:.Starting with a base release with 2 or 3 vessels each side is not a big deal I think.Later on more units can be added one by one with their own identity and excellence.

[stormrider_sp]

In my opinion, what I personally always wished for was to be able to actually command from inside, a Western Modern Attack Sub, while fighting in a Harpoon Enviroment. A mix between 688iHK and Harpoon

I dont really care about top notch graphics and fancy stuff. What I care is to feel there as it was true. Real platforms, real dynamics, real physics, real battles.

The conclusion is a game that works just like Harpoon but you can choose to be inside one platform, for example the SSN or other later sold as addons, but also, depending on the scenario, take part as the task force commander, and playing it from above, take advantage of its great engine.

Comercially speaking, I would say: Release the engine, I mean, the Harpoon like game, then sell them playable platforms. Who here wouldnt buy a copy of Harpoon if it was released today? And who wouldnt buy his own prefered platform and be able to play it from inside.

Oh, btw, be mod friendly. Take a look at games like Arma and its community for example!

[Reaper51]

In my opinion, what I personally always wished for was to be able to actually command from inside, a Western Modern Attack Sub, while fighting in a Harpoon Enviroment. A mix between 688iHK and Harpoon

I dont really care about top notch graphics and fancy stuff. What I care is to feel there as it was true. Real platforms, real dynamics, real physics, real battles.

The conclusion is a game that works just like Harpoon but you can choose to be inside one platform, for example the SSN or other later sold as addons, but also, depending on the scenario, take part as the task force commander, and playing it from above, take advantage of its great engine.

Comercially speaking, I would say: Release the engine, I mean, the Harpoon like game, then sell them playable platforms. Who here wouldnt buy a copy of Harpoon if it was released today? And who wouldnt buy his own prefered platform and be able to play it from inside.

Oh, btw, be mod friendly. Take a look at games like Arma and its community for example!

No to the idea of expansions with new playables. Iirc, DW was supposed to work exactly like that. They'd release an expansion if they made enough of a profit, and they didn't. They need to just create a new sim, based on a new engine that is actually mod friendly. This game is dead because of the vast modding limits. Take RA for example, it adds new playables, but in a very hacked together, dirty way.

Imagine DW with much better physics, better graphics, better AI, and just generally not half-assed. Now imagine playable aircraft carriers, destroyers, etc. Is there any doubt that this would far surpass DW in not only sales, but also life span?

[Arclight]

I wouldn't say DW is either dead or half-assed, but maybe that's just me. :-?

What it is imho is limited by the hardware available at the time.

[tonibamestre]

Well,just in the event a full CV functionality was expected into a future game,here I leave some interesting lines to add.

-Air Wing management (80 air platforms).Capability to call ALL the air wing from homeport to land sequencialy on the ship once in opensea,lets say 15NM out.Also have to be able to send them to land base.
-Capability to select an individual air platform and operate it as a pilot.
-Carrier management,operate radars,sonars and weapon systems onboard.Fully moveable 4 elevators in order to transport planes and equipment from the hangar to the flight deck and viceversa.Animated bow anchors.Full integrated fuel and ammunition resuply system (coop with tenders and AORs ).Extended vessel lighting on and off by areas.Walkable 3D areas like Island and bridges, CIC , Hangar and Commander room.Vessel diagramm/squematics showing critical and medium damages and appropiate actions by the crew.
Select the crew in order you want to; battlestations,normal navigation,or crew on deck for port arrival or naval parade.
-Also,somehow to control powerplant (conventional or nuclear ) would be interesting.

[Reaper51]

I'll throw a real world map out there, along with more realistic ocean depths. It's frustrating to not be able to put a naval base in it's real world location due to the 15 foot depth.

As for the carrier, yes, just yes. Throw in one of those annoying AEGIS ships as playable too.

[goldorak]

Well,just in the event a full CV functionality was expected into a future game,here I leave some interesting lines to add.

-Air Wing management (80 air platforms).Capability to call ALL the air wing from homeport to land sequencialy on the ship once in opensea,lets say 15NM out.Also have to be able to send them to land base.
-Capability to select an individual air platform and operate it as a pilot.
-Carrier management,operate radars,sonars and weapon systems onboard.Fully moveable 4 elevators in order to transport planes and equipment from the hangar to the flight deck and viceversa.Animated bow anchors.Full integrated fuel and ammunition resuply system (coop with tenders and AORs ).Extended vessel lighting on and off by areas.Walkable 3D areas like Island and bridges, CIC , Hangar and Commander room.Vessel diagramm/squematics showing critical and medium damages and appropiate actions by the crew.
Select the crew in order you want to; battlestations,normal navigation,or crew on deck for port arrival or naval parade.
-Also,somehow to control powerplant (conventional or nuclear ) would be interesting.

You are obsessed with aircraft carrier operations.
That would be a single game onto itself, let alone part of a tactical ASW submarine simulation.
Maybe you would be better off playing one of the mods of Falcon 4 that introduces carrier operations ? ;)

[tonibamestre]

Well, if a global base sim is released with a well done couple of playables,is not silly to develop like single addon a well done CV,a well done CG,DDG,FFG,................ dont you think so?

I really think it would be a success!

[Castout]

I'll throw a real world map out there, along with more realistic ocean depths. It's frustrating to not be able to put a naval base in it's real world location due to the 15 foot depth.



:up:

[Castout]

Realistic multiplayer comm


Deep submerged sub skipper should NOT be able to tell the others that he just heard a torpedo in the water message. :haha:

Red Borei sub skipper"I just heard tiw, be careful"
Red Borei sub skipper"The Borei in front of me just got killed"
Red Udaloy skimmer "Where is it from you?"
Red Borei sub skipper" about 4 miles ahead of me"

What are they using? Telepathic hive mind communication?:doh: :O:

[Delareon]

There is one feature which DW allready has and any successor should also have: Voice Commands. Please keep them in the game.

[NeonSamurai]

For me the one absolute must have is a random dynamic campaign (see Silent Hunter 3, or Falcon 4). Canned missions, even with dynamic elements are of a very limited re-playability, and making your own missions for yourself isn't a lot of fun as having made the mission, you know everything having to do with it. This is the main reason why the previous games have been collecting dust on my shelf.

The other thing I would recommend is making the game as modder friendly as possible. Mods vastly increase the playability and lifespan of the game, and increase the sales rate.

Those two things are most key imho, 3D walking around is nice and all, but ultimately it is fluff (immersible fluff at least). Other then that I would be mostly interested in a sub simulation, though multi platform (surface & air) like DW would be ok too. Heck I would be happy with DW with the addition of a good random dynamic campaign a la SH3.

[keltos01]

I have grown tired of sinking ships for no results...

I would like a game where :

we could add units, like in SH3/SH4 and submarines

we could add (and not modify only) torpedo types

but most important :

I'd like a truly dynamic campaign :

- if you sink a ship, she doesn't re-spawn later on

- the results of your sinkings are taken into account :

f.i. if the japanese submarines had loitered around Pearl on Dec 9-12 1941 they might've sunk the US carriers.... then you don't get Midway or much later..



I know this is much harder to program than spwan class x at coord x,y at this date

but this would make it all the more interresting to play !

keltos

[Takeda Shingen]

I'd like a truly dynamic campaign :

- if you sink a ship, she doesn't re-spawn later on

- the results of your sinkings are taken into account :

f.i. if the japanese submarines had loitered around Pearl on Dec 9-12 1941 they might've sunk the US carriers.... then you don't get Midway or much later..



I know this is much harder to program than spwan class x at coord x,y at this date

but this would make it all the more interresting to play !

keltos

Again, it's not going to be a WWII game.

[Fish]

I'll throw a real world map out there, along with more realistic ocean depths. It's frustrating to not be able to put a naval base in it's real world location due to the 15 foot depth.

.

Hear hear!! :yeah:

[stormrider_sp]

No to the idea of expansions with new playables. Iirc, DW was supposed to work exactly like that. They'd release an expansion if they made enough of a profit, and they didn't. They need to just create a new sim, based on a new engine that is actually mod friendly. This game is dead because of the vast modding limits. Take RA for example, it adds new playables, but in a very hacked together, dirty way.

Imagine DW with much better physics, better graphics, better AI, and just generally not half-assed. Now imagine playable aircraft carriers, destroyers, etc. Is there any doubt that this would far surpass DW in not only sales, but also life span?

I rather have 1 brillant recreated platform than many hmm not so good ones.
Thats my opinion, a playable SSN inside a Harpoon world.
I can easily imagine all that you said, I just cant imagine how much time and money would it take to do just that.

[goldorak]

Realistic multiplayer comm


Deep submerged sub skipper should NOT be able to tell the others that he just heard a torpedo in the water message. :haha:

Red Borei sub skipper"I just heard tiw, be careful"
Red Borei sub skipper"The Borei in front of me just got killed"
Red Udaloy skimmer "Where is it from you?"
Red Borei sub skipper" about 4 miles ahead of me"

What are they using? Telepathic hive mind communication?:doh: :O:

If people want to cheat they can always set up a teamspeak server and bypass whatever game restriction is enabled.
On the other hand one thing I would very much like to see implemented is file integrity on the hoster. Right now whoever hosts can very well change the doctrine files to suit up his needs and the other players would all be oblivious to this change. It is a very subtle way to cheat but notheless can be done very easily.

[Dr.Sid]

If people want to cheat they can always set up a teamspeak server and bypass whatever game restriction is enabled.
On the other hand one thing I would very much like to see implemented is file integrity on the hoster. Right now whoever hosts can very well change the doctrine files to suit up his needs and the other players would all be oblivious to this change. It is a very subtle way to cheat but notheless can be done very easily.

IMHO such game will always have so small community, that cheaters will be no problem. People will know each other.

In such case, the good communication system will be very useful, because for example teamspeak just can't take your depth into account.

[keltos01]

Again, it's not going to be a WWII game.

understood I was just using SHIV as a comparison, I would love a cold war (hot ?) to today sub sim :yep:

keltos

[timmyg00]

I know this is highly unlikely, but I would love to see a sim that was post-WWII cold-war era/decade-selectable… of course, the playable and AI platform DB would be huge, but think of the “what if” alternate history scenarios you could play out…

- Playable GUPPY/Regulus/SSR or postwar US-constructed diesel boats (same for USSR (Zulu/Whiskey/Romeo) or other Allied/OPFOR)…
- Playable first nukes such as the Nautilus and Seawolf, followed by the Skipjack/Permit/Sturgeon (November/Victor) classes…
- Sonar systems that are upgraded as the eras progress, such as the early successors to the WWII JP, QC… BQR-2, BQR-4, BQS-4… electromechanical FC systems progressing to the first analog/digital FCS…
- So let’s say you select the late 1950s… On the US side, all of the applicable GUPPY conversions, SSRs, postwar-diesels, early SSNs are available to play… on USSR side, the Zulu, Whiskey, Romeo, Novembers are available...

Like I said, I know it’s unlikely… but I am looking forward to seeing what they come up with.


TG

[Molon Labe]

Timmah!!!!! How the hell are you!?!?!


I was actually thinking about the Cold War database issue and I thought of something. Instead of having separate DBs for different time periods (e.g., Naval Warfare Project), you could have a DB where every entity in the sim had two new fields: year of commissioning and decomm. You can leave them blank if you want. But if those limits are imposed, then the scenario designer just picks a year, and the scenario editor will only list those platforms that are either not limited or are inside that year range.

You could even easily modify ships that get upgrades just by copying the DB entry, making the adjustments, and setting the years as appropriate.

It'll get big, but that's what SCS has guys like TLAM and I around for.

[tonibamestre]

Hey! I like those ideas,really brilliant but, develop aswell more surface playables.

:)

[zakarpatska]

Hi Keltso01, What is this "Climb mount Niitaka" IJN campaign? I clicked on the link, but it just took me to imageshack. Thanks, Zakarpatska

[Takeda Shingen]

Hi Keltso01, What is this "Climb mount Niitaka" IJN campaign? I clicked on the link, but it just took me to imageshack. Thanks, Zakarpatska

Click on the link underneath. It will take you to all of his mods. He's done a nice job with the IJN stuff. :up:

[Guynumber7]

IF they made a Fleet command style game, which i would love...

1. Graphics
2. Realism and many platforms and loadouts, kind of like NWP, and different eras.

If a simulator

1. More platforms, including AEGIS and Slava/Kirov and or Sov. Also Oscar.

Really my only qualm with DW was the limited platforms. I would LOVE an AEGIS sim.

[tonibamestre]

I think SCS has quite good reference concerning the type of game the community would like.Improved graphics and effects,plus or minus controllable platforms(given that new and more complex ones can be developed later on),etc.
But a feature SCS needs to blowout in my opinnion are the limited maps.We need a Global environment,being able to depart from Norfolk and sail till the Mediterranean,this in agreement with a number of major detailed ports worldwide (think that they can be modeled also as an addon or built from good community moders) if the game allows it.

[OneShot]

Well, personally I cant understand the fuzz about being able to sail the world continously after all this isnt a ww2 sim. Nowadays you get your mission which will happen within a more or less large area of operation ( horn of africa for example comes to mind ) and do your job there. The maps of DW are ok for smaller AOs, id say increase the size to 1000x1000 nm and thats plenty enough.

But thats just my 2cts

[TLAM Strike]

Well, personally I cant understand the fuzz about being able to sail the world continously after all this isnt a ww2 sim. Nowadays you get your mission which will happen within a more or less large area of operation ( horn of africa for example comes to mind ) and do your job there. The maps of DW are ok for smaller AOs, id say increase the size to 1000x1000 nm and thats plenty enough.

But thats just my 2cts

I agree with OneShot. DW is a Tactical Sim, it simulates individual battles. Leaving and entering port is not really necessary and with the low time compression settings found in DW it can get quite boring.

Increase the size of the AO but a full world map is not necessary.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Functioning ports would be nice, but a full world map isn't really that necessary.

[TLAM Strike]

If they gave the users/modders the ability to import bathymetry data like mission files now would be great. they we can add high detail maps of areas we want to use and not clog up the game with high detail maps of the mid Atlantic ridge.

[Takeda Shingen]

Functioning ports would be nice, but a full world map isn't really that necessary.

That's not even that important to me. If we get real-world survey maps with accurate depths and elevations, we can construct our own ports.

[-GrayOwl-]

That's not even that important to me. If we get real-world survey maps with accurate depths and elevations, we can construct our own ports.


Well still to receive simply exact mathematical modeling.

Now, the entering into a database of exact parameters of the weapon (weight, speed, etc...) - simply causes failure of this weapon. :doh:

It puts under doubt - that this game is named simulator.

[timmyg00]

Timmah!!!!! How the hell are you!?!?!


I was actually thinking about the Cold War database issue and I thought of something. Instead of having separate DBs for different time periods (e.g., Naval Warfare Project), you could have a DB where every entity in the sim had two new fields: year of commissioning and decomm. You can leave them blank if you want. But if those limits are imposed, then the scenario designer just picks a year, and the scenario editor will only list those platforms that are either not limited or are inside that year range.

You could even easily modify ships that get upgrades just by copying the DB entry, making the adjustments, and setting the years as appropriate.

It'll get big, but that's what SCS has guys like TLAM and I around for.

I have been designing just such a DB (actually in a CSV format to start with) that includes layup/shipyard periods and general ship configs (fleetboat, guppy, SSR, etc). Due to personal time limitations , I am on a hiatus from it right now though... just starting with US fleetboats of WWII at first, to make sure it works. I wanted to expand it to include config details such as bridge configurations, radars, sonars... just don't have enough time to do it all myself and still play at least one game, which happens to be SH4 right now. When I get tired of sinking merchies i will probably come back to DW...

Real life really cuts in to my subsimming!!!

TG