A question of taste...

[SeaQueen]

Which would you guys prefer, a 6 hour mission with the P-3C or a 24 hour mission with the FFG? I have a mission that I made for the FFG but I worry it runs too long for most people, because it's completely possible to spend all 24 hours and do nothing but drive back and forth. Either way the idea is the same, it's just a question of which platform you experience the scenario from.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Just release both, and have the 24 hour one come with a warning. :)

PD

[hyperion2206]

Since I'm not a fan of the P-3C I would prefer the FFG! I would have to save once in a while because I can't play the mission "in one piece";) but I would play it.

[SeaQueen]

Since I'm not a fan of the P-3C I would prefer the FFG! I would have to save once in a while because I can't play the mission "in one piece";) but I would play it.

That's the thing, I worry that people expect every mission to play out in 2 hours, and I don't believe in that. It makes no sense, when you think about it. Scenarios where everyone starts off within detection range or even weapons range are bound to be hopelessly lopsided, where the scenario drives the outcome more than anything else. That strikes me as kind of lame.

The time scale of the mission ought to depend on the task at hand, ya know? So some missions are longer or shorter, depending on what you are trying to do.

[Molon Labe]

Since I'm not a fan of the P-3C I would prefer the FFG! I would have to save once in a while because I can't play the mission "in one piece";) but I would play it.
That's the thing, I worry that people expect every mission to play out in 2 hours, and I don't believe in that. It makes no sense, when you think about it. Scenarios where everyone starts off within detection range or even weapons range are bound to be hopelessly lopsided, where the scenario drives the outcome more than anything else. That strikes me as kind of lame.

The time scale of the mission ought to depend on the task at hand, ya know? So some missions are longer or shorter, depending on what you are trying to do.

Just for the record, I only use a 2-hr benchmark for MP missions.:p

[hyperion2206]

I certainly like longer missions, because they tend to be more realistic, but I just don't have the time to play such a mission in one piece.

[SeaQueen]

I certainly like longer missions, because they tend to be more realistic, but I just don't have the time to play such a mission in one piece.

And nobody should. That's why the "Save Game" feature is there. I wish one could do that with MP games too, because as far as I've been able to tell, in order to make the game playable in a reasonable period of time, you almost have to make a scenario which drives the outcome in some hopelessly lopsided way.

I mean... geez... if you're in a sub going 5 kts, then in two hours you've traveled 10NMi. That's NOTHING. If your mission is to patrol a 50NMi wide chokepoint, then you're not even going to complete one cycle of your barrier. There's no reason to maneuver except for TMA and to unmask weapons. All in all, I'd say it doesn't really give you much of a feel for the nature of a naval battle, except for maybe the very end.

[hyperion2206]

It's just the problem that most people are only interested in shooting and sinking ships, which is ok because most of the people want some action. However there should be some longer missions just to get the "real" feeling. By the way: the missions that are most fun to play ( at least for me) are those that are long and where you have to do the standard duties (patrolling etc.). I think there should be more of the those missions around!:up: :know: :smug:

[SeaQueen]

It's just the problem that most people are only interested in shooting and sinking ships, which is ok because most of the people want some action.

I'm interested in shooting and sinking ships as much as the next person, but when the outcome of the battle is driven by the scenario, then the only person who experiences "action" is the person in the platform predisposed to win. The other person experiences defeat, over and over again, which is lame.


However there should be some longer missions just to get the "real" feeling. By the way: the missions that are most fun to play ( at least for me) are those that are long and where you have to do the standard duties (patrolling etc.). I think there should be more of the those missions around!:up: :know: :smug:

Interesting that you bring up "patroling" as a "standard duty." That's totally the wrong way to think about it. If you are on a barrier patrol in an SSN, for example, then typically you are

1) Deployed well forward of other assets - i.e. the first line of defense
2) There to protect SOMETHING be it a CVBG hundreds of miles behind you, carrying nuclear weapons in the Norwegian Sea or an ESG evacuating Americans from say... Lebanon, who knows?

In context, the mission is potentially exciting. Just the fact that you're there says that higher ups expect some sort of attack to come from your neighborhood. I think that's sort of the trick to a DW scenario, to zoom in on a piece of a larger picture and then figure out what's really important?

[Driftwood]

I would really like to have the ability to save MP missions so you could pick up where you left off. Not sure if anyone else out there is running two PC's but I've been fortunate enough to add an additional PC and have been playing "singleplayer" using Multi-manned stations. Got to say that I'm LOVING the ability to have two different screens up simultaneously. :smug: Now if I could just save things where I left off........:shifty:

[SeaQueen]

I would really like to have the ability to save MP missions so you could pick up where you left off. Not sure if anyone else out there is running two PC's but I've been fortunate enough to add an additional PC and have been playing "singleplayer" using Multi-manned stations. Got to say that I'm LOVING the ability to have two different screens up simultaneously. :smug: Now if I could just save things where I left off........:shifty:

I do that too, also if I want to test out something to see how it works from the other side's perspective, it's useful.

[hyperion2206]

It's just the problem that most people are only interested in shooting and sinking ships, which is ok because most of the people want some action.

I'm interested in shooting and sinking ships as much as the next person, but when the outcome of the battle is driven by the scenario, then the only person who experiences "action" is the person in the platform predisposed to win. The other person experiences defeat, over and over again, which is lame.


However there should be some longer missions just to get the "real" feeling. By the way: the missions that are most fun to play ( at least for me) are those that are long and where you have to do the standard duties (patrolling etc.). I think there should be more of the those missions around!:up: :know: :smug:

Interesting that you bring up "patroling" as a "standard duty." That's totally the wrong way to think about it. If you are on a barrier patrol in an SSN, for example, then typically you are

1) Deployed well forward of other assets - i.e. the first line of defense
2) There to protect SOMETHING be it a CVBG hundreds of miles behind you, carrying nuclear weapons in the Norwegian Sea or an ESG evacuating Americans from say... Lebanon, who knows?

In context, the mission is potentially exciting. Just the fact that you're there says that higher ups expect some sort of attack to come from your neighborhood. I think that's sort of the trick to a DW scenario, to zoom in on a piece of a larger picture and then figure out what's really important?


I actually don't see your point. Although I wasn't thinking of Subs I still think that being deployed well forward your carrier classifying all ships in your range could be fun. And that's what these guys do all the time, or am I wrong?
Btw: "Standard" mission are (for me again) patroling with a FFG to protect commercial ships from being attacked by pirates or terrorists or leave port to visit the port of a friendly nation for example. You know missions that begin slowly and CAN end with an fight. The best missions to illustrate are "Aleutian Waters" and the first mission of Red Storm Rising (can't remember the name).

[Kapitan]

I do play long missions some lasting days others hours however times are changing.

[Takeda Shingen]

I would play a 2 hour, 6 hour, 8, hour, 24 hour, 72 hour, or multi-week campaign, so long as it is scripted well. Quality is the foremost trait.

[SeaQueen]

I would play a 2 hour, 6 hour, 8, hour, 24 hour, 72 hour, or multi-week campaign, so long as it is scripted well. Quality is the foremost trait.

You'd probably be bored to death by my missions, then, because I don't generally rely on a lot of scripting. I'm all about keeping it simple. I always include a more detailed set of scenario design notes, which explain some of the thinking and motivation behind a scenario, but I don't like to have too much scripting. A good scenario puts the player in the position of a decision maker. Too often scripting is a way of taking decisions out of the hands of the player. I'd much prefer to just pose the players with a tactical problem in the beginning, and let them figure out on their own how to solve it.

[Takeda Shingen]

You'd probably be bored to death by my missions, then, because I don't generally rely on a lot of scripting. I'm all about keeping it simple. I always include a more detailed set of scenario design notes, which explain some of the thinking and motivation behind a scenario, but I don't like to have too much scripting. A good scenario puts the player in the position of a decision maker. Too often scripting is a way of taking decisions out of the hands of the player. I'd much prefer to just pose the players with a tactical problem in the beginning, and let them figure out on their own how to solve it.

Thank you for your advice. I shall avoid your missions.

[Bellman]

I find SQs approach to scenario design alluring as I too dont appreciate over scripting - If I want to run on rails I'll catch a train sim !
SQs 'realistic' approach may not be mainstream but it has my vote ! More please SQ.:|\\

[SeaQueen]

However SQs 'realistic' approach is not mainstream,

But it's really not... it's just old fashioned. It used to be, when you played table top miniatures, you'd pick a scenario out of a book, and it'd say something like, "Do this..." the other person's job was to stop you. The outcome of the scenario was due to a combination of luck and skill. Nobody led you around by the nose jumping through hoops. It wasn't necessary. Players could get themselves into enough trouble.

Every once in a while, someone would put together a "campaign system" which would take into account things like strategic movement, long term logistics, and what not, but the "plot" essentially just fell out. We just played it out.

Computer games are nice because they alleviate a lot of the book keeping that we used to have to do, and maybe they make some things a little less abstract (you can actually READ a sonar or radar display instead of just having a "cookie cutter" definite range law). That's cool, but I don't really like being told how to accomlish my mission. In fact, in military circles, that's considered the hallmark of poor orders writing. They want it short and simple. Tell me what you want me to do, tell me what you intend to accomplish, but DON'T tell me how to do it. That's precisely what scripting frequently does, though.


Anyone who has hunted or fished knows that hours can be spent, often unproductively, but its the little signs and potential 'spots' which feed the interest and fire the adrenalin. More please SQ.:|\\

I totally agree, and I don't always make slow paced missions. It's just the nature of ASW. A surface warfare scenario or an AAW dominated mission is intrinsically faster paced.