I respectfully disagree with this assessment. IMHO, it is never better to force anything automatically or make any management mandatory. Whenever there is any doubt, it is always better to grant the players the maximum discretion possible, because they can always choose to ignore something. If it is programmed into the code, then nothing can be done to avoid it.

Learn from the mistakes of other games such as Flashpoint Campaigns. They removed most discretion from the players and force AI-controlled actions that would be ridiculous to any human in command. However, there is no way to avoid them. The garbage decisions mandated by the AI/game engine replace reasonable and logical human commands and there is absolutely no way around them.

Forcing battles to only drop to 1:1 time compression upon contact gives away too much information. An unsuspecting player walking into an ambush is immediately warned of impending action simply by watching the clock drop down to 1:1 time.

I have personally used the 'drop to 1:1' time as a feint for my opponent to make him believe combat was imminent, even when I was still distant.

Another possible option lost is for one player to plan intricate manoeuvres such as flank attacks or coordinated approaches (pincer movements).

There are just too many limitations to this mandatory action. Please leave it up to the players. If there is a particular player who insists upon slow play, he is going to find no one willing to engage him. The problem eventually solves itself.

For me time acceleration is not good choice but if you have to, better is to do it by automatic mechanism. When players can decide when time is set to x1 or x4 or more most players will set x1 in all game.
So your ability for playing with accelerated time will be pure illusion.

In other hand if players at beginning will decide to play faster, and sudenly you will notice time is slowing down to x1 you have the same information like you described above:
For me acceleration should be used for tactical planning like: spliting forces, taking better positions etc. Not for making advantage over opponent: "i will delay returning to x1 time for surprising enemy.
In that case good automatic game system will be more effective and more "fair play" to each players

Not true. I occasionally drop to 1:1 time just to give the impression that I am doing something important. It keeps my opponent guessing so that he can never know whether or not the 1:1 time means that I am detecting him, attacking him, or just checking on the status of a unit. Used judiciously, it keeps all sides honest.

The important thing is that the option is always available to players and is not arbitrarily imposed.

So you are basically doing this alone?

Saw this. Had to respond. Wishing the developer success. Count me in as somebody wanting to purchase this game.

Amazing news ! :Kaleun_Cheers:

Good luck guys...

Any informations for : Release date, "kickstarter" plan, pre-release, and support of release ? ( Steam ? )

Thanks !

I know a physicist who refers to equipment that isn't behaving as you'd expect it to (ie, you can't get it to work right) as equipment with "features".

Too much automation can cause problems. I definitely lean towards power to the player, but ultimately the implementation of this is still a ways out.

It's a very small team, but it's still growing and it's definitely not a solo job.

Thanks!

I'd like to have a bare-bones "alpha" sometime this summer. No kickstarter plan at the moment.

Steam will probably be the publisher, yes. If It's received well, I look forward to leading the implementation of a lot of fine details and additions to it over time.

You says : "you will take command of NATO and Soviet battlegroups, airbases, submarines and land installations"

NATO, all nations ? All naval/air units ? :D

I agree that this is the prudent path. When in doubt, leave it up to the players. Even though ANW had problems with the time compression during MP sessions, players were able to work around them with relatively minor ad hoc solutions.

Making more processes mandatory or automatic generates more programming error possibilities. For example, with the time issue, does the time drop to 1:1 upon detection, when a unit fires, when a unit enters theoretical firing range, etc. These are all likely considerations the game engine must calculate to know when it changes time compression. And what happens when something goes wrongly? They are all just additional areas errors can arise. Looking for new ways to add unnecessary complications is just looking for trouble.

Learn from the mistakes of others. Steam and Iron is a solitaire game and has a mandatory change in time compression when enemy units are in visual contact with one another; the game will not move faster than 1:5 time compression. Unfortunately, I often found my finger mashed down on the Increase Time hotkey because I wanted the game to just run through the battle. I wasn't issuing any orders and was usually trying to disengage.

Learn from their mistakes. You will find plenty enough opportunity to create new ones. :ping:

The interface reminds me more of the Strike Fleet actually, rather than Fleet Command. The only thing missing is the viewpoint from the command bridge.

Always wanted a successor to that game so I'm pretty thrilled by this.

COOP Multiplayer would be good against AI or against other Humies.

Also hope the Australian Navy is there along with New Zealand, since we operated the same class of ships for the most part.


Terminus

Fantastic!! Really looking forward for this one!


How moddable will it be?

Ditto
 

:Kaleun_Cheers:

Been wanting another "Fleet Command" game for a long time now. :D

Okay, gotta come in hot and tell you guys this one thing:


The best of luck to you, will definitely be ready with my wallet :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

Kudos AzureSkies!

This would be great in a market devoid of modern naval 1st person and/or 3D sims not seen since the 90s, with Destroyer Command, Jane's Fleet Command and other WWII naval sims. Some great suggestions already noted within the thread too.

Subscribed to this thread for updates.

Well, I think it's safe to say some improvements have been made.

I can talk about the Ocean a bit more in another post, perhaps, but for now, let's take a look at what's floating in it.



This is the Azov, lacking her RBU's (still in development), and with the hull number she had in 1983 (The Russians like to change their ships' hull numbers every so often, it seems).

She was a Kara-class cruiser designed with a special modification: an installation of S-300 Fort (NATO reporting name: SA-N-6 "Grumble") missiles and accompanying 3R41 Volna ("TOP DOME") radar replacing her rearward M11 Shtorm (NATO name: SA-N-3 "Goblet") launcher and its accompanying HEAD LIGHTS radar.



This served as the sea trials for this new long-range SAM system that would be fitted on Slava and Kirov-class ships, and almost doubled the range of her air defense capabilities, and put her up with these fleet flagships in terms of fleet air defense.



She did, however, retain the forward one, so you can see the HEAD LIGHTS radar just behind and on top of the bridge, and the associated M-11 Shtorm launcher on the elevated deck in front of it (currently carrying two missiles). By 1983, I believe this would have been the upgraded version.



Stationed with the Black Sea fleet, her and the Slava will be the most important ships for Soviet players trying to break out of the Black Sea, providing long-range air defense against large numbers of NATO aircraft.

Some parts of the model are yet to be augmented a bit, RBUs have yet to be added, and the sky will get some drastic improvements soon.

Next update is sure to come much sooner. Until then, good hunting.

Just wanted to let y'all know there's an update on the Dev Diary. I want to start using it more.

Your ships are beautiful. Keep up to good work, bro!

This week is a bit late.

Been mulling over decisions with regard to the game's design and release schedule. I've been thinking of using an early access release towards the end of the year to raise funds to put towards a more complete development. It would only be the bare bones of gameplay, only surface ships and probably a simplified damage model, but come with all the updates from there.

Thoughts, comments? Feel free to provide feedback on the idea.

Anyways, I've done a lot of work implementing a sky system in the project, and had to re-do the water to make it look good in light of this. I think it's an improvement - the sky sure is! - but you'll have to tell me what you think of the water.

Anyways, I like to introduce a new vehicle each week, so without further ado...

https://i.postimg.cc/345s5BDs/BW144.png

This is a Juliett-class submarine. It was initially built in the 60s to play the role that SSBNs would later take - threatening the US east coast with nuclear-tipped (cruise missiles in this case) missiles. Once SSBNs made them obsolete with the ability to launch nuclear ballistic missiles from submarines, their armaments were switched out for long-range antiship missiles.

Typical armament would consist of 6 533 mm torpedo tubes with 18 torpedoes, and four non-reloadable 400 mm stern torpedo tubes. Usually 4 of the 18 torpedoes were nuclear-tipped antiship torpedoes.

But its main armament to worry about in 1983 was 4 P-6 (NATO reporting name: SS-N-3A "Shaddock") missiles, two of which were typically nuclear-tipped.

https://i.postimg.cc/Z0L126YQ/BW145.png

By 1983, though, the submarine was old, and bordering on obsolescence. In order to fire, the ocean had to be less than sea state six, but most troublingly, it had to be surfaced and moving less than four knots. It also took about five minutes from surfacing to firing, making it extremely vulnerable to ASW attack.

The Shaddocks had a range of 450 km, or 250 nmi. Their own radar could only acquire targets from about 50 nmi out, and until they did, the missile had to be guided by the Juliett's FRONT DOOR/FRONT PIECE radar, which due to its limited abilities, could only track two at a time. This meant it had to fire its missiles in salvos of 2, guide them until they acquired the enemy targets (50 nmi range), and only then could it fire another pair.

The FRONT DOOR/FRONT PIECE radar had an unusual design in that it occupied a large front section of the conning tower that had to be rotated 180 degrees for the radar to work.

https://i.postimg.cc/ns7WkDw0/BW146.png

https://i.postimg.cc/PPrBjNP5/BW147.png

Given the Shaddocks were high-flying, although supersonic, just two at a time meant that a single submarine was highly unlikely to saturate a carrier battle group's air defenses.

Also, while the missiles were guided by the radar from beyond 50 nmi to the target, the Juliett would have to remain surfaced to track and guide them with its radar.

https://i.postimg.cc/ts8fW5Ds/BW148.png

https://i.postimg.cc/cgBbqNW3/BW149.png

https://i.postimg.cc/jLgMLgnY/BW154.png

The Juliett is a close relative of the Echo II, and 16 were built. It may seem odd, given the Juliett carried half as many missiles as the Echo II, but the Juliett was actually designed after the Echo II's.

It would be fairly easy to model an Echo II if needed, but for gameplay purposes I chose the Juliett, as it would make balancing missions easier, since while you can't have half an Echo II, you can have 1 Juliett instead of 2. Also, 2 Julietts would make for more interesting and dynamic gameplay than 1 Echo-II.

https://i.postimg.cc/n9VwpwVP/BW150.png

https://i.postimg.cc/MMSFrpCx/BW151.png

Also, while a single Juliett would do little to a carrier battle group alone, and although its missile armament was designed with carrier groups in mind, it might have also proven useful against Atlantic convoy routes, where smaller escort groups would prove a more vulnerable target to its nearly-obsolete design...

https://i.postimg.cc/pmm4m7QN/BW152.png

In the end, for gameplay purposes, I'm leaning towards putting a Juliett or two in a wolfpack with other diesel-electric sub(s) against a North Atlantic convoy group, and using Echo II's for a CVBG vs. Soviet submarines mission.

On November 10th, 1983, when hostilities will have broken out, the USS Independence, a Forrestal-class aircraft carrier, had just finished assisting operations in Grenada, and was underway to the Mediterranean. This will have put it somewhere around 1,000 nmi W-SW of Spain, in the Atlantic. Given it would have been impossible to hide the carrier's presence at Grenada, it's easy to imagine that nuclear-powered Echo-II's could have attempted to intercept the Forrestal before it entered the Mediterranean...

It's certainly been interesting researching all of this. Contemporary sources were used, which means there's little chance of getting mixed up with modernizations as opposed to weapons of the time, but also means there was the limitation of what knowledge the US had peering across the Iron Curtain, so if you happen to have a more contemporary reliable source that conflicts any of this, feel free to pipe in.



Also feel free to leave responses, comments and feedback below, I'd love to hear from ya!

Until next time, good hunting.