Fun questions to ponder about the future of subsims

[Pillar]

Imagine a strategy game that uses Dangerous Waters (or something like it) to resolve the naval portion of the overall gameplay. How do you think would be the best way for the naval game to interface with the strategic world?

For example, a persistent environment where vessels are crewed in real time, perhaps the same crews (like "guilds") crewing the same vessels...

Or maybe something like harpoon? (AI vessels directed by single people, either one player per vessel, fleet, or whatever.)

A mix of the two, where situations generate "encounters" or battles in DW? (In this case, the disadvantage is that getting an encounter is "meta" information that influences game behavior - e.g.,who is going to start an "encounter battle" at full throttle/transit and remain that way?)

In terms of the state of DW right now, what modification would be most well suited to multiplayer gameplay/battle resolutions?

What size is the community of multiplayer DW players right now?

[Molon Labe]

That's exactly what I want. I think a tactical sim like DW should have a campaign engine that tracks events at the strategic/operational level--something like a fleet command interface or the campaign engine in Falcon 4.0. This would allow you to use the tactical sim to resolve combat actions generated by player actions on the strategic sim.

How do you think would be the best way for the naval game to interface with the strategic world?

For example, a persistent environment where vessels are crewed in real time, perhaps the same crews (like "guilds") crewing the same vessels...

Having specific crews and the like would require a larger player pool than we can count on for modern naval sims. Would be nice to have.

Overall I think the best solution is to have a stategic interface that allows you players to log onto a persistant server (of course the clock would only run when people are in fact logged on), and then begin a tactical simulation in a platform and at a time of the players' chosing. AI reports would be provided to the stategic interface from platforms regarding contacts (sensors or flaming datum/distress calls) and such. And don't underestimate the value of anticipated contact (such as when platforms are nearing an objective). You don't get the "meta information" problem with this because you don't organize an encounter independently of the stategic sim. The tactical and strategic sims run in parallel, and the players move from one to the other as they please.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

That's exactly what I want. I think a tactical sim like DW should have a campaign engine that tracks events at the strategic/operational level--something like a fleet command interface or the campaign engine in Falcon 4.0. This would allow you to use the tactical sim to resolve combat actions generated by player actions on the strategic sim.

The thing is that for some reason, everyone who makes a naval sim locks themselves into the idea that they HAVE to make it capable of modeling any naval conflict in the world. And it's true that one of the cool things about Harpoon is that it can do that. The last naval sim I remember that was built around a specific theatre was Microprose's Red Storm Rising. Falcon's engine is neat because it doesn't HAVE to use the North Korean campaign, but you have to do something to switch it. It loads a whole different database to support it. I wonder why they don't do a similar thing with a naval simulation.

The other thing I wish they'd do is figure out how to model the interaction of ground units and naval units better. I'd also really enjoy seeing some amphibious operations.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

The thing is that for some reason, everyone who makes a naval sim locks themselves into the idea that they HAVE to make it capable of modeling any naval conflict in the world. And it's true that one of the cool things about Harpoon is that it can do that. The last naval sim I remember that was built around a specific theatre was Microprose's Red Storm Rising. Falcon's engine is neat because it doesn't HAVE to use the North Korean campaign, but you have to do something to switch it. It loads a whole different database to support it. I wonder why they don't do a similar thing with a naval simulation.

The other thing I wish they'd do is figure out how to model the interaction of ground units and naval units better. I'd also really enjoy seeing some amphibious operations.

It's not the "any conflict" that I'm after so much as persistence and context.

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

It's not the "any conflict" that I'm after so much as persistence and context.

This Is No Global Sim Action.

Simply - this is tactical , operative limited area...

Never compare Harpoon and DW is is simply incompatible....

[Castout]

Originally Posted by -GrayOwl-

This Is No Global Sim Action.

Simply - this is tactical , operative limited area...

Never compare Harpoon and DW is is simply incompatible....

Hi GrayOwl what happened to your old account I see now your post count is starting all over again to 1?

Nice to see you back

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

It's not the "any conflict" that I'm after so much as persistence and context.

And I think that's fair. That's what I liked about Red Storm Rising, because to a certain extent the campaign relied on scripted "random events" but the ground war was like some sort of random walk.

These days I think they could do a lot better than Red Storm Rising. Maybe if they built the game around a hypothetical China-Taiwan-US conflict set 20-30 years in the future. It'd be complete science fiction, but it'd be fun. There'd be the capability to load other campaigns, but the starting point with be that one.

I guess you'd have to build the campaign engine first, and then go back and build in the ability to "jump into" specific platforms. The thing is, since ships can be at sea for weeks or months at a time, you're probably not going to want to play just one vessel for the entire campaign. You'd probably want to be able to say, "today I'm going to be a 774 over here" and then when that gets boring, you could jump into the AEGIS cruiser way out because TBMs are coming over the horizon, or a DDG-1000 attached to an ESG because Marines have called for naval surface fires.

Of course, if you WANTED to you could just stay in one vessel and drive doughnuts in the ocean for days at a time between engagements. It's up to you.

There should also be the capability like in Falcon for players to make their own scenarios.

[goldorak]

Having a dynamic campaign a la Falcon 4 is not going to happen.
Be realistic. Even in flight sims, no one cares anymore for that kind of experience. Its sad but true, Falcon 4 was the pinacle of military flight simulation. Nothing since can even compete in the same league.
The real deal would be to have a dynamic mission generator, something much simpler than the Falcon 4 engine, something like the RSR engine. Updated for a modern scenario but still that kind of engine would be achievable with the economic constraints of naval sim game development.
Any other option is purely academic.

The SH series is an exception because WW2 has still a kiind of romantic vision. Also the fact that subs stayed most of the time on the surface makes the "graphics" part much more interesting and appealing to gamers.
There is nothing wrong with rendering 200-2000 ft deep abyss but since you're inside the tin can its not much of an appeal. Now if on the other hand we could have the interior of the subs modelled with precision, and the stations etc... rendered realistically, even if you never saw the outside who would care. You would be rivited to sonar screens, maps , tactical displays etc... The only sim I can think of that really nailed down this aspect was Sierra Fast Attack. A pity that developers never learn to copy or be insipred by the good things in other people's products.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

The thing is, since ships can be at sea for weeks or months at a time, you're probably not going to want to play just one vessel for the entire campaign. You'd probably want to be able to say, "today I'm going to be a 774 over here" and then when that gets boring, you could jump into the AEGIS cruiser way out because TBMs are coming over the horizon, or a DDG-1000 attached to an ESG because Marines have called for naval surface fires.

Of course, if you WANTED to you could just stay in one vessel and drive doughnuts in the ocean for days at a time between engagements. It's up to you.

Eh, that's what time compression is for. I don't see any reason why you couldn't play the whole war as a single platform, as long as you choose one that's going to have some action. You know, don't choose the sub that's doing a barrier outside a base that may or may not deploy any boomers, choose the one with some offensive ASUW and strike tasking, for example. The total number of "encounters" might be low, but that's just how it goes.

Having a dynamic campaign a la Falcon 4 is not going to happen.
Be realistic. Even in flight sims, no one cares anymore for that kind of experience.

Wow. I've only been gone from the Falcon 4 community for about a year, but when I was there all anyone ever played was campaigns, both offline and in MP. I have a hard time believing that has changed so quickly.

I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation in any case. Getting a new sim anytime soon is the pipe dream. But if we get one, I'd be surprised if it didn't have a campaign feature considering the disappointment caused by the lack of a true campaign engine in DW and the success of the campaign based SH series. I think a dynamic campaign engine is simply part of the consumer's basic expectations at this point in time.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Wow. I've only been gone from the Falcon 4 community for about a year, but when I was there all anyone ever played was campaigns, both offline and in MP. I have a hard time believing that has changed so quickly.

I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation in any case. Getting a new sim anytime soon is the pipe dream. But if we get one, I'd be surprised if it didn't have a campaign feature considering the disappointment caused by the lack of a true campaign engine in DW and the success of the campaign based SH series. I think a dynamic campaign engine is simply part of the consumer's basic expectations at this point in time.

No you misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that no commercial developer has taken upon himself to make a product that not only equals but outshines Falcon 4. Of course players love Falcon 4, until something else comes along that delivers a 360 degree better experience that is.
And something like this is not going to happen, just look at all the military simulations.
Black Shark could have been a testbed for a dynamic campaign in the caucasus region, instead all you get are scripted missions and an editor.
There is a new WWI military air simulation. Same problem, all scripted missions and multiplayer. No dynamic campaign, not even a casual mission generator. I mean the games from thirdwire have a primitive random mission generator and no AAA software house can do something like that ?
It really means they are not interested. Why ? Who knows. Maybe players prefer simple multiplayer instead of these epic campaigns.

[Dr.Sid]

Interesting topic.

I think for most sims, dynamic campaign is another layer, another heap of work. Campaign has larger scope then missions. You play missions, then you jumo into campaign, which generally generates new missions.
It is true for flightsims, and for example for DW too.
In my sim I can have even missions with global scope, which makes campaign just a huge mission, with half of the fleet in SF bay, and other half near Taiwan.
Huge campaign is then just a solving of performance issues, by for example having some passive mode for units which are not in hot zones at the moment.
I too believe in freedom. In this model you don't even have to split campaign into missions. You could play a sub commander for while, empty its ammo racks, then switch to different sub (or destroyer or carrier) and just order the sub you have just left to head for rearm. Or you could be sitting on your flagship all the time and just give orders Fleet Command style, or even at higher level.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Eh, that's what time compression is for. I don't see any reason why you couldn't play the whole war as a single platform, as long as you choose one that's going to have some action.

Time compression would be an essential too. These days, the US Navy is sufficiently small that EVERY ship is going to see some action, it just depends on when and what kind of action it's going to be. There's definitely going to have to be a campaign timeline, though, so in the very beginning of the campaign, the action might be delivering special operators, then as hostilities start it'd more in ASuW and strike, then as there are fewer and fewer surface platforms, it'd taper off in the ASuW arena, and finally as marines are landed it'd be about naval surface fires, mine warfare, special operations, and what not.

You know, don't choose the sub that's doing a barrier outside a base that may or may not deploy any boomers, choose the one with some offensive ASUW and strike tasking, for example.

That's another way players could control their "fun" factor. Ultimately, every mission in the campaign should have a challenge of it's own. In the campaign you wouldn't task an SSN to hold SSBNs at risk unless at least one was going to be at sea during the conflict. It's missions like that where I think it'd be best to be able to "jump in and out" of the platforms. In Falcon you could do that and I think there was a lot to be said for it. Air war is such that I didn't use the feature a whole lot, but I suspect in a naval sim, it'd be more valuable.

[Pillar]

What about DW as it stands now (with a mod, to be sure)...?

A campaign layer could easily provide inputs for scenario generation in DW right now, it just would have to be built by hand.

The last time I played DW multiplayer, it lasted about 4 hours of real time (you can't time-compress, or couldn't at the time - can you?) and it was pretty dull stuff.

Do you guys foresee any problems getting people to link up and play out such long scenarios on a regular basis?

[Molon Labe]

Why do we have to try to forsee what is already occurring with DW? Or did you mean forsee problems with the campaign engine? Because problems such as this are exactly what a campaign engine addresses--by allowing saves, reconnects, time compression, and the ability to break up a conflict into parts.

[Pillar]

What I mean is, if the campaign tracker existed but the battles still had to be resolved in DW *as is* (with mods), would there be problems getting battles resolved? If so what problems? (I gave the example of the time it takes to play out a mission in DW)

Last time I played MP DW we couldn't time compress... I'm not sure if that is still the case or how it works, so I'm curious about that. Saves, reconnects... are these not in DW MP now?

Thanks