Blue Water Development Diary

[Ramba]

Sounds like a very intresting project.

What game engine are you using and how big is the development team?


I grew up with DC and FC and would fully support such a game.

[AzureSkies]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack345

Wow, this looks very interesting! I will definitely be keeping an eye on it.
I've been having an itch for a modern Surface Naval Warfare game and it looks like this will scratch it!
Keep up the good work! Can't wait to see more.

Thanks! I have been wanting this for a long time as well.

Originally Posted by jaop99

Something similar to CMANO and Jane's Fleet Command will be well received! With 3D view like the last one!

Originally Posted by p7p8

this screens looks similar to CW so i have some questions:

1. Can you write main differences your game and Cold Waters?

2. Screens shows in right bottom part of display "tactical window" with few buttons. Is in Full mode you will see additional stations like active/passive sonar, towed array, radar, ESM/ECM, damages etc?

3 what is purpose of an adjustable "world scale" slider that modifies the range of all weapons and sensors

4. How you imagine time compression in MP mode?

5. Will you make "link" for information exchange between warships in battlegroup and other forces like AWACS, naval ELINT airplanes, MPA, submarines and land radar stations?

1. I'd say apart from being in the genre of naval games, there's more differences than similarities. One is a singleplayer sub sim where you control a single platform. Blue Water is one where you control a group of ships, with equal attention to subsurface and air assets, with a focus on surface ships (ie battlegroups) and some land installations as well that interact heavily with naval units - such as airbases and SAM sites.

2. Those aren't stations, those are orders you can issue to the ship. Normally an RTS only has to deal with a few commands to send to units, so I had to get creative in coming up with a way to deal with much more complicated affairs like enabling/disabling active sensors, managing a hangar, engaging orders with different weapons with programmable things like waypoints, etc., and decided, "why not keep it thematically appropriate?"

There's a number of UI elements still missing, though.

3. To be able to switch from a more arcadey playstyle that happens on short time scales, to one that might take a lot longer. It serves a similar purpose to time compression.

4. Currently looking at going on the slowest requested speed, but open to community suggestions.

5. It'd be a neat feature, but would be a bit more advanced to implement than necessary. If the game's received well and there are greater resources available, then perhaps it's something that could be added further down the line.

Originally Posted by Sulikate

Amazing news! May the most favorable winds blow you through developing the game... although we're probably talking engines, not sails, on this one

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Ramba

Sounds like a very intresting project.

What game engine are you using and how big is the development team?


I grew up with DC and FC and would fully support such a game.

The Unity game engine, and as of the moment, the team is closer to the size of Killerfish Games than a larger studio. Namely, a programmer looking for contracts with artists. I have to give a shoutout of thanks to them for their work proving that a small indie team can make a quality product.

[nimmerzz]

Ive been looking for a successor to Destroyer Command for a long time! Good luck to you and i'd be happy to pre-purchase if that means we get to support your development. I feel like 50-60 bucks is a small risk if that means possibly getting the game you have wanted for decades.

[Herman]

Originally Posted by AzureSkies

3. To be able to switch from a more arcadey playstyle that happens on short time scales, to one that might take a lot longer. It serves a similar purpose to time compression.

It is true that the 1:1 (Real Time) makes games appear to be more twitch-like, but it should be remembered that, in real life, there would be many different competent individuals in command of the various positions and units. Instead, we have a game where nearly every command must be given by the player. To allow him the ability to pause or slow down so that he can issue orders to many different units (which would operate autonomously in real life), is not unreasonable.

Originally Posted by AzureSkies

4. Currently looking at going on the slowest requested speed, but open to community suggestions.

As far as I know, going on the slowest requested speed is common for most Real Time Simulation games. Of course, there are limitations. In my many Harpoon ANW MP sessions, I encountered some of them. One such situation was the various play styles.

I met one opponent who insisted on playing only at 1:1 or 1:5 second time compression and would throw a fit if anyone asked him to play faster because he felt rushed. So, he kept the game at a max 1:5 ratio. The problem was, we were playing scenarios with 5 day duration. Also, folks would get distracted or bored and wander away to attend to other matters. When combat finally occurred, they often were away from the keyboard and out of control of their units. In the end, the player who most often won was the fellow who played at the slowest rate because everyone had to leave after an hour or got bored and quit.

I am not certain there will ever be a 'solution' for this situation. I think it may just be a fact of life that some opponents should never play some other opponents. I am not critical of his style/tempo of play, but most everyone, myself included, just stopped playing against him. I just did not find the sessions fun or enjoyable. I am just as certain that other ANW players did not enjoy me slowing down the game to issue orders or attend to other minutiae.

[p7p8]

LINK - or any information exchange is needed if you want to make multiplayer mode with cooperation option - where two players controls own warship/submarine and have different sensors and abilities. For example submarine player haven't the same "surface" situation picture like warship commander.
If multiplayer will be only 1 vs 1 link is not needed. But i think most players would like to play with team vs another players team.

For me best solution would be assigning roles. From battle group commander (where player controls own unit + every AI, to warship commander - where player controls only ownship


About time acceleration:
In my opinion it depends on maximum scale of battle. If map size will have thousands kilometers it really have sense. But i think scale shouldn't be so big. For me better solution than "slowest requested speed" will be automatically time managements. For example at beginning of battle both sides havent enemy contact and game would run x2 or x4. It allows to move own forces to key strategic points or for better tactical planning. After detection or some speciffic events (opening fire etc.) game will change time compression to x1.
It will eliminate situation described by @Herman

[Herman]

Originally Posted by p7p8

For me better solution than "slowest requested speed" will be automatically time managements. For example at beginning of battle both sides havent enemy contact and game would run x2 or x4. It allows to move own forces to key strategic points or for better tactical planning. After detection or some speciffic events (opening fire etc.) game will change time compression to x1.
It will eliminate situation described by @Herman

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.

[p7p8]

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:

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.

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

[Herman]

Originally Posted by p7p8

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:

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.

[Ramba]

Originally Posted by AzureSkies

Namely, a programmer looking for contracts with artists. I have to give a shoutout of thanks to them for their work proving that a small indie team can make a quality product.

So you are basically doing this alone?

[Sea Demon]

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

[Medley1991]

Amazing news !

Good luck guys...

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

Thanks !

[AzureSkies]

Originally Posted by Herman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramba

So you are basically doing this alone?

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

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Medley1991

Amazing news !

Good luck guys...

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

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.

[Medley1991]

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

NATO, all nations ? All naval/air units ?

[Herman]

Originally Posted by AzureSkies

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.

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.

[ijozic]

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.