Considering....

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Radtgaeb

I dl'd the demo, and I'm very intimidated by the vast controls (eep)

Well, it is a sim. The more complicated and less abstract it is, the better the quality of the simulated systems and environment. That being said, if you're willing to do your homework (i.e., RTFM), then it's manageable. It probably took me about a week to learn 688I back in college. Falcon 4AF took me two. Considering F4 has a bigger following than the modern subsims, I don't think the "studying" required is prohibitive.

You also have the option to use autocrew to alleviate some of the burden; just understand that some autocrew is generally ineffective (fire control comes to mind) and that others are just a stopgap measure and perform poorly compared to a human (sonar).

I have a question. How is the steam version of DW. Ive lost my CD along with Fleet command long ago. But was thinking of buying it off steam for only 19.95$

But can you mod the steam version? or are you locked to vanilla game.

To the OP i have to agree that the janes sub sim games are very different from SH games. As other have said ill agree that DW or 688i and sub command are more of a sensor simulation where SH3/SH4 are more of a command simulation.

What DW really needed was a dynamic campaing :P but i guess that it might be a bit odd since unrestricted warfare in the mordern age is not likely. But maybe a cold war setting

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Lio

What DW really needed was a dynamic campaing :P but i guess that it might be a bit odd since unrestricted warfare in the mordern age is not likely. But maybe a cold war setting

I would like to see DW go in this direction someday myself. Quick missions has alot of potential to build on however for mission variety. Maybe that would be a good start for Sonalysts someday.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Lio

I have a question. How is the steam version of DW. Ive lost my CD along with Fleet command long ago. But was thinking of buying it off steam for only 19.95$

But can you mod the steam version? or are you locked to vanilla game.

You're not locked to the vanilla game as far as modding goes (at least modding that doesn' touch the exe file and dll's).
The downside of buying DW on steam is well steam and the fact that when official patches come out you need to wait for the steam approved version.
In my opinion you're much better off buying the retail game, you don't loose anything over the steam version and you gain much more freedom.
Just my 0.2 €.

What DW really needed was a dynamic campaing :P but i guess that it might be a bit odd since unrestricted warfare in the mordern age is not likely. But maybe a cold war setting

Well randomness is built into the mission editor so "dynamic campaigns" can be developped.
If I remember correctly Silent Hunter 2 didn't have any kind of dynamic missions but enteprising modders came out with a mod that had a limited dynamic campaign engine.
So maybe something along those lines can be developped for DW.

I doubt we will ever have a full fledged dynamic campaign engine as the SH 3-4 games and to be honest I would very much prefer SCS to concetrate on the Opfor pack.
Without it DW is just over 50% of its potential.

[Molon Labe]

I agree that OPFOR should be a higher priority, but a dynamic campaign engine is pretty much an expectation for this sort of sim these days. It's a close second.

[Radtgaeb]

OPFOR? SCS? I'm still confused just trying to figure out the Demo!!

All of the calculus and Trigonometry and Geometry in the world couldn't help me out right now!

[Radtgaeb]

Oh, opposing forces, duh, Kyle....

But what in God's name is SCS.


Happy Easter, By the way.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Radtgaeb

Oh, opposing forces, duh, Kyle....

But what in God's name is SCS.


Happy Easter, By the way.

Sonalysts Combat Simulations.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I agree that OPFOR should be a higher priority, but a dynamic campaign engine is pretty much an expectation for this sort of sim these days.

The thing about a dynamic campaign engine for DW, is that I suspect it would mean that you wouldn't have as much flexibility in designing campaigns and scenarios.

For example, suppose they did the same thing they did in Falcon and just focused on the North Korean campaign. EVERYTHING you do with Falcon is framed in those terms, unless someone goes through the substantial trouble of figuring out how to build another campaign (which eventually someone did and made Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, Afganistan, etc) but it wasn't at all straightforward. It wasn't something that they intended most users to do.

Also, the time scale of naval warfare is very different from air combat. You don't fly "missions" per se. They're usually at sea well in advance of a conflict, and operating continuously throughout the conflict. Modern warships are usually given specific tasks to accomplish that take a lot of time (days or even weeks might not be uncommon). There's no such thing as a "general war patrol" anymore. Given that, I'm not sure that people would really be happy with a realistic dynamic campaign engine for naval warfare. Take the FFG for example, do you really want to spend weeks maintaining a specific position relative to a combat logistics ship as part of it's screen, hoping that maybe you'll run over a submarine attacking the SLOC? It's mostly pretty boring, and if it's played realistically, you'll most likely run away if you don't detect the submarine at a useful distance.

A dynamic campaign would probably mean that players experienced less variety in their assignments. Take the FFG example, for the duration of the campaign your job might be to protect the SLOC, and that's it. That vast majority of that time you're just sailing in a straight line looking at nothing.

Or a submarine, you're given a box and you need to kill the enemy surface ships in the box. That mission goes on continuously for weeks until you're out of torpedoes and then you go home.

The way DW is done now, you can play anywhere in the world, which is nice. One day I'm playing in the Persian Gulf, the next day I'm playing in North Korea, the next day I'm playing in China. You're not limited in your missions by specific tasking, you can make anything up. So... I guess my thoughts are be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. A dynamic campaign in a naval sim might be a lot less dynamic than you might think.

[Molon Labe]

I'd like to apologize in advance for the OT discussion...and proceed with it anyways.

For example, suppose they did the same thing they did in Falcon and just focused on the North Korean campaign. EVERYTHING you do with Falcon is framed in those terms, unless someone goes through the substantial trouble of figuring out how to build another campaign (which eventually someone did and made Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, Afganistan, etc) but it wasn't at all straightforward.

The Balkans are a stock threatre in F4AF, not an addon.

Furthermore, DW already has a global mission editor. There's no reason why that would disappear if a dynamic engine was included. It's also not fair to assume that a DW engine would have to focus on one small state or region. It's more likely that a DW engine would either be global or encompass very large regions (e.g., an RSR-style campaign spanning the North Atlantic and the Arctic.)

Also, the time scale of naval warfare is very different from air combat. You don't fly "missions" per se. They're usually at sea well in advance of a conflict, and operating continuously throughout the conflict. Modern warships are usually given specific tasks to accomplish that take a lot of time (days or even weeks might not be uncommon). There's no such thing as a "general war patrol" anymore. Given that, I'm not sure that people would really be happy with a realistic dynamic campaign engine for naval warfare. Take the FFG for example, do you really want to spend weeks maintaining a specific position relative to a combat logistics ship as part of it's screen, hoping that maybe you'll run over a submarine attacking the SLOC? It's mostly pretty boring, and if it's played realistically, you'll most likely run away if you don't detect the submarine at a useful distance.

I think it's one thing to borrow ideas from campaign engines used in other sims, but it's another thing to assume complete duplication. Sure, an SH dynamic engine is all about 'war patrol,' and an F4 engine is all about support of a regional ground war, but a DW campaign would be different. Like both of those engines, a DW engine's primary function would be to create engagements and to maintain continuity of those engagements within the overall strategic environment. Similarities beyond that can be used when it is helpful and passed over when it is unhelpful. I don't understand why you use the SH-style example of being confined to one platform (the FFG) when you just as easily could have used the F4 example of being able to move between platforms during the campaign. You also seem to have forgotten about time compression.

It might be helpful to describe what I think a dynamic DW campaign would look like. Strategic objectives for each side would probably be specified as parameters. The engine would then fashion operations necessary to complete those objectives. Players could have a hand in that planning as well. The interface would include a list of the OOB, ongoing operations, the locations and taskings of various platforms, and intelligence gathered. Players would have the option of entering playable platforms at any time...obviously, this would be done at a point in time where that platform is playing a key role, rather than just transiting to the AO.

Being more concrete, let's use an RSR/Cold War gone hot example, from a US player's perspective. Before the shooting starts, the players priority will be intelligence data, which they'll need once things heat up. The player will deploy subs to observe russian movements. One can be reasonably certain that by controlling a near russian harbors, that ship movements can be observed, so there's no problem finding action there. Once the war starts, the player should have a pretty good idea where the action is going to be. In the opening phases, there should be a lot of sub action, as the forward deployed subs attempt to sink outgoing SSNs and evade detection from Soviet MPA. Shortly thereafter, P-3s can be expected to be needed patrolling the GUIK gap as a barrier. Considering the number of subs that will be trying to run the barrier, this is guaranteed action again. As the war goes on, Soviet SAGs are detected... US subs get tasked to hit them... player jumps in the sub after it gets its orders and performs the intercept. SOSUS picks up a Soviet SSN on a course that takes it into a shipping lane; player jumps into an FFG in that lane to defend. Etc. Etc. Obviously action is more guaranteed when you are on the offense than on a defensive patrol, but that's true of F4AF as well...the player can choose a BARCAP likely to see action if he wants defense or can jump into an offensive flight...same concept applies here.

I could go on, but I've got a game starting... later!

PS: But one thing should be obvious in this about why the OPFOR pack would be so important... this campaign should be MP, which people playing on both sides. Options for the Ruskies are very limited at the moment...

What is this OPFOR pack? expansion i take it? what will it include?

omg i thought sonalyst went down under. So your saying they didnt? Or was that just the "Jane's" brand