Considering....

[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.

[Hertston]

I disagree about the dynamic campaign. Not that it wouldn't necessarily be a good addition, just that it is a significant omission. DW doesn't really need a dynamic campaign any more than Harpoon 3 does.

DW is scenario based, but those scenarios are very easy to create yourself - in a few minutes for simple stuff. The setting doesn't lead to WW2 "go on patrol and sink stuff" missions, and your sub's actions would be pretty much led by intel and subsequent orders anyway - which doesn't leave much for a 'campaign' to do unless it forms a full strategic layer. In the timescales concerned crew development, promotions and such would be a nonsense. And any random encounters are likely to far less interesting than designed scenarios.

IMHO $19.95 is ludicrous price for such a quality piece of software, and anyone with the slightest interest in naval warfare shouldn't hestitate in picking it up. I can't see the point of using Steam.. it's not difficult getting a box copy for a couple of dollars more. If it's still available anywhere, get hold of the spiral bound printed manual too - unlike SH4, DW did the manual bit properly.

[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

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Lio

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

The OPFOR pack is a hypothetical expansion that would include platforms which are counterparts to the current playables. Such a pack would likely include either a Krivak or Udaloy to balance the OHP, a Helix opposite the MH-60, an IL-38 opposite the P-3, and perhaps a western SSK opposite the Kilo.

Janes was a former marketer of SCS games. SCS is still around.

Awesome, but i understand you right if i say that the "OPFOR" pack isnt planned and nothing official have been heard from SCS?

Ill keep my hopes up, and thx for the info

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Lio

Awesome, but i understand you right if i say that the "OPFOR" pack isnt planned and nothing official have been heard from SCS?

Ill keep my hopes up, and thx for the info

Lets say that the Opfor pack was to be developped in the eventuality that Dangerous Waters sold well.
We are not there yet, so SCS as I understand isn't commiting any kind of resources for an Opfor pack for us poor civilian players.