The LWAMI 3.11 Preview Thread

[OneShot]

LwAmi doesnt add new playable models - and most likely never will. However, as far as I am concerned (and those are strictly my 2cts on this issue) we dont need new playables.

Simple reason ... in the end all thats basically changed is the 3D model and maybe the odd station. Gameplay doesnt change because regardless if you are playing an OHP or for example a BREMEN class frigate or a P3 or a Nimrod the tactics and more or less the capabilities for each platform class stay basically the same.

DW is at its core an ASW simulator and not for example an AEGIS sim or a true flightsim, thus limiting whats possible in the game. Thats ok because thats what the game is designed to do. Trying to change that just doesnt work that well - if at all.

Now the game comes with 7 diferent platforms and its quite a feat to truly master one less alone all of them. And to be frank - whats really annoying in my eyes is when people come on say "hey I got the game for 2 weeks and I mastered all platforms - why arent there more and why the heck didnt they include XY platform ...?" I seriously doubt that those have even one platform down pat.

Anyway, Ill get off my soapbox now ...

Load LwAmi and take time to go through the first class manual (written by Molon Labe) its worth reading and you will need it to use all new capabilities.
Come back with further questions

[Seamutt]

Now the game comes with 7 diferent platforms and its quite a feat to truly master one less alone all of them.

I agree, In DW it takes about 100 hours on a platform before you really know whats going on because there is just so much detail and stuff going on. Then you can start completing missions successfully without needing to start over or load a saved game. It still doesn't happen as often as I would like. It feels so good when I pass a well designed mission on the first try.

"hey I got the game for 2 weeks and I mastered all platforms - why arent there more and why the heck didnt they include XY platform ...?"

If they use autocrew at every station they are missing the game. Can you even call it playing the game if you use all the autocrews?

Oh and One shot, thanks for the Airborne Operations Manual. It really helped me get a hold on things in the beginning. The charts are useful too, especially the buoy dropping ranges. I have it laminated on my desk.

[OneShot]

Thanks ... glad It helped.

Btw. hopefully you have the most recent version available here.

Game version : 1.04 / Manual : 2.0 / LwAmi : 3.08

Cheers
OS

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by OneShot

Now the game comes with 7 diferent platforms and its quite a feat to truly master one less alone all of them. And to be frank - whats really annoying in my eyes is when people come on say "hey I got the game for 2 weeks and I mastered all platforms - why arent there more and why the heck didnt they include XY platform ...?" I seriously doubt that those have even one platform down pat.

Way to miss the reason for people wanting more than the standard 7 models included in the game. And its pure mythos that its difficult to master 1 let alone 7 units. Once you master the basics of ASW, of manual tma and evasion tactics, the seawolf, the akula, the 688 or even the kilo are the same. The differences are so small that once you've mastered the concepts using one or the other shouldn't matter at all.
The really difficult platform to master is the frigate, and only because of the number of stations, basically twice that of the other units. And in multiplayer it is designed to be crewed with 2 or 3 players.
People want more units because it enhaces immersiveness. What about designing a mission where japanese forces come up against cinese ones. Do we have to use a hypothetical japanised 688 or isn't it better to have a sub of the Harushio class ? What about scenarios where Germany or Italy have stakes ? Are we going to want to use akulas and 688 instead of Type 212s ?
Its a very condescending attitude to say that we should not aspire to have more units. Lwami is a fabulous mod, but it has the same conceptual limits of the standard game. You're forever constrained to design missions around seawolfs, 688, akulas and kilos. What if you want an opfor maritime patrol aircraft ? In the end more choice is better. Better for players, better for mission design and better for immersiveness.

[dd149]

I have to agree with Goldorak, for sure in the US, you might be facing legal issues with Sonalysts, and we all understand that you don't want to be paying back a good New York lawyer for the next ten years, but it doesn't mean that new unites are useless. Look at DWX, the gameplay has been tremendoulsy improved not only by adding playables but also by removing the bugs that Sonlaysts left in the game with patch 1.04. Your work is fantatstic and we fully respect you decision not to touch the game code and only tweak the data base, 3d models and to some extent doctrines, but whats the real difference? DWX plus Lwami, man that would be an even greater game. Many recent multiplayer and multinational sessions would maybe not attract so many peaople without the possibility to play on different platforms.

[Molon Labe]

FYI, after some prodding by To Be, I've split the "LA SSN" into the LOS ANGELES FLT I and FLT II. The boats of the FLT II class use the same entity numbers as the boats they replace. I've tested for backwards compatibility and it hasn't been a problem.

So, SSNs 719-750 now have VLS cells and have a PSL between the FLT Is and 688(I)s.

[OneShot]

Well make it three different platforms then ... sub, surface and airborne ... still different enough considering all three use different tactics.

As far as adding "new" playable platforms ... all you get are a different name and a different 3D model because according to your logic when you get down to it all subs are the same (as are the surface and air units). Now striping away the exteriors and the name of the unit you just have the stations which are generic enough ... basically you got a "western" and an "eastern" set of them (at least in the subs).

Just speaking for plain old me - thats quite enough and imersive enough because when I sit down and play the way the stations look and what 3D model I'm sitting in becomes secondary, because I'm quite preoccupied with hunting my adversary.

As far as mission building goes ... the only important thing for me is having enough and diverse AI units.

Again, those are just my own 2cts ... no condescending intended.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by OneShot

Well make it three different platforms then ... sub, surface and airborne ... still different enough considering all three use different tactics.

Yes this was the biggest enchancement of DW over SC. Complete 3d coverge of the battlefield in terms of units.

As far as adding "new" playable platforms ... all you get are a different name and a different 3D model because according to your logic when you get down to it all subs are the same (as are the surface and air units). Now striping away the exteriors and the name of the unit you just have the stations which are generic enough ... basically you got a "western" and an "eastern" set of them (at least in the subs).

Ah this is the eternal debate isn't it ? The same arguments were put forward in the Falcon 4 community when new airplanes and even aircraft carriers (for naval ops) started appearing. In the end whats the reason since all the units have to share the same "code" as that of the F-16 ? The answer is the same, short of having the simulation engine simulate each and every unit in its peculiar way, all units have to share the code. What distinguishes them are the weapons, maybe flight profiles etc... But the radar models and other things that are hardcoded well they remain fixed whatever airplane you choose.
This is more a failing of the game than of the mod. And in the end what you gain is much more than what you theoretically lose. And more importantly modding keeps the game alive.

Just speaking for plain old me - thats quite enough and imersive enough because when I sit down and play the way the stations look and what 3D model I'm sitting in becomes secondary, because I'm quite preoccupied with hunting my adversary.

Well we shall have to agree to disagree. Its not just the stations that are the same, although in RA the modders have gone far to change the aesthetics of the different stations. Even if the underlying code is the same, the graphics are not. And this adds to the immersiveness. Also the different units have different weapons, different performance charts etc... So its not correct to say that all the units are the same. And another thing, RA fixes long standing and new bugs of the navalsimengine. You can't be really against it. I suppose you would be even more supportive of Lwami if the lwammi modders could somehow fix bugs in the navalsimengine without adding new units. So you see, its not just a matter of adding new units. The whole sim is improved, and with RA you can stay with your standard akula, seawolf, kilos and 688 if you want.

As far as mission building goes ... the only important thing for me is having enough and diverse AI units.

Its too bad, because if you had experienced how missions are designed and played in the french, italian and polish communities you would be all over RA.

Again, those are just my own 2cts ... no condescending intended.

As the latins used to say "de gustibus non est disputandum".

[dd149]

Could not say it better Goldorakbut no offense intended anyway, the community is one even if members do not always share same opinions on everything.
Let us dream about a game which could use all the developments, it is maybe not so far awayWe are already co operating for debugging and multiplayer sessions internationally, and for example Millsab mod included models by Tlam Strike as well as some parts by Lwami and RA, with their authorization obviously, so it can happen.