Array swivel.

[SeaQueen]

Its tempting to invite you to contribute scenario/s and/or a primer for DW scenario designers to demonstrate
some of the theoretical considerations.

I actually have thought about the idea. I'm playing around with some stuff.

I think when we discussed Harpoon you felt that much of the same could be implemented in DW scenario design.
Has this 'full' potential been demonstrated yet ?

Sort of. I don't think DW is Harpoon. They're two different games that look at different things. What I meant was that DW scenarios people design tend to be very one-on-one oriented, while really, they ought to work them around so that you have YOUR one platform and it fits into a larger scenario.

My favorite thing to do, is start off with a single formation of warships, like an ESG, CVBG, or even a small surface action group, then think about that the group is trying to accomplish, and figure out how to give a player on a playable platform a key role in that.

I wish that DW had more support for special operations. In particular, I wish they could deploy SOF and Marines from helocopters. I also wish there were more land-based objects. I think it's important when designing a scenario to remember that events on land usually motivate events at sea, so most events at sea feed into a larger land battle somehow.

The game needs someone, like you, to move us on.

Thank you. I'm actually tossing around some stuff slowly, as I have time. Eventually you might see some stuff.

[Bellman]

SQ.

I am delighted that my pitch was not too crude and it is magic to hear-

I actually have thought about the idea. I'm playing around with some stuff......Eventually you might see .......

I am quite excited about the prospect. :|\

Having Harpooned many years I am a little frustrated by attempts to translate Group tactics into scenarios.
The designer tools are flexible and extensive but cumbersome for non-programmers.

I have some thoughts on organising for design which I will post separately, to avoid further pressure
I will continue to prepare my 'Yellow Submarine'

[XabbaRus]

Deploying speial forces by helo can be acheived with a fudge of goals and stuff. I guess you don't need to actually see them being deployed just that there is a helicopter doing its thing and a 688i has to take out some SAM batteries for it to succeed.

[Mau]

Yes I remember in Sub Command there was a mission that you had to meet an helicopter and be right under it for a period of 2 minutes or so. At that point the XO onbord the Sub was saying that we had received the team onboard (but yes we didn't see them going down the rope - no big deal)

That would be a great idea of scenario!

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Deploying speial forces by helo can be acheived with a fudge of goals and stuff. I guess you don't need to actually see them being deployed just that there is a helicopter doing its thing and a 688i has to take out some SAM batteries for it to succeed.

I know... but it'd make the MH-60 a little bit more fun platform when an infantry squad appeared around you helo after you accomlished whatever it you had to do to deploy them. Or... if you could deploy them like in the submarine, only they'd fast-rope out or somehing.

Similar things could be done with the CH-46 and MV-22.

While we're talking about SAMS... I wish there were more varieties. At least a shoulder-fired v. fixed emplacement. The fixed emplacements you can sometimes avoid by ESM. The shoulder fired ones just jump out of nowhere. If someone could put a shoulder-fired SAM in a scenario, it'd make it a little more versatile in terms of the types of scenarios one could represent, because NOT everyone in the world has heavy duty fixed SAM emplacements. LOTS of people have shoulder fired SA-7s, SA-14s, RPGs, etc...

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Having Harpooned many years I am a little frustrated by attempts to translate Group tactics into scenarios.
The designer tools are flexible and extensive but cumbersome for non-programmers.

In DW? I can see that, but the thing I like about DW is that it has a programming language like way of doing things like determining victory conditions and the behaviors of elements in the game. One of the things I dislike about Harpoon is that it's often hard to develop nuanced victory conditions or behaviors. That's one of the strengths of DW. As far as naval simulations go, I think they're uniquely complimentary.

[quote]I have some thoughts on organising for design which I will post separately, to avoid further pressure [.quote]

I'd like to see them.

I will continue to prepare my 'Yellow Submarine'

One of these days I'll figure out how to get into a network game. I'd probably have fun. The thing is, the way I play is kind of boring to most people because I'll set up a scenario where it's not impossible for it to go for a few days and nobody's found a thing yet.

I'm sort of a search theory / acoustics geek. Koopman was a great mathematican, but making real-time wargames based on search theory problems makes for games which require a great deal of patience to play. Most people just want to start shooting at each other. FINDING each other is a problem they don't want to cope with. Unfortunately, I think they're missing one of the central issues of war at sea: hours and hours and hours of boredom followed by a few seconds of exchanging weapons.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

I'm sort of a search theory / acoustics geek. Koopman was a great mathematican, but making real-time wargames based on search theory problems makes for games which require a great deal of patience to play. Most people just want to start shooting at each other. FINDING each other is a problem they don't want to cope with. Unfortunately, I think they're missing one of the central issues of war at sea: hours and hours and hours of boredom followed by a few seconds of exchanging weapons.

Don't forget that after all is said and done DW remains a game.
You seriously can't expect to have scenarios that run for many hours or days and have people to play with in multiplayer online.
I like simulations, play regularly Falcon 4 AF, DW, Orbiter but I also work during the week, so its impossibile to play scenarios that take days to complete.
A good scenario can take 2 hours, that is enough time to track a target, get a solution, fire, evade etc...
That doesn't mean that we are looking for Doom 3 alike death matches.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Don't forget that after all is said and done DW remains a game.
You seriously can't expect to have scenarios that run for many hours or days and have people to play with in multiplayer online.

Exactly. I play with DW from a slightly odd perspective, so scenarios I think are fun are sometimes not always entertaining to other people. Educational... maybe. Fun? Only if you're not expecting to sit there in front of the computer the whole time. I typically start a game running and check in every once in a while. :-)

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

Exactly. I play with DW from a slightly odd perspective, so scenarios I think are fun are sometimes not always entertaining to other people. Educational... maybe. Fun? Only if you're not expecting to sit there in front of the computer the whole time. I typically start a game running and check in every once in a while. :-)

You know what is missing in DW ?
A dynamic campaign the like of which is found in Falcon 4.
Setup a server with the campaign running for weeks, with many pilots getting in and out of the campaign arbitrarily all the while the war goes on.
Think of a naval crisis that goes on for weeks, missions are generated randomly for subs, air assets, etc.... your performance in the mission impacts on the strategic level.
Now that would be the holy grail of naval warfare.

[Bellman]

SQ

The DW problem is mine in coping with the tools SA has provided.
I will get back to you by the weekend on 'organising' - I flew a kite in Mission Design Groups ? Few takers.

The 'extended' play idea is interesting but I agree with gpldorak the Falcon 4 AF (Freefalcon) ongoing campaign
sucks you in, involves you, at one level while feeding the adrenalin with missions.(usualy less than 1 hour)

But does it need that level of software complexity ? - sims like Tornado (ran on 386 ?) managed campaigns with levels
of involvement from Flight leader to Squadron Leader with increased planning, operational and logistical control.

I still like the idea of Total Air War (DID) and Falcon of having the AWACS perspective and tactical
mission control and beeing able to jump into the pilots seet in 3D
at any time to get the job done.

Gimme - Fleet Command and DW umbilicaly joined.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Think of a naval crisis that goes on for weeks, missions are generated randomly for subs, air assets, etc.... your performance in the mission impacts on the strategic level.
Now that would be the holy grail of naval warfare.

If that was the case, then what you really want is essentially a version of Harpoon, where you could play just one of a zillion different platforms and the rest were handled by AIs. The thing there is, that a lot of the possibility for really nuanced victory conditions is lost. I think the strong point of DW is the triggers and scripts, which allow one to make some very nuanced scenarios. I don't see how a dynamic campaign could really take advantage of that.

The hard part for me, though, is always boiling a scenario down to the essentials. I can imagine a strategic "snapshot" of a hypothetical conflict, but then picking out just a small portion of the big picture and saying, "this is what you've got in this tiny vignette" is hard, because it's all interconnected. *shrug*

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Bellman

The DW problem is mine in coping with the tools SA has provided.
I will get back to you by the weekend on 'organising' - I flew a kite in Mission Design Groups ? Few takers.

I'll have to look at it.

The 'extended' play idea is interesting but I agree with gpldorak the Falcon 4 AF (Freefalcon) ongoing campaign
sucks you in, involves you, at one level while feeding the adrenalin with missions.(usualy less than 1 hour)

I'm not sure that makes much sense from the perspective of a warship though because these days a warship is essentially ALWAYS in danger. In an air combat sim, there is time in the air and time on the ground, where the time scales are different.

A warship in a conflict never really gets any "downtime," because at any moment things could suddenly start happening very quickly, and they might not even be aware of that they occuring. Because of the time scales and distances involved with the weapons and sensors, there isn't a big distinction between "strategic" warfare and "tactical" warfare. It's all sort of mooshed together.

In real life, ASW battles take several days to fight out but most of that time is not spent dodging torpedos. It's spent driving back and fourth in the ocean, adjusting sensors and dropping BTs. By the time someone actually starts shooting, the situation has probably become hopelessly one-sided. The real gamesmanship is in the period leading up the the weapons exchanges, putting one's self in a position to strike effectively first. The shooting is just the end of a long-long-long process.

I actually think DW at it's best is potentially not ASW. For me, an ASW battle takes a whole weekend to play. A quick littoral surface engagement with helos and missile boats, I can do in a few hours. The submarine stuff, to do it realistically, though, takes forever.

[Bellman]

Aircraft in Falcon 4 are ''Always'' in danger both on the ground and in the air. There can be no risk 'Downtime.'

But yes the differences between Naval and flight sims are there but surely not insurmountable ? Whether they are
ones that the AI could overcome I dont know. A slowly evolving chess game yes but at school we played
'musical-chair' chess. Now the computor runs the game between player changes ?

The challenge from the AWACS (Total War) perspective is to prioritise objectives and identify developing
threats and change missions on the hoof. The player has quasi strategic control ,which can be temporarily
abandoned to AI, while he intervenes in 3D tactically. Falcon approaches the player control interphase rather
differently and in much greater detailed campaign planning involvement.

In this AWACS setting there is no player 'downtime.' Could we have Fleet Command+DW with an Admirals seat/s with similar
strategic and tactical control ? Yes there are long, long delays involved in manouvre, positioning, reconnaisance,
hunting or simply getting into the OP. All the more reason for our gifted 'plate-spinning' Admiral to coordinate
the big picture and stand ready to leap via his magical bosuns chair transportation to any DW AI but playable platform
which required tactical intervention.

I remember an over enthusiastic SATCO (Senior Air Traffic Control Officer) training junior officers on the job(sic) who
couldnt resist going down the line of CRTs jumping-in and taking over. Risible or impressive, depends on your
perspective, but that is in essence the role I propose in my call for a Fleet Command and DW type merger.
A similar requirement would be for our FFG Admiral to be able to jump into an AI controlled Heli. P3 or sub.

The analogy is not complete because the SP game role could combine all the other planning, mission design and
logistical control functions inherent in wearing an Admirals Hat. But our game Admiral stands ready to roll up
his sleeves and get stuck-in at the sharp-end. And in MP with multi-tasking our Admiral (Commodore here!)
would not need to 'jump ship' as he could be resident.(?)

'Off the wall' Another possibility is if the Admiral could become our in-game Mission Designer creating simplified
tactical missions for his side on the hop ? Egs. Coordinate platforms X,Y and Z where AI controlled.

The problems are immense in achieving Harpoon in Action, (or on Speed ?) Even without a programming
background I can see its an Everest to climb.

But I can dream ! :hmm:


PS. 'A Mars landing' challenge also is possibly to achieve the game nuances of DWs laborious triggered
and scripted design mechanism by means of a more user friendly Harpoon style interphase.
But maybes that just my problem/s