Gauging interest in longer MP scenarios

[Molon Labe]

Can you tell I'm a little excited about 1.04?
I'm hoping that maybe things will pick up around here now that the patch is released too, and I'd like to do my part to move things along by pumping out a few more missions. So here's an idea I've been "kicking around the office."

Force on Force Scenario
General Concept: Two opposing sides with equivalent Orders of Battle are positioned in a nearly symetrical environment. The OOB for both sides are well rounded such that victory will require mutual support between platform classes. The forces of both sides begin a significant distance away from each other and must transit a significant distance before they are able to achieve their objectives. Because the initial tactical situation is at a very early stage, the method through which the objectives are acheived are determined by the players, rather than set up by the designer.

Specific Working Concept: Sea Lanes of Communication: Two fictitious neighboring states, armed with US (and Russian and/or Chinese) platforms, are engaged in a war of attrition are are at a stalemate. The side which is able to resupply its forces before the other will achieve a breakthrough. A fixed number of merchant vessels are inbound to both sides ports, and will arrive at approximately regular intervals over the course of several hours (the current working proposal is 4 hours, although that can be variable based on interest and might be limited by practical design issues). The naval forces are charged with denying the enemy merchantmen access to their ports while protecting their own SLOC.

Design Advantages
A. Balancing
1. Patrol Area Size: Balancing the P-3 in many scenarios is incredibly difficult. The main reason for this, as SeaQueen and GDT participants have mentioned, is that the patrol area in the typical scenario is too small. Detection of any subs in that area is a near certainty. This scenario concept seeks to solve the problem, in part, by increasing the size of the patrol area--this working concept has patrol areas approximately 80X100nm.

2. Multiple mission demands: The need to conduct offensive and defensive operations at the same time over a large area means that platforms may have to divide their time and/or loadout on different tasks. This is particularly true for the P-3, which might be needed for recon or ASUW and and be ordered to leave buoy monitoring to FFG's or helos for a time--which both makes the bubbleheads' lives a little easier if the airdale gets distracted, and gives the airdale something else to do besides watching buoys for hours on end. (It's also an opportunity to put LW's enhanced SLAM-ER to good use.) FFGs may have to switch between ASW and missile defense, helos between ASW and scouting, and subs may have to deal with ASW, ASUW, and Strike tasking over the course of the mission--making the mission more interesting and forcing the players to make tactical choices (and tradeoffs).

3. Mutual support/Unit-Counter unit relationships: The involvement of 3 platform classes creates an approximate unit relationship triangle: FFG-->Air-->Sub-->FFG. You must depend on your teammates, and they depend on you.

4. Sub choice tradeoffs: Since subs can potentially have surveilance, ASW, ASUW, or Strike tasking, and face significant threats from air and subsurface platforms, the sub choices present a tradeoff dilemma. The Seawolf will perform best in open water against noisier subs, and has the best chance of being undetected while transiting. But it has substantially less ASUW and Strike capability than the Akula and 688I. The Akula is particularly fearsome at ASUW, but is much more easily detected by sonobouys and US towed arrays than the US subs. (assuming LW/Ami use).

B. Dynamic "mini-campaign"
If I get it right, then the "campaign" should not necessarily unfold the same way every time. Different sides will be able to chose how they deploy their forces to acheive victory. Such choices include whether a platform will be used offensively or defensively, whether to attack relatively unprotected targets or to engage enemy forces head-on, and what the best method of attack against the objective shipping will be (blockade near port, aerial, surface, or subsurface missile attack, torpedo attack...mines?)

C. Decisons under time pressure with imperfect information
The size and complexity of the mini-campaign allows more emphasis to be placed on intelligence and the "sensor war" than in a typical scenario. Specifically, the players will not have specific targeting information on the target ships. They will have to be identified through a combination of intelligence updates, deduction, and sensor information--and the enemy has a lot to say about what sensor information you can get. Shooting carelessly could result in severe consequences if a neutral is hit, and due to the length of the mission, wasted shots hurt too. On the other hand, opportunities to take the shot may be fleeting.

D. Time-flexibility: This particular version presents the possibility of having an agreed-upon time limit shorter than the full duration. It can take the form of "most arrivals in X time" or a "race to X ships," for example.

Design Disadvantages
A. Time.
Even with flexible time criteria, the minimum time needed to accomplish anything will be significant. It is doubtful that objective targets can be reached before the 2 hour mark, unless I screw up and open the door to unpreventable missile strikes early on. I think most would have to aside a weekend afternoon for this.

B. Possible lulls in the action.
Long transits for FFGs and subs might mean long periods of boredom. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the potential for air attack, or stumbling into an enemy vessel, is always present.

C. Limited Dynamic elements.
The goal of keeping both sides equivalent means there are some elements that aren't very random. Starting positions of combattant vessels will be pretty much known--what isn't known is where they'll have moved to by the time of first contact. Approximate symetry and regular arrival times mean that the locations of the target ships will also not vary too much from mission to mission.

D. Number of players
This won't even begin to pay off without at least 4 players, and won't be what it was intended to be without at least 6. Ideally, 10+.

E. Time to build
This won't be done anytime soon. In trying to keep the target ships as dynamic as practicable, and to provide intelligence updates and related scripting unique to the types and locations of the target ships, there's a lot of dynamic groups and triggers that need to be set up...and tested and troubleshot. RL's going to keep me busy for a few weeks too.

F. Complexity:
The lack of the involvement of the KISS-principle means that there is a significant chance that the mission will need significant post-release tweaking to adjust for bugs, design failures (as in, did not get the tactical result I was aiming for) and various unanticipated problems.

G. Severity of certain casualties:
The power of certain platforms--two in particular (can you guess them both?) Means that their numbers must be limited (as it stands now, to one of each on each side) to prevent undermining the goal of mutal support being the key to victory. That also means that the loss of either of these platforms could tip the balance very quickly. This means that the mission may not be for everyone--as some people find tactical restraint very difficult. The alternative, however, is increasing the number of ALL platforms, and thus increasing the number of players needed for this to work well...

H. Mod versions:
The effect of the change in balance between the stock game and LW/Ami almost certainly means that two versions of the scenario will have to be released. In particular, differences in AEGIS, Maverick, and SS-N-27 ASM performance will require significant defensive adjustments (As could any change in ASM performance in future versions of LW/Ami). The working version described so far is, of course, intended for use with LW/Ami.

I. Realism:
Obviously, this type of scenario doesn't even pretend to be based on any sort of RL possibility. It is artificially set up to create a balanced and challenging MP experience with the playables we have available.


So, before I embark on this journey, do you guys think it's worth it?

[goldorak]

A long term multiplayer campaign like the one you did last year on cadc ?
I think its worth doing it again.
The only real issue for me is how long are the gaming sessions going to be.
I can resist up to 4 hours, beyond that and it becomes very very tedious.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by goldorak

A long term multiplayer campaign like the one you did last year on cadc ?
I think its worth doing it again.
The only real issue for me is how long are the gaming sessions going to be.
I can resist up to 4 hours, beyond that and it becomes very very tedious.

The GDT idea was to basicly use a human (me) as an abstracted dynamic campaign engine. Which allowed individual battles to be played out one at a time in relatively short increments. I really don't have the time to reduce myself to a computer anymore. But, this mini-camp idea does have some of the same goals, and applies lessons from the GDT.

You could say that it's a scaled-down version of it, meant to be played all the way through in 4-6 hours instead of over the course of 2 months, 2 hrs at a time.

[Bellman]

Yep I've logged my interest.

Looking at Fleet rosters many of the best MP players have 'disappeared.' My concern is that, among many reasons for this, one paramount may be unsatisfactory gameplay with, lets not use the harsh word cheaters, but call them professional foulers.

I welcome any step which takes MP in the direction of the standards that Timmyg00 established in Sub Club International.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Yep I've logged my interest.

Looking at Fleet rosters many of the best MP players have 'disappeared.' My concern is that, among many reasons for this, one paramount may be unsatisfactory gameplay with, lets not use the harsh word cheaters, but call them professional foulers.

I welcome any step which takes MP in the direction of the standards that Timmyg00 established in Sub Club International.

Maybe I should list that under the advantages column... At least in theory, this sort of tactical situation either reduces the opportunity for "fouling" tactics to be used, increases the consequences of doing so, or at least makes the use of "unrealistic" tactics acceptable if it turns out to be realistic in the circumstances, and costly if it is not. In other words, by allowing the tactical situation to unfold according to the strategy of the teams instead of setting it up myself, there's a lot more to work with and a lot less to get pissed off about.

For example, take the -27 ASM. FFG players in MP are justifiably pissed off when an Akula driver pops off 14 of them and then brags about beating the FFG guy. But in this type of game, firing 14 missiles on "go" might not be a good idea. Really, it's a question of opportunity cost...sure, if you want to kill a ship with a full salvo right in the beginning like that, you probably can...but what do you give up by doing so? The external tubes are gone forever. Reloads are limited, and some at the expense of -27ASWs, UGSTs, and 65-76's. So your location is now known, and you can be attacked or avoided because of that, and your offensive capabilities are reduced to a salvo of 8 or less, and your ASW loadout definitely taken a hit if you brought lots of ASM reloads. Chances are you're either dead or a non-factor for the rest of the match.

[Molon Labe]

I know there's more than 13 people who read this.

VOTE!

[bump!]

[Molon Labe]

[bumpity bump]

The %ages are looking much better than I expected. Maybe I owe SeaQueen a beer.
The turnout is pretty poor though...so it isn't clear that the % is significant.

But I'm definitely leaning towards yes...
And it bodes well for less complex extended-time MP endeavors as well.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

So, its like Wolves at War, for Dangerous Waters? I'm in

[kage]

I like the idea, and I pretty much know that it's *possible* to pull off something of such a big scale. Especially if you can also keep each little thing as simple as possible.

But my concerns are these:

• Do you have the endurance to actually pull this off? Of course, at this point in time this question isn't all that relevant.
• Will there really be 6 to 10 or more people who have that much time? Essentially option 2 above.
• Can 6-10 players actually play for that long without anyones game crashing?
• How much bandwidth will this mission require, for each client? Do we have (stable) hosts with that much bandwidth, for that sort of duration?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

So, its like Wolves at War, for Dangerous Waters? I'm in

Well, this won't span the Atlantic, and won't even span the Meditteranean. That would take months to play, not hours. It's just one battle, but it's a big one.

I do dream of a campaign engine that would handle a regional war though. Something like this. Just switch the majority of platforms from air to sea, switch the playables from F-16's to FFGs, SS(N)s, P-3's, and MH-60s (and Udaloys, May's and Helix's!), and substitute where appropriate the ATO with a list of ships, their positions, and orders. Be able to save the campaign after an MP session and come back to it later. Or, have a persistent war going on, with subsim or virtual fleet members able to sign on and jump into the fight. Now that's my idea of heaven.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by kage

I like the idea, and I pretty much know that it's *possible* to pull off something of such a big scale. Especially if you can also keep each little thing as simple as possible.

But my concerns are these:

• Do you have the endurance to actually pull this off? Of course, at this point in time this question isn't all that relevant.
• Will there really be 6 to 10 or more people who have that much time? Essentially option 2 above.
• Can 6-10 players actually play for that long without anyones game crashing?
• How much bandwidth will this mission require, for each client? Do we have (stable) hosts with that much bandwidth, for that sort of duration?

If I know people will play it, I think I can build it.

I'm not sure whether you can get 6+ players together for this kind of thing. If I knew it was possible, I wouldn't have needed to put the poll up.

I'm not terribly concerned about crashes or bandwidth. DW's pretty stable, at least in my experience. And I'm keeping the total number of platforms reasonably limited to conserve bandwidth. Issues might arise if people shoot a ton of missiles all at once though, but that's a problem in any DW match.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I'm not sure whether you can get 6+ players together for this kind of thing. If I knew it was possible, I wouldn't have needed to put the poll up.

Well, if you remember, Furia last year organized a series of missions where the number of players in some cases was around 10.
Its not impossbile to do, there are a lot of freelance players out there just waiting for the kind of missions you're proposing.
Factor in the players belonging to the different virtual navies and I really don't think players will be scarce.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Could you do this multi-stationed?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Could you do this multi-stationed?

Yup. I wouldn't recommend it without at least 6 players though.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

The %ages are looking much better than I expected. Maybe I owe SeaQueen a beer.

I don't drink beer unless I'm eating greesy food or sometimes with Mexican. Wine we can do, though. Cocktails are good too.

But I'm definitely leaning towards yes...
And it bodes well for less complex extended-time MP endeavors as well.

I say give it a shot. The key is making sure that people know what they're trying to do, and they have a lot of freedom to do it. People won't spend a lot of time being lead by the nose to a single solution, but if you give them an open ended problem to solve, you'll be surprised at what happens.