Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 15 16
#4484874 - 08/02/19 11:48 AM Task Force Admiral - a WW2 Carrier Command Simulator  
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
The_Admiral Offline
Member
The_Admiral  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
All over the place
Dear fellow Simmers,

Let me inaugurate this brand new account (well, my old self of 15 years ago needed a rest in the deep archives of these boards... My EAW days are kinda gone frown ) with a question that might require your insight. Sorry to post that in the larger community hall, but the naval section being a bit deserted I wanted to have the largest, most diversified audience possible in order for this topic to make sense at all.

A few friends and myself, we are currently putting together a WW2 carrier game. It is more of a Task Force command simulation than anything actually - the POV is that of the flag officer, so don't expect just yet to jump into the cockpit of a wildcat, nor to take the helm of the big girl. It is closer to a wargame in terms of scale, but closer to a simulation in terms of settings and interaction. It's pausable real-time, definitely on the historical and realistic side of things, but with proper production quality and the sort of intuitiveness in the commands and the mechanics that still makes it understandable (like Microprose used to make them!). In a way, think Carriers at War meets Pacific Air War/Task Force 1942 meets Great Naval Battles meets HPS' Midway and you'll have an idea of what we're making - except it's 2019, 3D kicked in, World of Warships has been around for a few years and the glory of the 90s, the one we owe to Microprose, SSI, SSG and the likes, is pretty much gone for nearly two decades.

Why does it matter?

Well. It matters because I am in my mid 30s, which by every means in gaming makes me just, erm, old. duh
Like many of you, if not most of you, my gaming culture is made of the aforementioned era, and even though I am a WoWs player too, I hardly have any idea of what the younger community thinks or wants. Some of you have been blaming social media for thinning our ranks in here - it's not untrue, but I guess that a few younger players are lurking around these walls. I used to play PAW, Tank Platoon or Redstorm Rising when I was 12, but I have no idea how games such as these would be received today (although, the overall success of Cold Waters gives a positive clue). In a nutshell, does anyone here, young or older, hardcore or casual, would have any sort of interest in a game where you command a carrier Task Force? Is there a public at all today for this genre?

Don't get me wrong, we'll go ahead, we've invested so much time - and actual money - that your opinion will not prevent it from going forward. The wargaming community has been very receptive and friendly about the concept, but being a simmer at heart too, I thought it would be important to test the temperature here, even if it means taking some heat. blush

Of course some work has been done, and we'll be happy to share it with you in due time. But in the meantime please humor me and tell me if you'd be part of the target audience for a product of this kind, what would be your expectations and which features would you love to find in there?

Thanks in advance! S!

Last edited by The_Admiral; 04/03/20 03:53 AM.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4484878 - 08/02/19 12:06 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
PanzerMeyer Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer  Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by The_Admiral
In a nutshell, does anyone here, young or older, hardcore or casual, would have any sort of interest in a game where you command a carrier Task Force? Is there a public at all today for this genre?




Yes there is a market for a game like that but it would be a relatively niche one compared to the overall gamer market. I would say this applies even to the more streamlined casual naval sims like "Cold Waters".

Best of luck with the game development!


“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
#4484880 - 08/02/19 12:19 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 3,751
RedOneAlpha Online content
Senior Member
RedOneAlpha  Online Content
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 3,751
LEGE
I personally would love to see/buy a updated version of MicroProse TaskForce 1942, or Avalon Hill´s 5th Fleet (PC).


Win10 Pro(x64), i7 8700k @ 4.7Ghz, 32GB ram DDR4, Sapphire Pulse AMD RX 6700 12GB, M.2 PCIe NVMe (x2) 480GB + 960GB, 447GB SSD´s, Samsung G6 32" , Logitech G13, G502, Warthog HOTAS, CH Pedals, Simagic Alpha Mini, and Formula Extreme FX, DC Simracing DC1 pedals, GT Omega ART cockpit, TrackIR 5.0.
AUDIO: Aiyima A07 Max, Topping E50 and L50 stack, Polk Audio Signature Elite ES20 , and Shennheiser HD 560s. DAP: Hiby R3, Hiby Seeds, and iBasso IT01, Sharp MD-MT 80H Minidisc.
#4484906 - 08/02/19 03:03 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
The_Admiral Offline
Member
The_Admiral  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
All over the place
Thank you!

Well, maybe let me reformulate then, maybe it will be a tad bit more clear.

Considering the games some of you might have played that had a connection to this topic, for instance :
- the old Gary Grisby's Carrier Strike
- SSG's Carriers at War - original & remake
- 1942: Pacific Air War's carrier battles module
- Any of SSI's Great Naval Battles involving carriers
- HPS' Midway
- SSI's War in the South Pacific
- Rule the Waves 2
- Any Gary Grisby Pacific-related game involving carriers (Uncommon Valor, War in the Pacific...)
- Or even more arcadish offerings, such as the Battlestations series or the Victory at Sea series

Is there anything you think that should be kept or absolutely avoided in any of these gaming experiences (gameplay wise in particular) regarding carrier management, while taking into account the limitations of the time, naturally?

#4484909 - 08/02/19 03:09 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
PanzerMeyer Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer  Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by The_Admiral


Is there anything you think that should be kept or absolutely avoided in any of these gaming experiences (gameplay wise in particular) regarding carrier management, while taking into account the limitations of the time, naturally?



I think having a multiplayer cooperative mode with a save feature would be absolutely great to have.


For example, I absolutely loved "Dangerous Waters" and put a couple of hundred hours into it but amazingly it did NOT have a save feature for online MP games.


“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
#4484932 - 08/02/19 07:15 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 3,751
RedOneAlpha Online content
Senior Member
RedOneAlpha  Online Content
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 3,751
LEGE
@The_Admiral

From the games you mentioned in your recent post, I understand that you are suggesting a "wargame" style game. Although I love 688i H/K, Sub Command and Dangerous Waters (played all three alot with the Seawolves.org back in 2000), these don´t have much to do with the "wargames" mentioned in your post.

Jane´s Fleet Command, Naval War: Artic Circle, Harpoon 3 (CMANO) and John Tillers Naval Campaigns would also fit in your list.

But back to game style, I have most of VG´s Fleet series by Joseph M. Balkoski, and Gulf Strike (newer version) by Mark Herman, along with the recent South China Sea by Compass Games and John Gorkowski. Compass Games is also about to release Blue Water Navy. All these boardgames are obviously naval warfare themed, and I know of many who would love to see a proper naval warfare simulation of some kind. Even proper portovers to PC of some of the games I mentioned.

As for 3D, Victory at Sea Pacific and Pacific Storm are about the only "3D" worthwhile games at present that can be considered "combined arms". Cold Waters is fine, but it´s a light sub simulation and/or Rising Storm remake.

Personally, I think a updated version of Fleet Command or Naval War Artic Circle, which do include 3D models would be great if done right. Or something similar and/or better. I played plenty of Fleet Command via MP with the mentioned Seawolves and it was great fun.

I think we are missing a good naval warfare simulation with some 3D since the Fleet Command days, and that´s been a while now smile2

Red


Win10 Pro(x64), i7 8700k @ 4.7Ghz, 32GB ram DDR4, Sapphire Pulse AMD RX 6700 12GB, M.2 PCIe NVMe (x2) 480GB + 960GB, 447GB SSD´s, Samsung G6 32" , Logitech G13, G502, Warthog HOTAS, CH Pedals, Simagic Alpha Mini, and Formula Extreme FX, DC Simracing DC1 pedals, GT Omega ART cockpit, TrackIR 5.0.
AUDIO: Aiyima A07 Max, Topping E50 and L50 stack, Polk Audio Signature Elite ES20 , and Shennheiser HD 560s. DAP: Hiby R3, Hiby Seeds, and iBasso IT01, Sharp MD-MT 80H Minidisc.
#4484940 - 08/02/19 08:19 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,199
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,199
NooJoyzee
Originally Posted by The_Admiral


I hardly have any idea of what the younger community thinks or wants.


You won't find it here biggrin

The concept is interesting to me, management and strategy games are my thing. But too little detail to know if your game is for me.

I think for me it would come down to how intricately the underlying systems are modeled. For example damage control, gunnery, armor/penetration, damage model, command and control, communication, supply, morale, visibility, promotions, transfers, maintenance and repair and the like. Simple or missing features don't make a game bad, just saying what might attract me to this sort of game, of which I know too little to say really.

And a campaign. Key component for me. Build something that plays differently for each run and you may be on to something.


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4484963 - 08/03/19 01:24 AM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 19,381
Ajay Offline
newbie
Ajay  Offline
newbie
Veteran

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 19,381
Brisbane OZ
Scaleability so you don't have to be an actual Admiral to dive into it smile There are plenty of younger gamers that give hard core and niche games a shot though and an outlet an audience via Youtube which shows not all up and coming or current gamers want only pretty graphics or Fortnite like BR games.

Very interested to see how it all pans out, good luck.


My il2 page
Seelowe Campaign
Cliffs of Dover page
CloD
My Models
Tanks/Planes/Ships


#4484973 - 08/03/19 04:30 AM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: RedOneAlpha]  
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
The_Admiral Offline
Member
The_Admiral  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
All over the place
Originally Posted by PanzerMeyer


I think having a multiplayer cooperative mode with a save feature would be absolutely great to have.

For example, I absolutely loved "Dangerous Waters" and put a couple of hundred hours into it but amazingly it did NOT have a save feature for online MP games.


Aye. Thanks!
Well, Dangerous Waters being the hardcore sim it is, technically I could understand that Sonalysts would treat he MP it like ED or 777 would treat theirs. Saving games in MP is not an easy feature to implement. Still, in our case it will come handy because of the time scale, for the same reasons someone might not be able to finish a Paradox Game session in an evening.

Still, it is a matter of planning step by step, taking into consideration our limited means. We planned our game project as more of an anthology (like Great Naval Battles was, for instance), focusing on a side or a theater and methodically increasing the scope thereafter. The immediate roadmap regarding these features would be :
- Volume 1 will focus on one side (USN), will be single-player and single-battle only (like CMANO does, btw) but will feature savegames and replays (which are part of the same more encompassing technology that will allow MP in the future, and as such are a necessary and cool first stage in the larger rocket) ;
- Volume 2 would focus on the other side (that is, the IJN), expand on single-player options and game modes beyond single scenarios and, hopefully, feature a full-fledged MP mode that might allow saving games - which is obviously an easier task in a 1v1 game than it is in an environment involving more players.

Originally Posted by Red2112
@The_Admiral
From the games you mentioned in your recent post, I understand that you are suggesting a "wargame" style game. Although I love 688i H/K, Sub Command and Dangerous Waters (played all three alot with the Seawolves.org back in 2000), these don´t have much to do with the "wargames" mentioned in your post.

Oh well, don't underestimate the power of genre-transcending products wink
By wargame I simply imply an emphasis on command, and no actual tactical station, whether it's sensor and weapon-based, true that. But as Fleet Command has shown, using basically the same engine as all other Sonalyst products, it is a matter of scale entirely as long as you make sure to have a good engine running under the hood. Our game is designed so that it will be rather easily scalable horizontally (new theaters, new navies, new eras) and vertically (up, at the operational level ; down, at the platform level). Although it's not for the next iteration, it is a characteristic we care about and will make sure to keep around.

Quote

Jane´s Fleet Command, Naval War: Artic Circle, Harpoon 3 (CMANO) and John Tillers Naval Campaigns would also fit in your list.

Yes of course, but all these except for John Tiller's are modern take at the genre. They have some room in my heart too no worries, but I just didn't want to end up with suggestions such as "I would not give planes a 360° radar coverage like vanilla FC did until NWS came and made it better" wink
Regarding John Tiller's work, of course he shall not be forgotten - no worries though, this is what I meant by HPS Midway, as it came out under this label originally (keep forgetting to switch my software to JTS instead, my mistake!). The one that I always forget though is Pacific Storm, which is a shame considering it's one of the most recent takes at the genre and is already quite underrated enough like that. Thanks for reminding me.

Quote

But back to game style, I have most of VG´s Fleet series by Joseph M. Balkoski, and Gulf Strike (newer version) by Mark Herman, along with the recent South China Sea by Compass Games and John Gorkowski. Compass Games is also about to release Blue Water Navy. All these boardgames are obviously naval warfare themed, and I know of many who would love to see a proper naval warfare simulation of some kind. Even proper portovers to PC of some of the games I mentioned.

Yes! Naturally, games such as VG's CARRIER or AH's Flat Top feature high on our list of references for inspiration and mechanics. Considering the map view will be an important feature (more on that later) counter design was not an easy thing and we had to make sure we took into account all the best practices. Fortunately Facebook (for all the good social networks can bring) has a few groups of interest in that regard, more particularly one centered on Wargame artwork design that seriously kicks ass, and is hosted by Gary K., who is devoted body and mind to the revival of CARRIER. It helps!

Quote
As for 3D, Victory at Sea Pacific and Pacific Storm are about the only "3D" worthwhile games at present that can be considered "combined arms". Cold Waters is fine, but it´s a light sub simulation and/or Rising Storm remake.

True that, but it's also the most successful game in a decade regarding the broader naval topic that isn't a Wargaming or Gaijin product wink but I understand what you mean. Still, I took it as an example for its impact on the market and its ability to find its audience in unexpected ways, the same sort of audience legacy Microprose products managed to mobilize back in the days.

Quote

Personally, I think a updated version of Fleet Command or Naval War Artic Circle, which do include 3D models would be great if done right. Or something similar and/or better. I played plenty of Fleet Command via MP with the mentioned Seawolves and it was great fun.
I think we are missing a good naval warfare simulation with some 3D since the Fleet Command days, and that´s been a while now smile2

Red


Amen!

And about the 3D models and the 3D scenery... Well sure thing. A few ones *might* be included along the way... But don't take my word for it wink

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

(Oh well, it isn't much and very Work in Progress, but hopefully you might like what you see reading popcorn )

#4484985 - 08/03/19 09:34 AM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
The_Admiral Offline
Member
The_Admiral  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
All over the place
Originally Posted by DBond
Originally Posted by The_Admiral


I hardly have any idea of what the younger community thinks or wants.


You won't find it here biggrin


Aye! But if the stats are to be trusted, it seems we still have new members every day or so. Some of these HAVE to be young, they cannot statistically all be all farts like us, can they wink

Originally Posted by DBond

The concept is interesting to me, management and strategy games are my thing. But too little detail to know if your game is for me.


I'll make sure to solve this at the earliest convenience!

Quote

I think for me it would come down to how intricately the underlying systems are modeled. For example damage control, gunnery, armor/penetration, damage model, command and control, communication, supply, morale, visibility, promotions, transfers, maintenance and repair and the like. Simple or missing features don't make a game bad, just saying what might attract me to this sort of game, of which I know too little to say really.

And a campaign. Key component for me. Build something that plays differently for each run and you may be on to something.


Oh well. Wise words indeed.
Except for the unfortunate campaign part (we're not there just yet, we need to build proper gameplay first) most of what you mention is already planned for, if not already there. Allow me to give a few details.

Quote
damage control, gunnery, armor/penetration, damage model

All of this is definitely there, although damage control as a mechanic will not be influenced by the player - it is not the role of the flag officer to carry on with this duty, as Duke Ramsey made it clear to Admiral Fletcher on a very bad day aboard USS Saratoga wink
But it's not because you're not assigning damage parties or manning the guns yourself that game mechanics are not there. Besides, even though the focus of the game is not surface combat, we still need all of this for airborne bomb and torpedo penetration anyway, so... Better go the extra mile early.



As you can see, the penetration model is pretty much up to the standards of World of Warships, which might be rather arcady a game in itself, but still has a rather advanced model in that regard. It is, along with War Thunder, the best there is on the market in 2019. Beyond other comparable "soft" gaming experiences such as Battlestations or Pacific Storm, well.... Fighting Steel (!) was probably the last time we had a serious attempt at simulating the topic, so I guess it's pretty nice if we can try to improve a bit on it. All ships will be divided into compartments with their own value, assigned subsystems, buoyancy ratio, etc... It will be kept a bit simplified for surface combatants first, and more advanced for carriers.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Regarding gunnery, same stuff. It's there, and it is needed for a certain number of reasons: IJN ships routinely used heavy guns during air action (to vector in CAP fighters or against low-altitude enemy planes, for instance) and a proper Carrier command simulation in 2019 has to cope with the fact that it's about time we make surface and air-naval combat coexist in the same environment (I am looking at you, Task Force and Fighting Steel! burger ). Whether you're terribly good or terribly bad, at a certain point CVs might have to meet the wrong end of a naval gun.



[[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

So, despite the obvious emphasis on carrier ops, expect something at least functional on surface front (and probably the subs too, but that will come later).

[img]command and control, communication,[/img]

That is really one of the mainstay features, and it is closely connected to Fog of War and how to simulate it properly. If something has been lacking in naval simulations so far, it is an advanced "under the hood" management of this central parameter that had so much impact on all ops during this era. I'll just give a few examples :

- Air navigation in carrier combat is always left somewhat untouched, even though it does explain some of the most spectacular SNAFU moments of the entire war. Point Option management, Zed Baker systems and the likes will all feature prominently and force you to take into account that your pilots didn't have on-board GPS back in 1942.

- When a land-based naval search aircraft goes on a mission, there is no way for its base to check in realtime its situation. As a land-based asset, it is not necessarily obliged to keep radio silent, and regular radio checks can happen. Still, if a Betty or a Mavis happens to stumble upon a carrier task force unknowingly and get surprised by the CAP (usually thanks to the advantages offered by RADAR and the ensuing fighter direction effort), it might get shot down before being able to signal its base, like it happened quite often in the Solomons and elsewhere in 1942. Consequence: the base wouldn't know about the loss before the next radio check, hours later perhaps, or even only when the plane actually fails to return. Considering things like that would happen usually in the latter half of a search pattern, it could very well be late in the afternoon already, with no possibility for the base to launch a strike with any sort of chance of finding anything. Any action of that kind happening near Rennell island (for instance) would mean that Rabaul would have millions of sq miles to search for by the moment the news reaches them. Gameplay-wise, it also means that the computer needs to be put in the very same situation, accessing the same amount of information as a human player would if you want to end up with a credible and coherent response. It also gives the US player the proper advantage it had in such a situation, as the intel team aboard the flagship would be able to monitor any scouting plane radio traffic with a certain degree of certainty. Knowing you have or have not been spotted makes all the difference in a Carrier Battle, and things can escalate quickly from there.

- It is even more foggy in the case of a naval-based search aircraft. In this case, radio silence is strictly enforced, as naval-based assets absolutely don't want to give any clue about where they're coming from. You cannot expect home-plate to raise them on the radio either. Although they run a smaller risk of being taken out early, you will usually have to contend with the sometimes faulty intel they may provide you in the heat of the moment. Past games have sort of simulated this by making info somewhat unreliable in terms of numbers and types (this is what you see in TF1942 and 1942:PAW for instance) but some aspects are only so rarely touched: inaccuracy regarding the geographical position provided (we're talking about navigating the ocean...), mistakes in the encoding if the message wasn't in plain language (this is what happened to Yorktown's scout the morning Shoho got sunk - the encoding was wrong and a CV was reported where there was no CV... All the way until the moment the plane got home), garble if the message is in plain language (the distance will matter), delays in decoding or transmitting (which will explain why SWPAC reports sometimes failed to reach SOPAC and ultimately Fletcher in time, if at all), etc...

For instance, the following screenshot of our prototype map interface shows an enemy TF being spotted repeatedly (each cross being connected to the relevant contact report) all the way to the last cross. The counter/plot is actually the predicted position of the contact according to the latest info available, but it is not its actual location.

[Linked Image]

If a new contact report was to be made beyond a certain distance from the expected location, it will turn into a new contact. The player will be able to merge, de-merge, re-merge all these contacts at will, but he will have to make the final call (as long as he picked the highest level of realism, that is). If you are to use this info in order to send a strike after the enemy, you will have to make do, but don't forget you might very well meet the same problems as those experienced by the US carrier groups at Midway. USS Enterprise's dive bombers, in particular, very nearly missed the Japanese Task Force entirely because it changed its course between the moment it got spotted very early in the morning and the moment the airgroup was supposed to make contact. Our goal is to allow the engine to recreate this sort of situation dynamically, outside the help of scripting (which will still be made available for a lot of other uses, stille). We'll have to work much on the tuning and all, but it doesn't seem to be totally out of reach.

Quote
supply, morale, visibility, promotions, transfers, maintenance and repair

Considering our scale, some of these (promotions, transfers, supply) won't need to feature in our very first volume: as in-game time shouldn't exceed a few days in the worst case scenario, you won't have to fight for the last steak aboard USS Yorktown smile

Morale in my opinion is quite an overrated factor in that particular case. On the American and Japanese side both, I cannot see a single occurrence of aircrews not going above and beyond their duty in face of the most impossible odds, whether we're talking about the US fliers at Midway or the Japanese fliers at Santa Cruz, to pick the most extreme examples. Even in the case of their chiefs, decisions at Midway or Coral Sea on the Japanese side were fully understandable, and so were Fletcher's even though he got much criticism for it. Here again, the strategic AI will be given the needed info and logic to take decisions that might look like questionable with hindsight, but will be understandable considering the amount of intel available and the historical examples at hand. Rather than morale, I would go for crew fatigue instead, and this will be featured for flying crews - together with wounds. Same thing with the planes, that will go through their maintenance cycle.

Well, anyway, enough of a wall of text for today I suppose. Hopefully this info will allow everybody to have a clearer picture of our project. At any rate, if you have other questions, please shoot, I'll be happy to answer - if I can wink

Last edited by The_Admiral; 08/03/19 04:02 PM.
#4484987 - 08/03/19 09:51 AM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: Ajay]  
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
The_Admiral Offline
Member
The_Admiral  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
All over the place
Originally Posted by Ajay
Scaleability so you don't have to be an actual Admiral to dive into it smile There are plenty of younger gamers that give hard core and niche games a shot though and an outlet an audience via Youtube which shows not all up and coming or current gamers want only pretty graphics or Fortnite like BR games.

Very interested to see how it all pans out, good luck.


Hey Ajay,

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, scalability will be there, that's in no small part the "sim" aspect of this project. You will be able to toggle all the features I mentioned previously depending on the sort of experience you're looking for, like in the old days. The same way you're allowed to switch on or off that "sun blind spot" parameter in every combat sim pretty much since Red Baron, you might want to have always accurate reports, or know the position of your planes in real time, have your avatar be invulnerable during air attacks, enable/disable external views, etc... As with Red Baron, too keep this comparison, this will result in a realism setting that might be taken into account for the calculation of the final score for any given scenario. But I like to give people a choice. Our game will be pretty much playable like the most hardcore carrier command sim ever maid, or like a more classic Pacific Storm/Battlestations-like RTS. Your choice.

I am an old Microprose player myself, and I cannot but emphasize how important, back in the day, it was to provide a self-explanatory, intuitive gaming experience, with or without the generous manual that was provided with the games. In my opinion, a proper "game" should be designed so that playing it makes you feel interested in reading more of the manual in order to get better or enjoy the game further, instead of giving you the idea that you can't do anything without reading it first. Don't get me wrong, I've been playing hardcore stuff since the early days of Jane's too, but you might see my point if you have played Longbow 2 and EAW (both of which probably robbed me of hundreds if not thousands of hours of my short life, and a few early girlfriend experiences) - and you might agree with me that Tsuyoshi Kawahito designed two very different experiences there. In this case, we'll stick to the latter one for now wink

Regarding the manual, we plan on going for a Kickstarter campaign at the end of the development cycle in order to provide this game with a proper box, manual and goodies of all sort. If we are to make a game, whether it is the first one and maybe even the last one, I want it to go full YOLO. If you're willing to support this on the base of the final game at that point, I'll be happy to provide the player with the full 1990s experience, artworks and goodies included wink

Last edited by The_Admiral; 08/03/19 04:03 PM.
#4485003 - 08/03/19 03:39 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 3,751
RedOneAlpha Online content
Senior Member
RedOneAlpha  Online Content
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 3,751
LEGE
Ok, now you got me quite exited with your recent post! smash

I have linked this post over at the Matrix Games general forum, hope nobody minds.

Red


Win10 Pro(x64), i7 8700k @ 4.7Ghz, 32GB ram DDR4, Sapphire Pulse AMD RX 6700 12GB, M.2 PCIe NVMe (x2) 480GB + 960GB, 447GB SSD´s, Samsung G6 32" , Logitech G13, G502, Warthog HOTAS, CH Pedals, Simagic Alpha Mini, and Formula Extreme FX, DC Simracing DC1 pedals, GT Omega ART cockpit, TrackIR 5.0.
AUDIO: Aiyima A07 Max, Topping E50 and L50 stack, Polk Audio Signature Elite ES20 , and Shennheiser HD 560s. DAP: Hiby R3, Hiby Seeds, and iBasso IT01, Sharp MD-MT 80H Minidisc.
#4485007 - 08/03/19 04:03 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
The_Admiral Offline
Member
The_Admiral  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
All over the place
Well, erm, no worries. I am a known suspect over there too anyway, as long as Matrix Games don't mind, I don't either wink
Thank you Red, any help is always much appreciated ^^

Last edited by The_Admiral; 08/03/19 04:04 PM.
#4485012 - 08/03/19 04:37 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,199
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,199
NooJoyzee
Those shots look great. We get, from time to time, new members coming on and announcing a new project or sounding one out. I always approach such things skeptically, they are usually just an idea.

But whoa, look at those shots. This is way beyond the idea stage, and your work is gorgeous.


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4485017 - 08/03/19 05:28 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
theOden Offline
Member
theOden  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
I like your wall of text, fog of war part in particular.
Will I be able to create "what-if" scenarious such as "Fletcher TF 11 arrives as Wake Island" or will it be set scenarious only?
(what i'm getting at is, will there be any player mission editor - sorry if already stated as I'm reading with beer goggles atm)

You managed to make me a very possible customer so far, keep your text-walls coming smile

#4485019 - 08/03/19 05:40 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
theOden Offline
Member
theOden  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by DBond
Originally Posted by The_Admiral


I hardly have any idea of what the younger community thinks or wants.


You won't find it here biggrin



smile
The_Admiral at his 30-something is actually part of the younger community here
But he will catch up with us, in 20 or so.
biggrin

#4485021 - 08/03/19 06:28 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
The_Admiral Offline
Member
The_Admiral  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
All over the place
Originally Posted by DBond
But whoa, look at those shots. This is way beyond the idea stage, and your work is gorgeous.


Well, thank you DB! But I am just the guy who watches the others work, I'll pass on your kind words wink

Actually it helps probably that I am not doing actual work, considering my questionable work output. Although I was there from the beginning and got in touch with the good man who eventually became our lead dev, today we're a team of 4 people (one dev, one 3D artist, one 2D artist, and myself wink ). We can also count on the kind help of a few experts out there in the gaming community, who already provided a lot of help - and doing us provide us with the little extra knowledge or thinking that we need every now and then (and sometimes it's a BIG little).

About the development proper: fortunately the engine was already there, well-rounded and efficient. Although it is home-made, it fits our needs nicely and our dev doesn't need to write a ticket to the support of some third-party software supplier in order to get an answer. He solves his own problems, and it really helps with project management (and time!). In all modesty (and no thanks to me anyway ^^) the engine does kick butt. One of the characteristic of the game is that it will allow a seamless transition between the normal 2D map and the actual 3D world, a feature which allows the player to zoom at will on the action. Naturally, this tool will have its limits that you might set yourself (and decide when it transitions to 3D, if it transitions at all). At the highest level of realism, if you were to disable external views entirely, it will be completely unavailable. Here's a little demo of our tech. Everything written on this map is a placeholder and a test for different labels of different colors - so please don't mind the typos too much. Besides, no worries, there will not be an actual "iron bottom sound" label on that map unless you add it yourself wink



The terrain is actually procedurally generated from level maps and nautical charts, and then we get to customize the important parts. Fortunately, we're dealing with the Pacific here, so save a few iconic bases the workload is still manageable (it will be much less so when we add the Indian Ocean and Oahu to the list in volume 2, but for now the largest cities on the maps will be Rabaul and Port Moresby. Highly manageable biggrin ). Besides the terrain, the engine also handles everything that is needed for a successful ocean-based simulation, as you can see with these few showcases (time, weather & dynamic water rendition/physics)







Besides our one-man-army God of coding, we can count on very enthusiastic mates for the assets. Our 3D naval and environmental artist for instance is a very young prodigy who makes beautiful progress every single day. We are very lucky to have come across him and he'll deliver us with the full IJN and USN naval roster by the beginning of next year. Top notch work, considering we still have to care about the polygon limit in order to keep all this playable to a proper extend. Even though graphics will be tweakable (again, it's somewhat in the simulation DNA side of things) one still needs to make sure 50 planes on the screen, a whole TF and the relevant flak will not slow down an average computer down to a creep. Here are a few photos of his recent work for the project. I am pretty sure anybody serious about the topic will have no difficulty knowing who is who in this family reunion winkngrin

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

We will not use generic models. Each and every ship class simulated will have its design carefully recreated, and when possible we will also model the different sub-classes or modernizations accordingly. USS South Dakota, for instance, will differ from USS Indiana as much as she should, although they're technically from the same mold. Likewise, the Kongo sisters will have their own little particularities. Here, you can see USS Lexington before and after her quick spring refit at Pearl Harbor, where she exchanged her cruiser-grade battery of eight inchers for additional light AA guns, for lack of available five inch DP turrets at the time. We will also naturally feature USS Saratoga's own modernization following her February torpedo hit (with the aforementioned five inch dual turrets). All the relevant skins will be available from the start, a most important feature knowing that none of the Yorktown sisters ended up with the same camo measure at Midway.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Finally, here's also the sort of quality you might expect from us in terms of 2D assets. We received the help of a very, very talented French artist who knows his way around planes. He is currently providing us with all the art assets needed for loading screens, marketing - hell, even our new studio's logo. We will end up producing enough content that I will be certainly in position to edit an actual artbook about all his work. See for yourself, and tell me: wouldn't they be gorgeous to stare at while your game load, or as your new mouse mat in our deluxe edition? seehearspeak

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Extra kuddos to anyone who can tell us who is flying what on these pictures, and when! burnout

Anyway, enough propaganda for one day, gotta zoom.

Originally Posted by theOden
I like your wall of text, fog of war part in particular.
Will I be able to create "what-if" scenarious such as "Fletcher TF 11 arrives as Wake Island" or will it be set scenarious only?
(what i'm getting at is, will there be any player mission editor - sorry if already stated as I'm reading with beer goggles atm)

You managed to make me a very possible customer so far, keep your text-walls coming smile


Oh well, fear not - anyone calling me a young man certainly more than deserves his own wall of text, there is no question about it. You'll get it yep
Gotta go for the time being, but I'll write a few words about our approach regarding scenarios tomorrow, sure thing. Thank you, distinguished very possible customer winkngrin

In the meantime, I wish everybody a very nice evening - and if you have any question, please feel free to keep 'em coming!

S!

Last edited by The_Admiral; 08/03/19 06:42 PM.
#4485046 - 08/03/19 11:15 PM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,301
Nixer Offline
Scaliwag and Survivor
Nixer  Offline
Scaliwag and Survivor
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,301
Living with the Trees
Wow!

More than a little excited about this.


Censored

Look for me on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or Tic Toc...or anywhere you may frequent, besides SimHq, on the Global Scam Net. Aka, the internet.
I am not there, never have been or ever will be, but the fruitless search may be more gratifying then the "content" you might otherwise be exposed to.

"There's a sucker born every minute."
Phineas Taylor Barnum

#4485064 - 08/04/19 06:00 AM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: theOden]  
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
The_Admiral Offline
Member
The_Admiral  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 127
All over the place
Originally Posted by theOden
I like your wall of text, fog of war part in particular.
Will I be able to create "what-if" scenarious such as "Fletcher TF 11 arrives as Wake Island" or will it be set scenarious only?
(what i'm getting at is, will there be any player mission editor - sorry if already stated as I'm reading with beer goggles atm)

You managed to make me a very possible customer so far, keep your text-walls coming smile


Soooo! About the game modes and scenarios. Our plans are as follows:

- Single-battle scenarios (between 30 and 40 of them)
- A scenario builder (giving you all the same tools we had to create the original scenarios)
- A battle generator (for anyone who wishes to randomize a classic carrier brawl with a few parameters - the map, the size, the mission, etc...)

Add to this side functionalities: a Replay function, so that you might have a complete overview of the action (and enjoy external views for your AAR if you had disabled them during the actual game) and a Savegame function, which will obviously allow you to test a few different options from your own starting point. These two are needed as a basic coding base for future multiplayer anyway, so better get them early in order to have a good frame from the get-go and provide you with an acceptable single-player experience. Besides, we are not providing a full map of the Pacific, but theater maps instead (à la Il-2 if you will). Early maps will include Wake (aka the cute place you can see earlier in this post) + Marcus, Midway, the Marshall & Gilberts area and the whole of SOPAC, at least from New Britain all the way southeast to Vanuatu. Volume 2, which (hopefully) will primarily feature the IJN, shall add Oahu, Java, Ceylon and the Aleutians to the mix, but it's a tad early to tell.

Now, regarding the single-battle scenarios themselves, I would split them into three categories

Historical encounters
First of all, I have to remind you that the current scope of the game remains limited to the US Navy side, and mostly to 1942. We just don't have the time or the resources to make sure that the IJN side will receive the same attention to detail, as we are carefully crafting the command experience on the US side in order for immersion to be complete.

These are the classic deal. Historical carrier encounters (Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons & Santa Cruz), some of them with micro variants (Coral Sea in particular needs a Tulagi start, a Shoho start and a last day start), historical ops (February raids, Lae strike, Doolittle raid, Watchtower landings...) and close historical encounters that might have developed into a carrier battle in their own right (late August near encounters between Fletcher and Nagumo, Hornet's mid-october sparring around Guadalcanal, Enterprise's last stand in November). Let's say that it will account for 1/3 of the initial offering.

Then there are the variants to the classics. Midway alone offers a wealth of scenarios we are all well-aware of (plus or minus Coral Sea, Zuikaku, HYPO, Kakuta, Saratoga, Point Luck...) and other ops provide interesting things to try (Saratoga or Wasp surviving into October, etc...). It might not be endless, but to all intends & purposes it pretty much feels like so. That's another big third.

Then you have the actual "what ifs": the Wake relief ops proceeding ahead, a Doolittle raid happening closer to the home islands in range of a KB division, Hornet being caught with her pants down during the September lull, case studies, blue-on-blue fleet problems... And there you go.

We plan on having a powerful scripting engine that will allow these scenarios to be scripted to a certain extent, mainly for narrative reasons. You need scripts if you want to emulate things like Enterprise's SNAFUs at Midway, actual mistakes that happened and might need to happen for the needs of the scenario, secondary tasks (such as the need to find and rescue Neosho and Sims on the last day of Coral Sea), communications with CINCPAC, etc... These might involve choices and exchanges with members of your staff: I usually take the example of Fletcher's argument with his intel officer (Forrest Biard) who advocated a night surface attack moment before the final clash at Coral Sea and got rebuked, as the sort of choices you might have to make regarding the course of action for what follows. We'll make it a bit graphic, with 30 or so portraits of staff and sailors of all ranks that will feature in this interactions. These portraits will be available to the player if he makes his own scenarios, of course.

Finally, about building your own scenarios, we are very much in favor of providing the player with the very same tools we used ourselves to make the stock scenarios. In this very, very early screenshot of the editor taken a few months ago, you can see that we plan on making pretty much everything customizable, all the way up to the pilot profiles - which despite the short time window of the scenarios is still needed, considering there will be a bit of pilot management, and hence the need to display historical names accordingly for more flavor.

[Linked Image]

Naturally, building all this stuff involves a lot of research, and at a certain point we might need some external help to finish the job (we have already a few volunteers ready to go, big thanks to you Gents notworthy ). But don't you worry about the basic experience, I think we've got you covered. We did our homework long ago, and we still learn every day wink

[Linked Image]

S!

Last edited by The_Admiral; 08/04/19 07:35 AM.
#4485067 - 08/04/19 06:42 AM Re: WW2 Carrier game - would anyone play that today? [Re: The_Admiral]  
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
theOden Offline
Member
theOden  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
How delightful to read.
It is obvious you guys have done your homework so far reading your examples.
As long as you know more than me I'm safe for immersion haha.

My entry to Wake Island etc. is from IL-2 missions so that detailed roster is good news (almost a little too detailed).

But yeah, this look seriously good, love the map-to-3D transition, very impressive and you guys seems to put in effort "before needed" seeing it will be needed anyhow in the near future - this is very fresh for someone with that last few years experience from flight simulators.

Good thing that "AAR tool", DBond now we expect you to out-do yourself biggrin

Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 15 16

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0