Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

response re:carrier battles

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> response re:carrier battles Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
response re:carrier battles - 2/2/2001 12:32:00 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Below is a response to a post in an earlier thread asking about how much player control there is over carrier combat. Unfortunately I don’t remember the name of the thread as it existed before the servers moved. Keep in mind that this game is much closer to Gary's old Pacific War than it is to his Carrier Strike. Carrier battles are resolved based on the orders given to players air and naval forces prior to the resolution phase. The ability to give orders prior to the resolution phase does give you an ability to influence the battle, but it's nothing like the detail in a pure carrier battle. In most cases when the carriers are at sea and looking for a fight, the airstrikes will be put together by the computer keeping in mind CAP and Search levels set by the player. Aircraft can fly two strikes per day. This game does not try to be a carrier game as it's resolving air/sea and land combat over months or years. Great Naval Battles 2 was an attempt to resolve months of combat with resolution down to minutes, but in my opinion it came up short in both the tactical and strategic aspects because it was trying to do too much. In UV we're making sure that the results of combat are reasonable, but the focus is on the strategic decision making and how the player changes those strategic plans based on the results of the key engagements as they occur. You'll control when you send your carriers out to cover a major operation or threaten an enemy operation, but your impact on the results of a battle once engaged will be limited. As for the results of the battle, we're still deciding how to handle the information flow to the player regarding damage inflicted on the enemy. Currently you get a report of hits as they occur and any special damage those hits cause. You also know which enemy ships have sunk, but all of this may change by the time we're done as we add fog of war elements and options. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Post #: 1
- 2/3/2001 9:32:00 AM   
T-Mo

 

Posts: 146
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Lynn Haven, FL, USA
Status: offline
Joel, I could see if this was a game like Pacific War that you wouldn't have that much detail for the carrier battles. But, isn't this game supposed to be smaller in scale in that only a limited battle area is depicted? Although from what I gather, this is really a slice of the bigger project correct? I've always wished that Pac War let you play a smaller area without all other Pacific activity (China etc) slowing down play. It will be interesting to see how things play out on this scale. What is the length of the smallest scenario? Wasn't just the Coral Sea battle planned as one scenario -- if so, then that is only a couple of days. Thanks for your responses. T-Mo

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 2
- 2/3/2001 10:55:00 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Sure, you can play a Coral Sea scenario but for this game and scale it would be more of a training scenario. Remember we basically are dealing with 12 hour phases. Where this game begins to shine is in dealing with 1-3+ month mini-campaigns where you can bring to bear a combined strategy of using air, sea,land and engineering power. A 4-6 day scenario can be played in under 30 minutes and would really be intended as a tutorial. The scale is 30 miles instead of 50 miles and regiments instead of divisions. Also, air units come in squadrons as opposed to a mixture of squadrons and groups. Although the game systems will be similar, because of the scale differences and the focus on just this one section of the front, UV should have a somewhat different feel than WitP or a South Pac specific scenario of WitP. However, as I've said before, there's probably a 60-75% overlap so a player that plays one of the games will feel pretty comfortable quickly learning the other.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 3
- 2/5/2001 9:18:00 AM   
T-Mo

 

Posts: 146
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Lynn Haven, FL, USA
Status: offline
Joel, It totally makes sense from a project sense to have this program and scale for the first "real" Matrix Pacific game. I know the program is tracking pilots and planes -- is the spreadsheet setup similar to BOB and BTR, Gary's last two projects? It looked like it from the prelim screenshots. One thing I've always wanted from games that do use alot of spreadsheet options is to allow the player to printout different spreadsheets as desired. T-Mo

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 4
- 2/7/2001 6:32:00 AM   
silkworm

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 8/18/2000
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Joel Billings: Keep in mind that this game is much closer to Gary's old Pacific War than it is to his Carrier Strike. Carrier battles are resolved based on the orders given to players air and naval forces prior to the resolution phase. The ability to give orders prior to the resolution phase does give you an ability to influence the battle, but it's nothing like the detail in a pure carrier battle. In most cases when the carriers are at sea and looking for a fight, the airstrikes will be put together by the computer keeping in mind CAP and Search levels set by the player. Aircraft can fly two strikes per day. This game does not try to be a carrier game as it's resolving air/sea and land combat over months or years.
I think all this makes a lot of sense. However, I'd like to see the player given control over how much strike power is allocated to each detected task force, and perhaps also to each ship type within a task force. I think this is an operational level decision appropriate for the strategic context of the game. Do I get his transports to forestall an imminent invasion, or do I go after his carriers to hurt his offensive power in the long run? In Pacific War I have found it very frustrating that I cannot make this kind of decisions, because they come out of your strategic thinking and you'd really like to have some influence. In the game, when there is no opposition from surface ships, you can almost always force through an amphibious force by giving enemy air power more "valuable" targets to attack, anything from carriers, to battleships, to 50 ship stacks of cargo vessels. This isn't realistic. If we give players this ability to allocate, where the combat model might break down is that the other side doesn't get a say in how to protect his force. It's equally unrealistic for a carrier group to only have CAP over itself while ignoring the 4 division transport task force. There should probably be a way to define "cooperative" task forces and how to allocate assets in support of each other. Another way to approach this is that a task force can be any mix of naval assets and can have multiple missions. Carriers for CAP and strike, battleships for bombardment, transports for amphibious landing, all in support of each other when under attack. My other concern has to do with the air combat model. Big air groups enjoy an advantage because they get shot at less. Each of your enemy's planes gets to fire once for each group you have opposing them. For example, when you have 50 planes in one group, they get shot at once for each enemy group. If you have two groups of 25 planes each, the enemy gets to fire twice. I can't imagine how this might simulate real combat conditions. I really look forward to Uncommon Valor, but I hope the combat model will be better.

_____________________________

Kirby Zhang
Creator of Cityscape,
Online City Simulation

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 5
- 2/7/2001 11:41:00 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
I know I'm not alone in desiring a good Windows-native naval battle game covering the war at sea during WWII. I really liked SSG's Carriers At War and the subsequent additions, but there are many of us who would like a definitive "Victory At Sea". I understand Matrix' motivations for the current Pacific game designs, but isn't there a market for the updating of the CAW game engine? SSG apparently has no interest in doing so, as the game works in a Windows format, but it still has a "clunky", for lack of a better term, feel to it. Would Matrix ever consider this, or do you feel that your current design efforts will be enough to satisfy the Pacific War fans?

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 6
- 2/7/2001 12:24:00 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
I don't know about Matrix, but 2by3 is interested in doing a carrier game in the future, but there's only so much we can do at once. So many games to make, so little time. Actually, I think Matrix would be happy to do a carrier game sometime as well. Gary's 2 previous carrier games sold well and there's still plenty of room for improvement so it's very likely to happen sometime, although someone may beat us to it. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 7
- 2/7/2001 2:22:00 PM   
silkworm

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 8/18/2000
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Status: offline
This is what I'm think of in terms of an air combat model. It is simple. It preserves the air group as a unit of fighting force while removing the advantage of big groups. When an air strike occurs, the defending fighter force will get a number of combat rounds to intercept the bombers before they reach the target and drop their loads. The number of intercept rounds can depend on a variety of factors such as the speed and combat radius of defending fighters, speed of the bombers, and the distance at which they were detected. There may be pursuit rounds on egress, as well. For each round, planes on both sides may individually select a target and fire a "shot". A miss will still disrupt the effectiveness of return fire from the target. A defending fighter group can be given one of three tactical orders: engage escorts - fire at escorts until they have been destroyed or sufficiently disrupted, then turn on the bombers. This is useful for a powerful defender that can disrupt escorts and still get a shot at the bombers. Defender air casualties is reduced. engage all - divide your shots from the very first round between bombers and escorts. engage bombers - fire at bombers until they have been destroyed, repeled, or have dropped their loads, then turn on the escorts. This can be used to provide a desperate defense for a high value target. It is useful for an inferior defending force that cannot out-muscle the escorts and needs to concentrate firepower on the bombers. Defender casualties may be high since attacking escorts receive less disruption and will fire with greater effectiveness. Attacking escorts will actively engage the defender. Attacking bombers will return fire only when pursued. Escorts may be given one of three tactical orders: engage threat to escorts - engage fighters that are attacking escorts first. When they have been destroyed or disrupted, then go after those attacking the bombers. engage all - attack everybody engage threat to bombers - protect bombers as a priority Air group experience (and leadership?) can influence how precisely these orders are carried out. A inexperienced or poorly led unit might defend itself first before worrying about the bombers, regardless of what their orders were. Of course the player can mix and match tactical orders to type of equipment, level of experience, leadership, etc. For example, one might want to use a inexperienced group flying less maneuverable but highly durable aircraft to go after the bombers. They don't need a lot of maneuverability, can take more damage, and are in any case expendable... When targets can be selected from more than one enemy air group (for example when a defender can select from multiple escort groups), shots are distributed between all of them. Larger groups, more aggressive groups (due to leadership or experience), or those with more capable equipment may receive a bigger share of your fire. This model can be summarized simply as this. Instead of firing a shot for each enemy air group, putting a force with a larger number of air groups at an unrealistic disadvantage, each plane fires a shot for each round of combat available. Targets are chosen based on tactical orders, aggressiveness, and threat factors. The number of rounds is based on time and space factors. Anyway, just throwing an idea out there. I know that for me personally, I'd enjoy Pacific War a lot more if it modeled air combat this way. It's simple in concept, yet more realistic. The tactical orders feature places a minimal burden on the those who don't want to be bothered (most of the time "engage all" will do just fine), while giving the interested player more operational control. It makes equipment specialization more meaningful -- finally some use for those heavy fighters. If Pacific War was open source, I'd try to implement this myself. [This message has been edited by silkworm (edited February 08, 2001).]

_____________________________

Kirby Zhang
Creator of Cityscape,
Online City Simulation

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 8
- 2/8/2001 4:03:00 AM   
silkworm

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 8/18/2000
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Status: offline
I saw that one of your screen shots showed aircraft with altitude and rate of climb stats. Can you let us in on how these will be figured into your air combat model?

_____________________________

Kirby Zhang
Creator of Cityscape,
Online City Simulation

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 9
- 2/8/2001 12:04:00 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Not now, but in a few weeks I should be able to tell you. Ask again next month. I am documenting a lot of this stuff now. I can tell you that in my discussions with Gary to date they are included in the formumlas. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> response re:carrier battles Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.547