| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
OKO
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 468
Location: Solar system, mainly on earth
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| timmyg00 wrote: | | OKO wrote: | MP mission
where the more important thing is
1) the balance of side
2) replayability
3) good choice of objectives
4) and mission duration.
Realism is not a priority here. |
I disagree strongly with that assessment. Realism may suffer somewhat due to time constraints (it's hard to get people to sit in on a single MP session for more than a couple of hours), but it is still an important consideration for me when I create my MP missions.
TG |
So Timmy, you will be VERY VERY restricted in the choice of your theatres.
I can say, as usual MP player, I never had people saying, during the mission, they don't like it because it's "geopolitically" unrealistic.
The goal is to make it interesting and to give a nice fight, well balanced, with action and the much work possible (nothing worth than to wait 1h30 before something happen ...)
If you look at my missions, you will see no one of them is more than 2 hours of games, usually, they are about 1H before one of the sides gets its objectives.
But during these 1H or 45mn, there is always 15 to 30 mn of positionning / data collection before engagment.
If you always try to have geopolitical realism, mission have DEEP chance to be bad balanced, just because if you do this, one side will be MUCH more strong than the other (US to name it)
I prefer interesting game instead to kill the interest in the name of 'realism'.
Because 'realistic' mission is way too long and way to unbalanced in real life ...
And that's why I said I concentrate on realism ONLY on solo mission, form reasons mentionned above.
Replayability is a probably one of the main factor to consider => dynamic group (to have something different each time) coupled to dynamic locations can make a mission replayable lots of time with different conditions.
It's very important for me as I often play my maps with friends.
And I still don't have lots of map made ...
talking about this, I'd like very much to have random wheater and sea states on editor ...
TimmyG00, I don't know how much often you play on MP match, but as regular player, I can tell you the more important is the quality of the engagment, and not the name of the boats ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that Single Player missions are more conducive to realism, in that the player can spend much more time on them. However, if you create the mission properly, you can simulate realistic engagements on a shorter (MP) time scale.
| OKO wrote: | | So Timmy, you will be VERY VERY restricted in the choice of your theatres. |
That's wrong. I can put my missions anywhere in the world with great success.
| OKO wrote: | | I can say, as usual MP player, I never had people saying, during the mission, they don't like it because it's "geopolitically" unrealistic. |
Well good for you, I'm sure you're very proud of yourself 
| OKO wrote: | | If you always try to have geopolitical realism, mission have DEEP chance to be bad balanced, just because if you do this, one side will be MUCH more strong than the other (US to name it) |
Then it is the duty of the MP mission designer to balance realism with gameplay, and use his or her creativity if necessary.
| OKO wrote: | | Replayability is a probably one of the main factor to consider => dynamic group (to have something different each time) coupled to dynamic locations can make a mission replayable lots of time with different conditions. |
I'm well aware of that. I have a lot of experience with such things from Sub Command as well as DW.
| OKO wrote: | | TimmyG00, I don't know how much often you play on MP match, but as regular player, I can tell you the more important is the quality of the engagment, and not the name of the boats ... |
I'm not sure what you mean by "the name of the boats"... that sentence made no sense to me, unless you are advocating the use of, for example, the FFG to simulate an equivalent ship in a Russian CVBG... This is part of what I meant when I mentioned "creativity" above. Mission designers should have a sense of creativity in order to overcome the occasional lack of playable platforms in the game (meaning DESIRED playables, like no Russian surface forces) and also to overcome the relatively short durations of Multiplayer matches.
The bottom line is that you CAN have a respectable degree of realism in a multiplayer match. You simply must have the right stuff
TG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeaQueen
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: Sources for good missions |
|
|
| timmyg00 wrote: | I have that book... both editions. Fantastic read!
TG |
I want to read the first edition. What was the biggest difference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeaQueen
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| timmyg00 wrote: | I disagree strongly with that assessment. Realism may suffer somewhat due to time constraints (it's hard to get people to sit in on a single MP session for more than a couple of hours), but it is still an important consideration for me when I create my MP missions.
TG |
What DW really needs is a 72hr MP mega-scenario for ASW. Feel the burn baby!
The study would be my CIC... I'd have to rename the dining room the "wardroom"...
I agree with you, though. Much of what makes a scenario compelling is that it's a big "what if" based on historical, projected, or current circumstances. Multiplayer or not, something about it has to capture me. Otherwise... I might as well be playing Doom.
I think there's two kinds of people that play DW, though. At least, from what I've seen. One is has some kind of real-life experience with naval issues, and wants to use it as a way to play through things they think about. The other kind probably hasn't had any real life experience, and is looking for a pickup game with their friends, and captures what they read in Tom Clancy novels or whatever.
I'm not sure both camps can ever really be totally satisfied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SeaQueen wrote: | | I want to read the first edition. What was the biggest difference? |
The first edition was called "Fleet Tactics - Theory and Practice" and did not focus on the littorals and approaches like the second edition did. It contained somewhat less about missile tactics than does the second edition, and the fictional battle at the end of the book was between the Russians and Americans in the Eastern Mediterranean, but closer to the Middle East (south of Turkey).
| SeaQueen wrote: | What DW really needs is a 72hr MP mega-scenario for ASW. Feel the burn baby!
The study would be my CIC... I'd have to rename the dining room the "wardroom"... |
*drools*
| SeaQueen wrote: | I think there's two kinds of people that play DW, though. At least, from what I've seen. One is has some kind of real-life experience with naval issues, and wants to use it as a way to play through things they think about. The other kind probably hasn't had any real life experience, and is looking for a pickup game with their friends, and captures what they read in Tom Clancy novels or whatever.
I'm not sure both camps can ever really be totally satisfied. |
That sounds about right.
TG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 1724
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 I have to say I agree with both OKO and Timmyg00. :hmm: Oh yes.
Discussion here seems to frequently take a 'mine is better than yours ' direction quite unnecessarily. 
It is possible both to enjoy playing realistic scenarios and those where realism is not a priority.
I thought that it was only horses that wore blinkers. :huh:
An example - Take shooting - Possible to walk the fields or take the clays and yes jump a 4 x 4 and 'torch' at night.
Varying degrees of reality all enjoyable. 
I agree with OKO's ' important things ' but would have inserted the words ' the only ' before priority.
I am struggling to learn scenario design currently and hope to borrow from features implemented
by both protaganists and the excellent surprise and adrenalin boosting features of the Fish scenarios.
What this thread has demonstrated is that I will have to attach labels to my scenario descriptions
(  Health Warnings) egs. :-
' A realistic encounter.'
' A neo-realistic scenario with surprise elements.'
' A fun paint-ball action scenario'
We mus'nt forget that our 'serious' sims future will depend largely on attracting and involving
a broader spectrum of 'gamers.' Embrace this or risk a loss widely experienced in the flight sim. market.
Fun and realism are not mutualy exclusive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bellman wrote: | | Discussion here seems to frequently take a 'mine is better than yours ' direction quite unnecessarily. |
Your interpretation, perhaps, but I don't see it that way.
| The Bellman wrote: | | It is possible both to enjoy playing realistic scenarios and those where realism is not a priority. |
Who said it wasn't?
All I see is a legitimate discussion on whether realism can be a part of short duration ( ~2 hour) multiplayer scenarios. OKO thinks it cannot, and I disagree. Pretty simple. Nobody said anything about any one type of mission being more fun than another; enjoyment is completely subject to personal taste.
Don't bring a bucket of water when there's no fire 
TG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 1724
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see no bucket.
I see no fire.
Just good humour for those who can appreciate it .
OKO '' ...... can tell you the more important is the quality of the engagment, and not the name of the boats ...''
Seaqueen '' What DW really needs is a 72hr MP mega-scenario for ASW. Feel the burn baby! ''
:hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, whatever. Let's just get back on topic and dispense with the irrelevancies.
TG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 1724
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep
Would it help players if designers did effectively 'label' the type of challenge posed to the player ?
'Realistic' mission task operation descriptions are focused and one is not anticipating the out of character
appearance of units not normaly found in operational waters. The 'unrealistic' fantasy scenarios
have a more unstrutured range of options.
I was serious about labelling/health warnings which would take the form of for example - in the description -
'' A fun 2 v 2 MP sub combat scenario around seamounts with some 'foreign AI surprises'' :hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bellman wrote: | Yep
Would it help players if designers did effectively 'label' the type of challenge posed to the player ?
'Realistic' mission task operation descriptions are focused and one is not anticipating the out of character
appearance of units not normaly found in operational waters. The 'unrealistic' fantasy scenarios
have a more unstrutured range of options.
I was serious about labelling/health warnings which would take the form of for example - in the description -
'' A fun 2 v 2 MP sub combat scenario around seamounts with some 'foreign AI surprises'' :hmm: |
Absolutely.
TG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeaQueen
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| timmyg00 wrote: | | It contained somewhat less about missile tactics than does the second edition, |
That's interesting. Several of the old'Cold Warrior mathematicians down the hall from me at work have copies of the 1st Edition. The book's about the same size. What did it talk about instead? Carrier aircraft? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SeaQueen wrote: | | timmyg00 wrote: | | It contained somewhat less about missile tactics than does the second edition, |
That's interesting. Several of the old'Cold Warrior mathematicians down the hall from me at work have copies of the 1st Edition. The book's about the same size. What did it talk about instead? Carrier aircraft? |
I should have noted that the first edition lacks an entire chapter on missile tactics that's in the second edition (which is chapter 6). Also in chapter 1, there are only five cornerstones
TG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 1724
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
My copy is winging its way.
The general reader should'nt overlook Ed Dille and Tom Bashams 'Strategy Guide to Harpoon 2'. 1994 Prima
Ed is a former naval Tactical Action Officer and Tom is a former defense contractor on US Army
helicopter simulations and an electronics engineer in R & D.
Most guides make good reserve paper for the WC but this one is almost a training manual on modern naval warfare.
Subjects covered :-
Intelligence gathering.
Planning mission profiles.
Organising Task forces for mutual support.
Defence against all threat profiles: Ships, subs & aircraft.
Matching weapon and salvo size to target type.
Locate and destroy the enemy.
The actual game mechanics of H2 are only covered minimaly (30 out of some 430 pages). Mostly its Seapower
and Maritime srtategy- Sea Control, Sea Denial and Power projection - hardly a game manual more
lifting the lid on how real-world naval officers utilize the assets at hand in real-world situations.  ' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeaQueen
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bellman wrote: | | My copy is winging its way. |
I'm sure you'll love it. It starts off with 18th century naval combat and goes right to the present. It's not a long read at all, either. Even so, it explains a lot of things which you hear people say, but don't necessarily explain, like the fact that small missile boats are scary. It's not necessarily math-heavy, but there is a little bit of math in it. I hope you won't be scared by it. It's mostly there so you can say you've seen it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
