Friday 2010-11-26 Dev. update and Discussion

[Flying_Nutcase]

Originally Posted by T}{OR

When I play SoW I which to be a part of history, not change it to what might have happened. There are other games that do that.

The thing about strictly historical thinking is that the fact that the events that occurred were not what was 'meant to be'. They were not written in stone as what had to happen. The events that transpired and decisions that were made, big and small, could have been different.

A dynamic campaign that can offer variability based on a different set of events and decisions seems pretty reasonable, in addition of course to more strictly historical campaigns. These events and decisions would largely be completely independent of the player's actions, although the player's actions would be part of the input, like successfully destroying radar stations or whatever.

For those of you with a more strictly historical mindset, what do you think about that? I'm kind of curious.

[Dietger]

Speculum and csThor,

I think it was Rowans BoB? Which had both; a complete historical part and a part where the player could setup the overall strategies and targets of the side he played on.

I expect something a long that line.
I nice historical part, to resampling histo. events.
And, if we are lucky, a possibility to redirect and asign missions or targets for what ever flight 's about to take off: Bomber, recon , fighters whatsoever.
As Necrobaron speculated there is a lot room for possibilities.
There are enough opportunity for both sides to change directives.
Oleg early on said, it wont be possible to win the battle for axis side, so I think there are limitations in terms of user input?

Untill we actually see it - we patiently wait.

Dietger

[K_Freddie]

If SOW can be adapted later to allow for:-

In campaign mode, You can play multiple rolls, from Air marshall directing/managing the campaign, pushing flags with numbers here and there, then clicking on a flag, to either join a squadron in flight, or at take off.

Once your flight is finished or you've been 'zapped', you put on your marshall cap and are back at the map - join another flight, move supplies, new recruits... you know that type of strategy thing. Here you will see the effects of your decisions/actions on a greater scale.

Doing the Air Marshall thing can make a great online campaign in mutliplayer, where you can form a military structures through which you can advance.
Endless options => Title: Air Marshal-SOW ( Remember I mentioned the title first )

Maybe Oleg would like me to develop this... nudge nudge!!

[csThor]

Originally Posted by Dietger

I think it was Rowans BoB? Which had both; a complete historical part and a part where the player could setup the overall strategies and targets of the side he played on.

This is exactly what I don't want. It is against my idea of what a flight simulation campaign must be like. Strategic decisions (which you have to take in BoB) are the prerogative of generals which - and yes, I know I am repeating myself - do not fly combat missions.

A flight sim cannot depict the layer above the regimental plane (= Geschwader or Wing). As such any flight sim campaign that tries to mingle these two very different things is a gamey crutch and I can't stand such things. There is a lot to be done when the layers of responsibility are accurately depicted (management of aircrew, tactical planning of how to fulfill the task/mission which one's assigned by the Fliegerkorps / Luftflotte / Group Command etc). What you propose is a strategy campaign that is about as immersive to me as a blank sheet of paper.

So what I wish for? Let's take Flanker's example of Erprobungsgruppe 210 and assume the player chose the rank of Hauptmann/Major and is in command of said unit. The player receives a mission target (or a group of targets) such as a bunch of CH and CHL stations in the Dover area. He receives a timeframe during which the attack has to take place (which is interwoven with the other ops of Luftflotte 2 that day) and in this case he has to plan how to employ his three Staffeln to take out the target(s) without suffering too many losses. For the briefing I see something along these lines:

"Einsatzbefehl - 13 August 1940

To: Erprobungsgruppe 210
From: Stab Luftflotte 2

You are tasked to conduct a strike against the british radar stations at Dover and Rye (map with marked target locations). The attack has to be conducted between 7:45 a.m. and 8:05 a.m. in order to reduce interceptions against our bomber forces which will cross the french coast at 8:10 a.m."

Then comes something about weather conditions, recon information, target photos and intelligence (i.e. known allocation of enemy fighter forces, enemy AAA positions etc), the aircraft pool and pilots available for that mission. Then it's up to you - you can either auto-plan the mission or do it manually.

So you can plan something but it's within believable and reasonable limits.

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by csThor

A flight sim cannot depict the layer above the regimental plane (= Geschwader or Wing).

Unless the Geschwaderstab was in the regular habit of flying combat missions, I don't see simulating LW operations above the Gruppe level as being feasible. Otherwise, I like your ideas.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

Unless the Geschwaderstab was in the regular habit of flying combat missions, I don't see simulating LW operations above the Gruppe level as being feasible.

Actually they were. It was expected of them to lead the Geschwader in the air. This was one of the reasons why Göring replaced most JG Kommodores in the middle of August 1940 - the younger replacements (i.e. Mölders, Galland, Schellmann, Trautloft etc) were expected to lead by example.

[Dietger]

Originally Posted by csThor

Actually they were. It was expected of them to lead the Geschwader in the air. This was one of the reasons why Göring replaced most JG Kommodores in the middle of August 1940 - the younger replacements (i.e. Mölders, Galland, Schellmann, Trautloft etc) were expected to lead by example.

The older where replaced cos the new weapon needed new tactics which were just developed during the Spainish civil war by Lützow and later Mölders. The old fighters from the Great war couldnt get them (tactics) operational, whiles sitting behind a desk. No one expected, that they really fight any more - although Theo Osterkamp did so very well during the battle.

In pedagogy it is well know that children learn by imitation and mimicry.
Parends are in fact paragons of their children.
Prussia adapted this truth for their military: FÜHREN DURCH VORBILD.
Its in fact a maxime for better Wehrmacht Füherer as well. "leading from the front". Strictly conected to things like honor and a truthfull character building.
Ok, I describe what leads to this, I dont mean, that this virtues are in place; its up to the iduvidual of course. Dont miss understand.
Another point maybe is/was, like today, when ever political leaders cry for the youth, they are so much easier to inveigled and deceived.

[C_G]

I found that LucasFilms' Their Finest Hour (and SWOTL) had a tremendous amount of re-play value because of the strategic side of the game. Trying out different strategies was an exciting part of the game. It had a major weakness in that it simplistically extrapolated from your mission success to all other missions flown and so it was comparatively easy to cripple the enemy if you did well in the mission you flew.

That said, I don't think that Oleg is going to include a strategic component to SOW:BOB. He's never mentioned anything of the sort and, on the contrary, has re-iterated on several occasions that "one pilot could not win the war". I do hope (and expect from what he's said), however, that damage to a Chain Home station will affe3ct the RAF response capability and that that damage will likely carry over from one mission to the next in a campaign.

C_G

[Blackdog_kt]

First of all, let me convey my belated but well deserved thanks for the update, especially since we've been told that it was not easy to get it done for us.

Things look better and better each week and that's all i can say about it for now

Now, as for the campaign engine, i guess it is within the scope of the thread since
a) it deals explicitly with important game features and
b) i don't see anyone getting banned because of discussing it, so i suppose it's safe to join in

Originally Posted by csThor

This is exactly what I don't want. It is against my idea of what a flight simulation campaign must be like. Strategic decisions (which you have to take in BoB) are the prerogative of generals which - and yes, I know I am repeating myself - do not fly combat missions.

A flight sim cannot depict the layer above the regimental plane (= Geschwader or Wing). As such any flight sim campaign that tries to mingle these two very different things is a gamey crutch and I can't stand such things. There is a lot to be done when the layers of responsibility are accurately depicted (management of aircrew, tactical planning of how to fulfill the task/mission which one's assigned by the Fliegerkorps / Luftflotte / Group Command etc). What you propose is a strategy campaign that is about as immersive to me as a blank sheet of paper.

So what I wish for? Let's take Flanker's example of Erprobungsgruppe 210 and assume the player chose the rank of Hauptmann/Major and is in command of said unit. The player receives a mission target (or a group of targets) such as a bunch of CH and CHL stations in the Dover area. He receives a timeframe during which the attack has to take place (which is interwoven with the other ops of Luftflotte 2 that day) and in this case he has to plan how to employ his three Staffeln to take out the target(s) without suffering too many losses. For the briefing I see something along these lines:

"Einsatzbefehl - 13 August 1940

To: Erprobungsgruppe 210
From: Stab Luftflotte 2

You are tasked to conduct a strike against the british radar stations at Dover and Rye (map with marked target locations). The attack has to be conducted between 7:45 a.m. and 8:05 a.m. in order to reduce interceptions against our bomber forces which will cross the french coast at 8:10 a.m."

Then comes something about weather conditions, recon information, target photos and intelligence (i.e. known allocation of enemy fighter forces, enemy AAA positions etc), the aircraft pool and pilots available for that mission. Then it's up to you - you can either auto-plan the mission or do it manually.

So you can plan something but it's within believable and reasonable limits.

That's pretty much what i had in mind as well for a campaign system. I don't mind having an extra, full-on strategic mode where you are planning missions as a theater commander but flying them as if you are in the shoes of many different pilots for those who would like something like this, but not to the detriment of having what you describe: the feeling of being a tiny cog in an enormous war machine, recreating the day to day life of a single pilot in a single unit.

The player could then decide on the things he would historically have responsibility for, based on his rank. The HQ and generals assign your unit's orders/general goals/targets and if you have the appropriate rank you can plan the raids according to intel,weather and requirements of other units (or press the auto-generate button) and then fly them.

As for the effect on history, it doesn't have to be a black or white case of "either full-on ahistorical or totally scripted". Anyone remember European Air War? Whatever you did the allies would still win. However, you could influence how fast and how easily/hard it happened.
If you were doing well in your missions you got promoted and took command of a unit. If you took care to protect your pilots and accomplish your missions (thanks to that game's very good radio command interface), your unit's overall contribution to the war effort increased.

It was a very balanced deal. You actions had an effect in the dynamic campaign without overturning the historical outcome of the war. How? Small stuff and local effects.

I think this would be a very good campaign system for the SoW series as well, especially since we know we'll be getting multi-layered AI (an old example from an interview by mr Oleg Maddox: shooting the generator turns off the searchlights and the flak guns can't aim anymore).

Since SoW will feature so many individual details per each unit modelled, i think we'll have enough tools to focus on having dynamic occurences around the player while still preserving the historical accuracy in the grand scheme of things. I think this is the perfect mix, because you feel small enough to convey the feeling that you are just a soldier in a war, but not totally powerless to influence day to day situations in your part of the front.

For example if you command the best fighter bomber unit in the 8th AF, the D-day landings might happen a couple of weeks earlier and the troops on the ground in your sector might advance a little faster thanks to your support.
In a similar fashion, if you rise to command a luftwaffe unit that excels under your leadership, maybe you can delay D-Day for a couple of weeks and the allied troops in your sector advance slower because of your determined resistance, but they will still advance all the way into Germany.

The broad outcome is still historically correct, but the local situation in the air and on the ground is subjected to the effects of the player's actions, so we get the best of both worlds: historical accuracy and replayability/incentives to improve. It gives a varied yet accurate experience for each campaign we will ever start

I'd really love to know what the developers think about this, because i have a feeling we'll be very pleasantly surprised.

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by Flying_Nutcase

The thing about strictly historical thinking is that the fact that the events that occurred were not what was 'meant to be'. They were not written in stone as what had to happen. The events that transpired and decisions that were made, big and small, could have been different.

A dynamic campaign that can offer variability based on a different set of events and decisions seems pretty reasonable, in addition of course to more strictly historical campaigns. These events and decisions would largely be completely independent of the player's actions, although the players actions would be part of the input, like successfully destroying radar stations or whatever.

For those of you with a more strictly historical mindset, what do you think about that? I'm kind of curious.

Nicely put, that sounds about right. It is on the lines that would be ideal for me. Some actions / attacks happening like they were planned, but not having big enough impact on the Battle outcome. Making out actions and input count for something.

On the other hand - total reenactment of the Battle with every single plane downed as it was would also be boring and impossible to do.