Is it posible to "add" some air cover for the troops like in the real combat situation.
I know that you can by anti-air MMG:s and canons, but I still miss the dogfight.
Air combat in SPWAW.
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
King__Thunder
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Finland in the capital of Kimi Räikkönen.
Air combat in SPWAW.
If you are a deserter and allalone frezing to the bones in a deep cold forest and would like to have some company, call for friendly fire.
But preventing SPWAW from any aero-naval management is a constraint imposed by the original target of the game or comes from a general lacking in design ?
That answer may encourage many of us in proposing new extensions to SPWAW/CL..
I tried to develop this concept from a campaign designer point of view...some historical battles
as PEarl Harbour , the battle of Britain , Midway ecc.ecc. are impossible to be arranged in SPWAW...we only have some approximation to this when you play a beach landing..or you design a paratroopers drop..As many of you may have noticed scenarios like Normandy landings are very interesting...
That answer may encourage many of us in proposing new extensions to SPWAW/CL..
I tried to develop this concept from a campaign designer point of view...some historical battles
as PEarl Harbour , the battle of Britain , Midway ecc.ecc. are impossible to be arranged in SPWAW...we only have some approximation to this when you play a beach landing..or you design a paratroopers drop..As many of you may have noticed scenarios like Normandy landings are very interesting...
Italian Soldier,German Discipline!
Air combat is inappropriate given the focus of this design: namely tactical ground combat.
The effects of offensive and defensive counter-air ops are built into the availability of CAS and interdiction missions in the scenario(s). Which is what REALLY matters to the commander on the ground, anyway.
The effects of offensive and defensive counter-air ops are built into the availability of CAS and interdiction missions in the scenario(s). Which is what REALLY matters to the commander on the ground, anyway.
"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel
Nigel Tufnel
There is 2 simple reason for this:
- Physics: the size of the SPWAW map , teh hex and the turn lenght make it absolutly unplayable to simulate air operation ( just remember the all mighty gunship from SP2 ). Another pb is that in a turn by turn simulation , you need to have shorter turn for airplane ( standing mid air for 5mins while your opponent fight is crazy ).
- There is dogfight taken into account: when you use the XXX setting for air sortie there is a mini calculation between the 2 nation to determinate the number of air sortie avaliable? this is where the dogfight and interception take place.
And finnaly dont forget that aircraft are strategical asset, not under the control of inf/armo rgt commander. You cant assign fighter to defend you, you just can hope the HQ did do <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> and you roll low on the air sortie roll <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
- Physics: the size of the SPWAW map , teh hex and the turn lenght make it absolutly unplayable to simulate air operation ( just remember the all mighty gunship from SP2 ). Another pb is that in a turn by turn simulation , you need to have shorter turn for airplane ( standing mid air for 5mins while your opponent fight is crazy ).
- There is dogfight taken into account: when you use the XXX setting for air sortie there is a mini calculation between the 2 nation to determinate the number of air sortie avaliable? this is where the dogfight and interception take place.
And finnaly dont forget that aircraft are strategical asset, not under the control of inf/armo rgt commander. You cant assign fighter to defend you, you just can hope the HQ did do <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> and you roll low on the air sortie roll <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
-
Tortfeasor
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: helsinki. Finland
"Ivan GREYWOLF Kerensky.
And finnaly dont forget that aircraft are strategical asset, not under the control of inf/armo rgt commander. You cant assign fighter to defend you, you just can hope the HQ did do and you roll low on the air sortie roll"
I Tortfeasor.
If HQ is able to order air suport or artillery, then why dont they order air cover for the troops under lets say 1.4 turns just like artillery.
And finnaly dont forget that aircraft are strategical asset, not under the control of inf/armo rgt commander. You cant assign fighter to defend you, you just can hope the HQ did do and you roll low on the air sortie roll"
I Tortfeasor.
If HQ is able to order air suport or artillery, then why dont they order air cover for the troops under lets say 1.4 turns just like artillery.
My opinion might have been changed, but not the fact that I am correct.
Yes I know...you always seem to view things in a limited way..if you like not to have any Midway scenario, well you can be happy now !
Let me say one thing : I understand that there is a basical design which addresses the storyline..
what you say about air cover , ground squad level ecc.ecc. is true..and I don't want this to be changed...but why fighting against any new possibility in SPWAW ?(but it's obvious I am looking at Combat LEader ) well I ask WHY FORBIDDING any extension to the level of operations ? you can feature new maps for air combat or naval combat
..you can do everything you want..and with the advantage of making interact all levels : aero-aval and ground operations...
a sort of three games enclosed in the same SPWAW
great one..we have examples of air combat and naval combat from which being succesfull inspired..
we may consider the actual SPWAW very close to a battalion level status...you can enlarge maps..and improve the AI control of your own platoons..while this still allows to play SPWAW in a squad level why put limits to extensions ?
Try only for a moment to think to how wide variety of scenarios could be built if only you remove all the stops you put to extensions..think to a campaign not based only to core units but that also can manage switching from ground to aero or naval operations and then back to your core forces..and also to scenarios which combine the three aspects of the war...
Wouldn't you like to have your favourite game able to eleve itself to a more complete WWIIgame project ?
Think to WWIIOnline...they first did one revolutionary thing : they integrated all the three aspects in only one game..interacting between areo-naval-ground aspects is now real !
Now come back to SPWAW..we have to reduce obviously the target..to fill in our dimensions..but the concept can still be applied to SPWAW in a way it will make SPWAW the best of its genre..
Conservativism should be that principle
which prevents SPWAW to forget itself..not a
constraint to its growing up !
Bye
Let me say one thing : I understand that there is a basical design which addresses the storyline..
what you say about air cover , ground squad level ecc.ecc. is true..and I don't want this to be changed...but why fighting against any new possibility in SPWAW ?(but it's obvious I am looking at Combat LEader ) well I ask WHY FORBIDDING any extension to the level of operations ? you can feature new maps for air combat or naval combat
..you can do everything you want..and with the advantage of making interact all levels : aero-aval and ground operations...
a sort of three games enclosed in the same SPWAW
great one..we have examples of air combat and naval combat from which being succesfull inspired..
we may consider the actual SPWAW very close to a battalion level status...you can enlarge maps..and improve the AI control of your own platoons..while this still allows to play SPWAW in a squad level why put limits to extensions ?
Try only for a moment to think to how wide variety of scenarios could be built if only you remove all the stops you put to extensions..think to a campaign not based only to core units but that also can manage switching from ground to aero or naval operations and then back to your core forces..and also to scenarios which combine the three aspects of the war...
Wouldn't you like to have your favourite game able to eleve itself to a more complete WWIIgame project ?
Think to WWIIOnline...they first did one revolutionary thing : they integrated all the three aspects in only one game..interacting between areo-naval-ground aspects is now real !
Now come back to SPWAW..we have to reduce obviously the target..to fill in our dimensions..but the concept can still be applied to SPWAW in a way it will make SPWAW the best of its genre..
Conservativism should be that principle
which prevents SPWAW to forget itself..not a
constraint to its growing up !
Bye
Italian Soldier,German Discipline!
Nice ideas, Ruxius, but I doubt that the engine could support them, and that's the main crux of why they are not possible.
Also, scale does come into play when adding naval and air combat possibilities, and they'd be better used in a larger scale game, IMO.
Alex
Also, scale does come into play when adding naval and air combat possibilities, and they'd be better used in a larger scale game, IMO.
Alex
"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.
My two Euro worth:
Offensive and defensive counter-air (and naval ops for that matter) just don't "fit" in the ethos of the game, namely that one-the player(s) is a battalion/company commander, and is making the decisions at that level of TACTICAL combat to complete the given mission.
Game-wise this would be an unplayable monster, with either endless turns as one allocates available air/naval resources, moves and fights ground units, and in general runs an operational-level campaign, or would have vanilla air/naval ops rules which would satisfy neither those against such chrome (like myself) nor those who wanted it.
This game and CL for that matter are scoped to simulate GROUND, primarily ARMORED combat. At this level of war, CAS/NGS are nice-to-have adjuncts, but not essential to an accurate simulation.
Orchestrating ground,air and naval ops is an interesting problem, but at a different level of conflict than SP is designed to portray.
Offensive and defensive counter-air (and naval ops for that matter) just don't "fit" in the ethos of the game, namely that one-the player(s) is a battalion/company commander, and is making the decisions at that level of TACTICAL combat to complete the given mission.
Game-wise this would be an unplayable monster, with either endless turns as one allocates available air/naval resources, moves and fights ground units, and in general runs an operational-level campaign, or would have vanilla air/naval ops rules which would satisfy neither those against such chrome (like myself) nor those who wanted it.
This game and CL for that matter are scoped to simulate GROUND, primarily ARMORED combat. At this level of war, CAS/NGS are nice-to-have adjuncts, but not essential to an accurate simulation.
Orchestrating ground,air and naval ops is an interesting problem, but at a different level of conflict than SP is designed to portray.
"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel
Nigel Tufnel
I TortFeasor , the fact that you can DESIGN TARGET for your assigned air support isn't at all the same thing that the fact you have command on your air assets.Originally posted by Tortfeasor:
"Ivan GREYWOLF Kerensky.
And finnaly dont forget that aircraft are strategical asset, not under the control of inf/armo rgt commander. You cant assign fighter to defend you, you just can hope the HQ did do and you roll low on the air sortie roll"
I Tortfeasor.
If HQ is able to order air suport or artillery, then why dont they order air cover for the troops under lets say 1.4 turns just like artillery.
All the OB assest where buy from avaliable supply by scenario , that mean the HQ have assigned them to you and you command their tactical operation.
Artillery OB is your corps asset no pb, Bombers in wing are planned offensive asset, rogue fighter/bomber are just planes that happen to come through the place and take a shoot. The fact you command the air target didn't mind you radioed info directly to airplane, it is just a bit more of player control versus AI routine ( and in fact you dont have THAT much control on aircraft target anyway ).
Remember the air routine come from SP2 with modern ground air radio call, WWII have not so close relationship.
Air fighter are not under command and they wont keep on protecting a few compagnie for 45 minutes while they have 75 km patrol area to cover.
More than this remember than FIGHTER COVER ARE ALMREADY IN THE GAME, it is abstracted and you wont seen them fight but they will fight anyway and reduce air sortie avaliable to your opponent.
---------------
---------------
About me being closeminded and refuseing to open my favorite game to new theater, my oh my...
SPWAW is a tactical WWII ground fight. As a tactical ground simulation it have a peculiar scale. This scale is well suited for ground operation.
I remind you the scale : 1 Hex = 50 yrds, 1 turn= 5 minutes, 1 tank =1 tank , 1 squad = 10 to 18 man.
It is one of the more basic and detailled infantery battle scale.
Now you want to add Ships and plane into that, why not,referring to my wargame collection I can put my hand on several tactical wargame to have appropriate scale.
Ships : 1 Hex= 50 yrds ?? realy cumbersome as a lot of ships have more than 1 hex long length. Far more cumbersome is the fact that common ship battle are fight from 5 to 25 km away for Canon fight and more than 300 for air operation. 30 km square map ( and we better put the hex to a nm scale ) is 30000/50=600 , 600 hex square is doable, but a lot of memory burden and hard to scroll thing.
1 turn 5min = that is ok, that mean some ship will fire several time a turn some once every 3 turn, not a big deal.
Obviously the scale will be 1 ship = 1 ship.
So we can possibly include ship into SPWAW, bt more probably only as a support on one side or as OB bombardement as they necessitate a very large map and totally different combat mechanisme. ( yes ship battle and tank battle are similar to the eye but deeply different on the numbers ).
Oddly enough that is already the way they are included.
Planes: I got several airplane simulation and to make this already ong story short here is the conclusion if you wnat to add dogfight to SPWAW you will have to put special phases for planes to be somewhat realistic. I mean that 1 inf/ship gameturn = 30 airplane gameturn. You will also have to design a speed tracking device and an altitude one too , add the maneuvers, connect the on map AA defense to the air play ( hum did my 20 mm fire on land or did it fire on the plane in one of their 30 turns ? how many time a turn ? will it regain suppression ). In sort you will have to design a totally new game and find a way to mix it with the current SPWAW game engine. Good luck...
Or you can simply use and enjoy SPWAW as it is now with his planes and ships as they are , and go to other paying simulation for the others aspect. PErsonnaly I recommand Achtung Spitfire/OTR for air tactical combat ( AIRFORCE/DAUTNLESS in board game ), and Carriers at war for ship combat. Or you can wait for Uncommon valor to be out to have an operationnal but with deep tactical detail simulation on hand.
my closing sentence of today:
" Sometimes when a thing did not exist it is simply because it cannot exist."
In my opinion "air combat" should be implemented in SPWaW as some sort of abstract "Air Superiority" points, that could be purchased the same way mines are. Having player-controlled fighters in the game isn't such a great idea. I won't go into detail since previous posters have already trashed the idea enough <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
If a nation didn't historically have air combat capability at a certain year, well, he wouldn't have the chance to buy those points. If a nation had weak airforce (late-war Germany, for example) then the same amount of "Air Superiority" points would cost much more than for a nation with strong air forces.
These abstract points would manifest in real-game-life as already suppressed/damaged enemy attack aircraft or enemy aircraft failing to make appearance at all due to being shot down by a sizeable amount of "Air Superiority". All these conflicts would be resolved off-board.
I don't think having the player buy himself air superiority "units" would be overly unrealistic, considering what units one can buy in the current SPWaW. It would also give some chance to effectively hamper enemy air attacks, although the price should higher than with ground AA.
If a nation didn't historically have air combat capability at a certain year, well, he wouldn't have the chance to buy those points. If a nation had weak airforce (late-war Germany, for example) then the same amount of "Air Superiority" points would cost much more than for a nation with strong air forces.
These abstract points would manifest in real-game-life as already suppressed/damaged enemy attack aircraft or enemy aircraft failing to make appearance at all due to being shot down by a sizeable amount of "Air Superiority". All these conflicts would be resolved off-board.
I don't think having the player buy himself air superiority "units" would be overly unrealistic, considering what units one can buy in the current SPWaW. It would also give some chance to effectively hamper enemy air attacks, although the price should higher than with ground AA.
Mellon it wouldnt be unrealisltic but will make double use. Please read the manual.
The actual number of air mission avaliable oneach side take count of the possible intervention depending off air status at this actual period.
It isn't an hardcoded value.
It is a calculated number that do something like
Let say we are in 1940 french have an air rating of 3 german 7.
French roll 1 getting them 2 sorties
German roll 6 getting them 1
actual play the french sortie cancel one of the german then there is only 1 air sortie avaliable , adn it is french.
THis is the old system from a while ago. the current system is far more complicated and let the 2 side eventually got air sortie, or none eventually. Just try to get WbW or a matrix people to eplian it in detail.
About the air missionpoint suppressing or damaging bombers, i a fairly against for simple reason: 80% of the bomber in the games are fighter bomber or close attack , if they are in a dogfight they jettison their bomb to fight so it actually cancel their sortie.
I know it can be fun to have more detail about all the air system that we dont see but just remind yourself that the airplanes you see in the game are the nes that wasn't intercepted, damaged or turned back. All the others ones are jsut not showing, thsi doesnt mind they are not taken into account.
The actual number of air mission avaliable oneach side take count of the possible intervention depending off air status at this actual period.
It isn't an hardcoded value.
It is a calculated number that do something like
Let say we are in 1940 french have an air rating of 3 german 7.
French roll 1 getting them 2 sorties
German roll 6 getting them 1
actual play the french sortie cancel one of the german then there is only 1 air sortie avaliable , adn it is french.
THis is the old system from a while ago. the current system is far more complicated and let the 2 side eventually got air sortie, or none eventually. Just try to get WbW or a matrix people to eplian it in detail.
About the air missionpoint suppressing or damaging bombers, i a fairly against for simple reason: 80% of the bomber in the games are fighter bomber or close attack , if they are in a dogfight they jettison their bomb to fight so it actually cancel their sortie.
I know it can be fun to have more detail about all the air system that we dont see but just remind yourself that the airplanes you see in the game are the nes that wasn't intercepted, damaged or turned back. All the others ones are jsut not showing, thsi doesnt mind they are not taken into account.
What they could do to solve the problem of on screen air combat is to allow the player to purchase fighter aircraft and assign them roles. So you could use your fighter to strafe, escort your bomber or fly a intercept mission. The last type should reduce the chances of enemy bombers coming through, the escorts can help the bombers getting through.
If you combine this with rarity for planes, it will give a realistic idea, with air combat taking place around you and less and more likely success of airstrikes based on theathre and year. The occasional 'enemy bomber downed' would be a huge morale boost! even though you'd never see interceptor nor bomber
The same method could be applied to artillery where some guns should be able to be marked dedicated counter battery and maybe even allow for a spotter plane (off map) that improves their accuracy
Patrick
If you combine this with rarity for planes, it will give a realistic idea, with air combat taking place around you and less and more likely success of airstrikes based on theathre and year. The occasional 'enemy bomber downed' would be a huge morale boost! even though you'd never see interceptor nor bomber
The same method could be applied to artillery where some guns should be able to be marked dedicated counter battery and maybe even allow for a spotter plane (off map) that improves their accuracy
Patrick
Well..talking about this is the first positive approach to the problem...
True and false...Actually SPWAW is based on this level..but larger available maps added with new types of maps (maps for air or naval combat) belong to SPWAW extension (always remember I am talking about CL) not to the actual SPWAW !
Improving the AI for commanding player's platoons
will open the roleplay also to a battalion level.. Let me say again I am talking about COHEXISTANCE and INTERACTION of the two levels ! This means you can play BAttalion level using AI to control some platoons , commanding manually some other platoons with large maps..but you also can STILL play squad level with reduced maps and less units WITHIN the same SPWAW game if you like ! so anyone can choose and play its favourite level of playing !
and you will be happy twice..Actual SPWAW is very flexible about this issue..but why denying such a monster player to exist ?
In fact I am talking about extending it ..becuase WWII was not only that...and if I would like to design a complete campaign I have to cut many episodes..if you don't like this why adversing it ? you are not changed your old environment !
Actual SPWAW campaign are obviously limited...especially the long campaigns..just think to how approximated could be a minor nation long campaign !
I answer to this with an example at the opposite edge..get rid of any aircraft...paratroopers and infiltrators ,bomber levels ..do you think SPWAW is better now ? The animation of the aircraft entering into the battlefield is one of the most exciting parts of SPWAW ..I love it..
I would like to see in Combat Leader many and many more of these animations..very cool seeing a paratrooper squad being dropped..I discussed a lot for a major viewing of the level bombers..
Think to this..in reality we will not need the animation of the aircraft entering the battlefield..we could easily manage it like the fast artillery concept..but how nicer is it with the animation ? it's about this concept that I am struggling ! Air superiority can be summarized by some calcualtions and we will see only the numerical results..or we can have an
animation showing its progress....
that's extending..
I don't mean to change the scale..but you know...larger maps can be available for ground
combat..aero-naval necessarily needs new scales..
when I say interacting between naval and ground realities it may simply mean that you have a naval convoy where your units are loaded (like trucks) but they do not take part of the combat except for the fact that you protect them from enemy planes attacking the convoy..
that way you do not care anymore about the units scale...men can you see how many ecxciting animations can be introduced if we find a way ?
Simplify the interactions..1-open naval operation
2-beach assault..3-air combat..4-air intercepting..
with your core units !!!!!!
How many new scenarios..
Aeronaval are not to be intended as core units itself (except some fighters as support points...)(I have already talked about this..)but mainly as support units to be used in special contexts...
right observation...but can you see how much you limit yourself according to the size hex parameter ? this limitations expires as soon as three kind of maps..air map , naval map , ground map..are allowed...
In effect one problem raises when on beach assault
ships coexist in the map with tanks and infantries..that way scale is a big limitation..
(I am still reflecting about the ammocarrier shp files which overflows from the hex...)
But I can't think to everything..that's why I am asking to you how to design these extensions !
How can we represent the Navy fleet at Alexandria
port ? and the italian MAS incursori trying to get them exploded ? you can call these scenarios
you will never see nowadays..
If your answer is exit SPWAW and play another game..sorry let me say I see some conservative stance here...
I have already suggested some animations to be added to the current one of the classical aircraft ground attack..brief example..I suggested the introduction of new classes of aircrafts..I will talk to you about so called
Interceptors :
You buy (if available)(previously checked the air superiority factor) some interceptors..
you then assign them some turns of patrolling
(say turn5-8) that means that they are avaialble for that battle only during that turns..(common rules for artillery avaibility could be applied here) If ever the enemy will decide a traditional ground attack within that range a new animation will interact to the classical one ...showing the interceptor (one to one ) entering the battlefield and trying to attack the first plane like AA will do ..
If ever you will be so lucky to taste it I am sure you will never agree to remove it !
That game is the best air combat simulation that can be re-arranged for SPWAW ..excellent way to manage air battles in a top'down view...it only needs an addiction for height..but the approximation is really interesting...it is so similar to SPWAW concept that I am sad they didn't find a common way to exist..also navals can be inspired from that...
reference to Achtung Spitfire was so nice that I will investigate about it !
Extending SPWAW to aeronaval for more complete campaigns...that's my dream..a turn-based squad/battalion level ,SPWAW-engine aeronaval extended game!..Matrix needs time and I understand this point ..but call me a visonary..I think that will be the final evolution for Combat Leader...
To me it's equal to vote for a button called
Fast Ground Attack ON/OFF ..you don't see any aircraft..but only the result of the bombing..too poor for my opinion...
You can bring this theory to its limit and assert that you don't need to play SPWAW..you purchase your units..,you press the battle button and then you wait for the final statistics...why playing all the battle ? just simulate it..you may understand what I mean behind my stupid example of radicalism ..
Instead we have the concept of animation..why preventing ourself from enhancing that feature ?
It seems you are not prepared to appreciate any new idea that may come...
Great ! I have already spoken about three new roles for aircrafts..according to spwaw engine...
your mind is opened to positively investing on extendibility
so why you don't want to explore new possibilities here ?
Right..infiltrators taught that a pop-up box can be opened and manage the new feature...I also suggested a role for buildings..with parameters..
I study computer science..you know...money is also invested in theoretical research...
periodically practical implementations realize what theory discovered...
Not depending on what will be really implemented here we have a big opportunity..to be scientists
of SPWAW...Matrix has the technical resources togive implementation to theory sometimes..depending on their needs...but we must provide that theory !
SO first of all we MUST invest in free innovative ideas !
Thank you for so long attention !
[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: ruxius ]</p>
[/b]Offensive and defensive counter-air just don't "fit" in the ethos of the game, namely that one-the player(s) is a battalion/company commander, and is making the decisions at that level of TACTICAL combat to complete the given mission.
True and false...Actually SPWAW is based on this level..but larger available maps added with new types of maps (maps for air or naval combat) belong to SPWAW extension (always remember I am talking about CL) not to the actual SPWAW !
Improving the AI for commanding player's platoons
will open the roleplay also to a battalion level.. Let me say again I am talking about COHEXISTANCE and INTERACTION of the two levels ! This means you can play BAttalion level using AI to control some platoons , commanding manually some other platoons with large maps..but you also can STILL play squad level with reduced maps and less units WITHIN the same SPWAW game if you like ! so anyone can choose and play its favourite level of playing !
[/b]simply choose a small map and few units and you will be happy..choose a ground scenery
Game-wise this would be an unplayable monster, with either endless turns as one allocates available air/naval resources, moves and fights ground units, and in general runs an operational-level campaign, or would have vanilla air/naval ops rules which would satisfy neither those against such chrome (like myself) nor those who wanted it.
and you will be happy twice..Actual SPWAW is very flexible about this issue..but why denying such a monster player to exist ?
[/b]
This game and CL for that matter are scoped to simulate GROUND, primarily ARMORED combat.
In fact I am talking about extending it ..becuase WWII was not only that...and if I would like to design a complete campaign I have to cut many episodes..if you don't like this why adversing it ? you are not changed your old environment !
Actual SPWAW campaign are obviously limited...especially the long campaigns..just think to how approximated could be a minor nation long campaign !
[/b]
Orchestrating ground,air and naval ops is an interesting problem, but at a different level of conflict than SP is designed to portray.
I answer to this with an example at the opposite edge..get rid of any aircraft...paratroopers and infiltrators ,bomber levels ..do you think SPWAW is better now ? The animation of the aircraft entering into the battlefield is one of the most exciting parts of SPWAW ..I love it..
I would like to see in Combat Leader many and many more of these animations..very cool seeing a paratrooper squad being dropped..I discussed a lot for a major viewing of the level bombers..
[/b]
More than this remember than FIGHTER COVER ARE ALMREADY IN THE GAME, it is abstracted and you wont seen them fight but they will fight anyway and reduce air sortie avaliable to your opponent.
Think to this..in reality we will not need the animation of the aircraft entering the battlefield..we could easily manage it like the fast artillery concept..but how nicer is it with the animation ? it's about this concept that I am struggling ! Air superiority can be summarized by some calcualtions and we will see only the numerical results..or we can have an
animation showing its progress....
that's extending..
[/b] sorry mister..it was not a personal attack..but when you say 'things are not possible' practically you cut off any way to introduce that new feature..you have good reasons..what I ask to all of you is to find a way to make these extensions! and make them compatible with the game concept..this is not anymore °impossible° but difficult !
About me being closeminded and refuseing to open my favorite game to new theater, my oh my...
[/b]True and false..so it was born...now it can grow up if only we find a way to arrange extensions...
SPWAW is a tactical WWII ground fight. As a tactical ground simulation it have a peculiar scale. This scale is well suited for ground operation.
[/b]
I remind you the scale : 1 Hex = 50 yrds, 1 turn= 5 minutes, 1 tank =1 tank , 1 squad = 10 to 18 man. It is one of the more basic and detailled infantery battle scale.
I don't mean to change the scale..but you know...larger maps can be available for ground
combat..aero-naval necessarily needs new scales..
when I say interacting between naval and ground realities it may simply mean that you have a naval convoy where your units are loaded (like trucks) but they do not take part of the combat except for the fact that you protect them from enemy planes attacking the convoy..
that way you do not care anymore about the units scale...men can you see how many ecxciting animations can be introduced if we find a way ?
Simplify the interactions..1-open naval operation
2-beach assault..3-air combat..4-air intercepting..
with your core units !!!!!!
How many new scenarios..
Aeronaval are not to be intended as core units itself (except some fighters as support points...)(I have already talked about this..)but mainly as support units to be used in special contexts...
[/b]
Ships : 1 Hex= 50 yrds ?? realy cumbersome as a lot of ships have more than 1 hex long length. Far more cumbersome is the fact that common ship battle are fight from 5 to 25 km away for Canon fight and more than 300 for air operation.
right observation...but can you see how much you limit yourself according to the size hex parameter ? this limitations expires as soon as three kind of maps..air map , naval map , ground map..are allowed...
[/b]
Obviously the scale will be 1 ship = 1 ship.
In effect one problem raises when on beach assault
ships coexist in the map with tanks and infantries..that way scale is a big limitation..
(I am still reflecting about the ammocarrier shp files which overflows from the hex...)
But I can't think to everything..that's why I am asking to you how to design these extensions !
How can we represent the Navy fleet at Alexandria
port ? and the italian MAS incursori trying to get them exploded ? you can call these scenarios
you will never see nowadays..
If your answer is exit SPWAW and play another game..sorry let me say I see some conservative stance here...
[/b]
Planes: I got several airplane simulation and to make this already ong story short here is the conclusion if you wnat to add dogfight to SPWAW you will have to put special phases for planes to be somewhat realistic.
I have already suggested some animations to be added to the current one of the classical aircraft ground attack..brief example..I suggested the introduction of new classes of aircrafts..I will talk to you about so called
Interceptors :
You buy (if available)(previously checked the air superiority factor) some interceptors..
you then assign them some turns of patrolling
(say turn5-8) that means that they are avaialble for that battle only during that turns..(common rules for artillery avaibility could be applied here) If ever the enemy will decide a traditional ground attack within that range a new animation will interact to the classical one ...showing the interceptor (one to one ) entering the battlefield and trying to attack the first plane like AA will do ..
If ever you will be so lucky to taste it I am sure you will never agree to remove it !
[/b]YES !!!! when extending ,necessarily you have to introduce new parameters..Combat Leader necessarily EXTENDS to be a new game..on the contrary it wouldn't be called with a different name !
I mean that 1 inf/ship gameturn = 30 airplane gameturn. You will also have to design a speed tracking device and an altitude one too , add the maneuvers, connect the on map AA defense to the air play ( hum did my 20 mm fire on land or did it fire on the plane in one of their 30 turns ? how many time a turn ?
[/b]That's what is happening with CL..the more you are able to design an extension which is compatible with SPWAW and the more it's easy that it will be implemented..!
In sort you will have to design a totally new game and find a way to mix it with the current SPWAW game engine. Good luck...
[/b]sorry , but I strongly adverse this stance for one simple reason...actual SPWAW does not follow this tendency..if you come from SP1 you can't forget that extensions brought to you the actual SPWAW..they DARED and YOU NOW ENJOY that spirit of challenging..static vision would never had brought SPWAW to us..remember this !
Or you can simply use and enjoy SPWAW as it is now with his planes and ships as they are , and go to other paying simulation for the others aspect.
[/b]
PErsonnaly I recommand Achtung Spitfire/OTR for air tactical combat ( AIRFORCE/DAUTNLESS in board game )
That game is the best air combat simulation that can be re-arranged for SPWAW ..excellent way to manage air battles in a top'down view...it only needs an addiction for height..but the approximation is really interesting...it is so similar to SPWAW concept that I am sad they didn't find a common way to exist..also navals can be inspired from that...
[/b]I don't know about this game..but your
and Carriers at war for ship combat. Or you can wait for Uncommon valor to be out to have an operationnal but with deep tactical detail simulation on hand.
reference to Achtung Spitfire was so nice that I will investigate about it !
Extending SPWAW to aeronaval for more complete campaigns...that's my dream..a turn-based squad/battalion level ,SPWAW-engine aeronaval extended game!..Matrix needs time and I understand this point ..but call me a visonary..I think that will be the final evolution for Combat Leader...
[/b] or sometimes you simply didn't think at it...
my closing sentence of today:
" Sometimes when a thing did not exist it is simply because it cannot exist."
[/b]
In my opinion "air combat" should be implemented in SPWaW as some sort of abstract "Air Superiority" points, that could be purchased the same way mines are.
To me it's equal to vote for a button called
Fast Ground Attack ON/OFF ..you don't see any aircraft..but only the result of the bombing..too poor for my opinion...
[/b] opinable,anyway I don't ask necessarily a human control..as my example of Interceptors shows..
Having player-controlled fighters in the game isn't such a great idea.
[/b]
If a nation had weak airforce (late-war Germany, for example) then the same amount of "Air Superiority" points would cost much more than for a nation with strong air forces.
You can bring this theory to its limit and assert that you don't need to play SPWAW..you purchase your units..,you press the battle button and then you wait for the final statistics...why playing all the battle ? just simulate it..you may understand what I mean behind my stupid example of radicalism ..
Instead we have the concept of animation..why preventing ourself from enhancing that feature ?
It seems you are not prepared to appreciate any new idea that may come...
[/b]
What they could do to solve the problem of on screen air combat is to allow the player to purchase fighter aircraft and assign them roles.
So you could use your fighter to strafe, escort your bomber or fly a intercept mission. The last type should reduce the chances of enemy bombers coming through, the escorts can help the bombers getting through.
Great ! I have already spoken about three new roles for aircrafts..according to spwaw engine...
your mind is opened to positively investing on extendibility
[/b] or seeing AI dedicated animations..I can't believe you do not like to see the aircraft bombing an hex and the interacting of the AA fire
If you combine this with rarity for planes, it will give a realistic idea, with air combat taking place around you and less and more likely success of airstrikes based on theathre and year. The occasional 'enemy bomber downed' would be a huge morale boost! even though you'd never see interceptor nor bomber
so why you don't want to explore new possibilities here ?
[/b]
The same method could be applied to artillery where some guns should be able to be marked dedicated counter battery and maybe even allow for a spotter plane (off map) that improves their accuracy
Right..infiltrators taught that a pop-up box can be opened and manage the new feature...I also suggested a role for buildings..with parameters..
I study computer science..you know...money is also invested in theoretical research...
periodically practical implementations realize what theory discovered...
Not depending on what will be really implemented here we have a big opportunity..to be scientists
of SPWAW...Matrix has the technical resources togive implementation to theory sometimes..depending on their needs...but we must provide that theory !
SO first of all we MUST invest in free innovative ideas !
Thank you for so long attention !
[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: ruxius ]</p>
Italian Soldier,German Discipline!
-
King__Thunder
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Finland in the capital of Kimi Räikkönen.
-
King__Thunder
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Finland in the capital of Kimi Räikkönen.
Would SPWAW arial look like this http://216.15.156.163/images/aspscreenbig0.jpg
http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/dec97/asp04.html
http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/dec97/asp03.html <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: King__Thunder ]</p>
http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/dec97/asp04.html
http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/dec97/asp03.html <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: King__Thunder ]</p>
If you are a deserter and allalone frezing to the bones in a deep cold forest and would like to have some company, call for friendly fire.
<BODY BGCOLOR="white">
<TABLE BORDER=2>
<TD BGCOLOR="white" VALIGN=middle><DIV ALIGN=center >
<Font size="5" color=blue > CONGRATULATIONS King_Thunder !!!!</font>
<font face="verdana" >
I spoke and you gave marvellous examples of my theory !</font>
<HR align="center" size="2" > <Font color=gray>
How much the management of that aircrafts may fit in SPWAW world !!!!
Now imagine a campaign as an example..you purchased your units..they did their campaign in North Africa..in scenario..say 14 ..the designer decides the campaign to be continued in Sicily..as for now the whole travel in the Mediterrean is only a merely text file at the beginning of scen14.. but with SPWAW extended it could become a super-exciting scenario with naval AUX units to be used for transport and escort your core units until Sicily where scen15 will be a beach assault if every went right and scen16 is again common 'ground' SPWAW as many of you like !
Now can you see how much Achtung SPitfire fits in a SPWAW way of managing single weapon of WWII ?Think to Malta and Battle of Britain to be played within SPWAW..you can design some air battles before your troops will begin a beach assault to south England !!!! If ever this will be implemented in some way :
CAN YOU REALLY SAY YOU DO NOT LIKE IT ?
Ok if your answer is affermative I surrender and we all can retire togheter to play the old SPWAW ver 1.0...
By the WAY...what is shown in the pictures IS THE 3D I ask for SPWAW...a simple isometric 3D view for units and buildings..</Font>
<HR align="center" size="1" >
Thank you King _Thunder for collaboration..join to my struggle ! Put your voice here..one day a complete aero-naval SPWAW-like game will see the light..because actually it exists but it's divided/splitted into several different wargames !
Only consciousness of this dispersion may help one day to bring an EXTENDED UNITED SPWAW to its birth..!!
and King..will you provide if you can any screenshot of the naval game you mentioned before ? Thank you !
P.s Oh WB ...when will you be back 'home' ?
</DIV>
</TD>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: ruxius ]</p>
<TABLE BORDER=2>
<TD BGCOLOR="white" VALIGN=middle><DIV ALIGN=center >
<Font size="5" color=blue > CONGRATULATIONS King_Thunder !!!!</font>
<font face="verdana" >
I spoke and you gave marvellous examples of my theory !</font>
<HR align="center" size="2" > <Font color=gray>
How much the management of that aircrafts may fit in SPWAW world !!!!
Now imagine a campaign as an example..you purchased your units..they did their campaign in North Africa..in scenario..say 14 ..the designer decides the campaign to be continued in Sicily..as for now the whole travel in the Mediterrean is only a merely text file at the beginning of scen14.. but with SPWAW extended it could become a super-exciting scenario with naval AUX units to be used for transport and escort your core units until Sicily where scen15 will be a beach assault if every went right and scen16 is again common 'ground' SPWAW as many of you like !
Now can you see how much Achtung SPitfire fits in a SPWAW way of managing single weapon of WWII ?Think to Malta and Battle of Britain to be played within SPWAW..you can design some air battles before your troops will begin a beach assault to south England !!!! If ever this will be implemented in some way :
CAN YOU REALLY SAY YOU DO NOT LIKE IT ?
Ok if your answer is affermative I surrender and we all can retire togheter to play the old SPWAW ver 1.0...
By the WAY...what is shown in the pictures IS THE 3D I ask for SPWAW...a simple isometric 3D view for units and buildings..</Font>
<HR align="center" size="1" >
Thank you King _Thunder for collaboration..join to my struggle ! Put your voice here..one day a complete aero-naval SPWAW-like game will see the light..because actually it exists but it's divided/splitted into several different wargames !
Only consciousness of this dispersion may help one day to bring an EXTENDED UNITED SPWAW to its birth..!!
and King..will you provide if you can any screenshot of the naval game you mentioned before ? Thank you !
P.s Oh WB ...when will you be back 'home' ?
</DIV>
</TD>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: ruxius ]</p>
Italian Soldier,German Discipline!
-
King__Thunder
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Finland in the capital of Kimi Räikkönen.
Thank you ruxius, and thank you Ivan GREYWOLF Kerensky for the "PErsonnaly I recommand Achtung Spitfire" tips of that game.
Ruxius, check this demo of "Achtung Spitfire" it`s perfect for SPWAW..
http://www.battlefront.com/products/worldwar/as/as_order.html <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Ruxius, check this demo of "Achtung Spitfire" it`s perfect for SPWAW..
http://www.battlefront.com/products/worldwar/as/as_order.html <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
If you are a deserter and allalone frezing to the bones in a deep cold forest and would like to have some company, call for friendly fire.
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
Take a look at this screen: http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/dec97/asp05.html . This is sort of OT, but a long time ago I voiced that I would like to see this in SPWAW or CL. It's probably something that strictly should only be considered for CL, but the picture alone doesn't tell the story. In OTR you can split the screen on this unit display menu. You can then view that Spitfire alongside ANY other plane in the game and compare stats. THIS is something I think CL could use in spades!!! With so much units in SPWAW, I'd greatly appreciate being able to view ANY two units major stats together. I suppose a picture in the background, such as with that Spitfire, might be nice, but the stats are the main thing, as I'd prefer more stats to a split screen than pictures taking up stat space (which indeed they don't in the picture since the stats overlay the picture).