Dynamic Campaign and Crew Members

[Paradox]

This is a message for the developer of this sim or to anyone directly involved with it. I'd like to say that I'm a huge fan of simulations which involve the use of dynamic campaigns and as such it was primarily this which drew me to this simulation, Starshatter. I've flown sims like F22:Total Air War where I created the 'Paradox Tactic' for simmers interested in the tactical side of warfare, and I've been a modder and beta tester for the 'Realism' and 'Superpack series of 'patches for Falcon 4.0 where my primary interest was the dynamic campaign. Also I've studied the book 'Air Campaign' to help with my testing of that sim. After stumbling onto this sim I was truly impressed and interestedand I'm hoping that more work will go into improving the dynamic campaign engine further.

One of the things that even the best dynamic campaign engine lacked(Even to this day Falcon 4.0 beats them all) was a listing of casualties. Air battles over populated areas will always bring such nasty events as a loss of civilian life. As I was taking in the atmosphere of this sim I noticed that there were things missing that could possibly help improve with drawing the players into the world that you've created. Just little things for your engine that many developers have missed.

1. The total number of crew members on your starships, minus the bridge crew. This number would of course be divided into ship crew and flight deck crew in the case of a carrier or any ship with a flight deck.

2. Damage to the hull and or flight deck causes casualties which in turn effect the various functions of the ships.(i.e. reduction in speed of internal ship repairs or a slowing or reduction of flight operations. An e-mail is also sent to you as flight lead or commander of the number of hands lost after a given battle. After a bit of time replacement crew and pilots are tranferred to the ships. Also these members skills and performance increase with experience.

3. Destruction of all allied ships and the total number of hands lost is received via message as well as absorbtion of any forces that are reduced to below effective numbers. Such as if a destroyer squadron of 5 is reduced down to 1 starship is would be reassigned to the carrier battlegroup. If the ship is a civilian or commercial vessel that should have been protected not only is the the total number of deaths listed but the governments feels on the event are expressed in said message and this could cause problems for the war effort.

4. Rescue and salvage ships would be interesting as well. I'm sure not all crew hands or passengers have to be lost. Rescue, salvage and recovery would definately feel more realistic.

5. A dynamic campaign where military, commerical, and civilian operations are constantly going ala Falcon 4. From a command screen the theatre commander can get constant updates on all traffic to and from the various locations/sectors and fighters can be scrambled if enemy vessels are detected. The use of 'listening stations' or spy recon ships(so called civilian vessels that relay information) can help with intelligence gathering. An auto or 'XO' mode can be engaged if the commander needs to leave his or her post for any reason.

6. A spacedock location for faster hull repairs if possible.

7. Resupply and reinforcements.

Forgive me if this seems a bit much. But when you look at all the various games out there that the so called big names in gaming have put out, you would think by now that someone would have included these items in as standard by now. Falcon 4 came out in 1998. Is if for us to believe that no progress has been made after 7 years?

I do have one question. Do forces on either side start with a certain force number with new forces being built as time goes on or are forces just re-spawned? One of the great things about a good dynamic campaign is the possibility of a war of attrition or distruction of HVA(High Value Assets) to help the war effort on your side.


Thank you for your time. And good work on a truly interesting game. I look forward to seeing how your next updates improve this simulation.


Nick "Paradox" Parker

[DamoclesX]

ya, that would be awsome

can you imagine bug testing that? lol

[Diabolico]

Awesome indeed! I've always been a fan of the Falcon 4,0 superpack series.
Too bad it was plagued by so much MP problems.
Yet if the suggestions you just made (wich everyone here would like to see implemented some time or the other...) could be implemented without causing more bugs that would be awesome.
My stand on that is "wait and see"... we haven't surely seen the last of SS... [;)]

=S=

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Paradox

I do have one question. Do forces on either side start with a certain force number with new forces being built as time goes on or are forces just re-spawned?

Number of starships and fighters are pre-set. If there are reinforcements, they are scripted. Timeline of one campaign is too short to build entire starship.

[Paradox]

DamoclesX and Diabolico,

Thanks for the response. Oh and love the work you guys are doing on SSC. Very impressive work.

You are both right about the debugging nightmare all those items would bring. It took all the groups involved with Falcon 4 about 7 years to update, upgrade, and for the most part fix Falcon 4 to what it is now with SuperPak 4. About 5 or more groups were working on it. Now that's a huge fan base with even larger loyalty and determination. I see the SS sim becoming the next best thing and it's fan base growing as well. Hopefully it will get more support though. Falcon's license changed hands wice thus far and so far the neither owner has done anything but try to force all the Falcon Mod groups to cease operations or face legal punishment. Pretty sad eh?

I'm no CEO of a software company but if I had ownership of a piece of software that fans had kept alive for 7 years and were doing everything possible to keep it alive and going, I would continue to support it and work on selling add-ons for it. I know currently this sim only has a one man developer but I predict that someone is going to take notice of this great work, wish to come on-board and then SS is going to really take flight.

And you're also right about the MP problems Falcon had. My only question is why the old setup wasn't removed and a new more up to date version like the current games now have. After 7 years you can expect MP improvements across the board. [8D]



M. K.

Thanks for the reply and the update. Set force numbers is actually really good. It kinda adds to realism. You are right that production of a new starship would take a very long time but I would think fighter craft wouldn't take as long. I guess every game has to have scripting in it to tell a story, but an open-ended setup or maybe a campaign without scripting would be nice to have as well because sometimes scripting adds limits to what you can do. A dynamic political system could bring with it allies and enemies, as well as internal issues such as insurgency/terrorism. Then after a while there would be time to commission a new starship. Or just take one out of mothballs. I for one think it was a bad idea for the U.S. Navy to scrap it's battleship fleet. Battleship rounds can't be jammed or intercepted by other missiles or cannon fire and they're great for ship to ship sluggouts. Having them ram a missile cruiser doesn't hurt either as the bigger ship would always win. LOL!

All games using spawning I know but nothing is more annoying than to realize that no matter how many starships you remove from battle there's another clone of that vessel just around the corner. It feels like all your efforts were wasted and you end up feeling like your forces are all disposable. Use 'em and lose 'em. But when units are limited you want to keep your best ones especially if they do a great job for you. You feel more confident with them and you care for them more, no?


Nick "Paradox" Parker

[Diabolico]

Well I am not an official Matrix games staff member but I am a very dedicated fan.
Thank you so much for your comments regarding SSC, wich are a encouragement to continue putting money and time (lots of it), so that SS culture moves on and grows ina sane way.
In that sense welcome aboard this community and feel free to share whatever knowledge you have with us and SSC was also built for you - for anybody tha has SS or even just the demo version.

=S=

PS :

Thx for your support regarding BBs. to agree that they'd add much more fun to an already excellent game.

[Incendiary Lemon]

I've probably profited from your work on Falcon, so a thank you is in order.[:)]

The dynamic campaign is actually pretty well done, fixed orders of battle work very well as opposed to EECH. In Enemy Engaged you end up pounding the other side till it runs short of equipment, you can do that in Starshatter but taking out the enemy carrier is just such a short cut. I do like your idea of adding some form of crew management but to the level of intricacy would need some playtesting. Milo has made the game hugely stress free and approachable. The controls are easy and adaptable to whatever your preference, keyboard, joystick, mouse, gamepad. You can drop in and play for just ten minutes, the auto function lets you skip the empty sequences, and while dying is a penalty (what with a limited number of ships) you never get into the save, screw up, reload sequence. I'd love to the game expanded (preference on more nuanced tactical combat) but needs to follow in the approachable ethic.

[Paradox]

Diabolico,

Thanks for welcoming me to the community. It's a pleasure to be among such good company. I have the full version of the sim and must correct myself for something I posted earlier. The campaign goes keep moving on if you're not on the bridge or in the cockpit from what I've seen so allow me to make that correction. But I think it may need one minor modification.

While the clock and campaign do continue on in realtime I think a sector map showing the current/up to date situation would be benefitial as well. Nothing to big just a standard sector map that shows the fleets current position as well as all patrol flights and anything that those flights protect.

You may remember that in Falcon 4 they used to have an option box pop up when the base was under atttack. The box would pop up and scream "SCRAMBLE! SCRAMBLE!" Then it gave you the choice of if you wanted to fly that mission or not. If no then the sim would just assign an AI to that intercept mission. In the case of SS I think a similar setup would be kewl but have the warning pulse in red to alert a person of incoming enemy fighters or attacking capital ships.

I. L.,

The thank you needs to be returned. Without people like you supporting Falcon 4 there would be no reason for any of us to continue the work we did. All a team effort no matter who you are. [:)]

I agree with you on how complicated it would be introducing all those options in SS. And you are right the developer has made it a breeze to jump into. Maybe adding an option for the verteran to elite pilots and commanders that want more control over things could be an option.

There is one thing of concern I noticed and maybe you guys can tell me if you've seen it as well. I've seen that during large battles where you've assigned fighters to engage one enemy squadron, if there's a second enemy fighter group attacking the carrier or at least inside the perimeter they don't just go and engage them. Does anyone else see this? Is thise a 'Winchester' problem perhaps? I would think they would still engage since they still have a primary weapon system. Or maybe they just require being ordered to engage and obvious threat?


Nick "Paradox" Parker

[Paradox]

Diabolico,

Hey bud noticed something and was wondering if it felt odd to you as well? During campaigns when you're in combat there's the possibility of destroying alot of fighters or capital ships. But if you let the campaign clock run on it's own and wait for progress reports, you'll see very few fighters being destroyed in the reports. Seems to me that the 2D campaign might be a bit off when compared to the 3D campaign.

Then again maybe both sides are off? I say this because I'm not sure exactly when fighters decide to bugout. Is it after they've fired all their missiles? Is it when they are out numbered? Or is it when they run low on fuel? Also can you tell me if you've seen fighters assigned to intercept split off into pairs and engage multiple enemies or do they just go after one fighter at a time? I have yet to see any fighters bug out during their attacks.


Nick "Paradox" Parker

[Diabolico]

during large battles where you've assigned fighters to engage one enemy squadron, if there's a second enemy fighter group attacking the carrier or at least inside the perimeter they don't just go and engage them. Does anyone else see this?

Hmmm have noticed this either. To be honest with you, when I am in the middle of a battle I issue my orders but still have to command the ship I am in. I will try to watch this out... yet honestly, when I have time to look out for such details, either there are no more enemies or my ship has ben destroyed.[:D]

Hey bud noticed something and was wondering if it felt odd to you as well? During campaigns when you're in combat there's the possibility of destroying alot of fighters or capital ships. But if you let the cmapign clock run on it's own and wait for progress reports, you'll see every few fighters being destroyed in the reports. Seems to me that the 2D campaign might be a bit off when compared to the 3D campaign.

Indeed there is! You have your mission objectives for the unit you are flying and commanding. You must accomplish them and you are free to engage any "targets of opportunity". And yes, I am under impression that combat seems to happen on a slower scale on the "2D" campaign. I have no explanation for this...

Then again maybe both sides are off? I say this because I'm not sure exactly when fighters decide to bugout. Is it after they've fired all their missiles? Is it when they are out numbered? Or is it when they run low on fuel? Also can you tell me if you've seen fighters assigned to intercept split off into pairs and engage multiple enemies or do they just go after one fighter at a time? I have yet to see any fighters bug out during their attacks.

I'd say that fighters bug out for all the reasons that you have stated above and perhaps a few more that we ignore but that have their origins on some line of code.[;)]
Yet fighter behaviour is sometimes a mistery to me.
On some occasions I have enemy fighters circling my ship like a shark, even out of missiles and untill my PDBs finish them off... suicidal, isn't it?
On other occasions, I send them to engage a target, they release their missiles and return back to the CV for landing.[&:]
Puzzling...

I'm sorry, I am not under the impression that my comments have served you much good... [:D]

Good to hear from you Nick!

=S=

[Dragonlead]

I might have an insight that helps here. Paradox, all your reasons are valid as far as I can tell. Diab, the odd behavior you notice has a lot to do with the kind of fighter in use. If it is the Thunderbolt or Avenger, they are labeled "attack" and their GUNS are coded for use against cap ships. This means they hang around and engage after all their missiles are gone. Unfortunately, the fighter pilot AI is pretty loopy and likes to fly big circles around the ship and will shoot literally thousands of shots and only score a tiny percentage that hit. Because the PD is much more accurate, it results in them being picked off faster than they can normally take down the cap ship.
The other fighters are not labeled "attack" and their GUNS ARE NOT coded for use against cap ships. That is why they turn and run for home as soon as their ASM load is spent.
I think it might be a flaw in the coding , but if the fighters are engaged by other fighters while they are out on an ASM run, they will not engage with the anti-fighter missiles or guns, even when they are on the return leg. This is why you can see your outbound strike package fly right past an inbound strike package and neither group will engage the other.

This has some interesting tactical considerations that bear thinking about. It also wouldn't hurt carrier commanders to study the concept the USN employs known as the "alpha strike."

V/R

[Diabolico]

Thank you for the explanation Dragonlead. As always, very insightfull!

=S=

[Paradox]

Diabolico, Dragonlead,

Yes the circling thing does happen alot but like Dragonlead said it could be due to assignment. I think in the case of an attack fighter the best thing to do would be to bug out once damage hit a certain level. You want to at least make it back. Not act like yu're some Cylon or something. LOL!

And Dragon is also right about the 'Alpha Strike' I use this tactic abit myself when I'm engaging the enemy battlegroup but it can fall apart if the target decides to pull an emergency jump.


Nick "Paradox" Parker

[Paradox]

Hey guys possible campaign problem!

In the first campaign I successfully crushed the seperatist fleet and was informed by a news link that Solus had won and that the Marakan Hegemony had ordered their fleet to standdown and return home. But in the next mission the enemy task force was still jumping into system. This screams of a bug between the background info the campaign.



Nick "Paradox" Parker

[Burzmali]

Your fleet has a T3 connection and the Marakan Fleet is still using 56k, they'll pull out, it just takes them longer to download their messages [;)]

[Diabolico]

Your fleet has a T3 connection and the Marakan Fleet is still using 56k, they'll pull out, it just takes them longer to download their messages

[:D]LOL, don't be so harsh on him! It has happened to me on the nth time I played that campaign, when what was left of the Marakan Hegemony's Task force 43 was deployed on the Lornas sector, hidden by the asteroid field.
In fact, when your fleet deploys to the Khaital sector, and after destroying whatever separatist forces lay there, you have 2 choices :
1) you go look for more enemies in the neighbouring sectors;
2) you wait for them to cme to you.

If you choose the second option, in a given moment the enemy fleet (TF.43) will jump to the Khaital sector and engage you.

And BTW Burzmali, Paradox is a known member of the Falcon 4 community that has gone above and beyond for that game [;)][&o]

=S=