An Idea for Replayability
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:57 am
Before I saw Mark Shot's post in another thread explaining the Wild Cards for scen design, I had this idea for adding replayability to the game - that may hopefully segue into the plans SSG is currently working on in the randomness department.
Problem:
As we know, whenever a search plane makes a spotting, the spotting may be either; accurate, valid but with wrong ship types shown or totally wrong - ie: no sighting at all.
Thus, as things stand, once a scenario is played and we for example know that the enemy's carriers can be found in a TG containing (no spoilers) but for example a sighting showing 2/3/4 - meaning numbers of carriers/cruisers/destroyers etc., then unless we can conjure up some amnesia between plays, we pretty much know what we're looking for next time we play.
Solution:
When a search plane makes a spotting, no enemy TG composition information is provided. No longer do players see a dialog showing ship types and numbers as for their own TG's.
The player instead, receives a text message along the lines: "Main Body", "Enemy Carriers", "Invasion Force", "Cruisers", "Flat Tops", "Battleships", "That's Them!" etc., - eg: communications that would reflect human emotion, confusion, unreliability and excitement on the part of the virtual "human" sotting crew, against what the game engine is telling them exists in the hex. This type of communication is currently provided by subs.
Therefore, when a player then clicks on an enemy TG icon, an opaque pop up appears only summarising the spotting information relayed that day. A course heading. Estimation of speed, estimated ship count, etc. But that's it.
Imagine making decisions regarding what to strike, using information like that. The AI will need to be likewise hamstrung. Players will be required to keep notes mental or otherwise. The hunt then becomes much more real.
The movie "Midway" inspired these thoughts, especially the scene where the Commanders are frantically pondering the communication "main body"! That imo is what this game should be more like.
Then try multiplaying amidst that confusion too!
I think it's a move in the right direction. Is it feasible?
Problem:
As we know, whenever a search plane makes a spotting, the spotting may be either; accurate, valid but with wrong ship types shown or totally wrong - ie: no sighting at all.
Thus, as things stand, once a scenario is played and we for example know that the enemy's carriers can be found in a TG containing (no spoilers) but for example a sighting showing 2/3/4 - meaning numbers of carriers/cruisers/destroyers etc., then unless we can conjure up some amnesia between plays, we pretty much know what we're looking for next time we play.
Solution:
When a search plane makes a spotting, no enemy TG composition information is provided. No longer do players see a dialog showing ship types and numbers as for their own TG's.
The player instead, receives a text message along the lines: "Main Body", "Enemy Carriers", "Invasion Force", "Cruisers", "Flat Tops", "Battleships", "That's Them!" etc., - eg: communications that would reflect human emotion, confusion, unreliability and excitement on the part of the virtual "human" sotting crew, against what the game engine is telling them exists in the hex. This type of communication is currently provided by subs.
Therefore, when a player then clicks on an enemy TG icon, an opaque pop up appears only summarising the spotting information relayed that day. A course heading. Estimation of speed, estimated ship count, etc. But that's it.
Imagine making decisions regarding what to strike, using information like that. The AI will need to be likewise hamstrung. Players will be required to keep notes mental or otherwise. The hunt then becomes much more real.
The movie "Midway" inspired these thoughts, especially the scene where the Commanders are frantically pondering the communication "main body"! That imo is what this game should be more like.
Then try multiplaying amidst that confusion too!
I think it's a move in the right direction. Is it feasible?