Matrix Games Forums

When???[&o]

When its done. [:)]

Mike

Hmmm... And when it will be done? [&o]

WW2 DB? was like the second question I asked after d/ling Command back over the summer. I finally realized there is so much to learn with this sim it is best to wait and practice your tactics before all those historic battles are brought forth. I have read nothing to indicate WWII is off the table. As hard as it might be short term, I think patience will be rewarded.

Kevin

ORIGINAL: spec111

Hmmm... And when it will be done? [&o]

No date pounded into stone yet but there is movement.

Thanks!

Mike

I can only imagine it would take a long time to build up a database with as much WW2 content as possible. Plus I bet there is going to have to be some alterations to mechanics to better represent such old technology and systems.

Yep. More "in the face tactics". Less stand off. But stand off is a relative term. The invention of the air released torpedo was a standoff weapon of sorts. I would expect WW2 Command will reemphasize the importance of scouting and timing of strikes. These concepts can be encountered now with Modern Command. Personally, I am giving a talk on Midway at the local library in May. Imagine if I could present the "what ifs" using Command on a huge overhead screen? Hey, I may do that anyway without the WWII DB intact using the current Cold War DB.

Kevin

Yeah. Nice ideas. =)

not alterations necessarily, but expansions probably. before WWII air/sea combat is feasible (at least, to approximate realism) spotting needs to be looked at. mk1 eyeball is too 360 and A --> G spotting is too unfeasible IMO. without sophisticated targeting pods any sort of A-G mission is probably doomed to failure.

also i don't think command handles flak? or does it? i suppose it can just be modelled as a "flak shoots, roll dice, hit or no" etc.

also WWII needs a more granular "wound" system. age of missile combat can be one hit = death but most WWII planes could take a few shots (well, this is a relative thing of course) before actually becoming a nonfunctional platform.

The CWDB already has some WWII assets, enough to make a reasonable 1941-42 Carrier battle in the pacific, but the main problem is that CMANO at the time is built primarily for air to air combat with missiles, so less dogfighting, whereas virtually every clash in WWII was with guns. For WWII to be done, a major improvement to close in maneuvers needs to be built.

Also I would imagine some of the battles would be hell on the computer processors (Battle of the Philippine Sea with hundreds of planes and tens of thousands of AAA shells firing; and the thousand plane raids on Germany and Japan)

I'm not in any rush for a WWII Database though, there is plenty to play with already.

but most WWII planes could take a few shots

You have a point![;)]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

but most WWII planes could take a few shots

You have a point![;)]

Pet peeve of mine, but when discussing a/c damage you always see evidence of badly damaged a/c still managing to RTB, however you don’t see evidence where relatively low little damage brought down the a/c - like the (un)lucky single round or shrapnel taking out the pilot or vital component - like an oil or radiator leak.

The odds are that the two even out and I’d venture a guess that the low damage loss outweighs the heavy damage return. Especially if you calculate the pilot not knowing if his a/c can manage the return flight. It becomes a factor if the crew fear being captured more than crashing on the way back. There is a diffreence between being caught by the Wehrmacht or the Japanese, by the Syrian Arab Army or one of the Takfiri groups.

Pet peeve of mine, but when discussing a/c damage you always see evidence of badly damaged a/c still managing to RTB, however you don’t see evidence where relatively low little damage brought down the a/c - like the (un)lucky single round or shrapnel taking out the pilot or vital component - like an oil or radiator leak.

The odds are that the two even out and I’d venture a guess that the low damage loss outweighs the heavy damage return. Especially if you calculate the pilot not knowing if his a/c can manage the return flight. It becomes a factor if the crew fear being captured more than crashing on the way back. There is a difference between being caught by the Wehrmacht or the Japanese, by the Syrian Arab Army or one of the Takfiri groups.

I know I would prefer 110% of the time just going nose first into the ground in a ball of fire over being captured by the Nazis or Japanese.

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert


Also I would imagine some of the battles would be hell on the computer processors (Battle of the Philippine Sea with hundreds of planes and tens of thousands of AAA shells firing; and the thousand plane raids on Germany and Japan)

Hmm im not sure this game engine will ever cope with 1000 bomber raids, or 20 day long battles involving trans atlantic convoys and U-boat wolfpack forming. perhaps a different game engine for such large endeavours.
Still i do hope one day for something that can do a Malta convoy like Operation Pedestal.

Ive palyed around with the WWII ships and subs for some ASW testing, getting depth charges to work is difficult and getting ASW ships to move at more than 1-5 knots when attacking ( making them extremely vulnerable to the subs rapid reload torps) is pretty difficult

anyways its fun to get some sensible discussion going on WWII DB and game mechanics.

cheers

1000 aircraft raids are definitely possible, the only thing maybe limiting it is the lack of a built in "form up option" for strikes, because right now, when trying to make 100 B-29s take off from Tinian for a raid on Tokyo, they take off one by one and fly practically alone in a straight line a few nms apart from eachother.

Can't speak for ASW stuff though as I haven't done much with it.

they take off one by one and fly practically alone in a straight line a few nms apart from eachother

As they would - its hard to fit more than one B-29 on a runway at a time. You need to muster them into formations as needed to be done in 44/45. I think BTW the average raid on Japan was about 500 bombers and these would need hours of mustering and assembling in the air. If you want to re-create these raids then you need to do the planning and orchestrating that represents what actually happened - not a push button war.

???

I mean if you want to have a scenario where someone (as in the player side) is the IJNAS or IJAAS defending, it would require some Lua scripting to get the AI controlled B-29s to form up, because the way strike missions work right now it isn't possible.

Even with a scenario that has the player controlling the B-29s, it would be nice to have some built in streamlining of the forming up, it would be pretty tedious getting 100+ planes all into formation.

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

but most WWII planes could take a few shots

You have a point![;)]

Whew doggy, I would HATE to have flown this bad boy home... open air and probably not handling too well...

Question for anyone in the know, is their a dogfight algorithm? MiG-21 engaging with F-4 with cannons.
I ask because I would imagine such a feature would be critical to model World War II.

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

they take off one by one and fly practically alone in a straight line a few nms apart from eachother

As they would - its hard to fit more than one B-29 on a runway at a time. You need to muster them into formations as needed to be done in 44/45. I think BTW the average raid on Japan was about 500 bombers and these would need hours of mustering and assembling in the air. If you want to re-create these raids then you need to do the planning and orchestrating that represents what actually happened - not a push button war.

Maybe I am not hardcore wargamer-y enough, but I do not get your point at all.

"If you want to re-create these raids then you need to do the planning and orchestrating that represents what actually happened - not a push button war."
What's the benefit of that? I am sure a WWII commander did not radio each plane individually with specific waypoints for hours on end - which would be the equivalent of doing something like that unautomated. I mean sure, if some players find that fun, that's fine.

But the idea that someone SHOULD do it like that seems ludicrous to me. (Unless you are joking.)