GrogHeads Forum

Digital Gaming => Computer Gaming => Topic started by: panzerde on June 09, 2014, 07:43:08 PM

Title: Carriers at War
Post by: panzerde on June 09, 2014, 07:43:08 PM
Great, the Matrix sale this week is Carriers at War. I think I remember reading a thread here last year about how great this was - maybe Toonces was playing it? Anyone else have any spin on this one? I'm wondering if it might scratch the itch for WWII carrier warfare while I'm figuring out WitP AE.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: jomni on June 09, 2014, 07:44:57 PM
Good game. But replay value very limited.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Nefaro on June 09, 2014, 07:52:10 PM
It's worth twenty bucks or more IMO.

I believe you have to do a text edit to get it to run in a widescreen resolution, but it's no biggie.  Either a shortcut target one, like that in WitP-AE, or a text file.  I can't recall.

Think I'm gonna load it up for some more focused carrier warfare than WitP soon.  With Carriers At War, you're in command of a battle with a small amount of task forces under your control albeit with a bit more fidelity than WitP.  It's a smaller scale so if you want to have a bit more fine control over searches and the use of your carrier wings, then it's for you.  The battles can also be finished within a couple hours, depending on how fast you want the game to advance.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: panzerde on June 09, 2014, 08:04:19 PM
Thanks, very much what I wanted to know. Sounds like I couldn't go wrong for $20. There are definitely times when the more tactical nature of Carriers at War would be my interest.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on June 09, 2014, 08:15:52 PM
I don't play it a whole lot anymore, but it is worth $20 IMO. 

Also, while it doesn't have a TON of scenarios, I do believe it has some random starts to enhance replayability.

It's a fun game.  Kind of lite, but still fun.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: panzerde on June 09, 2014, 09:45:40 PM
Thanks Toonces. It does look a bit light on scenarios, but sounds like it might be the fix for evenings when a just want a beers and to launch a strike on a task force with a couple of mouse clicks.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Nefaro on June 09, 2014, 10:01:04 PM
I think it also catches the search and strike launch timing difficulties better than any other I've played, due to the scale.  You're really worrying about finding the other guy's forces and getting your licks in at the right time, before he can do the same to you.  With night time, weather, and re-arming/re-attacks being notable factors.  O0
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: jomni on June 10, 2014, 12:24:20 AM
Carrier Strike is better because you need to do some flight deck management as well.  And it has a dynamic campaign. Too bad there's no remake for that.

While Carriers at War is great, once you are in the groove, you can beat the Ai in any scenario whether US and Japanese. Short play time and few scenarios (including variants) make it boring quickly. $20 is alright and it is a fair price. I bought this at a high price. :D
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: JudgeDredd on June 10, 2014, 03:15:49 AM
I was very disappointed in this one very quickly.

iirc there was very little scope for movement of the fleets because of the size of the fleet...I seem to remember rather huge battleships on smallish maps. This made it, as Jomni said, very, very low on replay value. I don't know if there's third party stuff out there or if any of the things I didn't like which led me to drop it like a hot stone have been changed.

It might be worth $20...but from what I remember of it, only just.

Graphically I recall it being nice and gameplay was good...but it was just extremely limited imo.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: RyanE on June 10, 2014, 05:16:22 AM
The interface made it much easier to play than equivalent battles in WITP.  But as mentioned, there was little replay value and really only handled carrier war.  Any surface action was kind of arcade like.  The deck management stuff was interesting though.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: bbmike on June 10, 2014, 05:21:33 AM
Saving my pennies for Order of Battle: Pacific (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1311) instead.  8)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on June 10, 2014, 05:24:51 AM
Quote from: bbmike on June 10, 2014, 05:21:33 AM
Saving my pennies for Order of Battle: Pacific (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1311) instead.  8)

It looks like an updated Pacific General. Not that that is a bad thing, it's just what I thought of looking at the screenies.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: GJK on June 10, 2014, 06:48:01 AM
Naval Campaigns Midway (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/NavCamp/Midway/midway.html) is my preference at this scale in the Pacific.  It's ugly and it's over-priced but it really captures all the elements that I want in a game; deck management, search management, task force/fleet organization and movement/screening.  The interface is a typical HPS Sims interface that is clunky but functional yet the game is very easy to play once you learn how to work with it.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: jomni on June 10, 2014, 08:08:05 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 10, 2014, 05:24:51 AM
Quote from: bbmike on June 10, 2014, 05:21:33 AM
Saving my pennies for Order of Battle: Pacific (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1311) instead.  8)

It looks like an updated Pacific General. Not that that is a bad thing, it's just what I thought of looking at the screenies.

time to sign up for beta.
http://www.slitherine.com/beta_test/order_of_battle_pacific
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Nefaro on June 10, 2014, 09:44:03 AM
Quote from: GJK on June 10, 2014, 06:48:01 AM
Naval Campaigns Midway (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/NavCamp/Midway/midway.html) is my preference at this scale in the Pacific.  It's ugly and it's over-priced but it really captures all the elements that I want in a game; deck management, search management, task force/fleet organization and movement/screening.  The interface is a typical HPS Sims interface that is clunky but functional yet the game is very easy to play once you learn how to work with it.

I have eyed those HPS Naval Campaign games in the past, but I got the impression that the scenario selection was also limited.  As if it only models a very specific attack with little strategic maneuver beforehand. Combined with the cost, that always made me shy away.

I also eyed the Air War series.. notably the Arab-Israeli one but again, it seemed like the scope was a bit too limited and considering I have the various Harpoon iterations and CMANO, those can probably model such things better anyway.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: GJK on June 10, 2014, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on June 10, 2014, 09:44:03 AM
Quote from: GJK on June 10, 2014, 06:48:01 AM
Naval Campaigns Midway (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/NavCamp/Midway/midway.html) is my preference at this scale in the Pacific.  It's ugly and it's over-priced but it really captures all the elements that I want in a game; deck management, search management, task force/fleet organization and movement/screening.  The interface is a typical HPS Sims interface that is clunky but functional yet the game is very easy to play once you learn how to work with it.

I have eyed those HPS Naval Campaign games in the past, but I got the impression that the scenario selection was also limited.  As if it only models a very specific attack with little strategic maneuver beforehand. Combined with the cost, that always made me shy away.

I also eyed the Air War series.. notably the Arab-Israeli one but again, it seemed like the scope was a bit too limited and considering I have the various Harpoon iterations and CMANO, those can probably model such things better anyway.

From the HPS website re: Midway

QuoteMidway features 36 scenarios ranging from small 10 minute actions covering a specific air attack to 12+ hour scenarios covering full fleet actions with dozens of ships and hundreds of aircraft. These scenarios include the entire battle of Midway as well as specific actions, such as attacks on individual carriers and recreations of each attacking wave of aircraft. There is also a "what if" scenario based on the Coral Sea action not having been fought a month earlier. But aside from Midway, the game also includes the historical carrier battles of the Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz and the Philippine Sea, as well as a hypothetical IJN-USN confrontation at Pearl Harbor.
Limited in scope?  Well, yeah.  It's either going to be air-naval combat or naval-naval combat (or both) but I think the replay value is there.  What I like is the forming of air "packages"; moving the planes needed from the hanger to arming where you decide the load out and then up to the flight deck where they are put in queue after you've assigned them a route to take or target to strike (yes, you can send them out blind hoping that a target is where you suspect that they are, which is cool).  I would say that I got my monies worth out of it but $50 for a game that is several years old with a very outdated interface can easily have its worth questioned.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: panzerde on June 10, 2014, 06:07:48 PM
Quote from: GJK on June 10, 2014, 06:48:01 AM
Naval Campaigns Midway (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/NavCamp/Midway/midway.html) is my preference at this scale in the Pacific.  It's ugly and it's over-priced but it really captures all the elements that I want in a game; deck management, search management, task force/fleet organization and movement/screening.  The interface is a typical HPS Sims interface that is clunky but functional yet the game is very easy to play once you learn how to work with it.

Hmmm...I'm actually pretty partial to the HPS/JTS interface at this point because I have it down nearly to muscle memory from playing so many of these games. I wasn't aware that Midway had all of those features. I may have to go that route rather than Carriers at War, given the what people are saying about the limited replay value...
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SgtRock on June 10, 2014, 06:13:59 PM
Seemed to be little more than set piece battles, too bad there wasn't more mod support like the old Carrier's at War.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Grim.Reaper on June 10, 2014, 06:15:55 PM
Quote from: panzerde on June 10, 2014, 06:07:48 PM
Quote from: GJK on June 10, 2014, 06:48:01 AM
Naval Campaigns Midway (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/NavCamp/Midway/midway.html) is my preference at this scale in the Pacific.  It's ugly and it's over-priced but it really captures all the elements that I want in a game; deck management, search management, task force/fleet organization and movement/screening.  The interface is a typical HPS Sims interface that is clunky but functional yet the game is very easy to play once you learn how to work with it.

Hmmm...I'm actually pretty partial to the HPS/JTS interface at this point because I have it down nearly to muscle memory from playing so many of these games. I wasn't aware that Midway had all of those features. I may have to go that route rather than Carriers at War, given the what people are saying about the limited replay value...

Can get a little cheaper here

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HPS-SIMULATIONS-NAVAL-CAMPAIGNS-MIDWAY-NEW-VIA-USA-/160815703510?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item25715ce5d6
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: magnus on June 10, 2014, 06:32:07 PM
 If you look in the Matrix forum for CAW, someone has been doing a mod that adds all of the scenarios from the DOS version. I don't know how far along it is now.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: vyshka on June 10, 2014, 06:37:42 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on June 10, 2014, 06:15:55 PM
Quote from: panzerde on June 10, 2014, 06:07:48 PM
Quote from: GJK on June 10, 2014, 06:48:01 AM
Naval Campaigns Midway (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/NavCamp/Midway/midway.html) is my preference at this scale in the Pacific.  It's ugly and it's over-priced but it really captures all the elements that I want in a game; deck management, search management, task force/fleet organization and movement/screening.  The interface is a typical HPS Sims interface that is clunky but functional yet the game is very easy to play once you learn how to work with it.

Hmmm...I'm actually pretty partial to the HPS/JTS interface at this point because I have it down nearly to muscle memory from playing so many of these games. I wasn't aware that Midway had all of those features. I may have to go that route rather than Carriers at War, given the what people are saying about the limited replay value...

Can get a little cheaper here

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HPS-SIMULATIONS-NAVAL-CAMPAIGNS-MIDWAY-NEW-VIA-USA-/160815703510?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item25715ce5d6

And $39.95 at Tiller's website for the download version.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Grim.Reaper on June 10, 2014, 06:44:15 PM
a web site that has mod scenarios for CAW  to further expand it for you...

http://www.alternatewars.com/Games/CAW/CAW_Mods.htm
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Nefaro on June 11, 2014, 08:00:20 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on June 10, 2014, 06:44:15 PM
a web site that has mod scenarios for CAW  to further expand it for you...

http://www.alternatewars.com/Games/CAW/CAW_Mods.htm

Nice!  Thanks!

I previously had problems tracking down scenarios and mods thinly scattered across the forums.  Didn't know there was more than a couple user-created scenarios.  :)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: BanzaiCat on June 11, 2014, 08:15:53 AM
I enjoy self-contained scenarios, but would personally much prefer a grander campaign-style game, like the old CaW had. Even if it was unrealistic, it was challenging as the Japanese, having to try to keep sinking those Essex-class carriers the roundeyes kept churning out... ;)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SgtRock on June 11, 2014, 11:24:13 AM
Quote from: magnus on June 10, 2014, 06:32:07 PM
If you look in the Matrix forum for CAW, someone has been doing a mod that adds all of the scenarios from the DOS version. I don't know how far along it is now.

I heared that years ago shortly after the game was released, I think the issue was/is lack of modding support from the developer. I don't understand why release a remake of a game that has less then the original?
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: BanzaiCat on June 11, 2014, 12:21:50 PM
Figured you CaW fans might enjoy these...or maybe you've already seen 'em.

Carriers At War, Apple II version, from 1984. I played this a lot on my grandfather's Apple IIc. That intro midi 'Anchors Aweigh' brought back a LOT of memories!



And here's the SSG version from '93:

Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: mirth on June 11, 2014, 03:28:00 PM
I still have my CCAW disks and manual kicking around somewhere. There's a ton of content in that version.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: mirth on June 11, 2014, 03:29:16 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on June 11, 2014, 08:00:20 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on June 10, 2014, 06:44:15 PM
a web site that has mod scenarios for CAW  to further expand it for you...

http://www.alternatewars.com/Games/CAW/CAW_Mods.htm

Nice!  Thanks!

I previously had problems tracking down scenarios and mods thinly scattered across the forums.  Didn't know there was more than a couple user-created scenarios.  :)

+1 Thanks for sharing that link. I'm much more tempted to bite on the remake now.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: panzerde on June 11, 2014, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on June 10, 2014, 06:44:15 PM
a web site that has mod scenarios for CAW  to further expand it for you...

http://www.alternatewars.com/Games/CAW/CAW_Mods.htm

Thanks! That really does making getting this a no-brainer at the $20 price point.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on June 12, 2014, 01:14:55 AM
Guys, there are plenty of scenarios in CAW.  I don't have it installed on this computer, but there must be at least 10 scenarios, and each one has several variants, from historical set up to 3-4+ alternate set ups (like Midway with the full Kido Butai, as if Coral Sea didn't happen.  That kind of stuff).

Also, you can play each scenario from both sides, effectively doubling your scenarios.

If you don't like the game in and of itself, fine, but to pass because it doesn't have enough content is a mistake IMO. 

CAW fills a great niche as a wargame you can pick up and play and finish a scenario in an hour or two.  It's not super complex, and there are plenty of game-changing decisions you have to make.  I give this a firm thumbs up at $20.  And I have HPS Midway.  CAW and Midway are completely different in how they play, even if they model the same thing.  I strongly prefer CAW's interface to Midway's, FWIW.   >:(
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: mirth on June 12, 2014, 01:39:51 AM
Okay, okay. I'll buy the damned game!  :P
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: BanzaiCat on June 12, 2014, 06:01:52 AM
Quote from: mirth on June 12, 2014, 01:39:51 AM
Okay, okay. I'll buy the damned game!  :P

(sigh)

+1...eventually
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on June 12, 2014, 06:18:00 AM
I own the game (though I'll have to locate my install file and SN). I can't recall but does the game have some kind of multiplayer? The Matrix page says '1-2 players' but also says no PBEM. Is it LAN? Hotseat?
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Nefaro on June 12, 2014, 08:15:26 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 12, 2014, 06:18:00 AM
I own the game (though I'll have to locate my install file and SN). I can't recall but does the game have some kind of multiplayer? The Matrix page says '1-2 players' but also says no PBEM. Is it LAN? Hotseat?

It's direct IP play IIRC.  Which should be fine because a game doesn't last all that long.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SgtRock on June 12, 2014, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on June 12, 2014, 08:15:26 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 12, 2014, 06:18:00 AM
I own the game (though I'll have to locate my install file and SN). I can't recall but does the game have some kind of multiplayer? The Matrix page says '1-2 players' but also says no PBEM. Is it LAN? Hotseat?

It's direct IP play IIRC.  Which should be fine because a game doesn't last all that long.

PBEM only for multiplayer.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: steve58 on June 12, 2014, 04:48:59 PM
*sigh*  This thread inspired me to try to fire up my old, old, old copy of Carrier Strike.  Got it sorta working in Windows 7 XP Mode, but I guess its true, you can't go home again :(

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F319JQETZ55L.jpg&hash=0271850bf05e6b1f94e63d58761839f84fd07875)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: JudgeDredd on June 12, 2014, 04:53:36 PM
Quote from: steve58 on June 12, 2014, 04:48:59 PM
*sigh*  This thread inspired me to try to fire up my old, old, old copy of Carrier Strike.  Got it sorta working in Windows 7 XP Mode, but I guess its true, you can't go home again :(

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F319JQETZ55L.jpg&hash=0271850bf05e6b1f94e63d58761839f84fd07875)
nope  :(
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: GJK on June 12, 2014, 05:54:09 PM
Quote from: steve58 on June 12, 2014, 04:48:59 PM
*sigh*  This thread inspired me to try to fire up my old, old, old copy of Carrier Strike.  Got it sorta working in Windows 7 XP Mode, but I guess its true, you can't go home again :(

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F319JQETZ55L.jpg&hash=0271850bf05e6b1f94e63d58761839f84fd07875)

It works just fine in DOSBox.  This was a favorite of mine for years!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: mirth on June 12, 2014, 06:01:04 PM
I was going to ask about DOSBox. I haven't used it on Win 7.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: GJK on June 12, 2014, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: mirth on June 12, 2014, 06:01:04 PM
I was going to ask about DOSBox. I haven't used it on Win 7.

I use DOSBox with DOSShell and they work just fine on Win7.  Used it just today for a game of 3R PC.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: mirth on June 12, 2014, 06:07:30 PM
Cool. I used DOSBox quite a bit on XP. Ran my most of my old games beautifully.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: mirth on June 12, 2014, 06:08:47 PM
And I just purchased CaW. Downloading now.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: panzerde on June 12, 2014, 09:29:34 PM
^ Me too. It looks like a nice change of pace.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SgtRock on June 12, 2014, 11:34:54 PM
Quote from: GJK on June 12, 2014, 05:54:09 PM
Quote from: steve58 on June 12, 2014, 04:48:59 PM
*sigh*  This thread inspired me to try to fire up my old, old, old copy of Carrier Strike.  Got it sorta working in Windows 7 XP Mode, but I guess its true, you can't go home again :(

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F319JQETZ55L.jpg&hash=0271850bf05e6b1f94e63d58761839f84fd07875)

It works just fine in DOSBox.  This was a favorite of mine for years!

Wow, that brings back memories, any one remember SSI's Computer Air Combat?
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: BanzaiCat on June 27, 2014, 08:17:12 AM
Quote
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F319JQETZ55L.jpg&hash=0271850bf05e6b1f94e63d58761839f84fd07875)

:smitten:

Wasted invested many an hour in that game back in 92-93 or so. Would love to fire it up again. Can't do CAW at Matrix for forty bucks...
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: agathosdaimon on June 27, 2014, 08:38:35 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on June 10, 2014, 09:44:03 AM
Quote from: GJK on June 10, 2014, 06:48:01 AM
Naval Campaigns Midway (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/NavCamp/Midway/midway.html) is my preference at this scale in the Pacific.  It's ugly and it's over-priced but it really captures all the elements that I want in a game; deck management, search management, task force/fleet organization and movement/screening.  The interface is a typical HPS Sims interface that is clunky but functional yet the game is very easy to play once you learn how to work with it.

I have eyed those HPS Naval Campaign games in the past, but I got the impression that the scenario selection was also limited.  As if it only models a very specific attack with little strategic maneuver beforehand. Combined with the cost, that always made me shy away.

I also eyed the Air War series.. notably the Arab-Israeli one but again, it seemed like the scope was a bit too limited and considering I have the various Harpoon iterations and CMANO, those can probably model such things better anyway.

I got the Modern Air Combat HPS, it has heaps of scenarios and is pretty interesting and well challenging, but i suppose simpler then Cmano. Its a game of timing things right - a bit like Carriers At War. It has a cool background ambient track with recordings of arab/israeli pilot chatter - it sounds cool though it is just one track so it plays on a loop that may get irritating - the hps games always seem to have their background music on too short of a loop
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Nefaro on June 27, 2014, 08:43:35 AM
Quote from: agathosdaimon on June 27, 2014, 08:38:35 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on June 10, 2014, 09:44:03 AM
Quote from: GJK on June 10, 2014, 06:48:01 AM
Naval Campaigns Midway (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/NavCamp/Midway/midway.html) is my preference at this scale in the Pacific.  It's ugly and it's over-priced but it really captures all the elements that I want in a game; deck management, search management, task force/fleet organization and movement/screening.  The interface is a typical HPS Sims interface that is clunky but functional yet the game is very easy to play once you learn how to work with it.

I have eyed those HPS Naval Campaign games in the past, but I got the impression that the scenario selection was also limited.  As if it only models a very specific attack with little strategic maneuver beforehand. Combined with the cost, that always made me shy away.

I also eyed the Air War series.. notably the Arab-Israeli one but again, it seemed like the scope was a bit too limited and considering I have the various Harpoon iterations and CMANO, those can probably model such things better anyway.

I got the Modern Air Combat HPS, it has heaps of scenarios and is pretty interesting and well challenging, but i suppose simpler then Cmano. Its a game of timing things right - a bit like Carriers At War. It has a cool background ambient track with recordings of arab/israeli pilot chatter - it sounds cool though it is just one track so it plays on a loop that may get irritating - the hps games always seem to have their background music on too short of a loop

Is it just one-shot missions?  Or do the scenarios cover longer periods of time? 

I'm pretty much perma-fenced because I already have the Harpoons and CMANO, which covers a wider range of units, in wider theaters, with more detail.  I'm sure the HPS ones have value but it's difficult not to compare.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: agathosdaimon on June 27, 2014, 10:14:06 AM
They vary, some hours others days, not longer - the timeframe on cmano and harpoon missions runs longer and being that the game is only limited to running sorties for air to air and air o ground and operating SA defences, it would prob get boring or repetitive, its limited and i am certain cmano outdoes it in every regard, - its goood, but one could regard it as cmano lite
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: agathosdaimon on June 28, 2014, 01:06:49 AM
Actually let me revise this a little - there are aspects of War of the Mid East HPS game that CMANO doesnt have (unless there has been a more recent update) - downed crews, time on target planner, and an easy way to select which weapons exaclty your flight package will use.

It also has scenarios that may only last 1-2 days but it is a complex management of running missions and meeting the challenges that come up, you can also direct the direction of movement of ground forces i found, which i didnt realise was possible and there are some varieties of weapons which perform in different ways - little things are abstracted such as probabilities of missile hits and the maps only show the flight groups not individual aircraft.

having a package of groups perform a strike on the same target is easy to do

At first i was thinking maybe the game AI is too simple but i amn wrong there - playing a Golan Heights missions - see attached, where i have to attack the Israeli purple line of bunkers which are damned hard and require alot of strikes, the mirages and whatnot of the Israelis start turning up and taking out my SAM defenses and its juggling act of having AA aircraft there to meet them - i think it is simple in its interface and not overwhelming as pausable realtime. and overall a decent game
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on June 28, 2014, 02:00:56 AM
Hmmmm...I was kind of underwhelmed with War Over Vietnam, but maybe it's time to revisit the Mideast one...   ???
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Grim.Reaper on June 28, 2014, 04:46:46 AM
Quote from: agathosdaimon on June 28, 2014, 01:06:49 AM
Actually let me revise this a little - there are aspects of War of the Mid East HPS game that CMANO doesnt have (unless there has been a more recent update) - downed crews, time on target planner, and an easy way to select which weapons exaclty your flight package will use.

It also has scenarios that may only last 1-2 days but it is a complex management of running missions and meeting the challenges that come up, you can also direct the direction of movement of ground forces i found, which i didnt realise was possible and there are some varieties of weapons which perform in different ways - little things are abstracted such as probabilities of missile hits and the maps only show the flight groups not individual aircraft.

having a package of groups perform a strike on the same target is easy to do

At first i was thinking maybe the game AI is too simple but i amn wrong there - playing a Golan Heights missions - see attached, where i have to attack the Israeli purple line of bunkers which are damned hard and require alot of strikes, the mirages and whatnot of the Israelis start turning up and taking out my SAM defenses and its juggling act of having AA aircraft there to meet them - i think it is simple in its interface and not overwhelming as pausable realtime. and overall a decent game

You mention having something attached to your message....not seeing it unless its just me.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: agathosdaimon on June 28, 2014, 07:42:56 AM
sorry it was an attachment of the image - silly me i neglected t upload it
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: TacticalWargames on June 28, 2014, 09:40:24 AM
The scenario editor in War Over Vietnam is excellent with lots of possibilities. Shame no one every did anything with it.

I'm sure Korea could have been modded.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Nefaro on June 28, 2014, 10:16:33 AM
I would get War over the Mideast if it wasn't for the price.  Thirty scenarios for fifty bucks.. I don't think I can justify that if the scenarios aren't very long or large.  It gives the impression of being a bit content limited, perhaps.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: jomni on June 28, 2014, 06:05:53 PM
My experience with that game is not good. You have already pre-planned strikes.  So nothing to do but press the play button and watch and manage a bit of the action.  Unless you delete the pre-planned routes and packages and make your own, but what's the point?  I tried sandbox mode but ordinance was an issue.
Then you have to search for installations.  That means they are hidden from your view unless you are in range. You fly recon, then take note of the location.  They disappear when the recon goes away instead of being persistent.  So you gotta remember what you saw and where.  For modern setting, what happened to maps and satellite images?

Battle damage assessment feature is nice. :)

Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Nefaro on June 28, 2014, 06:32:48 PM
Quote from: jomni on June 28, 2014, 06:05:53 PM
My experience with that game is not good. You have already pre-planned strikes.  So nothing to do but press the play button and watch and manage a bit of the action.  Unless you delete the pre-planned routes and packages and make your own, but what's the point?  I tried sandbox mode but ordinance was an issue.

There are Sandbox scenarios?  Are you also saying that they have weapons problems?

Quote
Then you have to search for installations.  That means they are hidden from your view unless you are in range. You fly recon, then take note of the location.  They disappear when the recon goes away instead of being persistent.  So you gotta remember what you saw and where.  For modern setting, what happened to maps and satellite images?

Battle damage assessment feature is nice. :)

The searching requirement is nice (a must I would say) but it's rather odd that they disappear from the map, forcing you to memorize it yourself.  It's not like we want to take a grease pencil to our monitors!  Dubya Tee Eff?
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: jomni on June 28, 2014, 06:57:28 PM
Just to clarify, some stuff like airbases are always known.

As for sandbox, there is a mode called ATO editor.  You start with no plans on the map and start assigning packages.  In theory the mission results (target damage, casualties) carry over from one to the next.  I had problems with ordinance availability but I don't remember the details.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: agathosdaimon on June 28, 2014, 08:58:06 PM
In the golan heights crisis i played, i had heaps of aircraft and airbases playing as the Arab nations and there were no preplanned missions for me, i have jad to choose what i want to send where.

The game isnt super realistic, but i think it does things well enough and i like that you can have downed pilots to then pick up, and also things like losses due to plane mechanical failures  which happened to me one of my aircraft soon after take off. There is also delays with getting multiple flights airborne but the follow option makes it easy to keep the groups on the same path. It reminds me a little of fleet command and the older Airforce commander games

But if you want to know how it plays there is a basic and free Modern air combat app from john tiller which uses the game engine and interface but set over korea in modern day, it though seems to be on a easy setting though i found but at least can show how the other games function
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on April 17, 2019, 08:31:06 AM
Hello Ladies & Gents,

Sorry for the necromancer act, but it is kinda worth it.
As some innocent souls out there might know already  :arr: I am currently working on a little project of mine that might *somewhat* involve carriers. The thread might be old, but outside of the few ones that exist at Matrixgames, it is certainly one packed with the right mix of competence and nostalgia I am currently after.

If any of you old hands have anything (s)he'd like to share about the topic, would you be so nice as to tell me, for your preferred carrier games (be it the old CAW, the newer CAW, Carrier Strike or else), in terms of game design/historicity/feeling:
- What were the three things you liked most  :smitten: ;
- What were the three things you hated most  :knuppel2: ;
- What were the three things it didn't have, that you wish it had.  :crazy2:

Thanks in advance to the few who will indulge me and will be kind enough to play that little game...!

Best,

Amiral
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: jomni on April 17, 2019, 08:19:22 PM
Quote from: The_Admiral on April 17, 2019, 08:31:06 AM
Hello Ladies & Gents,

Sorry for the necromancer act, but it is kinda worth it.
As some innocent souls out there might know already  :arr: I am currently working on a little project of mine that might *somewhat* involve carriers. The thread might be old, but outside of the few ones that exist at Matrixgames, it is certainly one packed with the right mix of competence and nostalgia I am currently after.

If any of you old hands have anything (s)he'd like to share about the topic, would you be so nice as to tell me, for your preferred carrier games (be it the old CAW, the newer CAW, Carrier Strike or else), in terms of game design/historicity/feeling:
- What were the three things you liked most  :smitten: ;
- What were the three things you hated most  :knuppel2: ;
- What were the three things it didn't have, that you wish it had.  :crazy2:

Thanks in advance to the few who will indulge me and will be kind enough to play that little game...!

Best,

Amiral

Carrier strike random missions. Better replay ability vs Carriers at War.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on April 17, 2019, 08:33:13 PM
I really loved the original CAW series, culminating in the Complete Carriers At War compilation release. It was fun to mod, and one of my fondest memories of it was adding the USN's ZRS scout-fighter-carrying zeppelins as an available unit. Sure they were a bit crude but it was good times none the less.  O0
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: dinsdale on April 17, 2019, 09:25:41 PM
I may not be a useful sample, as I didn't like any pc carrier game :)

I did love playing Flat Top (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2529/flat-top) and Second Fleet (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4090/2nd-fleet) but never found what I liked translated on the PC.

The other roughly related game I enjoyed was PC Harpoon in the 90s.

- What were the three things you liked most
Those games created tension, lots and lots of tension.
They also created narrative. When a game doesn't feel totally random, or totally weighted toward the AI then the weird events and good/bad luck generate a natural narrative which adds to the game and completely dwarfs the competitive nature of it.
Lastly, the nature of the games were just the right amount of micromanagement to be involved and neither swamped with busy work nor detached to the point of watching a bad animation.

- What were the three things you hated most
I can only really speak for Carriers at war, because I don't remember any other game as vividly.
I hated the rails each scenario had me playing on. The enemy is somewhere over there, let me launch some recon planes, if I find them first I win, otherwise I lose.

I also hated that greater difficulty levels simply made the enemy better at spotting/bombing while making me worse. I understand AI is hard, but handicapping can be done more subtly and cleverly than giving the enemy laser guided bombs in 1942.

- What were the three things it didn't have, that you wish it had
The ability to stop time; prevent me growing up; gaining responsibilities and having almost no time to play games :)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on April 18, 2019, 12:26:04 AM
Quite the opposite actually dinsdale , don't be shy!

If you'd like to comment further about your experience with Flat Top, Second Fleet (or Midway, or Carrier, etc...) please feel free to give them the same treatment. I mentioned PC games because we are in the computer wargaming forum, but if you want to elaborate, be my guest. In a matter of game design, everything counts.

Feedback on tabletop wargaming options is all the more precious knowing that I will never have the opportunity to experience it myself beyond reading the rules and playing around with the vassal module...  :'(

Thank you for your great input!

Quote from: Staggerwing on April 17, 2019, 08:33:13 PM
I really loved the original CAW series, culminating in the Complete Carriers At War compilation release. It was fun to mod, and one of my fondest memories of it was adding the USN's ZRS scout-fighter-carrying zeppelins as an available unit. Sure they were a bit crude but it was good times none the less.  O0

Aye, pre-war is very fun. A bit crimson sky-esque!

Quote from: jomni on April 17, 2019, 08:19:22 PM

Carrier strike random missions. Better replay ability vs Carriers at War.
Good, thank you! Fortunately it is already part of the plan.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Wburn on April 18, 2019, 02:36:52 AM
I can only use CAW the new version. I really liked the game since it was fun identifying and setting up strike missions against enemy fleets and land targets. I guess my wish would be missions in the Mediterranean, North Atlantic, and Baltic sea.
Another game I would be happy to see modern makeover would be War plan Orange. I would like to see scaling for modern computers I think it gets stuck at 800x600.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: JasonPratt on April 18, 2019, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: Wburn on April 18, 2019, 02:36:52 AM
Another game I would be happy to see modern makeover would be War plan Orange. I would like to see scaling for modern computers I think it gets stuck at 800x600.


THHHISSSSS!!!!1!

+1  O:-)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on April 18, 2019, 10:27:24 PM
Well, I'd lie if I was to say that I didn't plan personally a pre-war expansion. These little biplane gnats buzzing all around, 50+ plane deckloads, etc... They sure have their charm in their own right!
And these would fit a Cthulhu scenario very well too  >:D

Honestly, there's nothing more elegant than a MS-1 camo Yorktown. She's a cutie pie.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on April 19, 2019, 07:26:01 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on April 18, 2019, 10:27:24 PM
Well, I'd lie if I was to say that I didn't plan personally a pre-war expansion.

Grumman F3Fs, Curtis Goshawks, Boeing F4Bs... throw in the ZRSs with their Sparrowhawk scout/fighters and you can have my money now.  O0
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on April 20, 2019, 10:18:40 PM
I think the problem with Carriers at War is that you're really limited on the interesting decisions you have to make.  Carrier warfare was always about getting off the first effective strike, but when the game is as limited as CAW is in time and space, there's only so much you can do.

A more interesting game would scope out much farther.  I'm thinking something like Uncommon Valor.  If you could take the operational layer of UV and then take it down to the tactical level of CAW when the fleets are within striking range, that would make for a very fun game.

If you wanted to make it even better, export all of the tactical positions to a flight simulator like IL-2 and let the player actually fly the strike.

Now THAT would be a classic game!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: besilarius on April 20, 2019, 10:58:29 PM
Toonces, you're right that there are a limited amount of options.
One thing that would show the difference between USN and IJN methods, and give you some extra decision making is the force anti aircraft tactics.
The Japanese relied on the maneuverability of their carriers.  The weapons suite was relatively poor, and to enhance the freedom of maneuver, the escorts typically spread out away from the carriers.
The USN by contrast,  had a very strong and layered AA weapons suite.  And they worked on tactics to give a layered defence.
The carriers would be in the center of the formation, and near the end of the war, there were Task Groups with up to five carriers.  Then there was a ring of heavy ships, battleships and cruisers, at anywhere from 500 to 1,000 yards around the carriers.
For steaming, there was an outer ring of destroyers that was further out.  When an air attack was detected, the destroyers moved into the ring of cruisers to enhance their firepower.
Totally different methods of defending the high value ships.

The possible problem with the USN method was the tighter the ring, the greater chance of an airborne torpedo hitting something.  Or leading to the maneuvering ships to collide.
Gerry Bogan preferred to have the ring in really tight to the carriers.  But his Task Group normally operated with only three carriers.
Slew McCain, who's group had five carriers, preferred his ring to be further from the high value center group.  He noted a worry about collisions.
If the game allowed this kind of detail, it would give you some choices in your AA defence scheme for the americans.
Forthe Japanese, though, there isn't enough information in english to determine if they ever changed their tactics.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on April 21, 2019, 12:37:21 AM
Quote from: besilarius on April 20, 2019, 10:58:29 PM

If the game allowed this kind of detail, it would give you some choices in your AA defence scheme for the americans.
Forthe Japanese, though, there isn't enough information in english to determine if they ever changed their tactics.

It will. Fleet formations for now, and for the foreseeable future if we don't run into technical limitations - will be fully customizable. You pick (or you're handed) a standard formation, and you decide what to do with it. After all, Harpoon lets you do it, it's the very least we could think of, even though it's a bit of a challenge in terms of programming for a 3D universe.

In this we are helped by the fact that 1942 didn't have many instances of multi-CV Task Groups - just TF11/17 at Coral Sea and TF16 at Midway. We're stopping short of the 1943 debate about the matter, and it is all the more understandable that a flag officer of the time would be keen on making experiments. Same thing with CAP, which will be highly customizable in terms of numbers, sector distribution, distance & altitude layering. 1942 is a year made of uncertainties, and this helps with making such a topic interesting. It's Hey Rube time after all, isn't it.

Regarding the Japanese side, formations will be customizable in the mission builder but we plan on making it a AI-only side for volume 1. Still, fleet doctrine and formation will be implemented of course in order for the Kido Butai and lesser formations to behave in a believable way. Making circles and crazy zig zags shouldn't be the only behavior though - especially if a carrier has the option to run and hide into some squall, like Zuikaku did at Coral Sea.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on April 21, 2019, 01:46:47 AM
Quote from: Toonces on April 20, 2019, 10:18:40 PM
I think the problem with Carriers at War is that you're really limited on the interesting decisions you have to make.  Carrier warfare was always about getting off the first effective strike, but when the game is as limited as CAW is in time and space, there's only so much you can do.

A more interesting game would scope out much farther.  I'm thinking something like Uncommon Valor.  If you could take the operational layer of UV and then take it down to the tactical level of CAW when the fleets are within striking range, that would make for a very fun game.

If you wanted to make it even better, export all of the tactical positions to a flight simulator like IL-2 and let the player actually fly the strike.

Now THAT would be a classic game!

Well, yeah - a mix between Task Force 1942 campaign game and 1942: The Pacific Air War carrier battle module is a wet dream of mine.
We will start with the latter, and ultimately try to develop further, in terms of scale and platforms both.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: besilarius on April 21, 2019, 07:15:27 AM
Before the Battle of Santa Cruz, COMNAVAIRPAC, Admiral Jack Towers, suggested that Enterprise and Hornet should operate in one Task Group.  This was to maximise AA defences, by not splitting escorts between two groups.
Admiral Kincaid, who had no operational experience with carriers in combat, opted to have the carriers seperated.
After the battle, Towers roasted Kincaid for splitting the carriers apart and blamed him for losing Hornet.  Nimitz had more sympathy.
This could be one choice for the US player.

Clarence McCluskey, who led the Enterprise attack at Midway, wrote post war that he felt it was a mistake to send Air Group Six home.  The new Air Group (10 I think?) had no combat experience.  He thought having a veteran group of pilots would have made a difference.

Little factoid, the captain of Hornet was Charles P Mason.  The P was for Perry.
The crew had a lot of fun calling him Perry Mason, and The Lawyer.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Wburn on April 21, 2019, 02:58:12 PM
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/725163.pdf

I ran across this analysis of Kamikaze attacks and collateral damage from friendly fire. Lots of data,but what stood out to me was the success rate of attacks on allied shipping depending on the angle of attack. I think it stated something like 43% when the diving aircraft was at a 45 degree angle.
Anyhow, since it's about the Pacific and carrier ops it may be useful.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on April 22, 2019, 05:39:46 PM
I fired up CAW again last night.  After playing it, I may have been a bit hasty with my comments above.  There's more tactical depth and room to maneuver than I remember previously.

I still think the presentation is too cartoonish, but the underlying game seems solid.

I'll have to give some real thought to what I would change.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: DoctorQuest on April 22, 2019, 07:51:55 PM
^The original or the remake?
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on April 23, 2019, 10:23:32 PM
The remake by Matrix.  I've had it forever, but I just haven't put a ton of time into it.  I'm not sure why; something about the game just doesn't resonate with me.  It should because I absolutely love WW2 carrier warfare.

I might make a more concerted effort to learn the game.  It could be that I just don't know how to play it well enough to really enjoy it.  I haven't played it (before the other night) in years.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 11, 2019, 07:02:01 AM
Hello there Toonces - did you finally give it another go? I am very interested in any additional gameplay feedback you might have.

On our side, we haven't been (too) lazy these last few weeks regarding our project, and we made some progress on the aircraft management and flight engine. It starts to look like something, hopefully we'll be able to enjoy some gameplay soon enough :)

It is to be a command simulation - that is, a hybrid between a wargame (in terms of historicity and seriousness) and a simulation (in terms of constraints, as you are to assume command and suffer its limitations in terms of fog of war, comms, etc...).

- The "wargame" aspect means that you'll assume the role of a Task Force commander, and as such shall not be burdened with micro-management that would be of little relevancy to an actual commander. I.E.: you might design a strike package, but you won't park the planes by yourself ; you have a say about the bombers' loadout, but once they're in the air they are pretty much on their own. And you're not steering or counterflooding that ship either – like Captain Ramsey once told Admiral Fletcher during a damage-control crisis, at the end of the day there is still a Captain on board! It might be real-time, but it's not an action game. There will be no clickfest involved as time will be optionally pausable - actions per minute ratio won't matter more than they would in a turn-based/hex-based wargame.

- The "simulation" aspect means that things will be as realistic as possible, with little in the way of abstraction (no arbitral combat values, no dice rolls, actual physics for flight, realistic ballistics, among other things). It also means that we will touch to some newer features regarding actual fog of war (including for your own units), advanced comms management & other niceties that are apparent to anyone who would read John Lundstrom, but strangely have never been simulated till now. As in a flight sim, all parameters will be fully customizable so that people will enjoy the experience they're looking for (whether you're a grognard - like I suppose most are in here - or someone who wants a more relaxed, traditionnal carrier-at-waresque experience). Those who will go for full realism with no external view and very limited intel on the outside world will still have the possibility to will access an extensive replay module (these nice polygons would go to waste otherwise, wouldn't they).

Working on the air ops management and the interface right now. Hopefully we'll be able to go public with some more material later next month when we'll have some more stuff to show for :)
In the meantime, although Ive been told by Jason I shouldn't shy from posting the updates in this forum, for now I'll just post that in this topic. We'll see then when we'll have a product name & all, in the meantime it's just for science - and see if anyone miss carriers at all :)
Tell me if you wish to be kept updated though, I'd hate to flood the boards with my propaganda needlessly if you're into something else. Naturally, I won't abuse your hospitality.

Everything is super-duper-Work in progress of course, we're just at the prototyping stage, so please do not empty your tomato cart at us just yet. Time will come soon enough >:D

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32845888487_647e9b460a_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32845884677_f19f22f37a_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32845873107_05d8168ea7_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7904/46591969245_f09c1cd55a_o.gif)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7874/40541490603_a74eb1c493_o.gif)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7817/46591969815_a386c11e73_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/46873010455_4b835c9e08_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32845896857_f4ff6a0b57_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47789370741_876dc6b4fb_o.jpg)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59754021_139248277199675_4784126189402849280_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_eui2=AeHGNU57V7HvUxMQz5kajeSSwSt6NzlcNtJDmKdnWk0o_84xVhprBn1mKOGMYSrOv2AhGaimKL1CTd7p-f9XywW-Mz2ZhMqDIyOmuqyC8MwCWA&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=26d3385f73630bd3bdccc0532f689717&oe=5D5C7D90)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/57183756_134010051056831_4555703731064143872_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_eui2=AeFqQr8FxhZ1CRBVWO42ETmSVIIVFaD6H9TOnydzSxqL3kB_gHj2hoRuCCLkPmzqS4VB_GnClCUU-2BaiTCsNDY7D-WjBeWschqe_xcb9zcBXA&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=fe5a0a2cc0c00d8cceeed5345981ee6e&oe=5D72D59F)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59760784_139249400532896_2463019605153546240_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_eui2=AeEQ7GGvI43KLSSN4Hpe1YKYCWu9TBVm1GJT3EQBbtoKi2V13O02l2BI2OuHES-ftVDwPQCesy9MR0jPzwz9YFX3i2UOgIm2fZMRgws58peH4Q&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=7d2c81197fdd4d569ac96c917c0273df&oe=5D5BEF18)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59570073_138176917306811_8680017326260617216_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_eui2=AeGsfxQq5gIB5WYUdYrRUqzbZyFt6ZHtPklKy55c2F3ufmHfkWubfRAfXZK23aAa8B_ls8tfYvfa5W8r19a_sLJsK3-RHhDaPD95R9rGWbxCVg&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=782e332b72fc9c17e4405e6ad5db250e&oe=5D622C14)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51968826_115542839570219_3701323685215338496_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_eui2=AeGlWSXrQPfbrI658fHQJNf1SNFELW1R1H9DbfDje4jPTWEl9qWUQ-mbK6he_LpI7ROxeMDQb6vCNHxy8Pn4qOmYfh92ualc4uWRK46xumDC4A&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=2b8585cee7e9555cfab722d8f964107f&oe=5D561016)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51943266_115545482903288_6124964405974138880_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_eui2=AeGHx3fPG3kx20FytIAtygEal-VQZXboWjTh06aeQIEEJDHJ6D6sHqnsOSh9y5wKDP6kk8aEaTEnLjRPfEr9tAHWihJnI73DeAbTqea-mc_Zbg&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=4868bdd531e4cb8ed381523d561bce2e&oe=5D6CA3A3)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51723359_115547496236420_6260729554856312832_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_eui2=AeH03xijIP946Td_Clju_arAik6gZfGqcPJ9O4Uys1dXrPyhfqiyX4YGZoBHv688rCayle9S2_L2YJ_6P5VEkRw9drtGXAuuuiSV0NqMe_OxfA&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=12c550962ef516f4b9ca7aaa8372c598&oe=5D61F3A3)



Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on May 11, 2019, 07:55:15 AM
Looking good so far- can't wait!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: JasonPratt on May 11, 2019, 08:26:19 AM
WHY WILL MY MONITOR NOT ABSORB THE CASH?!?  :smitten: :smitten: :smitten:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on May 11, 2019, 10:22:57 AM
Very nice! O0
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on May 11, 2019, 01:21:52 PM
I love the pic with the devastators pealing off toward their carrier (at least I assume it's theirs- they are unarmed...).


FWIW, a few years ago there was a movie about a Devastator crew crashing and surviving at sea for over a month, based on a true story and starring Garret Dillahunt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Sun


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Against_the_Sun.png)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: mbar on May 11, 2019, 02:12:36 PM
 :dreamer: I'll add this to UBOAT for dream answered releases.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 11, 2019, 09:56:13 PM
Thank you all :smitten:

Regarding UBOAT, in sincerely hope for their sake that they will be out before we are  :arr:
There's still a long road to go, and I am pretty sure we won't have something playable before another year - but in the meantime, no reason not to please the eyes with whatever we'll come up with, right?  :dreamer:

QuoteI love the pic with the devastators pealing off toward their carrier (at least I assume it's theirs- they are unarmed...).
Yes they are. Nobody qualified for payload delivery just yet, on either side. We're still in the middle of carrier landing qualifications  :knuppel2:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on May 11, 2019, 11:33:07 PM
Wait...what did I just see above...

Is this real life?

Can't be.  If it were so my loins would be moist enough to host their very own carrier group and there would be no need for the game. 
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 12, 2019, 02:21:20 AM
Well, it sure looks real enough a life from the perspective of my unfortunate bank account and our developer's overtime routine  :-"

Regarding your comment, please make sure to tell your Missus that we have the utmost respect for the body area you just mentioned. So that she can be certain of our good intents: even though what follows might have unintended consequences, we are deeply sorry in advance and meant no harm to your underwear!  :hide:





Besides, rest assured, all our carriers are usually provided with a crane to handle airplanes, we should not be in need of your bodily help for deck management, in most cases.  :coolsmiley:
Oh wait, Ive heard about a project involving moving a few B-25s around the deck though...

On a serious note by the way: super Work in Progress and super pre-alpha. We're just playing with physics right now, don't take anything for permanent (especially the take off cadence for the F4Fs and the abrupt transition between flight mode and ouija business for the SBD).

Stay tuned, we will go public sometime soon hopefully - can't say just yet when it's happening (gotta find a name and a brand first) but we're getting a bit closer every day  ^-^

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59328239_138467403944429_7026462085601034240_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=d6b3788834ba382f1f8f1f7f2323a754&oe=5D6BFFC0)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: acctingman on May 12, 2019, 09:49:24 AM
your videos don't seem to work
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 12, 2019, 10:05:46 AM
Ah? It's a bit of a mystery.  :o
I just tried with two other navigators (I use Firefox, so I switched to Chrome & Edge) and then on the phone (using Chrome). Although in the case of the latter it took some time to launch itself, it still worked in the end. What sort of error is it displaying?

(for the records, these are silent videos, there's no sound, so no error there at least)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Huw the Poo on May 12, 2019, 10:28:44 AM
I can see them just fine.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: bobarossa on May 12, 2019, 02:05:46 PM
me too.  Videos reminder me of a flight simulator.  Pacific Air War.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: em2nought on May 12, 2019, 05:39:44 PM
Drool!  :notworthy:  For me, this should go nicely with War Plan Pacific by Shrapnel and the Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal kickstarter https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/787937257/carrier-battles-4-desktop (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/787937257/carrier-battles-4-desktop)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on May 12, 2019, 06:56:02 PM
I can see the videos. 

I wish I hadn't.  I want it now. 

Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: JasonPratt on May 12, 2019, 07:56:22 PM
I'm sort of wondering if an ad/mod shouldn't split off these latter posts into their own thread? -- partly to alert a wider audience to them.  :smitten:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 13, 2019, 11:02:09 AM
Quote from: bobarossa on May 12, 2019, 02:05:46 PM
me too.  Videos reminder me of a flight simulator.  Pacific Air War.

Thank you. She's one of my old girlfriends too. You, Sir, are a man of taste!

Quote from: em2nought on May 12, 2019, 05:39:44 PM
Drool!  :notworthy:  For me, this should go nicely with War Plan Pacific by Shrapnel and the Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal kickstarter https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/787937257/carrier-battles-4-desktop (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/787937257/carrier-battles-4-desktop)

Aye, yes it will! Regarding the Carrier Battles adaptation for PC, it is all the more remarkable and a bit strange that they happen to be French too - just like us. What is it with French people and South Pacific carriers, "the world wonders"  :crazy2:

Quote from: SirAndrewD on May 12, 2019, 06:56:02 PM
I can see the videos. 

I wish I hadn't.  I want it now.

Obviously I'd hate to abuse your senses once again, but it seemed like an invitation in disguise. There you go, more blood for the braves!  :arr:



(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47842078751_5ac812f5b8_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47842078861_c338b90a35_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47052461494_5c7536da51_o.jpg)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53052532_119557645835405_1812573286647726080_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=cadb6faa4f41d32f8310ac1ad9e89693&oe=5D5548E5)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52800548_119557632502073_3156845475601055744_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=ca28a958927dd7704d6f04842404b48c&oe=5D6473A0)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32887190517_0a8c2ac16d_o.gif)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40875296923_b81be1813e_o.gif)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47842206681_1b2a7c2ba2_o.gif)

We intend to have a fully functional engine for surface combat, even though it will still be simplified compared to flight ops. Still, expect at least as much detail as Fighting Steel for instance, which happened to be a dedicated surface engine btw, and in many ways much more advanced (especially in terms of maneuvering and comms).  :peace:
Honestly, in 2019, I guess it's about time we finally had an engine able to manage WW2 3D air and surface combat under the same roof, don't you think people?

Quote from: JasonPratt on May 12, 2019, 07:56:22 PM
I'm sort of wondering if an ad/mod shouldn't split off these latter posts into their own thread? -- partly to alert a wider audience to them.  :smitten:
Thank you Jason ^^ But I don't even know how to name that thing just yet. When we'll have a name, we'll go forward with the whole thing and I will do that myself (no need to bother these gentlemen of the forum  C:-)). For the time being I am perfectly fine living under the noble shadow of CaW, it sort of casts a good omen and a kind reminder that time flies by so fast...
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on May 13, 2019, 11:56:39 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on May 13, 2019, 11:02:09 AM

Thank you Jason ^^ But I don't even know how to name that thing just yet. When we'll have a name, we'll go forward with the whole thing and I will do that myself (no need to bother these gentlemen of the forum  C:-)). For the time being I am perfectly fine living under the noble shadow of CaW, it sort of casts a good omen and a kind reminder that time flies by so fast...

Just follow the standard WW2 game naming convention.

Throw the following words into a hat: Steel, Armor, Iron, Fury, Blaze, War, Flame, Strike, Assault, Thrust

Add specifics: Carriers, Pacific, Air, Sea, Ocean, Rising Sun, Setting Sun, Waking Giant, Sleeping Giant

Maybe a few specific battle names if you really want. 

Pull names out of the hat until you get a good name....

examples

Steel Oceans: Pacific
Carriers: Waking the Giant
Pacific Fury: Rising Sun

It seems to work for other developers.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 13, 2019, 12:03:07 PM
Well I'd lie if I was to say that we don't have it already, it's just that the 2D artist is still hard at work on the logo and the final art :)
He's busy with the last details regarding the Wildcat and the Zero that will feature on the box, the very same that were shown on the previous page.

(https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/57213839_132895927834910_3380855701151678464_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_eui2=AeHsmEJLzhVkAWb0mjGNACIcOHu0olIGQc1df1xXaoFKGyRA3MGfNGwR-lOhfoZd04ZOHhupHcJ2vdIo6Kz_jIY4_vNXCqFRH5Nt9HglfqBa-Q&_nc_ht=scontent-frx5-1.xx&oh=6d6f56027963a87b2920e8f7200f51d7&oe=5D6E2961)

(https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56973896_131475777976925_8527713735790297088_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_eui2=AeHvV-vZJagMbCdqin-mz5ya6Pukanry2z4izc2qWa07UvuVqWXThNT5EjN5WLcR2IHe7hwq3MNSZYQHIrSwTZazpp9vrx58AmaQJDeCyolFRg&_nc_ht=scontent-frx5-1.xx&oh=e2e0eef965a5667bb684671812720560&oe=5D713453)

(https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56770598_132895931168243_871076924485533696_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_eui2=AeHKQw-H3nStLR2ENsbyueX5Mgz42il0yVIPgaeaUYMZS6ELPctMPTzTfaevkF-yFwHfD82Xs-vfu1YJfxBXC_U9zTOZHdzKbl346OoIavuRgA&_nc_ht=scontent-frx5-1.xx&oh=b6966d758ecd4ad0fdea50cf1992f719&oe=5D6DA018)

(https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/57004728_132895914501578_7330438056673017856_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_eui2=AeE30PFQz0s5E8q7AwPkaBlJNiaixjpY_0g-_D_-xE89srtgr1yz2PXe6dVy7t_4oCJwBuhVR8ZMVI91JFZnwZJTUz6JmRc2EQZkm4H_3tUwtg&_nc_ht=scontent-frx5-1.xx&oh=5914bc68b505435e9739068d3106ad78&oe=5D6C00CD)

(https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58549583_136549170802919_2198854106854981632_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_eui2=AeEzlHuuXWUuEmpypY5MDvTgAU0ujN3uXtYCSDuSwhM-xSQhAFA-6AOOcQDSZBcp1mPDPvXBUTeK-ZH66LHqzNTV3wFva7FkRkb2MhBao2XOCw&_nc_ht=scontent-frx5-1.xx&oh=9791839783aaae4bb70108dc4ab7917f&oe=5D54E00D)

Good work takes time  O:-)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: IronX on May 13, 2019, 01:13:33 PM
Quote from: SirAndrewD on May 13, 2019, 11:56:39 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on May 13, 2019, 11:02:09 AM

Thank you Jason ^^ But I don't even know how to name that thing just yet. When we'll have a name, we'll go forward with the whole thing and I will do that myself (no need to bother these gentlemen of the forum  C:-)). For the time being I am perfectly fine living under the noble shadow of CaW, it sort of casts a good omen and a kind reminder that time flies by so fast...

Just follow the standard WW2 game naming convention.

Throw the following words into a hat: Steel, Armor, Iron, Fury, Blaze, War, Flame, Strike, Assault, Thrust

Add specifics: Carriers, Pacific, Air, Sea, Ocean, Rising Sun, Setting Sun, Waking Giant, Sleeping Giant

Maybe a few specific battle names if you really want. 

Pull names out of the hat until you get a good name....

examples

Steel Oceans: Pacific
Carriers: Waking the Giant
Pacific Fury: Rising Sun

It seems to work for other developers.

Whatever you do, don't use the lazy wargame naming convention of "noun+of+noun", like Seas of War, Ships of Steel or Flying Fists of Fury. Actually, that last one would be pretty cool.

Also, I'm very much enjoying the behind the scenes development posts. Good work, the game is looking great so far.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: acctingman on May 13, 2019, 01:34:13 PM
Carriers of Awesomeness

Carriers of We're Going to Fuk Sh*t Up

Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on May 13, 2019, 01:50:49 PM
Based on that picture I'm seeing "Flaming Zero: Setting Sun"

Seriously though, this is pretty stunning. 

Are you going to be looking at crowdfunding at any point?  If you are you've already got enough to get me interested in backing.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: JasonPratt on May 13, 2019, 03:02:48 PM
Sleeping Giant: Thrust!


:hide:  #:-) :wow: :timeout:

I swear, all I did was follow Sir Andrew's instructions!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: DennisS on May 13, 2019, 03:03:42 PM
Quote
...Whatever you do, don't use the lazy wargame naming convention of "noun+of+noun", like Seas of War, Ships of Steel or Flying Fists of Fury. Actually, that last one would be pretty cool.

Also, I'm very much enjoying the behind the scenes development posts. Good work, the game is looking great so far.

Hmmm.... The name of my World of Warcraft (see what I did there? heh heh) guild: The Alliance of Steel.

:uglystupid2:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on May 13, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
Why not call the game 'Devastator', in honor of the USN's VT-3 and VT-8 Squadrons?

While we may never know for sure, the two torpedo squadrons' unescorted 'death rides' may have been one of the historical hinges which caused events to play out as they did, drawing down low vital Japanese fighter cover and clearing the way for mixed USN dive bombers serendipitously arrived high overhead to take out most of the IJN carriers.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 13, 2019, 10:29:43 PM
Quote from: SirAndrewD on May 13, 2019, 01:50:49 PM
Based on that picture I'm seeing "Flaming Zero: Setting Sun"

Seriously though, this is pretty stunning. 

Are you going to be looking at crowdfunding at any point?  If you are you've already got enough to get me interested in backing.

Thank you!

Regarding crowdfunding, my policy is that we're gonna use our own money for the time being. Hopefully, if things go well, it should allow us 2 years of development without too much to worry about.

Then, once we're ready to roll, we might kickstart a physical version of the game. I happen to be an old Microprose fanboy, and I can't imagine producing a game like that without a big box, a nice heavy manual and a few goodies of the right kind. We have ideas about the sort of items that could come with the upper backing tiers, that is to say, beyond the usual ubiquitous mugs & t-shirts: re-edition of historical posters, customized mousepads, playing cards using our custom graphics (as we might end up having a lot of portraits), a physical artbook, a recognition booklet, naval charts, etc... Even though it will be offered as an option among others, we don't plan to go for a kickstarter campaign just to offer you a mere platform for pre-ordering a digital version.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on May 13, 2019, 10:51:48 PM
Quote from: The_Admiral on May 13, 2019, 10:29:43 PM


Thank you!

Regarding crowdfunding, my policy is that we're gonna use our own money for the time being. Hopefully, if things go well, it should allow us 2 years of development without too much to worry about.

Then, once we're ready to roll, we might kickstart a physical version of the game. I happen to be an old Microprose fanboy, and I can't imagine producing a game like that without a big box, a nice heavy manual and a few goodies of the right kind. We have ideas about the sort of items that could come with the upper backing tiers, that is to say, beyond the usual ubiquitous mugs & t-shirts: re-edition of historical posters, customized mousepads, playing cards using our custom graphics (as we might end up having a lot of portraits), a physical artbook, a recognition booklet, naval charts, etc... Even though it will be offered as an option among others, we don't plan to go for a kickstarter campaign just to offer you a mere platform for pre-ordering a digital version.

You ever need the help of an old out of the teaching circuit military historian like myself let me know!   This is looking to scratch the Aces of the Pacific/TF 1942 itch I've had for a long while. 

But if you go to funding, yeah, I'm there, even just for the pre-order platform.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 14, 2019, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on May 13, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
Why not call the game 'Devastator', in honor of the USN's VT-3 and VT-8 Squadrons?

While we may never know for sure, the two torpedo squadrons' unescorted 'death rides' may have been one of the historical hinges which caused events to play out as they did, drawing down low vital Japanese fighter cover and clearing the way for mixed USN dive bombers serendipitously arrived high overhead to take out most of the IJN carriers.

The VTs will feature extensively. Just two days ago we had a discussion about how to simulate (management wise) the fact that VT8 TBDs took off with double defensive MGs (taken from SBD squadron spares) instead of the single mount found on normal Devastators. And besides, my own avatar speaks for itself ;)
If you gents like the Devastator, well it happens that our latest work was about her. We're trying to put together a reference template for planes camo & skin, and we started with the TBD. Two days ago our dev came up with all the good techs we needed to make the most out of our 2048*2048 skins (which is much less than what you have in Il2BoX - remember we're trying to simulate ops involving several dozens or even a hundred planes, we have to make some sacrifices here and there). Well, the result is not half-bad  :smitten:

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60406638_140559843735185_7533211790658764800_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=821acab2d954ac9b4c7773b7a3362d45&oe=5D610CBA)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60416200_140559943735175_9035622407708082176_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=931f8df869694c7a9a54cc6e6656d5be&oe=5D63832A)

Of particular interest is the effect of metal fatigue on the fuselage, the same that you might see on this picture (a VT-6 Devastator in early 1942, that served as a model).

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60416568_140562890401547_5734042749049503744_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=1e608200d8415fcaf3b63f9ba70c4783&oe=5D754F00)

Here are a few other screens.

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60738814_140559993735170_1315551132759621632_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=b3f18f72c935ed89cedf004f13fdf93e&oe=5D52FD6A)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60353649_140559927068510_1632583791526543360_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=6b2d578422dddcc268a1ec890bdf00c2&oe=5D5F541A)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60342088_140560030401833_7956741234431623168_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=bbc6353dacf5e0c357a1eb0535fcdae6&oe=5D68C938)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60081566_140560010401835_5174141711307243520_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=0a4e7bd5ad684c2b8e888d746b2d1b2e&oe=5D643414)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60792479_140562577068245_3737581051803860992_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=088856045d5fbbd561e18b8187330944&oe=5D5C0F9B)

And there, finally, a few shots that allows us to see the dynamic markings system at work. Dynamic numbers and letters are applied to the skins (on this Devastator skin they appear next to the fuselage roundel and on the inner part of the wings). Not an easy tech to implement, as the result has to blend in nicely with the skin (anyone who played the 1st generation Il-2 series knows that it's not an easy task) and be tweakable enough to satisfy all the needs (markings habits and regulations vary a lot from a service to another - and even in the Navy). In my opinion our dev's job in that regard (and in every other) is pretty neat  8)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60348709_140559897068513_8374703133573513216_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=075aca93382938141034c52655f6e4d2&oe=5D6FEA4A)

(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60126727_140559887068514_6580436874442047488_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent-nrt1-1.xx&oh=ccc13602729185741256e1abf40bfd82&oe=5D74AD87)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 14, 2019, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: SirAndrewD on May 13, 2019, 10:51:48 PM

You ever need the help of an old out of the teaching circuit military historian like myself let me know!   This is looking to scratch the Aces of the Pacific/TF 1942 itch I've had for a long while. 

But if you go to funding, yeah, I'm there, even just for the pre-order platform.

Thanks for the kind proposal Andrew.
Of course we might need that sort of help. As you might have seen already, my English is far from perfect (ok, yesterday was a bit special, had to finish that bottle of wine watching Game of Thrones, but still...) that means that we will need, at a certain point, people with the right sort of sensitivity and knowledge to proofread our written material. And even though I can't say just yet if we'll be able to pay actual money, I am pretty sure that there will be at least a deluxe box edition for anyone able to help  ;)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: FarAway Sooner on May 14, 2019, 11:58:47 AM
I love Andrew's naming convention idea.  I myself would prefer an even more ironic or over-the-top title, perhaps something along the lines of All Your Islands are Belong to Us or Awesome Carrier Battles of Pacific Awesomeness?   ;D

If anybody, either on the design team or with an interest in the topic, hasn't read Parshall & Tully's Shattered Sword, it's the best English-language write-up of the Battle of Midway and came out about ten years ago.  I'll spare you the extensive book review, but it's got a real focus on carrier operations and carrier doctrine.  It's not perfect, but it does a good job of debunking the Fuchida myth that dominated the American view of Midway for the previous 50+ years...
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 14, 2019, 12:09:06 PM
Thanks for the suggestion bro - but fear not!

I wouldn't dare starting that sort of adventure without doing my homework first, I am a good boy  ;)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47797702892_d3159d60fb_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on May 14, 2019, 03:39:36 PM
Quote from: The_Admiral on May 14, 2019, 09:36:33 AM

Thanks for the kind proposal Andrew.
Of course we might need that sort of help. As you might have seen already, my English is far from perfect (ok, yesterday was a bit special, had to finish that bottle of wine watching Game of Thrones, but still...) that means that we will need, at a certain point, people with the right sort of sensitivity and knowledge to proofread our written material. And even though I can't say just yet if we'll be able to pay actual money, I am pretty sure that there will be at least a deluxe box edition for anyone able to help  ;)

I may indeed be able to help with that when the time comes.  Well outside my history background I'm the current VP of Sales for a publishing house and my wife is an ghostwriter/editor/project manager, so we've done some proofing. 

Maybe we can work something out.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: FarAway Sooner on May 15, 2019, 02:00:45 AM
Sweet research!    :bd:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 15, 2019, 08:52:44 PM
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on May 15, 2019, 02:00:45 AM
Sweet research!    :bd:

Thanks! It is kinda needed.

For instance, we came to the realization that plane management and its most troublesome moments will be one of the core components of the sim, and we need to make it right as early as possible in the development. The AI is doing a satisfactory job so far spotting, respotting & clearing the decks, but it needs to be super adaptable in order to recreate all kinds of situations and SNAFUs. We do not have access to most tools/hacks air officers had (tables or rulers used to calculate the take off distance based on plane weight, for example). In books such as Lundstrom's or Pacific Payback, strike deckloads are quite detailed enough to allow us to determine patterns (a 500lbs and a 1000lbs armed SBD just don't need the same space to take off, obviously), so that we can easily cross reference their info with data found in original plane manuals & handbooks from the 30s-40s.

Quote from: SirAndrewD on May 14, 2019, 03:39:36 PM

I may indeed be able to help with that when the time comes.  Well outside my history background I'm the current VP of Sales for a publishing house and my wife is an ghostwriter/editor/project manager, so we've done some proofing. 

Maybe we can work something out.

We certainly might find a way indeed :)
Thanks again Andrew, I will not fail to keep you updated.

Edit: Aw gawd typos everywhere... (Somewhat) fixed now, oops.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Strela on May 15, 2019, 11:58:45 PM
The_Admiral,

Having worked with SSG back in the '80s when Carriers at War was crafted and subsequently John Tiller Software and now, Wargame Design Studio, I'm super excited (and impressed) to see what your doing. It looks like you have a very capable team and a solid underpinning of code and just as importantly taking the time to research the topic properly.

In my experience, taking the time to research turns up some very clear directions for game play and code creation. As you mention, it solidifies the focus you want the player to have such as the interplay of search, flying and most importantly the deck logistics that usually defined the winners or losers.

Will be cheering you and the team on and if there is any assistance we can give, please let us know.

David
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 16, 2019, 10:04:17 AM
Dear David

It's an honour for us to be noticed, Sensei :notworthy:
My lone and yet very capable dev says hello, by the way! He is the one guy to be impressed about indeed, on my part I am just the cuckoo who has been bothering him for ages to try his luck with me. Fortunately, our 2D and 3D guys are heroes on their own too, I am just plain lucky to have such nice people around, but I guess you know the feeling well enough.

But yes, we are putting ourselves in the same kind of philosophy as the one you have been championing for years - if I say decades I'd be impolite to you ( O:-)), but I grew up with games made and tested by people like you. It is all the more interesting and funnier then that I happen to be sort of following in your steps all the way to the point that I am doing this also on my free time, with my own money, and being an expat in Asia. If it rings any bell on your side...  :coolsmiley:

Anyway, if you ever happen to come to Mainland China during your business trips, especially in or around Shanghai, don't forget I'll be happy to treat you to a good meal! And thank you again for your kind and inspiring support!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Strela on May 16, 2019, 11:29:41 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on May 16, 2019, 10:04:17 AM
Dear David

It's an honour for us to be noticed, Sensei :notworthy:
My lone and yet very capable dev says hello, by the way! He is the one guy to be impressed about indeed, on my part I am just the cuckoo who has been bothering him for ages to try his luck with me. Fortunately, our 2D and 3D guys are heroes on their own too, I am just plain lucky to have such nice people around, but I guess you know the feeling well enough.

But yes, we are putting ourselves in the same kind of philosophy as the one you have been championing for years - if I say decades I'd be impolite to you ( O:-)), but I grew up with games made and tested by people like you. It is all the more interesting and funnier then that I happen to be sort of following in your steps all the way to the point that I am doing this also on my free time, with my own money, and being an expat in Asia. If it rings any bell on your side...  :coolsmiley:

Anyway, if you ever happen to come to Mainland China during your business trips, especially in or around Shanghai, don't forget I'll be happy to treat you to a good meal! And thank you again for your kind and inspiring support!

Footsteps indeed! Too funny that you're in Shanghai and I'm in Singapore!

I do occasionally get to Shanghai and the offer is there if you come down here closer to the equator!  :bd:

I'll stay in touch.

David
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on May 18, 2019, 12:34:55 AM
Sorry this took so long.  I've given your questions and your posts a lot of thought.  When I'm unimpaired from external forces (ie. scotch) I have some thoughts on your project. 

More to follow.  :)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 18, 2019, 06:09:00 AM
Well, thank you Toonces. No worries, there's hardly any hurry, we're still in the prototyping stage.

Nothing very fancy to show for this week, our dev has been hard at work designing the future air ops mission planner, and it's not easy to make some sense out of this complicated exercise. Here is a first very early look at his work.

The key in this video is the timeline at the bottom. Not saying that everything in the game will be about timelines, but anyone who studied a tad bit carrier battles knows that, at the end of the day, seemingly logical decisions made two or three hours before will come back bite you in the a*se in case of an unplanned event or a bad surprise - bad surprises being, unlike what the wording might suggest, the rule more than the exception. Having one's plan utterly destroyed by the flow of events in battle is more often than not the norm in carrier combat, even more so than in other kinds of warfare, and time management is of the essence. It seemed to us that a good way of visualizing how much times it takes to arm/prepare, spot, launch, recover a strike is a central matter in a serious recreation of the genre. Naturally, detailed data will be available and tweakable too, and other parameters (such as preferred cruise speed, mission type or special instructions) will add to the randomness of flight time, even in the most uneventful mission.

As usual, it's all placeholders. CAP and inner/outer patrol missions will probably be handled from the formation screen, although LRCAP over a friendly TF, base or ground unit will be a choice too (and will probably be handled like any other package).



Tier 2 development of this module will naturally address other matters, especially point option configuration - carriers were rarely expected to be at their original launching spot at the time of recovering a strike, and point option management will be an important feature too. Make sure to be on time at the position you gave your guys, or you'd better pray that their Zed Baker receivers (a radio-based gear that allowed returning plane to obtain a heading on their carrier) works flawlessly. Spoilers: in 1942, it certainly didn't.

I thought that having some sort of non-official thread here allowed me also to post a few old things without risking a misunderstanding - so, knowing we're a wargaming crowd after all, let me share with you a few very early prototypes from a year ago, when we were doing experiments regarding the core 3D world and its integration with a 2D system. At that time our dev was still busy with his day job, and was studying the project on his spare time. Naturally it looks better now - back then we didn't even have our own ships... But anyone with a trained eye will see the potential of the tech he developed. The whole theater was generated procedurally from an actual chart info. He computes the values, the system reads the map info, and we're provided with a 3D blanket that we might change by hand afterwards. Here's the first result we obtained :



Naturally, the goal after that is to allow us to tweak manually the result - which will be all the more needed when we will need to build historical bases. But still, in the meantime, the result was not bad at all. Here's an illustration of what the tech could achieve one year ago, hopefully we will be able to give it another try soon :

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33996786628_4a60dcb81d_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32929791187_60a192c781_o.jpg)

And here's a comparison between the relief of the actual location (Guadalcanal) as seen on Google Earth and our procedurally-generated version

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32929791267_1af521012e_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47084672714_f24e4778dd_o.jpg)

We might still need to tweak the colors (these SOPAC places are very, very green and the shades change a lot with the weather) but I find the end result very honorable, to say the least. :P

Finally, as a last treat, and still as a very early prototype from a year ago too, here is our first experiment about integrating the Ouija board (aka the aircraft management board used aboard a carrier by the Air Ops staff) to the larger picture. There is also a wide variety of camera angles being experimented on in the video, from map 3D view to map 2D view, to zoomed map 2D view to zoomed map/3D world. Again, don't take anything for granted, all of this was and remains WIP - the only certainty being our dev's ability to deliver me with pretty much anything I can think of. A good man this one, if there ever was one.  8)

On a gameplay note, we do not intend to make the Ouija "station" playable per se - it isn't your job as a commander/player to mess around with the planes, but we want you there again to have a perfect view and understanding of what is going on aboard your carrier. Hopefully we will have a "Toy" view and a 3D view (à la Carrier Deck) just like we already have a 2D Map and a 3D World.



Hope some of you will find that stuff interesting and entertaining. In the meantime, enjoy your weekend and take care!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: rocketman on May 18, 2019, 10:49:42 AM
The zoom in from 2d operational map all the way to a single carrier is ultra cool. Impressive to say the least  :notworthy: :bd:
Loving what I see so far  :smitten:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on May 18, 2019, 06:22:20 PM
I don't know if I'm going to be able to articulate this properly, but here goes:

What I'm hoping for in your game, or a game like it, is for something that plays similar to Scourge of War (Civil War series) using the commander/courier system mode.  What I find playing in that mode is that a lot of the really critical decisions are made long before contact with the enemy takes place.  You really have to have a good idea of what you're trying to achieve before you start issuing orders.  Once you've provided orders to all of your units, the game really begins to become managing controlled chaos.

What I mean is that as the troops move out, eventually contact will develop with the enemy.  At that point the lines start to meander around and, using the courier system, you have to conceptualize how you want the troops to move and order themselves, but also try to account for the difficulties inherent in having the computer properly interpret what you're telling it to do.  Again, it's hard to put exactly into words, but rarely does the battle evolve exactly as planned.  As the troops react during the fighting, things just get messy, and you as the commander are adapting to things that are completely out of your control.  It feels more authentic than selecting a group of troops and then clicking on the map where you want them to go.

I played a Gettysburg battle a while back that took about 3 hours of real time to fight through, but only used about 40 orders total...40 "moves" if you like. 

What I'd like to see, and what I think you're doing, is to get that feel of being the commander on the bridge of a carrier, using similar map tools that they actually used for planning back then.  I'd like to be able to have enough sea room and time to develop a full blown plan, and then communicate that to my subordinates, but let them interpret and manage those orders their way.  As the enemy is detected, I'd like to have the challenges of getting my planes airborne and grouped together in a timely manner like the commanders experienced in the early war, and be faced with the difficult decision of whether to wait until my units get coordinated, or send them on their way piecemeal.  I want the units to have trouble finding the enemy, challenges maintaining cohesion, and I want the challenge of interpreting battle results from pilot reports after the strike.  When the enemy attacks, I want to feel the smoke and confusion of battle, the challenge of continuing to plan while the ship is maneuvering radically and being hit by bombs.

And so on.

If you've played SoW then you'll know what I mean.  Once the battle is truly joined, your ability to control things rapidly diminishes.  Most of the really important decisions take place before the enemy is even found, and then early in the battle.  I think there are similarities between that and carrier warfare, where the really important decisions are made early in the battle.  Once the enemy carriers are spotted and the strikes are on their way, there's really very little for the commander to do. 

I knew this was going to be hard to explain, and I'm rambling, but..well there it is.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on May 18, 2019, 08:41:04 PM
Quote from: Toonces on May 18, 2019, 06:22:20 PM

I knew this was going to be hard to explain, and I'm rambling, but..well there it is.

Every time an update is posted here I just kind of blubber incoherently and clap very loudly emitting squeals like and excited child. 

So you're doing better than me.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 19, 2019, 12:00:48 AM
Quote from: rocketman on May 18, 2019, 10:49:42 AM
The zoom in from 2d operational map all the way to a single carrier is ultra cool. Impressive to say the least  :notworthy: :bd:
Loving what I see so far  :smitten:

Thank you kind Sir!

Ok there we go

Quote from: Toonces on May 18, 2019, 06:22:20 PM
I don't know if I'm going to be able to articulate this properly, but here goes:
No worries mate! I am not even sure I am going to make my English understandable now that I ran out of coffee for the morning, but let's try.

Quote
What I'm hoping for in your game, or a game like it, is for something that plays similar to Scourge of War (Civil War series) using the commander/courier system mode.  What I find playing in that mode is that a lot of the really critical decisions are made long before contact with the enemy takes place.  You really have to have a good idea of what you're trying to achieve before you start issuing orders.  Once you've provided orders to all of your units, the game really begins to become managing controlled chaos.
Well, in that respect we're on the same page. Limited friendly feedback, command delays, limitations of comms and intercepts are to be an integral part of carrier command as a simulation. The comparison with a Civil War game is not that far-fetched: SBDs jockeys would routinely use beanbags to communicate with their homeplate in proximity of the task force before being recovered in order not to risk a SIGINT intercept (yeah, by that I mean dropping a small purse on the deck of the carrier during a flyby) ; whenever possible, the carrier would use lights to communicate with planes aloft ; CAP fighters would use wing banks or hand signals when flying low alongside the carrier's island ; flags & lights were used extensively for task force coordination, the only exception being the TBS (Talk Between Ship) system, which was good for a chat but not so much for everything else as there were risks of garble and sometimes just sheer inability to copy a message. Yes, comms are central, and the way you send messages to everybody will be carefully monitored at the highest level of realism. With lower levels of realism selected, a feature which should be kept as an option in order not to scare everybody off, let's say it will just play like a classic historical RTS - and feel like most wargames dedicated to this topic in the 1990s. Make no mistake, I don't call that a command simulation for nothing. Carriers at War, Pacific Air War, Great Naval Battles or HPS Midway are great games, and the some of them have made me the man I am today, but I don't plan on making a mere 3D adaptation of them. I would like to bring something new to the table, and arguably at a time when everybody is innovating (Unity of Command with its intuitiveness, AI and overall production, Radio Commander/General with their view of command, Command Ops with its real time take on non-hex command, Decisive Campaigns with its narrative and event engine, etc...) it sounds to me like the new normal.

Another example of what you'd find in our game that has never been done before to my knowledge would be the use of actual friendly fog of war. The topic was touched in Radio Commander, but it's no different for carrier combat - and made even more critical by the abundant existing literature about the topic. If you send a scout plane out there, there is simply no way for you to know in real time where it is and what it is doing. When reporting a contact, especially over the ocean, you have to take into account that the scouting crew own idea of where it is itself implies a certain margin of error that you *might* correct somewhat with a radio direction finding check, possibly augmented by a third-party friendly radio plot (often unlikely in 1942). There is no single occurrence on the US side of a pinpoint sighting in 1942. So far existing games have always kept it to a bare minimum (aka force mis-identification) and it seems to me that there is still some room left for further development. Add to this that there is simply no way a base would know about the loss of its scout if this one didn't send a report when attacked - there again, combat history is packed with examples of Japanese seaplanes, including flying boats, getting shot down so quick by US CAP that they never had a chance to send a message. In a case like that, Rabaul for instance wouldn't be aware of the loss before the next radio check, usually on the return leg around Bougainville, which means that quite a few hours could pass without the base getting any notice of the loss - this is one of the reasons why Fletcher never got attacked during the landing phase of Watchtower. These precious hours lost and uncertainty have rarely been simulated before, and in my opinion should be part of the whole experience more often than not.

Quote from: Toonces on May 18, 2019, 06:22:20 PM
What I mean is that as the troops move out, eventually contact will develop with the enemy.  At that point the lines start to meander around and, using the courier system, you have to conceptualize how you want the troops to move and order themselves, but also try to account for the difficulties inherent in having the computer properly interpret what you're telling it to do.  Again, it's hard to put exactly into words, but rarely does the battle evolve exactly as planned.  As the troops react during the fighting, things just get messy, and you as the commander are adapting to things that are completely out of your control.  It feels more authentic than selecting a group of troops and then clicking on the map where you want them to go.
No worries I know what you mean. In that regard hopefully some day I'll be able to propose something along the lines of good old 1989 Waterloo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(video_game) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(video_game))). Funny and depressing both to see how simple game concepts in the era of CGA/EGA fared better in 1989 than they do today, right?
I'll make no mystery, even if the latter half of our product name will broadly follow "Andrews' standard for WW2 game nomenclature" (c) we want to make the whole experience sort of new by putting the men rather than the machines in the spotlight, and this will be featured in the title. The intent is very much like everything you have described here: we're playing people, not robots, and there has to be room for mistakes and misjudgements - and drama alike. We envision an event engine that will feature dynamic events (the likes of flight deck SNAFU, equipment failure, message relay delay, coding mistakes...) and scripted ones (specific to each scenario, with specific messages, notable events & even some flagplot drama - such as Forrest Biard's disagreement with Fletcher on the night before the Coral Sea last day, for instance). Mistakes were made but they are part of the whole experience: if we want the player to make them too, he needs to be given a proper environment and proper rules to recreate the very same battlefield uncertainty commanders had to face back then.

Quote
What I'd like to see, and what I think you're doing, is to get that feel of being the commander on the bridge of a carrier, using similar map tools that they actually used for planning back then.  I'd like to be able to have enough sea room and time to develop a full blown plan, and then communicate that to my subordinates, but let them interpret and manage those orders their way.  As the enemy is detected, I'd like to have the challenges of getting my planes airborne and grouped together in a timely manner like the commanders experienced in the early war, and be faced with the difficult decision of whether to wait until my units get coordinated, or send them on their way piecemeal.  I want the units to have trouble finding the enemy, challenges maintaining cohesion, and I want the challenge of interpreting battle results from pilot reports after the strike.  When the enemy attacks, I want to feel the smoke and confusion of battle, the challenge of continuing to plan while the ship is maneuvering radically and being hit by bombs.

And so on.
Well, I'll take the risk of sounding boring by telling you that we fully intend to have all of this from the get-go.  ^-^


Quote
If you've played SoW then you'll know what I mean.  Once the battle is truly joined, your ability to control things rapidly diminishes.  Most of the really important decisions take place before the enemy is even found, and then early in the battle.  I think there are similarities between that and carrier warfare, where the really important decisions are made early in the battle.  Once the enemy carriers are spotted and the strikes are on their way, there's really very little for the commander to do. 

I knew this was going to be hard to explain, and I'm rambling, but..well there it is.

Well, yeah, that's the problem with Carrier combat though, it's that I am not sure people will find the tension waiting for the strike to reach its target absolutely nail-biting. Arleigh Burke (if I am not mistaken) used to say that he was exchanging fishing stories with Mitscher waiting for the flight packages to come back. Fortunately early war CV to CV combat will provide ample opportunities for pleasantries exchanges with the enemy, so it shouldn't be as void as it sounds - but that is also why difficulty and realism settings will be tweakable. If you want a full experience from the flag plot and the CV island side catwalk, it will be possible. If you want to enable 3D view, and disable friendly FoW in order to follow your planes around and watch them fight, it is possible too. One size might not fit all, but we are bringing the whole shop with us.

Besides, fear not, we intend on having a replay module (with full 3D functionality, actual and hidden message logs, detailed damages, etc...) that will allow you to analyze the action as a all-knowing post-combat feature, so that you might pick the highest realism setting and still have the possibility of checking how your birds performed and did their job after the battle. After all, it would be rather awkward to have a great 3D engine and prevent you from taking nice screenshots for your AAR, wouldn't it  >:D


Quote from: SirAndrewD on May 18, 2019, 08:41:04 PM

Every time an update is posted here I just kind of blubber incoherently and clap very loudly emitting squeals like and excited child. 

So you're doing better than me.

Awwww. You are a good man. You certainly deserve a treat!
Here's Julien Lepelletier's latest version of the commission he kindly took for us. He added the whole TF action, and apart from a few tweaks to the clouds it is pretty much ready. That would make for a great mouse mat for the collector edition, don't ya think?  :smitten:

A question for you Ladies & Gents: who's the guy flying this one?

(https://scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60467561_141405640317272_416096079449161728_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent-hkg3-1.xx&oh=9f31f617f0880320a4bbdbb7660624dd&oe=5D54AE64)

Look at that beauty, you can nearly hear the Twin Wasp roar from here!

(https://scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60342846_141405900317246_7437977797177376768_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-hkg3-1.xx&oh=5eaa5c36a91cfd7680fba959b3a65927&oe=5D559B59)

(https://scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60612326_141405766983926_7983358147492315136_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-hkg3-1.xx&oh=2a8b2c8eb4992ff01f79b10ba1b9b33a&oe=5D68AF83)

(https://scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60604560_141405736983929_6661220665204408320_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent-hkg3-1.xx&oh=54b2ad3c338d60524d3d84032e804f6b&oe=5D5F9087)

(https://scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60792309_141405720317264_7561169459365281792_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent-hkg3-1.xx&oh=f453773643c485a84a3d3cd3d59e0ad2&oe=5D5B0660)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on May 19, 2019, 06:41:18 AM
One of these two guys?




If so, I'm guessing Thatch, because the scene looks like Midway and I think O'hare was Stateside then.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 19, 2019, 07:25:58 AM
Yes, good guess here Staggerwing, it's Jimmy Thach indeed!
In the end, it might sound weird, but Butch O'Hare never got to fly over a Japanese carrier task force before his dramatic demise. He was sent stateside and then to Hawaii after his MoH and didn't see combat again before mid 1943
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on May 19, 2019, 11:40:10 AM
I don't know if my ideas make a good (ie. entertaining) game, but I think your investment in high res 3d graphics can really help in that respect.  Undoubtedly there is plenty of downtime waiting for your strike to hit the target and return.  The ability for the player to watch the strike in 3d could relieve some of the "boredom" at the sacrifice of realism. 

This sounds like a dream come true for a player like me.  I'll be watching and rooting for you!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 19, 2019, 05:44:11 PM
Definitely looking forward to this one as well.

War in the Pacific is just a little too long in the tooth and the UI needs modernizing.  We did a double blind tabletop game of Flat Top a few months back and, while the high points were great, there was a tonne of downtime, paperwork, and boredom between.


This could be epic.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: FarAway Sooner on May 20, 2019, 01:01:57 PM
Great stuff, Admiral!  I love what you're doing and love the way you're approaching it.  A few words of advice that you probably don't need:

1) I hope you guys are using a very Agile development approach here.  You've got A LOT in Scope, and too many good game designs have crashed and burned because they came up with a rigid feature list long before they got workable code.  That made it really hard to evaluate game play trade-offs versus developers' available time, which meant that integration at the end really suffered.  Especially if you have limited budget, investing too much money in polygon count before you have good, playable systems underneath is a common failing of a lot of great-sounding projects!

2) Particularly if you'll be featuring any land-based air units or scenarios, I'd strongly encourage you to make sure you've checked out Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky.  It's the best treatment I've seen of air-to-air combat in the Pacific from June-1942 to late 1943.  It also talks a lot about the evolution of doctrine and training.  I know, at its heart, this game is about carrier battles rather than airplane battles, but figuring out how air-to-air doctrine evolved is so important in understanding why certain match-ups turned out the way that they did.  Just as one example, the P-38 had much greater effective firepower in a head-on challenge than any other plane in the US fleet:  Japanese fighter pilots who didn't learn to avoid this sort of challenge quickly met a grim fate.  I don't think you have to build this sort of doctrine stuff into exactly what happens on the visual displays, but at the very least, I hope you're giving some thought on how to abstract this in the form of XP, etc.

3) I love that you're using manuals from the time to supplement your work-ups.  My dad was deemed medically unfit to serve when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, so he spent 1942-1945 as a technical writer for Douglas Aircraft, working in their SBD Dauntless factory in El Segundo, CA.  It's really cool to hear that some vestige of his work might find echoes in this game!   :)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 21, 2019, 11:51:58 AM
Quote from: TooncesI'll be watching and rooting for you!

Quote from: Silent Disapproval RobotThis could be epic.
Thanks boys, crossing fingers!  :peace:

Quote from: FarAway Sooner on May 20, 2019, 01:01:57 PM
Great stuff, Admiral!  I love what you're doing and love the way you're approaching it.  A few words of advice that you probably don't need
No worries, keep 'em coming :arr:
I am a gamer myself, and after all if I want to make more of these games, I gotta please the audience at a certain point, so better start early – so as long as people don't talk out of their a*ses, there's no reason why I wouldn't welcome additional feedback and opinions. In that regard, I see Groghead as some sort of safe haven where I can collect some informed views about our work without risking being frowned upon for silly reasons. So far, my feeling is that we pretty much share the same standards in terms of silliness :)

Quote1) I hope you guys are using a very Agile development approach here.  You've got A LOT in Scope, and too many good game designs have crashed and burned because they came up with a rigid feature list long before they got workable code.  That made it really hard to evaluate game play trade-offs versus developers' available time, which meant that integration at the end really suffered.  Especially if you have limited budget, investing too much money in polygon count before you have good, playable systems underneath is a common failing of a lot of great-sounding projects!
I won't lie, the sheer size of the things yet to be done can be intimidating indeed. Kept me awake at night a few times. The amount of work and the overall scope are also the reason why we decided to restrict ourselves to US carriers in 1942 for our first try. Obviously it is also the most complicated aspect of air-naval warfare to recreate, not the least because it hasn't been done this way in a long time, within a 3D world (no, Battlestations Pacific doesn't count ^^). Don't worry about the pretty side of things, we are aware that the difficulty – and ultimately the whole gameplay – doesn't really lie there. It happens that the 3D engine is proprietary and was readily available, so making it look pretty is the easy part. Making it interesting is a whole different ballgame, for unlike pretty planes it's never been done this way before. The core gameplay has to be created from the ground up, and that's what the next few months are going to be about.

Quote2) Particularly if you'll be featuring any land-based air units or scenarios, I'd strongly encourage you to make sure you've checked out Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky.  It's the best treatment I've seen of air-to-air combat in the Pacific from June-1942 to late 1943.  It also talks a lot about the evolution of doctrine and training.  I know, at its heart, this game is about carrier battles rather than airplane battles, but figuring out how air-to-air doctrine evolved is so important in understanding why certain match-ups turned out the way that they did.  Just as one example, the P-38 had much greater effective firepower in a head-on challenge than any other plane in the US fleet:  Japanese fighter pilots who didn't learn to avoid this sort of challenge quickly met a grim fate.  I don't think you have to build this sort of doctrine stuff into exactly what happens on the visual displays, but at the very least, I hope you're giving some thought on how to abstract this in the form of XP, etc.
Fire in the sky is known to us, no worries there either. The question about air combat doctrine was raised already, for I just can't have a game like that come out and not have planes able to Thach weave each other, Boom & Zoom or fire deflection shots. We'll see how it fits. First stage will be to have fighters of both sides fly and try to shoot at each other, and from there we will start making tweaks in order to look convincing. Yes, the road is still quite long, you're right about that ^^
Lightnings will be featured but they will be some sort of a side show, the first birds flew from New Guinea to Guadalcanal in November if I am not wrong. But USAAF fighters will feature extensively in scenarios involving PM and CACTUS (mainly P-40s in PM and P-400s in Guadalcanal). Bombers will be there too: B-17s, B-25s (for you know what), B-26s & A-20s will be around and used when supposed to. Not sure though that you'll have many opportunities to command them, let alone see them (apart from the ubiquitous Fortress), as historical scenarios with realistic chain of command won't let that happen. Hopefully though, our airbase management system will be advanced enough so that we might give this sort of experiments a try – I.E. giving you the command of Henderson Field for a week or something. And then, there's still the scenario builder to play with, right.

Quote
3) I love that you're using manuals from the time to supplement your work-ups.  My dad was deemed medically unfit to serve when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, so he spent 1942-1945 as a technical writer for Douglas Aircraft, working in their SBD Dauntless factory in El Segundo, CA.  It's really cool to hear that some vestige of his work might find echoes in this game! :)
Well, gotta thank your dad for the good job he did, we will make good use of it, you can be sure of that  O0
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on May 24, 2019, 11:34:38 AM
It's Friday... Time for some eye candy!

Not much to show for this week, unfortunately a lot of work has been happening under the hood, and as such it might be important progress - it's just not very graphic...

Still, our Dev made a few experiments about the vegetation and the whole jungle cover effect on our dear islands. I know it is not exactly like that in real, but we want it to have a good feeling from altitude without killing your computer with useless trees. In that regard, I think that it is starting to look like something, don't you think?
Might not be exactly DCS-grade, but good enough for a wargame me thinks!

(https://i.ibb.co/2hKMxF5/24052019.png)

On another side note, we had some new FX experiments for the flak. To illustrate this, here's the recreation of a famous photo taken during the landings of operation Watchtower, on the northern coast of Guadalcanal. We're getting there slowly but surely too. The flak effect might not be perfect, but it has its own identity - and more than anything, there again, it shouldn't bring your PC to its knees, which is not a small merit in itself.

(https://i.ibb.co/HrQHnby/betties-flak-2.png)

(https://preview.redd.it/5skkv4d7zee21.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=91a19dc857a8e118c5c92d87aca2ae587a643b72)

Don't pay attention to the reflection of the middle plane, it will probably disappear soon as we will have a fixed value for the distance at which an object might reflect itself in the water.

Cool puffs for you, gents

(https://media.giphy.com/media/husun6jjtw7PMU25Io/giphy.gif)

Hopefully we'll have some more interesting stuff later next week. In the meantime, back to work...
Have a nice weekend everybody!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on June 08, 2019, 03:44:43 AM
Anybody still alive?  :knuppel2:
Kido Butai team is appearing on the horizon, and I'd hate them not to have the sort of welcome they deserve (Midway-style welcome is of course most eligible).

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023136612_1d9b01718e_o.png)

First of all, could porn be allowed just for once? We're still deep into the game mechanics right now, so when it comes to making an update, the easiest way to please the eyes remains to cowardly lay them ladies of the sea bare before you, courtesy of our skilled and courageous 3D artist. Hope this content will remain family-friendly.

Talking about Midway, here's Carrier Division 2, starting with the one having the questionable distinction of getting obliterated first that day - aka Soryu. Isn't she lovely with her cute cruiser hull?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023140027_d41a41b275_o.jpg)

The smallest kid in the December 1941 Kido Butai, she's easy to tell apart from her elders in CarDiv 1 due to her very low profile, and from her sister Hiryu due to her starboard island. The fact she got hit at all is probably to be put to the credit of the dive bombers achieving surprise - her nimble machinery and rudder shift would have made her a complicated target otherwise. Knowing the Dauntless jockeys missed all their shots aimed at battleships and cruisers that day, and considering the whole SNAFU the Yorktown group suffered with its bombs (losing some of them to an electrical defect that dropped them instead of arming them) makes her final demise all the more crucial, and anything but a certitude.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023035336_720505a546_o.jpg)

Burning like Kaga from bow to stern, she was pretty much abandoned right away and suffered the highest casualty rate of all the 4 Japanese carriers sunk that day. The 1000 lbs bombs exploding in her small, crammed and busy hangars gutting her from the get go.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023035201_a00bebd1fd_o.png)

Now comes the angry sister, the one that saved the face of  KB that day - and doomed my dear Yorktown  :-[

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023134447_8cd8e261fc_o.png)
(note:as you all know, Hiryu is the Japanese for "mean dirty little monster")

She's a bit less shy than her sister, so we made sure that she'd deploy all her charms just for you:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023134262_ebff47831d_o.jpg)

We plan on having most of these "deployable" items animated, but knowing you won't operate Japanese CVs in the first opus, it doesn't really matter that much just yet. At least expect them to lower the radio antennas during air ops, and elevators to be fully functional for dramatic effect.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023032066_b9d10d18c3_o.jpg)

And here they are, sailing together.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023135237_e8fe59b6fe_o.png)

Skins are a bit clean right now, let's call that "factory settings". It is the base that will be used for modding and skinning, and we might actually hire an artist to make them look a bit more miserable and dirty. In the meantime, enjoy them in their pristine condition. They suffered enough like that, I suppose!

Now, CarDiv 5 and the famous Shokaku/Zuikaku

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023058578_5ecd3ef6e8_o.png)

Them two hardly need any intro. Naturally we will make sure that we get their differences right (starting with their kanas) in the final version.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023064218_2ea72fc65e_o.jpg)

Watch them sailing with a few zeroes on deck (still a bit too white to be honest these ones, gotta work on the plane skins too!)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023143647_c0cecacda9_o.png)

And here are the two thirds of KB sailing in column. We should have Akagi and Kaga ready before the end of the summer, and we'll be able to make a few beautiful family shots.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023222683_d05767f145_o.png)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Another aspect in the works right now: behold our first attempt at custom geography. I introduce you to a rather emblematic small spot lost in Center Pacific that any wargamer worth his salt will recognize immediately (and if you don't, buy our game so that you might learn something, damn it!):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023052653_e7ebd56500_o.png)

Here is the famed Wake Island in its late 1941 configuration. We're using her as a test bed for our land tools and tech, as she offers the particularity of having a complicated and yet well known coastline, elaborated buildings and a good amount of vegetation. Here she is with some more paths added, but still without her buildings.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023130957_8971a4ae91_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023050663_3be46574bf_o.png)

Her lagoon in particular is going to receive special attention, as we need the tech to look convincing enough. Too bad I don't have an animated version to show, but I can tell you that when it's in motion, you feel like going for a swim. Just don't do it in December 1941 though.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023026776_d039eecc38_o.png)

That is all for today. Hopefully next time I'll have a bit more wargame-centered tech to show. In the meantime I hope that this was pleasing enough a sight to a few pairs of eyes. We will go public soon, and I'll make sure to keep you Ladies & Gents updated. Cheers and enjoy the weekend! :hug:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on June 08, 2019, 06:31:53 AM
Definitely looking forward to more!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on June 08, 2019, 08:43:34 AM
One extremely minor nitpick: I'm not sure the water hue at Wake Island is quite right.  I haven't researched it, but it looks more white than it should be, or that I recall from the dim recesses of my memory for sailing in the Pacific/IO region.  Of course, that could also be a thin layer of clouds that is causing the the more whiter hue.    Here's a 1985 photo of the USS SARATOGA (CV-60) at Diego Garcia.  Admittedly, Diego Garcia is not Wake.  However, I think the color is closer to what you might want
(https://i.imgur.com/arzIRCu.jpg)

For comparrison purposes, here is a Google Earth shot of Wake Island:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZoCHPqk.jpg)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Sir Slash on June 08, 2019, 09:42:28 AM
Great stuff Admiral! Love your flak.  :dreamer:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on June 08, 2019, 10:06:43 AM
Thanks boys!

Quote from: Tripoli on June 08, 2019, 08:43:34 AM
One extremely minor nitpick: I'm not sure the water hue at Wake Island is quite right.  I haven't researched it, but it looks more white than it should be, or that I recall from the dim recesses of my memory for sailing in the Pacific/IO region.  Of course, that could also be a thin layer of clouds that is causing the the more whiter hue.    Here's a 1985 photo of the USS SARATOGA (CV-60) at Diego Garcia.  Admittedly, Diego Garcia is not Wake.  However, I think the color is closer to what you might want

Aye, no problem Tripoli, we are here to share.
In that very case, beyond the fact that we're still in the prototyping phase (water shades for instance are likely to be tweaked and made more accurate, it is a bit more complicated than just a texture - we have to make sure that they remain believable any under weather or at any time of the day) I have a very simple explanation about the colors : my super-Dev happens to be colour-blind (which makes him even more of a scary superhuman considering what he achieves nevertheless, honestly), and everything  related to green (such as the turquoise in the sea or in ship wakes) might demand some extra cross-referencing. Still, in my opinion and in my eyes I think he pretty much nailed it in the later version (the one with actual turquoise water) - but you still think it should actually be brighter than that, right?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48023026776_d039eecc38_o.png)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on June 08, 2019, 12:15:34 PM
 I think a little less white and/or a little more blue might do it. Possibly a bit brighter also may do it.  However, I'm not an artist.  I do recall being very impressed by the blues and turquoise of the Pacific.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: em2nought on June 10, 2019, 01:25:40 AM
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I didn't know the Japanese had any carriers with the island on the wrong side.  ;)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on June 10, 2019, 04:55:45 AM
Huhu, no worries. After all, even though everybody always makes a lot of fuss about Akagi and Hiryu both, they survived exactly six months into the Pacific war. Which isn't that much, compared to the cult following they seem to generate today...

Although Japan driving on the left could be seen as an influence (^^), the whole island on the board side stuff was motivated by the flawed assumption that the turbulences created by the said superstructure would be an issue during coordinated take off and landing manoeuvres (during which both elements of a Carrier Division sailed side by side, on a parallel course). The same with the funnels looking down - a worry that is clearly present in the design of USS Ranger too, with its small island and its mobile funnels pointing down during air ops, but proved somewhat overrated.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on June 29, 2019, 01:02:07 PM
Hello Ladies & Gents,

For those who might still somewhat be into it, here is a little eye-candy-centered update.  :coolsmiley:
We've been working on a tech demo because we've been recently made aware of a possible public subsidy, so let's not keep that for ourselves. Here are a few little videos we put together, mainly about the engine proper, even though these are taking in-game :

First, a time-lapse showing the 3D world during a morning-evening cycle.


Next, a sneak peek at our cloud engine module, from clear to overcast. Weather will play a role, in air and sea ops alike, so we want to make sure we can simulate any basic type of cloud cover.


You're still there? Good, we reward patience in here. Air Ops involving a few Wildcats without their markings. We're still tuning the whole deck ops and the flight model, but it doesn't look too ugly from where I stand already. At the end the Wildcat is breaking formation in order to enter the landing circuit.


A destroyer steaming through rolling seas. We will simulate all sea states of course - and this will have an effect on ship speed (depending on their size), air ops and other niceties (such as refueling at sea). The Dev was listening to Deep Purple while recording, but I had to give up on that during editing - I'd hate Youtube to fall on my back that early for copyright infringement...  :hide:


And, last but not least, an updated version of our Map view with a smooth transition to the 3D world, now that we went the extra mile to make the land look like something. All of this is dynamically generated from navy chart, hope you'll like the result! We are, and we will remain primarily a wargame, so a good performance and potential in Map view as a start counts more than anything.


There there. Enjoy the weekend, and see you in July for some more stuff. Crossing fingers for the rest... :arr:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Silent Disapproval Robot on June 29, 2019, 03:36:50 PM
Planes already move more realistically here than they do in the new Midway trailer.  Awesome!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Sir Slash on June 29, 2019, 10:10:19 PM
Very Nice!  :clap:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Strela on June 30, 2019, 12:28:30 AM
Admiral,

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

This is just amazing stuff and has been way overdue in being done!

Watching with huge interest!

David
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on June 30, 2019, 02:35:33 AM
Thank you, Gentlemen of good taste!  :smitten:
I'll keep posting! Hopefully next time we'll have a name and a logo - and hence our own topic  8)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Philippe on June 30, 2019, 01:27:50 PM
I hope it isn't marked as Iron Bottom Sound on the Japanese maps.

Otherwise, pretty impressive.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on June 30, 2019, 05:06:28 PM
No worries, there ain't no Japanese map (the game is US only) and besides, it won't be on the Allied map either, it's a placeholder made for experimenting different levels, dispositions and sizes of map labels. Can't have it named this way of course, would be a bit of an anachronism, to say the least. We will use original names instead, we have enough references and original charts for that. There will be other niceties, such as reefs and a few easter eggs - these old charts are funny, they sure have loads of them. The USN pretty much prepared the Watchtower landings using maps that were based on pre-WW1 Imperial German surveys. In retrospect, it is kinda scary to see how little they knew about the place they were about to invade...

Anyway, I wouldn't dare posting here and running too obviously the risk of getting caught with my pants down - but if you Gents were to see anything bothering you, please don't hesitate to shoot, I'll gladly take the bullet :buck2:  ^-^

Et merci pour les compliments!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Silent Disapproval Robot on July 01, 2019, 08:19:56 PM
Awww.....


Here's hoping it's a success and you can make Japan playable later.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: FlickJax on July 02, 2019, 04:09:38 AM
Absolutely stunning stuff... Kudos
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: rocketman on July 02, 2019, 11:37:14 AM
So, when do you guys want my money :bd:
What kind of hardware is this rendered on? When battles get going will we need a super rig to run it at this photo realistic fashion?
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on July 02, 2019, 12:07:22 PM
I want this more than all the Sultan's rubies in Araby.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: besilarius on July 02, 2019, 04:58:44 PM
More than (you better sit down for this one) the Ruby Yacht of Omar Khayyam?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kL7uZoHdu0&t=22s
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on July 02, 2019, 05:47:52 PM
^YES!  Even more than that!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 03, 2019, 07:42:21 AM
Well, I am kinda with Andrew on this one. Not sure if I could stand our heroic flying squirrel and his voice for very long as my X.O. or my air officer. That would be quite a steep price to pay for my ears!

Anyway, thanks everyone for the kind words and your support  :smitten:

Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on July 01, 2019, 08:19:56 PM
Awww.....
Here's hoping it's a success and you can make Japan playable later.

Yes, that sure was a bit of a heartbreaking decision to take, but at a certain point we had to let realism (I mean, pragmatism) kick in. The first game had to be limited in scope (that is: 1942, Allied side, single player) in order to make sure we'd be able to come up with a finished, polished product. As a comparison, it took years of experience with PacFleet and Atlantic Fleet for Killerfish to deliver us eventually with Cold Waters. We are pretty much attempting to make a game of a comparable scope on our first run. Even when scaled back to a single side, in a single-player fashion, from a dev POV it sounds exhilarating - and risky.

Besides, being more of a Humanities guy, I do tend to give culture a big role and a place - in terms of military history, that means giving doctrine an actual representation and weight in the ways things are done in-game, by the player and the AI both. Anyone who has read Peattie and Evan's Kaigun, its companion book Sunburst or Parshall & Tully's Shattered Sword will probably acknowledge that the activity on a Japanese hangar deck, flight deck or bridge - not to mention the minds at work themselves - differed wildly from its US counterpart in terms of procedures, standards and expectations. I'd rather make a good impression on the first run on a smaller scope than run the risk of disappointing both sides of the aisle by delivering a half-ass job. In brief: we will have to stick to the conservative approach of providing good bases for future development rather than being too greedy, too early.  :(

Obviously, seeing how Cold Waters itself is sometimes being heavily criticized by its own fanbase for providing "only" a single-side experience, it's a risk we're taking - but if you can cope with the idea of playing the evil Yankee Navy and her minions first, you know already what is the best way to ensure you're contributing to the aforementioned success  O:-) >:D
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 03, 2019, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: rocketman on July 02, 2019, 11:37:14 AM
So, when do you guys want my money :bd:
What kind of hardware is this rendered on? When battles get going will we need a super rig to run it at this photo realistic fashion?

The more demanding the machine, the smaller the user base, so don't worry too much about that. Wargamers are not known for owning pet Cray computers at home and we'll keep that in mind. I don't really have a war rig myself, and I fully intend to play my own game.
The objective is to be able to be able to show a hundred of planes on the same screen with a Task Force in the background, but honestly it's fairly scalable, especially if you use LOD models. You zoom out, and you have a lot of small models and not so many polygons ; you zoom in, and you end up with a lot of polygons for one plane but you can't see the others. I am pretty sure it will work out, our dev is very pro and quite demanding when it comes to quality control and performance optimization. Besides, being made more like a simulation than a wargame in terms of tech, you can expect levels of detail (clouds, horizon drawing distance, model details, special effects, etc...) to be rather customizable depending on your computer's power.

By the way, thanks for your money, much appreciated. Bank details follow by PM. I'll make sure to provide your version of CV-6 with a Tomcat squadron.  :coolsmiley:
(and the real answer about the Money is - when we'll have an actual game to show you ^^ No Early Access planned, and the Kickstarter will be about goodies and cosmetics)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: FlickJax on July 03, 2019, 10:01:52 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on July 03, 2019, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: rocketman on July 02, 2019, 11:37:14 AM
So, when do you guys want my money :bd:
What kind of hardware is this rendered on? When battles get going will we need a super rig to run it at this photo realistic fashion?

The more demanding the machine, the smaller user base, so don't worry too much about that. Wargamers are not known for owning pet Cray computers at home and we'll keep that in mind. I don't really have a war rig myself, and I fully intend to play my own game.
The objective is to be able to be able to show a hundred of planes on the same screen with a Task Force in the background, but honestly it's fairly scalable, especially if you use LOD models. You zoom out, and you have a lot of small models and not so many polygons ; you zoom in, and you end up with a lot of polygons for one plane but you can't see the others. I am pretty sure it will work out, our dev is very pro and quite demanding when it comes to quality control and performance optimization. Besides, being made more like a simulation than a wargame in terms of tech, you can expect levels of detail (clouds, horizon drawing distance, model details, special effects, etc...) to be rather customizable depending on your computer's power.

Apart from Jarhead ;)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on July 03, 2019, 07:57:14 PM
So... Final Countdown scenario confirmed?
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on July 03, 2019, 10:02:28 PM
Quote from: Staggerwing on July 03, 2019, 07:57:14 PM
So... Final Countdown scenario confirmed?

Splash the Zeroes.  I say again, Splash the Zeroes!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 04, 2019, 12:21:15 AM
Well, from what I've seen, on the Tabletop front Victory Games' CARRIER and Clash of Arms' The Fires of Midway both featured a final countdown-centric scenario. Don't ask me how they managed to make it interesting, gameplay-wise... I suppose both are more of a kind of elegant Easter egg.

But if the IJN gets the assistance of Aegis DDG Mirai (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JDS_Mirai (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JDS_Mirai)), then who knows, it *might* get interesting... :-"

(For those who wouldn't know, Zipang is a manga about some sort of reverse-Final Countdown, where everybody save for the JMSDF crew and Yamamoto is pretty much a bad guy... The Anime version is quite spectacular)

Quote from: Staggerwing on July 03, 2019, 07:57:14 PM
So... Final Countdown scenario confirmed?

If I am to allow Rocketman to launch Tomcats directly from a Yorktown class carrier, I am afraid I might have USS Nimitz put to scale so that she can catapult Fletcher class destroyers instead. Sounds fair and balanced.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: besilarius on July 04, 2019, 05:03:45 AM
Hmm.  If you need play balance for some weird hypothetical scenarios, you could always saddle the US force with a Miles Browning type of captain.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 04, 2019, 05:44:02 AM
Unfortunately it's already part of the historical deal. After all, he's Air Officer in charge at Midway (well, that is until 48 hours into the battle, when someone you know finally stated he'd rather do what the pilots wanted instead).

Arguably, the maximum level of SNAFUness was already reached at Midway with Browning in charge of air ops for the Task Force and Stanhope Ring as CHAG, and no way for them to communicate efficiently even though ships were hardly a few miles apart. Hard to beat that sort of odds, and if you were to make an hypothetical scenario out of the blue like that, nobody would find it fair. God certainly was at Midway, but people often fail to realize that his problem wasn't with the Kido Butai...  #:-)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on July 04, 2019, 10:21:37 AM
I'm not a computer software developer, so I don't know how hard this would be to implement.

Having said that, I strongly recommend that, if possible, you design your game with the architecture to add Japan and multiplayer at some point.

Since you used Killerfish as an example, I'll do that as well.  Cold Waters is a fantastic game in its own right, and in any other previous gaming age that might have been enough.  But now, frankly, they've left money on the table and created a whole bunch of disgruntled customers behind.  There is so much potential that is untapped in Cold Waters.  The obvious is a Russian playable campaign with U.S. ships etc as the adversary...not just a playable subs mod.  Additionally, they could have easily taken their model and expanded it to include meaningful surface ships as playable units...not just a playable ships mod.  They could have continued to expand their conflict regions.  And finally, multiplayer would have been absolutely fantastic.

Many of us are sitting here repeatedly throwing cash at the screen, but Killerfish just isn't there anymore to take it.

So, I would encourage you to not follow that model, and design  your game's architecture from the ground up with an eye to expansion.  My $.02.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 04, 2019, 12:06:56 PM
No worries Toonces I understand, and your input is much appreciated.

Had a few exchanges myself with some of the gents from Killerfish, learning from their experience was a great opportunity.

In the end, what you describe is kinda already what is planned (sorry if it sounds boring ^^). We do have a roadmap, here's a summary of what is planned regarding the features - of course, in the current situation it is more of a wet dream than anything, but humor me :

Vol 1 - American Carrier Battles
Timeframe: from Dec 1941 to Feb 1943
Single Player only
Playable USN Side
Event-driven single battles (30+ scenarios)
Battle Generator
Mission Builder
Battle Recorder & Player (ACMI/Tacview equivalent)
Maps: SOPAC, Midway, Gilberts & Marshalls, Wake & Marcus
Basic surface combat module
80+ IJN & USN/Allied ship models
40+ Japanese & Allied plane models

Vol 2 - Kido Butai
All gameplay features from Vol 1
Timeframe: from Dec 1941 to Dec 1943
Multiplayer capable
Playable IJN Side
New set of scenarios
Linear thematic campaigns
Career Mode (random ship-centered campaigns)
1941-1943 operational carrier campaign for both sides (WEGO strategic layer), Multiplayer capable
New Maps: Oahu, Ceylon, Darwin, Aleutians
Advanced surface combat module
20+ additional IJN & USN ship models & variants
25+ RN & Dutch ship models & variants
15+ additional Japanese and Allied plane models

This list doesn't include smaller expansions (such as standalone scenario packs - final countdown has its fans, but what about call of Cthulhu?  :crazy2:) or experiments (such as a CAP fighter module, for instance).

I will not give more details, especially about what comes next, as it is preposterous enough like that (we'll start to worry about all this once we'll have an actual game to show) but as you can see, it IS purposely made from the ground up with the hope that it will grow in a logical, progressive fashion. We will be following in the footsteps of Great Naval Battles in that regard, like in the old days. The reason why we're making two volumes is that even though we have what we need to achieve our goals, that doesn't mean that we have infinite money or time to spend - and the sort of game we are making (that has little sandbox value if at all) just doesn't sit very well with Early Access (which is a concept I abhor anyway).

In the meantime, you can take your $.02 back safely, I feel that we pretty much agree about all this  :coolsmiley:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: bobarossa on July 04, 2019, 12:41:16 PM
To sum up, everyone dreams of a Ferrari as their first car but end up with a Ford Cortina.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on July 04, 2019, 01:22:39 PM
I'm down for the "Godzillas and Gundams" DLC for Japanese playable units.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: bobarossa on July 04, 2019, 05:18:42 PM
Quote from: bobarossa on July 04, 2019, 12:41:16 PM
To sum up, everyone dreams of a Ferrari as their first car but end up with a Ford Cortina.
Didn't mean to disparage Carriers at War.  Let's change that to Chevy Corvette.  Getting a game out that works and is fun is far better than running out of time and money trying to shoot for the moon.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: FarAway Sooner on July 04, 2019, 11:44:50 PM
I think a Camaro is a more reasonable first car to aspire to than a Corvette.  But maybe that's because I grew up in Oklahoma...
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on July 05, 2019, 01:01:47 AM
Look, I think we all understand that first and foremost you have to make money.

If you look at the Killerfish Steam forum, at least the last time I looked, most agreed that the paid content exceeded expectations - the Taiwan campaign was an awesome freebie - but we all would very willingly have paid for DLC that continued the experience.

I trust you'll figure out that line between what's a fair price for a first release, and what's worth DLC.  My point is that you should plan the DLC now, like Total War or Crusader Kings 2.  Make the game so that you can add to it painlessly, and just charge us for additional content.

If you can live up to your hype, I know I certainly won't have any problem ponying up cash, and I don't think I'm alone.  Sometimes I wonder why such an obvious pool of money hasn't been previously tapped.  The wargame world is sadly deficient of good naval wargames IMO.  I'm not saying there aren't any, but a modern CAW with the graphics and immersion is simply missing, and I don't even know why. 

It's like the lack of an F-4 or A-6 for DCS...just a pure money making machine.  I swear I'd have kickstarted it myself if I had even a little knowledge of how to go about it.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 05, 2019, 11:59:42 PM
Hello Toonces,

Sorry, been a bit of a busy Friday, just finding the time to answer now. Attending an event in HK, and as a French countryman I feel a bit ouf of my depth when it comes to a big metropolis like that ^^

Anyway, yes, again I don't think that my approach is that different from what you've been advocating so far. Splitting the game experience into different volumes pretty much amounts to the same result in the end. Not sure just yet if these volumes are to be standalone products or if everything will have to be added to an original default installation (the way addons used to work) but even in the latter fashion, albeit at a reduced cost for the base-game by the moment expansions come out, I don't intend for us to turn our fanbase into a collective milk-cow. I will not go the Paradox or the Total War way and make people pay for every little bit of extra gameplay or art, but I fully intend to follow the game on the long run with additional paid thematic content and new game modes through the use of these successive volumes for a realistic yet fair price. That's how games of the 90s and some of our most beloved franchises used to work, and games like CMNAO or DCS show it is still a viable option, at least for us wargamers and simmers. Being a consumer first and foremost myself, I won't make people pay for something I wouldn't pay for myself - some might call it dead-reckoning planning, but besides the new blood I target people like myself who grew up fed with the gaming experience provided by the likes of Microprose, SSI, SSG or Three-Sixty Pacific. Hopefully I am not the only one out there, and please do tell me if I am wrong about this assessment.

As you can see, it is planned from the ground up - but there won't be any expansion plans at all if the foundations are not clean and well built-from the beginning, naturally. As such, I am reluctant to mention this while I don't even have a game to show for. When the vitals will be there, doing and playing well, it will be time to publicly discuss and promote the future of the franchise, if there is to be any.

Quote from: SirAndrewD on July 04, 2019, 01:22:39 PM
I'm down for the "Godzillas and Gundams" DLC for Japanese playable units.
Actually about that, if things go well, I wouldn't settle for anything short of a Evangelion-like soundtrack for volume 2 (well, I am talking about the mood, not saying that in terms of production costs of course...^^). It's not because you're playing the Japanese that everything has to be about Taikos or traditional Japanese strings...!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 27, 2019, 04:11:49 AM
Hello to all carrier-centric fanboys and fangirls.

No new shiny new video to show today, but some more wargame-centric content instead, which can't hurt.  :knuppel2:

First, a look at our prototype map counters.   :P

We tried to keep the design simple yet attractive and informative at the same time. They are cuter than they should be, but the few pictures we have of real life plotting only show pins with small sheets of paper attached to them, which is not super eye-candy, nor gameplay-friendly a method. Counters are used on the map to display friendly and enemy naval and air forces, and at a certain level of zoom they will break down into individual ships.

On the following screen we are making experiments with the contact gameplay & logic: each of the red crosses shown is actually a moment when the enemy force got spotted in a way or another, and flying over/clicking on any of them will eventually produce the original contact report. Contacts reports can result from an observation using mk1 eyeball, active sensor, counter SIGINT detection, event-based intel message, etc... but that is only part of the deal, as the mean of transmission has to be considered too - in the case of a plane-based visual contact for instance, delays will incur depending on the transmission method used (plain radio, coded morse, radio relay from a non-player-attached unit through its homebase, beanbag/ALDIS...). Besides delays, each transmission method will possibly incur a specific added risk rate in terms of inaccuracy (coding mistakes, radiowave interference or garble due to range...) beyond the contents of the observation proper, which could very well be incomplete, partly or even totally erroneous in terms of composition, speed, heading and position.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385316221_630157313e_o.png) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHDoN2)

The dotted line between the counter and the last contact report means that this is the estimated position of the enemy contact according to the last speed/heading observed, not its actual position. Any further observation might confirm or rectify this, and if the two locations (the estimate and the contact report) are too much afar from each other, a second contact might be generated. We plan to let players merge/demerge/remerge any contact at will in order to let him/her make the final call.

In theory, beside scenario-specific scripted events, we will be able to consistently and dynamically simulate the sort of SNAFU that characterized the era, i.e.:
- the code mistake at Coral Sea leading to the discovery of Shoho, or the SWPAC bomber crews mistake when attacking Admiral Crace's TF44 ;
- a Yorktown pilot the day after the carrier battle spotting a reef and identifying it as a task force ;
- the bearing mistake at Midway resulting from Kido Butai change of heading, which made the Enterprise strike very nearly miss the Japanese force altogether and sealed the fate of VT8 ;
- the whole Mogami/Mikuma identification problem that led Spruance to believe that a battleship was out there and forced the airgroups into some wild goose chase ;
- the damning delay between SWPAC aircrew reports and their belated transmission to Fletcher during the Guadalcanal landings, etc...

Serious cases of mis-identification or fatal delays in transmission are more numerous than the battles themselves. These battles unraveled the way they did precisely because of all these micro-events, the factors of which have been so often left pretty much untouched previously. Let's see what we can do to improve the situation a bit - fingers crossed!

The next new feature is our prototype for the player's playground space - that is the Admiral's Flag Plot

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385459812_b037c6fd16_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHE8tJ)

The Flag Plot is the basic space where you are allowed to transition from a game station to another. It is basically divided into three part

- A Chart Plot area (with access to the 3D map, the classic top down 2D map and a maneuver board)
- An Air Plot area (with access to the air ops planner, the ouija/aircraft management and the roster/pilot management screens)
- An scenic area (with access to a platform over the flight deck outside, a 360° binocular view & a protected porthole view)

We do not plan on letting the player freely travel, it will be more akin to what you can see in Radio Commander for instance, with a smooth transition to the next station. Think more of them as some sort of clickable hub with eye candy, as commonly encountered in Microprose menus in the 1990s (Task Force 1942 used that in-game, and so did the Silent Hunter series under SSI and Ubisoft both). These stations will also be readily reachable using the function keys, in the most traditional combat sim tradition.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385316281_c8368aff00_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHDoP4)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385319296_1b5c00992d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHDpH3)

The floor plan conforms to the few sources we have of what a flag plot looks like. In all honesty, sources are really scarce in that domain, and we needed to use a bit of poetic license. Besides, one also had to take into account gameplay and make the whole thing fit. I think our talented 3D artist found the right vibe, and with the proper ambience lighting the scene, including at night, will be very convincing. You might want to compare the current prototype to the very clear shots of a flag plot that can be seen in the (much underrated and relatively unknown IMHO) 1949 movie "Task Force" with Gary Cooper.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385463322_fb872e0c5e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHE9wf)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385316366_b70ed5c8fc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHDoQw)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385459752_6243e0befc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHE8sG)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385829326_a0b37c543d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHG2jE)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385965017_e0585ab4d3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHGHEa)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385828796_742df9b2de_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHG2aw)

No worries, Gary Cooper wasn't our only source on that, but I have to say that the whole command atmosphere is pretty neatly rendered and artistically there is hardly a better reference out there. Here are a few other shots of this very space aboard CV-10 (then and now) and a picture of Pete Mitscher hard at work. The last pic is a bit different, it is taken from Saratoga's chart house plot which, to all intents and purposes, was close to our needs for the Map Plot area.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385779346_00f1a3aee8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHFLsW)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385779581_7cc60df825_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHFLwZ)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385917077_abd1449177_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHGtpB)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385786986_e091f2eb4b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHFNJE)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385801986_4d101db079_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHFTch)

Finally, for dessert, here are some of the latest models that made their way into the game. We are now close to 20 of them, which is barely a quarter of the final number. We will try to make sure that each and every variant of 1942 features, especially for major combatants - South Dakota, for instance, differed noticeably from Indiana and her other sisters, while each Kongo sister had her own little something that differentiated it from one another. You can also see two of the variants for Lexington (before and after the March 1942 refit that got rid of her cruiser-grade main battery), and Saratoga and her 5 inchers will also feature in the final line. Below are some of the new arrivals: Lexington, Sodak, Pensacola, Atlanta, Mogami, Asashio and Takao making steam in the Solomons. Some of these shots were taken a few weeks ago, and you can already see the evolution between the original rather clean paintjobs and the new, current standard (Atlanta, Mogami and Asashio are pretty neat in that regard). Eventually all models will be put on an equal artistic footing, of course.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385479642_e633e2d908_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHEenC)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385336391_2218580639_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHDuMM)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385459852_000825b0db_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHE8uq)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385471672_582fdfec1f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHEc1d)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385316631_7838b10d11_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHDoV6)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385466262_19d3b857f7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHEaoW)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385460407_012aa1a9a2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHE8DZ)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385468127_a3cd3efa20_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHEaX6)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385467677_47e72faf59_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHEaPk)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385468667_c667c13452_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHEb7p)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385469212_eb0af62e90_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHEbgN)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48385460307_9a6fe70f1e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gHE8Cg)

Hope you guys enjoyed the view. See you soon for the next stage. We're still working on the final logo, so we'll have to wait for the next update before going officially live - but that time I mean it!  :arr:

Everybody please have a fine weekend!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on July 27, 2019, 08:27:49 AM
Looking very nice! :bd:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Sir Slash on July 27, 2019, 10:19:38 AM
I think I'm in LOVE.  :dreamer:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on July 27, 2019, 10:44:47 AM
It's like you got into my head and captured my dreams!   :dreamer:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Strela on July 27, 2019, 02:37:51 PM
Quote from: Toonces on July 27, 2019, 10:44:47 AM
It's like you got into my head and captured my dreams!   :dreamer:

Yep, my exact thoughts.

This is looking just unbelievable. I'm hopeful too that with the naval interest that has been created by the World of Warships titles will translate into a bigger group of players that will want to play a more historical game.

Having a solid 3D engine and a transition to a longer engagement time has to find some appeal to that community.

Personally, having loved Task Force 42 and it's ilk, i'm ready to put my cash down!

David
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on July 27, 2019, 03:17:16 PM
Amazing as usual. 

This thread is better than my play list on por....er...youtube.

And it's just as satisfying!   O:-)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: em2nought on July 27, 2019, 07:18:08 PM
In all these years I've never seen that movie!  Oh, they've got it on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Morris-London-Walter-Brennan-Cooper/dp/B002DNLT1Q/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=task+force&qid=1564273028&rnid=2941120011&s=movies-tv&sr=1-3 (https://www.amazon.com/Morris-London-Walter-Brennan-Cooper/dp/B002DNLT1Q/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=task+force&qid=1564273028&rnid=2941120011&s=movies-tv&sr=1-3)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: GroggyGrognard on July 27, 2019, 08:38:58 PM
Fantastic screenshots!


Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on July 27, 2019, 08:59:46 PM
Based on what I'm seeing, this will pretty much be a full price, first day purchase for me.   
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 27, 2019, 11:30:20 PM
Quote from: Toonces on July 27, 2019, 10:44:47 AM
It's like you got into my head and captured my dreams!   :dreamer:
Quote from: Sir Slash on July 27, 2019, 10:19:38 AM
I think I'm in LOVE.  :dreamer:
Quote from: GroggyGrognard on July 27, 2019, 08:38:58 PM
Fantastic screenshots!
Thank you for your kindness as usual, boys. It means a lot to the young team.  :smitten:
Also, I told them to stop breaking into your heads at night to steal your dreams, from what I gather it seems to be a recurring issue  :tickedoff:  ^-^

Quote from: SirAndrewD on July 27, 2019, 03:17:16 PM
Amazing as usual. 

This thread is better than my play list on por....er...youtube.

And it's just as satisfying!   O:-)
Thank you Andrew.
If we ever do a Kickstater, I'll make sure to include a custom kleenex box as a part of a very aptly-named "stretch goal".

Quote from: Strela on July 27, 2019, 02:37:51 PM
This is looking just unbelievable. I'm hopeful too that with the naval interest that has been created by the World of Warships titles will translate into a bigger group of players that will want to play a more historical game.

Having a solid 3D engine and a transition to a longer engagement time has to find some appeal to that community.

Personally, having loved Task Force 42 and it's ilk, i'm ready to put my cash down!


Thank you David.
Yes indeed I think that the WoWs community shouldn't be seen as a problem - more like a beautiful opportunity, as Wargaming's effort in the field certainly made WW2 naval warfare more mainstream than ever before. Just like a very noisy and flashy movie would (I am looking at you, Midway...), it can and will help with popularizing the genre and capturing the imagination of new potential players. The fact is, carriers - like submarines in a way - might be very popular topics in themselves, but on both counts WoWs and War Thunder have struggled to find them a functional spot in the line-up and their gameplay mechanics. WoWs carriers ends up being all about killing surface ships first (especially destroyers...!) instead of going for the enemy's carrier and battleline, which makes it a bit counter-intuitive and very frustrating for the "grunts" who have no proper way to defend themselves. I know a few players who might be willing to take a look at something new and possibly on the hardcore side of things, as long as it remains intuitive to play - we'll see how it goes...

Quote from: em2nought on July 27, 2019, 07:18:08 PM
In all these years I've never seen that movie!  Oh, they've got it on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Morris-London-Walter-Brennan-Cooper/dp/B002DNLT1Q/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=task+force&qid=1564273028&rnid=2941120011&s=movies-tv&sr=1-3 (https://www.amazon.com/Morris-London-Walter-Brennan-Cooper/dp/B002DNLT1Q/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=task+force&qid=1564273028&rnid=2941120011&s=movies-tv&sr=1-3)

You might want to have a look at your PM box  ;)

A gem indeed. I like it how the art on the jacket doesn't convey one bit of the actual content, and makes it look like a romantic musical. Not sure I would have watched it by myself without someone on the team telling me about it.  :uglystupid2:

It is, in every means, one of the best movies made about inter-war and WW2 carrier aviation, with superb footage and a real intent to make it look authentic despite the obvious limitations of working on featuring ships that weren't around anymore (especially Langley & Sara). The whole plot is way more political and deep than you'd expect in the industry, considering it served the double purpose of being some sort of mausoleum dedicated to the heroes of early US carrier aviation, and a thinly veiled pamphlet against the anti-Navy stance of the Truman administration.

The movie came out the year of the Revolt of Admirals, that was among other factors triggered by the firing of Forrestal and the cancellation of USS United States. Naval aviation was under fire at that time, as a service supposedly made obsolete by the new Air Force types, but it only tells part of the story - the whole Navy and Marines Corps was feeling the heat.

Quote from: Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson, 1949There's no reason for having a Navy and Marine Corps. General Bradley [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], tells me that amphibious operations are a thing of the past. We'll never have any more amphibious operations. That does away with the Marine Corps. And the Air Force can do anything the Navy can do, so that does away with the Navy

It probably didn't help that the aforementioned Secretary of Defense was himself a former Convair executive, which might partly explain why the B-36 seemed that hot at the time - "fortunately" Korea came and went shortly after, and the nonsense was finally put to rest. But it makes Task Force a much more significant movie than what it seems, the Navy being then involved in a struggle for its very existence, that was much debated and known in the public opinion and on the Hill. Obviously, it seems Hollywood couldn't get enough of the Navy glamour and more than happily helped the sailors make a case, although the public opinion was apparently adamantly siding with the Air Force on this one.

Ah, and also, in my view it is actually altogether a better movie than 1976's Midway, which makes its total absence of acknowledgement all the more surprising. Gary Cooper is just being Gary Cooper, but Jane Wyatt portrays a powerful woman lead despite the codes of the era (she actually sentimentally blackmails her husband into shame for accepting a civilian business consultant job, which would have made him leave the Navy and the carriers... Man it feels like watching a Soviet war drama :))). We all know how female characters are tough to feature in movies like that, as Midway or Pearl Harbor have clearly demonstrated, and it's - belatedly - refreshing to see how this one fits the plot. She's a nurse at Pearl Harbor too, but fortunately that's where the comparison ends  :notworthy:

The Wikipedia article on the matter is rather well-written, if anyone's interested. A good read! And also a bit of a disappointment if like me you were somewhat respectful of Omar Bradley's reputation for being cool-headed and objective in his judgement...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals

After all this, on one hand it is not that surprising that Forrestal ended up shortly thereafter having a carrier named after him - but, on the other hand, it is sort of strange that anyone would dare naming anything that floats after President Truman... Knowing CVN-75 was supposed to be named USS United States (like the ship Truman had cancelled) and ended up using anchors taken from the decommissioned USS Forrestal makes it sound all the more awkward :idiot2:

Quote from: Tripoli on July 27, 2019, 08:59:46 PM
Based on what I'm seeing, this will pretty much be a full price, first day purchase for me.   
Thank you Tripoli! I am pretty sure you'll love having the box version around. At the very least, it might bring back some of the meaning the concept of "full price" lost somewhere along the way in the 2000s...

As a side-note, I make a lot of typos (and thank you for not throwing it at my face :-[ ) but I came across one that simply didn't make sense - a whole sentence was missing its last part.  :crazy2:
Here it is, complete and probably more relevant (hence the concept of manually merging contacts after that) :
QuoteAny further observation might confirm or rectify this, and if the two locations (the estimate and the contact report) are too much afar from each other, a second contact might be generated.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: smithcorp on July 28, 2019, 03:45:57 AM
This looks great
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: besilarius on July 28, 2019, 01:37:47 PM
In regards to the bridge layout, when Yorktown, CV-10, was opened at Patriot's Point, South Carolina, the intention was stated of renovating the bridge to it's World War II layout.  This would depend on the donations to effect this, and I'm not sure if this was accomplished.  However, it was indicated that the Point had all they needed to proceed, if the funding became available.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on July 28, 2019, 03:08:38 PM
The_Admiral    Here are a couple of images of flag plots, in case you hadn't come across them: 80-G-268173: USS Yorktown (CV 10), Flag Plot showing portside. Photographed by PHOM Smitty and PHOM3/C D.M. Evans, November 27, 1944.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on July 28, 2019, 03:12:00 PM
80-G-268175: USS Yorktown (CV 10), Flag Plot showing forward starboard corner. Photographed by PHOM Smitty and PHOM3/C D.M. Evans, November 27, 1944. (2015/12/01).
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on July 28, 2019, 03:14:16 PM
80-G-268174: USS Yorktown (CV 10), Flag Plot showing radar equipment on the portside. Photographed by PHOM Smitty and PHOM3/C D.M. Evans, November 27, 1944. (2015/12/01).
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on July 28, 2019, 03:16:03 PM
80-G-268165: USS Yorktown (CV 10), Flag Plot showing radio equipment on portside. Photographed by PHOM Smitty and PHOM3/C D.M. Evans, November 27, 1944. (2015/12/01).
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 28, 2019, 10:10:14 PM
Quote from: besilarius on July 28, 2019, 01:37:47 PM
In regards to the bridge layout, when Yorktown, CV-10, was opened at Patriot's Point, South Carolina, the intention was stated of renovating the bridge to it's World War II layout.  This would depend on the donations to effect this, and I'm not sure if this was accomplished.  However, it was indicated that the Point had all they needed to proceed, if the funding became available.
Some of the current CV10 shots were actually taken from the Patriot Point's official photo stream on Facebook and elsewhere. Fortunately some tourists took some shots too. I have some from CV12, having gone there myself 10 years ago. Unfortunately in both case I am pretty sure the cost ended up being prohibitive - even though some aspects were clearly "downgraded" and some vintage material was put back in shape (you can see that some of these CV10 photos don't show all too modern equipment) it still feels a bit empty. The flag plot aboard CV-10 today for instance is nowhere close to the mess it was on the photos I have and that Tripoli just found. I am afraid the sort of cost involved is just too prohibitive for these associations, that are all pretty much fighting for survival on a daily basis.

France only had one bloody museum ship (Colbert, a cute little post-war cruiser that was anchored in Bordeaux) and we threw it through the window, as public money wasn't enough to keep her in a proper state and nobody would pay for her (yeah, I know our GDP is smaller than California's, but still!!  :buck2:). I can't begin to imagine what's the situation like when you have to take care of a Essex or Iowa class behemoth... The latest news about the state of USS Texas are sadly sobering in that regard.  :-\

Quote from: Tripoli on July 28, 2019, 03:08:38 PM
The_Admiral    Here are a couple of images of flag plots, in case you hadn't come across them: 80-G-268173: USS Yorktown (CV 10), Flag Plot showing portside. Photographed by PHOM Smitty and PHOM3/C D.M. Evans, November 27, 1944.

Oh dear...!!!

Super find Tripoli. I had lost hope - other places where I asked didn't find more than I had already, you're actually the first guy to come up with something new in terms of photograph.  :notworthy:
Yes I have some others resources of course, but we resorted to using references from pre-war US cruisers and BBs too, as command quarters should be quite comparable to pre-war CVs (a CV island isn't that big). Still, it is unbelievable that these ones couldn't be found on the US Navy online archive resource/NHHC (even though these are clearly the same classification system they use), and not even reachable in the online fund of the National archives. The vintage CV-10 shots I found coming from the very same collection were all found on wikimedia commons and private picture sellers (Alamy & the rest).

May I ask how you came across them? A "flag plot" search on flickr - that's the source, right? the USN museum official account https://www.flickr.com/people/127906254@N06/ (https://www.flickr.com/people/127906254@N06/), or was that through Pinterest, maybe? - won't bring them up, and even the description in brackets on Google mostly comes back empty handed...

At any rate, great thanks Tripoli, if you have some more stuff you'd like to share I'll be happy to have them. I am particularly after shots taken from CA28 at Mare Island in 1943 during her refit (have only two of them although there should be more) and same thing with CA38 one year later. It's all part of the Mare Island photographic database, but you just can't access more than a few shots without getting there yourself. We'll have any content that would help, especially with the details up close (the contents of the black boards, the equipment, etc...). It does help our 3D artist, and allows him to cross-reference all the stuff we come across.

Great thanks again  O0

edit: ok I found a way to navigate the account's photos without too much pain... It's actually way more complete than whatever is available elsewhere on proper websites. To know I had that just under my nose... A few nice shots here and there, this is a great find. Thanks Tripoli!
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on July 29, 2019, 07:33:46 AM
The_Admiral-  I just sent you a PM
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Toonces on July 29, 2019, 06:16:54 PM
I was actually kind of serious about getting out of my head and dreams.

This is shaping up to be pretty much the WW2 carrier game I've had in the back of my mind for a few years now.  Everything I'm seeing is looking extremely loin-moistening.

One aspect that, not sure if you're doing it, but I'd love to see the perspective from the bridge of the action taking place.  What I mean is the ability to observe through the windows, or on a wing, to watch attacks developing, launching from own-ship, etc.  It sounds like you're not doing a full 3D walk around type bridge, but as a selectable station it would still be quite cool and immersive.  I'd like to see it where you're doing all that work on the bridge while, meanwhile, the ship is dodging and weaving, AA is going off all around you, and you're trying to maintain concentration and give orders during the chaos.

I don't know how exactly this would be implemented in a game, but it's the idea I've had.

Anyway, since you guys seem to have the WW2 carrier game taken care of, I can move on to the two other ideas I have percolating in my mind.  You guys didn't see those while you were snooping around in there, did you?
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 30, 2019, 12:50:11 AM
Well I have my idea about what I'd like us to do once this is done (and well done, that is), both inside and outside of the current naval comfort zone we're making here. There's still time so no worries, you might carry on with your other dreams  ^-^

Regarding "realistic" views from the outside, yes, the latter third of the planned stations are mainly scenic-centered ones. One is a passage over the flight deck (hence the door on the side of the room) with visibility limited to the actual spot - that is 180° all the way to the stern and the bow (technically, there's the island between you and the starboard side of the ship). Another one is a Big-Eyes binocular station located roughly at the same spot, but with a 360° ability. It might be a concession to realism, but gameplay-wise I doubt that it is very interesting to move from a pair of static binocs to another one, so we kept it old-fashioned, like all the comparable games and sims did it before us. Third view is a forward porthole (you can see symmetric ones in both rooms) that allows you to watch the outside from your cozy quarters during action, but with a rather limited field of view.

At a certain level of difficulty, watching action from the outside means that you might get hurt or even die during an attack. It's not gonna be random of course, you need to get within the blast radius of a bomb/plane for that to happen. On the other hand, staying inside during air action is not going to make you immortal (if the island actually blows up, you blow up too - these are not immunity boxes, Bunker Hill and New Mexico are telling examples of what happens when it strikes "home" - and don't even mention the unfortunate Kaga!) but it is going to limit greatly your exposure.

Fear not though, we do not plan on simulating ankle-twisting or even your head hitting equipment during a torpedo hit... Even though it happened, and Fletcher actually got a Purple Heart for that. In game terms you're expected to wear your tin hat for most of the action, as for now our game takes place during condition 1-like situations, and lulls will be rather rare.

Still, the point is that deactivating external views will not confine you to the internal quarters of the ship totally, and you might be allowed to watch the action "à la Santa Cruz" if I may say. The possibility of your avatar dying will remain an option in the settings though, you might deactivate it if you want, but it will affect the final realism/difficulty ratio doing so.

I might add that we plan on having a very complete and immersive range of ambience sounds, some random and generic, some intimately linked to the action (orders being repeated during maneuver, announcements of readiness, whistles, some CAP action, etc... Everything you'd hear on the close-circuit as the flag officer, technically) besides the obvious sounds of battle. I want to live the whole thing and make you feel like you're involved in the action. Everything that will bring the player down to his/her actual in-game PoV instead of making him/her feel like a God walking among ants will have my preference.

I admit, from a game-design perspective, that this is a common trend in gaming as of late: that's what Burden of Command or Radio Commander strive for too, or even something that could be felt in Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa. These games increase the odds by somewhat "de-powering" the player, making him/her feel constrained by events, chaos, limited technology, a limited panel of choices and non-binary responses he/she can provide. But our goal is to make this optional for its most punishing/frustrating aspects (i.e. the survival of the avatar or access to external views) while keeping the fun and the immersion to a level that will take full advantage of a modern, mid-range PC hardware. Knowing games made after the 90s have hardly considered eye and ear-candy to be a priority (considering the costs involved, they were certainly in their right not to), we have room for maneuver ahead indeed.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on July 30, 2019, 10:40:49 PM
Oh by the way Toonces, about that dream thing...

I just came across an old post of yours about what your next dream might be... Is that the Iron Bottom Sound adaptation you mentioned, by any chance?
If so, make it quick, because serious surface action is next on our list  :))

I am not joking actually. The Flag Plot area is designed so that the right-hand room will be some sort of module that will change with the nature of the ship. On a Carrier it's a air-plot centered module. On a surface ship, on the other hand, it might have other more relevant stations (gun plot, surface radar plot, etc...). Wish us luck, for the first volume would need to work well enough for that, but... crossing fingers!

(and sorry for your next retirement project... :-\ )
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on August 09, 2019, 09:25:53 AM
Hello everybody

Although we're not there yet for the announcement, I suppose I couldn't leave this topic without posting the sort of contents other saw already, it wouldn't be fair. On the eve of the holidays for the team, these little sequences do not weight much, but they are still pleasing to the die - and a testimony to the fact that things are going slowly forward. Might be a bit scant an update, but it's still better than nothing  :-"

First of all, we updated the engine when it comes to aircraft management and landing. Both operations are now smoother to the eye and feel less robotic/scripted. Our pilots are still too much of a bunch of hotshots, who apparently always have to catch the first wire... Should be "solved" soon enough.

Regarding aircraft management, as you can see we run a tight ship in pretty much every way - SBDs not having folding wings, unlike TBDs, they require a different arrangement in order to fit on the deck. I am happy to announce that the aircraft manager AI IQ is way higher than my own when it comes to that sort of chores.





Besides, we're conducting a few experiments on the air front too, in order to me ready for a demo reel. Our F4F3 got its animated surfaces, and now it is provided with the proper 4*.50 battery. We're gonna dress her like Butch O'Hare famed CMOH mount and she's gonna try her guns on a few betties. Here's sneak peek of what is currently in the works:





(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48495909722_f4ba3015d3_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48495743966_0309411a5a_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48488615016_c4b1dcc97f_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48488778622_8682d8162b_o.png)

This is naturally a "chase" view, nothing else. We're not flying these planes, the AI is (and hopefully might stop going for Tarans on Betties soon... The woes of a young and enthusiastic AI!).

Finally, for le dessert de ces messieurs, here's the latest beauty drawn by our 2D artist. It depicts Norman "Dusty" Kleiss of VS-6 (USS Enterprise) recovering from his dive against Hiryu. "Dusty" Kleiss was one of the few pilots that day who had the distinction of hitting true both times he dived against a carrier. After his part in the attack against Kaga in the morning, he secured the second hit against Hiryu following Richard Jaccard's own impact. The blast resulting from both hits probably contributed to blow Hiryu's elevator against her island, as seen in the iconic photo taken later that day by a SBD.
Original art all the way, of course - that would make for a nice collector mouse mat, don't you think!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48447627392_467b5593d0_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48493512512_271855b4df_o.png)

That's all for today, enjoy the weekend everybody! S!  8)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: steve58 on August 09, 2019, 10:28:00 AM
Here already...(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2Fz7W3Ljw7oslTq%2Fgiphy.gif%3Fcid%3D790b7611a1ca60bb045791f0683c7a763e7244b1c0a5150d%26amp%3Brid%3Dgiphy.gif&hash=3c9c6eae08a1703354e6b11e927d72c225773959)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: GroggyGrognard on August 10, 2019, 11:14:02 AM
@The_Admiral  Wow, fantastic screenshots. Thanks for the appetizer.  :)


Groggy
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on August 10, 2019, 11:16:45 AM
Thanks boys! Your support means a lot.  :notworthy:

I was going to post a reply to Steve about starting to print money - considering the limited response to this last update, if he was to be our only customer I had to get ready to overcharge him. Thanks to you Groggy, the final price just got reduced by 50%! Good teamwork  :knuppel2:

;)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: em2nought on August 10, 2019, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: The_Admiral on August 10, 2019, 11:16:45 AM
considering the limited response to this last update

Sorry, been a bit busy making smart @ss comments regarding Epstein's shocking "suicide" all day.  :DD  If it's any consolation I've changed from olive drab t-shirts to heather gray so the drool marks aren't visible when they dry.  ;D

I'm not sure Devastator's need landing animations.  Did any ever return to a carrier after encountering the enemy?  ;)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on August 10, 2019, 10:49:43 PM
Well you're sure being harsh on the poor thing  :-[

They sure didn't have the opportunity to hit much besides Shoho, but they did their job. And they had a much better loss ratio than the Dauntless at Coral Sea, as the latter took heavy losses both above Carrier Division 5 and acting as makeshift CAP over TF17. On the other hand, the 20 TBDs involved in the strike only lost one plane that ran out of fuel in range of rescue and their defensive fire *might* have clipped a couple Zeroes. Naturally, no fish found its way to the target, but still...!

Actually on the eve of Midway, TF16 staff was adamant about having the fighters cover the SBDs instead of the TBDs, as experience at Coral Sea had shown they were supposedly more vulnerable (even though in the end, Enterprise's escort covered no-one and Hornet's escort went on with the bombers on the flight to nowhere - and got lost altogether). Ah dear... Poor Torpedo lads.  :-\  :'(
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on August 11, 2019, 06:48:18 AM
Fun fact:
Ensign George Gay's experience watching the attack on the IJN fleet from the water after surviving his TBD's shoot down was the inspiration for a similar scenario during an episode of the reimagined Battlestar Galactica ('Resurrection Ship'). During a massive battle between the Colonial and Cylon fleets one of the main characters is forced to eject from his fighter and then hangs in space, watching, as the furious fighting goes on around him and the Cylon fleet's precious Resurrection ships are destroyed one by one.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on August 11, 2019, 08:10:38 AM
Aye.

But although Apollo was definitely there to witness the destruction of the Cylon fleet after ejecting from the Blackbird (we got it on film!), unfortunately some recent fact-checking did cast some doubt over the story of Ens. Gay's being actually in range of seeing 100% of what he said to have witnessed. Naturally, nobody was willing to call him out about his testimony, for all the best reasons considering his role and the trauma he went through, but it is among the myths that got debunked in the 2000s.

An analysis of his report can be found in No Right to Win, p.198, and the consensus (to put it mildly) is definitely (I quote) part fact, part fable: he might have possibly witnessed the attack to some extent, but not the sinkings as he claimed to have from 1943 on... :(

Still, if it gave us Resurrection Ship then it did more good than harm  ^-^
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: GDS_Starfury on August 19, 2019, 08:19:17 PM
its a masterful episode.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on August 19, 2019, 09:20:45 PM
^I thought that might bring you out of the woodwork.  O0
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on August 19, 2019, 09:33:17 PM
Do you people play BSG deadlock at all? :hug:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Staggerwing on August 19, 2019, 09:52:09 PM
I've been tempted by it but have not taken the plunge.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: SirAndrewD on August 19, 2019, 10:51:16 PM
Quote from: The_Admiral on August 19, 2019, 09:33:17 PM
Do you people play BSG deadlock at all? :hug:

I played it for a while.  Not bad.  The version I played with got a little bit samey after a while.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on August 19, 2019, 11:24:07 PM
QuoteI've been tempted by it but have not taken the plunge.

The game gets updated regularly with new stuff, in that regard it is amazing. For the rest, yes one could be afraid that it gets a bit repetitive overtime, but so is any game of the kind (playing Homeworld or Battlefleet Gothic outside of the main campaign will eventually get repetitive too I s'ppose). Production value (music, graphics, replay options...) is really sky high for a game published under a Slitherine label. If you are into BSG there is NO EXCUSE!  C:-)

I would say that one of the reason that leads to the feeling of repetitiveness Andrew mentioned is also a direct consequence of its strength: it is rather intuitive, the learning curve is user-friendly and you get a good feeling out of it in no time, which can be good but not super-rewarding for some of us. Not your average monster game, it is actually the sort of well-rounded product we are not really used to.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on August 22, 2019, 10:46:09 AM
Kind Sirs,

A couple of you gentlemen have already offered to help in the past. I thank you for that (they will recognize themselves ^^)

We are on the verge of going public (it might occur sometime next week if I manage to keep my schedule). By then we will have a website ready to roll and a Facebook page too.
I don't worry too much about the Facebook page (it's Facebook, after all, not really the realm of text walling is it) but a website, when it goes live, leaves a bigger footprint. It is going to have some content where we explain our vision of the game, our design philosophy, our features, etc...

I would be looking for one or two volunteers who would be kind enough to give us a little bit of their time in the course of the next week to proof-read the whole thing before it goes live? It's not a big deal, but this is the sort of aspect that we cannot leave to non-native speakers amateurs like ourselves. I will also gladly (well not so much actually, but that's life ^^) take advices and remarks regarding the actual content and the cheesier parts of it, so anybody who is both qualified English grammar AND has a critical mind is welcome.

Can't send you money for that, but I'll make sure that I keep a copy of the game for you, that's the very least I can do, especially if you keep on helping us on this :)

Thanks in advance...
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: MC on August 22, 2019, 11:14:38 AM
I would be more than happy to proof-read. Just let me know the details when you have them.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on August 22, 2019, 11:26:14 AM
Thank you MC! Duly noted  :notworthy:

I believe there will be enough content for two, so don't be shy ^^ thanks all
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: acctingman on August 22, 2019, 11:43:21 AM
Good luck there Admiral. I've watched this thread very closely and will buy the game (sooner than later). It looks outstanding so far.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Tripoli on August 22, 2019, 12:36:30 PM
Quote from: The_Admiral on August 22, 2019, 10:46:09 AM
Kind Sirs,

A couple of you gentlemen have already offered to help in the past. I thank you for that (they will recognize themselves ^^)

We are on the verge of going public (it might occur sometime next week if I manage to keep my schedule). By then we will have a website ready to roll and a Facebook page too.
I don't worry too much about the Facebook page (it's Facebook, after all, not really the realm of text walling is it) but a website, when it goes live, leaves a bigger footprint. It is going to have some content where we explain our vision of the game, our design philosophy, our features, etc...

I would be looking for one or two volunteers who would be kind enough to give us a little bit of their time in the course of the next week to proof-read the whole thing before it goes live? It's not a big deal, but this is the sort of aspect that we cannot leave to non-native speakers amateurs like ourselves. I will also gladly (well not so much actually, but that's life ^^) take advices and remarks regarding the actual content and the cheesier parts of it, so anybody who is both qualified English grammar AND has a critical mind is welcome.

Can't send you money for that, but I'll make sure that I keep a copy of the game for you, that's the very least I can do, especially if you keep on helping us on this :)

Thanks in advance...

I'll volunteer
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 22, 2019, 01:14:18 PM
I will as well. 
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Millipede on August 22, 2019, 03:34:35 PM
I frequently cringe at grammar and spelling errors while surfing the 'net and I think you're wise to ask for proofreaders. I'm more than happy to help if you wish.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: steve58 on August 22, 2019, 03:53:57 PM
If you don't have enuff (misspelling intentional >:D) volunteers by now, I can also help.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Millipede on August 22, 2019, 04:19:21 PM
^ I got that   ^-^ :-[
Title: Thanks! And a small update (Carrier Command Simulation)
Post by: The_Admiral on August 23, 2019, 01:22:51 AM
Thank you boys, for volunteering and the kind words both.
Will keep you updated :)

In the meantime here's a few extra candies  :hug:
The Lead Dev is on holidays (I mean, he deserves that, especially if there's nothing left for him to enjoy before next Christmas  :knuppel2: ) so that small update doesn't have anything much in terms of mechanics, except for the first video. The photos are resized for the forum, please click on the shot if you want to see them at their proper original size.

Here's an early peek at our AI air combat logic experiments. Here you have a AI Butch O'Hare training his shooting skills on Betties in the configuration they were during the Lexington Bougainville raid. Alright, that sort of ammunition expenditure would have prevented him from scoring his 5 planes that day, but you have to start somewhere. We're already happy that the AI learned not to taran everything it shoots at, it is already a good start  ::)



We also had progress on the whole flag plot thing, in time to show them next week on the website. We've reached the texturing phase, and it should be quite lovely very soon. Coming around slowly but nicely.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604694552_091f9fee8a_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604776697_fd5ecb24b0_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604637941_ab803f9627_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604776612_633719f245_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604776422_31cacb18c9_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604637821_a319d2b1d7_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604637741_8be382af00_o.jpg)

Next are plane skin experiments, using our current paintscheme viewer. We're working on the weathering effect for planes which have been subject to a longer service at sea or ashore in areas where painting isn't exactly the priority. Our 2D artist fortunately is discovering himself to be pretty good at texturing too so I am happy to see that we will probably be able to do all this in-house, without having to go looking for external help.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604756627_7301a5d84e_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604756532_6af6482aa0_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604617996_df35204850_o.jpg)


Besides, here are a few screens of the F4F we used for the Butch O'Hare video. As you can see, the squadron markings are working ok, and every plane has its own ID. The trained eye might notice that we are using a F4F-4 model with a F4F-3 skin, but this is just temporary. Eventually everybody will have its own proper model, of course.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604875246_29eb2565de_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48605015442_c7404179be_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604875236_7b7d6bf671_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48605015282_303cbbd76c_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604874906_f9f9271307_o.jpg)

Speaking of our 2D artist, he made his first attempts at painting the portraits that the player might see when he/she is interacting with the flag staff ingame. Here is his first attempt at imagining Elliot Buckmaster as the skipper of Yorktown in 1942 in his Captain days. He ain't the easiest customer, considering the very little graphic material available regarding this period of his career, but it is certainly good training. Result is pretty cool, and this will eventually make for great artbook material, especially if we were to print a Deluxe edition.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604691882_b563f19ab8_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604549571_abe70fb315_o.png)

Finally, a few shots of the IJN line up with previously seen 3D models being brought up to our current standard of details. Ultimately most if not all the units taking part to the 1942 campaigns will feature in the game, which will naturally make our IJN fanboys rather happy and make target practice colourful for the US side. As with planes, they will be fully customizable, so if a deranged warship loli artist wants to paint his waifu all over the deck of his preferred ship, be our guest. It will be a single-player game anyway, so the danger is somewhat self-contained  and can only spread with your own willing complicity :knuppel2:  ^-^

Note that Mogami's guns are seen here in the 3D software. Obviously the final version will have the proper elevation for all guns, including her deranged turret B.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604627531_a7772fb8d5_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604628216_e35ed3fbd9_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604768177_1e9ff1f8ff_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604630116_b6f6a53c10_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48604768967_e8e4023275_o.png)

Here. I hope that was entertaining. Hopefully see you next week for the actual "launch" of our propaganda machine  :-"  8)
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Strela on August 23, 2019, 03:23:45 AM
My heavens, Admiral, this is just going from strength to strength!

I think it's time I changed game companies!  ;D

Awesome work, you know you have reached a milestone when your website goes live.

All the best for next week!

David
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Pete Dero on August 23, 2019, 06:08:42 AM
Any idea how much of a pc will be needed to run all this ?

Could be one of those games that deserve a new machine.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: acctingman on August 23, 2019, 08:41:46 AM
Quote from: Pete Dero on August 23, 2019, 06:08:42 AM
Any idea how much of a pc will be needed to run all this ?

Could be one of those games that deserve a new machine.

This is also my fear, but if this game is half as good as it looks, I'm ok with upgrading my machine  :smitten:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: rocketman on August 23, 2019, 09:03:45 AM
I asked that earlier in the thread and I think the respons was that it will not require a beast of a machine, maybe even a half-decent one will do  <:-)
Title: Re: Thanks! And a small update (Carrier Command Simulation)
Post by: The_Admiral on August 23, 2019, 09:57:04 AM
Hello gents!

1) Thanks David, and all the others for the kind words, as usual. Means a lot for the morale.  O0
(David, sent you a small PM, thanks in advance  8) )

2) Regarding the sys specs, Brother Rocketman speaks the truth, we do not plan to make it a monster. My own computer isn't top of the line anyway. Besides, as a product with that sort of graphics, you can expect a large range of detail settings to be fully customizable, so that you might enjoy the game even if you have limited power at hand. FPS do that, simulations do that, RTS games do that, why wouldn't wargames be allowed that sort of caprice when they go 3D, ammarite?

We'll see quickly what to expect from our preliminary tests once a first vertical playable slice will be ready. But I'd rather have you spend your money on our Deluxe Collector Edition rather than a new Graphic Card  :-" :dreamer:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Silent Disapproval Robot on September 16, 2019, 03:01:21 AM
Any new ship porn?  I'm suffering withdrawals.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on September 16, 2019, 10:01:28 PM
Good man!

Well, unfortunately, although I might have a few things to show, I am kept busy by the website (big thanks to MC and Tripoli in that regard), putting together a demo reel and - of course - by work IRL. Fortunately the people who are actually at work are busy with the game, so I'll have a few things to show tonight when I get home, but it's mostly tech - and as such not necessarily super eye-candy. A maybe at least one new ship - but it's mostly about tech, and we're using the planes as benchmarks. Also making great progress on the flag plot, but I am a bit reluctant to show WiP stuff, and run the risk of having people having the wrong idea about stuff that is far from final.

But we're among people with a brain in here, I might go the few extra yards and trust your judgement.  :knuppel2:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: bobarossa on September 17, 2019, 09:21:43 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on September 16, 2019, 10:01:28 PM

But we're among people with a brain in here, I might go the few extra yards and trust your judgement. :knuppel2:

Wow, you really don't know us then!

Just superimpose a bunch of supermodels on top of a carrier deck and that will keep most of us happy for another week. 
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on September 17, 2019, 10:17:00 AM
Oh well someone did that already



Unfortunately, we had a few internet problems back in France that precluded us from uploading the stuff tonight...
I say tonight because it's 11PM in here and time for bed pretty soon, so you'll have to keep company to the ladies for now. We'll be back ASAP. Apologies, but apparently it seems that nowadays, it is faster to upload stuff with a VPN from China than from an ADSL line in France  :pullhair:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Sir Slash on September 17, 2019, 11:05:34 AM
That girl's gotta a nice set of signal flags.  :D  She's certainly got my nose up.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: em2nought on September 19, 2019, 04:21:38 PM
That's one sexy LSO.  :dreamer:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: DoctorQuest on September 19, 2019, 10:26:17 PM
Try to avoid being ham-handed with your joystick.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: besilarius on September 20, 2019, 07:00:29 AM
That sailor may have been to a torpedo juice party.  Not the kind of alcohol you or I would choose to drink.
But, hey, there's a war on.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on September 21, 2019, 12:36:02 PM
Sorry SDR, I took my sweet time but you'll probably find that it was worth it :)

We are *that* close from announcing the game and launching the website, but as Robot said you sure are entitled to a little additional update before everything goes live.
As of late we were not very loud as most of the work was done under the hood, providing the engine with all the perks one would expect from a modern game - starting with actual sound. I must say the result ain't half bad, but naturally I am a bit biased. I'll let you judge by yourselves.

Here's our test-bed of a TBD and its twin-wasp roaring, with our sound engine tech in motion.



As you can see, that's true 3D sound right there. It changes with the distance, changes with your viewpoint, and it's real, variable stuff that follows the actual regime of the plane's engine.

The TBD itself is now our reference as our future standard for planes (at least Allied planes) in terms of art and details. Its livery is a fine reproduction of a VT-2 mount from Lexington. You might have seen it last year when the late and unfortunate Paul Allen and his team found Lady Lex at the bottom of the Coral Sea. Here is a reference:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48769962568_06a984c970_o.png)

Here are some in-engine views of the work in progress from a few days ago, with work done on reflections and materials.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48769962248_e55d389b67_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48770497377_049daa1ee1_o.jpg)

Our 2D artist is not only good at painting pixel planes and beautiful dioramas, he is also in charge of the portraits gallery. The family is getting bigger everyday. We will eventually have 30+ portraits, most of them depicting actual officers historically involved in carrier combat back in 1942. A cookie for anyone you'll be able to identify in there (except for the fourth chap, whose destiny is to be our kind default sailor-guy, and whose face was originally randomly generated).

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48770563477_e6c656eec1_o.png)

Meanwhile, our 3D artist has been very busy with modifying our plane models in order to optimize them further and set a standard for future integration. Like our 2D artist, he has been working on the TBD to produce the original basic texture mapping that will be used as the reference for paintjobs.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48770497257_c861cea2eb_o.jpg)

Still, he still found some time to work on a few ships - here's a Benson and a very early WiP shot on a PT-Boat, two very common visitors you might come across between Lunga point and Florida island.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48770294361_12823bad76_h.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48770295366_58ace59a52_o.png)

We also started the in-game integration of the Flag Plot space. As you might remember, the Flag Plot is to be the main hub for the player, from which he/she will be allowed to access all stations (2D map, maneuver board, ouija board, pilot roster, the air ops board, etc...) by clicking on it or using keyboard shortcuts. It is expected to eventually look like the original concept art, and we only just started processing the larger chunks of the scene into the game proper. Our dev is also working hard on the lighting, as it will have a real effect on the overall feeling and mood. Here are some shots, including concept art, research, light tech business & some of the very early furniture being placed around the room.

First, this is the result of the research and immense talent of our 2D guy. I can't emphasize again enough how blessed I am to have people like him and the rest of my team by my side in this adventure, for it is quite the thrill to marvel at how much creativity and work they seem to put in everything they do.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48769960628_9e5871e17e_h.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48769961003_83aac745f3_o.png)

Here is some basic lighting work:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48770294266_13754d9410_b.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48769961413_7254afe38f_b.jpg)

Of course, the in-game 3D part itself is super WiP, textures and final models are still to be done. But, hey, at least, in two years from now you might be able to say "I was there before it looked cool!"

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48769963618_8cfa097155_b.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48770296051_3c8a05e87b_b.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48770295796_0a41ddd275_b.jpg)

And, last but not least, our sound engine now also includes environmental effects. You will find below, yet again, a very early attempt at making it work, with the sound of the ocean, of the ship, and flight deck announcements (we'll feature the boatswain's call, the P.A. and even the bugle) all packed in one short video. Again, nothing too big or fancy, all of these are placeholder sounds and might look like very small progress, but it is coming together, step by step. Let's hope we can go the distance, but so far... so good!

In the meantime, enjoy the view and the mood, and see you soon!  :coolsmiley:

Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Silent Disapproval Robot on September 21, 2019, 01:03:23 PM
 :dreamer: :dreamer: :dreamer:
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: rocketman on September 21, 2019, 01:55:26 PM
Oh my, when you think you can't get more impressed, the devs surprise again  :smitten:
3D sound is really cool and an important part of immersion. Will there also be sound delay, like if you see an explosion far away it will take some time before you hear it?
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: Old TImer on September 21, 2019, 05:08:37 PM
Truly amazing stuff.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: The_Admiral on September 21, 2019, 10:56:46 PM
Thanks gents!  :notworthy:

Quote from: rocketman on September 21, 2019, 01:55:26 PM
3D sound is really cool and an important part of immersion. Will there also be sound delay, like if you see an explosion far away it will take some time before you hear it?

This is absolutely our intent, but I still have to see if we can pull it off. The free camera in 3D might mess with that quite a bit. But I think that this is a big immersion factor we need to reproduce, at least when watching the action from a static point - another of these realistic features everybody can pretty much relate to and doesn't need convoluted explaining.
Title: Re: Carriers at War
Post by: rocketman on September 22, 2019, 10:32:42 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on September 21, 2019, 10:56:46 PM
Thanks gents!  :notworthy:

Quote from: rocketman on September 21, 2019, 01:55:26 PM
3D sound is really cool and an important part of immersion. Will there also be sound delay, like if you see an explosion far away it will take some time before you hear it?

This is absolutely our intent, but I still have to see if we can pull it off. The free camera in 3D might mess with that quite a bit. But I think that this is a big immersion factor we need to reproduce, at least when watching the action from a static point - another of these realistic features everybody can pretty much relate to and doesn't need convoluted explaining.
It is one of the features in Combat Mission games I enjoy most for immersion. Another cool thing in those games if you play a scenario in low light conditions, even if the camera isn't pointing in the direction of the explosion you will see a pulse of light subtly illuminating the landscape and then with a delay you hear the explosion.