|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 26, 2014 9:45:37 GMT -6
however already during Great war planes really heated the fighting and trade ships. The Russian fleet for example struck bombing attacks from hydroaviatransports on the Black Sea to the Turkish ports. Not to mention Mitchell's post-war experiments. When the battle ship was for the first time sunk by bombs. Though it and in fact was arranged, but nevertheless. The path for naval aviation, for all aviation, was certainly lit by the actions during the Great War, but nothing that would bother the battle lines of GB, Imperial Germany, France or Russia.
|
|
|
Post by Rasputitsa on Feb 26, 2014 12:52:12 GMT -6
Well aviation battles as in the Pacific can be anything but boring. Also I'm thinking first in a "1920/30" expansion where the planes were not that decsive yet. Being able to select loadouts, assign CAPS and escorts, plot search cones... That would be amazing!! As I said in an earlier post, there are already several games which adequately simulate carrier warfare with all the air features which you mention. SAI simulates battle fleet gun action and introducing a complex aviation system would practically eliminate fleet action, as actually happened historically, battles would be resolved without fleets ever coming close enough to sight each other. What would be left of SAI, battleships and cruisers would be relegated to acting as carrier escorts, it's the big-gun aspects of the game which would become boring, which is what SAI is all about.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 26, 2014 13:02:37 GMT -6
Well aviation battles as in the Pacific can be anything but boring. Also I'm thinking first in a "1920/30" expansion where the planes were not that decsive yet. Being able to select loadouts, assign CAPS and escorts, plot search cones... That would be amazing!! As I said in an earlier post, there are already several games which adequately simulate carrier warfare with all the air features which you mention. SAI simulates battle fleet gun action and introducing a complex aviation system would practically eliminate fleet action, as actually happened historically, battles would be resolved without fleets ever coming close enough to sight each other. What would be left of SAI, battleships and cruisers would be relegated to acting as carrier escorts, it's the big-gun aspects of the game which would become boring, which is what SAI is all about. I don't believe the introduction of carriers and aircraft in the interwar period, into the game would make SAI boring. You could adopt several counterfactual paths like no Washington Naval Treaty, possibly a Russian or British involvement in the China war, spilling over into the Pacific. There are many paths and nodes that could be followed. There are many paths for a WWII campaign to take:
1. Carriers are in Pearl Harbor - Loss of Lexington and Enterprise
2. Saratoga sunk during transit to Pearl Harbor after attack
3. Royal Oak survives U-boat attack
4. Italian Fleet is more aggressive with its fleet
5. French fleet is warned about Mers-el-Kabir - Survives the British attack
Man, there are a million ways things could have been different. Without carriers at the beginning there might not have been any Guadalcanal, Japanese battleships might have moved to Rabaul.
|
|
|
Post by Rasputitsa on Feb 26, 2014 13:21:38 GMT -6
As I said in an earlier post, there are already several games which adequately simulate carrier warfare with all the air features which you mention. SAI simulates battle fleet gun action and introducing a complex aviation system would practically eliminate fleet action, as actually happened historically, battles would be resolved without fleets ever coming close enough to sight each other. What would be left of SAI, battleships and cruisers would be relegated to acting as carrier escorts, it's the big-gun aspects of the game which would become boring, which is what SAI is all about. I don't believe the introduction of carriers and aircraft in the interwar period, into the game would make SAI boring. You could adopt several counterfactual paths like no Washington Naval Treaty, possibly a Russian or British involvement in the China war, spilling over into the Pacific. There are many paths and nodes that could be followed. My comments were directed to the quoted comment 'Well aviation battles as in the Pacific can be anything but boring..........', I don't think SAI would convert well to WW2 Pacific carrier battles, already well covered by other games. The 1920-30s is an area where SAI may work well and, as has already been suggested, the War Plan Orange situation could be fertile ground for SAI. The main point I am making is that a correctly modeled WW2 aviation element would lead to the demise of the big-gun fleet action, which is the what SAI was intended to simulate. Maintaining the spirit of SAI would need aviation aspects to be kept in the background and at a strategic/operational level. With the US carriers lost at Peal Harbor, it won't be much of a scenario, as any surviving US surface ships wouldn't get sight of the IJN before they too hit the sea bed. Without carriers it's just making the point, SAI/WW2 only works if there is little air power.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 26, 2014 13:34:24 GMT -6
I don't believe the introduction of carriers and aircraft in the interwar period, into the game would make SAI boring. You could adopt several counterfactual paths like no Washington Naval Treaty, possibly a Russian or British involvement in the China war, spilling over into the Pacific. There are many paths and nodes that could be followed. My comments were directed to the quoted comment 'Well aviation battles as in the Pacific can be anything but boring..........', I don't think SAI would convert well to WW2 Pacific carrier battles, already well covered by other games. The 1920-30s is an area where SAI may work well and, as has already been suggested, the War Plan Orange situation could be fertile ground for SAI. The main point I am making is that a correctly modeled WW2 aviation element would lead to the demise of the big-gun fleet action, which is the what SAI was intended to simulate. Maintaining the spirit of SAI would need aviation aspects to be kept in the background and at a strategic/operational level. With the US carriers lost at Peal Harbor, it won't be much of a scenario, as any surviving US surface ships wouldn't get sight of the IJN before they too hit the sea bed. Without carriers it's just making the point, SAI/WW2 only works if there is little air power. Well, that discussion about different paths is for another forum, not here. The point is that if the team decides to continue the move into the interwar period and onto WWII, it could depict different paths and still maintain the flavor of the game. We can actually say that WWI saw the demise of the battleship, but again no history here. We will have wait for their decision.
|
|
|
Post by Rasputitsa on Feb 26, 2014 13:51:05 GMT -6
My comments were directed to the quoted comment 'Well aviation battles as in the Pacific can be anything but boring..........', I don't think SAI would convert well to WW2 Pacific carrier battles, already well covered by other games. The 1920-30s is an area where SAI may work well and, as has already been suggested, the War Plan Orange situation could be fertile ground for SAI. The main point I am making is that a correctly modeled WW2 aviation element would lead to the demise of the big-gun fleet action, which is the what SAI was intended to simulate. Maintaining the spirit of SAI would need aviation aspects to be kept in the background and at a strategic/operational level. With the US carriers lost at Peal Harbor, it won't be much of a scenario, as any surviving US surface ships wouldn't get sight of the IJN before they too hit the sea bed. Without carriers it's just making the point, SAI/WW2 only works if there is little air power. Well, that discussion about different paths is for another forum, not here. The point is that if the team decides to continue the move into the interwar period and onto WWII, it could depict different paths and still maintain the flavor of the game. We can actually say that WWI saw the demise of the battleship, but again no history here. We will have wait for their decision. I think you mean WW 2 saw the demise of the battleship, but I for one would still like to see fleet actions involving KGVs, Nelson, Warspite, etc., against Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, etc., combinations are endless. Then there are the Italians, Soviets and ......... All I am saying is that WW2 air power stops this happening, if it's too over-powerful and probably best kept out of the tactical arena. 1920-30 is a very different situation, air power is limited and a better fit for SAI.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Feb 26, 2014 14:06:40 GMT -6
I think you mean WW 2 saw the demise of the battleship, but I for one would still like to see fleet actions involving KGVs, Nelson, Warspite, etc., against Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, etc., combinations are endless. Then there are the Italians, Soviets and ......... All I am saying is that WW2 air power stops this happening, if it's too over-powerful and probably best kept out of the tactical arena. 1920-30 is a very different situation, air power is limited and a better fit for SAI. But the aviation was there! You will be able to design scenarios without carriers or land based aviation then you will have your big wagons fight, while other will prefer carrier battles.
|
|
|
Post by Rasputitsa on Feb 26, 2014 14:32:45 GMT -6
I think you mean WW 2 saw the demise of the battleship, but I for one would still like to see fleet actions involving KGVs, Nelson, Warspite, etc., against Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, etc., combinations are endless. Then there are the Italians, Soviets and ......... All I am saying is that WW2 air power stops this happening, if it's too over-powerful and probably best kept out of the tactical arena. 1920-30 is a very different situation, air power is limited and a better fit for SAI. But the aviation was there! You will be able to design scenarios without carriers or land based aviation then you will have your big wagons fight, while other will prefer carrier battles. This discussion is going round in circles, please read the earlier posts, I didn't say I didn't want aviation in a WW2 SAI variant, but suggested that as air power in WW2 could not be ignored, it would be best represented at the strategic/operational level, otherwise it would impinge on what SAI does so well, big-gun fleet action. I also enjoy carrier battles, which is why I have 'HPS Midway', 'Carriers at War' and several even older games like 'Carrier Strike', all capable of representing air power at sea and I still live in hope that Matrix Games will bring out an updated 'Carrier Force'. I doubt that SAI is the right vehicle to bring full blooded WW2 carrier operations into its game engine, if it can, the more options we get the better, but 1920-30s type aviation may sit more comfortably with the battle fleet scenario played out in SAI.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 26, 2014 15:02:59 GMT -6
Why don't you two gents discuss this issue of whether SAI should have aircraft and how. I've expressed my opinions however the team will make its own decisions. Bye.
|
|
|
Post by doctorhaider on Feb 27, 2014 1:16:01 GMT -6
In the light of the current discussion it's worth to take a look to the "War Plan Orange" wargame. I mean this one: matrixgames.com/products/326/details/War.Plan.Orange:.Dreadnoughts.in.the.Pacific.1922.-.1930It was developed using the War In the Pacific WW2 engine but put much more effort in the surface actions, the role of aviation is much more limited. Though this game uses only abstract surface combat representation, it may be used as a model for the future SAI expansion: player use aircrafts only on the operational level, like in current campaign engine for the Surface Steel tactical game. And uses usual realtime combat like now when opposing fleets make contact.
|
|
|
Post by Rasputitsa on Feb 27, 2014 1:58:23 GMT -6
In the light of the current discussion it's worth to take a look to the "War Plan Orange" wargame. I mean this one: matrixgames.com/products/326/details/War.Plan.Orange:.Dreadnoughts.in.the.Pacific.1922.-.1930It was developed using the War In the Pacific WW2 engine but put much more effort in the surface actions, the role of aviation is much more limited. Though this game uses only abstract surface combat representation, it may be used as a model for the future SAI expansion: player use aircrafts only on the operational level, like in current campaign engine for the Surface Steel tactical game. And uses usual realtime combat like now when opposing fleets make contact. Matrix Games 'Uncommon Valor' is another game providing Pacific aircraft carrier action in WW2, but in the end, it is the developers who will decide how far the SAI game engine can be modified to include aviation aspects.
|
|
zoomar
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by zoomar on Mar 16, 2014 8:19:33 GMT -6
It seems to me that part of the interest in expanding SAI into the 1920's and 1930's is to have access to the planned late WW1 and early postwar capital ships that were cancelled by the Washington Treaty (primarily US and Japanese types) in Plan Orange scenarios. If these ships had been built it would have retarded the evolution of carrier aviation, not so much in the technology of aircraft themselves but in the size and number of aircraft carriers the fleets deployed (the largest and most capable USN and IJN carriers in the 1920-30s would have been completed as BCs. Big gun admirals still dominated both navies so in this hypothetical situation whatever carriers they deployed would be small and far less capable of mounting effective air strikes . Aviation would be useful in scouting, but since the focus on the SAI system seems to be on simulating surface fleet engagements between BB and other surface ships I think the best way to introduce carriers into the game would be to abstract their scouting and attack air operations rather that to track the operations of individual aircraft. It might be possible to simulate USN airships also.
However, I think trying to extend the SAI system into WW2 would require many changes beyond the fact that the game would of necessity have to focus heavily on air operations. Radio communications, radar, more advanced fire controls in general, would make for a very different game -not just an expansion to the original.
|
|
zoomar
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by zoomar on Mar 16, 2014 9:00:28 GMT -6
In the light of the current discussion it's worth to take a look to the "War Plan Orange" wargame. I mean this one: matrixgames.com/products/326/details/War.Plan.Orange:.Dreadnoughts.in.the.Pacific.1922.-.1930It was developed using the War In the Pacific WW2 engine but put much more effort in the surface actions, the role of aviation is much more limited. Though this game uses only abstract surface combat representation, it may be used as a model for the future SAI expansion: player use aircrafts only on the operational level, like in current campaign engine for the Surface Steel tactical game. And uses usual realtime combat like now when opposing fleets make contact. I play WPO. As you say it was developed from War in the Pacific. Personally, I think WPO retains too much of the WW2 engine to be an ideal simulation of 1920-30 naval war. It cycles through all kinds of air operations that end up having minimal bearing on combat resolution since the A/c rarely hit anything. Of course WPO is also a strategic/operational game in which just about everything is abstract. But this would be a way to treat a/c in SAI
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 16, 2014 12:20:40 GMT -6
I don't necessarily subscribe to the point that SAI is strictly limited to surface warfare. It's original billing was for WW1 surface combat and aircraft were included. Now it has branched out into earlier conflicts like the Russo-Japanese war. These earlier conflicts are, to be sure, surface warfare conflicts, but this indicates that moving to the interwar period and possible inclusion of air warfare based on land and sea, is entirely possible. The games horizons have been expanded, so let's follow it. I do believe that there are still a number of counterfactual historical possibilities with the earlier conflicts that if connected together could change the complete timeline up to and including WWI, so that maybe a better area to explore. Possibly, including more land based and sea based aircraft in WWI might be better along with the building of the first aircraft earlier in the century. Politics and technology could have taken many different paths and led us down new paths for history.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Mar 19, 2014 5:20:54 GMT -6
For me the fun on Inter War development for SAI engine includes aviation and is fun for two main reasons:
1: Better scoutting: More and better airplanes, airships and ship carried seaplanes will make scout operations easier and that will lead to more fleet engagements.
2: The hability to "cripple" the enemy fleet before the fleet engagement. Sinking may not be possible at all, but damaging enemy ships can prevent them of being available in the decisive moment when the two fleets collide.
My two cents.
|
|