|
Post by jishmael on Aug 5, 2019 4:02:01 GMT -6
I'm not sure how 'Rule the Air' would work. You need a lot more pieces to put the puzzle together. Air superiority is invaluable in any military operation, but it is only a part of the equation if you want to do anything other than break stuff. A large part of the Pacific naval actions in WW2 were about ruling the air, so in a way we're already playing that game. You can't rule the air without an airfield or carrier underneath it. Well, for a start, it would have to be removed from just 'naval' aspect and take over the land-based operations as well. I don't know if you've ever played the 'Ancient Art of War in the Skies' game but the basic idea is similar: you are supporting the land and naval forces in their quest to beat the ... stuffing ... out of the enemy and win the war. To do this, you get a monthly budget which you can spend on designing and purchasing (government-designed&built) planes, building airfields, factories and squadrons and taking up (or refusing) civilian designs. Basically, think of it as a combination of current RtW2's Ship Design / Plane Order part of the game. And if you think for a second designing planes would be boring - think again: While the ships have a 'natural' propensity to float on water - aircraft have to actively work on keeping themselves up by using wings: so, which ones would you like? Small (lighter) ones - giving you smaller drag - and thus more speed, but making your plane less maneuverable and prone to stalling - or larger ones - reducing it's speed and available weight, but making it more maneuverable and forgiving. How about structure? You'd like to have a stronger one to maneuver better (and be shot down less) - but it costs a lot of preciuos weight, so ... who needs self-sealing fuel tanks, anyway, right? There's a ton more choices in here, but not enough room to write them down (without being too boring with the wall of text). Then, naturally, comes the war and battles, and you have to deploy the Squadrons to the airfields near the front lines and support your friendly troops / ships with reconnaisance, VIP transport, reconnaisance, bombing, reconnaisance, interdiction, reconnaisance, Close Air Support and occasional supply drop to the encircled troops - oh, and, did I mention reconnaisance? On top of which all comes the CAP and fighter sweeps and escorts and actual battle for air superiority - which is really just a sideshow for the more important part of your job of supporting your troops & ships, but hey - you can't support them if all your planes get instantly shot down, amirite? Anyway - it's just a distant dream of mine - 0.02$, really. Cheers! I think this would be a brilliant game. And it makes me wanna dive into Achtung! Spitfire again
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Aug 5, 2019 4:06:33 GMT -6
I did like the original Battle of Britain's campaign mechanism...
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Aug 6, 2019 0:50:54 GMT -6
I'm not sure how 'Rule the Air' would work. You need a lot more pieces to put the puzzle together. Air superiority is invaluable in any military operation, but it is only a part of the equation if you want to do anything other than break stuff. A large part of the Pacific naval actions in WW2 were about ruling the air, so in a way we're already playing that game. You can't rule the air without an airfield or carrier underneath it. Well, for a start, it would have to be removed from just 'naval' aspect and take over the land-based operations as well. I don't know if you've ever played the 'Ancient Art of War in the Skies' game but the basic idea is similar: you are supporting the land and naval forces in their quest to beat the ... stuffing ... out of the enemy and win the war. To do this, you get a monthly budget which you can spend on designing and purchasing (government-designed&built) planes, building airfields, factories and squadrons and taking up (or refusing) civilian designs. Basically, think of it as a combination of current RtW2's Ship Design / Plane Order part of the game. And if you think for a second designing planes would be boring - think again: While the ships have a 'natural' propensity to float on water - aircraft have to actively work on keeping themselves up by using wings: so, which ones would you like? Small (lighter) ones - giving you smaller drag - and thus more speed, but making your plane less maneuverable and prone to stalling - or larger ones - reducing it's speed and available weight, but making it more maneuverable and forgiving. How about structure? You'd like to have a stronger one to maneuver better (and be shot down less) - but it costs a lot of preciuos weight, so ... who needs self-sealing fuel tanks, anyway, right? There's a ton more choices in here, but not enough room to write them down (without being too boring with the wall of text). Then, naturally, comes the war and battles, and you have to deploy the Squadrons to the airfields near the front lines and support your friendly troops / ships with reconnaisance, VIP transport, reconnaisance, bombing, reconnaisance, interdiction, reconnaisance, Close Air Support and occasional supply drop to the encircled troops - oh, and, did I mention reconnaisance? On top of which all comes the CAP and fighter sweeps and escorts and actual battle for air superiority - which is really just a sideshow for the more important part of your job of supporting your troops & ships, but hey - you can't support them if all your planes get instantly shot down, amirite? Anyway - it's just a distant dream of mine - 0.02$, really. Cheers! You've got no ambition. It should be "Rule the Lands" and have a complete strategic and operational/tactical suite where you design and build your hardware, lay out your TO&E and battle over areas in the classic RTW top down view (with the land elements suitably enhanced) but with each tank, plane and infantryman modelled. How hard could it be?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Aug 6, 2019 22:26:43 GMT -6
Well, for a start, it would have to be removed from just 'naval' aspect and take over the land-based operations as well. I don't know if you've ever played the 'Ancient Art of War in the Skies' game but the basic idea is similar: you are supporting the land and naval forces in their quest to beat the ... stuffing ... out of the enemy and win the war. To do this, you get a monthly budget which you can spend on designing and purchasing (government-designed&built) planes, building airfields, factories and squadrons and taking up (or refusing) civilian designs. Basically, think of it as a combination of current RtW2's Ship Design / Plane Order part of the game. And if you think for a second designing planes would be boring - think again: While the ships have a 'natural' propensity to float on water - aircraft have to actively work on keeping themselves up by using wings: so, which ones would you like? Small (lighter) ones - giving you smaller drag - and thus more speed, but making your plane less maneuverable and prone to stalling - or larger ones - reducing it's speed and available weight, but making it more maneuverable and forgiving. How about structure? You'd like to have a stronger one to maneuver better (and be shot down less) - but it costs a lot of preciuos weight, so ... who needs self-sealing fuel tanks, anyway, right? There's a ton more choices in here, but not enough room to write them down (without being too boring with the wall of text). Then, naturally, comes the war and battles, and you have to deploy the Squadrons to the airfields near the front lines and support your friendly troops / ships with reconnaisance, VIP transport, reconnaisance, bombing, reconnaisance, interdiction, reconnaisance, Close Air Support and occasional supply drop to the encircled troops - oh, and, did I mention reconnaisance? On top of which all comes the CAP and fighter sweeps and escorts and actual battle for air superiority - which is really just a sideshow for the more important part of your job of supporting your troops & ships, but hey - you can't support them if all your planes get instantly shot down, amirite? Anyway - it's just a distant dream of mine - 0.02$, really. Cheers! You've got no ambition. It should be "Rule the Lands" and have a complete strategic and operational/tactical suite where you design and build your hardware, lay out your TO&E and battle over areas in the classic RTW top down view (with the land elements suitably enhanced) but with each tank, plane and infantryman modelled. How hard could it be? Now look who has no ambition! Making the game called "Rule the Lands" and not including an RPG-like model of every single person (along with it's abilities, strenghts and weaknesses to be used/exploited) in said lands for you to manage? Revolting! Also, you seem to have forgotten logistics and supplies, my friend - those tanks, planes and people can't do anything without fuel, food and ammo, you know - and (naturally) it's your job to supply it to them, carefully weighing them out down to the last grain of saltpeter, last lamb (and it's chops) and (most importantly) last pint of beer ... uh ... gasoline - yeah, gasoline. I mean - really - how could you have forgotten them? Seriously, though: reading through the lines I get the impression that you think my game idea is a bit too much to handle?
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Aug 7, 2019 1:04:03 GMT -6
Pfft, you got it all wrong. There is a strong argument for issuing spam to troops, very convenient. Serious now: I did not intend to imply that in my statement. My dream game is actually pretty close to the one you described. That said - I do think certain elements couldn't be covered adequately *without* significant land/naval presence, but your game I suspect has about as much chance of being made as mine.
|
|
|
Post by zedfifty on Aug 7, 2019 4:04:23 GMT -6
Now look who has no ambition! Making the game called "Rule the Lands" and not including an RPG-like model of every single person (along with it's abilities, strenghts and weaknesses to be used/exploited) in said lands for you to manage? Revolting! If set in the long 18th Century, my favourite part would be the sale of commissions to the highest bidder. The more corrupt, the better!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Aug 7, 2019 21:23:28 GMT -6
Pfft, you got it all wrong. There is a strong argument for issuing spam to troops, very convenient. Serious now: I did not intend to imply that in my statement. My dream game is actually pretty close to the one you described. That said - I do think certain elements couldn't be covered adequately *without* significant land/naval presence, but your game I suspect has about as much chance of being made as mine. IMHO, it's virtually impossible to make this kind of game without (at least some kind of) land/naval presence - especially since about 75% of all possible airforce missions are tied to the army/navy's needs. Not to mention the fact that an Air Force is tied to it's airfields which can (relatively easily) be captured by the enemy, and any planes on them taken out of action/service. True, the Navy suffers the same thing, but in it's case the main ports are (usually) deep within the home territory, and if the enemy ever gets that far, it means the war has gone pear-shaped and you're about to lose, anyway. Still, even a rudimentary spreadsheet system of checks and balances (based on unit HQ's - giving some basic tactical targets) is pretty easy to make (and tune up) - I should know, since I basically coded one. I actually can't believe noone has coded it yet, really - since there is a multitude of flight simulators available out there, and (when compared to the system requirements for the flight part of the game) a dynamic & persistent (and reasonably accurate) simulation of Army / Navy activity should not be that hard to code - nor take that much time or system power, all the while providing a deep immersion by providing the player with permanent (and tangible) consequences of their actions. I mean, yeah, successfully defending your bombers against three times as many enemy fighters is awesome - but knowing those bombers then took out a bridge (or an Army Depot) and thus stalled the enemy offensive by cutting off their supply (for example) is even more awesome. Since, basically, you get to play two games (tactical and strategic) and get to win at both at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Aug 9, 2019 7:09:08 GMT -6
I actually can't believe noone has coded it yet, really - since there is a multitude of flight simulators available out there, and (when compared to the system requirements for the flight part of the game) a dynamic & persistent (and reasonably accurate) simulation of Army / Navy activity should not be that hard to code - nor take that much time or system power, all the while providing a deep immersion by providing the player with permanent (and tangible) consequences of their actions. Flight simmer here - it has been created... but it was in the 90s. Falcon 4.0 had a dynamic campaign, an achievement not matched since. Since then, combat flight sims have unfortunately gone off the deep end of nailing flight mechanics and graphics... and then leaving nothing in the budget for anything else. So you can enjoy your perfect flight model in soulless randomly generated campaigns. That's why I can only fly multiplayer in flight sims these days, which has its own problems.
|
|
|
Post by serenity on Aug 25, 2019 10:58:31 GMT -6
I too am wondering how missiles will be modeled. I wonder about the effectiveness of anti aircraft missiles since late game can have tons of planes and early missiles were so large, I feel that they will be impractical since you won’t be able to have enough of them on your ships. Anti ship missiles I think will be more useful.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Aug 25, 2019 12:10:03 GMT -6
The early missile cruisers/destroyers carried around 14-40 missiles, and the early missiles had a max range from 1-30km. So if they had a very high kill potential (say 50%) and a long range a guided missile ship would be able to take out a number of incoming aircraft before the traditional AA defences (Which would still be used) would even open up.
A mass wing of aircraft will always get through but pair of light Air defence missile cruisers as part of a fleet should at least take out 6 or so from the first wave before the AA defences even fire and then take out another 5-6 as they returned, that's a fair percentage of an air wings strength even before the regular AA kills are included.
And that's not including a hypothetical game world 8000t cruiser that consisted of nothing but missile launchers.
I would like to be able to choose the effective range of the missiles, a light missile has shorter range but you carry more and they reload faster, a heavy missile can fire out to 30km+ but are significantly heavier. etc. Dedicated anti-air radar mounts could also be an option.
|
|
|
Post by serenity on Aug 25, 2019 14:56:52 GMT -6
The early missile cruisers/destroyers carried around 14-40 missiles, and the early missiles had a max range from 1-30km. So if they had a very high kill potential (say 50%) and a long range a guided missile ship would be able to take out a number of incoming aircraft before the traditional AA defences (Which would still be used) would even open up. A mass wing of aircraft will always get through but pair of light Air defence missile cruisers as part of a fleet should at least take out 6 or so from the first wave before the AA defences even fire and then take out another 5-6 as they returned, that's a fair percentage of an air wings strength even before the regular AA kills are included. And that's not including a hypothetical game world 8000t cruiser that consisted of nothing but missile launchers. I would like to be able to choose the effective range of the missiles, a light missile has shorter range but you carry more and they reload faster, a heavy missile can fire out to 30km+ but are significantly heavier. etc. Dedicated anti-air radar mounts could also be an option. I wonder if they will model the need for illuminators and how that will impact things
|
|
|
Post by sloanjh on Aug 25, 2019 15:20:19 GMT -6
This got me thinking about the early Terrier/Talos/Tartar SAM for the US Navy. The thought is that the mechanics for missiles should probably be similar the the mechanics for aircraft:
1) Different missile types ASM/SAM/AAM/SSM analogous to TB vs DB vs F. Note that its a little fuzzy here since the same missile can have surface launched and air launched versions (e.g. AAM Sparrow vs. Sea Sparrow). So maybe the main distinction is anti-air vs. anti-shipping vs. land attack. There should probably be a "light" vs. "medium" vs "heavy" size specification.
2) Technologies can be researched e.g. IR homing, active radar homing, semi-active etc.
3) Player puts out bids for a new missile type (e.g. light AAM or heavy SAM) and manufactures give proposals for range, damage, maneuverability etc. that are chosen for production by player.
4) Catapult system is generalized to have launchers (which are light, medium or heavy). There can be multiple technologies here too e.g. rail vs box vs. VLS. A heavy missile requires a heavy launcher to be launched. Aircraft could also have launch rails (that would presumably be limited to light or medium) for air launched missiles.
5) Would probably want to refine torpedo count limit system to a full-blown magazine design system, at least at the level of "how many medium missiles can I store" (similar to gun ammo count).
|
|
|
Post by zedfifty on Aug 28, 2019 1:24:04 GMT -6
To make SAMs truly effective, the game should add picket destroyers and AEW aircraft to the Fleet Tactics and Aviation technology lists. Otherwise, SAMs would mostly be limited to visual range.
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on Aug 28, 2019 3:22:31 GMT -6
I actually can't believe noone has coded it yet, really - since there is a multitude of flight simulators available out there, and (when compared to the system requirements for the flight part of the game) a dynamic & persistent (and reasonably accurate) simulation of Army / Navy activity should not be that hard to code - nor take that much time or system power, all the while providing a deep immersion by providing the player with permanent (and tangible) consequences of their actions. Flight simmer here - it has been created... but it was in the 90s. Falcon 4.0 had a dynamic campaign, an achievement not matched since. Since then, combat flight sims have unfortunately gone off the deep end of nailing flight mechanics and graphics... and then leaving nothing in the budget for anything else. So you can enjoy your perfect flight model in soulless randomly generated campaigns. That's why I can only fly multiplayer in flight sims these days, which has its own problems. Well, save for the mission editor in the "Flanker 2.5"/"LOMAC"/"DCS" series. Having experienced the fun you can have there when arranging ships, SAMs, planes and other related machinery in a meaningful way and see all these fight it out with SSMs, I eagerly await the implementation of missiles in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Aug 28, 2019 9:15:46 GMT -6
To make SAMs truly effective, the game should add picket destroyers and AEW aircraft to the Fleet Tactics and Aviation technology lists. Otherwise, SAMs would mostly be limited to visual range. Shouldn't air search radar be advanced enough by the time SAMs are around to allow BVR shots? Both those things would make SAMs more effective, but I'm pretty sure they would be more effective than AAA anyway.
|
|