|
Post by vonfriedman on Nov 14, 2013 6:27:52 GMT -6
I assume that in any future WW2 SAI scenario in the Pacific the issue of autonomy and refueling, both in port or by means of supply ships, will be considered. Refueling was already included in TAS. You only need not to disband a naval force when it sailed into port and wait until it was ready for sailing again.
One negative aspect of the scenario editor of TAS concerned landings. To send a convoy it was necessary to establish a base in the landing area, with the result that the damaged ships were heading there as if it were a friendly port.
In addition, it was not possible to disperse a convoy, or change its course, which had set out from the scenario.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Nov 13, 2013 7:37:41 GMT -6
You are right. "Perfect is the enemy of the good". Would it be possible to find that scenario on Goeben and the French?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Nov 12, 2013 14:45:19 GMT -6
I'd like to know if you have already developed a scenario on all the initial naval operations of the WW1 in the Mediterranean, namely: all the actions of the Goeben, the movements of the British forces, the French convoys, etc.. With regard to the autonomy: why not include coaling in port?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Nov 12, 2013 7:21:43 GMT -6
I see. thanks for the explanation. Could you expand on what you found good in the TAS scenario editor? It might be possible to incorporate some of the features in SAI. SAI scenario editor is aimed at getting the player and the AI naval forces into battle as quickly as possible. TAS scenario editor, even if much less user friendly, is aimed at simulating a naval operation which would last several days or even weeks. For example, I was able to simulate in some way Operation Grog, ie the naval bombadment of Genoa in 1941. Several different courses and time schedules could be chosen at random by the enemy. Air reconnaisance, sub and MTB patrol zones had to be established in advance, airforces and airbases introduced and so on. I do not remember if even the enemy force could be picked somewhat at random (in this case the Italians would have been at risk of facing Rodney and Nelson, instead of Renown and Malaya). The game focus was, in any case, on intercepting or avoiding to be intercepted, rather than on engaging in battle. The flow of messages, either true or fake, was quite realistic and the historical outcome would be obtained in some cases, while in others a FS battle would ensue. This is the kind of game that I would like to play again. Either historical or hypotetical events could be simulated in the same way. Another thing: TAS and FS allowed to change the effectiveness of the opposing ships quite easily. So green or worn out ship and crew conditions, lack of radar sets or night training etc. could be simulated at will.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Nov 11, 2013 5:41:17 GMT -6
I would like not only a WW2 SAI but also some of the features of TAS. In particular the TAS scenario editor, which in my opinion left a greater freedom of choices.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Nov 10, 2013 5:58:01 GMT -6
Maybe instead of expanding to another era, they take the Strategic engine to another level? IIR Fredric posted previously about wanting an in-game ship designer, and a player could guide a nation's navy over years to research and build ships, control budget and deployments, then have wars as "scenarios". So imagine taking a nation of your choice from say 1900-1920 for starters. Also add more features such as detailed sub and mine warfare, amphibious operations, starter air (seaplane carriers), command and signal. There's already so much unused map and ships already in the database that can be assembled to cover early 20th century naval combat for content, and focus budgeted future effort on the engine. Personally, I am inclined to follow this path. It is what I dreamed about when I started working on SAI, but we'll see. No promises. This other kind of game could be interesting, but I would prefer to play again the good old TAS, possibly improved in some aspects (eg weather simulation), without worring about the limitations of the unreliable FS.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Oct 26, 2013 8:36:41 GMT -6
While playing as British the Bergen convoy scenario I discovered that the vicytory conditions requested to sail to destination with 4 TR, but in the convoy there are only three. My captains that did carry out a successful defensive action were extremely disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Oct 24, 2013 9:08:34 GMT -6
Just some questions: are minelaying cruisers more vulnerable to gunfire etc. when encumbered with mines? is the risk of hidden enemy minefields reduced if a BB division is screened by minesweepers?
|
|