|
Post by PaulV on Sept 2, 2015 22:13:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chanswallow on Sept 3, 2015 20:42:46 GMT -5
The first thing I would like to see is something like Start Playing Now! Choose From: 1 vs 1 US Arleigh Burke Destroyer with helo vs PRC XXX Sub. 1 vs 1 US Arleigh Burke Destroyer with helo vs PRC Cruise Missile attack. 1 vs 1 US NIMITZ Carrier strike against target with PRC Air Defense. In my mind you want this to be intuitive and instantly playable in the likes of Atari's Star Trek video game where the only instruction was "Avoid Klingons." I know this might be too far of a reach, but certainly like Harpoon where it was accessible and then gradually harder with the builds of more complex scenarios. After mastering the above three scenarios you could then build up to Squadron versus Squadron and then Fleet vs Fleet/Land.
|
|
|
Post by PaulV on Sept 3, 2015 22:22:57 GMT -5
Chan,
We have talked about a set of scenarios like that as we move forward. Try experimenting with the editors to set up the sort of scenario you're thinking of. The scenarios we have are a bit of that, where they have a simple objective "find the submarine" or "defend the Carrier", but at this point are more to test the various types of interactions between units. We need to have a few scenarios that illustrate situations that would be of interest to potential stakeholders in the Navy, but for the public version we are keeping things very generic as far as calling things "US" or "PRC". Ideas you have on what those might look like would be great! Have Fun!
|
|
|
Post by chanswallow on Sept 4, 2015 10:04:58 GMT -5
Fleet Battle School: 1. I have written all of these comments aimed at a target audience of teenagers interested in the Navy or Junior Officers/Enlisted. Again I would focus on an instant fun, graspable, compelling first experience. You don't want to lose your 21st century audience by telling them to read a manual, they are used to intuitive devices like iPods, iPhones and Macs, and copies of these devices. 2. In ASW Screen problem, it tells me to defend hex 0826 which doesn't jump off chart as a location . 3. There are no helos on the ships or P-3s which is unlikely to how we would conduct USW. Instead of many ships, I'd make it one ship and 1 helo versus 1 sub. 4. Don't presume that MAC users have a traditional mouse, they likely have a touch pad. Write more generically here, or just make it intuitive. 5. I would give USER MANUAL its own Tab rather than under Help. 6. I believe I completed the first ASW scenario. But it was unfulfilling. At the end, the enemy sub popped up on the screen and no damage points occurred. I didn't know if I had won or lost. Propose; 7. You might consider each scenario to follow a pattern typical to a Staff Brief to a Commander; Intel Brief: example: an adversary sub, last datum at hex ( ) believed to be transiting thru chokepoint at hex () to disrupt logistics support. Weather Brief: this could be selectable as to difficulty but for the basic beginner problem, day light, low wind, excellent visibility, easy to see periscopes and a deep layer, no eddies, currents or sea mounts. (I know this is unlikely in a littoral chokepoint) Ops Brief: simple report on available assets, one ship, 1 helo, should be able to have helo coverage on sub's expected track for 2 hours if we launch from hex() by 1800. JAG Brief: ROE is.... Unrestricted Warfare Commander's Orders: this sub cannot hit the logistics transports. I have ordered the transports to steam at max speed so you only need to block the sub from 1800-2100. Your ship and helo are expendable/less important than the transports so maximize emissions to screen the transports and delay/intimidate the sub. Execution Commences: Opportunity to ask for Intel Updates: (Asking for these would have penalties in advanced games) Execution Continues: Debrief: this was the subs track by time, this was where your forces had sensors deployed by time. And this was when weapons were fired and where they hit.
|
|
|
Post by PaulV on Sept 9, 2015 20:54:49 GMT -5
Chan,Keep those ideas in mind, but we aren't quite a the point yet where we are ready to start to work "real" scenarios. Right now the scenarios are being built to test if the game is working right, not really for "playing" yet. I'm working up a series of posts to explain what "working right" means as far as the results go. For now the important thing is to see if the interface is working as described in the .pdf files. Thanks!
|
|