The missions themselves are dynamic, obviously the larger ones more so than the smaller. What you do early on greatly influences what the AI does, and so on.
The missions themselves are dynamic, obviously the larger ones more so than the smaller. What you do early on greatly influences what the AI does, and so on.
Just played Flashpoint Keflavik and Barent Patrol online with a friend, it was amazing fun. Took a good hour to finish on Flashpoint (I lost). I'll reiterate what I said earlier in the thread; this is an incredibly fun game!
Are there any plans to add more maps/scenario's to multiplayer?
Absolutely. I intended there to be two more for launch, but I underestimated the work load when launching a game. So... it will happen, but not tomorrow.Originally Posted by ChinpoUK
Total War games, Civilization games, Ageod strategy games, EU games, Hearts of Iron games, XCOM games etc all have dynamic campaigns of some description in that you choose a way to play and the AI reacts and chances their tact to suit. These are obviously all turn based games in the strategy part, but I dont mind that if its got a good AI and dynamic structure. F4 and Rowan's Battle of Britain are the only example I can think of real time games with dynamic campaigns that continue throughout the whole game without pause - even more impressive that both had great gameplay and graphics as well. I am sure there must be a few others. There are quite a few games that have a semi-dynamic campaign engine where missions are created depending on your actions - Rise of Flight and Tornado for example spring to mind. Most other games that come out these days are scripted and I for one don't bother buying those.There is only one war game I have ever played in my entire history of gaming (since the days of the C-64) that had a real, proper, working dynamic campaign, and that was Falcon 4 (subsequently Falcon 4 Allied Force). And that game was genius. Falcon 3 I recall had one as well, along with some F-22 flight sim I played, but they were not on the level of Falcon 4.
It would be awesome if we had a dynamic campaign, but expecting one is a little too much. A mission editor would go a long way, however.
I think, to enable dynamic missions, the campaign could have been split up into daily or weekly 'encounters' which all followed on after each other with continuity of ship locations/damage/destroyed units etc and the stopping/starting would have enabled the AI to plan ahead for each day based on its recon data that it had received up to that point (probably like real navy commanders do). Like a turn based game - but each turn would have been a day long. I think that would have worked well here and provided a pretty much dynamic real time type of campaign but with the intelligence that turn base play allows.
For this kind of strategy game I don't think it is expecting too much to have a bit of dynamic play over the campaign missions rather than taking the easy route and linearly scripting the whole thing. Admittedly its a small developer, but then this is the kind of thing small developers should be doing - being a bit more forward thinking rather than taking the easy route that all the larger developers are doing.
The way it is its just a bit ... meh, no replayability. A big opportunity for a new, creative, dynamic, modern strategic war game has been missed, it's just a bit of a shame.
Last edited by Nats; 11-04-2012 at 16:09.
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it"
None of those games are war games (except maybe Hoi3) and they do not have very complex combat systems that a modern war game requires. Like I said, Falcon 4 is the only one with a real dynamic campaign and that game was broken so bad it had to be remade.
Also, for the record, some of those games you have listed had much bigger budgets but AI that makes you want to play against your kid brother instead. Hoi3 was virtually unplayable until about version 1.4 (and even then had massive flaws).
I would be hugely impressed if we got a working dynamic campaign, AND a polished game, from a small publisher. They have said that modding tools and such like mission editors would be released down the track.
We all want re-playability, but this game seems to be the spiritual successor of Janes Fleet Command. There was no dynamic campaigns there (just long large scenarios), which I hope to see more of in this game when we get a mission editor to play with.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a dynamic campaign. But it's about having realistic expectations, and with limited resources, other parts of the game would suffer dramatically given the massive effort required to create a working dynamic campaign. It's not as simple as EU3 has one so this game should have one too.
Last edited by DaveDash; 11-04-2012 at 16:06.
Most modern wargames don't have any dynamic campaigns.
Harpoon didn't have one, and that (at least the early versions) was about WW3.
Modern naval combat is short and brutal and there's no way to replace losses.
Simply put:
If you sink the Kuznetsov and shoot down all the Flankers the next mission the Russians are reduced to shaking their fists at you when you fly over Murmansk.
"ei sink ei si not reit? All män sit hier and luck in se son and no män work? Sis give it not!"
"does General Pownall really pwn all?"
I don't see any difference to the principles of combat today than in the past, its just all takes part a bit further away. Are you trying to say that the whole of the Russian fleet amounts to only one ship? Besides if this was a real world conflict the various countries involved would have been preparing for a few years. In a dynamic campaign the opponents would certainly have reserves in rear bases to employ if deemed required.
Certainly the difference between an RTS and a wargame is purely a matter of semantics? All the games I quoted have intricate AI design that responds to the player. I would personally much rather have had a dynamic campaign and no time wasted on the exact types of missiles that the planes are carrying rather simply giving them an employment range. At the end of the day the exact guns and short range missiles are not that relevant to modern large scale combat. Like I said I think this game is trying to do too much and failing to do much at all.
Anyway I am not saying that I expected this game to have a dynamic campaign given the fact its a small developer etc, I am just saying that it would have been wicked if it had one. And I don't buy strategy games that are based on scripted linear missions. Needless to say I never got any of the Harpoon games...looked as dull as ditchwater, I do expect a certain amount of graphical niceness with the gameplay.
Obviously this game is made to appeal to another audience...
Last edited by Nats; 11-04-2012 at 16:46.
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it"
Sorry to disagree with you, but AGEOD's game are wargames in their purest form, much more so than Hearts of Iron. They do not feature diplomacy or industry (except for Pride of Nations); it is all about the detailed combat engine, supply issues, keeping open your lines of communication, and ensuring your armies don't get stuck out of supply during winter
Almost allowed myself to get thread-derailed by the other games listed in this thread . . .
As for NWAC, I am having a lot of lockup issues on the splash screens (no worries, I will make sure they are reported in the bug thread), and I am sort of disapointed that the campaign seems to have me fighting the same surface groups over and over again, just in different locations on the map. Outside of that the game is well worth playing for its price, and we can only hope that the turbo tape boys continue to support the product as Paradox has with its games.
If they produced a large expansion campaign set over a few weeks, covering the Falklands area or something similar, (and it was made dynamic somehow
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it"
i bought gettysburg and believe me...NWAC worth 20 euros...
believe me...
Or they have a computer that keeps shutting off (hardware issues that could take weeks to months to get it fixed). It's just impossible to play this game when you know your machine is going to turn off in the middle of a mission and you can't save your progress so far.
Last edited by Pharseer; 11-04-2012 at 17:53.
Oh I bought the game, it was a an hour one pre-order. However, when I did I had no idea that would my computer would start randomly shutting off in the middle of missions (hardware issues, not game-related). Since I can't save during the missions, there's no point to playing.
Last edited by Pharseer; 11-04-2012 at 17:53.
Ok, but some of us have had crashes (hardware issues with the PC in my case, not game-related), so please understand our frustrations.
Last edited by Pharseer; 11-04-2012 at 17:52.
Ok, well that would be a huge help Jan, can't even play the game right now (comp shuts off mid-mission(hardware issues NOT game-related), save game in mission at least it would save the progress), and it seems really amazing! Hope isn't a promise but we will take what we can get.
Thank you!
Last edited by Pharseer; 11-04-2012 at 17:51.
The crashes, on the other hand, we are working very, very hard to get rid of.
And I apologize Jan, didn't mean to infer it was your game programming that was crashing me, obviously I would have put that in the correct forum. This is more of a hardware issue with my system, so this is happening in all games, not just Naval War. Until we can figure out what is causing the hardware issues, and then spend the time/money to correct them, there's nothing I can do to play your game without a save feature during missions, which I will continue to hope for.
Apologies for any confusion! I will go back and edit my prior posts so people know it's not your game that's giving me nightmares but the hardware in my PC!
No need to apologise, Pharseer, at all. I did not mean to infer anything about your inferences (illegal nesting of inferences error?). I just wanted to emphasize that with better stability, there is less need (though by no means no need) for a save game feature.
Forgett the name of my current NATO-mission, I think I'm at mission 5 or 6. I like it so far. Some missions are quiet hard, something you don't get too much these days (casual gaming...).
I'll play on and tell you more after some more missions.
For me the graphics are fine. Since Harpoon is the closest "relative", I can't complain about graphics :-)
Dave
===========
"Happy is he who gets to know the meaning of things"
-- Virgil
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote