SEOW as a Strategy Game

[Zoi]

This is something I have been exploring. The issue is the lack of automated functions outside of the interface with the MP and FMB. This is not a critique of SEOW but the exploration of something it was not intended for. Please explain how you have over come the following issues if you share my interest.

Issues:

I have failed to get large task forces of infantry to function without the DCS throwing up errors?

Supply and command and control are tedious tasks?

AI is unpredictable in many cases. There reaction to obstacles can be frustrating?

No barrage or mine field functionality? (one of these is being addressed)

No camera views for apposing armies to see their forces? (somewhat addressed in 4.11-HSFX 6) cameras still need to move with forces.

Would it be possible for radar, ground spotter, FAC information to be report as text to commanders?

Possible compression of time so mission without humans could be ran at an accelerated pace?

No zoom function in the MP? (Hawk apparently is trying to solve this)

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

I'd be glad to hear other people's comments on Zoi's questions. Here are my thoughts:

I have failed to get large task forces of infantry to function without the DCS throwing up errors?

There is no limit on task forces sizes in SEOW. I have never heard any other reports of DCS problems with task forces, so my suspicion is that your problems may be caused by something else.

Supply and command and control are tedious tasks?

Yes they are. But I am not sure how you can streamline them any more without removing the motivation for having them in the first place. Note that they can both be disabled if desired.

No barrage or mine field functionality? (one of these is being addressed)

Barrages will be released in HSFX6. Mines would be nice.

No camera views for apposing armies to see their forces? (somewhat addressed in 4.11-HSFX 6) cameras still need to move with forces.

Camera views would need to have their zoom/movement features limited on the server to prevent the observer moving a long way away from the camera location. Having a camera attached to mobile ships/vehicles would be great.

Would it be possible for radar, ground spotter, FAC information to be report as text to commanders?

That would be good too. THis would be a relatively simple mod option to write for TD/HSFX.

Possible compression of time so mission without humans could be ran at an accelerated pace?

Hmm, maybe DCS could write directives to convert a coop mission to single-player format. Good idea.

No zoom function in the MP?

SEOW was originally designed to support a regimental-scale ground war. With recent SEOW and HSFX developments we are now at a squad-scale ground war, which requires much finer placement ability. Still an unsolved problem.

Cheers,
4S

[Zoi]

"There is no limit on task forces sizes in SEOW. I have never heard any other reports of DCS problems with task forces, so my suspicion is that your problems may be caused by something else."

I have been fighting this for a long time, it only happens with infantry. Please if anyone else has had this problem post here.

Thanks for taking the time to explain the issues in detail 4Shades. I don't think I need to but I want to emphasize that my questions, comments etc are not criticism but exploration and as always great appreciation for the work that you and other do.

[EAF331_Starfire]

I think to many view the ideocracies of SEOW as an irritaation. They are used to micromanage TS and RTS games and expect units to behave exactly as they direct them to.
As first I had the same feelings, but when I remembered back to my days in the army. How many times did our encounteres proceed excatly as the HQ wanted? I still remember a lot of improvisation on our part. Time we had to fall back! Find new routes!

When I plan in the SEMP today I think of my planning as loose directions on which I expect the units in the field to adapt and improvise upon.
No mission are a make-or-break for the strategic goal, but as part of a series of actions. That way individual units can fail and we will still get closer to the strategic goal.

[Zoi]

EAF331_Starfire that is a very good point and one that everyone should remember. I would say that SEOW does a good job with random events but the game does not. It is something that is easy to live with however. In terms of importance I would put the odd behavior of ground units near the bottom of the scale with one exception, friendly kills. I understand that the HSFX guys are working on that

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

When I plan in the SEMP today I think of my planning as loose directions on which I expect the units in the field to adapt and improvise upon.

Exactly, well said.

[ViFF]

For some of us we see SEOW as a fantastic platform, capable of offering the experience of a gigantic strategy board game for close to 100 players in which the turns just happen to be played out with IL2 Sturmovik

In the framework of a large group of people (~100) organized between two sides in a hierarchical structure (CinC and several commanders and their respective pilots), all planning and flying with their squads online, on a well designed template has the potential for an awesome event. J42 in the 2010 was a very good example.

I would like to see one day a big SEOW campaign on a big map with heavy ground action and lots of room for maneuvering between some serious strategic thinkers we have in our community. And ofcourse take part in it with my squad...

Cheers
ViFF

[Zoi]

I have been thinking about this lately and have expended some effort along with WPOJones to attract strategy game people who do not fly IL-2 to SEOW without much success.

The cost of IL-2 is much less than the cost of a single war game figure so cost cannot be an issue.

IL-2 is easy to set up and the Mission Planner is easy to learn.

Historically accurate scenarios are possible and maps reasonably accurate outside of the traversability of terrain.

Learning to fly is irrelevant to mission execution as proved by the Sarata campaign.

I could go on but my point is not a full discussion of the details involved. My motivation in this conversation is to consider the extension of the life expectancy of SEOW beyond that of IL-2. As more and more people leave IL-2 for new sims the reservoir of new people interested in learning SEOW will shrink. It seems unlikely to me that SEOW will be adapted to any future sims and that nothing of it's complexity will replace it for the new sims. I'm not a war gamer myself but the atmosphere that war gaming and campaigns add to the immenseness of the flightsim environment is important. To quote ViFF "In the framework of a large group of people (~100) organized between two sides in a hierarchical structure (CinC and several commanders and their respective pilots), all planning and flying with their squads online, on a well designed template has the potential for an awesome event." Now I have had this experience in other sims, the weekly special events in Warbirds come to mind, but those events are dependent on the commitment of a large community while SEOW is available to everyone with an interest. It would be a shame if the number of man hours devoted to SEOW could not be utilized into the indefinite future.

[Zoi]

Some criticism of SEOW as a war game platform is needed to fully explore the question of it's applicability as a strategy game. The issues I struggle with are as follows.

Battles that span long periods of time cannot be reproduced as the game engine runs in real time. Planes and ground units move in real time even if accelerated so that months of simulation would require months of computer time. One or two day battle can most accurately be simulated.

Air power is disproportionate to the number of ground units that can be practically represented within the ground environment. There is no scalability of the effectiveness of weapons in relationship to historical number of units.

The start and end of air mission at airbases or spawn points is out of scale with the ground movements. By this I mean that ground movements continue from mission to mission at a realistic speed over the terrain but air missions must start from bases or spawn points relatively close to the ground forces at the beginning and end of each mission.

A serious problem common to all flightsims is that due to the number hours some players spend in game human pilots tend to be much more effective than their historical counter parts. Human pilots do not suffer from the same issues pilots did historically, which range from fatigue to equipment failures.

Fog of War issues are persistent in any environment where mission generation is relying on planners designed for single mission generation. The lack of a campaign engine inside the game in this case is both a blessing and a curse These issued make an admin or third party necessary to execute the orders of apposing sides. Beyond these rather obvious issues there lies a need for commanders to have more information than would historically be available as the limitations of the mission generation apparatus comes into play here. Commanders without a full knowledge of the battle field cannot generate reasonable missions for players. Not a problem in and of itself in terms of realism if it operated independent of ground unit movements which of course it cannot. This issue is complicated by the out of scale issues related to effectiveness of forces and the fact that execution is out of scale with historical time frames. Playability is general not an issue for dedicated war game engines but is an important consideration here.

Keep in mind that most of these issues are common to all flightsims and are not specific to SEOW.

[EAF331_Starfire]

I have never found it a problem to generate missions. It have always been the other way around. To many missions, to few seat/aircrafts available

Strategy are all about prioritizing even when it comes to intelligence.
As children of the Information age, I think we are much more dependant on information than they where in wwii.
The lack of intelligence can be offset/compensated by giving aircrafts multiple missions. This can be burden if the pilots are not up to the task.
By having key-personel/pilots with a high strategic awarenes act as an airtraffic controller it is possible to compensate for lack of intelligence and switch targets during a mission.
Classic is probably one of EAFs finest in that regard.

Neither IL-2 nor SEOW are perfect but the goal of the strategic planner should be to compensate for this. Not asking the admin, during a campaign, to compensate for this.

[Zoi]

Neither IL-2 nor SEOW are perfect but the goal of the strategic planner should be to compensate for this. Not asking the admin to compensate, during a campaign, to compensate for this.

Compensating for the limitation of the game is at least partially the responsibility of the campaign designer. That in fact is my real interest in these issues. I can't say that I have done a good job but the challenge is interesting.

What makes these compensations possible is that the SEOW design team maintains a consistent philosophy over time so the limitations remain constant. I really don't see this thread so mush as a critique as an exploration of that philosophy. Adapting to the philosophy is of course easier said than done as we all have our own expectations.

[EAF331_Starfire]

I concur!
There is no doubt that the campaign designer have a huge resposibility in getting it right.

[Zoi]

I have never found it a problem to generate mission.

You miss understood my point, sorry I was not clearer here.

Mission generation is flawless as best I can tell. This is in part due to the fact that the FMB is transparent and has no automated functions. In strategy games missions are generated by random codes and preconfigured scenarios that are not transparent to the user. There are a few examples of truly dynamic campaign systems in flightsims but the only really good one I have seen is what was used for EECH "An underlying, non-linear and constantly evolving conflict, fought by AI-controlled units". If your wonder what this has to do with the discussion I'm sure your not alone. I don't want to go into it in depth but let's just say that the AI in IL-2 are not very dynamic. It's actually more than that though it has to do with atmosphere in a broader sense. If we want radar we need a human for that, if we want radio comms we need humans for that outside of the very limited and unrealistic functions built into the game, if we want realistic movements they must be carefully crafted, if we want AI flights to behave realistically we honestly have no way of doing that at all. Immersion is about atmosphere as much as graphics and flight models. Playing with the right people helps but it remains an issue.

I'm not suggesting that these are issues that need to be addressed but rather explored to maximize the potential of what we already have.

[II/JG77Hawk_5]

Hi Zoi,
I have read this thread carefully and have a little difficulty in where this thread is meant to be going.

It appears to me that that the lack of automated functions in the FMB and SEOW MP, although you understand that they are outside the scope of what the FMB and MP are intended for is an issue when looking at SEOW as a strategy game(?).

I for one don't see SEOW with IL2 as being a strategy game at all. If anything I haven't seen anything else anywhere that even comes to close. Although DCS appears to be touching on this with the DCS World and DCS Combined Operations concept. I see it as an almost realtime battlefield simulation based around a flight sim engine and operating within the limitations of IL2's game engine. These limitations are being reduced with each new release of HSFX and SEOW of course.

This is where I have a problem with the thread direction.
It appears to be a discussion about what is missing from the IL2/HSFX/SEOW system so that it can indeed be considered as a strategy game. Even though this is a concept that you already acknowledged is outside the scope of its(SEOW's) intended purpose.

Is it your expectation or desire that SEOW should be heading more towards an Dynamic Campaign System with numerous automated functions as you have found in other flight sims such as EECH?

I say this because you note numerous limitations of the current system as issues and while you say your not suggesting they should be resolved, the fact that you regard them and identify them as issues, to me, clearly states you beleive they should. Now if we look at these issues as currently understood limitations of the IL2, its FMB and the SEOW campaign system the thread takes on a different tone.

So where is this thread going?
Is it a discussion about what needs to be done to make the SEOW/IL2 system into an effective strategy game or is it a list of issues that need to be resolved in the current system as it stands? The thread appears to be a mixture of both.

Cheers,
5

[EAF331_Starfire]

Hi Zoi,
I have read this thread carefully and have a little difficulty in where this thread is meant to be going.

I am not Zoi but,
I think this thread have moved outside the titel subject a long time ago

I for one don't see SEOW with IL2 as being a strategy game at all. If anything I haven't seen anything else anywhere that even comes to close.

Can I persuade you to explain this in deepth?
No kidding, but I don't undestand what is not strategic.

The IL-2/HSFX part have the tactical and operational element, where as the SEOW have the Strategic element.