Official SEOW

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.

I have to admit it is a bit confusing and doesn't follow any logical thread.

You may think of this thread as just my rambling thought process but I will try to address the questions raised concerning intent as I believe that is an important qustion many people are afraid to ask. It is not a discussion about what needs to be done to make the SEOW/IL2 system into an effective strategy game. It also is not a list of issues that need to be resolved in the current system as it stands? I have no say in what the people who volunteer their precious free time in regards to any enhancements in either SEOW or HSFX may wish to work on nor would I be comfortable asking them to work on anything I wished for. I have made one wish list request but readily accepted that 4Shades saw issues with my request and didn't wish to pursue it.

What I enjoy and what I'm looking for out of this thread is a discussion on how the existing system can be used to compensate for the issues that I outlined.

As almost everyone knows I'm relatively new to SEOW and I'm still in what you may call the apprentice level of campaign development. While some of the question I ask may seem impertinent to more experienced users I'm not sure how the point of the thread could have ever been construed as a request for new features. The developers have never ask my opinion in regards to anything pertaining to development and I would not expect them too.

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.

I'm not sure that I care so much about SEOW being a strategy game as I'm interested in SEOW in terms of the atmosphere that it helps to engender. While the topic of the thread is SEOW as a strategy game I'm really only exploring what that means to the people that take an interest in it's development. It may very well already be the best strategy game available, I honestly have no way of judging that. If it is the best strategy game I would like to know why?

I will say this, learning my way through the extraordinary complexity of the SEOW database has been a challenge that few people I suspect would have the patience for. At times it has been extremely frustrating and I have often considered giving it up altogether. Which brings me to my final point in answering Hawk's questions. I have listed my personal reasons for attempting this thread but there is another reason. I would like to make it less painful for anyone attempting to learn the system in the future. Some future users may be strategy game enthusiast and if there is a long term future for SEOW it is in this area that it lies. The information contained in the database represent perhaps 10s of thousands of man hours of research in a data format that is very unique. I would hate to see that lost when IL-2 is no longer played.

Thanks for the clarification Zoi.

Some clarification is also required from me.
When I see the term Strategy Game I take that as an application that can be played against a computer opponent or at the least an application that has many automated elements as you described earlier. This differs from SEOW in that all aspects of a mission are dictated by direct human control for both sides of the conflict. The level of detail in the campaigns features (supply, C&C etc) can be set in the DCS to suite an individuals taste. SEOW scripted campaigns as shown by 4Shades Iwo Jima campaign being the only sort of exception to date.

Its my viewpoint that games and simulations are two very different beasts and that we are discussing aspects of a simulation and not a game (to answer Starfires response). Yes, to me, a strategic and tactical battlefield simulation but not a game. An important distinction to make for me anyway. 4Shades has used a specific term for it but I can't remember what it is right now.

Maybe what we need is a sub forum that is clearly a "how to do this and how to do that in SEOW" only area. Maybe elements of those threads then be included in the Wiki which ideally is the ultimate source of how to do things in SEOW. Some of this already happens but I do understand that the forum and Wiki can be a little difficult at times to find specific answers to the type of questions one is asking.

One thing I have found is that commanders will always find a way to exploit an aspect of IL2 or the MP to the best advantage unless otherwise prohibited by rules. In this way I agree that the template maker should think of these exploits ahead of time and make adjustments and rules accordingly but it is not essential. Campaign commanders who see these exploits occuring and if working towards a common spirit of the campaign, can discuss in forums and on TS to create new rules on the fly and adapt as it goes. Maybe this is the exception but it has happened quite often in SEOW HQ campaigns when there are issues that arise and it works well. A template creator can't think of it all before it happens. Great if they can but as we have discussed on TS, once the campaign is underway the commanders will almost always take it in directions that the template designer probably didn't envisage or intend.

Cheers,
5

II/JG77Hawk_5 wrote:Great if they can but as we have discussed on TS, once the campaign is underway the commanders will almost always take it in directions that the template designer probably didn't envisage or intend.

My experience from over twenty years of being a Game-master in pen& paper role-playing games has shown this to be true, however...

Many issues can be avoided by careful template design, but to me the design of the campaign document is just more important if not more than the template.

Such a document can compensate for many of the limitations in IL2 and SEOW.
It will also be a reference for planners on both sides on how to proceed when a campaign does not proceed to their liking and when the Admin are permitted to make changes, and what kind of changes and if the Admin have to inform the planners of any changes to the campaign.

Such a document will also help shield the Admin from comments of impartial changes.

It is extremely important for rules and guidelines to written down since we, people, come from different cultures and have different perception which makes us interpret words and actions differently.

We might still argue over written information but at least this will limit the bias we feel when campaign rules are changed in the middle of a campaign because we knew what we got into.
Empty campaign documents are essentially a blank piece of paper and in my opinion an invitation to anarchy.

The lack of such document is also an invitation to peer pressure on the Admin. Since no Admin among us that are without Sqd affiliations or affiliations with pilots in one way or another, no one can be entirely impartial. None of us live in a vacuum. Even if there were no peer pressure, the opposition of a change might always get a suspicion of bias.

Hawks comments made me reflect on the reasons I started this discussion and have reached the conclusion that the primary motivation was a reaction to the fact that WPOJones and myself were unable to attract any interest from strategy gamers whatsoever. My offer to setup and admin the campaign did nothing to increase interest. Having no experience with strategy games myself I wanted to inquire here what the possible reasons might be but indirectly so as to not lead the conversation. Of course there is the selfish motivation of simply getting insight into how best to accomplish my own objectives .

Its my viewpoint that games and simulations are two very different beasts and that we are discussing aspects of a simulation and not a game

I suspect that this is why we have so much trouble communicating. I don't find the distinction between "real life" and games compelling. Games are the way all animals learn to deal with critical events and gain skills needed in their lives. In this way simulations and games are indistinguishable. Team sports for example, at least as I see them, are ritualized warfare with religious overtones that enhance group cohesion. Games develop coordination and skills that are necessary prelude to non simulated behavior. As contact with the "natural world" becomes more and more abstract this relationship is more and more obscure. Our predisposition for the enjoyment of games has it's origin in genetic evolution but does not evolve in step with technological and social evolution. All of which is just a long winded way of saying that todays game is tomorrows simulation which in turn is a rehearsal for "real life". If we define a game as a more abstract simulation than a simulator perhaps we could agree that it is a mater of degree and not kind. A simulator is simply a game with a less abstract connection to it's physical counter part. As there are no perfect simulations the distinction is as I say a mater of degree and not kind.

I have been involved in organized online combat flight simulations for 16 years now. I certainly understand the passion for distinguishing between "games" and simulations but again it is a distinction that makes me uncomfortable. Too often I think we equate hard with realistic but I understand that an accurate simulation of the physics and performance of various aspect of a simulation is a passionate obsession with flightsim enthusiasts. Understanding the limitation of the simulation however can be useful when we try to maximize the "suspension of reality" that is so important to our immersion as players. That is really what we are talking about here, how to minimize flaws in the simulation to maximize immersion not by redesigning the simulator but by altering the way it is used.

Zoi wrote:Hawks comments made me reflect on the reasons I started this discussion and have reached the conclusion that the primary motivation was a reaction to the fact that WPOJones and myself were unable to attract any interest from strategy gamers whatsoever. My offer to setup and admin the campaign did nothing to increase interest. Having no experience with strategy games myself I wanted to inquire here what the possible reasons might be but indirectly so as to not lead the conversation. Of course there is the selfish motivation of simply getting insight into how best to accomplish my own objectives .

A "pure" strategy gamer will probably find no interest in a game where you have to be part of the machinery and where your contribution will be in- or significant for the result of one small step in the whole strategy of the campaign you are playing. As counterpart, a "pure" flight simmer will find no interest in sitting on a screen filled with small icons on a map representing different ground/sea/air units. This guy just want a virtual plane fully loaded with bullets and an unaware enemy plane's tail in his sight to press the trigger.
The SEOW player is a sort of mixed strategy and flight simmer player with some drops of teamplayer added, and even in this description, some are balanced to the strategy side of it and some others to the flightsimmer side.

If you are balanced to the flight simmer side, you have to understand you are a small piece of the whole machinery and how well oiled you are will affect, like the butterfly wings, in the result of further missions.
If you are balanced to the strategy side, you have to deal with the cards you get and play following the rules. Rules that not always must be written cos common sense usually solves everything.

A simple 2 step process could enhance our experience.

1. Identify exactly what you want to do
2. Do it

The only reason we have any troubles is because we invest our time trying to bend and merge what we like into a workable solution for others who may or may not like what we like.

If we instead try to follow the two step process these troubles seem to fade away.

It sounds like you (Zoi) and WPOJones have all the makings of pure enjoyment. 1 vs 1. Try to remember why you ever wanted a big crowd in the game in the first place. I bet it was to increase your chances of finding someone who has a close match to your exact interests. The big crowd is actually secondary to those close matches. The simple fact is the big crowd strips SEOW of most of what makes it so great. Of course, thats my idea of what makes SEOW so great. At the end of the day, you cant underestimate your own likes and dislikes. You are the only you you have.

The question is not how to make what you like into something others will like. The real question is can they handle what you like or were you just hoping they could? Its very frustrating wheen you think about what is possible more than doing what you like. At some point, some potential energy has to change to kinetic or else it may start to seem like you are just going in unchartable circles.

I really appreciate you guys taking the time to respond to this thread. As Brandle said I'm kind of wandering in circles in the dark. He is right of course we should do what we want to do and not worry about what other people think of it.

I was going to drop this discussion as I was afraid that 4Shades and the other developers would find it as an unwarranted criticism of the SEOW system. I contacted him and he indicated that he did not feel that way so here we go.

In my current campaign I sent the following message to my commanders.

Think of this campaign as an experiment in using factories to represent all sources of reinforcements without the complexity of actually placing ships, trains, remote airfields, and sympathetic foreign powers on the map in a multi sector kind of environment.

The point is that you cannot simulate the complex networks of supply present in a real war. Thanks to the complexity of SEOW you have ways of representing it however.

Dont let 4Shades try to frighten us with his sorcerer's ways. His sad devotion to that ancient program hasn't helped us conjure up real war or given him clairvoyance enough to find the ----

II/JG77Hawk_5 wrote:I have read this thread carefully and have a little difficulty in where this thread is meant to be going.

Let me try to articulate what I think Zoi is trying to say. I feel that Zoi and I had an understanding when we talked about this so here's my side.

What SEOW seems to be missing is the interaction and feedback ("fun") for an individual who is only interacting with the game through the MP and watching tracks in IL-2. Everyone here knows how much fun it is to jump into a cockpit slot in a generated SEOW mission and fly with and against other humans, but what about the guy who is at the rank of Field Marshal for the campaign and is only planning ground missions? This guy puts a lot of effort into pushing around his ground units and then his only feedback at the end of a mission is an icon on the map indicating units that have been destroyed or spotted. Not really all that much fun.

So the question then becomes, what can be done to make this role more fun? There are a lot of gamers out there who love pushing units around maps, but they expect something in return other than just a couple of icons indicating that their formerly full strength armour brigade is now at half strength.

Some thoughts that came up when talking about this with Zoi and just now:

1. Be able to assign a limited number of IL-2 cameras to either units or particular locations on the map (such as an objective you are about to attack).

2. Write some kind of a flash app that would show the progress of the ground units for the last mission, indicating when they receive hits?

There could be more. Like Zoi said it's not about critiquing SEOW in its current form, it's about thinking about possible directions that would turn SEOW into an actual game in its own right.

WPO_Jones wrote:
What SEOW seems to be missing is the interaction and feedback ("fun") for an individual who is only interacting with the game through the MP and watching tracks in IL-2. Everyone here knows how much fun it is to jump into a cockpit slot in a generated SEOW mission and fly with and against other humans, but what about the guy who is at the rank of Field Marshal for the campaign and is only planning ground missions? This guy puts a lot of effort into pushing around his ground units and then his only feedback at the end of a mission is an icon on the map indicating units that have been destroyed or spotted. Not really all that much fun.

Not everyone finds planning boring.
Planning is like playing Chess or Stratego. When I plan, not a day go by when think on my next move.
Although planning in a SEOW campaign can be very stressfull I find it very rewarding.
When I plan I am not only playing small play pices, I also play the opponants planner and the campaign goal. The biggest challenge is how to account for the random performance of the human players and the idiocracies of the IL-2 movement engine. This is all an immence mental challenge. So when the strategic planning, the tactics and the flying (operational level) comes together it is very rewarding. When I dosen't it can be very frustrating; But I like the challenge.

Unfortunately for me we have another planner in EAF who like it just as much and have better connections .

I have read this thread with interest, thanks to everyone for pursuing it.

I must confess it never occurred to me that people would focus so much on the ground war but at the same time not be willing to drive a jeep during the missions to see what was actually going on at ground level!

So I have to get used to the idea that there are indeed more people (like Luny!) who plan the ground war but do not seem to fly/observe very often.

It could be reasonably straightforward to build an animation tool for post-mission action summaries, as Jones suggests. All the data is in the database to allow the decisive combat actions to be recreated pretty well, if people don't mind bending the recon/intel model in that way (the stats engine already bends recon/intel quite a bit out of shape). I won't have time to write this tool any time soon - it could be a fun project for someone who knows a little PHP and Flash.

The alternative that Jones offers is to use the new camera options available in TD 4.11.1. SEOW already supported old-style static cameras (defined in the template) but it should be pretty easy to ensure that new camera model works usefully in the next SEOW release. Camera settings are the choice of the host; views will be available so long as cameras are placed in the correct spots in the mission file. Of course, jeeps are treated as aircraft, so the aircraft camera settings chosen by the host will apply to jeeps too.

Cheers,
4Shades

Here is my situation, I have done everything short of begging to get war gamers to try SEOW. I have offered to help them set it up on their own machine. I have offered to set up a campaign that they design, I would then build the template and host it on my server and admin it for them. If your asking why I would do this the explanation is simple, I don't like planning all that much. I do like building missions and campaigns to see what will happen and watching them unfold.

SEOW as it is servers my purposes pretty well, it creates a dynamic campaign better than anything else available. What it doesn't do is allow me to watch the action unfold in a way that is gratifying. 4Shades has asked why the JEEP doesn't satisfy this need and I will try to explain. Before the Sarata campaign started I tested the JEEP and managed to run into trees, get blown up or other wise become disabled amazingly quickly. So while the JEEP offers a reasonable simulation of a forward observer it's survivability needs to be increased slightly for me to enjoy driving it.

Even if the forward observer functions were perfected the average war gamer wants to be the general behind the front watching from a high point with binoculars. We can now do that with cameras but ideally this view would be taken from a trk file and only the appropriate information displayed in a video format that is widely used. Unless this feature was enthusiastically endorsed by the community I'm not sure that it is worth the effort.

What I plan on doing is using enough cameras in campaigns so that someone that is acting as the real time commander, intel officer, air traffic controller, ground controller, radar operator, etc. has a good time. I'm perfectly willing to dilute the realism factor regarding intel to achieve this but suspect that many members of the community will react negatively. I'm of the opinion that there is a rather shabby implementation of radio traffic in the game. Having such an individual would and does increase realism in the real time simulation even if it distorts what the war gamer wants in terms of realistic intel. So as you can see my interest also includes understanding what the war gamer will tolerate in terms of dilution of realism in the intel functions in order to improve the realism of the real time interactions on the battlefield. I believe however that some members of the community seriously underestimate the effectiveness of radar, FAC, photo intel and other elements of the World War II battlefield that are consider "modern" innovations largely because of the secrecy of these elements historically. I really want onboard radar for night fighters even if it has to be over modeled for example to make game play interesting.

EAF331_Starfire wrote:Not everyone finds planning boring.

Believe me, I don't find if boring either. However, many people that I would like to get involved in a commander role (and who have initially expressed interest in being a commander) do find it difficult (which is just a training issue) and more importantly don't get "hooked" by it since there is little to connect the dots visually in the MP from one turn to the next.

Again, I know this was not part of the design of the SEOW MP and so this is not a criticism. This thread is more of a "what's possible" brainstorm. Perhaps another way to approach the purpose of this thread is the question "What would SEOW need to be if a player did not own IL-2?" This player obviously could not fly in a mission, he also could not view any tracks made from the mission. So what is left in the current MP? Not actually that much other than a single snapshot from turn to turn in the MP and perhaps some pilot reports if any of the flyers bothered to create any of them.

Now, this is probably quite realistic in terms of putting that player into a real life commander role. Many a battle has unfolded throughout history with the commanders not really knowing what was going on. However, as a "Player" rather than a "Commander," most people currently choose to spend their precious gaming time elsewhere.

IV/JG7_4Shades wrote:I have read this thread with interest, thanks to everyone for pursuing it.

Many thanks 4Shades. Having cameras placeable in the MP from one mission to the next would be a good step (though of course would do nothing for the player who does not own IL-2). Having the flash animation in the MP (with variable time compression) would be sweet nectar to us commander types! If I had more time I'd be in on the development of this.