Official SEOW

Hi everyone,

For many years now some of us have considered expanding SEOW's gaming platform (which is IL-2 and variants) to another platform. One possibility is to expand to Silent Hunter, which is a submarine sim that has its own community. SEOW, which is strategic and detailed, is perfectly suited to be integrated with a game like Silent Hunter, for the following reasons:

1. SEOW knows where all units are, and compiles movement orders.
2. Silent Hunter has its own mission editor, like FMB, so SEOW should be able to communicate with Silent Hunter in the same way it does with IL-2.
3. SEOW could be adjusted to generate either an IL-2 mission or a Silent Hunter mission, interchangeably, for the next campaign stage.

I am prompted to discuss this because it is an option to add extra depth to SEOW naval operations. We could also envision using something like WWII:RTS/Theatre of War (or similar) as a ground combat sim component. Looking forward in this dream-like state, I could see SEOW supporting

1. IL-2 as an air sim platform
2. Silent Hunter as a sea sim platform
3. WWII:RTS/Theatre of War as a ground sim platform

with campaign admins choosing which platform to activate for any particular SEOW campaign mission.

Is this a nice idea?

Cheers,
4Shades

That´s an awesome idea!!!

It might fill the gaps that we have at the moment with shipping warfare.

One could make a 1h mission with the subs.
In SH4 (Pacific) you can even control/direct the DDs and the surface fleet.
There is plenty of mods.
So we might have the possibilty to use Japanese Submarines.

Super big smile!

It is a nice idea, but...

What happens if the unit in the IL-2 move interacts with a unit which is relevant to a move from another platform?

Let me give an example:

You insert a move in SEOW with Silent Hunter; people man their subs, engage some surface ships, sink some cargo and emerge victorious, in friendly waters, at a coordinate x,x with a heading xxx... The MP is updated, and side blue has lost ships, while red is visible on the map returning to home port... Now IL-2 planner makes a mission, this mission plays out, and in it some blue pilot goes to the spot of engagement and sinks that submarine, which is incapable of changing its orders during this move?

Won't that make the Silent Hunter crowd unhappy? To see that their sub is sunk, although they handled it expertly in their mission?

Or how about ground units? If a battle goes off in the RTS part, and then an IL2 mission plays out, how are you going to stop tanks within the IL2 mission from fighting, and moreover, would you stop it? it would be very dull if your good result from the RTS move would be annulled by the stupid ground Ai of IL2?

I am sorry if I sound pessimistic, I am just putting out some possible difficulties that come to mind.

However, I agree, that would really be a wonderful war simulation!

Cheers!

What about running a 60 minute IL-2 mission at 9.00 am (campaign time), followed by a Silent Hunter mission at 10.00 am, then an IL-2 mission at 11.00 am etc.

I guess there could be many variations possible.

Cheers,
4Shades

102nd-YU-Devill wrote:It is a nice idea, but...
...You insert a move in SEOW with Silent Hunter; people man their subs, engage some surface ships, sink some cargo and emerge victorious, in friendly waters, at a coordinate x,x with a heading xxx... The MP is updated, and side blue has lost ships, while red is visible on the map returning to home port... Now IL-2 planner makes a mission, this mission plays out, and in it some blue pilot goes to the spot of engagement and sinks that submarine, which is incapable of changing its orders during this move?

It´s a question of the commanders sense of the tactical situation.
You could surface the sub and try to run away fast and risk to be destroyed or go on submerged at 2 knots.

Here it would be good if could 3 depths for subs in SEOW:
surfaced (full speed possible)
periscope-depth (at max 2 knots, visible/attackable due to periscope)
submerged at 60 m (at max 2 knots, not visible/attackable/playable in il2 but in SH4/SH5 or simply managed by SEOW(submerged missions shouldn´t be truncateable))

Yeah, ok, but the issue stay the same: IL-2 turn has an all-round effect, whilst the RTS and SH turns are very limited, kind of "zoomed-in" events...

I am just saying that people participating in these zoomed-in battles have to be ready and ok with the fact that their result is going to be appended with the result of similar actions by a stupid IL-2 Ai, at the end of the day.

To put it bluntly: imagine you have only 1 move per each platform... You will have 1 naval engagement in SH, 1 ground engagement in an RTS/TOW, and 1 aerial, 1 ground and 1 naval engagement all over again during the IL-2 turn.

Whatever you have accomplished in your own turn, *might* be completely overturned in the IL-2 turn, no matter how savvy is the commander, and this is what actually regularly happens in normal SEOW campaigns that are ground and sea heavy. The only question is: how pissed off are going to be the players of those other platforms because of this?

I agree with you 100% percent.

A solution might be the view onto this "problem".
If we say that Il2 missions overrule SH4/5 mission, the SH mission will come across as a bonus mission and the frustration level stays lower.

I love this idea of adding SH to SEOW!
And it opens up the door to a new community that might join our cause.

To put it bluntly: imagine you have only 1 move per each platform... You will have 1 naval engagement in SH, 1 ground engagement in an RTS/TOW, and 1 aerial, 1 ground and 1 naval engagement all over again during the IL-2 turn.

But what happens if, instead, we have:

9.00 am mission: played with RTS:TOW, with all ground objects from SEOW database in place/moving, plus rudimentary air operations etc. Afterwards, all events are recorded/updated in the database.

10.00 am mission: planned and played in IL-2, as normal, with post-mission analyze.

11.00 am mission: played with SH, with all ground/sea/air objects from SEOW in place/moving (where appropriate). Afterwards, all events are recorded/updated in the database.

12.00 am mission: planned and played in IL-2, as normal, with post-mission analyze.

etc etc

This way there is no conflict between different games interpreting combat actions because the missions are NOT synchronous.

At a more sophisticated level, we may only use SH for one or two designated night missions per 24-hour period where air operations are limited anyway. Or use RTS:TOW for a couple of designated hours during the day. I just think this would add flexibility and interest to a SEOW campaign, and we could still have detailed battlefield integrity if we are careful and sensible.

Cheers,
4S

Shades, I think we didn't understand each other

It is not a problem of sync between platforms, I am well aware that the MP is going to analyze every turn separately and update the situation.

What if you have a platoon of 4 tigers vs 15 IS2 in your 9am mission... The TOW guys play it out and by careful tactics they kill 3 tigers for the loss of 5 IS2. It is analyzed and the situation is updated in the MP for 10am. 10am starts... that remaining tiger and 10 remaining IS2 are still there, close to each other... only now, they are not human TOW players, they are the sophisticated IL2 AI + IL2 DM The remaining tiger kills 10 IS2...
How are the TOW guys going to feel when they see this, at 11am mission time situation update?

The issue here is not the sync, but the difference of unit properties and features, between the different platforms. Ie. a unit can be very powerful in AI IL2, but much less effective in TOW.

Cheers!

Set the engagement range to 2 meters for both of tanks and they won't shoot.

LLv16_Justus wrote:Set the engagement range to 2 meters for both of tanks and they won't shoot.

Yes, but then the ships won't shoot, or the flak, or you won't have such good immersion when you are flying in an IL-2 mission.

Why would you feel stressed and try to get to the front lines ASAP to help your Shermans there, if those Tigers attacking them won't shoot???

I don't think this is a good solution.

Hi Devill,

I understand that there may be different biases for AI action in the different games. There are several options here:

1. Status quo - stick with IL-2 for all combat resolution.
2. Try it with different games, and recognise that human players will always swing the balance, at sea, in the air and on the ground.
3. Try it with different games and seek to mod the games to bring things to historical balance across all combat platforms.

Personally, I think submarine vs destroyer action is so terrible in IL-2 that I'd love the opportunity to try it in SH as part of a continuing SEOW campaign.

Cheers,
4Shades

PS: I do not personally support the idea of running simultaneous air, sea and ground games for a particular mission and "averaging" results etc.

Hi Shades,

The status quo thingy is really unnecessary, since if you don't want, you wouldn't "need" to include the bonus platforms in your SEOW campaign, right?

So, every new feature and improvement is great! But, as Cmirko said, I am one of those guys who see the cup as half-empty, instead of half-full, and as such I feel an obligation to point out some rough ground that you will need to traverse in order to bring your excellent idea to fruition.
And that's, of course, not counting the technical difficulties of coding, for which I have no idea how is done, hence am not bombarding you with its intrinsic problems!

Cheers mate and keep up the fantastic work!

ToW as in Theatre of War?

Great feature for shot down pilots that want to run home.


About the "how would the ToW/SH player feel if...?" question:
Well, how would the SH/ToW player feel if he doesn´t have a campaign platform in the first place?

When modders bend the corner and start to mod driveable vehicles and ships, leaving the firing duty to the IA but giving you the choice of giving orders to your "ground/sea wingmen", "flotillas" or "platoons" as we have right now with the schwarms and flights and such.... then we can sit forever at our desktops.
At least, all of these without "female obersts" at home.