View Full Version : Will Jutland Save the DG engine?
Will Jutland Save the DG engine?
The Distant Guns naval engine seems to be the only naval game engine today, I was dispointed in DG and hope Jutland the second try will make major improvements to the DG engine and game play.
1. Camera and 3D controls
Will the camera and 3D controls be fixed? "the camera interface is about the most bassawkwards mess I have seen in a long time", quote from Madmatt on the BattleFront Forums. In a world of 3D games the camera controls should have and need to be better.
2. Battle Generator
Will the battle generator allow users to select their own ships and AI's, map sixe, sea state, etc.? I hope so! The ability to setup your own battles the way you want with the ships you want seems like a no brainer.
3. Campaign
I guess the campaign in DG was finally fixed, but seemed also was less than satisfying. One needs only to look at the campaigns of Great Naval Battles Series, Uncommon Valor, WIPT/War Plan Orange on how to do a better naval campaign. Surface action, mine laying/mine sweeping, escorting convoys, anti-sub warfare, port/costal bombardment should be part of a naval campaign.
4. Editor and Moding?
Will there be an Editor or allow Moding? Sadly DG didn't, I have an issue with historic wargames, in that after you played the historic battles/campaigns, there is little else to see and do. Games that have editors have a longer life, many games would have abandoned long ago if it wasn't for editors and the great mods from users. The ability to add cloned/rename ships of the existing 3D models and ability to retexture them would be a welcomed feature. Maybe an editor to Jutland as an addon?
5. Gameplay
More things to do, I would of liked to be able to order a torpedo only attack and to set the priority for damage control, what to fix first (fire, flooding, weapons). What's the point of reporting damage when the player has no control over it? Imagine a sub sim where the player had little or no control over weapons!
6. Night Time Combat
Will Jutland simulate night time combat, with starshells?
7. License
Don’t put license stuff on the Jutland demo please! DG was one of the few games I had a license issue with, in the demo, just changing the video settings or downloading a patch used up one of the 30 tries. Why on earth should changing the video or patching, affect how long a player has with a demo? This is the type of crap that gives game licensing a bad name. I wonder how many people would have liked to give DG demo a second try, but never got the chance because their 30 tries were used with changing video setting and patching?
I really hope Jutland is a much better game then DG.
Agreed.
1. Wow if a person on Battlefront is criticizing the camera controls, given how much of a mess they are in Combat Mission: Shock Force then they NEED to be attended to.
2. Battle Generator is a must have. I'd wait another year for it to include such. Without it, the game will be on my shelf and off my HD within a month.
3. ...
4. I would love a unit editor. I often don't agree with someone's (meaning hte original unit designer's) *choice* of a particular unit's performance/defense/speed/offense/etc (a good example being Steel Beasts, great game, some of their armor values are horses**t) and *always* appreciate the ability to tweak the units in my scenario.
5. Choice is good, but over complexity scares me off. I don't want to count the rivets on the damage control board.
6. ...
7. ...
I think Distant Guns is a fantastic game, with BEAUTIES of ships (and historically correct, sometimes I just play it to enjoy seeing those beauties and I feel rather sad when I have to watch them taking punishment :clown:)
But yes, largely I agree with you
- sometimes there is too few things to control yourself
- indeed, there should be a mission editor, instead of the "random generator" we have right now
- let's not forget the graphics: the ships are magnificent, but the flames and the splashes in the water are too static and look like toys. This diminishes the great atmosphere of the game
But there's nothing wrong with the license in my humble opinion, it works fine, and should a problem arise, the support team's always there for you. The sea could also look "richer"
Looking forward to Jutland, and I hope SES will continue improving Distant Guns as well.
I flew to London the other day, and while the plane crossed the North Sea, I had a clear view of it. It struck me as to how much the wave pattern in DG resembled what I saw. I guess what might be missing is cloud shadows, but for the rest it seems pretty realistic.
Control over a torpedo attack would be appreciated though (i.e. no deck gun fire for stealth and specifically order a unit to attack with torpedoes).
Agreed.
1. Wow if a person on Battlefront is criticizing the camera controls, given how much of a mess they are in Combat Mission: Shock Force then they NEED to be attended to.
The comments were made before the release of SF but your right SF release was less then stellar. Jutland will need a better 3D interface, just take a look at any popular 3D game for better 3D controls.
5. Choice is good, but over complexity scares me off. I don't want to count the rivets on the damage control board.
I would at lease like to have the chance to save a damaged ship! What's the point of giving detail ship damage when the player can't do anything about it? I would like to have the ability on what to fix first, weapons, fire, flooding, etc. maybe each ship could have a number of damage control points that the player allocates to ship damage, or at least set the priority on what to try to fix.
Hinchinbrooke
10 Sep 07, 21:01
I've enjoyed DG's level of control. It's not meant to be a micromanagement fiesta. Commanding a fleet or squadron, you wouldn't have such direct influence. If a ship gets into trouble, you can alter crew management by ceasing firing or altering speed........... and thereby affect damage control.
The way I see it, an admiral sees a ship suffering and signals said ship to haul out of line, etc., etc. That's pretty much all an admiral can do, passing by, pondering the big picture. I can't imagine trying to make individual ship decisions in a game like Jutland. Once the die is cast, etc., etc.
The comments were made before the release of SF but your right SF release was less then stellar. Jutland will need a better 3D interface, just take a look at any popular 3D game for better 3D controls.
I would at lease like to have the chance to save a damaged ship! What's the point of giving detail ship damage when the player can't do anything about it? I would like to have the ability on what to fix first, weapons, fire, flooding, etc. maybe each ship could have a number of damage control points that the player allocates to ship damage, or at least set the priority on what to try to fix.
You might look for a different game-say the 'Great Battles' by SPI because I do not see how they will 'add' the extra complexity and decision making that you seem to want and increase the scope(size) of the battle at the same time. You want to be the captain of 60-70 odd ships plus give division orders, Squadron Orders, Fleet Orders, perform recon, receive reports from all levels in a realtime situation, plan and coordinate all the various elements to fight a coherent batlle. And I will be the first to admit, I hope they change the 3D interface and player interface. But I don't think what you want is a good idea-especially if you ever want to play on the LAN(Internet). It would drive you :nuts:
You might look for a different game-say the 'Great Battles' by SPI because I do not see how they will 'add' the extra complexity and decision making that you seem to want and increase the scope(size) of the battle at the same time. You want to be the captain of 60-70 odd ships plus give division orders, Squadron Orders, Fleet Orders, perform recon, receive reports from all levels in a realtime situation, plan and coordinate all the various elements to fight a coherent batlle. And I will be the first to admit, I hope they change the 3D interface and player interface. But I don't think what you want is a good idea-especially if you ever want to play on the LAN(Internet). It would drive you :nuts:
The Great Naval Battles Series (computer games) were from SSI. I don't really want that much of extra control, just the ability to order torpedo attacks, ammo selection, and ability to set the prority for damage control for a ship, which could be as simple as following in the ship detail screen.
Damage Control
Set Prority
1 - Weapon(s)
2 - Fire(s)
3 - Flooding
4 - Engines
In Great Naval Battles Series each ship had a number of damage control parties that you could assign to damages weapons or systems, along with counter flooding. This level of detail would be nice but, not really needed.
I've enjoyed DG's level of control. It's not meant to be a micromanagement fiesta. Commanding a fleet or squadron, you wouldn't have such direct influence. If a ship gets into trouble, you can alter crew management by ceasing firing or altering speed........... and thereby affect damage control.
The way I see it, an admiral sees a ship suffering and signals said ship to haul out of line, etc., etc. That's pretty much all an admiral can do, passing by, pondering the big picture. I can't imagine trying to make individual ship decisions in a game like Jutland. Once the die is cast, etc., etc.
I see no issue of an Admiral ordering a couple of ships to break formation and order a torpedo only attack on a crippled ship, to conserve ammo. DG was a little too much like watching a movie vs. playing a game. The biggest complaints I heard besides the camera controls were players didn't have much if anything to do or felt they had any control over the battles or outcome. If this continues I not sure how Jultand will attract a larger following. Most gamers want to play a game and feel like they are part action and not just watch one.
Bullethead
11 Sep 07, 01:50
Camera and 3D controls
Will the camera and 3D controls be fixed? "the camera interface is about the most bassawkwards mess I have seen in a long time", quote from Madmatt on the BattleFront Forums. In a world of 3D games the camera controls should have and need to be better.
Always take Madmatt with a grain of salt. I worked with him on CM2:B2B, where I learned he's rather prone to overstatement.
But enough about him. I'm more interested in your own opinion. I haven't see you around here before so I don't know if you actually have DG yourself or are just going on somebody else's word.
Moving the camera uses the keypad in pretty much the same way as any other 3D 3rd person game. You also have options on how putting the mouse to the edge of the screen affects the camera. These options allow you to replicate pretty much every scheme used by other games, depending on which one's your favorite.
Jutland will introduce some new wrinkles. I can't go into specifics but I think they improve things.
2. Battle Generator
Will the battle generator allow users to select their own ships and AI's, map sixe, sea state, etc.? I hope so! The ability to setup your own battles the way you want with the ships you want seems like a no brainer.
Again, I can't go into specifics, but there will be some changes here. Hopefully, folks will like them ;).
I agree, however, that DG's battle generator was pretty lame. I can say that--I was a customer then. The inability to control the output was a big problem and, IMHO, was a serious blow to MP. We're making Jutland more MP-friendly.
3. Campaign
I guess the campaign in DG was finally fixed, but seemed also was less than satisfying. One needs only to look at the campaigns of Great Naval Battles Series, Uncommon Valor, WIPT/War Plan Orange on how to do a better naval campaign. Surface action, mine laying/mine sweeping, escorting convoys, anti-sub warfare, port/costal bombardment should be part of a naval campaign.
It took a month or 2 to get the major problems ironed out in the campaign. But that's ancient history now. So I take it you really don't have DG, or at least haven't played it much over the lpst year.
Anyway, as campaigns go, DG's IMHO is the best I've ever seen, and I've played every naval sim since before PCs were called PCs. The only thing that comes close is TF1942. GNB's never worked at all, UV etc. weren't tactical, so there's no need to include them on the above list.
As to things being in the campaign or not, remember DG was the Russo-Japanese War, so some of the things you mention here weren't historically available then. There weren't convoys or subs, for example. Port/shore bombardment DID happen, but it was so ineffective (as in having no impact on the state of the war) that it wasn't worth putting in the campaign.
4. Editor and Moding?
See above about the battle generator.
5. Gameplay
More things to do, I would of liked to be able to order a torpedo only attack and to set the priority for damage control, what to fix first (fire, flooding, weapons). What's the point of reporting damage when the player has no control over it? Imagine a sub sim where the player had little or no control over weapons!
Sub sims and DG are apples and oranges. Sub sims are more like flightsims in that you've got 1 vehicle, so of course you've got all sorts of control over it. DG is a fleet game where the player is the admiral, not the gunner, not the damage control guy, or whatever.
A DG battle is more like a battle in a Total War game, only way bigger. In the TW series, you're the general. You have many units which you can move around and give targets to, but you don't control the details of every little soldier. Same thing with ships in DG. Nobody ever complains that they can't go into 1st person mode and hack and slash in TW games--everybody's happy just being the overall general. But DG suffers from the preconceptions created by earlier sims that did allow 1st person gunnery and such. However, those earlier games didn't have anywhere near the number of ships in battles as DG can do, and couldn't devote as much CPU time to letting the AI run various systems. Thus, the player HAD to take an active part in many facets or there would have been complete chaos. But since he didn't have as many things to worry about at once, he could take the time to micromanage individual ships without the overall situation getting out of hand.
It really comes down to the size of the battles. The more units you have, and the further apart they are, they greater the need for the AI handling all the details and the player just focusing on the big picture. In the Battle of Jutland itself, there were about 250 ships spread over dozens of miles of sea. Just being the admiral is a full-time job :).
6. Night Time Combat
Will Jutland simulate night time combat, with starshells?
DG has night battles already. Starshell is something I can't give specifics on.
7. License
Don’t put license stuff on the Jutland demo please! DG was one of the few games I had a license issue with, in the demo, just changing the video settings or downloading a patch used up one of the 30 tries. Why on earth should changing the video or patching, affect how long a player has with a demo? This is the type of crap that gives game licensing a bad name. I wonder how many people would have liked to give DG demo a second try, but never got the chance because their 30 tries were used with changing video setting and patching?
The licensing thing did have problems to start with, but they've been ironed out from what I hear. I don't know personally--never had any problems with it myself. YMMV.
But one of the few things I can definitely say about Jutland is that it WILL have a similar licensing thing. Here's why (again)....
DG (and Jutland) are only available via download (unless you specifically request a CD). This is because it's impossible to put these games on shelves in stores, due to retailers refusing to stock niche market products like naval sims, except from certain massive publishers. But the download-only thing precludes the traditional copy protection schemes based on a CD in the drive. The license therefore is intended to act as a "virtual CD". If you have the license "in the drive", the game runs, otherwise it doesn't. True, the license thing isn't as convenient to swap between computers as a CD, but it's gotten smooth enough to tolerate for folks who are blessed with multiple gaming rigs. However, without the license system, there'd be no DG available at all. So all I can say is, learn to live with it :).
I seriously doubt there will be an unlicensed demo of Jutland. It's a question of the time and manpower available for product support. The "demo" of DG is really the full game with most of the features locked until you buy the license. Thus, there's only 1 version of the game to worry about. If there was an unlicensed demo of Jutland, that would be a 2nd version, which would require demo-specific patches and technical support. That's not very feasible for a tiny outfit like SES--it's hard enough developing Jutland while supporting DG, even if some of the stuff applies to both games.
Bullethead
I have also played just about every computer naval game starting with Computer Bismark. Some of my favorites included the Great Naval Battle Series, Action Stations and also enjoyed many of Gary Grigsby's pacific wargames.
My issue with the license was with the demo, if you only give 30 tries for the demo, why should changing the video settings or patching the demo use up one of the 30 tries? I know of no other demo limited in this fashion.
Later I got the chance to later play the full game on a friends computer, most of the time you sent out hunting patrols of 2, 4, or 8 ships. I missed the sale back in May and will likly pick it up if it's on sale again before the release of Jutland.
Distant Guns is all about controlling the line and maybe the most accurate game in doing so but, the battles played out a little to much like watching a movie, where the player has very limited control over what is happening. This maybe very accurate but, most gamers want to play a game, not watch one. Asking others what they though of the DG manly from the demo the two biggest complaints were the poor controls, and there just didn't seem to be much for the player to do, they felt like that had little control over the action. I really believe if Jutland is gain a bigger fan base the command and control aspects need to be expanded!
Go to some of the other non-wargame forums, post a link to the DG demo and ask them what they think. You would be surprised at how many gamers never even heard of DG.
Bullethead
11 Sep 07, 15:56
My issue with the license was with the demo, if you only give 30 tries for the demo, why should changing the video settings or patching the demo use up one of the 30 tries? I know of no other demo limited in this fashion.
I hear this was fixed pretty early on. I don't know myself--I bought the thing up front because my main interest was with the campaign and buying the game was the only way to get that.
The whole license thing was new, so yeah it had some bugs and annoyances. But Norm's spent a LOT of time ironing those out. Most of the many patches since release have had 1 or more tweaks to the license system. Sometimes, that's been all that's changed. Suffice to say that the license system is way better now that it was when DG was released, so I wouldn't worry about it when it comes to Jutland. I'm sure it can still be improved, but things like you're worried about here have supposedly been fixed months ago.
Later I got the chance to later play the full game on a friends computer, most of the time you sent out hunting patrols of 2, 4, or 8 ships.
DG's campaign IS mostly small actions. If you play the Russians, it's jeune ecole commerce warfare 85-90% of the time, WW1-esque kleinkrieg about 10-12%, and Mahanian decisive fleet actions about 1-3%. So if all you look at is the campaign (which is, due to the lack of a controllable scenario editor, where the real value of the game is), you could argue that the game should have allowed more player micromanagement. And were that the whole story, I'd have to agree with you. However, the goal of SES was to make an engine capable being developed into handling Jutland, rather than start from scratch again.
Distant Guns is all about controlling the line and maybe the most accurate game in doing so but, the battles played out a little to much like watching a movie, where the player has very limited control over what is happening. This maybe very accurate but, most gamers want to play a game, not watch one. Asking others what they though of the DG manly from the demo the two biggest complaints were the poor controls, and there just didn't seem to be much for the player to do, they felt like that had little control over the action. I really believe if Jutland is gain a bigger fan base the command and control aspects need to be expanded!
Go to some of the other non-wargame forums, post a link to the DG demo and ask them what they think. You would be surprised at how many gamers never even heard of DG.
I don't agree with your statement about the controls.
I think the controls are very decent. The only problem is that the AI sometimes navigates when it is not necessary at all. (But then again, the controls themselves are good, I picked it up very quickly I must say)
on the other hand, I agree Distant Guns sometimes is just "too much watching", eventhough that is what reality looks like. Some small extra features (like the numerous proposals we've heard of: launch torpedos yourself, set damage control priorities, etc...) could compensate here.
Shanghai Slim
14 Sep 07, 00:19
Camera controls .... so many issues! But please, please let us get the camera down to water level (or at least deck level)! I often want to see the ships as the people involved saw them, not hovering overhead all the time.
Also the fixed binoculars view is just weird. It doesn't reflect the viewer's location or angle at all, it's always from up in the air at the same distance. If a ship is relatively near, the binoculars view can be more distant than the "eyeball" view!
And that annoying "telescope" feature on the maps, seemingly designed to always place the useless zoomed view of empty ocean right over the moving ship icons! Oy!
I've done interface design, so maybe these things annoy me more than most, but they do get trying at times. Hopefully lessons will be learned for Jutland, but as for me - I'm not buying until DG is fixed. Fool me once ... ;)
I see no issue of an Admiral ordering a couple of ships to break formation and order a torpedo only attack on a crippled ship, to conserve ammo. DG was a little too much like watching a movie vs. playing a game. The biggest complaints I heard besides the camera controls were players didn't have much if anything to do or felt they had any control over the battles or outcome. If this continues I not sure how Jultand will attract a larger following. Most gamers want to play a game and feel like they are part action and not just watch one.
Hello.
I'd like to throw in my $0.02, if I may....
I very much agree with what you say here. This is part of the problem with large scale tactical naval war games... by the time the iron starts flying 90% of a fleet admiral's paycheck has already been earned. Balance of forces, technology, intelligence, training and morale, individual initiative, weather, and sheer luck, each play at least as much (it can be argued more!) a role in determining the outcome of any given engagement as do the orders issued by the OTCs.
When you consider the contributions of the great naval commanders and their signature actions, with few exceptions it's pretty apparent that their genius was established prior to contact... in some case weeks or months prior.
Obviously then, on the tactical side I should be agreeing with those who contend that as a fleet commander you only have so much control over what goes on during the course of a battle. However, this is a game and AI is imperfect - not necessarily more imperfect than people... just in other, more predictable ways (not a good thing :crosseye:). So actually I'm OK with the idea of having more control than I should have.
Now add to that the obsession with understanding exactly "what happened" that characterizes a typical war gamer, and I can also make a case for having more information than I should have. Particularly forensic type info... perhaps in the form of detailed after action reports for each formation or ship? All with due consideration to maintaining the fog of war of course.
The question is how to address all this in game terms?
In my opinion, the emphasis for a game of this scope needs to be shifted away from the tactical, in favor of operational and, to some extent, strategic considerations. More detail in that aspect of the game would... not so much excuse or hide weaknesses in the tactical engine... but mitigate them to a large extent by making that a lesser aspect of the overall experience. Now I'm not by any means suggesting that the tactical engine should be simplified... the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned... but I think there should be a more meaningful and interactive context in which to play out the battles.
Unfortunately, the campaign engine in DG is relatively weak. Operationally, we get to allocate assets to divisions and task forces and then move them around the board hoping for contact. Strategically, most of the decisions on both sides are either forced upon us or made for us. yes, this may reflect a reality as far as they're portrayed in the game. I'm referring here to the types of decisions that aren't presented at all.
I'm not an expert on the RJW, but I have read a book or two about period naval tactics and strategy as well as the technology and politics of the time, leading into and through WW1. If this engine is going to be ported, mostly as is (?), into that arena, I think we'll be hearing (and making :)) more of the same type of complaints.
Case in point, the discussions on this board RE the real winner at Jutland. it can be argued many different ways with valid conclusions drawn in support of either side... but, IMHO, the bottom line here is that the distant blockade (eventually starving the German people into submission) was maintained throughout, thus bringing about the end of the war.
That's pretty much a QED as far as I can see. ;)
How to reflect that in the game then?...
My thought is that the campaign engine needs to be developed into something with a much broader scope, including more detail and control on both the strategic level (policy, command, logistics, intel, etc) and the operational level (force composition, deployments, etc), as well as a broader view of what constitutes "victory".
JD
PS - After rereading what I just wrote I had to edit in one more comment. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am extremely happy that I am able to play such a game. Any whinging I may do should be taken in this context. The developers have my full support for this title and any future releases along the same lines.
Unfortunately, the campaign engine in DG is relatively weak. Operationally, we get to allocate assets to divisions and task forces and then move them around the board hoping for contact. Strategically, most of the decisions on both sides are either forced upon us or made for us.
I sort of agree, but I don't think the forced strategy is the biggest weakness. The campaign is great the first couple times you play each side. After that it gets too predictible. This is because the AI is not dynamic enough to make adjustments to the player's operational deployments.
The Russian AI always sends out two task forces very early in the campaign, each with two cruisers (one of which is usually damaged) and destroyers. The Vladivostok force makes an occaisional hit-and-run raid, without attempting any long-term cruise. Once all the Russian cruisers are sunk they do nothing with their remaining ships and it becomes a 10000x time compression waiting game for Port Arthur to fall.
The Japanese AI sends only light forces and obsolete divisions to blockade Port Arthur and these are easily broken. To counter the Vladivostok cruisers the Japanese patrol the Sea of Japan with their little protected cruisers in one force and Yakumo & Adzuma in another force. After the Vlad cruisers blow these ships out of the water, the Japanese AI makes no effort to stop the Russians and the campaign becomes a walk-over for the player.
I think if the AI was good enough to show the player something different each time the campaign was played, and make adjustments based on the player's deployments and ship losses on both sides, the operational side would be interesting enough that it wouldn't matter that there is no flexibilty on strategy.
Fix what? there is nothing to fix. I like bullet wonder if you have played the game or have it.
One thing I have noticed with views is that if you fix the view on a ship, then use the binoculars to view something distant, when you return to the current view the ship will have moved out of view.
I like the idea of putting one ship in the foreground, watching the approaching shells hit or miss, then using the binoculars to see whether the distant ship is hit when the close by ship fires. But then the fixed view shows the stern of the close ship only because it has moved and the supposed "fixed" view has not moved with the ship.
--
As regards the campaign, some things would help:
(i) As the Japanese player, if there was some control either by the player or placed on the player as regards shipments to the mainland. I would like to be told a convoy\merchant was scheduled to leave in a day or two and then be able to escort it. For example, why not have a mission to escort a pair of merchants carrying 11" guns towards Port Arthur?
(ii) As the Russians, to have an Japanese AI that did not throw away its cruisers in hopeless battles.
(iii) As either player, to have more going on in port, whether it be sailors sent to fortifications or ships needing major overhauls, but at least something more than the 7 days at sea, 1 day rest routine currently in the game. My Japanese battleships can maintain one hour readiness to sail for days, which seems a bit odd.
Bullethead
26 Sep 07, 12:39
One thing I have noticed with views is that if you fix the view on a ship, then use the binoculars to view something distant, when you return to the current view the ship will have moved out of view.
Yeah, and the same thing happens when you bring up the info screen without pausing the game. I hope this gets fixed myself :).
My Japanese battleships can maintain one hour readiness to sail for days, which seems a bit odd.
IIRC, the Brit Grand Fleet in WW1 remained on 4-hour notice from August 1914 to November 1918.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.