Map size limits?

[ZachariasX]

If what we get are truly "maps", then sorry, 🤮

In 2023, getting doom levels just won't do it. We don't need an MSFS2020 world, but we need the theater of interest (that is mostly water plus PNG) while the rest of the globe (the round thing, you know) can be extremely coarse in detail. I mean "it fits on a CD" kind of coarse. (It did fit on a CD back then!)

It is clear, that average mission times uf 3.5 hours are not a viable proposition in a game, as not only @Gambit21 experiences RTI during gameplay. I really, really frown upon moving the islands together. In the weather (should "realistic looking weather" be a goal for this sim, and then it is a challenge in itself) of the theater, islands would be all visible at once, negating many of the challenges the pilots were facing. But "sim rate" is a solved and very practical function for SP missions. For MP this is not possible, as when one starts messing with the sim rate, all experience that (or he player would just warp away from the rest).

I see no other solution than giving MP either a completely different world to fly in (I admit, it would actually be kind of a "map"), where distances are indeed shortened (as well as artillery fire limted etc.) as well as using airstarts and defined "exit points" to sucessfully leave a mission. The aspect of having different worlds to fly in is nothing new, as we load different "maps" all the time in old fashioned games. Remember the "islands map" in RoF? something like that.

Also, the player needs some assists to fly long legs. Many planes were multi crew for a reason and they should offer some functionality. Switching to the crew position should not make the pilot seat abandoned, but some sort of reasonable automatation should take over. So far, planes fall out of the sky if you didn't hit "a" before the switch. Poor you, if you have full realism without that aid.

Assuming we get different, small playpens for MP bar fights, in SP and a "real world" we must absolutely have some Jester-like assits for the pilot to make the flights both viable and a good experience in SP and compatible with changing the sim rate:

For single seat planes, there must be a navigation board as a knee pad like function, where the planned flight is plotted on. There should be an option to make a flight plan before a mission and use that in flight, LittleNavMap may serve as an inspiration. Going to the kneepad funtion should make the plane fly level. Yes, you could trim the plane for that, but trimming without force feedback is different and more cumbersome IMHO, hence there should be the ROL autopilot analogue in when doing navigation.

For multi seat aircraft, switching to the navigator should engage the HDG funtion analoge, resembling apilot that actually knows where he's going after getting directions he's getting by the comms. Multi seat planes should even have a more elaborate flight planner function, to measure flown distances and do some calculations. just basic stuff. This as his second function aside from gunner position.

Sim rate should be deactivated in the presence of enemy aircraft or close active and engaging enemy ground units.

For coop flights, the sim rate must be annonced and can kick in, when all participating players set their Jester pilot to take control. The "hold formation" would be the function for the wingmen, the HDG would be the function for the flight leader. Time compression could be set for a specific simulator time, meaning you set a certain course and you want to skip 1 hour flight time, then set the sim rate for the rate you want it for the total on board tome of 1 hour. After one hour, sim rate would fall back to normal.

None of what I mentioned is new to flight sims.

That would be easy and onvenient ways to fly vast distances and should solve any RTI problems in SP. MP is and will always be a bar fight and has little to do with the actual situation back then, which is fine with me.

Edited June 4, 2023 by ZachariasX

[Trooper117]

I honestly can't see them making two maps for any given battle (one for SP and one for MP) so that's out.

I'm sure that Jason and crew have got some idea on how they are going to implement game play for the Pacific theatre. (they must have discussed it at some point) otherwise it would be no point to start making the planes and ships for it with no idea how they intend game play to function.

[ZachariasX]

They even make different maps for something we don't even have in PNG, it's called "seasons". Besides, specific "MP maps" were part of most MP games, including flight sims.

[Gambit21]

13 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

It is clear, that average mission times uf 3.5 hours are not a viable proposition in a game, as not only @Gambit21 experiences RTI during gameplay. I really, really frown upon moving the islands together. In the weather (should "realistic looking weather" be a goal for this sim, and then it is a challenge in itself) of the theater, islands would be all visible at once,

For the record, you could move the islands much closer together and they still wouldn't all be visible at once...I'm not talking about moving them so close that this would be the case. The entire point is that scaled down, you'd still get the feeling of vast distance, (nothing visible on the horizon) but still PLENTY far enough away. 

Because even a 2 or 3 hour long mission total...

 

[Amiral Crapaud]

Come on come on.
Even a larger map can be arranged so that people can fight over a smaller area. Taking off from Munda to attack Guadalcanal and the other way around (which was, arguably, much more common ^^) is fine for MP sessions. The same applies to a Buna-PM, or Buna-Milne Bay situation, for whoever has not time for transit.

If some MP games between people who are of the same kind need the larger trip, then it's fine too. One doesn't preclude the other, and many variants (say dogfight mayhem variants) are possible.

The only way you're catering for the needs of everybody is by going for the larger scale & the larger denominator from the get-go - with more options (which, remain optional as the name implies - say a larger map for longer flies, or teleportation in single player) rather than fewer of these, IMHO. But these are just my 2cts as an old PAW player 🙂

Cheers

[ZachariasX]

Thing is, how much do you have to move things together in order to make it playable vs *can* you move stuff without totally altering the setting?

If I have a what is an, eg., 210 min mission but in MP that is too long, you had to shrink your playpen by factor 10 to make it a 21 min mission, which I think would be something very suitable as mission time. If I shrink the play pen by factor 10, the area of the map would shrink by factor 100.

By shrinking the map, you change A LOT of variables that affect your mission:

The yellow line is about 1000 km, as reference. That is about the distance a P40 can fly. It means it can fly halfway from Guadalcanal to Bougainville and return. Scaling by factor 2 makes the P40 do round trips to bougianville instead of a one way. But would this game changer (it certainly would have been one back then!) actually be any good? A four hour missions is still two hours then.

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

She right, man!

Scaling by factor 10 makes the mission 24 minutes (veeery convenient now, at least for myself) but now you can fly CAP between San Cristobal to Rabaul...

The whole thing gets absurd if flying actual missions should be an objective of the game.

Given a scaled map/theater of interest is less work by one to two orders of magnitude (in order to make just to make minimal concessions to mission lenght) and most of it is still just blue water, I would see different worlds for MP and SP as the simplest of all solutions.

Also if you scale your world, no more terrain data will fit and you have to do everything by hand. Any kind of real world navigation will not possible anyore. All you're left with is slewing in whatsoever way to your waypoint, dakkadakka, and return. It's Aces of the Pacific. And that concept surely by now is a bit long in the tooth.

I guess Midway is the first installment, there you can mend all issues by parking the carriers where it is convenient for gameplay and neuter battleship artillery where needed. But the Solomons and PNG are a different issue. Given distances are absolutely no issue in SP, I don't think it is wise to trash the whole sim world for what I hear is the big majority, SP, on the altar of MP.

The fact that distances ARE perceived as an issue in SP by some is the fact that sim rate just doesn't work properly in the Great Battles series. This is not how "it is", but how it is not good enough they way they made it in Great Battles. It fundamentally limits what you can conveniently do as a gamer.

If Jason can't make his sim do at least 4x sim rate, that will close a great many doors, for sure. I'd see that as the iceberg for the viability of the venture here.

Edited June 5, 2023 by ZachariasX

[ZachariasX]

Thinking of it... @Gambit21, how would you alter the map I posted above to make good/convenient missions possible?

[Gambit21]

@ZachariasX you make good points.

I'm less concerned about aircraft range etc, because A. something has to give somewhere no matter what happens, and B. I can alter fuel amounts.

 

Everything taken into consideration, there's no perfect answer. 

 

I've never sat down and played with the Slot map, and came up with a "here's the distance from Rabaul to Guadalcanal,  which would put Vella Lavella and such and such a distance" etc etc because I've never had a reason to. I know a team made a 3/4 scale Solomons map years ago for 1946 and it seems to have worked out well.

A series of smaller generic islands maps would be useful as well,  as they can stand in for any number of things.

I got much use out of the old "islands" map in the old sim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jaguar]

I understand time constraints in playing long missions, say above 1.5 hours. On the other hand, shrinking the map hinders a more realistic approach for those who can/want to do it.

Moreover, a large map does not necessarily means players are forced to fly from one corner to the other. Shorter missions could be designed, and players could perceive the movement of the front as the campaign progresses. This could apply to both the Solomons Islands and New Guinea.

 

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Jaguar said:

I understand time constraints in playing long missions, say above 1.5 hours. On the other hand, shrinking the map hinders a more realistic approach for those who can/want to do it.

Moreover, a large map does not necessarily means players are forced to fly from one corner to the other. Shorter missions could be designed, and players could perceive the movement of the front as the campaign progresses. This could apply to both the Solomons Islands and New Guinea.

 

Yeah...I just wouldn't want to deprive somebody the satisfaction of taking off and landing due to flight times etc.

I think ultimately the best answer might be waypoint and or action point warps /skips. However I'll again state the caveat that this can really mess up/negate mission logic. Mission logic in each mission would have to be designed around/account for a player warping/skipping to a waypoint, and thus how far he can skip has to be limited by the mission logic so that it doesn't break the mission. Thus a convention would have to be reached - probably "Action Point" like in EAW, which may or may not be near the actual stated mission objective.

More than one way to skin the cat and no perfect solutions...both true at the same time.

 

 

[Trooper117]

27 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

.I just wouldn't want to deprive somebody the satisfaction of taking off and landing due to flight times etc.

I agree fully... 

[Gambit21]

12 hours ago, Amiral Crapaud said:

Come on come on.
Even a larger map can be arranged so that people can fight over a smaller area. Taking off from Munda to attack Guadalcanal and the other way around (which was, arguably, much more common ^^) is fine for MP sessions. The same applies to a Buna-PM, or Buna-Milne Bay situation, for whoever has not time for transit.

If some MP games between people who are of the same kind need the larger trip, then it's fine too. One doesn't preclude the other, and many variants (say dogfight mayhem variants) are possible.

The only way you're catering for the needs of everybody is by going for the larger scale & the larger denominator from the get-go - with more options (which, remain optional as the name implies - say a larger map for longer flies, or teleportation in single player) rather than fewer of these, IMHO. But these are just my 2cts as an old PAW player 🙂

Cheers

Exactly...Black Sheep from Vella Lavella, etc. But that's sort of obvious no?

However...the Battle of Guadalcanal was a pivotal 6 month battle in which the Japanese sortied from Rabaul to Guadalcanal almost daily. (which I'm sure you know) this is the sort of thing we're speaking of. Obviously shorter flights are possible on a larger map so long as you're not...umm....trying to portray longer flights.

Point is, we don't want to disallow players from the experience of taking off from Rabaul to attack Henderson because they don't have 4 hours to spare, never mind 8 hours. 

 

 

 

[Baders]

On 5/29/2023 at 2:03 PM, Ribbon said:

Scaled down map size-YES

Time compression-YES

Waypoint warp-NO (would be immersion and navigation breaker for me)

Im fine with scaled down map size (sea mass), while islands/land mass to be 1:1 if possible......my flight time limit to objective would be 1h.

 

"What is old has suddenly become new again" 😉

This very subject was debated amongst the Targetware Dev team years ago for version 2. We eventually concluded that settable "warp points" was the best option to overcome this dilemma. In Real Life, squadrons would specify a mission rendezvous point and we found that this point could be used to "warp" to a reasonable distance from the mission area. We decided that scaled down maps were for less realistic sims.

[Trooper117]

10 hours ago, Baders said:

We decided that scaled down maps were for less realistic sims.

Just because a map may be scaled down it doesn't mean that a flight sim 'game' is less realistic... let's face it, we aren't really sitting in a WWII cockpit are we, we are just pretending to sit in a WWII cockpit... plus 'warping' is hardly realistic is it... I don't know 🙃

[Amiral Crapaud]

Well, the main argument in favor of warping is that it's purely optional, while scaled down maps are not.

The first option, warping, can be used anytime by anyone to his liking in solo, while the second one, non-realistic scales, requires, say, two different maps for two different uses (and as such in solo the player cannot switch between behaviors, as this behavior is dictated by the kind of map he is playing on). Believe me, from a design PoV, said first option letting everybody choose and play the way he likes it is preferable to the latter from a single player perspective.

Multiplayer maps on the other hand can be anything you want or players fancy the most anyway. At the end of the day, everybody used to play the islands map on Il-2 and nobody ever died of hyperlobby-related sickness back then to my knowledge, so I am not going to die on any hill in that department 😁

Edited June 11, 2023 by Amiral Crapaud

[Ribbon]

Really good arguments on both sides makes me think either solutions would be good if not exaggerated.....waypoint warp if still somewhat far away from action will keep sim element, as well if they size down sea mass but not too much.

And carrier tech really give options/solutions regarding this problem, mostly for MP.....

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Ribbon

[Trooper117]

8 hours ago, Amiral Crapaud said:

nobody ever died of hyperlobby-related sickness

Great remark! 

[Gambit21]

15 hours ago, Amiral Crapaud said:

At the end of the day, everybody used to play the islands map on Il-2.

That was a great, very useful map. We had a lot of fun on that one. I’m in favor of these types of maps again, even larger ones to supplement primary maps. 
It’s possible to design one that can stand in for anything from Solomons, to New Guinea, to the Philippines.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Gambit21