Map size limits?

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

I'd content that flying for 30 minutes to get somewhere (vs hours) and not hitting time compression (going warp speed) is more 'realistic' than warping across a map at 2000 miles per hour to make it go more quickly (thus making it even possible to fly the mission for most people) 

So realism vs "infringements" to realism as you put it...I'd contend that it's just a matter of how it's done...but it's unavoidable. 🙂

And I'd contend that time compression merely changes your perception of the world around you, rather than change the world around you itself, and as such is much preferable to a scaled world. Use it if you want it or leave it; the only aspect it changes is the speed of the simulation (as advertised I would say) instead of having all kinds of nasty side effects in navigation and fuel use etc.

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Well they're gong to do what they're going to do, but I respectfully disagree. I'm talking about flight time/playability issues.

Nobody is going to fly a Zero for 8 hours from Rabaul to Henderson...yet we want the Solomons.

Also a full size slot map is just not going to happen.

I'm with you on the 8 hour Rabaul to Henderson flight that almost nobody is going to fly - that's why I advocate time compression. I don't think anyone really disagrees that few people would enjoy flights like that.

I'm curious though why you think a full-size slot map is "just not going to happen". Because of these long flights or because of a perceived technological barrier or development time?

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

You can give the illusion of scale and yet scale things down and make the sorties actually flyable.

Yes, time compression would solve the problem I suppose...offline anyway. There's more than one way to skin the cat, the scaling the map size down is IMHO the best option all around. Take for example people clamoring for B-17s for so long...how many of them are going to sit at their computer for 10 hours? Almost none.

How much time would the average multiplayer gamer be willing to fly? Half an hour? Thats 1/16th of the 8 hour flight. Let's round it up to a tenth, or 48 minutes. Guadalcanal is only 40km wide where Henderson field is located; it's runway would cover a quarter of the island! Also the distance from Rabaul to Guadalcanal would change to a hundred kilometres or so - that's within visual range on a clear day. So much for navigation skills. Not to mention engine management. As a matter of curiosity since you advocate scaling down the Solomons, how do you suggest to scale things down this dramatically while still keeping the illusion of scale intact? (Note that any less dramatical scaling down would still make for longer flights than the average Joe is willing to make.)

I agree that time compression would be... tricky... to do in multiplayer. I'm sure a solution can be found, although I don't have a perfect one at the ready except airstarts or perhaps placing a few (non-historical) carriers nearby.

[Amiral Crapaud]

Well I am fine with real distances and realistic maps with fast travel (that isnt just time compression - it's more akin hyperspace - see PAW and EAW) for solo and in-flight start/exit as an option, including in MP, as if you were coming from the map border for instance on a smaller map.

PAW did it very well and nobody complained.

Ok nobody had internet back then, but still! ^^

Didn't see much complaining for EAW at least.

[Rick Rawlings]

28 minutes ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

 

I agree that time compression would be... tricky... to do in multiplayer. I'm sure a solution can be found, although I don't have a perfect one at the ready except airstarts or perhaps placing a few (non-historical) carriers nearby.

It probably depends on how they decide to model the game world. If they go with a bubble design (which I think would work fine given the speed and size of WWII engagements), you could probably handle significant multiplayer time compression without too much trouble, especially if we are talking CO-OP where the human pilots will spend most of the mission in close proximity to each other...

[Gambit21]

53 minutes ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

 

I'm curious though why you think a full-size slot map is "just not going to happen". Because of these long flights or because of a perceived technological barrier or development time?

 

 

Just because of the massive size...but hey I could end up being wrong about this.

🙂

 

Edit: You know what the really great thing is? That we actually have a reason to have such a debate at all. 🙂

 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Gambit21

[Aferg]

I don’t have any technical knowledge, but I agree that for most of us, one to one and a half is going to be the limit. 
Its amazing how quickly that time can go though.

Perhaps the option between time compression or just wombling along?

[busdriver]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I can tell you that I've received complaints about 45 - 50 minute ingress times during testing of Hell Hawks, to the extent that I moved the player base closer to the front even though it wasn't historical.

I believe I rightfully deserve credit where credit is due, for bitching about that as one of your testers. [Yes, I'm here to help 🫡]

[Gambit21]

35 minutes ago, busdriver said:

I believe I rightfully deserve credit where credit is due, for bitching about that as one of your testers. [Yes, I'm here to help 🫡]

You also get credit for being the best tester anyone could ask for - ever. 🙂

 

 

[busdriver]

7 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

You also get credit for being the best tester anyone could ask for - ever. 🙂

 

 

You still accepting PayPal or are you using Venmo these days? 😘

[I paid him to say that...]

[Ribbon]

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.

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Ribbon

[HBPencil]

I'm somewhat conflicted in that I enjoy taking off and landing for each mission yet I don't want to fly long distances. For the initial release of CP which will be CV based except for possibly a few small places like Midway, Wake etc. then if we have full size maps maybe we could have an option (for career mode) which sets each side's CVs a certain distance from the opposition e.g. realistic/long/medium/short. And if we get a FMB mission builders can create their campaigns or dogfight maps with the spawn points at what ever distance they like.

But of course that wouldn't work with any future land based map (e.g. Solomons or NG) unless everyone who chooses a distance less than 'realistic' is happy to roll with air spawns/despawns... which is fine by me but maybe not with some other players.

[Aferg]

Sorry,

that was meant to read “ one and a half hours”.

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

You know what the really great thing is? That we actually have a reason to have such a debate at all. 🙂

Well, I'm not going to argue with you there. For the first installment it won't be much of a problem anyhow; they can just move the carriers closer to midway for those who prefer it that way. And they'll likely have some time compression algorithm anyhow.

As for later installments; time compression clearly favours the single player crowd and scaled maps the multiplayers. Let's hope they can find a solution that caters to both.

[Trooper117]

No one is arguing, (at least not yet)... if Jason and co are going  to allow a 'mods on' function, then there is your answer... there are talented people out there that could make a full real time version that would keep that small percentage of players happy.

Can you imagine though, that when the new game is released, people suddenly realise that to play it, you are going to be welded to that computer seat for hours at a time just for one mission?... sales could be affected here, so that's another angle that needs consideration.

[Bremspropeller]

On 5/29/2023 at 8:03 AM, 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.

 

It's funny how different people can have completely opposite approaches. 😁

I'd say no to scaled maps, but I'd put in an emphatical YES for waypoint warps.

You can still fly 3hrs+ to your initial point or time-compress. But I think there should be a way to just skip time and not merely compress it. Maybe use a "probability of engagement > 50%" bubbe (I just made that one up on the go) that is 50'ish miles around the target or IP for fast cruisers/fighters/tac recce aircraft and smaller (say 35 miles) for slow cruisers/ bombers/ attackers.

For me, there's just too many actual life obligations to warrant sitting in front of the screen, watching a virtual pilot getting lost. I'm not saying it ain't fun for a slow day every once in a while, but most people have actual 8hr plus jobs and commutes, and other real life (TM) obligations, so they can't spend that time seeking the japanese fleet or dodging thunderstorms on the way to Rabaul or Lae.

[Trooper117]

33 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's funny how different people can have completely opposite approaches

Nothing wrong with that mate... we all have different priorities and likes.

It's a headache for the dev's as they won't please everyone's idea of the perfect game.

I suspect they will come up with some sort of compromise.

[dburne]

29 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Nothing wrong with that mate... we all have different priorities and likes.

It's a headache for the dev's as they won't please everyone's idea of the perfect game.

I suspect they will come up with some sort of compromise.

 

True that - really nothing in this world will ever be perfect. Not even combat flight sims after all these years.

[Chief_Mouser]

Really against scaled down maps.

Do you just scale down the distance between islands/land masses or the land as well? Look at titchy little Guadalcanal, ah bless. Not to mention the half-size mountains. It's 800km from Rabaul to Port Moresby, how close do you put them? Some people are going to bitch if it's just 100km. And whatever you decide do the aircraft have to be scaled down too? Not physically but performance wise. No point in the Japanese ditching all of their armour protection in favour of long-range if they don't have to fly far. So do you build the Zero with a max 15% fuel load?

IMHO the maps need to be full-scale for the serious masochist - don't forget that the mission builder can always factor in air starts - plus there should be dogfight maps with either real or imagined airfields for those with less time and inclination.

[dburne]

Seems the answer would be to add in a skip to function along with real actual size. Therefore anyone can run it how they wish. I just don't know how difficult it would be to implement a skip to function - they were more common in flight and race sims back in the 90's - probably much simpler to do then.

[CountZero]

On 5/29/2023 at 8:03 AM, 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.

 

Same, i never had problems with scale down maps, i do have problem with flying SP mission 30+min to target and back knowing nothing is gona happend, i do not play that mission. In MP i can fly1h+ sorties as action can happend anytime, or im going long way to target and so on... in SP nope, 30min max is my time im willing to spend on one mission.

[Jaguar]

2 hours ago, Chief_Mouser said:

IMHO the maps need to be full-scale for the serious masochist - don't forget that the mission builder can always factor in air starts - plus there should be dogfight maps with either real or imagined airfields for those with less time and inclination.

Agree!

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, Chief_Mouser said:

Really against scaled down maps.

Do you just scale down the distance between islands/land masses or the land as well? Look at titchy little Guadalcanal, ah bless. Not to mention the half-size mountains. It's 800km from Rabaul to Port Moresby, how close do you put them? Some people are going to bitch if it's just 100km. And whatever you decide do the aircraft have to be scaled down too? Not physically but performance wise. No point in the Japanese ditching all of their armour protection in favour of long-range if they don't have to fly far. So do you build the Zero with a max 15% fuel load?

IMHO the maps need to be full-scale for the serious masochist - don't forget that the mission builder can always factor in air starts - plus there should be dogfight maps with either real or imagined airfields for those with less time and inclination.

Scaled mountains etc is just silly as you know...nobody is suggesting that. Same with "scaled" aircraft.

Air starts are not an answer either. If full size maps are an option, then yes waypoint skips, or "action point" skips like EAW had both viable options and all in all, probably the best way to go I suppose. Again, assuming they have the ability for instance to build a full sized Slot map.

All that said, a scaled approach would work very well. Keep the island the same size, just shorten the distance between them for playability considerations.

The distances are huge...so even scaled down you're still flying for as long as most of us would care to.

More than one way to skin the cat. 😉

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Gambit21

[Chief_Mouser]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

More than one way to skin the cat. 😉

🙀

[Ribbon]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's funny how different people can have completely opposite approaches. 😁

I'd say no to scaled maps, but I'd put in an emphatical YES for waypoint warps.

You can still fly 3hrs+ to your initial point or time-compress. But I think there should be a way to just skip time and not merely compress it. Maybe use a "probability of engagement > 50%" bubbe (I just made that one up on the go) that is 50'ish miles around the target or IP for fast cruisers/fighters/tac recce aircraft and smaller (say 35 miles) for slow cruisers/ bombers/ attackers.

For me, there's just too many actual life obligations to warrant sitting in front of the screen, watching a virtual pilot getting lost. I'm not saying it ain't fun for a slow day every once in a while, but most people have actual 8hr plus jobs and commutes, and other real life (TM) obligations, so they can't spend that time seeking the japanese fleet or dodging thunderstorms on the way to Rabaul or Lae.

I guess we have different gameplay preferences, which is normal....i like navigation challenge, for me that is part of flying especially when you're short on fuel.

But i dont aim to spend 3h flying without action nor have that much free time (my work day is 8-12h plus social life, mtb, gf etc....i barely boot my pc twice a week. Thats why im in favor of scaled down maps, time compression or just mission design to place fleets closer than it was IRL so navigation challenge will remain.

But what ever will be its fine imo, as long we get PTO

Edited May 30, 2023 by Ribbon

[Mysticpuma]

There is always the option for multiplayer of some Custom non historical maps simply built for quick action fights. A short 10 minute flight to a halfway point between islands for action means 20 minutes to the opposition island/base if it's a bombing run and a 20 minute return flight from the enemy base back to your home base. 

That gives players 2 to 4 missions in an evening (for non historical action). 

So not everything has to be 'Historical' but obviously there is a feeling that historical will be the main focus 👍

 

[Mauler]

Interesting discussion.

I think we need to differentiate, clearly between SP and MP needs. They are two different beasts and a one size fit all solution with regard to map size most likely is not be the answer. Or maybe... 

For single player full size maps, if the engine is able, is the way to go. Time accel for transit is a good practical solution to those long flights where nothing happens. Some chance of intercept closer to target can easily be coded to auto drop you out of accel time to identify threat and engage. This has been done before so I see no reason to not follow a proven game mechanic.

Now when it comes to multiplayer - nope no chance. I would want full size islands and mainland then you'd either place the carriers/mission builder place small island strip at map edge with endless water beyond (MP being smaller than SP version map) or do air starts. I know, what about RTB...place a carrier at edge of map or mission builder placed island strip. You cannot have time compression in MP - simple. 

How much time players require in transit is up to the mission builder to determine in SP or MP. You can still have realistic SP missions with air starts and a much smaller (real life considerations here) transit time and still get that feeling of long distance whilst on autopilot getting a coffee 😉 or feeding the kids/tending to the significant other/getting to some other real life need.

The largest IL2 size maps (as an example) in MP are seldom if ever fully utilised - you have the mission builder sectioning off the full sized map to smaller portions. Look this could still be the answer, maybe full size only and let the mission builders sort it - would be less work for the devs. Just no time accel in MP, SP have time accel available.

Summary: SP - Full size and distance with time compression, to be dropped out if intercept is probable. MP full size land masses but reduced sea areas. Have separate maps for the different land masses. Have enough open sea that would necessitate some searching to find the carriers or a place-able island strip.  

Or... Full size maps only - SP with time accel on and MP with no time accel and let mission builder sort spawn points for transit times and the MP area. This, now that I have written the above, seems the best way. If the chosen engine can handle it. Otherwise per above. 

Just my 2 cents.