Introducing TASK FORCE ADMIRAL Vol.1: American Carrier Battles

[The_Admiral]

A few updates of note over the last few weeks 🙂
(now that Twitter... I mean X is back it's easier)

Allow me to cripple your Twitter post budget for the day ~

https://vxtwitter.com/DrydockDreams/status/1681918703401590784
https://vxtwitter.com/DrydockDreams/status/1683519185832353794
https://vxtwitter.com/DrydockDreams/status/1683792207369625600
https://vxtwitter.com/DrydockDreams/status/1684200871918292998
https://vxtwitter.com/DrydockDreams/status/1684930103019819008
https://vxtwitter.com/DrydockDreams/status/1685234018252713984

[em2nought]

The balance between the ocean graphics and the objects on the ocean graphics is just right. Spot on!  I feel like in many naval titles I can barely make out anything but ocean.

[Ian C]

[Sir Slash]

I'm not even sure that a cold shower would help after that! A real furball for sure! And that torpedo was so close, I was leaning over in my chair trying to help the carrier. Looks like a totally Class Act coming our way. 

[Millipede]

A nice update video from Onkel Neal & Wendy over at subsim.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtdF3GZjs24&t=679s

[Destraex]

Some youtuber is saying you will eventually be able to fly the aircraft and man AA gun? To me this is incongruous with the rest of the "simulation". On the one hand you have a very detailed cutting edge wargame simulating things faithfully and realistically. On the other you will have a simplified flight model and simplified AA physics and gun model for players to FPS in? In battlestations midway this drew a lot of people in, but I don't consider that a wargame. A lot of people who play Task Force Admiral will also be interested in flight simuilators. They will no doubt be dissappointed by the simplicity of things at one end contrasted by the complexity at the other?

Just food for thought.

[em2nought]

I think maybe Garyowen instead of Wagner. 

[The_Admiral]

I think maybe Garyowen instead of Wagner. 

Aye, but finding a royalty free Garry Owen is harder than it looks ;)
This Wagner one was part of the Youtube free asset library, so it did not get us in trouble - but even over there at Facebook I had to answer to a copyright claim just for that.

Besides, not sure who will hate me the most between our Navy or our Army followers if I was to dare to try to edit a Cavalry tune together with a USN dogfight. It's like good recipes & food, even with the best ingredients you cannot mix certain things together, y'know ^^

[The_Admiral]

Some youtuber is saying you will eventually be able to fly the aircraft and man AA gun? To me this is incongruous with the rest of the "simulation".

This was an interpretation of the contents of our readme. To be clear, platform-based combat is very much namely envisioned as a Kickstarter goal (aka extra feature), not as a core game feature right now. The possibility exists (among other gameplay options, like a SOPAC campaign for instance). If not within the frame of the KS, then as a natural DLC.

On the one hand you have a very detailed cutting edge wargame simulating things faithfully and realistically. On the other you will have a simplified flight model and simplified AA physics and gun model for players to FPS in? In battlestations midway this drew a lot of people in, but I don't consider that a wargame. A lot of people who play Task Force Admiral will also be interested in flight simuilators. They will no doubt be dissappointed by the simplicity of things at one end contrasted by the complexity at the other?

Just food for thought.

As for flight models & ballistics, these answer to the same rules whichever mode you'd be. These are simply not up to true platform simulators standards (aka Il-2 or DCS) in terms of complexity & fidelity. It's still more than a classic wargame (aka mere pre-defined values or "apparence" of physics). It is, to some extent "Graviteam on Sea" - I like the moniker even though it is not the most adapted image considering Graviteam does have a higher ceiling for simulation than us for certain things - not necessarily on others (aircraft, for instance, these not being a focus of a Graviteam game obviously). Besides lack of sources & the fact that we don't want to release in another 5 years, simplification of the flight model or ballistics is the reason why you can still run the game at x10 with 150 planes & 30 ships shooting at each other. Gotta find a middle ground, and I think we have that.

TLDR: it's about putting you at the commands of a 20mm mount or flying a Wildcat, physics & ballistics are those you'll be experiencing already in-game in wargame mode, doesn't imply any streamlining or simplification - but the simulation itself is not as hardcore as some might think, to begin with. 

Cheers

[Destraex]

I like pineapple on pizza thx ;)

[Destraex]

Some youtuber is saying you will eventually be able to fly the aircraft and man AA gun? To me this is incongruous with the rest of the "simulation".

This was an interpretation of the contents of our readme. To be clear, platform-based combat is very much namely envisioned as a Kickstarter goal (aka extra feature), not as a core game feature right now. The possibility exists (among other gameplay options, like a SOPAC campaign for instance). If not within the frame of the KS, then as a natural DLC.

On the one hand you have a very detailed cutting edge wargame simulating things faithfully and realistically. On the other you will have a simplified flight model and simplified AA physics and gun model for players to FPS in? In battlestations midway this drew a lot of people in, but I don't consider that a wargame. A lot of people who play Task Force Admiral will also be interested in flight simuilators. They will no doubt be dissappointed by the simplicity of things at one end contrasted by the complexity at the other?

Just food for thought.

As for flight models & ballistics, these answer to the same rules whichever mode you'd be. These are simply not up to true platform simulators standards (aka Il-2 or DCS) in terms of complexity & fidelity. It's still more than a classic wargame (aka mere pre-defined values or "apparence" of physics). It is, to some extent "Graviteam on Sea" - I like the moniker even though it is not the most adapted image considering Graviteam does have a higher ceiling for simulation than us for certain things - not necessarily on others (aircraft, for instance, these not being a focus of a Graviteam game obviously). Besides lack of sources & the fact that we don't want to release in another 5 years, simplification of the flight model or ballistics is the reason why you can still run the game at x10 with 150 planes & 30 ships shooting at each other. Gotta find a middle ground, and I think we have that.

TLDR: it's about putting you at the commands of a 20mm mount or flying a Wildcat, physics & ballistics are those you'll be experiencing already in-game in wargame mode, doesn't imply any streamlining or simplification - but the simulation itself is not as hardcore as some might think, to begin with. 

Cheers

Oh but it does imply streamlining and simplification. Because once you zoom down to such a granular level as to allow control of an aircraft from inside the cockpit, you then need to amplify the realism to match what it was at the macro level of the simulation. Physics of individual aircraft do not matter as much at the macro level the simulation is set in but at the micro level, less than flight simulation physics model all of a sudden is more noticeable to those who have flown high fidelity flight sims. The mind of a grog is not easily fooled under a microscope of such magnitude. If I cannot adjust my dive flaps, arm my bombs, navigate with my magnetic compass and trim my aircraft amongst a multitude of other things, it will feel arcade like. I'd prefer something like advanced radio chatter to being able to physically fly or man an AA gun.

As for the simulation not being hardcore.... what exactly is not as realistic as it should be? Is it not comparable to command modern operations but with 3D graphics?

[Toonces]

I'm going to take the opposite stance.  I do not want to arm my bombs, extend my dive flaps, and navigate with my magnetic compass.  There are already games/sims that do that.

What I want is to be working the operational and tactical picture of my fleet, but also be able to jump in and experience things from the first person perspective.  I can completely accept something far less than DCS-level physics.  It's optional, anyway. 

It's this reaching for every increasing "realism" in games/sims that is holding us back from some truly magical games IMO.  I still remember how much FUN I had playing those old Microprose sims in the 90's.  I wish we could get back to that.  Everything doesn't have to be so serious.

Maybe I'm just an old dog that can't learn new tricks.

[The_Admiral]

Oh but it does imply streamlining and simplification. Because once you zoom down to such a granular level as to allow control of an aircraft from inside the cockpit, you then need to amplify the realism to match what it was at the macro level of the simulation. Physics of individual aircraft do not matter as much at the macro level the simulation is set in but at the micro level, less than flight simulation physics model all of a sudden is more noticeable to those who have flown high fidelity flight sims. The mind of a grog is not easily fooled under a microscope of such magnitude. If I cannot adjust my dive flaps, arm my bombs, navigate with my magnetic compass and trim my aircraft amongst a multitude of other things, it will feel arcade like. I'd prefer something like advanced radio chatter to being able to physically fly or man an AA gun.

Nah you really don't. It's two games in one. Then again, even our command side of things isn't that hardcore to begin with. We create conditions for hardcore conditions based on the environment and the fog of war, or realism when it comes to aircraft numbers, heading into the wind, etc... But I don't see how these should translate into a specific experience at platform level. You won't need a PhD to play either aspect of the game, but you can perfectly see them as different experiences, just like (as Toonces implies too) the Carrier Battle module & the flight sim part of Pacific Air War did.

Nobody ever complained, I think, that the PAW carrier battle tactical aspects were much simpler than the flight sim. People were just glad that it existed to provide another layer of gameplay. Same with Task Force 1942's Campaign vs surface combat, or even WotS' campaign vs its tactical instance. I am of said school and tradition, and I intend to honor this tradition, while slightly innovating by having them coexist within the same game instance, the same engine & the same standards (that is, unlike Pacific Air War or Task Force, switch from a module to another for a different experience). Hope it makes sense.

As for the simulation not being hardcore.... what exactly is not as realistic as it should be? Is it not comparable to command modern operations but with 3D graphics?

I might be wrong (if Dimitris is around he's free to kick me in the nuts I won't defend myself ^^) but the level of fidelity expected from CMO when it comes to air & sea maneuvers by platforms is somewhat linked to the absence of native embedded micro 3D view. It also allows the simulation of a very broad array of platforms at the cost of some of the granularity as far as their behavior is concerned. Obviously this choice has never bitten them in the butt because you never get to watch the game unravel in full detailed 3D, so it was absolutely the right call and makes CMO's versatility overall a very strong aspect of its inherent qualities & successful design.

But if you were to watch a Tacview replay of a DCS game and its equivalent from a CMO game, you will see the obvious differences which derive from this yet again different approach in terms of granularity (that is, in the way the AI reacts to threats or engage in acrobatics for instance - but still, remarkable in regard of the scale of what CMO simulates). On our end, we have a diversified set of constraints deriving from being half-way (or half-assed) in two directions - the full 3D spectrum which is common with that of a sim like DCS or Il-2, and the larger scale command side that is common with that of a realtime command simulation like CMO. It means that we have to seek a balanced compromise on both aspects, and cannot be expected to please the expectations of both crowds fully either. Some might say it's a risky affair. I am ready to test that hypothesis.

[Sir Slash]

I think I agree with Toonces, I'm such a total, 'Suck' as a pilot I would rather watch the action than drive it. 

[JasonPratt]

Riding along in first-person view, and getting to shoot some AA if I want to, is fine with me. If I want DCS I'll play DCS. I don't even expect Battlestations-level control performance (although if there's that, too, I won't complain!)

In this case "I won't complain" is my motto. I'm just grateful the game is being made.