The "Uber" Command: Modern Air/Naval Ops Thread

[Yskonyn]

I see, so in theory you could create a completely new database with new units for a given scenario.
Still, this sound like a lot of work, whereas if you had the option to add units to a database you would not have to worry about which database to use for what. It just looks like its needlessly cumbersome?
Especially for a game which is likely to thrive bigtime on user generated content. :)

What was the reason for going like this? Memory allocation limits, copyright issues, etc?

[JudgeDredd]

As far as I know, it's locked down...that is you couldn't add your WWII aircraft or WWII ships or WWII systems.

Given the modability of the game, I guess it's a case of one of two things
1. It's locked down to protect it for future DLC
2. It's locked down because it complicated and the devs (rightly) don't want to be bug hunting non existent bugs because someone let out a new DB and balls'ed it up

It could be something else...but I'm with 1 (which is fine - if that's where they are going to make future money - they've spent a lot of time on the engine)

[Toonces]

Oh man, I have plenty to say on this, but I've had a few beverages so I have to keep this short to be coherent (until tomorrow at least).

We went through this when I was on the Freefalcon team and the head guys decided to "lock" the database, meaning nobody that didn't have the key could make changes to the database.

At first I was really opposed to this.  Freefalcon in and of itself came into existence due to people making edits to Falcon, including the DB, so to lock it seemed hypocritical.  However, after a lot of discussion and thought, I have come to understand the reasoning behind DB control.

In a nutshell, it keeps everyone on the same page.  First, for the devs it ensures that problems people report (including reports on wide-ranging forums) are truly the devs problems, and not some problem induced by people mucking around with the database files.  This wouldn't seem like a big deal, but Freefalcon got an early reputation as being buggy and we figured out that alot of our problems weren't bugs with our code so much, but rather bugs induced by people modifying their core installation- DB, etc.

Additionally, a locked DB keeps the game from spreading into multiple modding groups.  For example, IL-2.  If you've ever tried to figure out how to mod IL-2, you know what I mean.  There are multiple, non-compatible mod groups, and you can't mix them up, and some are more stable than others, and the whole thing is great when it works but it really is a mess for the novice.  If you keep the DB close you can avoid alot of that BS.

I hope that makes sense.

[emsoy]

There are many reasons why databases in Command are not editable.

First and foremost we did not want to repeat the database mess/confusion observed in Harpoon. We (the scenario authors) handled more than our fair share of support mails on database/scenario mismatches for that game. So in Command we wanted to shift all focus to scenarios. Command is pretty much a 'scenario sandbox' that started out as a scenario editor and evolved into a simulator. Everyone on the Command development team has a long history of scenario design behind them, mainly for Harpoon2/3, and we wanted to make the ultimate scenario editor for ourselves and other naval war gaming fans out there - without the noisy database element.

As such, in Command there is no need to copy/overwrite database files or edit configuration files, followed by odd behaviour and crashes if database and scenarios don't match 100%. Command scenarios know exactly what database they were built with based on the database's checksum (!), and a scenario will pick the right database upon load. We have received positive feedback on this solution, as the players only have to care about what scenario to play - rather than worrying about whether the scenario will crash with the currently installed database or not.

Second, the database for Command is very complex. Anyone who has spent time in the Harpoon2/3 database editor will immediately notice the increased number of parameters when they look in the Command DB Viewer. Editing or leaving out the wrong parameter could have rather negative impact on gameplay, generating a ton of unnecessary support tickets for the developer.

Third, having multiple user-created databases makes continued expansion of Command far more difficult. Any schema changes would also have to be applied (correctly!) to any 3rd party databases, each of which may or may not have been abandoned by its author at that point in time. There would also be the risk of making associated material (scenarios) unusable. The Command database schema & enum tables are updated regularly (last change 2 days ago!) and keeping all database hobbyists up-to-date would be a monstrous task, both on the dev end and on the 3rd party end. I wonder how many weeks (or days!) it would take before a new db author simply would give up.

It is understandable that comparisons are made between Harpoon and Command, but please remember that Command is not Harpoon!  8)

The databases contain something like 10,000 platforms but if you still need a new platform for a scenario that you're working on feel free to give us a pling. Preferably with links to information from reliable sources. The upcoming database has 7 new ships, 4 aircraft, 15 new ground stuff (SA-20, Swiss Bloodhound, some radars, etc). I've also added 4-Shrike/HARM loadouts to US Navy A-7Es and F/A-18A/Cs as these seem to have been used operationally on some rare occasions, incl in 1986 over Libya. Also made a bunch of other user-requested mods.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Thanks!  ;D

[Yskonyn]

Indeed cleared up, thanks!

[spelk]

As I understand, from discussion over at Matrix forums, you can edit entries in the database, but theyre attached to the scenario as DB Overrides. The actual Database is read only and is locked, but it can be over-ridden from data in the scenario. Whether this means you can create WWII launch platforms, and sub them in for Cold war kit - I'm not sure. I guess you'd have to take out a lot of the sensor and missile stuff from a particular entry.

A guy named baloogan has done some Twitch.tv casts of his sessions with Command, and has now put them up on Youtube for viewing, worth a look-see for folks who want to see the game actually in play.

He's also done some fiddling with linking game data into Google Earth and watching them play out in 3d! Now that is an interesting development - if you have the kit to run it!

[Herman Hum]

In a nutshell, it keeps everyone on the same page.  First, for the devs it ensures that problems people report (including reports on wide-ranging forums) are truly the devs problems, and not some problem induced by people mucking around with the database files.  This wouldn't seem like a big deal, but Freefalcon got an early reputation as being buggy and we figured out that alot of our problems weren't bugs with our code so much, but rather bugs induced by people modifying their core installation- DB, etc.

This is a legitimate concern.  However, I think they should be regarded as an opportunity instead of a hindrance.  Firstly, the problem of folks entering bad information into the database files is just an opportunity for the developers to make a better database editor.  In the Harpoon field, the Reimer database editor is based on MS Access and has many validation routines to ensure that the entries actually work.  It could use even more.  In fact, managers of the 'official' Harpoon databases are amongst the most guilty for making the same database errors you currently attribute to third-party users.  Remember, the developers control the DB editor program and can easily decide what is and what is not allowed as valid data within each database field.  A good database utility serves everyone better.

Additionally, a locked DB keeps the game from spreading into multiple modding groups.  For example, IL-2.  If you've ever tried to figure out how to mod IL-2, you know what I mean.  There are multiple, non-compatible mod groups, and you can't mix them up, and some are more stable than others, and the whole thing is great when it works but it really is a mess for the novice.  If you keep the DB close you can avoid alot of that BS.

This is a chicken-and-egg argument.  By keeping the number of groups making modifications down to a minimum, it also restricts the spread and popularity of the game.  Some mods are universally recognized for their general quality, while others satisfy more niche desires. This way both groups and single individuals are able to find what meets their needs - or to build it from scratch for personal use.  There is simply nothing wrong with different flavours of support even if the quality may differ.  Calling it BS is just one perspective; others might recognize it as an opportunity for developers to find a better way to help novitiates.  The important thing is folks are talking about and playing the game.

[Herman Hum]

As I understand, from discussion over at Matrix forums, you can edit entries in the database, but theyre attached to the scenario as DB Overrides. The actual Database is read only and is locked, but it can be over-ridden from data in the scenario. Whether this means you can create WWII launch platforms, and sub them in for Cold war kit - I'm not sure. I guess you'd have to take out a lot of the sensor and missile stuff from a particular entry.

Unfortunately, this is not possible.  Remember, the database is like a deck of cards.  You can only shuffle and re-mix what already exists within the database; you cannot create anything new.  Therefore, every WWII weapon and sensor system must already be found within the database in order for you to use the scenario editor's "re-combination" function. 

Also, because you cannot create new ships, subs, aircraft, etc., this means you must take a pre-existing entry (along with its inherent radar cross-section, communications equipment, and acoustic signature) and switch out the weapons and sensors.  You cannot change any characteristics of the pre-existing entry.

[republic]

USNI review:  http://news.usni.org/2013/09/24/game-review-command-worthy-successor-harpoon

I can't wait to get this game...

[SgtRock]

I'm keeping my eye on this one, some what surprised no one released a ship/plane/missile icon mod yet. I look at the screen shots and have little idea what the hell I'm looking at, I always played Harpoon with the ship/plane icons.

[mikeck]

I can't believe this game does not have any background radio chatter. I like to feel like I'm in a CiC...not my den. Does anyone know of any clips of nothing but air/naval chatter? Could play it in seperate window or something?

[Herman Hum]

I'm keeping my eye on this one, some what surprised no one released a ship/plane/missile icon mod yet. I look at the screen shots and have little idea what the hell I'm looking at, I always played Harpoon with the ship/plane icons.

There is an icon mod possible from Terry Crawley (StalinTC).  It is pretty good.  However, Harpoon shipped with the ability to switch back and forth from NTDS symbols to Stylized icons.  You already paid for it with the official game.

In this game, you must locate and install third-party mods.
http://www.warfaresims.com/temp/CMANO_Stylised_Icons_005.zip

[Dimitris]

I'm keeping my eye on this one, some what surprised no one released a ship/plane/missile icon mod yet. I look at the screen shots and have little idea what the hell I'm looking at, I always played Harpoon with the ship/plane icons.

Hello,

There is a stylized icon pack available on our Command Downloads page: http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1876 . it has been made by Terry Crawley (StalinTC).

On the same page you can find additional scenarios and an extensive (2000+) image pack for the DB viewer.

Thanks!

[spelk]

Also, because you cannot create new ships, subs, aircraft, etc., this means you must take a pre-existing entry (along with its inherent radar cross-section, communications equipment, and acoustic signature) and switch out the weapons and sensors.  You cannot change any characteristics of the pre-existing entry.

Ah, thanks for the clarification Herman. Perhaps a WWII database and expansion would be a groovey addition to the title way down the line.

[spelk]

On the same page you can find additional scenarios and an extensive (2000+) image pack for the DB viewer.

Is it easy to add your own images to the DB, or create your own pack from a trawl of Google images? Where do you put them and how do you ensure they are linked to the DB entry?