Introducing TASK FORCE ADMIRAL Vol.1: American Carrier Battles

[Jarhead0331]

Lots of hope for this title and I love the attention to detail and fidelity that you all have put into it so far! 

I'm not a PMI-certified software development manager but I play one on TV sometimes.   

As you set your kickstarter goals, I hope you're building a generous cushion in.  Even with a solid and well-designed code base and a good team, it takes a lot of money and resources to adequately polish a game once it "goes live"!

They're being published by microprose. The kickstarter was really just to support the physical goodies.

[Destraex]

The next goal is almost passed and is a dynamic campaign generator.

"$AUD 200 000 - Battle-based Dynamic Campaign Generator!
It's all very early in the concept phase, but we gave it some thought in the past already. Don't expect something like Highfleet - which went the way of a fantastic rogue-like setting for the campaign, go have a look if you're into fleet command stuff, it is really, really good - but something more akin what was done in Regiments, especially in its latest DLC winds of change.

Battles will be generated dynamically, using our existing scenario generator as a foundation.
Your available forces will be historically grounded obviously, but evolving based on previous battle results.
In-between each engagement, you'll have to make key strategic choices, picking between different battle opportunities that will affect the generated scenarios, possibly with some relevant manpower & logistics-related elements (aka leaders giving some bonus to their TF, supply-related matters, squadron rotation, etc...)."

[Destraex]

Me mucking around with the demo. I really liked what I saw at this early stage.
It looks and plays well for something so early.

The HMAS Australia heavy cruiser always deserves a screenshot. She survived the war and I read a great book called "flagship" about her life by one of our ex 60 minutes hosts here, Mike Carlton.








I really enjoyed seeing the aircraft move from the front or back of the carrier and back to prepare for launch or recovery. Very cool and atmospheric. cannot wait for the animated deck crew.

[The_Admiral]

I'm pretty impressed that the 20 Vice Admiral VIP Physical editions, the ^top 2nd top tier at AUS$925 each, are all gone.   

Physical edition? Couple of questions:

(1) Does it come with an actual aircraft carrier? That would go a good way toward explaining the price tag.
(2) Is $925 Aus enough to buy a can of vegemite?

Well for that price, you got a talking Koala delivering you the vegemite can in person I guess!

[The_Admiral]

Me mucking around with the demo. I really liked what I saw at this early stage.
It looks and plays well for something so early.

Thanks Des ~
Yes that's pretty much the point of this demo - a proof of concept testing the waters to see if there's potential/an audience/a fun game beneath it all. All these points were validated, so we are very much at ease with future prospects.

Thanks to all the Grogheads backers in this thread. Happy to have you around!

[steve58]

Last stretch goal reached/passed. 

@The_Admiral.  Congrats. 

Now a question.  What is the "Extra Deluxe Digital Key"?  Just an extra Steam key?  I believe it first shows up in the Rear Admiral: VIP Physical Edition tier.  TIA

[The_Admiral]

Thanks!

Aye, yes, it is just an extra key with the associated perks of the digital deluxe edition - to gift/use on another account.

[Thomm]

This may well be the first game that I shall buy without even downloading it.

Reason:
To be honest, I am not terribly interested in the gameplay, but I view it as a piece of art that gives me joy just by watching YouTube videos.

And that alone deserves my support!

[Jarhead0331]

Tacview stretch goal met! Keep it rolling fellas'!

[steve58]

Congrats to The_Admiral et al for wrapping up a successful kickstarter and for hitting that last stretch stretch goal: TFA Battlestations .  Somehow I missed it when you guys added it.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Credit card charged.  Now, the waiting begins with me pestering the dev team weekly with the 'is it done yet?" posts.  I feel it helps motivate people and generally elevates everyone's mood. 

[CaptainKoloth]

OK, I'm going to be a bit of the stick in the mud here, because it looks like this demo is getting near universal admiration from what I've seen, but I'm really struggling to have fun with it, mostly because I'm finding the interface really baffling. I know the devs hang around here, hopefully they'll take this in the spirit of constructive criticism.

There are two things I'm really struggling with in the game. First, a lack of uniform design language in the UI. I realize that the UI by intent is trying to replicate different aspects of carrier operations, but I have one view of the 3D map, another completely different interface with different buttons for the "radar view', another totally different one for planning CAP, yet another completely different one for managing aircraft operations, yet ANOTHER for planning strikes, etc. I think there's a happy balance that can be struck between art and functionality, and art and immersion certainly have their place, but what ends up happening is it feels to me as if (I realize this isn't actually how the game was built) 10 different people made each interface screen without talking to each other. It's like I'm switching to a completely different game between, e.g., planning a strike and planning a CAP, and I am struggling to get used to it.

The other thing that's making me bounce of this a little bit is some really important information that seems to be either not well documented or hidden. For example, I still don't fully understood the relationship between spotting a strike and launching it- it will appear in the timeline, but if I don't actively press launch on the strike it won't go (which as far as I can tell is not documented in the quick start manual), and sometimes even when I do it doesn't seem to launch for reasons I don't understand. Similarly, I THINK that when an enemy contact is detect the AI air officer vectors the CAPs toward the target, but that is not documented anywhere and I get no in-game feedback confirming that that is going on. Another example is the 3D view - I have perfect, no fog-of-war knowledge of what each aircraft is seeing and looks like, but no information about, e.g., their fuel state, ammo, etc. (at least, not that I can see).

So the net result to me is that I constantly feel like I'm at war with the interface to understand what is going on, what buttons to push, and what the state of my forces is (and I don't mean in the sense of the actual fog of war the game simulates, but just because the information is not well organized or clear). I LOVE the quality of the game, the polish, the immersion, but I think it really needs some work with the interface and some thought regarding what information is being provided and how before it becomes, in my mind, playable. I realize this is a minority opinion, however.

[Jarhead0331]

I think constructive criticisms like yours are critical for the developers to see, particularly since the feedback has been so positive.  If the Admiral doesn't respond to this here, I think you should post your thoughts in a more visible place. It can only help to make a better game in the end!

[Tripoli]

OK, I'm going to be a bit of the stick in the mud here, because it looks like this demo is getting near universal admiration from what I've seen, but I'm really struggling to have fun with it, mostly because I'm finding the interface really baffling. I know the devs hang around here, hopefully they'll take this in the spirit of constructive criticism.

There are two things I'm really struggling with in the game. First, a lack of uniform design language in the UI. I realize that the UI by intent is trying to replicate different aspects of carrier operations, but I have one view of the 3D map, another completely different interface with different buttons for the "radar view', another totally different one for planning CAP, yet another completely different one for managing aircraft operations, yet ANOTHER for planning strikes, etc. I think there's a happy balance that can be struck between art and functionality, and art and immersion certainly have their place, but what ends up happening is it feels to me as if (I realize this isn't actually how the game was built) 10 different people made each interface screen without talking to each other. It's like I'm switching to a completely different game between, e.g., planning a strike and planning a CAP, and I am struggling to get used to it.

The other thing that's making me bounce of this a little bit is some really important information that seems to be either not well documented or hidden. For example, I still don't fully understood the relationship between spotting a strike and launching it- it will appear in the timeline, but if I don't actively press launch on the strike it won't go (which as far as I can tell is not documented in the quick start manual), and sometimes even when I do it doesn't seem to launch for reasons I don't understand. Similarly, I THINK that when an enemy contact is detect the AI air officer vectors the CAPs toward the target, but that is not documented anywhere and I get no in-game feedback confirming that that is going on. Another example is the 3D view - I have perfect, no fog-of-war knowledge of what each aircraft is seeing and looks like, but no information about, e.g., their fuel state, ammo, etc. (at least, not that I can see).

So the net result to me is that I constantly feel like I'm at war with the interface to understand what is going on, what buttons to push, and what the state of my forces is (and I don't mean in the sense of the actual fog of war the game simulates, but just because the information is not well organized or clear). I LOVE the quality of the game, the polish, the immersion, but I think it really needs some work with the interface and some thought regarding what information is being provided and how before it becomes, in my mind, playable. I realize this is a minority opinion, however.

Regarding the uniform UI issue you mention.  I believe that Task Force Admiral (TFA) has different UI for various tasks is because you use those different UI in real life, and the game is trying to replicate that. In the real world, navy personnel are constantly switching between measuring in absolute terms (Latitude/Longitude and true bearings) and relative terms (measuring from positions relative to your own ship or the guide unit). In the Flag Plot or CIC, you would have a chart to plot your TF and aircraft movement (this is called the "Strategic Map" in TFA). This is the most useful way of navigating and displaying the movement of ships and aircraft across a wide geographical area, and it uses geographical coordinates (Lat/long or other similar systems).

 Next, you have the "maneuvering board" or "Mo-board" (This is called the "Fleet Plot" in TFA).  This view is best for displaying the relative movement of units.  Because of this, it is the best way of assigning the stations for the ships within a task force.  For instance, the guide/flag ship is usually in the center of the formation, the plane guard is always astern the carrier at about 1 nm, the ASW ships are oriented along the axis of intended movement, etc.  The Mo-Board is the most effective way of displaying this information (and before the era of computers was how we manually determined courses/speeds to maneuver to stations).  The CAP station display is similar to the Mo-Board, but it has a larger scale.  This easily allows the Fighter Controller to maintain the CAP stations at the proper relative bearing from the TF to best cover the threat axis.

The other displays provide different information than the Charts and Mo-Board.  The mission roster shows you the "flight schedule" so you can properly sequence your various air missions.  Similarly, the Deck Plot shows how the aircraft are being spotted on the deck and their preparation status. The various screens in TFA reflect how carrier battlegroups (even today) actually manage these various aspects of battlegroup operations. 

Regarding spotting a strike, That is actually the action of fueling, arming, and properly arranging on the deck the aircraft strike.  You will notice that the TBDs are usually in the aft part of the deck, because with an underpowered engine and carrying a heavy torpedo, they need more deck space to take off.  That is part of the spotting process, getting the aircraft fueled, armed, and positioned for takeoff.  Launching the strike is just that.  It is the actual engine warm-up, launching, and airborne forming up of the strike.
 
 

[Tripoli]

Just a little more on this topic: Below is an image of the CIC on the USS INDEPENDENCE (CVL-22) (source: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/c/cic-operations-on-a-night-carrier.html).  It shows at least two mo-boards: the plexiglass plot mounted in front of the radar repeater was to display the TF disposition based on inputs from the radar repeater in the center of the photo.   Sailors would plot the current positions of ships and their assigned screen and contacts on this board.  Depending on the scale used, CAP stations and air contacts could be plotted here. The "schedule board" to the right of this likely shows the flight schedule.  Probably these are mostly CAP missions.  The table to the right of the radar repeater is also a mo-board, and is likely used for planning the screen, while the one to the left is probably for planning of CAP stations.    I don't see a geographical plot in this photo, but one will be in the CIC.  I think the item to the far right of the photo is a Dead Reckoning Tracer (DRT), which isn't in TFA.  As you can see in this photo, the CIC on a carrier had the same "data feeds" as TFA replicates.  There isn't a "deck plot" or ouija board in CIC, as that would be located in Air Ops.  However, there would be one onboard.
 See https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/how-things-work-the-ouija-board-10048217/