Introducing TASK FORCE ADMIRAL Vol.1: American Carrier Battles

[CaptainKoloth]

As I said above, I'm not questioning whether it's realistic or immersive- it is! What am I questioning is whether it's practical game design. Any game has abstractions and compromises from reality to make it playable. You don't do hours of paperwork before and after each flight in DCS. You don't write out orders by hand in whatever forms the Wermacht used during WWII and then wait hours for them to arrive in War in the East. You wouldn't want a game system in TFA where you're forced to actually wake up at 3 AM in real time, attend a briefing, and then wait minute by minute until launch time.  I'm being intentionally ridiculous of course, but a more serious example in this context is none of the crewmen using the real stations in the examples you cited above commanded every position on the ship, or would have been expected to do so without training or documentation, understanding the impact of their actions, or who in the crew was responsible for what.

Every game has some realistic elements and some compromises to make it a playable and fun game. I'm not questioning the realism or accuracy, I'm questioning whether that balance has been struck to make it fun and understandable to play. Just having accurate forms and representations of stations in and of itself, if not well documented, clearly connected in a comprehensible manner to player actions, and leading to some series of interesting decisions, does not make a good game in isolation.

Sid Meier, has a number of axioms for good video game design. One of these is that you need to be cautious that the player is the one having the fun rather than the designer. Clearly, the designers are having a lot of fun coding an amazingly accurate representation of the stations on a WW2 carrier, but as the player, I'm still struggling to find the fun beyond seeing it as sort of an interactive museum exhibit (so far).

[Tripoli]

As I said above, I'm not questioning whether it's realistic or immersive- it is! What am I questioning is whether it's practical game design. Any game has abstractions and compromises from reality to make it playable. You don't do hours of paperwork before and after each flight in DCS. You don't write out orders by hand in whatever forms the Wermacht used during WWII and then wait hours for them to arrive in War in the East. You wouldn't want a game system in TFA where you're forced to actually wake up at 3 AM in real time, attend a briefing, and then wait minute by minute until launch time.  I'm being intentionally ridiculous of course, but a more serious example in this context is none of the crewmen using the real stations in the examples you cited above commanded every position on the ship, or would have been expected to do so without training or documentation, understanding the impact of their actions, or who in the crew was responsible for what.

Every game has some realistic elements and some compromises to make it a playable and fun game. I'm not questioning the realism or accuracy, I'm questioning whether that balance has been struck to make it fun and understandable to play. Just having accurate forms and representations of stations in and of itself, if not well documented, clearly connected in a comprehensible manner to player actions, and leading to some series of interesting decisions, does not make a good game in isolation.

Sid Meier, has a number of axioms for good video game design. One of these is that you need to be cautious that the player is the one having the fun rather than the designer. Clearly, the designers are having a lot of fun coding an amazingly accurate representation of the stations on a WW2 carrier, but as the player, I'm still struggling to find the fun beyond seeing it as sort of an interactive museum exhibit (so far).

IMHO, it is a practical game design, but the game itself is for a certain audience.  The use of historically accurate displays is immersive and effectively presents the information.  It is complex, but that is the nature of carrier operations. Some people like more complex games, and some like simpler games.  And sometimes, it depends on the mood you are in.  After a long day of work, I may want something simple.  Other times, I'm playing Command Modern Operations, including writing OPLANS (yes, I am one of those kind of people.... ).  Games such as "World of Warships" are great when you want to blow off some steam.  Games like "Dangerous Waters" are good when you are trying to understand the nuances of a topic, (or re-live your prior military service... ).  There are several good carrier games out there. "Carriers at War" (see here for an AAR I did recently with it: https://www.grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=27722.0 and "Carrier Battles" come to mind.  But TFA covers the topic at a lower tactical level than those two games.  Plus, it has eye candy....

[Edit]: Regarding your comment about documentation.  It is a fair point to want good, complete and easy-to-understand documentation.  I assume that the game manual will be significantly expanded and revised.  For a demo, it is likely the manual is underdeveloped, as features have not been finalized.  Also, with a printed manual coming out for the Kickstarter backers, it is likely they will significantly expand the manual.

[Destraex]

I like the current interface but agree that it needs a good manual to go with it and some refinement. I cannot remember, but does the current game have tool tips when you hover over everything?
I'd love more detail or at least a way to get status reports on fuel levels etc, perhaps the abolity to show the cockpit instrumentation which I believe is probably coming with all the stretch goals.

What I am still concerned about is the single mission scenario orientation of the game. We really are limited to search and destroy i. A limited local area. Essentially their are only a few decisions to make, perhaps not enough to ensure longevity.

Eg
Decide where to scout
Decide where to attack
Defend against the enemy and decide to change course or not.

Hope your planes come back
Hope your AAA works
Hope you win

P.s. how do carrier pilots know where to come back to if I change course while they are on a mission? Give. Radio silence. I know there was some direction finding but how dangerous would this be to use with the enemy listening?

[The_Admiral]

It's all very good brainstorming expressed in a most polite fashion, so no worries there. Thanks to all those who take part to the overall process (and to Tripoli obviously in particular ^^)

As far as I am concerned I'll just reply to a few ideas that were expressed in here

- "That game was designed so that the designer could have fun". Well certainly, the designer is a player too, and wanted to play just that. It's part of the whole process indeed. And although I might not be a professional designer, I sure am a very dedicated player :)

- In regard of the overall UI paradigm, the diegetic approach obviously has pros and cons. It's from a day and age when it is simply not possible to expect a diegetic system that would be close to a digital interface - unlike what you have, say, in CMANO or Sea Power, where the NTDS-like interface is perfectly in tune with the topic. But then again, suddenly, try to play a late 1940 scenario in CMANO and some of you might feel it's just off, precisely because your inner self knows that modern symbology & computer-like interfaces don't work intuitively with the era. The same way you wouldn't find merit in our approach if the interface was serving a cold-war purpose rather than a WW2 one. Just like the choices made in a game like Highfleet, it is a completely conscious if somewhat radical pick.

- As such, lot of things in regard of available info provided to the player will be improved upon, whether it's the UI or the view system. More info will be provided for pretty much everything. Tool tips made more visible perhaps (they don't appear over the choices, they appear over the categories in the interactive forms). We can only grow and improve from here, but don't expect the basics to be redone. For some time now we have been aware of the path we had chosen, and the recent developments in regard of pinpointing our audience has validated our (possibly) most controversial and divisive choices, UI included.

- Mission-type wise, no not everything will be limited to search and destroy. Hopefully some of the scenarios are about hide and seek (when you are tasked with attacking a given target) while others involve complex choices (such as covering the landings during Watchtower, or escorting supply convoys). Add to this all the missions expected from the surface combatants (which will be fully fleshed out, especially with the stretch goals we achieved) and additional gameplay options (cf. our basic campaign system) and if you get bored, then anything PTO would bore you eventually I am sure ^^

- About navigation on the way home - on the US side it's the YE-ZB beacon system (colloquially known as the Zed Baker). It was made somewhat complicated so that secrecy could be kept, but at the end of the day it was never discovered by the enemy from what I recall. The Japanese had their own beacons, that did not betray them either. The main issue wasn't so much the emitter than the overall unreliability of the airborne receiver (and the fact that it's a line of sight device, so the further home, the higher you need to be over the horizon)

More info here.  https://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=704

At any rate hope it answers a few of the worries - and if not, it is what it is I guess :)

[Tripoli]

.... I cannot remember, but does the current game have tool tips when you hover over everything?
....

What I am still concerned about is the single mission scenario orientation of the game. We really are limited to search and destroy i. A limited local area. Essentially their are only a few decisions to make, perhaps not enough to ensure longevity.

Eg
Decide where to scout
Decide where to attack
Defend against the enemy and decide to change course or not.

Hope your planes come back
Hope your AAA works
Hope you win

P.s. how do carrier pilots know where to come back to if I change course while they are on a mission? Give. Radio silence. I know there was some direction finding but how dangerous would this be to use with the enemy listening?

There are tooltips in TFA, but they probably should be expanded. For instance, tool tips that expand on the differences in the type of strikes.  Possibly tool tips on basic aircraft specs, such as range, cruising speed and payload would be useful for planning.
Regarding how aircraft found their way back to the CV.  Basically, it was dead reckoning (DR) navigation.  Before take off, the pilots were told the expected battlegroup movements. Generally speaking, this was not too inaccurate, as the necessity of conducting flight ops into the wind limited the geographical movement of the carrier over the 3-4 hour mission time.  The USN had a homing beacon that used two channels and a modulated signal so that without the proper receiver, it the signal sounded like static. https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/zb-1-radio-homing-adapter-and-security-cover ; https://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&file=print&kid=704&page=1 The IJN did not have such a system, believing in radio silence.  Thus, USN aircraft occasionally were able to find their way back to the carriers in the dark (such as the Marianas operation), while the IJN aircraft occasionally got lost and tried to land on USN aircraft carriers (like they did at Coral Sea).

Regarding your comment on the game potentially being repetitive: For the demo, you are correct.  However, I believe that the game on the release will, (as in real life) have more decisions for the player to make.  For instance, the inclusion of submarines will force the player to make screening dispositions and course/speed decisions.  Multi-day scenarios can potentially make players have to make fueling decisions.  The inclusion of land bases and surface combat will make the battlespace a complex environment, requiring a lot more decisions on the part of the player.  I believe the developer plans to incorporate many, if not all, of these aspects in the game. [Full Disclosure: I assisted briefly with the game several years ago, but I have no current knowledge of the developer's current plans other than what he has posted, and from what I can tell from the state of the current game engine]

Edit: I see the Admiral posted as I was posting.  For obvious reasons, I defer to his post   

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

It's all very good brainstorming expressed in a most polite fashion, so no worries there. Thanks to all those who take part to the overall process (and to Tripoli obviously in particular ^^)

As far as I am concerned I'll just reply to a few ideas that were expressed in here

- "That game was designed so that the designer could have fun". Well certainly, the designer is a player too, and wanted to play just that. It's part of the whole process indeed. And although I might not be a professional designer, I sure am a very dedicated player :)

- In regard of the overall UI paradigm, the diegetic approach obviously has pros and cons. It's from a day and age when it is simply not possible to expect a diegetic system that would be close to a digital interface - unlike what you have, say, in CMANO or Sea Power, where the NTDS-like interface is perfectly in tune with the topic. But then again, suddenly, try to play a late 1940 scenario in CMANO and some of you might feel it's just off, precisely because your inner self knows that modern symbology & computer-like interfaces don't work intuitively with the era. The same way you wouldn't find merit in our approach if the interface was serving a cold-war purpose rather than a WW2 one. Just like the choices made in a game like Highfleet, it is a completely conscious if somewhat radical pick.

- As such, lot of things in regard of available info provided to the player will be improved upon, whether it's the UI or the view system. More info will be provided for pretty much everything. Tool tips made more visible perhaps (they don't appear over the choices, they appear over the categories in the interactive forms). We can only grow and improve from here, but don't expect the basics to be redone. For some time now we have been aware of the path we had chosen, and the recent developments in regard of pinpointing our audience has validated our (possibly) most controversial and divisive choices, UI included.

- Mission-type wise, no not everything will be limited to search and destroy. Hopefully some of the scenarios are about hide and seek (when you are tasked with attacking a given target) while others involve complex choices (such as covering the landings during Watchtower, or escorting supply convoys). Add to this all the missions expected from the surface combatants (which will be fully fleshed out, especially with the stretch goals we achieved) and additional gameplay options (cf. our basic campaign system) and if you get bored, then anything PTO would bore you eventually I am sure ^^

- About navigation on the way home - on the US side it's the YE-ZB beacon system (colloquially known as the Zed Baker). It was made somewhat complicated so that secrecy could be kept, but at the end of the day it was never discovered by the enemy from what I recall. The Japanese had their own beacons, that did not betray them either. The main issue wasn't so much the emitter than the overall unreliability of the airborne receiver (and the fact that it's a line of sight device, so the further home, the higher you need to be over the horizon)

More info here.  https://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=704

At any rate hope it answers a few of the worries - and if not, it is what it is I guess :)

Is it done yet?

[Destraex]

It's all very good brainstorming expressed in a most polite fashion, so no worries there. Thanks to all those who take part to the overall process (and to Tripoli obviously in particular ^^)

As far as I am concerned I'll just reply to a few ideas that were expressed in here

- "That game was designed so that the designer could have fun". Well certainly, the designer is a player too, and wanted to play just that. It's part of the whole process indeed. And although I might not be a professional designer, I sure am a very dedicated player :)

- In regard of the overall UI paradigm, the diegetic approach obviously has pros and cons. It's from a day and age when it is simply not possible to expect a diegetic system that would be close to a digital interface - unlike what you have, say, in CMANO or Sea Power, where the NTDS-like interface is perfectly in tune with the topic. But then again, suddenly, try to play a late 1940 scenario in CMANO and some of you might feel it's just off, precisely because your inner self knows that modern symbology & computer-like interfaces don't work intuitively with the era. The same way you wouldn't find merit in our approach if the interface was serving a cold-war purpose rather than a WW2 one. Just like the choices made in a game like Highfleet, it is a completely conscious if somewhat radical pick.

- As such, lot of things in regard of available info provided to the player will be improved upon, whether it's the UI or the view system. More info will be provided for pretty much everything. Tool tips made more visible perhaps (they don't appear over the choices, they appear over the categories in the interactive forms). We can only grow and improve from here, but don't expect the basics to be redone. For some time now we have been aware of the path we had chosen, and the recent developments in regard of pinpointing our audience has validated our (possibly) most controversial and divisive choices, UI included.

- Mission-type wise, no not everything will be limited to search and destroy. Hopefully some of the scenarios are about hide and seek (when you are tasked with attacking a given target) while others involve complex choices (such as covering the landings during Watchtower, or escorting supply convoys). Add to this all the missions expected from the surface combatants (which will be fully fleshed out, especially with the stretch goals we achieved) and additional gameplay options (cf. our basic campaign system) and if you get bored, then anything PTO would bore you eventually I am sure ^^

- About navigation on the way home - on the US side it's the YE-ZB beacon system (colloquially known as the Zed Baker). It was made somewhat complicated so that secrecy could be kept, but at the end of the day it was never discovered by the enemy from what I recall. The Japanese had their own beacons, that did not betray them either. The main issue wasn't so much the emitter than the overall unreliability of the airborne receiver (and the fact that it's a line of sight device, so the further home, the higher you need to be over the horizon)

More info here.  https://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=704

At any rate hope it answers a few of the worries - and if not, it is what it is I guess :)

The essential question here is whether I should be able to change course and expect my birds to make it home. Adding to that the need to calculate any extra fuel needed because of the course change. Should the game assume beacons will be reliable from the time the birds turn for home all the way back? Or should it be expected that if you make a task force course change it has to be built into the plan before take off or the aircrqft end up in the drink unless they are lucky?

P.s. I have no problem not having the info the historical participants did not have.
But then should we be choosing roles for strikes (task force or air wing) so that when radio silence is in effect proper lack of information is simulated? Would this even be fun?
I guess at rhe moment I can assess via watching strikes in person whether another strike is needed. But I guess we need to assume that the aircraft radioed back success or failure as per procedure?

[Destraex]

.... I cannot remember, but does the current game have tool tips when you hover over everything?
....

What I am still concerned about is the single mission scenario orientation of the game. We really are limited to search and destroy i. A limited local area. Essentially their are only a few decisions to make, perhaps not enough to ensure longevity.

Eg
Decide where to scout
Decide where to attack
Defend against the enemy and decide to change course or not.

Hope your planes come back
Hope your AAA works
Hope you win

P.s. how do carrier pilots know where to come back to if I change course while they are on a mission? Give. Radio silence. I know there was some direction finding but how dangerous would this be to use with the enemy listening?

There are tooltips in TFA, but they probably should be expanded. For instance, tool tips that expand on the differences in the type of strikes.  Possibly tool tips on basic aircraft specs, such as range, cruising speed and payload would be useful for planning.
Regarding how aircraft found their way back to the CV.  Basically, it was dead reckoning (DR) navigation.  Before take off, the pilots were told the expected battlegroup movements. Generally speaking, this was not too inaccurate, as the necessity of conducting flight ops into the wind limited the geographical movement of the carrier over the 3-4 hour mission time.  The USN had a homing beacon that used two channels and a modulated signal so that without the proper receiver, it the signal sounded like static. https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/zb-1-radio-homing-adapter-and-security-cover ; https://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&file=print&kid=704&page=1 The IJN did not have such a system, believing in radio silence.  Thus, USN aircraft occasionally were able to find their way back to the carriers in the dark (such as the Marianas operation), while the IJN aircraft occasionally got lost and tried to land on USN aircraft carriers (like they did at Coral Sea).

Regarding your comment on the game potentially being repetitive: For the demo, you are correct.  However, I believe that the game on the release will, (as in real life) have more decisions for the player to make.  For instance, the inclusion of submarines will force the player to make screening dispositions and course/speed decisions.  Multi-day scenarios can potentially make players have to make fueling decisions.  The inclusion of land bases and surface combat will make the battlespace a complex environment, requiring a lot more decisions on the part of the player.  I believe the developer plans to incorporate many, if not all, of these aspects in the game. [Full Disclosure: I assisted briefly with the game several years ago, but I have no current knowledge of the developer's current plans other than what he has posted, and from what I can tell from the state of the current game engine]

Edit: I see the Admiral posted as I was posting.  For obvious reasons, I defer to his post   

Thanks Tripoli. Your reply is still much appreciated.

[The_Admiral]

Hello Des,

Not sure what to tell you right now considering most of these functions are expected to be there but aren't implemented yet. Down the line you will be able to do the following

Commands you mentioned that will eventually require a radio communication & might get intercepted and used against you (and provoke a change of stance from the enemy AI)

- Recall strikes
- Reassign targets to on-going strikes
- Signal your current position to guarantee recovery

Know that, for instance, the AI is already happy to send a ready strike down your way when a carrier type strike is encountered by one of their scouts even if they haven't spotted you. The strike will be sent on a reciprocal heading. That means that any positive triangulation of your position using radio finding gear might result in the same kind of search and destroy behavior, as these messages would be sent in the clear, with no code.

Your strikes & other missions (including fighters etc) will also have more chatter so as to update you on the way their mission proceeds, but they will probably not do so until they are actually sighted by an enemy element. The whole Hornet Air Group, save for VT-8, observed radio silence at Midway all the way, managing to never encounter a single Japanese aircraft or ship, even though the fighter escort got completely lost and had to ditch, VS-8 headed back to TF-16 on its own and VB-8 went to land at Midway before returning to TF-16, then again with absolutely zero feedback until Midway signaled Hornet. That's how tight communications were back then. We don't plan on making it a chatterbox for the sake of an immersion that would have no real ground for the era ^^

[Jarhead0331]

Did any of you backers receive the email for your beta access? I didn't get mine yet and I've been checking my spam folder religiously. The emails were supposedly sent out yesterday.

[Tripoli]

Did any of you backers receive the email for your beta access? I didn't get mine yet and I've been checking my spam folder religiously. The emails were supposedly sent out yesterday.

I received mine yesterday at 1229 CST. If it helps you locate it,  the subject line is "TFA Kickstarter - Your TFA Beta key & Discord Access!" and it came from Task Force Admiral Kickstarter Support <task-force-admiral@drydockdreams.games>   

[Jarhead0331]

Thanks. I didn't get that.

I always get screwed.   

[Tripoli]

Jarhead: I just received an email  for backers that may be of use. I will DM it to you

[Jarhead0331]

Thanks!

[Jarhead0331]

The issue seems pretty pervasive based on the comments on the KS page. Hope it gets sorted before the weekend!