D Day ships

[SneakyPara]

I bought a book called "D Day Ships", with many authentic photos in it. It could be a reference if you are going to have the landings included in the Overlord part of the TW release. The book is very readable and gives insight to the sea borne part of the invasion, a frequently overlooked element. For game purposes, a realistic rendering of the ships on the Channel would then co-ordinate with salvos going inland. Depending on the maths in the software for aiming and trajectory, you could model random outcomes of shell impacts on the defences. What damage modelling are you using? A 14" navy shell hitting a Panzer III will kill all the occupants by kinetic shock and flip the tank. However, that's another subject ... :idea:

 

[drummer93]

It sounds interesting , but I think there won't be beach maps in chapter one

 

[Aniallator]

Gold and/or Sword beach won't be featured in Overlord, though I expect we'll see one of them by Chapter Two.

As far as calling in ordnance is concerned, we know we'll be able to call in mortars, but here's a suggestion; what you call in depends on the faction and the map, and differs based on historical accuracy. For example, if you're playing as the Germans on Gold/Sword, you can call in mortars, but if you're playing as the Brits, we can call in naval artillery. If you're playing as the Germans on Pegasus bridge you can again call in mortars, but if you're playing as the Brits you can't call in anything.

However, rather than calling in generic artillery, or generic mortars, I'd love to see calling in ordnance implemented to be more detailed, in that you call in actual weapons. Let's say you're playing as the Germans on Pegasus. Instead of calling in mortars, you'd call in 81 mm Granatwerfer 34s. Or playing as the Brits in another map, instead of calling in artillery you'd call in 88 mm QF 25-pounders, or as the Germans 105 mm leFH 18s. This also allows calling in different forms of ordnance that have different effects, for example on Gold/Sword calling in battleship fire, cruiser fire, or destroyer fire instead of having the lot packaged up as "naval artillery", and on other maps calling in different kinds of artillery pieces or mortars. Imagine! Instead of calling in boring, generic, regular-old "mortars" every time. The best part is, comparably, it's not excruciatingly painful to implement; you need to label different forms of ordnance you can call in, and implement different trajectories and explosion effects for each one. So be not excruciatingly painful, I mean no modelling and texturing! Yay! Not to mention, it'd be great to be able to choose how many rounds you call in (with a maximum number), with how many you call in effecting how long it takes before you can call another strike.

 

[VonMudra]

Honestly, I just want to eventually get us to a system where the players can also use their own mortars and artillery, but that'll have to wait, especially until we can implement 64 and 128 player servers. But that's just my personal desire.

As for calling in different ordnance types (perhaps with varied cool downs or such), I feel that would be feasible and something I'd want. Naval artillery would also be correct for the Allies to have, and pretty much would annihilate anything it touched (so perhaps would have to make it rare )

 

[SneakyPara]

To follow Annihilator's and VonMudra's comments, here are some thoughts on the modelling and why results are not predictable.

Ballistics is an affect of gravity, shell geometry and mass. Range is barrel diameter and charge. Accuracy is barrel length and rifling, wind, sea conditions and ship fire control (human error); ballistics affects accuracy according to range. Damage is shell type, size, impact velocity and shock wave; blast radius is usually fixed.

Example. A ship executes a fire mission to hit tanks at 7 miles; co-ordinates called in by a spotter plane (players must use their own judgment to call in co-ordinates). Fire control chooses a salvo of four 14" AP shells. The modelling of accuracy/range/ballistics gives us a pattern of impact, and blast radius per shell plotted by the pattern. We then decide if the tank is hit: target co-ordinates vs. spotter co-ordinates; and terrain defence value. Computers are good at detailed damage models.

Once a software routine is defined to manage all the parameters, it could be easy to implement. All the data you could possibly need is available from various historic web sites.
Note: the developers of FreeCiv for Linux needed to balance what software should be run on the server, more security and more software overhead, or run on the client, less security and faster game.

 

[Aniallator]

To follow Annihilator's and VonMudra's comments, here are some thoughts on the modelling and why results are not predictable.

Ballistics is an affect of gravity, shell geometry and mass. Range is barrel diameter and charge. Accuracy is barrel length and rifling, wind, sea conditions and ship fire control (human error); ballistics affects accuracy according to range. Damage is shell type, size, impact velocity and shock wave; blast radius is usually fixed.

Example. A ship executes a fire mission to hit tanks at 7 miles; co-ordinates called in by a spotter plane (players must use their own judgment to call in co-ordinates). Fire control chooses a salvo of four 14" AP shells. The modelling of accuracy/range/ballistics gives us a pattern of impact, and blast radius per shell plotted by the pattern. We then decide if the tank is hit: target co-ordinates vs. spotter co-ordinates; and terrain defence value. Computers are good at detailed damage models.

Once a software routine is defined to manage all the parameters, it could be easy to implement. All the data you could possibly need is available from various historic web sites.
Note: the developers of FreeCiv for Linux needed to balance what software should be run on the server, more security and more software overhead, or run on the client, less security and faster game.

Well, I'm down! To have this the devs would also have to program literally where the rounds are coming from, whether from an artillery piece or a battleship; they can't just come from "somewhere off the map".

Also, somewhat off topic, but wouldn't it be a neat immersion boost to have a spotting plane flying around over the map? Not a German one of course... but an L-4 or something doing lazy loops over the map to simulate an artillery observation aircraft.

 

[FlyingR]

[MENTION=3230]SneakyPara[/MENTION] basically mentioned everything. Accuracy would be a big problem, you can't just aim at the tank with binoculars and have the ships hit it with pinpoint accuracy. You would have to mention in which direction is the tank or target moving from and to and such. Any kind of arty barrage isn't always accurate anyways.

Also, somewhat off topic, but wouldn't it be a neat immersion boost to have a spotting plane flying around over the map? Not a German one of course... but an L-4 or something doing lazy loops over the map to simulate an artillery observation aircraft.

I mentioned this somewhere before in the forums. My idea consisted that only the commander could call a scout plane and it would do an overpass to wherever the commander pointed the direction in the minimap/map with an arrow, type in the grids or whatever. Then the plane (AI or fictional) would do the flyby and whatever under the plane's position would appear in the commander's minimap. This could be used every 15-20 mins and the enemy could shoot the plane down which would disable the ability to scout for a longer time 30-40 mins or the whole game.

 

[Aniallator]

I mentioned this somewhere before in the forums. My idea consisted that only the commander could call a scout plane and it would do an overpass to wherever the commander pointed the direction in the minimap/map with an arrow, type in the grids or whatever. Then the plane (AI or fictional) would do the flyby and whatever under the plane's position would appear in the commander's minimap. This could be used every 15-20 mins and the enemy could shoot the plane down which would disable the ability to scout for a longer time 30-40 mins or the whole game.

Thing is, I'm not sure it's that realistic. For one thing, were observation planes ever used in this role? Not to mention, it's historically innaccurate for TW's timeframe considering that the moment the Germans got a plane off the ground, it'd be shot down.

 

[[1CH] John]

I mentioned this somewhere before in the forums. My idea consisted that only the commander could call a scout plane and it would do an overpass to wherever the commander pointed the direction in the minimap/map with an arrow, type in the grids or whatever. Then the plane (AI or fictional) would do the flyby and whatever under the plane's position would appear in the commander's minimap. This could be used every 15-20 mins and the enemy could shoot the plane down which would disable the ability to scout for a longer time 30-40 mins or the whole game.

So pretty much the Reconnaissance planes they have on Ro2?
I'm with aniallator here, I'm not too sure that's so realistic.

 

[SneakyPara]

Agree with ICH John and Annihilator that spotter planes were unavailable for most of WWII. However, this thread started on D-Day ships because the devs stated that an Overlord scenario would be the first release of TW.
. The spotter planes were slow flying biplanes with extensive cover from USAF and RAF fighters flying overhead. The spotter planes supported the landings by radio messages of target type and co-ordinates to the fire control HQ who then allocated the task to an available ship. The spotters could call in corrections to the ships which, by the way, sailed parallel to the coast while firing. This was using the navy guns as artillery and the accuracy of the naval salvoes was for the most part very good. The Germans took an enormous amount of damage during the daylight hours, even to their 'invincible' Tigers, and were kept away from the beaches.
. Going back to Annihilator, certainly the Germans had no observation planes on D-Day. This discussion looks like we are reaching a definition for a part of the game? FlyingR's suggestion looks like a lovely game mechanic :

"a scout plane and it would do an overpass to wherever the commander pointed the direction in the minimap/map … then the plane (AI or fictional) would do the fly-by and whatever under the plane's position would appear in the commander's minimap."​

. Historic note. D-Day was two weeks away from the two days with most sunlight, June 21 and 22. So on June 6 the sun was high in the sky casting very little shadow and it was very difficult for the Germans to hide. Any movement anywhere by the Germans made them visible either to a spotter plane, for navy guns, or just as dangerous the USAF and RAF fighters and fighter-bombers attacking targets of opportunity. While the RAF fighters had a lot of experience prior to D-Day, the USAF was very capable and using an increasing number of fighters, and by mid 1944 had hundreds available from bases in England, which the British government was happy to lend them.
. Further inland, out of range of the ships, about 10 miles, the USAF and RAF had orders to go looking for trouble; the fighters to look for German planes in the air or on the ground, and the fighter-bombers could fly as low as necessary to find ground targets.

 

[FlyingR]

Of course only the Brits would have the air recon whilst maybe the Germans could have something else (as long as it is realistic to the time frame and battle). There were many allied planes (Spitfires, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Typhoons) during and after D-day either for recon or for CAS (Close Air Support) roles to shoot down targets (mostly ground targets like supply trains, vehicles, and depots). This feature should depend on the map being played like air recon would obviously not be available in Pegasus Bridge.

Or instead of recon, the commander could also have the option of air strike, having AI of fictitious planes straffing or dropping bombs/rockets.

 

[Aniallator]

For me, everything comes down to historical accuracy and realism, so my greatest concern is how observation aircraft are implemented. How can they be implemented realistically? It's unrealistic to have an observation aircraft loop over the map and pinpoint every enemy in a radius below it on the commander's screen. What if you're in a building? Under a tree? I don't really mind that the Germans can't use them, because that's a historically accurate asymmetric difference. Then there's the fact that many engagements didn't have the luxury of aerial battlefield reconaissance, so on top of being limited to one side, it's limited to a handful of maps. I just don't think it's really feasible.

As for airstrikes, these I'd love to see among artillery and mortars as something section leaders can request. You'd request them as you would anything else, looking at the target then making the call. However, unlike artillery and mortars where I think you should be able to request different calibers/weapons, I think airstrikes should be generalized as just an airstrike and what planes actually conduct the airstrike, and whether they use bombs, machine guns, or rockets, be randomized. As with any requestable, whether or not airstrikes are available should depend on the map; on some maps, the Germans could have airstrikes as well... a single bomb-equipped Stuka in the day version of Pegasus? Perhaps not, it might only dent the bridge...

 

[FlyingR]

For me, everything comes down to historical accuracy and realism, so my greatest concern is how observation aircraft are implemented. How can they be implemented realistically? It's unrealistic to have an observation aircraft loop over the map and pinpoint every enemy in a radius below it on the commander's screen. What if you're in a building? Under a tree? I don't really mind that the Germans can't use them, because that's a historically accurate asymmetric difference. Then there's the fact that many engagements didn't have the luxury of aerial battlefield reconaissance, so on top of being limited to one side, it's limited to a handful of maps. I just don't think it's really feasible.

Those are good points, you are right. maybe they could implement something a bit more intricate, here's my idea. You know how in PR you can get UAVs and you see everything down in the battlefield. How about they make something like when the commander calls for air recon, the commander could be in the recon plane's seat, so he would be the pilot so to speak. He would only "fly" a path that he has marked on the map where he thinks important enemies are and the plane would fly that path. He would see in real-time what is going on down below with free look/cam, so if the enemies are hiding under the trees it would be hard to see. This would of course be implemented in later chapters, especially where maps would be bigger and where air recon was available in real life.

As for airstrikes, these I'd love to see among artillery and mortars as something section leaders can request. You'd request them as you would anything else, looking at the target then making the call. However, unlike artillery and mortars where I think you should be able to request different calibers/weapons, I think airstrikes should be generalized as just an airstrike and what planes actually conduct the airstrike, and whether they use bombs, machine guns, or rockets, be randomized. As with any requestable, whether or not airstrikes are available should depend on the map; on some maps, the Germans could have airstrikes as well... a single bomb-equipped Stuka in the day version of Pegasus? Perhaps not, it might only dent the bridge...

I agree with all of this

 

[Aniallator]

Those are good points, you are right. maybe they could implement something a bit more intricate, here's my idea. You know how in PR you can get UAVs and you see everything down in the battlefield. How about they make something like when the commander calls for air recon, the commander could be in the recon plane's seat, so he would be the pilot so to speak. He would only "fly" a path that he has marked on the map where he thinks important enemies are and the plane would fly that path. He would see in real-time what is going on down below with free look/cam, so if the enemies are hiding under the trees it would be hard to see. This would of course be implemented in later chapters, especially where maps would be bigger and where air recon was available in real life.

This I think I could see, as you said in later chapters. And hey, who knows how TW will develop