What kind of Scenarios do people want to play

[Rose Dragonslayer]

I've really been enjoying making scenarios for this game! It really lets me flex my creativity in the setup and units available, and even lets me practice my creative writing by making the background context.

However, I want to make scenarios people actually want to play. So, I ask. what kind of missions do people want? Realistic? Historical, or Unique?

All have there merits, but I want to hear overall what people would enjoy seeing the most.

[Enrico Pallazzo]

I think a mix of different types can be fun. Especially diverse if you factor in all the mods people have made. I would say until air to air is a bit more refined I'd stay away from large air battles.

Fleet battles are my preferred choice at the moment and ASW can be fun but there's currently a torp bug that makes that annoying.

[ScareCrow369]

The devs need to be the ones implementing more into this game, that's why I slammed it in the reviews as a negative review. Not enough to do, not enough ships, too many bugs just a bare bones type of game which is sad.

[Rose Dragonslayer]

Originally posted by ScareCrow369:

The devs need to be the ones implementing more into this game, that's why I slammed it in the reviews as a negative review. Not enough to do, not enough ships, too many bugs just a bare bones type of game which is sad.

Dude, It's early access. That's exactly why they made it so easy to make missions and upload them to the workshop. We can explore the game mechanics, learn the systems, push the game to it's limits, and find many bugs for them to fix in the process. The more we do, find, test, discover, and give feedback on, they know exactly where they will need to go in development

[Seraphim Stratus]

Its early access, I don't understand why people were expecting a finished product when it's pretty clear that it's not. We payed money to be in on the ground floor and have our opinions heard during development versus it being after actual release.

[Enrico Pallazzo]

Originally posted by ScareCrow369:

The devs need to be the ones implementing more into this game, that's why I slammed it in the reviews as a negative review. Not enough to do, not enough ships, too many bugs just a bare bones type of game which is sad.

KarenCrow making the rounds in the comments I see.

[joetrusty2020]

GIUK line defense (of course, needs British and more allies), Norwegian Sea operations, Barents Sea NATO submarine operations (don't see an option for peacetime reconnaissance unless set all AI to Weapons Hold), more El Dorado Canyon, Arab-Israeli and US Lebanon operations, more interesting interactions with Red Banner Black Sea Fleet in Mediterranean, more Iran-Iraq tanker war, possibly hot Korean scenarios, to just name a few . . .

[Lanzfeld]

I really like scenarios that have a lot of RANDOMNESS so we can play many times. Not just if a unit will appear but also where and how many. This is double true for submarines.

I REALLY WISH THERE WAS FALSE SONAR CONTACTS AND BIOLOGICS IN THE GAME WITHOUT A MOD.

Back to randomness. I recently played a scenario that featured the player using a few Russian Echo class submarines to attack a small convoy. It was an okay scenario but I suggested to the creator to add a small chance that there will be 1 or 2 (again, random) P-3 Orions to spawn SOMEWHERE (maybe they are close enough to matter, maybe not. Maybe just one is a factor and one isn’t.) the point is now the Echos might have a problem launching and guiding their missiles to the targets.

Anyway the scenario designer didn’t add the suggestion. It would have made the scenario way better.

Not all random units have to be a factor. This makes the best scenarios because it reflects real life situations.

The last thing we need are more battles where you are thrown in at the start with missiles flying and chaos all around. We have way too many of those already. Save those for XBOX

[Cöunt Eastwood]

Originally posted by Rose Dragonslayer:

I've really been enjoying making scenarios for this game! It really lets me flex my creativity in the setup and units available, and even lets me practice my creative writing by making the background context.

However, I want to make scenarios people actually want to play. So, I ask. what kind of missions do people want? Realistic? Historical, or Unique?

All have there merits, but I want to hear overall what people would enjoy seeing the most.

In order of preference:

1) Historically accurate missions. However, it's important to remember that "historically accurate" does not obviously mean the truth of what actually happened e.g. Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, Kursk, etc. History = HIS STORY (just a story as told by corporate lying media reading a script). So, missions that can show us "alternatives" of what actually happened (allegedly) are the best.
2) Scenarios taken from books/film e.g. Tom Clancy, Craig Thomas
3) Not interested in unique "what ifs".

Thanks for doing it mate and good luck. Carry on o7

[Wenatchee Willie]

My greatest enjoyment comes from working the flight decks of carriers, and my favorite is Attack on Leningrad, which features TWO American carriers. A massive mission that I'm anxious to finish for the first time when we get the Save Game feature.

[havocsquad]

Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

I really like scenarios that have a lot of RANDOMNESS so we can play many times. Not just if a unit will appear but also where and how many. This is double true for submarines.

I REALLY WISH THERE WAS FALSE SONAR CONTACTS AND BIOLOGICS IN THE GAME WITHOUT A MOD.

Back to randomness. I recently played a scenario that featured the player using a few Russian Echo class submarines to attack a small convoy. It was an okay scenario but I suggested to the creator to add a small chance that there will be 1 or 2 (again, random) P-3 Orions to spawn SOMEWHERE (maybe they are close enough to matter, maybe not. Maybe just one is a factor and one isn’t.) the point is now the Echos might have a problem launching and guiding their missiles to the targets.

Anyway the scenario designer didn’t add the suggestion. It would have made the scenario way better.

Not all random units have to be a factor. This makes the best scenarios because it reflects real life situations.

The last thing we need are more battles where you are thrown in at the start with missiles flying and chaos all around. We have way too many of those already. Save those for XBOX

To provide a better experience for missions I believe the following is needed:

Change the criteria on how the enemy AI classifies hostile or neutral. I think lack of neutral identification/failure to identify 100% of the time gets in the way of the enemy AI doing its job. This is a bigger problem than I believe the developers recognize.

One does not have to waste a bunch of AI logic work trying to assign a hostile probability based on ship speed, number of ships nearby going same direction, etc, etc on contacts that fail to identify.

More scenarios really need to incorporate difficult contests/fights for information (recon) on both sides. The cat and mouse game that defines this genre instead of how much Shipwrecks or harpoons can you withstand before you get completely clobbered.

[Gage]

I would like a scenario to decimate Ukraine with combined sea and land based operations

[Lanzfeld]

Originally posted by havocsquad:

Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

I really like scenarios that have a lot of RANDOMNESS so we can play many times. Not just if a unit will appear but also where and how many. This is double true for submarines.

I REALLY WISH THERE WAS FALSE SONAR CONTACTS AND BIOLOGICS IN THE GAME WITHOUT A MOD.

Back to randomness. I recently played a scenario that featured the player using a few Russian Echo class submarines to attack a small convoy. It was an okay scenario but I suggested to the creator to add a small chance that there will be 1 or 2 (again, random) P-3 Orions to spawn SOMEWHERE (maybe they are close enough to matter, maybe not. Maybe just one is a factor and one isn’t.) the point is now the Echos might have a problem launching and guiding their missiles to the targets.

Anyway the scenario designer didn’t add the suggestion. It would have made the scenario way better.

Not all random units have to be a factor. This makes the best scenarios because it reflects real life situations.

The last thing we need are more battles where you are thrown in at the start with missiles flying and chaos all around. We have way too many of those already. Save those for XBOX

To provide a better experience for missions I believe the following is needed:

Change the criteria on how the enemy AI classifies hostile or neutral. I think lack of neutral identification/failure to identify 100% of the time gets in the way of the enemy AI doing its job. This is a bigger problem than I believe the developers recognize.

One does not have to waste a bunch of AI logic work trying to assign a hostile probability based on ship speed, number of ships nearby going same direction, etc, etc on contacts that fail to identify.

More scenarios really need to incorporate difficult contests/fights for information (recon) on both sides. The cat and mouse game that defines this genre instead of how much Shipwrecks or harpoons can you withstand before you get completely clobbered.

Absolutely excellent point. One of the biggest failure these games do is give us and the AI too much information. I agree the Devs need to make it harder to identify entities. Have a bigger focus on recon and intel gathering.

Along these same lines I am sure it should take longer time to classify submarines. Again…go to CMO for the educated examples.

[BBsquid]

Originally posted by Rose Dragonslayer:

I've really been enjoying making scenarios for this game! It really lets me flex my creativity in the setup and units available, and even lets me practice my creative writing by making the background context.

However, I want to make scenarios people actually want to play. So, I ask. what kind of missions do people want? Realistic? Historical, or Unique?

All have there merits, but I want to hear overall what people would enjoy seeing the most.

While i still havent figured out the triggers...Im building the unit lists for two scenarios from the old 6th Fleet board game. Would just need to send the files to somebody more skilled that this old guy to get the scenarios to run

[BBsquid]

Originally posted by ScareCrow369:

The devs need to be the ones implementing more into this game, that's why I slammed it in the reviews as a negative review. Not enough to do, not enough ships, too many bugs just a bare bones type of game which is sad.

I know reading comprehension and understanding what goes into developing a game, especially with a small team, is difficult for neanderthals like you, but do try to remember the game is two months old.
Maybe go back to fortnite and stay away from EA games

[buckoff124]

I enjoy smaller surface groups with limited objectives on missions with limited recon assets. I think the most enjoyable mission I have played so far is 4 ships near Demon Point. Its balanced, its hard, and there are so few units it runs good.