ec2-44-210-149-205.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic

Simply because the suggestion has to be made:

A bishonen simulator.

What's a 'bishonen'? --ChiarkPerson
A probably badly spelt anime pretty-boy.  Um.. Baramunk-Sama is an example.  That didn't link.  Appropriate page would be WingWing? but that's mostly content free.  Aha - it WAS badly spelt.  Bishounen is the right WikiWord.  --Vitenka

More sensible suggestion was a game where you manage a carrier - try to keep the crew working together, choosing whether to concentrate on a couple of aces or to get everyone up to scratch, handle the logistics of which craft and missiles to use on which missions - and actually make you care about those 'guard the transport' missions.  (Remmeber the time you learnt your shiny new shielded fighters were on those transports that went boom?)
It exists, sort of. It's called X-Com:Interceptor; and it's quite enjoyable, fun and diverting. If the space combat handled as well as WingCommander or TieFighter it would be superb. -StuartFraser
I skipped that XCom, on the advice that it was rubbish.  Looks like I made a bad call.  I was thinking of a pure stats game, no interactive combat at all, though.  --Vitenka
Hmm...well, I haven't played any other X-Coms, so I'm not comparing it against those. But I think it's reasonably playable; the resource management seems almost identical to the previous XComs; and the tactical decision making of how to deploy your somewhat limited fighter force (Interceptors are *expensive*, y'know?) is pretty diverting as well.

Current thoughts:
Each pilot should have a few basic traits; offence and defence ability, health and tiredness, bravery, happiness. They should also have 'dislike' relations with each other.

You will have a global 'supplies' as well - possibly broken down into individual items.

So far, so XCom4. Although it split the abilities into Flying ability, firing accuracy, and psionic ability instead of offence/defence.

Each time period, you select an activity, and which pilot(s) should be involved in it.  Such activities as training, patrols, leisure activities.
Then you get a random event - be it a combat scramble or a barifght.

Simple probabilities govern what happens to your pilots stats - if one is being attacked in combat and another has a high defence they try and save them, if they have a high dislike they decide not to, if the original target survives they get even more dislike - and so on.

Open to better combat engines, better logistic sim etc.

What do people think?  It sounds like an attainable design to me.

Reasonable. If you're a carrier wing commander then there's an argument that you really ought to be flying (Commander Air Group on US Navy carriers is a pilot, which is about the only RealWorld approximation), but we'll handwave that for now. You probably ought to be given specific missions to run by the carrier captain (patrol area X, escort convoy A, interdict convoy B and then destroy capital ship C), and then plan them out, assigning fighters and pilots to missions (based on relative strengths/weaknesses, presumably). The random events sound cool, and I'll leave it to the people who play ParentingSims to discuss the human side of stuff, but I like the idea.  -RA
I was assuming 'fight this / protect that / patrol the other' would be given as random (or plotted?) events - while 'patrol' would otherwise be a way to keep your pilots on their toes and out of each others hair (with a risk of combat)
Orders from the carrier captain/admiral ought to be plotted. In general, the WingCommander would know or have a reasonable idea of what missions to expect coming up, so having them random wouldn't make much sense. Random (or with a given probability) behaviour would be enemy raids and your pilots misbehaving. -RA
You'd know (in general) what was coming up - but you'd not know which would be assigned to your squadron, surely?  (Willing to be convinced on this, not ever having actually held such a job)  And pilots misbehaving would be driven by the stats and your failure to keep your pilots working together nicely.  --Vitenka
I'd assumed you were commander of the entire air wing, rather than just a single squadron; it makes for more tactical decision making that way, since a squadron of identical fighters has (in general) rather limited capabilities and thus a very limited set of missions it would be asked to do. I'll admit to never having held such a job either; although but for my eyesight there's a reasonable chance that I would have joined the Royal Navy; so at one point it wasn't entirely out of the question. In the case of a squadron commander; well, you'd know what missions your squadron was good at. If (to use TieFighter examples) you commanded a squadron of TIE Bombers, odds are you wouldn't be given an interception mission. So, again, you'd have an idea of which roles your pilots would be filling. -RA

Realism?  Pilots who don't fly anything from the light interceptor to the heavy bomber, to captured enemy fighters?  In a space game?  You're kidding, right?
I figured that the pilots would probably be capable of flying anything, but would be better with certain ships. It makes the game better...
Well sure - so you'll have to decide whether to train a mix of pilots, or generalist pilots, or specialise in just one type of craft.
That was the plan. I figured the game ought to throw you enough variety of missions that specialising wouldn't be a serious option, though. -RA

Well.. you'd obviously do well on those missions that you were suited for.  Perhaps have the system allow you to reject missions you don't think you can handle (or call for reinforcmeents) and have at least one mission almost impossible unless you specialise in that sort of thing?  (And, obviously, shiny rewards for doing it) - generalists of course get better all round results.  --Vitenka


ec2-44-210-149-205.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic
Edit this page | View other revisions | Recently used referrers
Last edited April 22, 2003 9:48 pm (viewing revision 19, which is the newest) (diff)