Discrepancies Between Worlds

Kerbal Space Program does an admirable job of modeling astrophysics and spaceflight, bu it does differ from the real thing in some significant ways.  In the interests of promoting clarity, I've made a list of seven aspects where the Kerbal universe differs from our own.

1.) Orbital Decay
One headache the crew of the ISS has to deal with on a regular basis is a constant (albeit slow) drift toward the Earth.  It's the result of friction caused by the ever so slight uppermost atmosphere, which (unlike Kerbal Space Program) doesn't cutoff at an exact altitude, but instead gradually decreases the higher you go without completely disappearing until a rather extreme distance from the planet.  Even orbital bodies without any atmosphere are subject to solar winds that slowly change the flight paths of small objects such as satellites.  Obviously the designers of KSP decided to leave this particular feature out since it adds nothing to the experience other than annoying "maintenance" in the form of orbital correction burns.

2.) Axial Tilt
Pretty much every planet in out solar system spins at an angle; Earth is titled 23 degrees, while Neptune is 30. Uranus is practically rolling around Sol.  Unlike humans, Kerbals can enjoy planets that are universally on an even keel.  Granted, some have rather off-kilter orbits, but players can (thankfully) always burn east to get a nice alignment.  Much like the previous difference, this was done for convenience of play.

3.) Weight Distribution
Sadly, not every difference is there to facilitate enjoyment.  Rockets in KSP have an annoying habit of flipping out of control shortly after launch.  This is largely the result of changes in weight distribution.  In KSP rockets drain propellant from top to bottom which causes an increasingly uneven allocation of mass throughout the vessel.  Real life rockets circumvents this problem by having the oxidant and fuel stored in separate tanks, one atop the other.  Unfortunately, the only feasible solution in KSP is to manually pump propellant around in order to sustain a relative equilibrium.

4.) Asparagus Staging
On the other hand, players do have a fairly useful engineering technique that has yet to work in reality.  Specifically, on Earth feeding fuel from one booster to another introduces all sorts of problems.  That said, the issues associated with asparagus staging are not insurmountable.  In fact, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy Rocket is attempting to utilize a variant on the principle.  Weather or not it can be done successfully has yet to be seen, but perhaps it will be a case of fiction turning into reality eventually.

5.) One-Tenth Scale
In large part due to the limitations of the game engine, the size of planets, and the celestial distances between them, are represented in miniature.  While somewhat compensated by rocket performance characteristics, this design choice does cause some significant scientific oddities such as the density of Kerbin.  How does the Kerbal's home world generate so much gravity?  Is everything beneath the crust made of osmium?  Kerbol (the star) is only big enough to be a brown dwarf.  In our solar system the moon is more than twice the diameter of Kerbin, while the Earth is about the same volume as Jool.  I thought it was a long way to Eeloo as is...can you imagine trying flying the distance between Earth and Pluto in KSP?

6.) Damage
A disturbing truth about spacecraft is the thickness of the hulls, which tend to be somewhere between tin cans and aluminium foil.  In the case of damage, words like "tearing," "crumpling," "shearing," and "tattering," definitely apply.  For better or worse this sort of thing doesn't happen in KSP.  Craft are a collection of parts that are either fine or vaporized, depending on how much force they are subjected to.  The result is crashes that look like a bunch of firecrackers mixed with toy blocks, rather than mangled heaps of twisted wreckage.  Granted, accurate damage modeling is still something the video game industry (as a whole) is struggling with, so it's hard to blame KSP for being neglectful in this regard.

7.) The N-Body Problem
Figuring out how gravitational influences interact becomes exponentially complicated as the number of objects increases.  Obviously a single object is trivially easy, and two translates into a rather elegant little mathematical equation.  Go beyond that though and things start to become a real headache.  So much so, astro-navigation is done in large part by customized formulas designed to approximately model the real thing with a regrettably slight degree of inaccuracy.  Commonly called "patched conics," KSP opts not to use this and instead sets all planets and moons "on-rails," while using the aforementioned elegant equation when necessary.  The result is a bit bizarre with spacecraft suddenly transitioning from one parent body to another rather than gradually being drawn in by gravitational influences.

Of course, I haven't even touched on life support, but since Kerbal physiology is still shrouded in mystery.  It's impossible to say what their needs and tolerances are.  Heck, only recently was it revealed that they weren't a mono-gender species.  There are also mods that add in life support, and address many of the above mentioned differences in an attempt narrow the gap between game and reality.  How you feel about it is entirely subjective, but personally, I play vanilla KSP since the game is still under active development.  For now, I'm content to simply see where developers take us.

Four Flavors of Soma

It seems like every Youtuber and their pet dog is playing Frictional Games' latest entry in the horror genre.  So, I decided provide a select list of noteworthy LPs.  It's interesting to look at these videos from a sociological perspective.  Even though all four individuals are getting the same basic experience, their approach, reactions and commentary have an interesting mix of differences and similarities.

First off is the out of touch reviewer of horror games over at Kotaku.  All I can really say is it's a good thing that video game website doesn't give out numerical scores...

Up next we have a wisecracker who normally doesn't play scary games on his channel, but is making an exception for this one.  While I don't always like his videos at the very least he always seems to have something to say...

Moving on, this LPer is in a lot of ways the diametric opposite of the previous two - a cautious observer who enjoys a mixture of sci-fi and horror like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Last, but not least, is the "Queen of the Let's Plays."  Note that she flashes back to the opening of the game in the second part of her video series in order to avoid pre-release spoilers.

Eitr

Under the Waves

I've been a strong advocate on this blog for representation of submarine warfare in video games, and once more I'm taking up the (underwater) torch.  In this instance I really want to push for the inclusion of subs in World of Warships.  The developers over at Wargaming have gone on record saying there are no plans for this particular addition to the game.  I personally believe they could create a new and exciting dimension to the overall experience.  To start though, I'd like to address a common criticism leveled at submarines.

A lot of World of Warships players have express feeling on the official website forums that commanding subs would be extremely boring due to the slow speed at which these boats move.  It's a valid concern, but surface speeds of WW2 submarines tended to be between the Aurora and St. Lois.  When submerged, they go about as fast as the Bogue or Langley.  So, while slow they're no worse than ships already playable in the game.  It's also important to note that sub commanders need not chase down targets, rather they can let their prey come to them.

I agree that coding U-boats (and the like) into the game engine might present some programming difficulties, but if you approach diving underwater like a destroyer's smokescreen then the challenge might be surmountable.  The key differences are a diving consumable only affects the sub itself, has a countdown timer like the repair ability, and can be countered with acoustic sounding.  Once underwater, subs depend on batteries (that run down based on how fast the boat is moving).  Sitting still allows the sub to remain underwater longer, but makes it an easy target if located.  Additionally, it's should be impossible to end a game in a victory or draw when underwater (more on that later).  The inclusion of subs would also give destroyers (and certain cruisers) an expanded role in the form of anti-submarine warfare, not to mention new weapons like the depth charge and hedgehog.

Players start with cruisers at tier 1.  From there can expand out to destroyers at tier 2, battleships at tier 3, and aircraft carriers at tier 4.  Why not add subs at tier 6?  It's at a place where destroyers start to lose their effectiveness against other surface ships.  Here's a hypothetical example:

I want to toss out a few more ideas regarding subs.  Instead of commanding a single ship, how about a single player controlling a "wolfpack" via an RTS-style tactical map similar to the one aircraft carrier commanders use.  For such a player the pace of the battle might be more of a thinking-man's game, which might not appeal to everyone, but the same can just as easily be said for carrier gameplay.  I think a couple of other restrictions also have to be applied to submarines for balance reasons.

• First, they can't capture (or prevent the capture of) bases while underwater.
• Second, destruction of all enemy subs isn't needed for victory (i.e. if one side loses all their surface ships then they are considered defeated regardless if they still have active subs on the map).
• Third, there needs to be strict limits on the number of subs in a given match (2-4 at most).

Of course, submarines aren't the only thing I'd like to see added to World of Warships.  New nations and their fleets aside, minefields that offer some risk/reward in the crossing could be exciting.  Night engagements with star-shells, spotlights, and lighthouse capture points would be great.  A.I. controlled coastal defense batteries or P.T. boats would be awesome.  Adverse weather conditions that affect visibility, speed and accuracy might be interesting too. There's a lot that could be added to the game.  For me though, the number one thing remains submarines.

Under New Masters

4X (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate) games have been in a rut for the last decade, if not longer, but recently signs have indicated that the genre is poised to make a resurgence.  No more apparent is this than Wargaming's recent announcement that they intend to reboot the "4X" name-maker, Master of Orion.

Purchased on the advice of a store clerk, Master of Orion was not my first exposure to the world of 4X games, but it definitely set the bar for all future entries in the genre.  That said, my first game was not very auspicious.  It mostly consisted of me trapped on my homeworld with the only other star in range being Orion.  Cue inexperienced me spending countless turns building up fleets only to have them smashed with impunity by the Guardian of Orion over and over again.  Later games went better, and at one point I tried out each race in a small galaxy (to completion) just to get a feel for each race.  For me, Terrans were the easiest since I won that game without having to ever fire a shot.  I also concluded that the Mrrshans were the most difficult race because when I played them the game ended with my complete extermination from a prolonged orbital bombardment by a xenophobic foe.  The rest of the races fell somewhere between those two extremes.  Needless to say, each game offered a fresh and exciting experience.  That, and the presentation which is thankfully being preserved in part due to the original art director and music composer working on the reboot.  Unfortunately, there seems to be some kind of conflict of interest going on.

The art director, Jeff Dee, has gone on record saying that even though some of the in-game playable races look similar to certain Earth animals the resemblance is supposed to be superficial.  Take the Bulrathi for example...they might have bear-like aspects to their appearance, but that's merely a consequence of the human tendency to associate the unfamiliar with the familiar.  Each race (aside from the Terrans, obviously) is really...well...alien.  However, some of the example video clips thus far show the aforementioned Mrrshan cat-people making lots of feline based jokes/puns which seems to run contrary to Jeff Dee's previous statements.  It's a bit worrisome, but that's not to say they shouldn't ham it up.

My very first 4X was Spaceward Ho!, a fairly minimalist turn-based strategy game with a goofy "wild west" atheistic.  Planets don cowboy hats once claimed, ships (depending on their configuration) can take the form of space-age sharks, or have the heads of dogs and wolves mounted on the front.  If a game goes on long enough for weapons tech to get extremely high the ship noses will look like real human noses...and that was fine with me.  I've always preferred the vibrant and slightly cartoony look of the original Master of Orion to its much more somber sequel.

Of course there are much bigger concerns as far as gameplay goes, particularly how space battles are handled and the overall competence of the A.I.  Personally, I'm hoping for more decisive fleet engagements than what we've gotten thus far in the franchise, but we'll just have to wait and see how things turn out.  Until then I'm keeping my fingers crossed.      

And that's the way it is...