bratwurst

Well said :thumbup:

Sounds like good news to me. Looking fw to that patch :thumbup: CMSF however don't suffer much from this QB issue because the editor makes up for it. Making dynamic mission using the existing QB maps are only a matter of minutes. Now, back to BS.

We are different in that regard, as I enjoy QB's more then hand made scenarios. Could be I'm used to make missions myself and usually spend more time in editors then the actual game (SBProPE, SH, ArmA, CMSF etc.). Right, so the first version has some flaws. I wonder though. What strategy sim was so much better then CM and with more historical accuracy back in those days? Maybe even today with CMAK and CMSF? Let me know. I should mention I'm not so keen on hexagonal 2D turnbased games so leave them out :D

If you where part of the BFC community you would know about the uprising when Shock Force was released, simply because the "Quick Battle" feature was not properly implemented in the new engine CMx2. Turns out these grognards preferred random generated missions before handmade scenarios. Some of the maps turned up terrible because of the random factor, but at least it was "new" every time. Thing is, the TacAI in CMx1 was pretty darn good at both attack and defense regardless. Mostly the maps turned up pretty good though. In the end, you always had this satisfying feeling of just taking part in a very realistic and unique combat scenario, writing it's own story as it unfolded. The new engine used for "Shock Force" still got some catching up to do in this regard.

It goes without saying, that if BS was released with a full dynamic campaign similar to F4 it would already have been a classic. F4 undisputedly "is" because of it. Now I won't have time to reply for a while, got some missions to build in BS :pilotfly:

Anomalies is not the same as units having time to either advance or retreat after int. recon and while in combat applying military doctrine and sound tactics to defend themselves properly. The dynamic campaign engine could also estimate friendly operations in the area and use proper assets to make any mission a real challenge. Combat situations would make a lot of sense and may even be easily readable from a tactical point of view for the pilot during briefing, thus giving the mission a purpose. Mission results would also affect the outcome on operational level.

I hear you, however how does hunting, tracking, and evasion not fit in BS? With a dynamic campaign the intelligence is never 100% accurate. How would that not be realistic?

Whops seems like the forum lost my reply to this. Oh well.. I think I said something like "it would be too much work" and "I don't enjoy randomness as much as proper AI routines that has to be hard coded like in SBPro".

It does now with "Warfare" but I was talking about the AI in general. Check the topic.

Valid point. I own SBProPE and it doesn't suffer much from lacking a dynamic campaign. That is party because I consider SBPro a military sim and not a game, and partly because AI (with proper mission design) behave unpredictable and tactically sound. I don't spend much time with it anymore though, and I fear BS may end up on the shelves beside it collecting dust. That is when I get tired of flying about in my own missions taking out static targets. Been there done that.

I hear what you are saying. I belive DCS is in for a good start with BS and I hope it continues to evolve in every direction possible :thumbup:

Are you comparing BS with BFC CM series? BS is a flight sim, and CM a strategy sim. Note I say "sim" because CM is more simulation oriented then most strategy titles and with one of the best tactical AI:s (TacAI) you can face offline. Where does BS lack of AI fit in?

I find dynamic campaigns to be unusually underrated in this community. For example, the biggest naval sim community www.subsim.com was close to boycotting UBI's release of Silent Hunter 3 due to the lack of a dynamic campaign alone. The developers listened and the release was prosponed until a dynamic campaign was properly implemented. Needless to say, it was a huge success. Now a second title plus addons have been released by the same team and there are rumors of a third release in 2009. Without that dynamic campaign however it would have been different story. Bohemia Interactive is another example. Why do you think Flashpoint and ArmA was such a huge success? BI Studios have military customers with VBS 1 and 2 but that didn't stop them from making one of the most anticipated military series on the market. The flexible A.I. capable of leading large forces dynamically in large scale battlefields is what made the "replay value" so high. You should take a closer look on ArmA "Warfare" and ArmA 2 that introduces even more strategy combined with tactical FPS. Why would the military be interested in a dynamic campaign? That's absurd. Like I was saying: "ED could end up with only military customers". You are talking about fake realism and still you play simulations. Sounds like hypocrisy. You can simulate very realistic battlefield conditions within a large scale dynamic campaign. Ask the F4 community. The question is. Are we to consider BS as a training tool or a game for entertainment purposes?

So it's a turkey shoot on rails with "random elements" thrown in :thumbup: I seriously belive EG should consider a more dynamic approach in the future, or they might end up with only military customers and a tiny community consisting of a few fans.

Define "replayability". In other words it's a turkey shoot on rails, and I despise linear mainstream games. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy BS for what it is but you would expect a more dynamic approach in a serious sim like this. Just look at EECH or even Longbow 2 from 1997.