A Different Way to Think About Dynamic Campaigns and Multiplayer Campaigns

[Sabre-TLA]

In developing some multiplayer training missions I had the thought that maybe the current dynamic campaign model should operate differently than the traditional model.

 

What I mean is that the current dynamic campaign model implies that each new mission is influenced by the previous mission (units killed, units moved, etc), goals updated and new mission created. Dynamic campaigns are closer to real life than the current static hand managed campaign model we have today.

 

What if we could have a more realistic representation of the dynamic campaign. Something that operates in real-time when in multiplayer or could be frozen in time for single player?

 

In my experience most multiplayer missions are relatively short lived (a few hours) but what if you created a multiplayer mission that could run for a week or a month and it contained all the elements of a real campaign battle from start to finish.

 

Players could join at anytime during the battle and get a campaign status update. While players are offline the campaign continues to execute in real time even without any players - similar to a real world scenario and truly dynamic.

 

For Single Player Campaigns what if we had only one mission that represented the entire campaign and there was a way to freeze the current mission status and then resume it at a later date?

 

Like a Save button would be available that you could select at anytime. All the current mission unit data (status, location) would be saved and reloaded the next time you started the campaign/mission.

 

The mission file would have milestones through it's execution that would update the player on campaign status and introduce new mission taskings as the campaign unfolded based on units destroyed, territory obtained, etc.

 

I'm just thinking out loud here and don't have any concrete answers yet.

 

Am I off my rocker or is there some merit in thinking of campaigns this way?

[SUBS17]

I like the idea of a single player mission that has a save feature, that's an awesome idea as sometimes people get halfway through a mission and then have to leave the computer so that way you do not need to restart the whole mission. DCs are good but the players influence IRL would not effect the campaign in a war to the next mission so for example destroying one tank out of 4 would not influence the entire map with power balance of the AI shifting to the player when a mission succeeds instead the other 3 tanks would continue until a replacement arrived for that platoon. So flexibility of mission planning and a decent ATO is needed to have a good DC to work IMO. DCS supports massive missions over long periods and triggers so a mission can run for months/years but it needs some good planning and possibly a players influence. In Arma 3 there is the ability for a player to control units in a game called Zeus which allows someone to control the game as a game master:

 

${1}

 

Its another way the missions can be dynamic.:thumbup:

[vicx]

I just have a feeling that a solution for dynamic campaigns is more likely to come from the Russian side of forum.

 

It is the sort of thing where a person building a good solution is going to need the ear of an ED developer at some point.