The Harrier official campaign thread

[kunterbunt]

The system we have in DCS allows you to create a semi-dynamic campaign that will let you progress to a different mission depending on the outcome of the previous one. Though this means either more work (you have to prepare twice as many missions) or shorter campaigns (but with greater replayability).

 

What I am considering for Harrier one is to have two versions of each mission that would have some minor differences. For instance if you do not destroy certain forces in M1, then you would go to M2B where they would arrive at certain moment making your task more difficult. That won’t require a lot of work or extra VOs, but should add another layer to the campaign.

 

Shorter missions are appreciated. Better sized in VR. I am also not a good pilot, but would like to play campaigns , which was until now not possible, as they need much more skills.

What I do not like is that if I cannot accomplish all goals of a mission is, that the next one gets harder. I know it sounds realistic, but if I cannot accomplish all goals, then because the mission was too difficult for me. Making the next one extra difficult is frustrating.

Better add a short inbetween mission, just to hit the missing goal.

[CheckGear]

Shorter missions are appreciated. Better sized in VR. I am also not a good pilot, but would like to play campaigns , which was until now not possible, as they need much more skills.

What I do not like is that if I cannot accomplish all goals of a mission is, that the next one gets harder. I know it sounds realistic, but if I cannot accomplish all goals, then because the mission was too difficult for me. Making the next one extra difficult is frustrating.

Better add a short inbetween mission, just to hit the missing goal.

 

The nature of the maps makes it easier to make shorter missions. I don't think any virtual pilot wants to sit in front of their PC for eight hours. :joystick:

 

The next mission becoming harder as a result of failure in a prior mission is a game design concept more than a realism concept. In the real world, missions don't necessarily become harder just because you didn't accomplish all of your goals. Remember the enemy is a living, breathing creature and will make adjustments accordingly to conform to the new reality. If anything, the impact of failure is felt on the strategic level, of which the fighter pilot or infantryman actually has little control over.

 

This is actually what I'd like to see more of in a campaign - unintended consequences. War is an inherently chaotic affair and simply winning battle after battle isn't sufficient to create strategic/political victory. One way I can imagine a campaign implementing this model of chaos is to throw in in-between missions, as you put it, that either allow you to make up for a past failure in some other way or "punish" you for success.

[Spudknocker]

I am sure any campaign will be super cool I loved the Mirage campaign!

 

I think training missions would definitely be better on the Nevada map...Its kinda why I think the Nevada map should be the free one. However that will never happen which is fine.

 

That being said being able to choose whether you have your training missions on Nevada or the Caucuses would be very cool. With my playing in the mission editor it doesnt seem like that would be too difficult to port missions to another map...

 

I think people who have paid for the Nevada map would be very grateful to be able to have that extra immersion of having their american aircraft have training on american soil. Not a demand just my two cents!

[baltic_dragon]

Thanks for feedback! Shorter missions are of course much easier but not very realistic. 3h missions on the other hand are too long. I think 1h30 is a sweet spot!

 

As for the campaign branching I do agree that player should only be a small cog in a larger machine and mistakes from previous missions should not have overwhelmingg effects. And will not. I won’t use this system every time either - perhaps 2-3 times in the campign where it really would make sense.

 

For instance: in Mission X player has a secondary task of taking out enemy convoy going to Base Y with supplies. In Mission X+1 that happens 12h after Mission X he will lead an assault on that base. But if the convoy made it there, the base will be better defended, because there are more troops with those newly acquired MANPADs. This kind of thing, nothing too dramatic and always realistic.

[Pasquale1986]

Thanks for feedback! Shorter missions are of course much easier but not very realistic. 3h missions on the other hand are too long. I think 1h30 is a sweet spot!

 

As for the campaign branching I do agree that player should only be a small cog in a larger machine and mistakes from previous missions should not have overwhelmingg effects. And will not. I won’t use this system every time either - perhaps 2-3 times in the campign where it really would make sense.

 

For instance: in Mission X player has a secondary task of taking out enemy convoy going to Base Y with supplies. In Mission X+1 that happens 12h after Mission X he will lead an assault on that base. But if the convoy made it there, the base will be better defended, because there are more troops with those newly acquired MANPADs. This kind of thing, nothing too dramatic and always realistic.

 

To sum up my opinion on this ideas:

 

I love you

 

Now something OT the georgian war campaign is amazing that's why i love you even more

 

Cheers

[DirkLarien]

Voted both Caucasus. But if it would be Sci-fi themed you bet i would change my vote to nevada and buy the map.

[CheckGear]

As for the campaign branching I do agree that player should only be a small cog in a larger machine and mistakes from previous missions should not have overwhelmingg effects. And will not. I won’t use this system every time either - perhaps 2-3 times in the campign where it really would make sense.

 

Basically, make campaign progression less linear and more cyclical, but with success or failure contributing to the overall trend of the campaign.

 

That way, you can "simulate" a dynamic campaign without actually implementing a dynamic system.

[baltic_dragon]

Basically, make campaign progression less linear and more cyclical, but with success or failure contributing to the overall trend of the campaign.

 

That way, you can "simulate" a dynamic campaign without actually implementing a dynamic system.

 

Yes but then I would have to get rid of story driven dialogues, creating more in-depth characters etc.. something which I don’t want to resign from for now (though it would make creating the missions much easier). But perhaps I will work on a campaign like that in the future.

[Pasquale1986]

Yes but then I would have to get rid of story driven dialogues, creating more in-depth characters etc.. something which I don’t want to resign from for now (though it would make creating the missions much easier). But perhaps I will work on a campaign like that in the future.

 

I think that would be a shame if you would shift focus away from the story because this is why most people love your campaigns. Of course dynamic campaigns are a desirable feature. But what sats your stuff apart from the ordinary loosely connected missions are the dialogues and characters that create an immense feeling of immersion and realism.

 

Please stay with it ;)

 

And btw. i am sure that this is why most people prefer NTTR for the training campaign at least i did.

[sze5003]

I love the connection in the red flag missions with the characters and the dialog choices. It adds a lot of value and give you a purpose in the flight. I don't feel like I'm on some random mission. I think you should stick to the same style missions you did on m2000c red flag if we are talking about training.

 

Not sure of it would be easier to do this on the caucus map or not. But I would vote for similar style on a map of your choice. While this may isolate some users if nttr is chosen, I think it will be a matter of time before everyone has that map. Obviously I think most people don't know how much work goes into your missions so I say keep the same style you have been using but create them on whatever is easiest for you. I really can't get enough of your missions. I keep coming back to them over and over.

[CheckGear]

Yes but then I would have to get rid of story driven dialogues, creating more in-depth characters etc.. something which I don’t want to resign from for now (though it would make creating the missions much easier). But perhaps I will work on a campaign like that in the future.

 

I think a "short" campaign, such as my Iran scenario, would suit a story-driven campaign best, while a "long" campaign, would suit the semi-dynamic format better.

 

As a sidenote, I want to see a campaign that demonstrates how air power is utilized in practice, as opposed to the same old "worst-case-scenario" type of campaigns that we've seen time and again in combat flight sims. I like authentic and realistic backstories, even if it comes at the cost of an epic narrative.

[The_Dan]

As a sidenote, I want to see a campaign that demonstrates how air power is utilized in practice, as opposed to the same old "worst-case-scenario" type of campaigns that we've seen time and again in combat flight sims. I like authentic and realistic backstories, even if it comes at the cost of an epic narrative.

 

In my Opinion the Enemy Within and the M200C Stock Campaign are good examples for this. I think they're very believable scenarios.

[CheckGear]

In my Opinion the Enemy Within and the M200C Stock Campaign are good examples for this. I think they're very believable scenarios.

 

As more maps, especially the Strait of Hormuz, get released, I hope to see more than just the same old Russia-oriented scenarios. I get the sense the developers are essentially re-creating the Syrian Civil War by proxy, but I'd like to see superpower confrontation take a backseat and focus more on regional conflicts, which are the most likely form of conflict today.

Edited November 8, 2017 by CheckGear

[colyoap]

In my Opinion the Enemy Within and the M200C Stock Campaign are good examples for this. I think they're very believable scenarios.

 

I would throw in OPF as well, outstanding anti-insurgency senario with a believable plot.

[CheckGear]

I would throw in OPF as well, outstanding anti-insurgency senario with a believable plot.

 

The DCS fan base has a very liberal definition of "believable." :megalol:

[baltic_dragon]

As more maps, especially the Strait of Hormuz, get released, I hope to see more than just the same old Russia-oriented scenarios. I get the sense the developers are essentially re-creating the Syrian Civil War by proxy, but I'd like to see superpower confrontation take a backseat and focus more on regional conflicts, which are the most likely form of conflict today.

 

Well, as I've said for Strait of Hormuz campaign I already have a setting that will be featured in the M-2000C Red Flag as well as A-10C Iron Flag (both in NTTR). It will be set in 2012 and look at the what if scenario with Iran nuclear deal not going as it should and a local conflict quickly escalating into a larger one - with Western forces intervening after Tehran takes over 1/3rd of the territory of the UAE.

 

As for the first campaign which will be in Caucasus, I am still not sure whether I will go for another COIN scenario (using a real - life character, Mr Al-Shishani, who was Georgian and was no.3 in the ISIS command structure as a main villain) or for a larger scale war scenario, where after violent fall of the government in Moscow commander of units stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia refuses to pull back and instead try to treat both territories as his own fiefdom, committing numerous crimes and atrocities. He'd have quite an arsenal under his command, which would give an option of playing a larger scenario.

 

In both cases the Russian state would not be an enemy - I really look forward to scenario opportunities arising from some joint operations with the Russians, cool dialogues, misunderstandings and probably mistrust as well.

[Looney]

Having allied with Armenia, Iran forces are pushing across the border in an effort to secure the Black Sea port of Batumi before potentially moving northward.

 

The Russian Caspain Flotilla, lacking a large landing force, is scrambling to meet the Iranian threat from their main base in Astrakhan.

 

The Russian Black Sea fleet, however, has just finished a tense joint exercise with allied forces and is scheduled for a Port call in Novorossiysk.

 

In view of the threat to Batumi, the fleet is again joining with its allied forces to try and repel the Iranian threat by moving across the Black Sea to land a considerable force in vicinity of Batumi. Supported by an array of NATO and NON-NATO allies, the allied force moves towards open sea.

 

Something like that?

[rogonaut]

In both cases the Russian state would not be an enemy - I really look forward to scenario opportunities arising from some joint operations with the Russians, cool dialogues, misunderstandings and probably mistrust as well.

 

that would be pretty nice actually!

 

what about training in normandy/england and mission in caucasus?

[MAD-MM]

Probably with new Caucasus more Options rising, and some point ED sad they want to increase the Map detail in to the South dont know how deep the new the new Map goes in the South, but new Team Work between Russia and USA/Georgia about Boder Conflict around Georgia and new rising Terrorist Group around Chechnya.

Like the good old Ka-50 was good Campaign from my Perspective.

[Johnny Dioxin]

imo putting the training in a paid DLC map will mean less sales of the module.

 

As I have all maps, I personally don't care where it is done.

[CheckGear]

Well, as I've said for Strait of Hormuz campaign I already have a setting that will be featured in the M-2000C Red Flag as well as A-10C Iron Flag (both in NTTR). It will be set in 2012 and look at the what if scenario with Iran nuclear deal not going as it should and a local conflict quickly escalating into a larger one - with Western forces intervening after Tehran takes over 1/3rd of the territory of the UAE.

 

As for the first campaign which will be in Caucasus, I am still not sure whether I will go for another COIN scenario (using a real - life character, Mr Al-Shishani, who was Georgian and was no.3 in the ISIS command structure as a main villain) or for a larger scale war scenario, where after violent fall of the government in Moscow commander of units stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia refuses to pull back and instead try to treat both territories as his own fiefdom, committing numerous crimes and atrocities. He'd have quite an arsenal under his command, which would give an option of playing a larger scenario.

 

In both cases the Russian state would not be an enemy - I really look forward to scenario opportunities arising from some joint operations with the Russians, cool dialogues, misunderstandings and probably mistrust as well.

 

Having allied with Armenia, Iran forces are pushing across the border in an effort to secure the Black Sea port of Batumi before potentially moving northward.

 

The Russian Caspain Flotilla, lacking a large landing force, is scrambling to meet the Iranian threat from their main base in Astrakhan.

 

The Russian Black Sea fleet, however, has just finished a tense joint exercise with allied forces and is scheduled for a Port call in Novorossiysk.

 

In view of the threat to Batumi, the fleet is again joining with its allied forces to try and repel the Iranian threat by moving across the Black Sea to land a considerable force in vicinity of Batumi. Supported by an array of NATO and NON-NATO allies, the allied force moves towards open sea.

 

Something like that?

 

It's the comical nature of posts like these that lead me to say DCS fans and, frankly, developers, have a very liberal view of what's believable and what's not. It seems like the high demand for authenticity and realism goes completely out the window when it doesn't involve the planes and weapons themselves.

 

Notwithstanding the fact negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal weren't even underway in 2012, since when does Iran have the ability to invade anything? One serious examination of their military capabilities reveals a largely defensive force, whose strengths are largely within their asymmetric and unconventional abilities. Better yet, why?

 

Why would Iran invade the UAE? I understand the leadership in Tehran is viewed as irrational by many in the West, but this just isn't the case. How does invading the UAE make sense given the realities of Iran's military capabilities. Better yet, how does attempting an impossible invasion of the UAE help Iran's strategic/political posture in any way? Wars don't unfold the way you think they do - often, with success, comes more headaches and the weaker countries don't deal with these headaches very well.

 

Given the realities of an Iranian invasion of UAE, imagine how much more ridiculous an Iranian invasion towards the Black Sea region is. You may as well arm the Iranians with technology delivered by aliens if you're going to go there.

 

I'm a lot less critical of the Caucasus region scenarios, primarily because it's just one of three maps currently available and that's going to limit the kinds of scenarios that can be made. Going forward, I want to see more believable and realistic scenarios - thus far, what we have is anything but. Below is a link to see the wars that are unfolding throughout the world; one of the things you'll see is how few of these conflicts are likely to trigger American intervention. The idea U.S./Western forces would be so deeply involved in the Caucasus has always been unbelievable and unrealistic.

 

https://www.cfr.org/interactives/global-conflict-tracker#!/

 

If you still intend to create a Strait of Hormuz scenario taking place in 2012, here's an article detailing a real-world chain of events that'd form a better basis for a U.S.-Iran clash that year. It only takes a bit of research to avoid going off into the world of crazy scenarios that have no grip on reality.

 

http://warisboring.com/before-the-nuclear-deal-america-and-iran-flirted-with-war/

 

Here's a bunch of articles that detail just how limited Iran's capabilities are and should show you where the real Iranian threat lies:

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/all-the-frightening-ways-iran-can-strike-back-america-over-22717

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/irans-navy-threat-america-22722

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-iran-sink-us-aircraft-carrier-22831

 

Finally, here's an example of what should be done - this is a scenario based on current events that, while taking "creative license," sticks to the facts and doesn't go off the deep end. This is what a believable scenario is - a UAE invasion isn't.

 

 

Forgive me for my blunt tone, but I just think DCS ought to apply the same standards of authenticity and realism to campaigns as well, because after all, the subject of DCS is war in the real world.

Edited November 9, 2017 by CheckGear

[Revelation]

Checkgear, I'm not entirely against your post, but you are factual incorrect. There have been talks of getting Iran to move away from Nuclear capabilities since its first reactor in 1967.

 

There have been multiple meetings and discussions and attempted deals over the past couple of decades that have stalled, failed or where flat out ignored.

[Looney]

I really don't care for what is authentic when it comes to campaigns in the Caucasus region. If you want to stay true to RL events, than the Caucasus map will run dry in scenarios quickly.

 

What I intended was to give a lead on how the Russians might be forced to cooperate with other forces in the event of a common enemy rearing its head.

 

Since we don't have the luxury of having the full army compositions in DCS for any country, things will need to be created.

 

By all means, come up with a scenario that would fit what Baltic Dragon is looking for.

[CheckGear]

Checkgear, I'm not entirely against your post, but you are factual incorrect. There have been talks of getting Iran to move away from Nuclear capabilities since its first reactor in 1967.

 

There have been multiple meetings and discussions and attempted deals over the past couple of decades that have stalled, failed or where flat out ignored.

 

I have no clue what you're referring to. Be specific.

 

I really don't care for what is authentic when it comes to campaigns in the Caucasus region. If you want to stay true to RL events, than the Caucasus map will run dry in scenarios quickly.

 

Which is why I said I'm not too down on the scenarios based in the Caucasus. ED was dead set on making the theatrical focus of the franchise in that region; I'm not going to dwell on decisions made decades ago going back to the game that started it all, Su-27 Flanker. What I'm referring to is the new scenarios to come. The prevailing intent appears to be to make increasingly outlandish scenarios with no basis in the real world. This trend should end.

 

What I intended was to give a lead on how the Russians might be forced to cooperate with other forces in the event of a common enemy rearing its head.

 

I get what you're saying. That still doesn't make it believable.

 

Since we don't have the luxury of having the full army compositions in DCS for any country, things will need to be created.

 

Given DCS is a tactical-level wargame, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But, notwithstanding that some of the scenarios do feature authentic units and OOBs, that wasn't my point. My focus was more on the actual scenario - the backstory, setting, etc. All these things matter because it's the strategic considerations that dictate what happens on the operational and tactical level, or whether the war will happen at all. This matters in all reality-based wargames; DCS shouldn't be any different.

 

Keep in mind; I'm not entirely against these fantasy scenarios. Even hard-core wargames feature some craziness or major pushes beyond reality. My problem is that every campaign or campaign request thus far seems to lean towards the unbelievable and implausible. There should be a better balance between the two ends of the spectrum. Red Flag was an example of a real-world campaign done very well.

 

By all means, come up with a scenario that would fit what Baltic Dragon is looking for.

 

I certainly did. I'm awaiting his response.

Edited November 8, 2017 by CheckGear

[Revelation]

I have no clue what you're referring to. Be specific.=

 

So you don't know what you typed?

 

Notwithstanding the fact negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal weren't even underway in 2012,

 

There were more inaccuracies such that you claim Iran can't invade anyone, yet they did invade Iraqi territory in 2009 to seize oil fields.