About the DCS:BS Campaign System

[CAT_101st]

The system does not "finish" (end) the mission according to any time, objective completion, etc. The mission only ends when the player presses the ESC key.

 

So you can land reload and take off as many times as you want/need to? Even landing back at the base you take off from whin landing you don't get a option screan for mission over?

Im comming in for a landing not looking good ... going... to .. crash. Esc. Ahhh thats better... :D. Is their a points or raiting system for the pilots log book? where you get more for landing's, higher levels of realisum yeda yeda yeda.....?

[Weta43]

From above - for another itteration - Being able to set having landed at a certain base as one of the criteria for success or failure wouldn't be a bad idea.

(Add to goals list : unit survives, unit is destroyed, unit lands at a particular place - still just a state check. at the end of the mission, is the unit on the ground, & is it at a particular place etc)

 

 

Even landing back at the base you take off from whin landing you don't get a option screan for mission over?

 

Yes - you do already ! you bring it up with the Esc key :-)

[leafer]

Thanks. Did not read the FAQ to the end the first time around. :music_whistling:

 

It's good to know we'll be glue to the monitor, waiting for official announcement, for the next ten years. :D

[Weta43]

I've just been reading the (long) thread over at SIMHQ about the campaign system in DCS.BS - will it be dynamic, will it allow replayable interesting campaigns ? etc.

 

Something seems a bit odd to me though - everyone wants the sim to force realistic behaviour onto the 'pilot', realistic FM, realistic weapons, improved (realistic) AI behaviour.

 

Part of the 'realism' of a campaign is - undoubtedly - not knowing exactly what will happen next, and it seems to me that the system of triggers, randomisation & branching / phased campaigns should to al large extent allow this (with a bit of effort & thought from the builder).

 

However - There seems to be a recurring theme that in F4's dynamic campaign, If I chose to ignore the mission I've been given (or on completion take it upon myself) & go wandering off looking for other targets, what I do while wandering off will have an effect on future missions & that this makes the whole thing more 'realistic'. The feeling expressed is that the whole map has to be populated so that if I decide to go off on this tiki tour, I will always find a 'living' battlefield below & around me to attack.

 

It might be a reflection of my limited knowledge, but I don't get how this fits with a realistic portrayal of a combat pilot's role. It seems to me that for the most part (as mentioned by person who's name I've forgotten - new beta tester & a well known author (appologies to you)) in actuallity, a pilot is given a very thorough briefing before a flight, and a very specific set of objective to attempt, then return. I've always assumed an actual pilot doesn't get to go "I don't fancy doing the flight I was assigned, I think I'll divert 200km over there to see if I can find something else to do.." or "Right, done with that, still got a few rounds left in the cannon, I'm just going to take my $164m (or whatever) worth of aircraft out for a joyride & see what else I can shoot up".

 

It may be that an alternative target in the vecinity of the one assigned becomes a more obvious & do-able goal ( again using someone else's example - a different bridge on the same railway line ), but a well crafted mission using the tools described in the new ME should allow this anyway, and still account this as more or less of a success. Simillarly, the use of a random unit generator seed & triggers should allow other units to unexpectedly call for CAS (or assistance / CAP in future units), like - but better than - the LMR utility did.

 

But - if what's being asked for is the ability to chose to not - or not only - do the mission as assigned - to be able to just wander off anywhere & do whatever the pilot dreams up - it seems to me that this is not more realistic as a sim, though perhaps more entertaining as a 'game', but less, and not something that makes scrapping the present approach to the campaign system worth while...

[CAT_101st]

I've just been reading the (long) thread over at SIMHQ about the campaign system in DCS.BS - will it be dynamic, will it allow replayable interesting campaigns ? etc..

 

Did you take the time to read this thread? :book: and as for the rest. It is a game and nothing can realy be dun about pilots wondering off mission. Their is no real CO waiting back at base to kick you but whin and if you land. :mad: Some people will desine missions just for that purpos that I am sure of. KILL KILL KILL :joystick:

 

A good target rich inviroment base map for each phaseline will add to the want of the pilots to go hunting and test their skills. One can always restart :pilotfly: :D

[Wdigman]

I've always assumed an actual pilot doesn't get to go "I don't fancy doing the flight I was assigned, I think I'll divert 200km over there to see if I can find something else to do.." or "Right, done with that, still got a few rounds left in the cannon, I'm just going to take my $164m (or whatever) worth of aircraft out for a joyride & see what else I can shoot up".

 

I bet with triggers you can prevent a pilot from doing what one wants by spawning additional units that would make the mission increasingly harder.

 

Take too long to finish the mission; have your targets in a trigger that signals an airbase to launch an overwhelming amount of air support after so much time has elapsed.

 

Wander off; Have triggers surrounding the area of action where enemy planes are spawned or AAA and Sam units appearing out of nowhere.

 

Good missions will have stuff like this, and I am sure that it would be considered realistic. No one will just park tanks in the open without some kind of protection in a war... unless it at the end of that war.

[Weta43]

& I guess the good thing is - you can load up the surrounding area with units that don't appear unless triggered, giving the appearance that the area is populated with vast numbers of hostile units :-) & they won't be eating up CPU time unless spawned by the trigger.

[Boberro]

I am thinking about why Falcon which has about 10 years can have dynamic campaign, why simple do not copy this ? BS is creating so many years... Looks like Engine has more limitations than it looks like to have :).

[GGTharos]

Microprose went bankrupt while creating that DC, among the rest of F4 :)

 

Really, why don't some of you try to write a DC system and see how 'easy' it is?

[Boberro]

Yep I know there is bubble system but whole campaign system is quite nice :)

[Wags]

So you can land reload and take off as many times as you want/need to? Even landing back at the base you take off from whin landing you don't get a option screan for mission over?

Im comming in for a landing not looking good ... going... to .. crash. Esc. Ahhh thats better... :D. Is their a points or raiting system for the pilots log book? where you get more for landing's, higher levels of realisum yeda yeda yeda.....?

 

Yes, you can land back at a base or a FARP to selectively re-arm, re-fuel or exchange helmet device. While re-arming, you can swap out playloads for different ones. So, no reason to exit the mission.

 

There is no "points" system for the log book, nor are there any power ups in the game ;)

[Wags]

Matt Wags,

 

I know I make this sound a bit over-simplified but...

 

How about allowing AI units to "spawn" into the 3D environment through the same port protocols as multiplayer?

 

This way, an actual perpetual campaign could run (even from a separate computer, and save processing cycles).

 

"Spawning" a unit into the simulation is not supported in TFCSE. Perhaps for the new engine. In any event, we already in feature-freeze for DCS:BS.

[Wags]

You can certainly create unit activity outside the mission objective and assign such units value to the overall mission evaluation. So, even if you did not accomplish your assigned objective, doing extensive damage to the enemy in other areas along the battle front could still progress you forward to the next phase. It's really up to the mission designer how they wish to set up the mission.

 

I've just been reading the (long) thread over at SIMHQ about the campaign system in DCS.BS - will it be dynamic, will it allow replayable interesting campaigns ? etc.

 

Something seems a bit odd to me though - everyone wants the sim to force realistic behaviour onto the 'pilot', realistic FM, realistic weapons, improved (realistic) AI behaviour.

 

Part of the 'realism' of a campaign is - undoubtedly - not knowing exactly what will happen next, and it seems to me that the system of triggers, randomisation & branching / phased campaigns should to al large extent allow this (with a bit of effort & thought from the builder).

 

However - There seems to be a recurring theme that in F4's dynamic campaign, If I chose to ignore the mission I've been given (or on completion take it upon myself) & go wandering off looking for other targets, what I do while wandering off will have an effect on future missions & that this makes the whole thing more 'realistic'. The feeling expressed is that the whole map has to be populated so that if I decide to go off on this tiki tour, I will always find a 'living' battlefield below & around me to attack.

 

It might be a reflection of my limited knowledge, but I don't get how this fits with a realistic portrayal of a combat pilot's role. It seems to me that for the most part (as mentioned by person who's name I've forgotten - new beta tester & a well known author (appologies to you)) in actuallity, a pilot is given a very thorough briefing before a flight, and a very specific set of objective to attempt, then return. I've always assumed an actual pilot doesn't get to go "I don't fancy doing the flight I was assigned, I think I'll divert 200km over there to see if I can find something else to do.." or "Right, done with that, still got a few rounds left in the cannon, I'm just going to take my $164m (or whatever) worth of aircraft out for a joyride & see what else I can shoot up".

 

It may be that an alternative target in the vecinity of the one assigned becomes a more obvious & do-able goal ( again using someone else's example - a different bridge on the same railway line ), but a well crafted mission using the tools described in the new ME should allow this anyway, and still account this as more or less of a success. Simillarly, the use of a random unit generator seed & triggers should allow other units to unexpectedly call for CAS (or assistance / CAP in future units), like - but better than - the LMR utility did.

 

But - if what's being asked for is the ability to chose to not - or not only - do the mission as assigned - to be able to just wander off anywhere & do whatever the pilot dreams up - it seems to me that this is not more realistic as a sim, though perhaps more entertaining as a 'game', but less, and not something that makes scrapping the present approach to the campaign system worth while...

[Wags]

From above - for another itteration - Being able to set having landed at a certain base as one of the criteria for success or failure wouldn't be a bad idea.

(Add to goals list : unit survives, unit is destroyed, unit lands at a particular place - still just a state check. at the end of the mission, is the unit on the ground, & is it at a particular place etc)

 

 

 

 

Yes - you do already ! you bring it up with the Esc key :-)

 

Yes, this is quite easy to do. You just set up a small area trigger on the airfield/FARP and create a rule and action of the player entering that zone that sets a trigger that can be evaluated as a goal.

[Wags]

I bet with triggers you can prevent a pilot from doing what one wants by spawning additional units that would make the mission increasingly harder.

 

Take too long to finish the mission; have your targets in a trigger that signals an airbase to launch an overwhelming amount of air support after so much time has elapsed.

 

Wander off; Have triggers surrounding the area of action where enemy planes are spawned or AAA and Sam units appearing out of nowhere.

 

Good missions will have stuff like this, and I am sure that it would be considered realistic. No one will just park tanks in the open without some kind of protection in a war... unless it at the end of that war.

 

Yes, it is certainly possible to set up such actions. It's really up to the mission designer though if they want to implement such actions.

 

The DCS ME has a lot of power, which can be complicated, but it also can be used in a simple way that is just as easy to use as the Lock On ME.

[CAT_101st]

There is no "points" system for the log book, nor are there any power ups in the game ;)

 

I understand the power ups and mabe the points but what about awards permotions based on performance in missions? Or is everyone the same rank and it is up to us to make up our own story line and flight logs for in flight groups. Like the group that I want to make of USA westcoast players.

[leafer]

Yes, you can land back at a base or a FARP to selectively re-arm, re-fuel or exchange helmet device. While re-arming, you can swap out playloads for different ones. So, no reason to exit the mission.

 

Did I miss an announcement?

 

Also, I notice Wags has been quick to respond as of late, hmm...BS almost done? :D

[SwingKid]

Microprose went bankrupt while creating that DC, among the rest of F4 :)

 

He didn't say F4. F3 had a DC too, which appeared to have been quite good for business.

 

Really, why don't some of you try to write a DC system and see how 'easy' it is?

 

Because if you can't convince after the first three times, the fourth will be no different.

 

I thought Cosmonaut's question in post #22 was a good one. Is any of this designed with multiplayer in mind? Will multiplayers have a way to know their assigned mission objectives before take-off? Will they end the mission receiving the identical success/failure debriefing as their enemies? Lock On doesn't give the mission designer very much to work with, in this regard.

[Avimimus]

While it is certainly not out of the question that we will also do a dynamic system that algorithmically generates missions and a battlefield environment, the phased system is what we wish to perfect fist. In addition to providing much better game play possibilities than the linear Lock On system, it takes much better advantage of our Mission Editor system that we are developing for both the entertainment and military markets.

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

Wonderful.

 

Can a persistent order of battle be created at this stage (ie. each AD unit destroyed will reduce a specific air defense battalion's strength so that a few units in a future will be missing)?

 

Also, is it possible for the map to be divided into districts, each with its own missions/phases that can progress or regress independently of the rest of the map?

 

In any case, this is really nice innovative stuff.

 

S!

[Weta43]

Can a persistent order of battle be created at this stage (ie. each AD unit destroyed will reduce a specific air defense battalion's strength so that a few units in a future will be missing)?

Post #1 in this thread:

In later iterations of the campaign system (it’s is a work in progress), we plan on adding such things as resource management (units and stores) and squadron pilot management.

 

Also, is it possible for the map to be divided into districts, each with its own missions/phases that can progress or regress independently of the rest of the map?

(?) There is no rest of the map, outside of what's in the mission...(My understanding is that, as for LO.FC, every mission has all the whole DCS.BS world in it)

However, if you design the mission goals to take into account what happens in a variety of places around the map, and create appropriate phases / missions for each outcome, something like that could happen...

[Nate--IRL--]

"Spawning" a unit into the simulation is not supported in TFCSE. Perhaps for the new engine. In any event, we already in feature-freeze for DCS:BS.

 

This particular option should be given attention in the future of DCS, since it would open the possibility for a 3rd party real-time dynamic mission/campaign.

 

The possibility of interfacing with the the simulation world in real-time from outside the Sim would give endless possibilities, if the engine also provided the same level of feed back through the same interface.

 

Also it would probably go a long way towards the dedicated server everybody wants too.

 

My 2c

 

Nate

[Duke49th]

I really hope, you guys are still keep working on a dynamic Campaign. :music_whistling::D

 

I just read the translated(German) Version, but it sounds a bit strange to me. I think I have to play the Campaign to rate and fully understand it. :noexpression:

 

But overall, better then a linear Campaign:thumbup:

[Bucic]

Microprose went bankrupt while creating that DC, among the rest of F4 :)

 

Really, why don't some of you try to write a DC system and see how 'easy' it is?

 

I read an interview with the creator of Falcon 4 Dynamic Campaign on Frugal's World a while ago. Very interesting read.

 

Why don't you just buy the guy?! :D

[SwingKid]

I read an interview with the creator of Falcon 4 Dynamic Campaign on Frugal's World a while ago. Very interesting read.

 

Why don't you just buy the guy?! :D

 

Link?

[Floyd]

Google for Kevin Klemmick and Microprose.

 

Interview:

http://www.frugalsworld.com/modules/zmagazine/article.php?articleid=96

 

Designer's notes (esp #6 on page 2):

http://www.frugalsworld.com/modules/zmagazine/article.php?articleid=126&page=0

 

And from an interview with Gilman Louie:

http://www.f4hq.com/default.php?page=article1&nr=1&id=563

 

" RazorBlade: Some people think that the big investments that were made to develop Falcon 4.0 were the reason of the financial problems of Microprose. Is that true?

 

Chopstick: Not really. Looking back, I think it was a combination of factors. Product delays really hurt us. We had several big titles that were over a year late and a small company just cannot operate without regular hits. I also believe today that we made a poor decision of not pursuing the PC action and console market as a part of our product strategy so we were caught flat-footed when the market shifted on us."