Idea about creating a "simulated dyn campaign" - a

[bflagg]

I think this will be easy to implement, but since I have no c or c++

experience (well a little), all I can do is suggest this idea...

 

Current situation:

Each mission in a campaign is static and only lends itself to the campaign

by what the mission creator put in the briefing summaries.

 

 

Premise:

Create the ability for missions within a campaign to understand a

simple "If...then" statement.

This "if...then" is predefined in LOMAC as a checkbox at the beginning

of each mission creation.

 

For each mission these predefined choices (can only choose one) will exist.

Success, 100% mission targets destroyed, within XX:XX timeframe

Success, 100% mission targets destroyed.

Failure, 50% mission targets destroyed.

Failure, 0% mission tragets destroyed.

Pilot killed, 0% mission targets destroyed. Restart

 

These outcomes (very simple - no mission details) would be stored in a

"token" file unique to that campaign.

 

When each mission loads in a campaign, it looks at the last entry of

this "token" file and loads the approapriate mission.

 

For each mission I complete, Lomac would respond to the next missoin load with a

"if then " type of logic...

If current mission completed at 100% and within XX time, then load MssionSuccess1 (for pressing attacks...)

If current mission completed at 100% and exceed XX time, then load missionSuccess2

If current mission completed 50% and mission status = failed, then load missionFail1

If current mission completed 0% and failed , then load missionFail2.

Pilot Killed. - restart

 

I as the designer of the campaign would essentially design the whole process flow

of success/failures. For every aspect of of the flow, i would have a mission

predefined for each potential step.

 

This way, you can create a campaign, that depending on your success rates,

the Defending/Attacking forces will advance/retreat as needed and can simulate

"real time" battles.

 

The beauty is No AI is involved here.

 

It's a simple branching logic that dictacts the next mission to load.

 

This would off load the campaign logic creation to the designer him/herself.

The final benefit, is that a more or less, a full war can happen online or

offline(single player). The desinger of the capaign would have to keep in mind

the troop losses etc when creating missions.

 

What do you think?

 

I hope I explained this right...

[GGTharos]

What you're describing is a branching campaign - but yes, it would be nice.

[Fellblade]

What you're describing is a branching campaign - but yes, it would be nice.

It would also put an incredible workload on anyone trying to create it. You have 5 options there. If you have a 'depth' of 5 missions, each with 4 different possible results, there's a over 250 missions there that need to be coded...

 

>> edited after reading the above post properly

[GGTharos]

Ehh, that's a gross oversimplification - nice math but, there are ways to cut corners ... in principle you're correct.

[SwingKid]

What you're describing is a branching campaign - but yes, it would be nice.

 

It's not that nice. Flanker 2.0 and 2.5 had exactly such branching campaigns, and it was almost a disaster.

 

The problem is fundamentally one of mathematics. Every single level that the user progresses through such a campaign requires the campaign creator to create a geometrically increasing number of missions for all the different "branches," the majority of which any individual player would not even see. The amount of wasted work spent creating the "dead branch" missions rapidly overtakes any time saved by not programming a fully dynamic campaign. The campaign file size also ends up being huge and slowing down the user interface. And the result is that the campaign ends up being necessarily much shorter, reducing the play value for the user. "What? Six missions and the campaign is done?"

 

Tried it once, won't do it again. DC or bust.

 

-SK

[olaleier]

DC or bust.

 

 

AMEN!

[eXor]

Persistence is a requisite of any campaign, dynamic or otherwise. If I obliterate a bridge in one mission, I don't want to overfly it in subsequent missions and feel as if I've gone back in time.

 

The campaign doesn't have to be terribly complicated. One can make a huge mission with tens of objectives and once you have exited, it can be updated by removing any destroyed objects and completed objectives.

 

As of 1.02, If a bridge is destroyed, can ground units still travel "over" it? Also, is it possible to mark a static object as damaged/destroyed while creating a mission?

[coldcrew]

What you're describing is a branching campaign - but yes, it would be nice.

 

It's not that nice. Flanker 2.0 and 2.5 had exactly such branching campaigns, and it was almost a disaster.

 

The problem is fundamentally one of mathematics. Every single level that the user progresses through such a campaign requires the campaign creator to create a geometrically increasing number of missions for all the different "branches," the majority of which any individual player would not even see. The amount of wasted work spent creating the "dead branch" missions rapidly overtakes any time saved by not programming a fully dynamic campaign. The campaign file size also ends up being huge and slowing down the user interface. And the result is that the campaign ends up being necessarily much shorter, reducing the play value for the user. "What? Six missions and the campaign is done?"

 

Tried it once, won't do it again. DC or bust.

 

-SK

 

Janes F-18 uses exactly the kind of campaign system described in the first post. It is not a dynamic campaign but a simple event based campaign with branching. Even if the developers "upgraded" the basic editor in lomac to support events and such people will still make posts about a dynamic campaign system, so they probably just never bothered to work it.

 

It's really unfortunate. We finally have a great simulator and it comes with a shitty mission editor

[bflagg]

I know this is quite a task for the designer and will be quite heavy, but what choice do we have?

 

In response to S.K.. the mission editor would have to remember your

force loadouts. This way your don't have to manully re-enter all your

BMP/Carrier/tanks/jets &.etc...properties.

(ie..if I had a force of 25 T-80 with a green flashlights ducttaped to the muzzles at the beginning, the mission editor would have to remember

such a setting throughout the mission creation process. - this is the biggest time waster now within the current mission editor)

 

 

 

anyways... just thinking out loud...

 

thanks all

[Starlight]

I agree, the branching will "kill" any campaign designer because the complexity of this thing grows exponentially:

 

((B^D) - 1) / (B - 1)

 

where B is the branching factor, i.e. the number of choices after a mission and D is the number of missions that one would have to make to complete a campaign.

 

Just to make an example, if you wanna make a full campaign with 10 missions and for each mission you can have 3 conditions (win, lose, "draw"), you would have to make about 30.000 missions (((3^10) - 1) / 2)

 

:)

 

This is an "upper bound" because when designing a campaign with maximum X missions, it doesn't mean that all the paths of the "campaign tree" must have X missions: the tree can be cut and thus can be very unbalanced, because the result of some missions can lead to an early end of the campaign. But still the upper bound gives a rough estimate of the complexity of this problem, which is not linear, it's exponential. That is why AI is often called into play in this kind of things ;)

 

I'm sorry, yours was a good idea, but the truth is that unless you build very very very very short and quick campaigns, this thing is gonna turn into a huge problem ;)

[bflagg]

.... you would have to make about 30.000 missions

 

well forget it then.. I'm only 44!!!! :) :P

[Caretaker]

Well, couple this with some probability of appearance options where the success rate of the last mission can influence the chances of certain objects appearing in the next one, and you still have a much more capable system than the current one, but still on a manageable level. Missions in different branches do not have to differ fundamentally - adding one enemy plane here, removing a SAM site there and all mixed up a bit through randomization could make things much more interesting.

 

True persistence however would still be a nightmare, even if not down to individual units. Jane's F/A-18 had some persistence, like when your carrier was damaged or sunk you were relocated to a land base. The overall mission/campaign system is exactly what I'd love to have in Lock On, even though - just like back when Jane's F/A-18 was released - this wouldn't really keep people from demanding a dynamic campaign ;)

[GGTharos]

Honestly if we could get some of the complexity of JF-18 in LOMAC's mission builder, this -alone- would enhance the game incredibly.

 

Things like random chance of appearance of units, the ability to set up TACANs, the ability to set up REASONABLE and complehensive GAI, CAP, Refueling, AWACS AND escort flights would kick serious tail.

 

Couple this with some better ground unit AI and things would absolutely rock, esp, if ground-FAC was also implemented.

 

Not to mention alternate paths, events and triggers ... those would revolutionize Lockon itself by allowing missions to be scriptable to some degree.

 

To give you an example, take one of the first JF18 missions, where you have to find the Tu-95 and scare it away, but NOT shoot it down.

 

You can set ROE's like, 'don't shoot', 'don't shoot unless fired upon' and 'fire at will' for each side and so on, and you could also capture aircraft - fly up to them and force them to land via some form of scripting which might set a 'captured' status flag on it but AI's wouldn't fire on the aircraft unless that flag was removed.

[Dusty Rhodes]

I have been talking with some friends about a DC or a LIVE World campaign generator lately, myself.

 

I think what I would like to see is a editable campaign generator that works on Cause and Effect.

 

You set the front lines and the initial units. Then you have a matrix of how much equipment a unit has, a Russian Rifle Battalion, for instance has X number of ARmored personnel carriers. A MRBrigade, so many, and a MRDivision so many.

 

You place them on the front line or in the tactical position you want them. If they get destroyed, or suffer loses, a convoy from an assigned base automatically sends replacement, via convoy, to replace them, until that unit is out of APC's. Or you set a CAP over a specified area (Using something like Janes F-18 did with maximum reaction ranges, which regardless, needs to be implemented into LOMAC anyways). If that CAP is destroyed or one of two planes is lost, the generator automatically sends a replacement AC to finish the CAP, or a fresh CAP flight for that area, scrambled from the assigned airfield of the CAP flight. Or if a mission goal is a factory, then the generator assigns a bomber flight with escort and SEAD to destroy it. If that flight is successful, then no more flights go after it. If it is destroyed, then another mission is generated to destroy it. I think that all makes sense.

 

This would work well for mission building if you could have the same dynamics for mission building as the mission could last for a long time till the goal(s) are reached or a short time if you are successful the first time. This would give the world life, also, and not just have units and AC that have to do with the mission only, in the mission.

 

This way it would require mission builders to only set the initial units and goals and the generator would take care of the rest. Or the campaign builder to set the initial tactical situation with many goals to beat the campaign.

[SUBS17]

As of 1.02, If a bridge is destroyed, can ground units still travel "over" it? Also, is it possible to mark a static object as damaged/destroyed while creating a mission?

 

If you destroy a bridge the ai ground units will stop at the bridge and cannot cross it! If you destroy a vehicle in a convoy, the other vehicles drive around the destroyed vehicle.

cheers

Subs

[SwingKid]

I know this is quite a task for the designer and will be quite heavy, but what choice do we have?

 

Well, obviously, the DC alternative. :)

 

Seriously, it's not that hard to do. ED's slowness is not always a sign that something can't be done. ED is slow even for what they can do. :wink:

 

Also, is it possible to mark a static object as damaged/destroyed while creating a mission?

 

This is a good idea whose time, I think, has come. Valery Blazhnov has recently expressed interest in the Russian forum in replacing the map technology for the new product after v1.2. For those with online translators:

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=3015

http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=3065

 

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but if I read my tea leaves correctly, then seriously, now is the time to voice ideas about the map!

 

-SK

[Dusty Rhodes]

I would like to see a DC or Dynamic World, or something like I talked about in the post previous.

 

Another thing is, I don't think we need a new campaign area per se. I say expand on the map they have now until it is filled up.

 

To me, these two things are the most important features (even more then add-on aircraft, though I would like to see an Apache added after the KA-50) that could be added to LOMAC to give it longevity and replayability, which is honestly a shortcoming it has now.

[bflagg]

For me a dynamic campaign is more important than any addon....

 

GAMEPLAY is the driving force, not just another flyable AC.

(eyecandy can only get you so far....).

 

I posted this suggestion for a branching campaign in the realization that a DC is not coming out in the near future and it was an attempt to have the DEV's think about an alternative until DC is ready (I'm guessing a few years from now).

 

anyways guys.. good night....

[MBot]

SwingKid, you indeed repeat yourselfe, but you are right to do so :) The map is such an important subject that lays the basis for the next generations sim and all its follow ups. So it deserves to get special attention ( much more than flyable planes ).

 

The links you provide look like there are some interesting discussions going on at the russian forum. Unfortunatly an internet translator is not enough to realy follow them. But if the discussions are about map building technologies and not design, I wouldn't understand much anyway.

 

One question that arises is, if ED is going to fundamentaly change the process of map building ( making it less labour intensive while keeping quality ), how does it affects the selection of the new theater. In our last discussion we quickly had to exclude many of the more popular theaters due to resources limitations. As conclusion, we found only one suitable theater ( Taiwan ) fitting the tight limitations. Is this going to change with new map building technologies and are places like Central Europe or Northern Europe moving closer to being doable ?

 

now is the time to voice ideas about the map!

 

Are you still talking about the theater itself ( location ) or also about the editor or campaign engine ? I don't know very much about the interaction between the map and the rest of engine, but I wouln't know more to suggest about the map than a) the location and b) the technologie to build that location. What sort of suggestions would fit into the map subject ?

 

 

To come back on topic a bit more...

One question that has to be asked: Is it a good idea for ED to spend resources on enhancing the ( static ) campaign system , while it will be replaced by a DC in the next generation sim anyway ?

On one hand Lock On realy need enhancements on its campagin system. We all know this is one of the major drawbacks of Lock On that desperatly needs a boost. Otherwise 1.2 will only be a Ka-50 "quick mission builder" ( as lomac is IMOH basicaly this today ).

On the other hand, it is questionably to dedicate resources to system that gets replaced in the forseeable future anyway. But that would also apply to Lock On 1.2 and 1.1 as a whole... A difficult subject.

[MBot]

A suggestion in the light of enhancing the current static campaign:

 

Introduce limited weapon supply. At the start of a campaign the creator can define the quantity of every weapon. Every weapon the player loads on his flight reduces the weapon stock. The campaign creator can add weapons to the stock at every mission ( to ensure mission critical weapons are available ).

Basicaly copy Jane's F/A-18s system ( generaly it would be a good idea to copy as much as possible from JF-18 :) ).

 

A nice simple feature that can bring some more life to the campaign.

[SwingKid]

Another thing is, I don't think we need a new campaign area per se. I say expand on the map they have now until it is filled up.

 

I would wholeheartedly agree, but one of the programmers in the Russian forum has expressed the opinion that with the current map technology, the terrain is already as big as it can get. Not sure how to interpret that - maybe there is no "bubble" system, and they are hitting some kind of ceiling how many polys the map can contain?

 

Is this going to change with new map building technologies and are places like Central Europe or Northern Europe moving closer to being doable?

 

Excellent question. I have a suspicion that ED does not have such dramatic improvement in mind, and so I'd like to draw out the discussion a little before they commit too deeply to a particular development path. If they're going to all the trouble to change the map technology, it should really be worth it IMHO. My hope is to identify exactly what improvements would make such theaters possible, solve this map problem as best we can once and for all with an eye to the future, instead of just the next release, open it up to 3rd party terrain and give us modders an outlet to turn our constant begging for changes and extensions into something productive.

 

Unfortunately, as a result many good posts on the topic should be in Russian for clarity...

 

Are you still talking about the theater itself ( location ) or also about the editor or campaign engine ? I don't know very much about the interaction between the map and the rest of engine, but I wouln't know more to suggest about the map than a) the location and b) the technologie to build that location. What sort of suggestions would fit into the map subject ?

 

Another good question - for the moment we let go of which theater to choose and are focusing only on the "technology." i.e. file formats that would allow modders to create their own terrain, how to designate strategic sites on the map so that the debriefing/DC can identify when ground forces have captured them, which roads should be modelled, which should not, merits of vector vs. bitmap graphics, etc. I would recommend http://babelfish.altavista.com or http://www.translate.ru as translators, if you're interested to participate, but won't have time to translate all the ideas here - too much other work.

 

Agreed though, a bit off-topic for this thread. I'll stop posting links now. :)

 

-SK

[Dusty Rhodes]

I would wholeheartedly agree, but one of the programmers in the Russian forum has expressed the opinion that with the current map technology, the terrain is already as big as it can get. Not sure how to interpret that - maybe there is no "bubble" system, and they are hitting some kind of ceiling how many polys the map can contain?

 

A work around would be to put each section of the map into it's own map area and make it so you pick your map area. This way they stay within the outlined area, but make it so additions are not part of the current map but stand alone maps. Does that make sense? Any way you put it, they have to make a new map, might as well stay in the same area and section the area off with stand alone maps. Then you have a campaign area selection when building campaigns or missions. Does that make sense?

[Witchking]

can they implement a streaming map technology? now lomac renders objects far away that are not even visible...streaming levels etc like in prince of persia games or the new unreal 3 engine would help fps a lot.

 

about new systems, at this moment I would ask ed only one thing...since they are already familiar with the cacuses region where flanker and lomac is modelled...they should model this area again BUT this time with the functionality of falcon 4's amazing campaign system.

 

if this campaign system alone with AS IS FEATURES in 1.1 is sold in lomac 2...I would be happy to pre-order right now. :)

[bflagg]

I agree I too would purchase..

This no campaign stuff really blows...

 

But I don't think ED will fix this current engine, with TOP of the line systems that are

crawling to process what little is actually happening in the game.

 

Now imagine a full dynamic campain... 100's of missions, ground troops, supply chains, sortie's etc etc..

 

It just isn't going to happen with this version of LockON.

 

Maybe a future release.. but this one is gone as far as it can go.

IMHO adding a helicopter or whatever to a beautiful, but limited engine is a major mistake for longevity of this simulation.

 

NO DISRESPECT INTENDED TO ED!!

[Witchking]

I agree bflagg, ed have created a truly realistic flight experience with their AFM...now they have to create the battlefield to go along with it and stand up to the name of COMBAT SIMULATION.