Black Shark's AI

[bratwurst]

Red Tiger's got it precisely right. Dynamic campaigns in general are hugely overrated and gamey, and not necessarily more difficult. Think of Black Shark more like Combat Mission (also lacking a dynamic campaign, or if memory serves, any sort of campaign system whatsoever).

 

CM's focus was on tactical fidelity in the ASL vein. BS's focus is on avionic and aeronautical fidelity in the military-simulation vein. Both games have a kind of asymmetric structure.

 

I'm still working my way through flight school, so no opinion to share on the ground-based unit AI, but as long as it's basically competent, I'll be happy. Half to three-quarters of the work in real life flying this sort of helo is pre-planning and more micro-strategic than tactical reactivity anyway. I'm hoping a sizable number of the missions also model the helo's priority as a battlefield surveillance and infantry/armor information relay tool.

 

I don't recall Hollis's Longbow and Longbow 2 having all that brilliant ground unit AI, though the dynamic campaign generator was pretty fancy, for all that word's worth in late 1990s context.

 

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?

[MBot]

You can simulate very realistic battlefield conditions within a large scale dynamic campaign. Ask the F4 community.

 

The ground war in Falcon 4 (and the ground war is what DCS will be about for the next 1-2 years) can hardly be called realistic.

 

 

If you ask me what I would prefer for DCS next, hand made scenarios of the fidelity of a Steal Beasts Pro, or a grand Falcon like dynamic campaign, I will pick the first without hesitation. Because without having the first covered, the second will disappoint. It's not that I, or most others I guess, would not like to have a big dynamic campaign eventually. It's just that the foundation has to be laid first, and this will take quite some time.

[bratwurst]

Good point Matt. To me, the biggest factor in making a good mission/campaign is creating a realistic battlefield environment that the player interacts with. To do so (particularly with CAS-focused product!), I think it important that you have ground units moving around during the mission and engaging each other (not always static or massed at a node). Additionally, we want units to conduct indirect fire missions, use secondary weapons to engage the player, and generally be able to have an entire force-on-force engagement regardless of what the player is doing where every round is accounted for. To date, I know of no dynamic system that does this. That is not to say we will not do a dynamic system that includes such features at a later time, but for now the modeling of the battlefield is more important than a "dynamic" system and this is certainly more important to our military customers. As stated before though, DCS BS is just the starting point and the AI (air/ground/sea) will continue to improve as well the supporting campaign system.

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

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:

[bratwurst]

The ground war in Falcon 4 (and the ground war is what DCS will be about for the next 1-2 years) can hardly be called realistic.

 

 

If you ask me what I would prefer for DCS next, hand made scenarios of the fidelity of a Steal Beasts Pro, or a grand Falcon like dynamic campaign, I will pick the first without hesitation. Because without having the first covered, the second will disappoint. It's not that I, or most others I guess, would not like to have a big dynamic campaign eventually. It's just that the foundation has to be laid first, and this will take quite some time.

 

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.

[slug88]

I find dynamic campaigns to be unusually underrated in this community. ...

 

Bohemia Interactive is another example. Why do you think Flashpoint and ArmA was such a huge success?

 

I think I lost you there...neither Flashpoint nor ArmA have a dynamic campaign.

[slug88]

That is when I get tired of flying about in my own missions taking out static targets. Been there done that.

 

Then, try to make your missions a bit more dynamic? The new trigger system allows for a given mission to turn out differently on every play through, if you design it so.

[Sealpup]

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.

 

Ok, I need to chime in here in regards to that statement. Air combat sims (ANY era) and WW2 subsims are such totally different animals that they should never be compared. The reason SH3 and onward needed a dynamic campaign is due to the fact that a vast majority of what a sub did in the modeled era was hunting, tracking, and evasion. Silent Hunter NEEDED a dynamic campaign in order to provide those elements to a realistic degree.

 

A combat flight sim does not NEED a dynamic campaign to just be playable to a realistic degree. While it can help with replayability, I think the pseudo-dynamic branching system Eagle came up with may be capable of providing for that if properly used by campaign designers.

[bratwurst]

I think I lost you there...neither Flashpoint nor ArmA have a dynamic campaign.

 

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

[bratwurst]

Then, try to make your missions a bit more dynamic? The new trigger system allows for a given mission to turn out differently on every play through, if you design it so.

 

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".

[bratwurst]

Ok, I need to chime in here in regards to that statement. Air combat sims (ANY era) and WW2 subsims are such totally different animals that they should never be compared. The reason SH3 and onward needed a dynamic campaign is due to the fact that a vast majority of what a sub did in the modeled era was hunting, tracking, and evasion. Silent Hunter NEEDED a dynamic campaign in order to provide those elements to a realistic degree.

 

A combat flight sim does not NEED a dynamic campaign to just be playable to a realistic degree. While it can help with replayability, I think the pseudo-dynamic branching system Eagle came up with may be capable of providing for that if properly used by campaign designers.

 

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?

[Sealpup]

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?

 

 

You do not need a dynamic campaign to create 'anomalies' in a mission. I have't picked at the triggering system in BS too much yet (still learning to fly the damned thing!) but what I've seen thus far suggests that it wouldnt be too hard to have a mission with the same kind of 'anomalies' that could also occur in sortie generated in a dynamic campaign, depending on how much varience the mission planner wants to include.

 

Of course, the guy writing the mission brief could also just lie about the threat assesment :music_whistling:

[Wolfman]

dynamic campaign

 

I think what most people like to see, is that destroyed units (buildings, bridges,..) stay destroyed in the next mission, regardless if you advance or didn't fulfil your objectives.

Next thing is that (unlike gunship 2000 afair) units on the battlefield follow their own mission. Moving to strategic points, fighting the enemy, etc.

The F4 campaign additionally offers a time line, which enables units reemerging (being produced in war factories) and destroyed runways to be repaired.

I'd say DCS with the ability to "remember" for the next mission what is destroyed and what units are in what area should be sufficient.

 

What F4 did to create the immersion of being on a battlefield is radio chatter of events that actually take place of other flights. I don't know if russion KA-50 pilots do actually chat alot over the radio. That would be the task of the manual to explain to the player. Looking at red flag videos on video.google.com there is also the saying that russion pilots are told what they should do. is there a Forward Air Controller doing that job, changing mission objectives during a mission?

 

I hope DCS sets the priorities right and first makes sure the Ground AI acts convincingly (dispersion).

 

Cheers

Wolfman

[bratwurst]

You do not need a dynamic campaign to create 'anomalies' in a mission. I have't picked at the triggering system in BS too much yet (still learning to fly the damned thing!) but what I've seen thus far suggests that it wouldnt be too hard to have a mission with the same kind of 'anomalies' that could also occur in sortie generated in a dynamic campaign, depending on how much varience the mission planner wants to include.

 

Of course, the guy writing the mission brief could also just lie about the threat assesment :music_whistling:

 

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.

[bratwurst]

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:

[RedTiger]

 

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".

 

They most likely wouldn't be. And neither am I, probably for similar reasons.

 

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.

 

If you think the ground war in F4 is realistic, look closer. In terms of the Big Red Blob moving south towards Seoul, maybe. In terms of how the units actually deploy and fight each other, not so much. I've sat there and watched some pretty goofy things going on between Blue and Red ground forces through the TV picture of my maverick.

 

I value "tactical fidelity" as mattpeckham said. Matt, I'd like to officially coin that phrase right now, with your permission. It is absolutely brilliant, I couldn't have said it better myself!:thumbup:

 

"Tactical fidelity", IMO, should be the sole focus of a flight sim. If I'm sitting in a cockpit, my concern should be the same as the pilot's would be. The absolute highest level of concern I should have should be if I'm the overall mission commander. Note, this is still tactical. If I blow up a significant bridge in error, and this affects the tide of the entire operation, the effects of it should be those that would be viewable from the pilot point of view, even if that is very limited -- which it might very well be. I do not want to land and then suddenly have to put on my CINC and order engineers around on a big map of Korea to fix that bridge because "Oh no! 1st Division's counter attack depends on it!" I also shouldn't have any control over ATO, or supply numbers. If that means taking away my ability to switch out my stores because I prefer mavericks over iron dumb bombs, so be it.

 

I feel that there are very good war games out there that simulate the operational and strategic level far better than a flight sim will, since THAT is their sole focus. ;)

 

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".

 

Thank you for proving one of my points. The fact that you find it too much work, while perfectly ok since this is just your preference, makes me dislike dynamic Campaigns all the more. Mission making is an experience in of itself. Crafting a mission to be playable but yet realistic is very satisfying. BTW, funny you mention "too much work" and SBPro in the same sentence. Go ask Ssnake how long it took to make some of those scenarios in SBPro. ;)

 

Until there's an F4-style dynamic campaign can have this level of tactical fidelity, I'll mostly pass. I'd rather pay a monthly fee for on-going creation of professional, military-grade missions to fly than get another Falcon 4 dynamic campaign for free! :D

 

The question is. Are we to consider BS as a training tool or a game for entertainment purposes?

 

I don't know if ED has a military version in the works, but it could possibly be both. Why must these be mutually exclusive? I used to play TacOps quite a bit. That war game is intended for training battalion-level commanders basic tactics. It also makes a wonderful entertainment product.

 

Which is funny, BTW, since TacOps is very similar to Combat Mission. Combat Mission is more similar to Black Shark than you think! ;)

Edited December 19, 2008 by RedTiger
spelling is for sissies

[Sealpup]

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.

 

Tactics during engagement comes down to AI, which is not what I was commenting on. I'll already admit that the ground AI in BS aint too hot, but then again neither was it in the earlier mentioned SH series (or have you forgotten how many times escorting DD's have slammed into freighters while simply doing a circle search... in clear weather). But the effects of enemies changing position realative to pre-op intel could easily come down to either triggering to have them start in different positions or stages of readiness, or simply have different missions in the campaign pool with different setups, but the same basic intel.

 

Also as to the effects of support opperations, could those not be reflected again in different setups in the mission pool, tied to what 'level' of the campaign you're in? IE if you're farther along in the campaign, the mission pool may, in general, reflect more successful operations of supporting units, or more effective presence of said units IN the mission, while ops lower on the campign score level might show lesser so. Assuming the individual writing the campaign isn't writing one where things go progressively pear-shaped as the campaign moves on.

 

I'm still thinking that a well built campaign with a good mission pool will beat a dynamic campaign in most situations. But that's my biased oppinion, take it for what it's worth.

[Acedy]

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.

 

IMO the really interesting thing about SH3/4 is not just the dynamic campaign, but that the campaign is both dynamic and scripted as well. I don't think that subsimmers seeking for realism would have been happy with a soley dynamic campaign either, because it would completely lack historical accuracy that you can only achieve with a scripting system. Another good example is F4AFs campaign. Some people tend to forget that AFs campaign differs from the other versions in that you can create packages on your own (okay there is the possibility to hijack other missions, but that's more like a workaround). That way it negates some of the drawbacks of the dynamic campaign engine, although I have to admit that Falcon's mission editor is horrible.

 

<dreaming>My personal dream for DCS in the long term is actually a synthesis of the current DCS mission and campaign editor and AF's system, i.e. you have a mission editor, a campaign editor for creating "scripted" campaigns, a campaign editor to set up the initial conditions and unit placements of a dynamic campaign, and a dynamic campaign engine that creates missions and controls units on its own. Then you could use the mission editor independently to create single missions, or in combination with the campaign editor to create scripted campaigns. You could also combine the mission editor with the dynamic campaign enginge to create single missions in a larger war environment controlled by the computer (or for micromanagement of the AI and setting up scripted events). And if you are too lazy to create your own missions you could just pick one of the missions the dynamic campaign engine creates. That would be the best of all possible worlds.</dreaming> :)

Edited December 20, 2008 by Acedy

[mattpeckham]

Another thing: I try to analyze these sorts of games without benchmarking them too rigidly against past or hypothetical future ones. It may be that a dynamic campaign worked well in Game X, but that doesn't mean "dynamic campaigns" as a design principle are this cumulative feature that every game or sim ought to be striving toward. I can even see the value of excluding a dynamic campaign if your design goals are iterative, or "staged," as in BS's campaign.

 

Sure, that might mean it won't always appeal to someone who wants to bury themselves in a drawn-out, dynamic event. But that may just be a player/game mismatch, not necessarily a violation of the sim's internal grammar.

[bratwurst]

They most likely wouldn't be. And neither am I, probably for similar reasons.

 

 

 

If you think the ground war in F4 is realistic, look closer. In terms of the Big Red Blob moving south towards Seoul, maybe. In terms of how the units actually deploy and fight each other, not so much. I've sat there and watched some pretty goofy things going on between Blue and Red ground forces through the TV picture of my maverick.

 

I value "tactical fidelity" as mattpeckham said. Matt, I'd like to officially coin that phrase right now, with your permission. It is absolutely brilliant, I couldn't have said it better myself!:thumbup:

 

"Tactical fidelity", IMO, should be the sole focus of a flight sim. If I'm sitting in a cockpit, my concern should be the same as the pilot's would be. The absolute highest level of concern I should have should be if I'm the overall mission commander. Note, this is still tactical. If I blow up a significant bridge in error, and this affects the tide of the entire operation, the effects of it should be those that would be viewable from the pilot point of view, even if that is very limited -- which it might very well be. I do not want to land and then suddenly have to put on my CINC and order engineers around on a big map of Korea to fix that bridge because "Oh no! 1st Division's counter attack depends on it!" I also shouldn't have any control over ATO, or supply numbers. If that means taking away my ability to switch out my stores because I prefer mavericks over iron dumb bombs, so be it.

 

I feel that there are very good war games out there that simulate the operational and strategic level far better than a flight sim will, since THAT is their sole focus. ;)

 

 

 

Thank you for proving one of my points. The fact that you find it too much work, while perfectly ok since this is just your preference, makes me dislike dynamic Campaigns all the more. Mission making is an experience in of itself. Crafting a mission to be playable but yet realistic is very satisfying. BTW, funny you mention "too much work" and SBPro in the same sentence. Go ask Ssnake how long it took to make some of those scenarios in SBPro. ;)

 

Until there's an F4-style dynamic campaign can have this level of tactical fidelity, I'll mostly pass. I'd rather pay a monthly fee for on-going creation of professional, military-grade missions to fly than get another Falcon 4 dynamic campaign for free! :D

 

 

 

I don't know if ED has a military version in the works, but it could possibly be both. Why must these be mutually exclusive? I used to play TacOps quite a bit. That war game is intended for training battalion-level commanders basic tactics. It also makes a wonderful entertainment product.

 

Which is funny, BTW, since TacOps is very similar to Combat Mission. Combat Mission is more similar to Black Shark than you think! ;)

 

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.

Edited December 20, 2008 by bratwurst

[RedTiger]

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.

 

If you were part of the BFC community when I was, almost 10 years ago ;) , you would have seen that those grognards (the real ones, the ASL veterans, of which not so many are left over there :) ) preferred handmade, historically accurate scenarios. I can remember discussions about the following in quick battles:

 

1. "Cherry picking" desparate units rather than using the accurate TO&Es to make a very powerful, but historically inaccurate force composition.

 

2. Point costs for QBs without regard to historical rarity. You could load on Tiger Is and field them en masse even thought this was actually a fairly rare tank with only about 1300 made. You could do the same with even more obscure and rare units. I can remember the uber-Hetzer:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer

 

Very powerful as modeled in the game due to its sloped armor and very cheap because of its lack of turret. However, it wasn't nearly as common as it seemed to be in QBs. There were similar arguments made about the UK Fireflies.

 

3. Unrealistic engagements such as the meeting engagement. Allies should predominately be on the attack, Axis defending.

 

4. Unrealistic experience levels. Again, see the part about point cost without regard to rarity. In reality you would be fielding Conscripts, Green, and Regulars. Veterans would be rare, reserved for airborne units perhaps, Crack even rarer, Elite rarer still. Besides point costs, nothing prevented you from using Vets all the time in QBs.

 

Admittedly, much of this was corrected in CMBB. My stay over there was mostly right after CMBO was released.

 

Its ironic you bring up Combat Mission, because that game is where I learned to appreciate a well designed scenario. The community made PLENTY of them and I always enjoyed them more than QBs, both against the AI and other players. It was far more fun to be forced into an accurate fight, even if very difficult. It made you appreciate how heroic a guy like Michael Wittman must have seemed after something like Villers -Bocage. It made you appreciate how tough those gentlemen in the 101st Airborne were at Bastogne. Overall, it gave you a much richer more satisfying experience, IMO, at least. :)

Edited December 20, 2008 by RedTiger

[Madmatt_BFC]

This probably isn't the place to get into lengthy discussions about Combat Mission and what the grogs did or did not want with regards to CMSF but I think I can speak with more authority than ANYONE ELSE here on this matter, since I am one of the designers of the game.

 

While people did express a desire to have the old-style automap maker and QB generator in CMSF, it didn't have anything to do with them not liking the prebuilt scenarios or what was in CMSF needing to "catch up" to something in a earlier generation of game. More than anything they just didn't appreciate that the way those tools worked in the CMx1 engine would not work in the newer CMx2 engine.

 

The automap builder wasn't possible (at least not yet) because of the massively more detailed and varied underlying terrain mesh and the older style QB generator wouldn't work in the new system for a host of reasons but most notably because of all the advances in the A.I. routines.

 

In CMx1, the AI in play in QB's is pretty simple and based on controlling basic objective points (by and large). However, the entire scoring and mission structure in CMSF is more complex (due in part to the nature of the conflict depicted but for other internal reasons as well) and it simply wouldn't translate the same. CMSF uses a different approach in the Quick Battles, notably the fact the maps must be pre-created and the A.I. pre-issued various "action plans" which are embedded into the QB map itself to help determine how they are going to behave, based on the intended objectives and requirements of the QB itself. That is why you have certain QB maps now in CMSF that are meant for say a Meeting Engagement centered around a small town and another which is the same exact town and terrain map, but meant for a Static Defense. It's not the map itself (in this example) which changes, its the underlying strategic component of the AI that differs in the two QB maps. This sort of thing was simply impossible in the earlier engine.

 

So, when people first got into CMSF and found that one tool (the automap) was gone and the other (QB's) was so different, it took some time for them to get acclimated to the new system. In subsequent patches (and we have a new one about to be released hopefully next week) we added even more variety to the QB maps and that has also gone a long way into maturing the QB aspects of the game even more.

 

I hasten to add though that QB's were never and WILL never be the focus of the CM game series. We believe in professionally created, designed and "tweaked to a shiney gleam" type scenarios and campaigns and feel that they will always out-perform something generated on-the-fly.

 

Anyway, if you guys want to get into more details on the QB elements behind CMSF, it would be best to either do it in private, or on the Battlefront.com forums. That is why they exist afterall...

 

My appologies to the Mods if I stepped out of line by clarifying this point.

 

Madmatt

Edited December 20, 2008 by Madmatt_BFC

[spyda]

i think the AI in black shark is good and if it gets better down the track even better.

 

like in the insurgents campaign mission 2 u look after a convoy and they are ambushed on the road by some troops then the Russian troops get out and fire back, makes one feel like there in a real situation. best part is when the BS comes along and sorts things out :thumbup:

Edited December 20, 2008 by spyda
spelling

[RedTiger]

*snip*

 

LOL! I forgot that you were on these boards now to set us whippersnappers straight! :lol:

 

I think comparisons and discussions like this are pertinent, to a point. So long as we dont hijack the thread. :D I tend to think of flight sims as something akin to a real-time war game like CM with just a much more limited amount of control. Both have a lot going on under the hood.

Edited December 20, 2008 by RedTiger

[cquail]

I think both types of campaigns have their benefits. Hand crafted campaign missions are usually well built and challenging. On the other hand they are repetitive, once i've finished a mission I usually have no interest in flying it again. Also if it's a really tough one, I don't like having to re-fly it over and over again until I succeed....especially if it's beacuse there was one vehicle left I couldn't kill beacuse I ran out of ammo. :)

 

Also other then each vehicle thats specifically placed the world is often completly empty. There usually is no "front line" that you have to cross to get to the target. Overall I find most non-dynamic campaign missions I feel like I'm flying in a barren world until I get to the target. I'd love to get shot at 1/2 way to the target. :)

 

Dynamic campaigns are good because you never know whats going to happen in the mission, and it's always different. The F4 dynamic campaign is by far the best I've ever seen ( I honestly can't imagine why anybody would dislike it). You can be on a CAP mission and nothing happens, or all hell can break loose. I find the not knowing the most exciting part. You have a brief and a rough idea what to expect and that's about it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love BS and am enjoying the first campaign. This sim is long overdue and I'll be playing it for years to come. I can't wait to see what DCS comes up with next!

[Brute]

Thank you for proving one of my points. The fact that you find it too much work, while perfectly ok since this is just your preference, makes me dislike dynamic Campaigns all the more. Mission making is an experience in of itself. Crafting a mission to be playable but yet realistic is very satisfying. BTW, funny you mention "too much work" and SBPro in the same sentence. Go ask Ssnake how long it took to make some of those scenarios in SBPro. ;)

 

I do not want to land and then suddenly have to put on my CINC and order engineers around on a big map of Korea to fix that bridge because "Oh no! 1st Division's counter attack depends on it!" I also shouldn't have any control over ATO, or supply numbers.

By creating a mission aren't you doing just that^? Except, you have an even greater, nearly god-like power over where enemy units go and what they do.