A Poor Man's Dynamic Campaign Engine

[RichardG]

I'm no programmer (and dont want to be), but a simple mission generator sounds simple enough to me. Include mission target, basic ground formations (company level based on real world TO&Es), with the option to have em on the move or static. Or static strategic targets (facilities, bases). An option for selecting difficulty/quality/density of air defense around said target, some random weather, and an option for mission length (distance to target area), and map location for variable terrain mission to mission. Some random variables as options and voila.

 

If the editor had the ability to make a mission like this, I WOULD learn to program it, but it doesn't.

 

I dont understand the persistant trend of game companies insisting on the end user designing (read: coding) their own gameplay, when some people have absolutely no interest in that. And the editor with Blackshark is about as intuitive as a square coconut, a sure sign it was designed by engineers with no thought for GUI, or ease of use for people who dont eat and sleep boolean string logic. (Yes, I read the 162(!) page editor manual.)

Edited January 14, 2009 by RichardG

[mckee14]

as the whole DCS line is a product continuously maintained by the producers, a lot of things will change over time. there will be a new engine some day, there will be more and different triggers in a patch, there will be new AI with the new modules or patch, the GUI may change etc.

 

so it makes not much sense to put a lot of effort in a campaign-generator, and maybe in 4 months there comes the brand new dynamic campaign :)

[MBot]

I'm no programmer (and dont want to be), but a simple mission generator sounds simple enough to me. Include mission target, basic ground formations (company level based on real world TO&Es), with the option to have em on the move or static.

 

Unfortunately the problems already start here. On paper this sounds simple, but how would such a company be actualy placed on the map? Even for a human mission designer this is no easy task. Basically you have to take the place of a company commander and ask yourselfe, where would I place my units to do a certain task (for example defending a position)? You need to have a basic understanding of military tactics, terrain features, capabilities of units involved, expected threat etc. If you simply place a company sized force in the editor right now, what you will get is a coloumn of 15-20 vehicels that can either be stationary or move on a road. That will be a pretty boring environnement for a helicopter. Even the great dynamic campaign of Falcon 4 bascially had this type of ground movements. For a dedicated attack helicopter simulation, the falcon 4 campaign engine would produce horribe missions...

So what is realy need first is a much more capable AI. Because the more the AI can figure out itselfe, the less the mission designer (or generator) has to decide.

[Teapot]

...I dont understand the persistant trend of game companies insisting on the end user designing (read: coding) their own gameplay ...

 

Designing your own missions is not coding, just as writing an essay in a word-processor is not coding! :)

 

I think a good mission editor allows a more realistic experience of a microcosm of the battlefield given the current limitations of AI and available technology (what we REALLY need is the holo-deck!)... the draw-back of course (if you want the unpredictability factor) is that if you design it, you know that there's a manpad unit waiting behind the rock etc, unless you're able to inflict self induced amnesia.

I'm certainly not denigrating the idea of a Dynamic Campaign; however having never been a real-life pilot, I get my kicks from pretending that I'm training up on specific skills on a *real* simulator, which is why I said before that I really appreciate the TE and ME mission designers as provided by their respective sims.

 

Cheers!

Edited January 14, 2009 by Teapot

[MBot]

Plus you don't need to build your own missions, simply play the ones the others build :)

[RedTiger]

The big problem I see with a mission generators is the complexity of the ground war. Generating missions is easier for simple mission profiles such as air-air combat or strike missions. But realistically populating the ground war is incredible complex and difficult, even for a human mission designer. Without any serious AI development on multiple levels (chain of command), where ground units will dynamically behave realistically in a given envoirnment, I can't imagine that a generator creating a halfway decent mission.

 

This is a good point. Ground unit AI seems to always be the weakest link of a flight sim when they should probably be developed to the same degree as aircraft.

[ericinexile]

^^^^

 

True.

 

But I'm not asking for the moon (speaking selfishly but I can only speak for myself). I just want to keep coming back to a changing battlefield where the FLOT line(s) move, units move, get destroyed/resupplyed, attrition is applied, etc. Since war simulators have been doing this on home PCs since the early eighties, I can't imagine its that complicated. Let's call it a Turn Based Dynamic Campaign System. The server starts the mission and runs it for two hours or until major triggers of the owner's choosing occur. The server then passes along all the info to the Campaign Generator which then writes a new MP mission for the Server to reboot with. We, the players, then come back to find a battlefield that evolved based on our individual efforts and those of the AI forces. I now know its possible. I know it would dramatically enhance the enjoyment of MultiPlayer. I just haven't a clue how to do it. But I feel strongly enough that I would make a small PayPal contribution the people who offer something promising in beta.

 

(Just to let my imagination run further: The Campaign Generator could keep most of the "War" (that which isn't in our bubble) out of the mission to keep frame-rates up. However the entire war could be viewable on the server's website, updated at each server reset.)

 

Smokin' Hole

Edited January 14, 2009 by ericinexile

[SwingKid]

The more complicated question is of the export functions at mission-end, but looking at Tacview, I believe there is enough export data possible through LUA to accomplish at least the essentials. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject though, so perhaps somebody else can provide more info.

 

Opinions differ on what the "essentials" of a dynamic campaign are. For some, any randomness - regardless of realism (e.g. should the enemy AI flight path really be going through a mountain?) - counts as a dynamic campaign. For others, Falcon 4's real-time GUI sets the bar.

 

One middle-of-the-road criteria I like is, "if I destroy a bridge in mission 1, then enemy units don't cross that bridge in mission 2." For that to be satisfied, it isn't sufficient for TacView to record simple score-keeping data, "player 1 destroyed three buildings" - it's necessary to identify which buildings (or tanks, airplanes, etc.) were destroyed. I'd surprised if you could obtain this level of detail from lua-exported mission data, regarding destroyed map objects at least.

 

In short, I believe that it should be possible to create third party mission generators/editors as well as campaign generators.

 

Speaking as someone who's tried, I don't recommend this project to you. Too many DCS features are still "up in the air" and being changed by ED from original Flanker 2.0 code. If ED can remove the entire Su-25T flight model, they won't hesitate to remove whatever Taciew exports a 3rd party DC depends on when they feel the need - as they did with the saved campaign data that the SkyWars DC used. What does ED need it for, anyway?

 

A meaningful dynamic campaign is not like a new skin or terrain add-on - it's an active, integrated computer program that depends on cooperation from the sim developer. The scraps of, almost accidentally-exported data you describe are not a substitute for a working partnership.

[RichardG]

Forget about a dynamic campaign, they'll never be able to make one out of the way they have already designed this sim. Thats not what I'm talking about anyway.

 

I want a random (single) mission generator, so I dont have to spend 6 hours trying to make something different to fly. (that I know everything about after I have made it). Cabiche?

[RedTiger]

Forget about a dynamic campaign, they'll never be able to make one out of the way they have already designed this sim. Thats not what I'm talking about anyway.

 

I want a random (single) mission generator, so I dont have to spend 6 hours trying to make something different to fly. (that I know everything about after I have made it). Cabiche?

 

Can you accomplish some of this with triggers? I have yet to give the triggers a good look-see, but I thought you could have different things happen randomly from a trigger? Like say you reach this point on the map and sometimes you find some tanks, sometimes you find some infantry, sometimes you find an F-16 on CAP trying to kill you.

 

I'm thinking ultimately you may know what all the possibilities are, but if you put in enough, does it still matter? If you have 3 triggers like this in a given mission, you have lots of possibilities. You may know the counter to each one, but you still don't expect the order they'll happen.

 

Maybe I'm wrong about how triggers work...

[lucasdigital]

I love the dynamic campaign in Falcon 4.0 Allied Forces (I would have loved it in the first release of F4 if it hadn't run like a dog and been buggy as heck). It's truly a marvel to see a combat sim integrate with a war simulation. It's wrong to see this as the ultimate expression of the combat sim, it's merely a means to an end - creating an unlimited number of missions. Those missions fed into a larger picture of an ongoing war, which was for me it's strongest suit. However, those missions mixed targets, locations, opposing forces together, but never told a dramatic story. I think after flying about 20 missions I started to get a sense of 'sameiness'. I've only played a few of the missions in Black Shark, but I'm already impressed by the level of mission design. I'm seeing more drama than a dynamic system could easily create, and drama counts for more than you might think....

[ericinexile]

...However, those missions mixed targets, locations, opposing forces together, but never told a dramatic story. I think after flying about 20 missions I started to get a sense of 'sameiness'.....

 

That's the more complicated part of the equation. In F4:AF/RV, you quickly learn to ignore the tasks asigned by the campaign engine and do what you think is best for your enjoyment and the war by changing waypoints, tasks, and loadouts. In DCS, a player has to make waypoint changes through the ABRIS which is tedious, but before you even get to that point you need to know where your objective(s) is(are). How do you do that without an editor?

[SUBS17]

I don't see a DC as being random at all it appears as a logical process of war gaming. Although the missions themselves seem random they are more likely following a sequence that the player has set with the sliders prior to starting the campaign. I think a next gen DC would most likely involve players being on both red and blue sides using separate logins and passwords to prevent cheating. If a 3rd party company were to make a DC they would need to create a different UI and also add the fog of war for each side. As each mission is completed the DC would set the next sequence of events based on the players success, intel or failure. Theres nothing random involved everything follows a logical sequence even the AI units performance and rate of success is based on the skill level of the unit and experience vs the other unit. All units have fuel, ammo, morale, experience, quantity and unit base. You also need to make resources and strategic assets either red or blue and if its red then it should require a time to capture based on its defence factor. You could also have a political aspect as well with neighbouring countrys being involved in the war for each side. I'd only imagine a global sized map would need other servers to support a DC on a Global scale. Smaller maps would be similar to F4AFs setup and its quite possible for someone to make a DC for DCS if they had the right tools.

[SUBS17]

When addressing the subject of simulation, IMO there are many particulars that can be specifically treated.

Any simulation needs to be clear what its goal is. A clearly defined goal of what we wish to achieve via the simulation package will produce the template and guidelines in producing/choosing that simulation in the first place.

There are studies *out there* arguing that a fully featured high fidelity simulation (particularly one that simulates an air combat environment) is not (counter intuitively) necessarily the best approach for honing particular skills in the fluid/dynamic air combat environment.

In other words, we start from what skills we're trying to acquire, then having a simulated environment that focuses only on that aspect. Having more than this becomes a distraction. To this end a fully featured simulator that models a *dynamic campaign* doesn't usefully target a specific set for skill acquisition, because the parameters within the campaign are *dynamic* and thus not able to be controlled to produce any measurable outcomes ... unless the metric used is the degree of pleasure we gain through *playing* make believe :P.

I think that DCS straddles that area between a simulation tool and an entertainment package; and IMO (again) I find the TE (OF4.7) and ME (Lock On FC) to be much more *useful* tools than Falcon's Dynamic campaign ...

 

My 2 cents,

 

Cheers.

 

Trainning missions are for honing skills and a logbook should reflect that, the DC is where those skills are put to the test and thats the entertainning part.

[Teapot]

Trainning missions are for honing skills and a logbook should reflect that, the DC is where those skills are put to the test and thats the entertainning part.

 

Thats one way of looking at it. Most of my role playing aparatus exists out of sim and it's all entertaining to me; FWIW I rarely use the in-sim provision of log-books when they're there.

The reality is that all of us who fly combat flight sims play in our own personal versions of Never-Never-Land, and even *training* can be seen as a sub-set of the theatre at play.

Sometimes it even extends into RL, for example I shave and clip my moustache every morning to make sure that I get a no-rash snug fit on my oxygen mask :D ... even though I won't come within a cooee of a cockpit in RL. Another thing I do is I try to keep a robust physiology so that I can withstand G forces ... LOL ... and when I take the family camping, we often practice *survival*, whether it be packing our own pocket survival kits, building traps, aquiring water, first aid etc ... who else here does this sort of thing as an extension of their simulation fantasy?

It's quite strange behaviour now that I think about it, almost like living a dual existence! :noexpression:

 

Cheers!

Edited January 15, 2009 by Teapot

[Duke49th]

I agree with most of the first Postings.

 

I'm a Falcon Pilot for years. And the only thing that keeps Falcon alive, for me personally, is the dynamic campaign and the easy(better say quick) to use Mission Editor.

 

It really start getting boring to build missions for hours and then play the own Mission in an hour or two.

Even when you do not know what happens exactly in detail(because of a complex mission or random triggers)....but you basicly know what is going around in your mission.

 

I think only a dynamic campaign and an easyer to use mission builder can hold a big bunch of customers for long time.

 

And when we are talking about dynamic campaign, we also must talk about AI radio chatter like Falcon one's:music_whistling: This is a must have for me to have a much better "being in there" feeling or call it atmosphere...

 

 

I know all this is already discussed in the wishlist Thread....but it can't said often enough.:)

Edited January 15, 2009 by Duke49th

[verana_ss]

That Dynamic Campaign engine in Falcon 4.0 is what has kept Falcon Alive all these years, and still has not been duplicated to this day. also the leaked code helped to ;)

 

It would be nice to have a new Dynamic campaign engine in DCS.. :)

 

I completely agreed with you

[Reno]

I agree with most of the first Postings.

 

I'm a Falcon Pilot for years. And the only thing that keeps Falcon alive, for me personally, is the dynamic campaign and the easy(better say quick) to use Mission Editor.

 

It really start getting boring to build missions for hours and then play the own Mission in an hour or two.

Even when you do not know what happens exactly in detail(because of a complex mission or random triggers)....but you basicly know what is going around in your mission.

 

I think only a dynamic campaign and an easyer to use mission builder can hold a big bunch of customers for long time.

 

And when we are talking about dynamic campaign, we also must talk about AI radio chatter like Falcon one's:music_whistling: This is a must have for me to have a much better "being in there" feeling or call it atmosphere...

 

 

I know all this is already discussed in the wishlist Thread....but it can't said often enough.:)

 

:thumbup::thumbup:

 

That Dynamic Campaign engine in Falcon 4.0 is what has kept Falcon Alive all these years, and still has not been duplicated to this day. also the leaked code helped to ;)

 

It would be nice to have a new Dynamic campaign engine in DCS.. :)

 

:thumbup::thumbup:

[MBot]

And when we are talking about dynamic campaign, we also must talk about AI radio chatter like Falcon one's:music_whistling: This is a must have for me to have a much better "being in there" feeling or call it atmosphere...

 

I know it is nowhere near Falcon, but perhaps you will like these missions:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=36213

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=35840

[MrReynolds]

For me and others it seems a dynamic Campaign IS very important.

BUTT...thanks MBot, if maybe we could get 10 different missions uploaded a week by lots of talented and hard working designers such as yourself there wouldn't be a need for a "self-sustaining" campaign.

As soon as missions dry up however, no matter how GREAT a flight model we have, Falconeers will soon "migrate" back to the varied world of Korea and the other regions :cry:

[ericinexile]

I think developers must concentrate on what they feel will be the core customer. Perhaps ED have done this by concentrating on single-player. To an even greater extent than LOMAC, Multiplayer is an afterthought in DCS. You can already see the difference by observing the 50-100 FC players on Hyperlobby and the dozen (on a good day) on DCS MP (granted, smaller audience, but you'd expect more participation by now).

 

Smokin' Hole

[d0ppler]

I really don't understand why it must be multiplayer to have a dynamic campaign. I would like a single player dynamic campaign.

[ZaltysZ]

I really don't understand why it must be multiplayer to have a dynamic campaign. I would like a single player dynamic campaign.

 

Because you can always create your own server on localhost ant play multiplayer campaign alone.

[ericinexile]

I really don't understand why it must be multiplayer to have a dynamic campaign. I would like a single player dynamic campaign.

 

Only because there is quite a lot of playability with the staged campaign with single player--I personally don't like it but it works. On the other hand, multi player is very dull in DCS and a campaign generator would greatly improve it--but it would improve SP as well. Everybody's Happy! :thumbup:

 

Smokin' Hole

[H-street]

I really don't understand why it must be multiplayer to have a dynamic campaign. I would like a single player dynamic campaign.

 

 

it doesn't have to be but its one of those simple "why not" features of a good dynamic campaign. In dynamic campaigns each unit is 'more' anonymous..

 

in a scripted campaign the main character is the story character, in a dynamic campaign each unit has equal importance to the campaign.. which lends nicely to a multiplayer element. Especially when you consider in a true DC in DCS you could have Blackshark pilots flying at the same time as teh A10 pilots.. because each one is just as important, instead of the campaign being strictly tailored neither for the BS or the A10..