Completed Campaign - Review & Suggestions

[nikoel]

I have just finished the campaign.

First of all, TLDR: Buy it. It has been created with a lot of love and attention to detail. Baltic Dragon can hold its head up high as one of the best campaign designers in DCS. I am considering buying the Mirage mostly because of the numerous missions/campaigns created by BD. It's a masterpiece.

This campaign will be a lot better once the DCS Save Game feature is added to the OpenBeta. There are bugs, but they are not game-breaking. Due to the complexity of the missions and DCS's habit of releasing updates that break things, issues are expected. These are usually trigger issues where there are numerous transmissions at once or timing mismatches. There are DCS bugs that BD cannot do anything about, which forced me to restart a few times. That's just part of the game we play, and I accept it for what it is.

A bit off topic, but in my opinion, The Iron Flag campaign is a much higher priority. It needs a rework post-ARC210 update much more, as this is where the customer is paying for audio that is supposed to be instructional and it's missing a lot of the time.

The campaign stumbles in the first two or three missions - sorry, I can't recall exactly, as they are a chore. It tries to gently introduce the player to the situation at play, which wouldn't be so bad, except this introduction is several hours long. For people who want to sit down and have fun, those missions just aren't it. My advice to players, unless you enjoy MSFS2020 with occasional voiceovers, is to read the briefs and then skip them.

Once the missions finally start, they are exciting, well-scripted, and offer a good challenge. I only skipped two missions, which in my eyes are either bugged or poorly implemented. One of them is due to a mission design issue (MGRS coordinate related) and the other due to mission triggers.

All missions (post-introduction) are great and diverse. They are not just repetitive tasks. However, Mission 20 is a masterpiece. It stands in a tier of its own. I replayed it three times as it was so much fun. I wished it was more challenging, but I am sure there are people who would wish for the opposite. P.S. No one in the history of mankind would fire a flare in full IMC conditions during the day and expect anyone to see it - for anyone reading, use the RWR as your "flare". You'll understand when you play it.

Mission 21. BD, mate. Why would you give the player a wingman who will make you fail the mission? The house is manufactured by Evergrande, not up to code, and is likely made out of straw.

I know you try to warn the player that the wingman has a temperament, but you really are setting the player up for failure as the first missile fired by him which hits somewhere this side of the galaxy will destroy the house.

I recommend you modify the mission to give your wingman some kind of failure where he has to jettison all his weapons, or can't fire them. When I read the kneeboard, I expected my wingman to somehow defect to the enemy and give me a dogfight, not make me restart an hour into the mission.

Anyway, these criticisms might sound harsh. And they really are.  With beautifully designed and complex missions, there are more chances of something going wrong because of some DCS bug. I do not want to understate how good this campaign is. Bravo, BD

P.S. No pilot in the history of piloting talks about scenery this much. If you ever make another campaign, I would recommend eliminating this filler dialogue and making pilots talk about a recent failure and how they overcame it, or an alternative way they used XYZ weapon, or some other interesting feature of the plane, or why TSL is not used anymore, or how they used the Avenger to open their beer bottle. How they emberassed themselves by broadcasting on the new ARC radio on the FM frequency and getting roasted by their squadron. You have obviously studied the manual a lot and know so much, why not put it to good use? 

Thanks again for all the hard work

Edited January 30 by nikoel

[baltic_dragon]

Hey @nikoel and thank you for your feedback, well received! Just a few comments:

On MGRS: I assume the issue with 37 or 38Y (or T or whatever it is) that causes issues in Caucasus. This is done on purpose and many people learned this the hard way, but were happy afterwards. Unless your'e talking about something else here

On M21: not sure what happens there, but please PM me the details, I'll look into it. In general the stock AI wingman is a nightmare and now I am exclusively using wingmen as separate flights. Less flexibility, but much more reliable. 

About talkative pilots: it was my first campaign and should I do it today with everything I know now, I would have built it differently in many places, including idle chatter which I almost never have now (apart from ferry flights, like the first mission in the upcoming Gamblers campaign, where during 8+ hours of flying pilots not only talk a lot, but also play games like ships in their cockpits). But this point is valid and I've moved away from this since having worked with many real life pilots (especially in the Navy they seem not to like any redundant radio comms). 

As for the Mirage - with the help of one of the community Members, I'll submit an updated stock campaign for the M-2000C (with some bug fixes and improvements). I hear it is still fun (although also pretty old).

Anyway thanks for taking the time to type this & your honest evaluation. I really appreciate it and thanks to posts like this I am evolving as mission / campaign designer. 

 

[nikoel]

On 2/1/2024 at 6:51 PM, baltic_dragon said:

Hey @nikoel and thank you for your feedback, well received! Just a few comments:

On MGRS: I assume the issue with 37 or 38Y (or T or whatever it is) that causes issues in Caucasus. This is done on purpose and many people learned this the hard way, but were happy afterwards. Unless your'e talking about something else here

On M21: not sure what happens there, but please PM me the details, I'll look into it. In general the stock AI wingman is a nightmare and now I am exclusively using wingmen as separate flights. Less flexibility, but much more reliable. 

About talkative pilots: it was my first campaign and should I do it today with everything I know now, I would have built it differently in many places, including idle chatter which I almost never have now (apart from ferry flights, like the first mission in the upcoming Gamblers campaign, where during 8+ hours of flying pilots not only talk a lot, but also play games like ships in their cockpits). But this point is valid and I've moved away from this since having worked with many real life pilots (especially in the Navy they seem not to like any redundant radio comms). 

As for the Mirage - with the help of one of the community Members, I'll submit an updated stock campaign for the M-2000C (with some bug fixes and improvements). I hear it is still fun (although also pretty old).

Anyway thanks for taking the time to type this & your honest evaluation. I really appreciate it and thanks to posts like this I am evolving as mission / campaign designer. 

 

Yes, the issue was with the MGRS coordinate 38T in one of the missions. My main challenge was the lack of direct references to 38T within the mission itself—I scrutinized the message transcripts and the kneeboard but found no mention. The need to switch from 37T to another coordinate isn't the issue; the problem lies in the absence of any hint to try 38T unless the player recalls its use from a previous mission. Even you seemed uncertain whether it was 38T or 38Y, illustrating my point: it's possible to fail the mission due to this ambiguity, which could even trip up the creator of the campaign.

Regarding Mission 21, whenever I commanded my wingman to target ground units—be it a general command or a more specific target—he opted for the most over-the-top weapon, leading to the unintended destruction of the critical building. This happened on two occasions: the first, a direct order to attack ground targets, resulted in immediate demolition. On a subsequent attempt, even a more precise directive failed to prevent collateral damage from nearby strikes due to splash damage

I understand the intent to mirror real-life aviation's often monotonous reality, especially the stretches of silence during cruise on autopilot. However, my pursuit of DCS campaigns aims to escape this real life tedium I get during the day, not replicate it. While striving for realism is commendable, I believe incorporating the types of conversations I mentioned could enrich the experience. Offering players something akin to an "audiobook" during these quieter moments could maintain engagement without sacrificing the campaign's authenticity even though you're right, naval instructors are a side of cardboard with a mains of wetbix dry

Edited February 2 by nikoel