Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[winchesterdelta1]

Reality denyers? I just want a fun game that has alot of reality when i choose to. So i can go fly singular missions or go fly a DC so i can have a feeling of actually being in a real war. And it also gives you an idea of how all those military hardware can be deployed. A Military Simm that can be played in a DC is the closest to real war i hope i ever be. Even if it does mean that most missions are not fully realistic.

 

What better game can you image than a full scale war going on around you and you fly a chopper or airplane with fully realistic avionics like in DCS. Most of us are not real pilots anyway so they don't know how to fly fully realistic. They will try to get as realistic as they can. I don't care why the military doesn't use DC. They have way higher standards than us. Or do you want to wait for a Dynamic campaign when everybody has a Holodeck like in startrek in our rooms. I know for sure the military would use that.

 

I mean to say, who cares that not everything is fully realistic. I don't know one game thats fully realistic. Or one singular mission thats build so realisticly by the community that even the military would take a try. We like airplanes... we don't like arcade we like virtual war and if it can be done as realisticly as possible. And if some parts are not as realistic as in real life but still gives us a feeling that it could be... Than why not.

 

It's not that we are reality denyers we are just realistic and know that a computer game and a DC can never be as realistic as we want. But we can alway's make it feel realistic for non military personal like us. It seems like you have something personal against a DC.

[sobek]

It seems like you have something personal against a DC.

 

I don't, i just fail to see the sense in playing a simulator that simulates the airframe as close as possible and takes all that fancy avionics and flight modelling to send you off into badly planned mission environments. The level of interaction, that a DC can offer is far from what a good mission with triggers will provide.

[bogusheadbox]

Quite the contrary. I have yet to see one mission created by a DC that isn't completely the opposite of what real missions look like.

Again, how old is the F4 dynamic campaigne, and how old is THAT game.

 

Why do all of you reality denyers think that the military has no interest in dynamic campaigns? Because they are providing unrealistic missions.

 

Just taking a shot in the dark here. Because if you are using such programme to train pilots - then i am sure their training would be more scenario based. A single pilot is not and would not be interested in devising theatre wide war strategies.

 

Unfortunately, ATM realistic missions have to be handbuilt by a thinking individual.

 

Really, Ohhhh really..:megalol:...... Are they the same realistic missions where if i decide to fly off the designated track the world soon becomes sterile and void of threats..... Where there are no supporting flights in the zone....... where there is no damage and asset tracking??????

 

 

Reality denyers.... you sure you are not talking about yourself here.:huh:

 

 

Now that i have calmed down from a fit of uncontrollable laughter let me just add to this.

 

YES the F4 campain is not perfect. - - - But it does for something that old get most of it right.

 

What it does add is a living world, that is not sterile. It provides something for a WIDE RANGE of people (which is what you want in game - simulation). It gives tacticions a chance to run a war,

it gives those that just want to fly a range of diverse missions

it gives those that want something in the middle of the previous two an added benefit.

 

It allows more than one online squad to participate in a theatre of war possibly supporting each other without someone building the mission, and knowing the mission.

 

It will encourage teamplay between people as each will have their own flight WORKING TOWARD A COMMON GOAL.

 

It will give you a sense of satisfaction when you complete task and ground troops and further flights can progress.

 

It will give you a sense of purpose if you fail a mission but seriously damage it, that if you get tasked (or another flight is tasked) back to complete said mission, you will see the devastation that was caused previously.

 

It will give cause to support and try to attack supply routes. Enabling you the chance to win a war of attrition rather than a score of the same units killed.

 

IT WILL ELIMINATE THE FRUSTRATING ONLINE SCENARIOS THAT YOU PLAY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE EVERY ENEMY IS AND KNOWING EXACTLY HOW TO INGRESS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO OPTION FOR A SURPRISE.

And probably the most important point. It will create a stronger interest and prolong the life of DCS (just like it has with F4) and in doing so will create revenue for the DCS team to which we will receive additional flyables...

 

That solely is worth a dynamic campain

[bogusheadbox]

I don't, i just fail to see the sense in playing a simulator that simulates the airframe as close as possible and takes all that fancy avionics and flight modelling to send you off into badly planned mission environments.

not true. F4 a really really really old DC does not give you suicide runs all the time. And as said previously to which you do not seem to take notice of, you can change said plane, routing etc. Silly statement

 

The level of interaction, that a DC can offer is far from what a good mission with triggers will provide.

 

You know, i have played F4, EECH, Steel beasts, IL2 with DG and Scorched Earth, all the lock on franchise and DCS.

 

Yes, a well programmed mission can often be a brilliant experience - not denying that. However that mission will not tie into the next. That mission will be narrow and sterile. That mission will be boring very quickly. That mission will not give you a sense of a theatre of war. And to mention that there are NOT a lot of talented mission builders out there that can give a constant stream of missions to keep you ineterested.

 

What that mission can't do is give you the OMG factors of the uknown that a DC can give you. And some of those moments can outwiegh some of the best man made missions i have everencountered.

[Bucic]

What that mission can't do is give you the OMG factors of the uknown that a DC can give you. And some of those moments can outwiegh some of the best man made missions i have everencountered.

2 cents from me. There were some moments during my F4 campaign I will never forget. You say less realistic scenario is the trade-of? Tel me then how I would notice that in cockpit only view?

 

BTW, what;s the current thesis of the discussion? :D

[mtuckner]

Love DCS, but a Dynamic Campaign of some sort would make what it is 100 times better, even if implemented like F4 with odd missions.

[winchesterdelta1]

I don't, i just fail to see the sense in playing a simulator that simulates the airframe as close as possible and takes all that fancy avionics and flight modelling to send you off into badly planned mission environments. The level of interaction, that a DC can offer is far from what a good mission with triggers will provide.

 

You ignoring all other points and only respond on something small like that? Sorry i didn't see any point comming from you why a DC should not be implemented in the future. It really seems that it is from a personal perspective that you like singular missions better. I would never go against your personal opinion. But we are discussing what the mass of the people rather like. And i hear from alot of flight simmers they would like a DC even if not everything is realistic. They just ignore it because there is enough other beautifull things in a DC to keep bussy with. And like me they rather take the imperfections than no DC at all if they had a choice. And the nice thing is that you still can play singular missions. So i'm totally missing the point you made.

 

The only good point i heard against a DC is the awfull lot of work and programming you need to do to create something like it. But it has been done really well in other games with computers that are far infirior to what we have now. And still the campaigns in Falcon,TAW,EECH are far ahead from what we see now in flight simm's. And it seems to me pretty silly to deny that because they where not able to simmulate a true realistic battlefield. But if i may speculate you never ever played a true realistic singular mission also.

[GGTharos]

There is currently no time or effort that can be spared to implement a DC. It will likely not happen for a long time.

[Moa]

There is currently no time or effort that can be spared to implement a DC. It will likely not happen for a long time.

 

.. unless the community (eg. me and whatever suckers help) comes up with one first.

 

I'm only gonna worry about the aerial war with 'budget' action for the ground - although I saw a book when passing through RNZAF Command & Staff college many years ago (no, I wasn't attending, just part of officer school) and have been itching to implement it (it's the reason I picked up programming). The book is (US Army Col. ret.) Trevor N Dupuy's "Numbers, Predictions and War" (Hero books). There are some theoretical mathematical concerns about his work, but it is good enough for a sim game.

 

I picked up the revised 1985 version from Amazon. The 1979 version is available at:

http://www.amazon.com/Numbers-prediction-war-history-evaluate/dp/0672521318/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296354912&sr=8-1

 

The book is not about the "art" of war, it is about the "science" of it and modelling battles based on historical data, rather than starting with the Lanchester equation (which gives a poor correlation with actual historical results).

Edited January 30, 2011 by Moa

[GGTharos]

Interesting, I'll see if I can pick it up :)

[bogusheadbox]

@Moa

 

You have totally lost me... :music_whistling:

 

@ GGTharos,

 

Though i am naturally dissapointed that no time can be spent towards a DC, i do understand from what has been written it is a massive undertaking.

 

However, is there any possability that DCS will implement real time mission planning?

 

E.g. you can have "commanders" tasking live and AI units whilst the game is ongoing ?

 

That last option seems the closest way to have a dynamic game whilst not having a dynamic AI generator?

 

Having no programming training (so i could be incorrect here) it seems the last option would be the easiest to implement as the tools are already there. Just need access to mission planner in real time.

[sobek]

E.g. you can have "commanders" tasking live and AI units whilst the game is ongoing ?

 

This feature was in DCS A-10 but unfortunately had to be pulled due to it conflicting with the military line of products. EB-1 however stated that the feature might evolve and come back into the series at some point (hopefully).

[Bucic]

There is currently no time or effort that can be spared to implement a DC. It will likely not happen for a long time.

It's good I developed a new taste for flight sims then ;)

 

The book is (US Army Col. ret.) Trevor N Dupuy's "Numbers, Predictions and War" (Hero books). There are some theoretical mathematical concerns about his work, but it is good enough for a sim game.

 

I picked up the revised 1985 version from Amazon. The 1979 version is available at:

http://www.amazon.com/Numbers-prediction-war-history-evaluate/dp/0672521318/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296354912&sr=8-1

 

The book is not about the "art" of war, it is about the "science" of it and modelling battles based on historical data, rather than starting with the Lanchester equation (which gives a poor correlation with actual historical results).

Great resource! :thumbup:

 

 

However, is there any possability that DCS will implement real time mission planning?

Good news for you is that military clients are generally interested in such a functionality (see Bohemia Interactive ArmA 2 and VBS for example).

[Boberro]

I remember discussion about "live" F-10 map where you could create routes, paint targets, share it with mates ect. That would be good feature imho. Hope it is still in plans.

[GGTharos]

ED does seem to have a desire to implement such things - the dynamic mission generator is a step in that direction for example, and it will evolve over time. Again, I think a lot of stuff will be added to DCS over time, it is just a question of 'when' in most cases. Unfortunately 'when' might be a while :)

 

However, is there any possability that DCS will implement real time mission planning?

 

E.g. you can have "commanders" tasking live and AI units whilst the game is ongoing ?

 

That last option seems the closest way to have a dynamic game whilst not having a dynamic AI generator?

 

Having no programming training (so i could be incorrect here) it seems the last option would be the easiest to implement as the tools are already there. Just need access to mission planner in real time.

[winchesterdelta1]

I remember discussion about "live" F-10 map where you could create routes, paint targets, share it with mates ect. That would be good feature imho. Hope it is still in plans.

 

That sounds good and a great step forward to a even better simm.

[mic1184]

[...] [single] mission will not give you a sense of a theatre of war. [...]

 

That pretty much sums up the discussion for me.

 

Realism is just a feature that complements the joy of a game and hence its entertainment value for me personally. If it doesn't add to the fun, I don't want realism in a game. That's why we don't have to do the paperwork before and after the missions.

 

Of course the military isn't interested in a DC with a flight sim, as the aforementioned dynamic campaign is primarily an entertainment aspect.

 

As has been stated before by others, the joy of this game degrades while getting better in operating the aircraft.

 

For now I put DCS a-10 aside and started playing BoB II. The DC looks very convincing so far. While I don't enjoy flying WW2 aircraft, the promising DC boosts my motivation enormously to try it out.

 

Hope a motivation boost will come back for DCS cuz the A-10 is the coolest aircraft ever!

[winz]

Fun is a very subjective matter. Someone playing hawx would give you the same argument why he doesn't want realistic avionich, physics, missions.

 

We, sim users, enjoy something that most of the population finds dull and boring. So carefull with the 'fun factor' ;)

 

For me, a well scripted single mission with voice acting is much more immersive then a generic generated mission. Because it can be fine tuned to be realistic, and because they can add some specific flavour to the mission. Something no DC will ever be able to accomplish. But on the other hand, those missions are very rare and most of the generic mission are in no way more realistic then DC generated once.

 

The immersion breaker in scripted campaign is the neverending repeating of failed missions, for the most stupid reasons. I mean, one of the last missions in the FC 2.0 A10 campaign. You are ordered to destroy a supply depot. I destroyed every fuel and supply truck in the area, but guess what... the mission isn't succesful until you destroy a static zsu hidden in the city near the trucks....really?

 

For me, DC isn't about immersion (a well scripted mission allways did better for me), but about a great sense of neverending progression (there is allways a next, kinda new, mission)

 

And military isn't interested in DC not because they are not realistic (if they would interested, then they would demand a realistic DC... there are in the end ordering a produch tailored to their needs, and they are paying the whole development process), but because they are not interested in how the scenario presented might advance. They are interested in repeating the same scenario again and again.

Edited January 31, 2011 by winz

[Sulman]

That pretty much sums up the discussion for me.

 

As has been stated before by others, the joy of this game degrades while getting better in operating the aircraft.

 

For now I put DCS a-10 aside and started playing BoB II. The DC looks very convincing so far. While I don't enjoy flying WW2 aircraft, the promising DC boosts my motivation enormously to try it out.

 

 

That's the case with a lot of titles, no? Like a beautiful woman, as you get to know them you start to understand that everything has flaws :)

 

F4 is fantastic, and I think one of that series great strengths was that they really looked at the playing experience in detail, paying attention to visibility and how entities are depicted in the game world, & working carefully around the limitations of a desktop PC.

 

DCS is still interesting though, and once you become accustomed to the mission format it is great fun just to 'be & do' and fly around trying different things - the results can be enlightening.

 

BOBII is an amazing product. Superb 'feel' of flight too.

[Bucic]

One more thing. Perhaps ED's even bigger flaw than lack of DC is the lack of other measures that improve the environmental reception. I mean ATC operations improvements especially. You can still basically ignore it and bomb it as a bonus.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Bucic

[Succellus]

If i may enter the fray.

When people claim for DC, they are not de facto claiming for DC.

They are claiming for immersion and fun.

And as very well remarked, in DCS fun factor decrease over airplane mastering.

So, once you get "enought" proficient the game loose its interest in a exponencial grow. And its not a mission maker that will solve that, it will donly ampen the problem.

 

If this theme is brought forward so much, its because it touches the heart of the FUN factor, and games are for entretainment.

So we can consider:

1) DC in f4 maybe lame, but DC is what made the game a legend (discounting leaked code), same for DID EF000V2.

2) plane "stuckiness" is getting longer (more time stuck with same plane) and interest time remain the same (greater period of loss of interest)

3)Scenario, totally overused: Flanker ? The first time it appears, Lo1, same as flanker, FC ?again.., FC2 the same, K50 guess what ?, A10c.... help!!!

4) The only thing that gets the brand going is realism, but 600 pages per plane is hard to swallow, no matter how much the already know factor kick in...

5) What when plane release isnt a hit, or/and there s no "proprietary" peripheral to boost interest ?

6) DC is a can of worm that always make surface.

 

If you can t takle the full fledged DC, why dont call the comunity to help, we all know there s excellent people out there drolling to help, even a half assed F4 DC, damn even a EF2k DC would suit.

Right now the problem is DCS aircraft choices.

 

Games are about fun, and realism is only one part of fun, there s settings, immersion, replayability etc...

 

On a side note, i would prefer a DC campaign as next module than a new 600 page aircraft to learn from zero on a non continuous, pointless environment. Unless its the f14 :D .

 

And no a DC aint only a glorified mission editor, that really saying a Porche Cayenne is nothing but a glorifyed Lada Niva.

[winz]

Tbh, comunity has all that is necessary to create a DC, with few limitation inherit by the engine.

 

It is very possible to make a standalone application, that will run the DC engine, and launch the simulator when the user decides to go '3D'.

 

Interaction with the FC/DCS engine is the easiest part. The FC/DCS mission format is pretty straightforward and generating them should be no problem. Export.lua enables export of what happened during that missions.

The only thing that's left is to create the actual DC engine... and that's not hard task (from a programing standpoint), but long and tedious, and requires a lot of know-how about how such war would be fought both on ground and in air.

[Skoop]

When we say we need a DC, I would like to see more of a stategy based overlayer controlling the DC. Similar to you filling the role of ATO in F4 AF.

I thought DCS was headed in this direction with the battlefield commander until it was pulled.

IL2's DC are an example of what I don't want, just generic cookie cutter missions spawned up.

 

The strategic overlayer is the best way, gives the player the ability to make choices on the path of the DC.

 

I really don't think a DC for the DCS series is that impossible. If ED can redo the BFC,that could be the avenue to implement a DC. I would gladly pay extra for it,and many would as well.

I think the pieces for a DC are possibly already in place, instead of a mssion to mission campaign, what if the DC is just one long saveable dynamic mission with hundreds of triggers from the mission editor.

I think with a little commitment from ED and alot of 3rd party work and support this could become a reality.

Think of all the casual flight sim people that would be drawn to the sim due to the enhanced immersion of a DC in the form of a total conflict simmulator.

If ED would do what ever it takes to tackle this hurdle, it could bring in many new fans / paying customers.

Then down the road each new aircraft could be add to the DC "world", then we will be able to plan various missions, then fly them as a helo, a-10, multi-role fighter, or air superiority fighter all in the same dynamic campaign simmulator.

...ops...little more than 2cents....

Edited February 2, 2011 by Skoop

[Succellus]

On a first side note, i would bet anyone would be willing to pay for a decent DC over next aircraft if The shark and the hog are playable. I would pay an entire plane module with a even smile wider than any plane you will bring on.

On a extremly personnal note a plane bring me back for 6 month max, then i start to drop it. Could i would still be playing EF2000 if i could.

 

Also:

This game ain t military, its a game

We re not military, (most of us, and even less pilots)

The planes will never be military standard,

Military argumentation is counter productive and give an impression of self deluding grandeur.

 

What make people want ef2000 back ? What make people still play F4 ? And IL2 ? BOB2 ? etc? Certainly ain t canned mission.

 

DC won t kill mission buiding, DC won t kill interest to other s campaigns. It just gonna increase the sellability of DC series, and the interest of the game.

 

Even if you really dont want it because of quality standart, then give the comunity a chance to help you until you meet the aimed standart. Let us have even more fun with DCS.

I don t know about the other but i play the game for fun.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Succellus

[mtuckner]

A lot of development time and focus on overall improvements are to meet military contracts. Military ain't one of them. We get the pleasure of having a civilianized spin-off. So yes, it is not delusional for them to meet the military's standards.