Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[Snoopy]

Thanks for your support of Thrustmaster and ED and happy flying!

 

Said perfectly...thanks for stopping by....my only question is why is this in the A-10 section?

[Grimes]

We are trying to make different, but related points.

 

Your argument was, "pure random creates undesired effects" (which I agree with, but that is why I suggested random spawning within a custom shaped zone or multiple zones in a previous post) Also one must not assume that units will be formationless with regard to random locations.... however it wouldn't hurt to have a % of error involved with unit locations.

 

My argument is, that random spawn locations have the benefit of using fewer groups and triggers compared to the current methods of creating the same effect. Additionally, I would rather choose 100 possible unit spawn points for a single group, than to selectively spawn 100 different groups.

[EtherealN]

Said perfectly...thanks for stopping by....my only question is why is this in the A-10 section?

 

It isn't anymore. A bit ambigious about where it actually fits, so I don't blame him for placing it where he did.

[EtherealN]

Yeah, I agree with your points, but not with his, pretty much. :)

[3instein]

mission blues

 

Please don't shoot me down in flames and as I have flown a few really good folks missions which they obviously took a great deal of time making,myself wouldn't know where to start with the ME,

To quote Ripcord "There is considerable power in the campaign builder/system that comes with DCS: A10C, just nobody has used it yet to it full potential -- not even close in fact."

 

With the mission designers that have the skills to make these great missions and know how to use "the power" why does it still feel like once a mission is over it's quit and then on to another one?

 

Surely with this "power" by now something could or should have been made to make us not feel this way,no?

 

As I said I don't have a clue about the ME so could just be talking rubbish,but just my thoughts anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Mick. :thumbup:

[bluepilot76]

Set piece vs dynamic campaign

 

Seems to me that the way the current ME is setup, it is probably quite good for constructing realistic campaigns, but only in the sense that GW1 and GW2 were played out, as a huge complex operation where we have everyone doing a specific role. I doubt your F18 SEAD flight pilot would be deviating much from his flight plan and specific mission objectives. So not so much of the random action.

 

UNFORTUNATELY this is actually slightly boring. AND not actually what is happening on the battlefields of today, at least from what I have read on various books about Afganistan.

 

In Afganistan, the situation is fluid, British AAC Apaches were (are?) working round the clock, over their hours, forming a strong bond with the guys on the ground as battles planned for several hours turned into several days. True battlefields exist out there. It seems to me that for this scenario we need something much more fluid than what we have in DCS, we need a randomiser campaign generator, similar to the one in F4.0. This would also be the case for an all out world war, the set pieces would rapidly fall apart, command and communications would be split, individual flights would battle it out with the enemy on a much more local scale. Other battles would be visible off in the distance, it would be chaos.

 

It would certainly add some spice to things. I find it hard to get excited about getting in a cockpit to more or less rerun the same mission I have already flown many times. Once you have been shot down a couple of times you get to know where the SAMS are and then deal with them, its all a bit linear. There is a lot less activity on the Forum these days, I wonder if people are getting a bit bored? I dont believe they are all on multiplayer. I tried that recently and there was only a handful of people on there, most of which were just flying individual missions because noone seemed to be on teamspeak.

 

If so it is very sad, undoubtably this is a fantastic simulator of an A10, but it is seriously lacking something. I want to feel a need to get the job done, to get the plane back, to fight another day, to attrite that column of tanks before they obliterate Osan and Mandumi! As it is Im not that bothered..

[EtherealN]

There is a lot less activity on the Forum these days, I wonder if people are getting a bit bored?

 

Compared to what? Release? Of course there's less activity than at release, that's no stranger than the fact that more people go to the cinema when a blockbuster goes on the big screen; and fewer people will a month later.

 

I dont believe they are all on multiplayer. I tried that recently and there was only a handful of people on there, most of which were just flying individual missions because noone seemed to be on teamspeak.

 

Activity online varies greatly, but since you checked I assume you checked all servers, including all private LAN-mode servers that aren't advertised by the master? ;) (Setting your server to LAN-mode allows you to run it privately without passwording it, LAN-mode still works over the net if you just make sure your squaddies know the IP or URL.)

 

If so it is very sad, undoubtably this is a fantastic simulator of an A10, but it is seriously lacking something. I want to feel a need to get the job done, to get the plane back, to fight another day, to attrite that column of tanks before they obliterate Osan and Mandumi! As it is Im not that bothered..

 

My recommendation is to join an online squad. Gives you access to dedicated training, special scenarios and so on and so forth, as well as regular [i)human[/i] wingmen instead of some random dude on the net or AI. :)

[sylkhan]

My recommendation is to join an online squad. Gives you access to dedicated training, special scenarios and so on and so forth, as well as regular [i)human[/i] wingmen instead of some random dude on the net or AI. :)

 

And what is your recommadations for offline player, who don't whant to make his own missions..

[EtherealN]

Use the random mission generator, download other people's missions, download MP missions and just change one of the "client" planes to "player". Tonnes of options.

[sylkhan]

Random mission generator...mhmm i test it; and in it's currents state, it's just pure joke, a shooting game, always the same thing. This is not a true random mission generator, unfortunately.

and i am more a ka50 pilot. there are a few mission to download but only for 2/3 months, and i have dcs black shrak since 2 years.

What i do now, what are your others recommendations...

[159th_Viper]

Random mission generator...mhmm i test it; and in it's currents state, it's just pure joke, a shooting game, always the same thing. This is not a true random mission generator, unfortunately...

 

Then edit the missions to your liking/satisfaction.

 

You gotta be prepared to step up and help yourself if your expectations cannot be met by what is reasonable for others.

[sylkhan]

I don't want to edit missions, it kills my immersion, and it take time :)

I just want news fresh and immersive missions all the days.

My expectations are not so high :) specially for a study sim. and i think that the vast majority of simmers want the same thing.

It's for this reason that a dynamic campaign is needed, or at least a more advanced dynamic mission genarator.

[Jona33]

Falcon missions were not immersive, NOT IMMERSIVE. They don't get me excited. For Black Shark do the Deployment/ Georgian Havoc/ Vergeev group campaigns. For A-10 Devils cross or Hideout, Serpent head/tails missions. THese are immersive. They feel alive. The Falcon missions were the same missions in a different place.

[159th_Viper]

.......or at least a more advanced dynamic mission genarator.

 

Might then be a good idea to start a thread detailing the current shortcomings of the RMG and constructive/realistic suggestions/proposals as to improve said RMG coupled with attendant implementation suggestions of the proposals.

 

Once fleshed out, I or another mod/tester can get the relevant Dev to comment/have a look at the proposals.

 

Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained :)

[sylkhan]

vergeev campaign is the best by far, but do you have any idea about the time need to do this campaign, it take months/year. And at each patch they have to rework their campaign. In fact they have stopped working on it, waiting for the patch.

Give me a vergeev campaign each month, and i will be more than happy :)

But we speak about dynamic campaign because of replayability.

And sorry, but the majority of bms campaign missions are immersive.

 

The Falcon missions were the same missions in a different place.

I don't have this impression, the context is always different. Perhaps we don't play the same.

Edited October 8, 2011 by sylkhan

[sylkhan]

Might then be a good idea to start a thread detailing the current shortcomings of the RMG and constructive/realistic suggestions/proposals as to improve said RMG coupled with attendant implementation suggestions of the proposals.

 

Once fleshed out, I or another mod/tester can get the relevant Dev to comment/have a look at the proposals.

 

Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained :)

 

I would be mare than happy to contribute, unfortunately i don't speak english.

But i will try. It will take time :)

[bluepilot76]

Just quickly in reply to Ethereal,

Lack of forum traffic> Yes I think your right, I hope so anyway

 

Online Activity> Certainly there was many servers that I couldnt get in without a password, I think there may have been only one where a freelance pilot could enter. So not such a good experience.

 

Joining Squad> I would love to, I just dont have the time to commit to a squadron unfortunately. I snatch my flights here and there. With an hour to fill I will probably end up in a Sopwith Camel shooting down newbies over a lake somewhere.

 

I could use a offline campaign however, my work involves me being a way at sea 6 months of the year. The internet is too slow for online gaming but there is usually plenty of time for offline gaming.

 

My final thoughts on the subject...

 

I also used to play KA50, and tried to advance through campaigns there. I became bored when I realised that if I survived long enough, all the troops would fall silent. then I could fly around mopping up. It seemed that the campaign had run out of triggers or something. Like everyone had knocked off because it was 5 o clock. Not very warlike. I pretty much stopped flying the KA50 when I realised that was the depth of the campaign. (And because the trim kept locking up and causing me to pile into a hillside). In those days I never went to forums so rather than asking questions about what was wrong I just started flying something else instead (sopwith camels probably)

 

Anyway I dont intend to stay on here whinging about why I cant have a dynamic campaign, it s not THAT important to me. ED have made a fine simulator, no doubt about that, its there baby and if they dont want to do a DC then thats up to them. Who knows, maybe the alternative WILL be better than a DC (although its DEFINATELY not at the moment IMO) I really hope they are right.

 

PS. Ive seen this argument about the F4.0 DC being just a table or something, not actual events. Well sitting in the F16 at 25k and watching all these other related and unrelated flights passing towards and from the battle or some F5s pasting some MiGs, well I had no clue it was just a table somewhere, to me that sucker was REAL. If thats how they did it then good on them, sounds like they thought of a BRILLIANT solution.

[mattag08]

But with targeting pods letting you do precise studies of the terrain from 20+nm, that wouldn't make much difference. "Those fields over there." [slew TGP for a minute from 20nm out] "all of them marked, awesome."

Not in my experience, but I'm not a real A-10 driver. If the mission maker wants to hide units it isn't that hard. The example of an open farm field is probably the biggest straw man response possible. You have to use a bit of creativity to make use of the tools given you. Just like the artisan carpenter crafts his vision into the wood, a mission maker has to use some ingenuity and creativity to make something that is fun to play.

 

I don't disagree that it could be a nice feature, but I think you greatly overestimate the impact of it. Further, it would be impossible to make a realistic force with such a tool; instead of getting a defended position or spearhead formation that makes sense, you'll get whatever the randomizer creates, and get nonsense out of the mission.

 

This isn't so big a deal in ARMA, because in that game a group of 4 tanks kan be a big deal, and can easily consitute a tangible and dangerous OPFOR. In DCS, you need a lot more than that simply because the scales are larger.

 

If you want to try it, make a mission that randomizes on startup between a huge amount of possible units - place 100 units randomly in a given area, have 10 of them spawn with randomization triggers, and see if the positions "make sense".

 

Essentially, what you're saying can work fine for platoon-level engagements. It doesn't work at all once you have to scale things up to Company or Battalion level, like you'd have to do with DCS.

I don't see why. The unit (or squadron or whatever) could be randomly placed, but still in formation.

[EtherealN]

I don't see why. The unit (or squadron or whatever) could be randomly placed, but still in formation.

 

There's more, a lot more, that goes into a proper spearhead formation or defended position than a squad. You will want several types of units making supportive movements while covered by other assets. Not all of them will want to move, and they will have to react differently to different types of threats. You want to have your advance covered by SHORAD if possible, but you might not want to have the SHORAD assets be part of the actual breaching force where any random shell will take off the very thing that is keeping those A-10's cautious.

 

Again, this is something that works very well and easily in something like ARMA, because the scale is a lot smaller. With the larger scales involved here, it becomes a lot more difficult. Yes, it might be interesting to have the feature, but you are overestimating the usefulness of it in DCS.

[mattag08]

There's more, a lot more, that goes into a proper spearhead formation or defended position than a squad. You will want several types of units making supportive movements while covered by other assets. Not all of them will want to move, and they will have to react differently to different types of threats. You want to have your advance covered by SHORAD if possible, but you might not want to have the SHORAD assets be part of the actual breaching force where any random shell will take off the very thing that is keeping those A-10's cautious.

 

Again, this is something that works very well and easily in something like ARMA, because the scale is a lot smaller. With the larger scales involved here, it becomes a lot more difficult. Yes, it might be interesting to have the feature, but you are overestimating the usefulness of it in DCS.

Well, now we're getting into opinion. The things you're mentioning are absolutely not required to make an interesting or fun mission. Maybe a few mission makers will be put off by the fact that their mechanized battalion isn't advancing by the books, but I seriously doubt 90-95% of A-10 players aren't going to know (and even if they do, aren't going to be able to tell).

 

My opinion is that that sort of mission design is totally unnecessary to generating something that is enjoyable and has high replayability to the vast majority of players. Maybe it is just my inexperience, but I have absolutely no concept of whether an armored battalion is advancing properly when I'm in the jet. All I see is threats. Those threats are sorted by priority and engaged relative to what is necessary to complete the mission.

 

And ultimately if you do want that kind of system, it seems relatively easy to set formations or make some scripts that work. For instance, you have a random unit spawn at (x,y,z). A script then runs that spawns the SHORAD 2nm behind that unit using the reciprocal of its current facing and then creates waypoints using the a similar method. Even I could program that kind of script and I only had a couple years of C++.

 

It seems like the addition of the random/radius function would be extremely easy to implement. Ultimately, it's important not to impose your own limits of logic and reasoning and creativity on a tool. You give a craftsman his tools and let him go to work. The more tools he has, the more impressive his artwork can be. With a simple saw, everything will be blunt and boring. And if you think that tool isn't very good for the job at hand, then don't use it, but don't take that tool away from your fellow craftsmen.

Edited October 12, 2011 by mattag08

[HerrKaputt]

It seems like the addition of the random/radius function would be extremely easy to implement. Ultimately, it's important not to impose your own limits of logic and reasoning and creativity on a tool. You give a craftsman his tools and let him go to work. The more tools he has, the more impressive his artwork can be. With a simple saw, everything will be blunt and boring. And if you think that tool isn't very good for the job at hand, then don't use it, but don't take that tool away from your fellow craftsmen.

 

I agree with most of your post mattag08, it is a matter of opinion and I share your opinion on this. But I especially agree with the part that I quoted. Deciding that tool X should not be implemented because it can be used to make non-realistic military formations is not a valid reason IMO. Using mattag08's example, a saw can also be used to cut wood into useless ugly shapes, and like these mission editor tools a saw also requires some skill and experience to use. Nevertheless, a saw is a useful tool and any aspiring carpenter likes to have it at his/her disposal.

[EtherealN]

Deciding that tool X should not be implemented because it can be used to make non-realistic military formations is not a valid reason IMO.

 

That's not what I am saying though. ;)

 

I'm saying that it's value is diminished because it inherently creates problematic force dispositions. And this is not just about wanting things to be "by the books" - things are "by the book" because they work. As I said previously, I do think that such a feature could be interesting - but remember that any and all features to be implemented compete for development resources, so it is never a question of simply "do we want X", it's a question of "do we want X more than Y and Z". There are a lot of things that would be awesome to have and I happen to think the energy is probably better spent elsewhere - for example in advances of unit AI, making it easier to create extensions to the mission editor, there are things that can be done with ME and campaign engine integration... Tonnes of things that can be awesome, limited resources to implement them.

 

My personal suggestion would be to make mission editor easier to extend. (It already is relatively easy for the user, but could use some further work.) This would essentially mean that anyone and everyone could implement their dream feature and release it to the community as a mod - we have a lot of extremely talented modders in this community and I think we have a lot more to gain from ED helping them "do their thing".

[winchesterdelta1]

Conclusion:

 

1. If ED decides to make a DC for DCS it has to be uber perfect following all the military rules and tactics. And if they can manage ROE also. For every unit on the map. They only want a perfect simm that follows military doctrine.

 

2. Alot (I'm not saying most, cause that i don't know) of DCS fans/players want a DC that just gives you a feeling that your part of a bigger cause. More immersion and more mission progress. For them it doesn't matter how thats realized. They dont care about perfect military strategies or maneuvres. As long as it looks like its done in a proper way. They just want to use all the hyper realistic DCS planes in a more dynamic and usefull enviroment. Where tankers,AWACS,fighter,strike, transport, planes have a real effect on the virtual battlefield. And if you take them down it will actually matter. But for them it doesn't have to be Ultra realistic.. aslong as the weapon platforms they use stay ultra realistic.

 

 

In my opinion nr. 1 is never gonna happen cause its impossible to make a Dynamic Campaign with the high fidelity as the DCS planes have been made. (Am i saying this right!). If i understand it right the ED team and the other people arguing against a DC thinks all the previous Dynamic Campaigns in other games are totally unsufficient. And should not even be mentioned for a ultra realistic simm like DCS.

 

My place is in the second group. As long as the planes stay ultra realistic i don't really care how ultra realistic the DC missions are excecuted. I can only hope it will be as realistic as possible. And if i want to fly ultra realistic non DC missions i will just download them from the awesome community.

[EtherealN]

1. If ED decides to make a DC for DCS it has to be uber perfect following all the military rules and tactics. And if they can manage ROE also. For every unit on the map. They only want a perfect simm that follows military doctrine.

 

Wrong. ED works iteratively towards that goal. But they will not work with the target of making something that is barely good enough. This means that things take time as a lot of foundationwork has to be implemented before starting to think of a fully operational DC.

[winchesterdelta1]

Sorry, i forgot to mention that. Also i forgot to mention that i'm very pleased to hear that more tools will be available for the community to make their own adjustments and content. With even more freedom than we have now. "I missed the reply where you explained about that when typing my conclusion"