Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[elchacal]

IMHO there are lots of improvements in the DCS A-10C ME, but i think that powerful improvements can coexists with a dynamic campaing engine, that bring us more options and posibilities.

[GGTharos]

That's quite true. :)

 

IMHO there are lots of improvements in the DCS A-10C ME, but i think that powerful improvements can coexists with a dynamic campaing engine, that bring us more options and posibilities.

[Speed]

Yup. A DCS dynamic campaign could easily be far better than any before it. But a main tool we are still missing is more flexibility with unit creation and management, such as being able to give units waypoints, or being able to spawn them altogether. Teleporting would be nice too (for like, helo drops). Anyway, this quote is promising:

TFCSE offers a powerful and flexible mission editor designed to permit any type of planning requirements. A real time command module for runtime mission modification is under development. An assets management module for integration to the mission editor is also under development.

(source: http://www.thebattlesim.com/index.php?scr=list&end_pos=44&lang=en&page=2)

 

Let us hope that makes it into a DCS module! That would add some tremendous flexibility.

[Booger]

The way Israel won at least one air campaign was to mount a susprise attack on enemy air assets while they were on the ground. But this wasn't done by anything resembling a small amount of aircraft. If you attack an airfield and you're not taking them by surprise, you shouldn't expect to be all that successful. A large number of small, cheap fighters is an excellent way to mount a defense.

 

Some modern weapons are starting to change this due to their ability to attack from fairly long ranges, but this can still be dealt with.

 

As I said before, a single aircraft or a small number of aircraft having a pivotal role in such operations is the exception to the rule.

 

Aha! This reminds me of 1981: Operation Opera.

 

Leave it to the Israelis to be the exception. There are none more deserving.

[HerrKaputt]

A single aircraft having a huge impact on a war? Hmmm... Enola Gay? ;)

 

(but I do agree that such occurrences are exceptions to the rule)

[Booger]

But the point of a dynamic campaign is to entertain the player and if that means consolidating the 'interesting' missions, then so be it. Only a complete tool would want a super-realistic flying sim that involves orbiting for nine hours waiting for a JTAC to call. And maybe they don't call, and then they fly home.

 

Fun is subjective and yet again, you go to the extreme for a third time.

 

I will concede though that it's safe to assume that the majority would agree with an orbiting mission that resulted in no tasks assigned would be pretty boring. I certainly wouldn't insult someone if they enjoyed or didn't really mind doing it though.

 

Let's use the "wingman experience gain" suggestion again. If all you did was orbit, that's a cake (and hopefully well earned) mission where you're ensured no losses. If there's nothing to attack, it's safe to assume that your assets & equipment are, in fact, available (and even improved!) for the next mission.

 

[] <-- This is a box. Think out of it, you should.

 

What is that supposed to mean? That a Chinese air campaign would last for the entire war? I seriously doubt that. ANY sort of conflict *will* open with an air war first and foremost, do you agree on this point?

 

No, I won't (ever) agree with your black & white absolutes. I'll agree that it *might*.

 

The entire reason the F-22 and the B-2 exists is to specifically get in there first and knock out any aircraft in the air and as many aircraft on the ground, and then pop major targets like radar sites and C3 facilities - basically, they exist for executing the first blow.

 

I'll get to this in a minute...

 

Do you have a better reason for the massive investment in stealth technology?

 

Because chicks dig big spenders?

 

It's only an option. Guess what? It's not the only first-strike option in the US' arsenal.

 

Aircraft are limited assets, and airfields are even more limited, and the best part is we know where they all are. Unlike in WW2 you can't really just plop one anywhere you have a flat strip of land.

 

Well, you're getting warmer at least.

 

No country on earth could ever replace modern aircraft fast enough to make up for how quickly they will be lost, so yes, an air war will be 'who runs out of planes first'. And it won't be the US.

 

That's certainly the intent of implementing stealth in fighters (as well as the new targeting systems).

 

We have an entire desert full of airframes, many of which are intended to be put back together if they're needed. If we are talking actual combat on Chinese or Russian soil, the air war would be quick, brutal, and bloody. If we're talking limited engagement in a third-party country, you would certainly have only losses on each side as much as commanders permitted them, but that's really stirring the pot as far as possibilities go.

 

And naval vessels.

And prepositioned assets in various countries throughout the world.

And prepositioned assets on ships (MPS).

 

But of course, all of this is moot since options are incredibly limited in this sim as it stands now. It is, and will remain to be (in the foreseeable future) an aircraft-based simulator.

[Grimes]

One plane tasked with doing something ordinary won't have a butterfly effect on the war.

 

One plane tasked with doing something extraordinary could have an effect.

[Booger]

One plane tasked with doing something ordinary won't have a butterfly effect on the war.

 

One plane tasked with doing something extraordinary could have an effect.

 

Well said :thumbup:

[EtherealN]

I will concede though that it's safe to assume that the majority would agree with an orbiting mission that resulted in no tasks assigned would be pretty boring. I certainly wouldn't insult someone if they enjoyed or didn't really mind doing it though.

 

I personally wouldn't mind such missions at all. Stuff like HVAA escort is extremely thrilling even if there's little actual action. The key basically is to make it so that the player wouldn't know ahead of time what will happen. Each blip on the radar, each popup call from AWACS, all of that could be a potential need for action. It can be very entertaining even if you never end up firing a weapon in that specific mission.

 

It's a bit like the sneaky-sneak missions in some FPS style games - just because it's an FPS doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot your way through every mission for the game to be entertaining.

 

An example from DCS:BS would be the GOW campaign and the multitude of randomized triggers in place there - when you run the mission, you don't know if you'll run into enemy air. You might. Even if you ran the mission before and didn't meet any - you might this time! This introduces an element of tension where you constantly scan the skies because they just might be there - and this is "fun" (at least to me) even if I end up landing with a mission complete and no air encounters.

 

This is all a question of personal taste, not a question about people being "complete tools". Though I have noticed that Frostiken appears to generally be of the opinion that anyone who doesn't like the type of gameplay he likes is best described in some well chosen derogatory term. :P

 

The key is the "maybe". If you know 100% certainly that they'll never call... yeah, that would suck. But if they might call at any time you'll have to stay focused, keep your SA up, and continually be ready to do your thing. To me, that sounds like a kickass tonne of fun. To others, it might. It's why good old Microsoft Combat Flight simulator had that "skip" thingie where people could fly the entire mission if they want, or they could hit a button to "skip" forward to the actual combat encounter. Both types get served, everyone is happy.

[Cali]

Etherea, I don't mind missions like that either. We are part of the very small percentage that actually like realism in missions. I don't mind long flights to get to the battle zone, random failures would also be nice (no server have them). Things like that make it fun...I think. Short flights and a jet that is brand new all the time is the reason why people say "air quake".

[EtherealN]

And besides, it's on the long flights that you actually get to enjoy the flying part. :)

 

To me, a sim like DCS isn't just about "killing stuff". I want to really fly too. Some of the most fun I've had with either DCS simulator has been on "maps" with zero enemies - just flying around and feeling the plane, testing maneuvers, flying inverted under bridges, making a low-vis instrument approach and so on.

 

It's a bit like that habit of having waypoints directly on top of enemies - that always annoys me personally; might as well fly with labels on then for how predictable things get. :P

 

I like the missions Panzer made for DCS:BS back in the days - you just never knew about that guy, absolutely anything could happen, and just because some place was outside the area where you are supposed to go didn't mean there wouldn't be cleverly hidden vulcans in that yonder village.

 

... or there might not be, and your 30 minute detour to get an alternate shot on the enemy SAM site turned up calm and smooth - but even when that was the case, you still wasn't bored when flying that route, because you knew every single building was a potential hiding spot for a MANPAD.

[GGTharos]

I think DCS has put the 'flight' into Combat Flight Simulator.

[Moa]

Used to be great in Falcon 3 where you would do a 'milk run' to protect your resupply aircraft. Sometimes nothing would happen and you've have a nice flight. Sometimes if you didn't pay attention (too busy chasing bandits) your supply aircraft would get smoked - then on later missions you'd wonder why you started running out of stuff. Was a really nice aspect of the game (even the less action-oriented missions made a difference).

[Eddie]

I'll take a 90 minute flight to the target area with an AA refuel, 45+ mins on station as AFAC trying to locate targets for the CAS jets and a 90 min flight home with another trip to the tanker, over a take off and fly 5 mins to launch 6 mavs on a load of targets sat at a waypoint air quake mission any day of the week.

 

If I have to do it all in the dark, even better.

[J. Heller]

And the thread goes round and round, why even bother with this discussion? Guess I will just have to wait for some other company to make a modern air combat simulator with a dynamic campaign, thanks for the effort though ED.

[Booger]

Used to be great in Falcon 3 where you would do a 'milk run' to protect your resupply aircraft. Sometimes nothing would happen and you've have a nice flight. Sometimes if you didn't pay attention (too busy chasing bandits) your supply aircraft would get smoked - then on later missions you'd wonder why you started running out of stuff. Was a really nice aspect of the game (even the less action-oriented missions made a difference).

 

Nice, I like that. It's the choices we make.

 

That actually gives me an idea for a mission :joystick:

[amalahama]

Dynamic campaigns are cool if you flight a multirol aircraft, but extremly boring for a roll-specific aircraft like the A-10.

 

In Falcon, well, you can do some SEAD work, then jump into a deep strike mission and afterwards fly a BARCAP over the no-fly zone.

 

And it's great because while you are doing that, a lot of things are happening too and you know it; you can see heavy bombers attacking, CSAR helicopter flying low, or troops on ground stirring up the mud.

 

But for the A-10 specifically... well, to do again and again the same mission, blowing up T-72, BMPs and ZSUs can get you bored if nothing unexpected happens.

 

At least with man-made missions, you can have surprises waiting for you just behind the corner.

 

Regards

Edited August 19, 2011 by amalahama

[JCav]

Having recently realized that part of my distaste for A-10C comes from not having input on the PLANNING stages of my mission, I have to comment that a Dynamic Campaign is the only feature likely to bring me the entertainment I was really looking for.

 

I know that most people here dislike Falcon4:AF, but one thing that gives me that DCS doesn't is the ability to PLAN my mission ahead of time.

 

A-10C I'm thrown into a cockpit with limited time to get wheels up by the mission designer, who has pre-planned my route for me (and frankly, is unlikely to be as intelligent as I am). Timing trombones are not built into the flightplan, so if my wingman or I take even 2 minutes too long to get wheels up, we'll never catch our TOT. In short, every multiplayer mission I fly feels like it's on rails. A trained monkey could fly these missions.

 

I know that I'm rambling a bit (watching The Unit while I type this), but in short: without a dynamic campaign, I can't foresee purchasing anymore DCS titles.

[Eddie]

Having recently realized that part of my distaste for A-10C comes from not having input on the PLANNING stages of my mission, I have to comment that a Dynamic Campaign is the only feature likely to bring me the entertainment I was really looking for.

 

I know that most people here dislike Falcon4:AF, but one thing that gives me that DCS doesn't is the ability to PLAN my mission ahead of time.

 

A-10C I'm thrown into a cockpit with limited time to get wheels up by the mission designer, who has pre-planned my route for me (and frankly, is unlikely to be as intelligent as I am). Timing trombones are not built into the flightplan, so if my wingman or I take even 2 minutes too long to get wheels up, we'll never catch our TOT. In short, every multiplayer mission I fly feels like it's on rails. A trained monkey could fly these missions.

 

I know that I'm rambling a bit (watching The Unit while I type this), but in short: without a dynamic campaign, I can't foresee purchasing anymore DCS titles.

 

Then you're flying the wrong missions/on the wrong servers mate. Many people design very realistic missions, that make those in Falcon look rather poor indeed. The issue is you won't find these missions on public servers, you'll need to join an organised group for them.

 

If you want to plan your missions properly, why not make your own?

 

And your statement about most people around here disliking Falcon is rubbish I'm afraid. Quite a few of us are ex Falcon players who've moved on, some still fly Falcon, and quite a few have never flown it because they are new to study sims. Hell, certain people involved in the development of DCS were also involved in the development of Falcon.

[JCav]

I appreciate your feedback Eddie, but I don't think you can show me a mission where I'm given an objective and am left to my own devices to plan my route and payload appropriately.

 

As for my Falcon comment, I should've restricted it to "most people here don't like Falcon's DC." I fly Falcon regularly and still prefer to fly it over A-10C because of the planning factor I get to have input on. Currently, A-10C missions feel to me like "Fly this route, with these weapons, and strike these targets." My execution of those missions will be virtually identical to how another pilot will fly it because it's already been laid out.

[Frostie]

I appreciate your feedback Eddie, but I don't think you can show me a mission where I'm given an objective and am left to my own devices to plan my route and payload appropriately.

I'm sure you can do that in every mission by clicking the mission planner.

[ivanwfr]

JCav,

 

To me, it looks like you should be asking why you are not authoring missions with A-10C Mission Editor. With your vision of how they could be organized, I'm sure you would bring your share to the community.

 

Instead of reading that I'm so missing something I just don't know about, as a very new simmer, I would see that some enlightened contributor is also asking for a better ME.

 

If you were, I would be reading a request for higher priority to something I care about too... Rather than learning you're are going to leave the community very soon.

 

I'm currently stuck at ME boundaries myself And it's only a few days I am working with it. I'm already scratching my head about how to say something relevant to the circumstances in a simple on-screen message to inform the player.

 

Even if ED team would say that they do what they can - and as an programmer myself, I know they do - this would state what you are expecting from them, not that you are disappointed and that's it.

 

Please, help those who want a better editor and your missions may look like you expect them to be.

[Eddie]

I appreciate your feedback Eddie, but I don't think you can show me a mission where I'm given an objective and am left to my own devices to plan my route and payload appropriately.

 

Join a squad mate, and you'll get exactly that. That's why many squads/VFWs build there own missions and don't share them. When only you are using them, it's easy for one person to open up the mission and make any changes to the flightplan, or just design it to suit you to start with.

 

Don't get me wrong, I know what you're saying, but also realise that in terms of realism the Falcon campaign isn't all that good. It's fun and entertaining sure, but not that realistic. DCS allows for much more realistic missions, it just takes a bit of work and time to make them.

[AlphaOneSix]

I know that most people here dislike Falcon4:AF, but one thing that gives me that DCS doesn't is the ability to PLAN my mission ahead of time.

 

I appreciate your feedback Eddie, but I don't think you can show me a mission where I'm given an objective and am left to my own devices to plan my route and payload appropriately.

 

When you select a mission to fly, between the "Fly" and "Cancel" buttons in the mission briefing screen is a button labeled "Mission Planner" where you can view a map of the battlefield, as well as change your route by adding, deleting, and moving waypoints. You can also change your loadout.

[J. Heller]

I dont know why I keep coming back, lol... Why does everyone on the ED team constantly dance around the issue? These fabricated missions we have in DCS are good for ONE go only, maybe two if you didnt get it right the first time. After that wheres the excitement? You already know whats going to happen, where and when it going to happen and how its going to happen. As for the random mission generator, ok it works but there is no feeling of accomplishment when you complete the mission since it isnt really conected to or affecting anything. Just one example of how a DC makes the sim more immersive and FUN: I was flying a DCS campaign, on the way back home (from the same mission I had flown successfully 3 times by then)I notived the airport near my airbase had been pretty much blown all to hell. I mean the whole terminal was blown up... I start up the next mission, which takes place later that same day, and fly over the same airport to find that god himself has resurrected the airport from ashes... I lol and exit DCS.

 

Can anyone on the ED team at least admit to the advantages of a DC, if only to give me hope that one day we might get one for the DCS series?

What good is realism( a term that scares me, since it seems those here think it means flying the same pre-made missions over and over again) if what happens in one mission has nothing to do with the next? Let the flaming begin (Tharos, Eth, anyone associated with ED).