Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[GGTharos]

Reasonably fair. Although as you said, things were different, eventually the side that was dealt more damage lost the ability to keep up with production and lost the war.

 

Is world war 2 a fair example though? The production speed and cost of air craft and the training curve of pilots might be a little different? I dont know though, I am not an expert on the subject.

 

Actually it is fairly measurable, at least historically, and the impact is small. There are exceptions to the rule, but this is exactly what they are: Exceptions.

 

As I posted a few days ago, my ideal dynamic campaign would be multiplayer based, with more controls than just your single pilot and air frame. That said, I still say that individual unit losses have a greater impact than can always be measured... fun discussion anyways :)

[NineLine]

Hmmm, now I want to know how long training for a WWII fighter pilot was compared to a modern day fighter pilot is... I will have to look that up and see.

 

I guess it comes down to what scale you are talking about, and if you were to add something like this to a DCS game its scale would have to be right so that a single player could impact the flow. Campaign might be the wrong word in this case....

[GGTharos]

WHy would training time matter? WW2 pilots were usually under-trained, and if a situation like you described happened, and one side started running out of pilots, they'd send in under-trained jet fighter pilots. Them's just the breaks.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you'd worry about impacting the campaign ... what these sims really need are a more personal touch. You won't care a whit about the campaign when the impact you have is on the squad of 12 troops below calling for help because they've been surrounded :)

[NineLine]

WHy would training time matter? WW2 pilots were usually under-trained, and if a situation like you described happened, and one side started running out of pilots, they'd send in under-trained jet fighter pilots. Them's just the breaks.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you'd worry about impacting the campaign ... what these sims really need are a more personal touch. You won't care a whit about the campaign when the impact you have is on the squad of 12 troops below calling for help because they've been surrounded :)

 

So training wouldnt matter? And under-trained pilots wouldnt impact a campaign as much as trained ones? Again, I want to research just for my own knowledge and interest. But that seems like a silly statement when I read it back... trained vs undertrained... specially in something as sophisticated as modern day combat aircraft...

 

As for why I would worry about impacting a campaign? On a game/simulation level, I suppose to win or accomplish the campaign. In a real world level, probably on getting home. I dont know though... Sounds like ED has contact with real world A-10 pilots, have some one ask them if they are ever concerned about impacting the overall campaign. I am just a computer desk pilot who likes spending his hard earned money on simulations ;)

[GGTharos]

Of course they would impact it, but not as badly as having no pilots at all :)

The majority of training isn't how to operate your aircraft. That's easy. It's flying, and especially flying in a team.

 

And on a simulation level ... the real pilot's job, like your simulated job, is about doing that - your job, not winning the campaign. Sure, you want to win, but the job of impacting the campaign is a bit above your paygrade ;)

[NineLine]

Of course they would impact it, but not as badly as having no pilots at all :)

The majority of training isn't how to operate your aircraft. That's easy. It's flying, and especially flying in a team.

 

And on a simulation level ... the real pilot's job, like your simulated job, is about doing that - your job, not winning the campaign. Sure, you want to win, but the job of impacting the campaign is a bit above your paygrade ;)

 

 

Show me an individual that is only concerned about his own hide compared to the individual that is concerned about that and the greater good, which individual do you want on your side?

 

But I feel we are drifting off course now ;)

[Booger]

So training wouldnt matter? And under-trained pilots wouldnt impact a campaign as much as trained ones? Again, I want to research just for my own knowledge and interest.

 

I believe it was the battle for Guam during WWII. An entire group of green pilots were sent chasing after a carrier and got cut to pieces. It actually could have been a turning point (which later, it was) but due to their lack of pretty much everything besides basic tactics, the chance of success was pretty low.

 

Vietnam is another example. That, of course, gave birth to Fightertown, USA.

[GGTharos]

You're drifting off course and missing the point, but it still all has to do with in-game campaigns.

 

I really doubt that a hog pilot will go to his boss and ask, 'Hey Boss, did those 3 tanks I killed win the war?' and then check his score to see if he got 80% or 100%, which is EXACTLY what a sim pilot will do.

 

The real pilot will still get a debrief and he'll get some idea of what he's done for the effort, at least in his piece of the sky, and a briefing as to how the war might be going ... but do you really think that those 3 tank kill are very likely to amount to anything?

 

I'd say the squadron's efforts in eliminating an entire batallion might be the beginnings of some thing or another.

 

And keep in mind that in RL, it's very rare to have the vehicular kill-count that most sim pilots accomplish. Situations like 'the highway of death' do happen, and they're significant, but again ... exceptions. And contrast this with what happened in the Balkans.

 

 

 

Show me an individual that is only concerned about his own hide compared to the individual that is concerned about that and the greater good, which individual do you want on your side?

 

But I feel we are drifting off course now ;)

[Booger]

Show me an individual that is only concerned about his own hide compared to the individual that is concerned about that and the greater good, which individual do you want on your side?

 

I would want the guy who is focused on his mission, not the one who wants to be the hero or seeking some kind of chest-beating rights.

[GGTharos]

QFT!

 

I believe it was the battle for Guam during WWII. An entire group of green pilots were sent chasing after a carrier and got cut to pieces. It actually could have been a turning point (which later, it was) but due to their lack of pretty much everything besides basic tactics, the chance of success was pretty low.

 

Vietnam is another example. That, of course, gave birth to Fightertown, USA.

[NineLine]

You're drifting off course and missing the point, but it still all has to do with in-game campaigns.

 

I really doubt that a hog pilot will go to his boss and ask, 'Hey Boss, did those 3 tanks I killed win the war?' and then check his score to see if he got 80% or 100%, which is EXACTLY what a sim pilot will do.

 

The real pilot will still get a debrief and he'll get some idea of what he's done for the effort, at least in his piece of the sky, and a briefing as to how the war might be going ... but do you really think that those 3 tank kill are very likely to amount to anything?

 

I'd say the squadron's efforts in eliminating an entire batallion might be the beginnings of some thing or another.

 

And keep in mind that in RL, it's very rare to have the vehicular kill-count that most sim pilots accomplish. Situations like 'the highway of death' do happen, and they're significant, but again ... exceptions. And contrast this with what happened in the Balkans.

 

 

Some of the things you listed there we do have in game, so then I guess you are saying that you can have things in game they dont have in RL, such as DC that are impacted by the individual?

 

Soon as realism is used in an argument on a subject like this simulation, all heck is gonna break out... if you want true realism, the first in game death you had would lock your copy of A-10 forever and you could never play it again. ;)

 

I wouldnt presume that any pilot of an A-10 would think their 3 tank kills won the war... I would presume he thought those 3 kill where a positive towards winning of the war.

 

As whether or not those 3 kills mattered? I dont know, why were those 3 tanks targeted if they didnt matter?

[NineLine]

I would want the guy who is focused on his mission, not the one who wants to be the hero or seeking some kind of chest-beating rights.

 

 

I said greater good, I dont think greater good means wanting to be the hero or going for bragging rights... but thanks for playing...

[NineLine]

QFT!

 

Isnt he saying the opposite of what you were saying about training? lol...

[GGTharos]

No, he isn't. You're just misinterpeting my response to you - I was wondering why you were asking the question at all. :)

 

Isnt he saying the opposite of what you were saying about training? lol...

[GGTharos]

Soon as realism is used in an argument on a subject like this simulation, all heck is gonna break out... if you want true realism, the first in game death you had would lock your copy of A-10 forever and you could never play it again. ;)

 

BS argument. Why not go play HAWX instead of DCS then? :D You don't need any realism at all, right?

 

I wouldnt presume that any pilot of an A-10 would think their 3 tank kills won the war... I would presume he thought those 3 kill where a positive towards winning of the war.

 

As whether or not those 3 kills mattered? I dont know, why were those 3 tanks targeted if they didnt matter?

 

They don't matter all on their own in most cases. The point is that you, as an individual, don't have that much say/impact in how a war will go. When viewed as an agreggate of the efforts of others as well, then you have something else happening. But now you're but a little cog in a very large machine, and thinking that you had 'impact on the campaign' starts looking a little grandiose.

 

And the reason I say this, is because people are very ME when looking at this. They talk about being part of the fight, but really - they want to be the fight, the guy who wins the fight, etc, etc. They don't look at it as 'I have a job to do' when they talk about having impact on the capaign. That is a code-phrase for 'I'm the one who's winning this' ;)

Edited August 16, 2011 by GGTharos

[NineLine]

No, he isn't. You're just misinterpeting my response to you - I was wondering why you were asking the question at all. :)

 

Well I apologize then, because I thought you said that under-trained pilots wouldnt make much impact in the grand scheme vs trained pilots... carry on.. :pilotfly:

[GGTharos]

No, I didn't say that. I assumed both sides are suffering the same attrition. For a well trained and equipped air force vs. a less trained and relatively poorly equipped air force, see USAF v Iraqi Airforce. No surprises there, and I'm not sure why it would even be brought up.

 

Well I apologize then, because I thought you said that under-trained pilots wouldnt make much impact in the grand scheme vs trained pilots... carry on.. :pilotfly:

[Booger]

You're completely missing the point.

 

He stated that the grand scheme of things (entire campaign) doesn't rest on just one or a few pilots. It takes a collective effort (each doing their own part) to ensure success. As a pilot, you don't have the burden as well as responsibility of the politics (greater good) involved. If you're a Warrant Officer flying helicopters, you have even less burden. You're an operator with a job to do.

 

In the sim world, could you realistically do everything? Maybe, given enough time (days maybe?).

 

He also stated that during WWII, the training sucked (not only for airmen, but for ground pounders actually). My comments are real world examples of how piss poor training equate to crappy results. Those pilots sent after the carrier were a long shot that obviously didn't work.

 

I highly recommend you research USAF pilot training restrictions say, from 1950 on. I think you'll be shocked at what you'll find.

 

Well I apologize then, because I thought you said that under-trained pilots wouldnt make much impact in the grand scheme vs trained pilots... carry on..

 

I'm saying that ;) Read above.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Booger

[EtherealN]

As whether or not those 3 kills mattered? I dont know, why were those 3 tanks targeted if they didnt matter?

 

WW1.

Why were those infantrymen targeted if they didn't matter?

;)

 

Essentially, they were targeted because they were a threat, but think of it like playing Ludo. You'll make absolute TONNES of dice rolls in the course of the game, and most of them won't really win you the game. But they all contribute.

 

If your side can average plinking 3 tanks a day over what the enemy does, over the course of a conflict this can add up and win you the war. But there were no specific 3 tanks that did it. Same way, in a game of Ludo, if you somehow average a higher per dice roll, you'll win. But there was still no individual dice roll that did it. It was all cogs in the machine.

 

A DC can do this, but it actually runs into another issue: to do it "right", you'd essentually reduce the player into being irrelevant. Some people are fine with this, others aren't. (I have other complaints about DC's, but being irrelevant to the overall war effort I'm fine with. :P )

 

For an example of something that really made a difference, we can return to WW2 and the battle of britain: the guy who made the decision to stop attempting to draw out the british fighters and focus on other targets essentually rescued the RAF, and the later (similar) decision to stop the focus on airfields did the same thing. THAT guy had a HUGE impact on the war.

 

...the individual pilots flying on either side? Well, aside from that navigator I mentioned, not so much. :P

 

But in the end it's a bit of who cares, IMO. If we want to be the guy that changes the course of the war, we can play Hearts of Iron. It's a good game, it's the right type of game for that sort of thing, and hey - it has a DC!!! :D Simulating the job of an individual soldier should be about that soldier, his experience, and no matter how insignificant in the greater scheme of things - it's a big deal to him. Like GG mentioned - you'll care when you can hear the stress in their voices as they're calling in strikes. If you do it right, you can be satisfied that you saved a bunch of guys down there, and even if that bunch of guys is still a miniscule part of the war - it's still a bunch of guys that will have a shot at getting home to their families.

 

Nothing wrong with being a cog in the machine in that case. :)

 

If someone makes a DC that can create that type of thing believably and well, I might be sold. But I doubt we'll see it in a good while. Unfortunately, this is a trype of thing that lends itself a lot better to games like HAWX and Battlefield - simply due to the technical challenges involved in implementing it.

 

10-20 years down the line? Who knows. Take as big of a leap from what we have today as what was taken between Falcon 3 and DCS:A-10C and I don't think anyone here will be able to properly predict what will be done.

Edited August 16, 2011 by EtherealN
Typo fix

[EtherealN]

Analogy that came to mind:

 

Say you're in an all-out war, stocks are being depleted and they need munitions NOW.

You are a factory worker building JDAM kits.

If you manage to double your production, you'll be a hero in your department. But the pilots won't notice it...

 

Now, if EVERYONE building the things were to double their production... That's a different thing. But each individual one doing the doubling. No.

[NineLine]

No, I didn't say that. I assumed both sides are suffering the same attrition. For a well trained and equipped air force vs. a less trained and relatively poorly equipped air force, see USAF v Iraqi Airforce. No surprises there, and I'm not sure why it would even be brought up.

 

I brought it up because if you built a DC based on 2 sides like USAF and Iraqi Airforce, of course a few pilot failures probably wouldnt hurt the USAF, even if they were a couple key failures as the USAF has plenty of resources to back it up. Take a conflict where an enemy has resources equal or greater and then have a couple key individual failures, it would be a greater impact, IMHO. I am not saying an individual wins wars... there is no I in team... yadda yadda... but depending on the scenario, individuals can have a greater impact. Yes?

[GGTharos]

So, why doesn't the other side suffer the same number of 'pilot failures' ... what's so special about them?

 

Unless you're referring to luck, but that's ... luck. It's random. Predictable effects are predictable, so they're not worth discussing since we understand the results. But we're still talking micro scales here.

 

A military could conceivably prevail despite losing their air force, or having an ineffective one ... or at minimum, case horrific damage. Think of the North Korean arty pointed at Seoul ... maybe NK wouldn't win but man ... there would be a lot of dying on both sides, regardless of how cool the USAF pilots would end up being. Don't let flake-on four fool you ;)

Edited August 16, 2011 by GGTharos

[NineLine]

Analogy that came to mind:

 

Say you're in an all-out war, stocks are being depleted and they need munitions NOW.

You are a factory worker building JDAM kits.

If you manage to double your production, you'll be a hero in your department. But the pilots won't notice it...

 

Now, if EVERYONE building the things were to double their production... That's a different thing. But each individual one doing the doubling. No.

 

Well take the same scenario and that person doubled their production, but they were all flawed, now will the pilots notice? :)

[GGTharos]

Not if QA throws them out :D

[NineLine]

So, why doesn't the other side suffer the same number of 'pilot failures' ... what's so special about them?

 

Unless you're referring to luck, but that's ... luck. It's random.

 

Well I doubt that in war that failures are equal on each side, otherwise the war would probably never end right, everything being equal. That is what I am saying, if you fail more than the other side, then there is some impact to your side.