Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[sobek]

This would incidentally be a very interesting thing to have, but due to the irregular nature of it I suspect that it would be even harder to make a good one than would be the case with what I guess we can call a "Fulda Gap" DC. We'd essentually need a DC that can spit out things like the Deployment campaign in DCS:BS, which strikes me as difficult.

 

I'd already be more than happy with a sandbox that you can put a human into to pull the threads of the campaign (like the commander mode we already had). If the conflict of interest could be sorted out for the commander mode and expanded (e.g. with the ability to add flights into a running campaign), we'd have something that you could actually work with.

[amalahama]

I'd already be more than happy with a sandbox that you can put a human into to pull the threads of the campaign (like the commander mode we already had). If the conflict of interest could be sorted out for the commander mode and expanded (e.g. with the ability to add flights into a running campaign), we'd have something that you could actually work with.

 

That would be great indeed. But to be honest I think hostile high-level IA is not the worst problem when developing a DC; managing hundreds, maybe thousands of units in realtime with their very own physics and behaviour is for me more challenging. But with the approach you're suggesting, calculations might be splitted up among all clients computers¿?

 

Regards!

[sobek]

But with the approach you're suggesting, calculations might be splitted up among all clients computers¿?

 

Not sure whether this could work within the bandwith constraints.

[Booger]

This would incidentally be a very interesting thing to have, but due to the irregular nature of it I suspect that it would be even harder to make a good one than would be the case with what I guess we can call a "Fulda Gap" DC. We'd essentually need a DC that can spit out things like the Deployment campaign in DCS:BS, which strikes me as difficult.

 

Yes and no I think. With insurgencies, there is no clear FEBA. That's a blessing and a curse...but the potential is incredibly enormous.

 

The shortfall is you're pretty limited to enemy types, at least initially (see propaganda below). A clever planner could keep you on your toes though. The devil is in the details.

 

What I think would be the good thing to make happen as a middle-ground, would be a campaign similar to GOW, but that has a range of "hooks" for campaign data - munition stocks for both sides, squadron rosters, specific forces to allow successful missions to properly decrease the amount of enemies in the missions afterwards etcetera.

 

I haven't done GOW completely (the little I had was a long time ago). Still, what you're talking about would be sweet.

 

Another thing to consider too is the propaganda factor. If you kill a few, that's fine...all is good in war. If you kill a ton or a certain type of people, that very well could get you facing a lot more, maybe even deadlier, down the road.

 

It's kind of like the example I gave previously concerning strategically taking out SAM sites in the beginning of Iraqi Freedom. There was a lot of stuff to blow up, but it wasn't a necessity to accomplish their mission.

 

I know someone will probably chime in with "What about engaging targets of opportunity". What if your ToO was standing next to two figures that, if killed, will adversely effect the campaign either immediately or later on?

 

Imagine, if you will, some village Sheik (sorry if that sounds racist, I'm using real-world conficts as an example) standing next to an insurgent. Knowing very well how sensitive some cultures are, you target the baddie but accidentally wipe out that Sheik. That would cause a bit of a stir. Knock out a few? It won't matter, you're obviously targeting them in their eyes.

 

What if someone, clearly visible to the population, gave up and you blew them to hell?

 

The consequences of your actions :thumbup:

 

A very interesting example of how to "do it right" is, imo, Longbow 2. People thought it was a DC, but it wasn't - just a very cleverly made scripting system. This would allow intelligent mission design without requiring technology no-one has yet.

 

Never played it :cry:

 

That would be great indeed. But to be honest I think hostile high-level IA is not the worst problem when developing a DC;

 

I think you can still make the dumb do smart things easily. The model could be simple. Make a list of probable actions that could be done by ____ and give each action a percentage (chance) to do _____ activity...or even associate a trigger.

 

Here's a scenario that illustrates what I mean:

 

What if you're providing CAS to a location that intel has identified as a holding place for hostages. Ground forces are on the way. Upon arriving on station (the trigger), 3 of the 4 insurgent hostage takers walk away/give up?

 

What if your orders were to stay ___ far away from the house, but you go blazing in anyway? At ___ meters away (trigger) the hostage takers see you coming and kill the hostages (which you find out about over the radio once ground forces breach the place).

 

Maybe I'm going a bit overboard with the level of detail I would like to see happen in missions, but the randomness (even if slight) truly defines "dynamic".

 

I really don't think it would be too difficult to implement.

 

managing hundreds, maybe thousands of units in realtime with their very own physics and behaviour is for me more challenging. But with the approach you're suggesting, calculations might be splitted up among all clients computers¿?

 

Emphasis mine.

 

You wouldn't need that though. While, yes I would agree that approaching a city that has a large amount of it's population visible would be epic, I assume supporting that would probably be a chore...not to mention programming it all would take forever.

 

If the world doesn't blow up in 2012, I'll look for you in 2020. Hopefully someone will have something programmed & released by then :lol:

[NineLine]

A very interesting example of how to "do it right" is, imo, Longbow 2. People thought it was a DC, but it wasn't - just a very cleverly made scripting system. This would allow intelligent mission design without requiring technology no-one has yet.

 

See this would work for me, somehow, if even possible if you could, in mission builder, set a main goal, the destruction of a certain target, capture of a certain area, whatever. Have kinda like a "smart mission", I am just making these terms up so if its totally goofy excuse me :)

 

Anyways, have a Smart mission that assigns tasks based on threats between you and the final target. Your successes and failures determine how the next mission is generated, and how available forces are arranged on the map for the next flight. Certain factors would determine if you eventually lose or win the series of flights.

 

It would give you a main goal, and missions in between were friendly and enemy assets might be located different every time depending on your success and failures.

[Grimes]

Some of this discussion reminds me of the modules from ARMA's mission editor. Basically you have a boring static world, but you can add in specific features that you want to be included in the mission. For instance ambient civilians and ambient civilian traffic which populate the world with civilians on foot or in vehicles.

[Frostiken]

Booger, one word: Brevity. I would love to respond, but I honestly don't even understand your point, you randomly jump from topic and topic and never seem to once actually explain what you're getting at. And please refrain from quoting Sun Tzu, it really just comes off as pretentious and extremely patronizing. Your passive-aggressive tone doesn't help anything either.

 

I don't even know how you can compare WW2-style bombing raids to modern day - do you even understand why B-25s and the like had to be used? Or why they *did* fly into the teeth of enemy air defenses? I can't even wrap my mind around why you think that compares, or why you think the type of intelligence techniques we had in WW2 can even compare to what we have today - or hell, even what we had in the 60s: U2s, SR-71s, spy satellites... do you think in WW2 they would've found those missiles on Cuba? Doubt it.

 

Technology has given us thousands of new ways to secure our data, and ten thousand ways to have it compromised. If you wanted to know what was going on in the enemy territory, you had to send risky recon flights armed with a terrible camera and the Mk.1 eyeball or set up spy rings and the like. Nowadays you send a cheap, disposable RC plane over, bristling with technological doodads that nobody even could dream existed back then.

 

I would also like to point out that any argument you have regarding bombers vs. air defenses and enemy CAPs is utterly negated by the fact that this is an A-10, not an F-22 sim, and just like how in real life you're not going to send A-10s on a deep-strike mission into enemy airspace because they would all get shot down in a matter of minutes, any kind of dynamic campaign made with the A-10 in mind has to operate under the assumption that I won't be flying into god damn MiG Alley. Even air defenses need to be somewhat under control.

 

 

 

One thing I would also like to point out - with the whole Iraq armor / senators thing - it took months and months to get all that equipment out, and we're talking bolt-on steel plates for HMMWVs and small ceramic/kevlar plates that fit inside pockets. It took at least five YEARS (you know, more time than all of the US's involvement in WW2) to design and field an MRAP - and it's still cost-prohibitive.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Frostiken

[NineLine]

WW2 was brought up on the basis of resources and their effect on the overall campaign, I thought WW2 wasnt a good comparison becuase they could churn out airframes and pilots faster than they could these days, in theory anyways.

 

This was all in looking at how the performance of one air crew would have on the overall campaign and how that would/could be translated to a Dynamic Campaign.

 

I think we are drifting even further off topic and its turning into a pissing match now... and probably all my fault lol... :pilotfly:

[Frostiken]

I agree!

 

 

 

That it's your fault, I mean.

[NineLine]

I agree!

 

 

 

That it's your fault, I mean.

 

Thanks for that! :thumbup:

[Booger]

Booger, one word: Brevity. I would love to respond, but I honestly don't even understand your point, you randomly jump from topic and topic and never seem to once actually explain what you're getting at. And please refrain from quoting Sun Tzu, it really just comes off as pretentious and extremely patronizing. Your passive-aggressive tone doesn't help anything either.

 

:doh:

 

I'll just simply state that your logic is flawed & in some conclusions, you're dead wrong.

 

While you're apparently offended by offering Sun Tzu passages, they, above everything else, highlight points offered in the simplest form.

 

Very well.

 

I don't even know how you can compare WW2-style bombing raids to modern day - do you even understand why B-25s and the like had to be used? Or why they *did* fly into the teeth of enemy air defenses? I can't even wrap my mind around why you think that compares, or why you think the type of intelligence techniques we had in WW2 can even compare to what we have today - or hell, even what we had in the 60s: U2s, SR-71s, spy satellites... do you think in WW2 they would've found those missiles on Cuba? Doubt it.

 

I can compare them because I consider everything assets. Your mind's eye sees them as a $20 million dollar plane.

 

Technology has given us thousands of new ways to secure our data, and ten thousand ways to have it compromised. If you wanted to know what was going on in the enemy territory, you had to send risky recon flights armed with a terrible camera and the Mk.1 eyeball or set up spy rings and the like. Nowadays you send a cheap, disposable RC plane over, bristling with technological doodads that nobody even could dream existed back then.

 

I don't think that in the 60s, engineers, strategists & tacticians were so ignorant as to lack the ability of forward thinking. Maybe the lack of technical details were obviously not there, but there certainly was no shortage of future developments.

 

JFK was the father of unconventional warfare as we know it today because he was a forward thinker. More recently, Gen Charles Krulak (ret former CMC/Joint Chiefs of Staff) went on damn near a crusade preaching that future conficts will be in built-up/developed areas.

 

Look what we have now on both fronts :thumbup:

 

Oh, as far as intelligence gathering goes. HUMINT has, and always will be the best source of intelligence. It's a well known, practice & preached fact. It's as old as man himself and still done today.

 

Once again, you're looking at the development of technology (and no doubt buzzing about cost differences) when it's simply an improved/upgraded asset.

 

I would also like to point out that any argument you have regarding bombers vs. air defenses and enemy CAPs is utterly negated by the fact that this is an A-10, not an F-22 sim, and just like how in real life you're not going to send A-10s on a deep-strike mission into enemy airspace because they would all get shot down in a matter of minutes, any kind of dynamic campaign made with the A-10 in mind has to operate under the assumption that I won't be flying into god damn MiG Alley. Even air defenses need to be somewhat under control.

 

Why? By whose rules? Yours? The strategy is left for the commander to dictate. Where your single F-16/HARM example paves the way for any & all, it's simply unrealistic. Choices are made based off of what the commander sees as probable/unprobable risks & deploys from there. Actually, these days it's pretty much doctrine.

 

If you want to fly missions just to win win win, then ok, put them wherever you want. The less the better. If you want a realistic & challenging experience based on the assets available to you, you see where I'm going with this (I hope).

 

Lastly, no. I'm not looking at the DC being tailored for A-10. I'm looking at a DC fitting ALL DCS aircraft where, depending on which airframe you use, the remaining voids will be filled with either AI or MP.

 

Why on earth would you want it to be for just one type of airplane? Are you not considering a BS role in the big picture, or even a task that could be given to the next (US Fighter) release?

 

You say A-10 now, but I'm sure you'll change your tune when your focus is turned to the pit of a fast mover.

 

One thing I would also like to point out - with the whole Iraq armor / senators thing - it took months and months to get all that equipment out, and we're talking bolt-on steel plates for HMMWVs and small ceramic/kevlar plates that fit inside pockets. It took at least five YEARS (you know, more time than all of the US's involvement in WW2) to design and field an MRAP - and it's still cost-prohibitive.

 

On this, I absolutely agree with you. In a long, drawn-out full-scale war? Come on. Would industry kick in to 5th gear? Absolutely! But let's look at what has happened in the past: In WWII, contracts were actually shared between production companies & new facilities built in an attempt to match supply with demand. The burden was huge, not to mention materials.

 

Imagine the scale if Army vs Army happened today. While yes, I DO agree on this point, I don't, unlike you guys, have tunnel vision on only seeing industry when WWII is mentioned.

 

This is where strategy comes in to play.

 

I think Moa covered it brilliantly in his post.

 

The bottom line? Consider this post also...

 

This is probably because WW3 thankfully has never materialised. If it did then im pretty sure you'd see a massive ramp up of production much like WW2. After all allied forces in WW2 didn't have multitudes of tanks and planes hanging around in the 1930's just waiting for war to break out did they.

What you call modern wars are infact small scale wars which have occured for eons.

 

If a large scale war broke out between major countries every F-15E that got sent up would find a worthy opponent to shoot it down. This is when mass production occurs, not during small scale wars against inferior opponents.

 

What we have are our assets to counter the assets on the opposing side that were made to counter ours.

 

Yeah, let's read that again heh.

 

In a DC, at least with the available enemy types, you are fighting a legitimate army. Both sides merging with, equally, the latest & greatest of what they have in their arsenal. A large amount of that is already modeled in DCS.

 

The last time that scenario happened was Vietnam. So maybe that would be more fitting comparison than WWII for you guys? Industry (production) problems are generally the same as it would be now, as well as the costs being more "realistic"?

 

Really, I know what you're getting at. You're concerned that the demand would make supply resemble a pipe-dream. To be clear, I think that would be foolish to implement. Would adjustments need to be made in that regard to a reasonable/realistic value? You betcha.

 

Where WWII is favored: it presents it's own sets of strategic problems that simply can't be covered based on one specific past theatre. The map to do the DC in is only so big. If you don't consider the environment you're fighting in, you might as well just steal your son's toy soldier set & use your hand as the airframe you're flying in.

 

Secondly, current military operations face an unconventional opponent. Is this the DC you want? Mind you, all the neat MILITARY assets already found in the game will be extremely limited. Personally, I would love an unconventional DC as it has it's own unique sets of problems to work through...but your opposing side won't have the same luxuries you do. The DC is already tipped in your favor in regards to assets.

 

So what it really boils down to is if you want a DC that's a war or a conflict & is there a FAIR chance for the end result to be successful or fail.

[NineLine]

Booger,

Not sure what debate you are trying to win, but congrats, you won... here is your cookie... move along ;)

[Speed]

.........

Holy God.

Congratulations Booger,

you win.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Speed

[Mojeaux]

Mouhahaha

 

Mouhahahaha :smilewink:

[NineLine]

Holy God.

Congratulations Booger,

you win.

 

Nice! :thumbup:

[Booger]

Butthurt? umad?

 

Note my responses were made to Frostiken...you know the guy who, unlike you, doesn't have to pretend to have logic & knowledge.

 

Now if you don't mind, the grown-ups are talking.

[NineLine]

Butthurt? umad?

 

Note my responses were made to Frostiken...you know the guy who, unlike you, doesn't have to pretend to have logic & knowledge.

 

Now if you don't mind, the grown-ups are talking.

 

Awwww... feelings hurt...

[Frostiken]

Why? By whose rules? Yours? The strategy is left for the commander to dictate. Where your single F-16/HARM example paves the way for any & all, it's simply unrealistic. Choices are made based off of what the commander sees as probable/unprobable risks & deploys from there. Actually, these days it's pretty much doctrine.

 

Yes, obviously whatever aircraft you are *not* flying should have roles taken up by the AI, but you just spent 10k words going off about supply and logistics, so let's consider the possibility that you don't have those assets available, namely because the AI is only going to be so smart no matter how much ED invests in it and it's extremely likely to get completely shot down.

 

So your plan is to give a dynamic campaign that's not tailored to A-10s and suddenly you're getting missions that are completely unwinnable, being put into situations no A-10 would ever be put, and the entire thing gets rather ridiculous. Any campaign needs to be tailored to 'win win win' as long as you successfully accomplish your goals. Failing to fully complete them should provide the fudge factor for enemies to win - for example, taking out tanks before they run over a FOB - if you don't destroy enough in time, you lose the FOB and the enemy gets stronger there. The most irritating part of any game is failure due to factors complete out of your control, and this is exponentially frustrating if it's because of failures of the AI. It's already possible to watch SEAD flights get shot down by the very things they're supposed to destroy, how well do you think an AI's management of a war could possibly be?

 

If you want to fly missions just to win win win, then ok, put them wherever you want. The less the better. If you want a realistic & challenging experience based on the assets available to you, you see where I'm going with this (I hope).

Do you even remember what started this? The original point was whether or not a single flight of aircraft could ever have a dramatic impact on a war. I said yes even if it's not immediately apparent, others said no and based that logic off of how ineffective individuals in WW2 were in aircraft, and I pointed out that that doesn't compare due to the general ineffectiveness of air warfare in WW2 in general. It's apples and oranges. It's like comparing modern infantry operations to the Civil War, it really just looks like we had no idea what the hell we were doing back then. Our entire air war doctrine has changed since then and our immediate strategic goals are nowhere close to what they were in WW2.

 

I don't think anyone can say that X modern aircraft scales to Y WW2 aircraft like it's some sort of golden ratio across the board - because it isn't. There's so many factors in play, and so much has changed over the years. I can see where you're coming from but it's really just speculation, neither you or I are in any position to be able to accurately judge this. I can only go off my experience working on modern military aircraft that these things are, as far as a war goes, completely irreplaceable.

 

Again, the problem with strategic targets in WW2 (bomb this factory) was not only was it really hard to accomplish that goal (getting the bombs on the factory, and actually managing to destroy it were two different things), but the goal was a minor victory as it was possible to retool just about any factory into something to make tank parts, because that's what everything in Germany was practically doing at the time.

 

The real difference here is that I don't think the US, or Russia, or China would even waste bombs destroying Honeywell's avionics parts plant in Kansas City, because they all know that any war will be fought with the assets immediately on-hand - starting production to maintain losses in a war simply isn't feasible like it was in WW2. Our strategic goals and the way we conduct air warfare are so distant that drawing parallels requires extremely tenuous logic.

 

Lastly, no. I'm not looking at the DC being tailored for A-10. I'm looking at a DC fitting ALL DCS aircraft where, depending on which airframe you use, the remaining voids will be filled with either AI or MP.

 

Why on earth would you want it to be for just one type of airplane? Are you not considering a BS role in the big picture, or even a task that could be given to the next (US Fighter) release?

 

You say A-10 now, but I'm sure you'll change your tune when your focus is turned to the pit of a fast mover.

Huh? You would have to tailor any kind of dynamic campaign to the aircraft it's being played under, because every aircraft has completely different roles.

 

Of all the aircraft that could and would participate in the opening of a modern conflict, the A-10 will not be one of them. Any kind of A-10 dynamic campaign will have to operate under the assumption that a war has been going on for a while.

 

Likewise, an F-15C or F-22 conflict will have to take place during the opening of the war, because these aircraft have little to no use (especially the F-15C...) once the air war has been won.

 

Helicopters and the like would come even further down the road than A-10s. The ground forces are not going to move where they don't have air cover, and A-10s and KA-50s are designed to specifically support and engage ground targets only.

 

 

 

 

 

I think what confuses me the most though is that you keep enforcing this idea that this 'campaign' is going to feature symmetrical forces when, in your first post, you openly stated the balance of power is firmly in the hands of the West. As long as we're flying USAF aircraft, odds of losing this dynamic campaign are going to be pretty damn low.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Frostiken

[Booger]

To assist in readability, if I don't quote it, I don't contest your point or have no further need to highlight what was already wrote.

 

but you just spent 10k words going off about supply and logistics

Actually, I wasn't the one who introduced the logistics & the availability of additional assets in the topic. Ironically, it was others who had tunnel vision with it at every WWII reference...you being one of them.

 

Simply, it's not so simple as that.

 

So your plan is to give a dynamic campaign that's not tailored to A-10s and suddenly you're getting missions that are completely unwinnable, being put into situations no A-10 would ever be put, and the entire thing gets rather ridiculous.

I agree. The planner has to have his wits about him while setting up missions that would be fitting a typical package for that type of asset (note my previous comment about different roles per aircraft used, depending on what DCS model you're flying). My point with this is: If you build it in a modular way, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel for playability in other DCS modules. All it would take is a fair bit of tweaking.

 

In the same breath, you can't just randomly stick enemy assets just anywhere with no logic. To aim for realism, you want your environment to be modeled like the real thing (see this topic)--this includes enemy & friendly asset formations & strategic placement.

 

Consider the two grossly extreme examples you've used thus far: A single HARM punching a "huge hole" through an anti-aircraft net, and the other being MIG Alley. The situation will dictate whether it's lightly or heavily defended, as determined by the Commander. Having a massive net protecting the low man on the totem pole is a complete waste of assets that would be better saved/employed elsewhere.

 

Any campaign needs to be tailored to 'win win win' as long as you successfully accomplish your goals.

...and a bit more as well, which is what we were discussing previously.

 

My previous comment was about using a no-brainer force-on-force as a main plot-line. Could it be tailored differently? It certainly should! At the same time, the end of a good campaign shouldn't be incredibly easy to achieve.

 

Do you even remember what started this? The original point was whether or not a single flight of aircraft could ever have a dramatic impact on a war. I said yes even if it's not immediately apparent, others said no and based that logic off of how ineffective individuals in WW2 were in aircraft, and I pointed out that that doesn't compare due to the general ineffectiveness of air warfare in WW2 in general. It's apples and oranges.

Yes, I remember the discussion, as well as Sith rambling some idiotic flower power nonsense about the greater good.

 

Where I brought up WWII was to reflect the impact that poorly trained personnel would have in the grand scheme of things. Was it a true comparison like how it's apparently made into now? Riddle me this:

 

How many pilots were rushed/cut through training for Desert Storm/Shield?

How many pilots were rushed/cut through training for Afghanistan?

How many pilots were rushed/cut through training for Iraqi Freedom?

 

How can you compare the two when there was no real change in daily business in current (and near recent) time? WWII (as well as the Vietnam references) are classic examples of the importance of training.

 

The impact of a pilot is, in most cases (there are exceptions) transparent. The impact of the mission's success/failure isn't...they're milestones in the big picture.

 

Let's look at Randy Cunningham as a classic example of the "happy medium". He didn't do anything extravagant. He simply was lucky enough to not get shot down in the engagement he had with an apparent (possibly fictitious) Vietnam ace. This glamorized incident really had no bearing what-so-ever on the success/failure of the campaign as a whole. If anything, it raised morale a few notches.

 

I don't think anyone can say that X modern aircraft scales to Y WW2 aircraft like it's some sort of golden ratio across the board - because it isn't. There's so many factors in play, and so much has changed over the years. I can see where you're coming from but it's really just speculation, neither you or I are in any position to be able to accurately judge this. I can only go off my experience working on modern military aircraft that these things are, as far as a war goes, completely irreplaceable.

First, I used that as an example to illustrate you comments, as well as the road heading to the discussion in force-multiplying. I said "let's say...", suggesting it was to be read as such. Why you're suggesting that it was presented as an absolute, and now contesting it, is beyond me. I assure you, you're arguing with yourself.

 

As far as irreplaceable air assets. Honestly, I don't see the US losing Attrition Warfare.

 

The real difference here is that I don't think the US, or Russia, or China would even waste bombs destroying Honeywell's avionics parts plant in Kansas City, because they all know that any war will be fought with the assets immediately on-hand - starting production to maintain losses in a war simply isn't feasible like it was in WW2. Our strategic goals and the way we conduct air warfare are so distant that drawing parallels requires extremely tenuous logic.

I see. So you're suggesting this for air assets only? Or...

 

Huh? You would have to tailor any kind of dynamic campaign to the aircraft it's being played under, because every aircraft has completely different roles.

I agree, but that's not what you said previously: "...the fact that this is an A-10, not an F-22 sim..."?

 

I covered the intent of modular planning of campaign building earlier, but it's worth a note here as well.

 

Of all the aircraft that could and would participate in the opening of a modern conflict, the A-10 will not be one of them. Any kind of A-10 dynamic campaign will have to operate under the assumption that a war has been going on for a while.

 

Likewise, an F-15C or F-22 conflict will have to take place during the opening of the war, because these aircraft have little to no use (especially the F-15C...) once the air war has been won.

 

Helicopters and the like would come even further down the road than A-10s. The ground forces are not going to move where they don't have air cover, and A-10s and KA-50s are designed to specifically support and engage ground targets only.

:doh:

 

Do you think the Soviet Union, China or any other formidable foe to the US would just sit and take the ass whopping like Iraq did? Hell, do you think they would allow the building up of forces before doing anything?

 

While that scheme may look good for politicians, war is anything but black and white. Both China and the Soviets would turn that plan into shit on the first day. How? Unlike Iraq, they both have the strategic capability to do so.

 

So no, I disagree. Research Combined Arms Operations & think "big picture".

 

Could there be missions where there are US fighters providing CAP as you, in your A-10, provide CAS & it be considered realistic? Absolutely.

 

You seem to only want "dynamic" applied to a very small part of a campaign than what it could potentially be. This is why I make "win win win" comments. You're setting yourself up to where there is never a time where you just might find yourself, like MANY real-world pilots (and ground folks) have, where all that's left is you, your plane, and your training. You wouldn't, and shouldn't in a dynamic environment, have the upper-hand all the time. That, sir, is unrealistic in a full-scale modern war.

 

To clarify (and before it's said), do I mean that the entire campaign being you against hell? Absolutely not, but it most certainly can be the odds that you're slapped in the face with either by chance or by the consequences of your actions.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Booger

[Speed]

Do you even remember what started this? The original point was whether or not a single flight of aircraft could ever have a dramatic impact on a war. I said yes even if it's not immediately apparent, others said no and based that logic off of how ineffective individuals in WW2 were in aircraft, and I pointed out that that doesn't compare due to the general ineffectiveness of air warfare in WW2 in general. It's apples and oranges. It's like comparing modern infantry operations to the Civil War, it really just looks like we had no idea what the hell we were doing back then. Our entire air war doctrine has changed since then and our immediate strategic goals are nowhere close to what they were in WW2.

 

Even in WWII, single aircraft and single flights sometimes made HUGE impacts. Like the single scout plane that spotted the Japanese fleet just before the Battle of Midway, or the SDB/whatever flight that dive-bombed the Japanese fleet, or, to a lesser extent, the P-38s that killed Yamamoto.

 

Single planes have an even greater potential to affect a conflict today, but it's going to depend on the nature of the conflict, obviously. In the total-war scenarios that a dynamic campaign would have, your single aircraft can be very influential. IRL and in the campaign, enemy aircraft have to take off of little things called airbases. If you put enough craters in the runways and taxiways- and sometimes, a single flight will be enough to do this- then you can severely hamper or suspend operations at that airbase.

 

In my Falcon 4 campaign, I used to spear-head attacks on enemy airbases, and quite often I made huge impacts on the outcome of my campaigns. Granted, Falcon 4 didn't model taxi-way takeoffs, but even so, I bet in real life, a single flight could in fact put enough holes in taxiways and runways to prevent any aircraft taking off for at least several hours- and even longer than that if the aircraft laid down mines so that the airbase crew had to call out the ordinance disposal guys.

 

If the DC simulated an insurgency war though... you probably wouldn't be able to influence the outcome so much. No centralized, important targets to attack, really. For example, IRL, killing Osama was a feel-good moment that didn't really do anything much, other than weaken an already heavily weakened terrorist organization.

 

A simulated insurgency dynamic campaign would be pretty interesting, to be honest, though it may be harder to implement than a full-scale-war DC. I'm interested to see how Combat-Helo is gonna do it.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Speed

[GGTharos]

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.

[Speed]

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.

 

Sure, it is the exception. In a proper dynamic campaign, an individual aircraft is going to almost never have much of an impact. But you shouldn't deny that it does happen, sometimes. And when you're a human, playing your dynamic campaign, especially if you can assign flights and create packages within that dynamic campaign such as with Falcon 4 Allied Force, then you can very often deliberately place yourself within the roles that will most likely make quite a dramatic impact on the war. A real pilot is unable to do this, of course, unable to hop to whatever mission is most critical, and so rarely finds himself in a pivotal role.

 

In my example, I was spear-heading the attacks on enemy airbases. Often I would have heavy bombers, F-22s, F-18s, other F-16s, F-15s, whatever, backing me up. Sometimes I wouldn't, and then I would rely on surprise (the enemy would scramble jets on you if they knew you were coming, but the scramble distance was set unrealistically low). But... the flight I was leading would be playing some pivotal role in the strike package that takes a major component of the enemy air force out of the conflict for a few days. And certainly, those big package flights I made with like 30 or 40 aircraft would not be that unrealistic.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Speed

[GGTharos]

The problem is that in DCs, you expect it to be the rule. :)

 

The F4 campaign was geared to give the player this exception as a rule as well.

 

If you marched on a Russian airfield you could probably expect them to throw multiple MiG-21's, 29's, and Su-27's at you. Although they wouldn't likely outnumber your planes, you could expect them to also be supported by SAMs, ECM, and most of them would be in ambush CAP positions where neither you nor your AWACS could detect them, terrain permitting.

[Frostiken]

I imagine this is typically because the average 'air mission' isn't performed with extremely vital goals in mind. Most of the sorties over Libya were to hit vehicular targets of opportunity, so in the big picture the heavy lifting, when we went in there and dropped a single bomb through every HAS at their airfields, counted for very few numbers of sorties, but neutralizing an entire airfield completely and thoroughly was an immense strategic victory - no possibility of planes. It took one mission to do that, and a hundred more missions to plink away at tanks.

 

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.

 

Do you think the Soviet Union, China or any other formidable foe to the US would just sit and take the ass whopping like Iraq did?

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

 

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. 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.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Frostiken

[Speed]

The problem is that in DCs, you expect it to be the rule. :)

 

The F4 campaign was geared to give the player this exception as a rule as well.

 

I still don't quite understand your arguement is. "you" -who is "you"? "expect it to be the rule"- what is "it"? I expect that in a dynamic campaign, then the player will make little impact unless he is allowed to pick what flights he does, and potentially, set up packages that deliberately give him the most pivotal role to play. Not realistic as a fighter pilot simulator, but very, very fun with near infinite replay-ability compared to the current system we have. But I don't want a fighter pilot simulator anyway. I want a war simulator, and a fighter simulator, in one.

 

"The F4 campaign was geared to give the player this exception as a rule as well." I suppose you are referring to the system- scrapped and removed nearly a decade ago- that penalized or rewarded friendly and enemy forces within the original Falcon 4 dynamic campaign for the player flying or not flying? That was long gone, as far as I could tell, by the time Allied Force came out. They probably removed it in a "Super Pack" or even in one of the earlier, "realism patches".

 

Other than that, you will have to be much more specific.