Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[GGTharos]

Actually the A-10 also adds rudder.

[Nealius]

It does? I still get a lot of adverse yaw when I don't add rudder. I can see the ball (don't recall the actual name of it) underneath the ADI slipping as well.

[GGTharos]

It's definitely supposed to add some. Might not do so in faster or rougher maneuvers.

[Nealius]

I may be pulling it too hard. Sometimes I'll hit G pulling up out of a gun run and the entire airframe rattles.

[arteedecco]

Anyway, I still think today's generation of ADD gamers equates to a lesser demand in high-fidelity sims and dynamic campaigns.

 

Ack! Yeah there are a lot of gamers more attracted to the other non-high-fidelity games because a.) they already have the console platform, b.) the price of entry is low.

 

I really feel like the DCS series can bring some folks back primarily because it is so dang beautiful. ED also is continuing to support the FC (Simple Flight Model) approach for a while yet to help ease people into the genre, which is great.

[Nealius]

Ack! Yeah there are a lot of gamers more attracted to the other non-high-fidelity games because a.) they already have the console platform, b.) the price of entry is low.

 

I really feel like the DCS series can bring some folks back primarily because it is so dang beautiful. ED also is continuing to support the FC (Simple Flight Model) approach for a while yet to help ease people into the genre, which is great.

 

At first I was suspicious about this DCS World thing, especially throwing a P-51 in the mix with modern weaponry, but it actually looks like a smart idea. The more casual fliers can fly FC3 while others can fly the DCS modules all in the same arena.

[Troutish]

I dont see a DC as a 3rd party vendor product. It should be regarded as part of the core DCS sim environment - terrain - weather-editor- ground vehicles - multiplayer functionality -DC

 

like these things it makes 3rd party aircraft more appealing, more fun. you know, if 3rd party aircraft become common, the vendors might not be thrilled if DCS keeps making aircraft - it puts them into a competative relationship. They might want DCS to enhance the product in a way that compliments their new aircraft- and a DC certainly fits that bill.

 

It is also clear in this thread how people have wildly different expectations about what a DC should be, and how many resources it would take to develop it.

[Troutish]

Here is my idea for a DC. First of all, I would start with the following assumptions:

There are 2 features that are indispensable – everything else is in the “nice to have” category rather than the “must have”. They are:

1) Persistent game world where damaged and destroyed objects carry through to subsequent missions. The weather and the time need to carry over too, as well as supply state.

2) Mission outcomes need to be transferred from mission to mission – successes, failures, triggers fired etc.

(I would point out that these two features would GREATLY enhance the way people currently use the mission editor as well)

The first requirement is obvious. The second forms the basis for how each side prosecutes the war after the first mission. (I’m assuming that DCS would not want a dynamic campaign engine where the AI continually assesses whats going on at the strategic level and then generates or modifies missions on the fly, while the player is spawned in. This should be one of the lessons learned from F4 about what NOT to do with a DC)

A success or failure for the AI on a mission would generally be something like, “has unit x reached objective Y”, and “what casualties did it suffer, or what resistance did it meet?” the AI can then make simple choices to continue movement, halt, withdraw, reinforce, or have a different unit move through that point, or take an alternate route. From the air it would appear that units are proceeding to their final objectives according to a sensible strategy. Success, rather than failure would be reinforced, although different units at different levels could certainly benefit from experience, morale and agressivness factors that influence their reactions.

When these sorts of alternatives relate to the random, or near random generation of waypoints and orders, you have the bread and butter of a simple conflict with an aggressor and a defender. This by itself can create a plausible campaign that from the perspective of a pilot, is FAR more immersive than what we have now. A simple dynamic campaign (or campaign generator) is no less realistic than having to create our own campaign from scratch, or flying someone elses scripted campaign with limited branching outcomes.

This kind of AI is far from “Rommelesque”, but I think most sim pilots would not scrutinize the behavior of vehicles, platoons, companies and so on up the line trying to figure out what exactly is going on. As long as he can modify his own missions, and possible the air missions for his side he should be happy. This is not a strategy game and our true opponent is not the top brass of the opposing side. It is the mid and junior level officers who are most directly affected by our flight/ squadron/ wing.

[HerrKaputt]

(I’m assuming that DCS would not want a dynamic campaign engine where the AI continually assesses whats going on at the strategic level and then generates or modifies missions on the fly, while the player is spawned in. This should be one of the lessons learned from F4 about what NOT to do with a DC)

 

Are you talking about financial issues? Because apart from that, I see no reason to avoid developing an immersive DC as in F4.

[Troutish]

Well, there is talk in this thread about DCS wanting some sort of DC capability, but frankly, there is no evidence in the design of DCS products that suggests they see it as a priority. So yes, if there is a simpler, cheaper way to make a good quality DC I would be all for it.

 

There were things going on in the F4 DC that were not really "core" features contributing to enjoyment of that sim.

[Troutish]

SOme more thoughts about how to do a DC.....

 

 

The player should have a number of setup choice to make before starting the campaing, such as

2) choose aggressor side

3) choose relative force size

5) campaign duration or size

6) various difficulty settings.

Choose to generate any or all of these randomly, or for experienced users, modify the files to fully customize things..

 

Units are then given starting locations (chosen randomly from a number of templates), and then a number of ultimate destinations that need to be reached for the desired end state. These could also be templates.

 

So lets say you had 5 different orbat templates that included starting locations for units, and then 5 different templates for the final destinations (objectives) that had to be reached and occupied for the campaign to be scored a victory for the aggressor, how many times could you replay this sort of campaign before you noticed a pattern, or otherwise felt like it was groundhog day?

 

What if unit quality were also factored in? what if certain conditions triggered general, or local counter-offensives by the defender? What if unit replacement status was configured randomly, or if there were points in a campaign where one side (or both), were suddenly reinforced with a new division or wing? Better yet, what if the condition of bridges, wherehouses, transportation, power and supply infrastructure influenced resupply? (this is already a capability of the mission editor, right?)

 

My point is that a DC, or DC generator does not have to have too many variables before the player is unable to see a pattern and get bored. Furthermore, if you were to fight multiple campaigns in the same part of the world IRL, the local geography, culture, politics etc. would probably dictate similar battle plans anyway.

[Crescendo]

I may be pulling it too hard. Sometimes I'll hit G pulling up out of a gun run and the entire airframe rattles.

 

You're not wrong, you will definitely get adverse yaw when rolling the A-10 despite the SAS having a rudder channel. The SAS controls for adverse yaw fairly well when you roll slowly, but it will struggle when you roll quickly (this exceeds the rudder channel's control authority I assume), and it seems worse at lower speeds.

 

I might be wrong, but my feeling is that in earlier betas the SAS rudder channel did a much better job of 'stepping on the ball' automatically. I very rarely noticed adverse yaw in the early betas. I don't recall the exact release number when it changed, but there was a point at which I thought to myself "Wow, I'm really noticing more adverse yaw now" and this was confirmed by noting a greater amount of ball movement. I figured this was a more realistic implementation of the SAS system and forgot about it.

 

There days I mostly just watch my speed and am a little more gentle on the roll rate (if not in combat of course). If I want to roll quickly sometimes I'll also give it some rudder manually to smooth out the ride.

[IonicRipper]

I've stopped playing DCS for a while now for the simple reason that it doesn't have a dynamic campaign.

I think this is all it needs now to go from a great game to an incredible game. I hope we'll see this soon.

[Fuby]

This is not a strategy game and our true opponent is not the top brass of the opposing side. It is the mid and junior level officers who are most directly affected by our flight/ squadron/ wing.

 

And then came "Combined Arms and Jtac"... DCS World has changed forever..

[Troutish]

I dont think we should confuse what CA offers with what a DC would offer. A DC is what would unlock the game's potential as BOTH a fight sim and a ground combat sim. If anything, CA illustrates again how there is hardly any content out there that makes DCS products enjoyable beyond the short term.

 

I'll say again, you should not have to be a mission or campaign designer to enjoy any kind of sim. The only market DCS is catering to right now are people willing or happy to do both, as well as the even smaller number of people who play online, but dont fit the first category.

 

Now, if there were hundreds of great player made missions and campaigns, things would be different, but there are not, nor do I think there will ever be.

[Cake]

Ideally, a good dynamic campaign would provide AI to generate packages and dictate strategy and tactics, but it could be even better if it allows player(s) to actually step into this role as well.

 

I agree that even a bad strategy by the AI can make things interesting. Personally, I think 15 years after Falcon4 there should be a way to model the entire earth even if only certain parts are completed in great detail. The Falcon bubble concept worked well, and if it means some things are done outside the bubble my client is in then so be it. Personally, I agree this is what would make DCS World reach its full potential, but I'm also pretty happy just ripping around in the p51 and not shooting anything at all. I hope the brains behind DCS are at least thinking about this stuff and if it doesn't sound feasible then maybe some fresh perspective would be welcome.

[Yuya6104]

Out of respect

 

It's has been a long long long while since I post here since 2011..nothing changed in campaign just same old scripting an action triggers more scripting..

 

why not a real world time real world war that focus on the reailty of war...every aspect..outcome war can change every time..like in the Chinese book read the Art of War..would be a big game changer and give more flexabilty and a far more dangerous road for both sides even nutreal and semi-nutreal countrys..

 

from my respect of an idea since moat sims heading to that drictions even ARMA3 I belive..I could be wrong too.

[Bushmanni]

Surprise created by innovation and thinking out-side-the-box is a key element of a real war and the thing that makes interesting war stories that we like to read about. The problem is that to have and do that kind of stuff in the sim requires the programmer to put it in the game first. But how that can be done if its something no one has ever though about before?

[311Gryphon]

Surprise by innovation is certainly a key element but a true combat sim should incorporate at least the idea of an ever changing and "infinite outcome" battlefield. Obviously this is impossible in a game, but the idea in the modern era of video games is to merge a really well made world model with well made AI, good mechanics, and some type of trigger and initialization combination that allows what happens now directly impact what is available to happen later. This combination of things (and probably a lot more since I'm not very versed in the detailed inner workings of video games) could, potentially, help the game evolve into something dynamic. In some cases it doesn't even have to be dynamic it simply must feel dynamic. Much like the original Operation Flashpoint which was ahead of its time by a long margin. The campaign never changed but the campaign reflected a changing battlefield and some unit values were carried over from one "mission" to the next. Additionally, the world was open thus you could more or less play each "mission" differently than you did the last time. The end goal was the same and the "win parameters" were typically the same, so you had to accomplish the same things but you could do it differently at times.

 

Now, applying that to DCS is a bit different because of the fact that there are more details (it appears) in the flight models than there are in, for instance, the AI. That's okay because A-10C is the most fun I've had flying a simulation EVER. And I once flew cross country from Chicago Midway to San Francisco in MS Flight Sim 3. What a boring flight. I was that dedicated to trying to fly a simulator.

 

My point is that I agree with the OP that it would be cool to eventually merge all these different modules into a large single player, co-op, or multiplayer battlefield that was either superficially dynamic (the battlefield changes but each time you play through the same campaigns it changes in the same way) or realistically dynamic (mission success in one area changes the battlefield one way and mission failure does as well with reversible outcomes that play out over a longer period of time with no definite end until one side has complete control).

 

That's my 2 or more cents.

Edited May 31, 2013 by 311Gryphon
fixed typo

[mmaruda]

It's really simple - we need a dynamic campaign like BMS has. I don't want to be considered a hater, fanboy, or anything of the extreme sort, but no matter how cool the mission in DCS (so far Miedvied II campaign for Ka-50 is the best IMHO), it's just not close to anything one can experience in Falcon. I never had the time or dedication to start playing it until recently (not to mention I was never a fan of the F-16 - Flanker for life!), but a few good people helped me start and when I got into flying with them in this dynamic environment with good ATC and unpredictable events during a mission I can say that while DCS does stuff better in terms of attention to detail and simulation of a given machine in general, it does not come close to Falcon in terms of immersion.

 

ED needs to do three things to for their product to become top of the line:

-finish EDGE and start pumping out new maps... like NOW

-add a dynamic campaign

-release that damn fighter

 

Do this in the following 1,5 years and you have my eternal love ED.

[Troutish]

With a dynamic campaign the programmers (developers) give the units at all levels a higher sort of AI so that platoons, companies, battalions and so on all the way up to the high command can make tactical and strategic descisions, that in the end, appear sensible to the player. This creates the fiction that there is a real war going on out there that is not scripted or pre-ordained in any way. Humans set some opening parameters, and then the campaign AI takes over.

 

Will this generate fun an memorable moments of gameplay like we experince from the best human made missions? Absolutely -my most memorable and exciting experineces in any sim were in Falcon more than a decade ago! This is not to detract from the great missions and campaigns that have been made for DCS. There simply are not enough of them however, and they are not really replayable.

 

 

Surprise created by innovation and thinking out-side-the-box is a key element of a real war and the thing that makes interesting war stories that we like to read about. The problem is that to have and do that kind of stuff in the sim requires the programmer to put it in the game first. But how that can be done if its something no one has ever though about before?

[scottt]

I long for a dynamic campaign , I would probably play nothing else and would definitely buy all the dcs modules to get the best out of it.

[Callsign.Vega]

Anyone else besides me favor other sims like Falcon 4 BMS that have Dynamic campaigns over DCS? I could never really "get into" DCS with scripted missions. I buy the DCS aircraft to support ED, but the world seems very clinical and static.

 

And missiles etc going through tree's, another immersion killer.

[HerrKaputt]

Anyone else besides me favor other sims like Falcon 4 BMS that have Dynamic campaigns over DCS? I could never really "get into" DCS with scripted missions. I buy the DCS aircraft to support ED, but the world seems very clinical and static.

 

And missiles etc going through tree's, another immersion killer.

 

I'm with you, except that I didn't even buy the DCS aircraft (I might buy Black Shark one day, I mostly like helos). A DC would make DCS an insta-buy for me.

[Galwran]

save and continue missions

 

In addition to dynamic campaing I would really like to be able to save missions, especially multiplayer missions. It would be really nice to save during a long mission after a few hours and then continue on another night. Or continue if the host computer crashes.

 

That way you could fight against a strong enemy and almost make it like a campaign. If the mission in progress could be saved as an editable .miz file it would be even nicer; that way you could simulate the dynamics by adding reinforcements etc.

 

Currently there is very little achievement in COOP multiplay because you have to start from scratch every time. In F4 BMS you can at least fight with the bigger picture in mind. (Ie. tonight we fly SEAD so that tomorrow we can attack the airport)