What is a Dynamic Campaign?

[neroroxxx]

Hi guys, i tried searching but couldn't find any good info on this,

 

Everywhere i read i see Falcon BMS as having the best dynamic campaign ever, what i'm wondering is:

 

What exactly makes a campaign DYNAMIC? and why isn't the DCS campaigns dynamic? what would it take for it to be dynamic?

 

thanks.

[NineLine]

Hi guys, i tried searching but couldn't find any good info on this,

 

Everywhere i read i see Falcon BMS as having the best dynamic campaign ever, what i'm wondering is:

 

What exactly makes a campaign DYNAMIC? and why isn't the DCS campaigns dynamic? what would it take for it to be dynamic?

 

thanks.

 

Basically what you do in one mission affects the out come of future missions, Kill one of 10 tanks in mission 1, in mission 2 the enemy only has 9 tanks at their disposal....

 

That is a very basic description :)

[neroroxxx]

ahhh gotcha! is it a lot more complex to make missions and campaigns that way? sounds like it could get pretty complex, also the whole SUPPLIES thing that has been talked about that will be coming in the DCS World (or is already there) should simulate that good?

 

thanks for the info!

[NineLine]

ahhh gotcha! is it a lot more complex to make missions and campaigns that way? sounds like it could get pretty complex, also the whole SUPPLIES thing that has been talked about that will be coming in the DCS World (or is already there) should simulate that good?

 

thanks for the info!

 

Yup, you got it.

[winz]

Imagine a persistent war theater, where tasks (or 'missions') are generated dynamically, based on the current state of war, strategies and priorities. For both air and ground assets. You then, as player, select one of the tasks generated (other missions are flown by AI) and fly it. Mission success (both your and AIs) affects the whole picture.

 

Supply adds another level to it. Loosing and airframe is one less airframe that can be used for another missions...

 

It adds a lot of replayability, but it's a PITA to do right, requires a LOT of work to make it work and A LOT more finetuning to make it work somewhat right :) And requires the sims core to support the whole persistence thing.

Edited June 27, 2012 by winz

[EtherealN]

And requires the sims core to support the whole persistence thing.

 

No, you do not need persistence for a DC. It is a way to make one, where you have a persistent world and basically two AI commanders duking it out to set the scene, but you can also get a perfectly fine DC with set-piece battles; you just have to have some overarching structure that takes in variables and uses these to design the next battle.

[Jona33]

They're sometimes regarded as the only important thing in the world in terms of flight simming. Ignore that, they're fun but requires a bit of self control. A pre built mission can be just as good.

[NineLine]

No, you do not need persistence for a DC. It is a way to make one, where you have a persistent world and basically two AI commanders duking it out to set the scene, but you can also get a perfectly fine DC with set-piece battles; you just have to have some overarching structure that takes in variables and uses these to design the next battle.

 

 

Yeah, it feels we are so close to being able to do something like this, if there was an export of info (from briefing info maybe) after a mission, and then import that info into the random mission generator (vehicle position, number of forces, goals, etc), then you are looking at a "fairly" dynamic series of missions.

[sorcer3r]

Just an ingame save option and we are a huge step closer to a DC.

Would that be such hard to implement? :notworthy:

[effte]

I sense a terminology incompatibility here?

 

Destroy a bridge and it remains destroyed in every mission from then on. That's persistence.

 

How could you call a campaign dynamic if the same bridge can be destroyed in several consecutive missions?

 

Cheers,

Fred

[NineLine]

Just an ingame save option and we are a huge step closer to a DC.

Would that be such hard to implement? :notworthy:

 

You could get away without having a save option if the info was just passed from one mission to the next, as an example. You fly a mission, complete it, save the briefing info which contains all the info from the mission you just flew (some sort of excel file or some other type). Tomorrow you loaded up the game, go to the mission generator, import your briefing data from yesterday, pick up where you left off...

 

Or something like that lol... just spit balling here :)

[Nate--IRL--]

I sense a terminology incompatibility here?

 

Destroy a bridge and it remains destroyed in every mission from then on. That's persistence.

 

How could you call a campaign dynamic if the same bridge can be destroyed in several consecutive missions?

 

Cheers,

Fred

 

There is no Definition of a Dynamic campaign system.

 

At its most simplest a Dynamic campaign must react to the Users actions. DCS already does this but in a very limited way.

 

Persistence, real-time strategic decisions, logistics, attrition are all further additions and refinements to a Dynamic system that reacts to the player actions.

 

EDIT For example Calling F4s campaign a Dynamic campaign is not very descriptive of what it actually is. It is a Persistent Real time Dynamic campaign.

 

Nate

Edited June 27, 2012 by Nate--IRL--

[sorcer3r]

You could get away without having a save option if the info was just passed from one mission to the next, as an example. You fly a mission, complete it, save the briefing info which contains all the info from the mission you just flew (some sort of excel file or some other type). Tomorrow you loaded up the game, go to the mission generator, import your briefing data from yesterday, pick up where you left off...

 

Or something like that lol... just spit balling here :)

 

Outcome should be the same (if buildings stay destroyed etc.) .

But Gamesave sounds easier ;).

 

Maybe there is a 3rd party out there for modding a "gamesave" addon? :D

[NineLine]

Outcome should be the same (if buildings stay destroyed etc.) .

But Gamesave sounds easier ;).

 

Maybe there is a 3rd party out there for modding a "gamesave" addon? :D

 

Oh I dont know, we get detailed briefing data already dont we? And the option to save it? Just need to figure out how to import that saved briefing into the mission generator and there you go. :)

 

Sounds easy, no? :P

 

They seem to be adding bits and pieces as we go, i.e. The supply system for airfields.

[effte]

There is no Definition of a Dynamic campaign system.

 

That's why I didn't have a go at coming up with one, but merely pointed out that in my view, persistence is a requirement for a dynamic campaign system.

 

Opposing views explaining how you can call anything a dynamic campaign while being able to blow the same bridge to smithereens several times, or how you can make sure you cannot do that without persistence, are welcome. :)

 

Cheers,

Fred

[Nate--IRL--]

That's why I didn't have a go at coming up with one, but merely pointed out that in my view, persistence is a requirement for a dynamic campaign system.

 

Opposing views explaining how you can call anything a dynamic campaign while being able to blow the same bridge to smithereens several times, or how you can make sure you cannot do that without persistence, are welcome. :)

 

Cheers,

Fred

 

Well consider Total Air War - that had a very dynamic real time campaign with no persistence with regard to bridges IIRC. Similarly IL2s dynamic campaign did not have such persistence either. The Term "Dynamic Campaign" is too broad a term to fit to any persons idea of what it should be.

 

That said, persistence is important, but if it is maintained only for logistical items, leaving out stuff like bridges, I won't care very much. As long as attrition between opposing forces is possible I'll be happy

 

Nate

Edited June 27, 2012 by Nate--IRL--

[NineLine]

Well consider Total Air War - that had a very dynamic real time campaign with no persistence with regard to bridges IIRC. Similarly IL2s dynamic campaign did not have such persistence either. The Term "Dynamic Campaign" is too broad a term to fit to any persons idea of what it should be.

 

That said, persistence is important, but if it is maintained only for logistical items, leaving out stuff like bridges, I won't care very much. As long as attrition between opposing forces is possible I'll be happy

 

Nate

 

I think bridges would almost fall under logistical stuff, specially if it cuts off a supply line, or route for enemy forces, etc. SO you would need to consider that. If it directly effect the battlefield it should be dynamically adjusted mission to mission, which shouldn't be too hard if you already have other items adjusted like that.

[Grimes]

What is a dynamic campaign? The answer is simple, its a 4X game with a flight sim built in.

[KosPilot]

What is a dynamic campaign? The answer is simple, its a 4X game with a flight sim built in.

 

Spot on!

 

Another issue not discussed in this thread is how to present all the warring units in a dynamic campaign. When making a normal mission, I have found that there doesn't take that many AI units to pull down the framerate to the point where the sim becomes unflyable.

For this reason I also find it challenging to make a realistic mission where the main goal can't be achieved by simply omitting the linear setup of events or the need to spawn units in an unrealistic manner.

 

As an example, Enemy Engaged had/has about 1500 units on each side in their dynamic campaign. For that to happen in DCS, I believe the changes would be so major that we would look at a paid upgrade similar to what happened for BS2.

[SUBS17]

I sense a terminology incompatibility here?

 

Destroy a bridge and it remains destroyed in every mission from then on. That's persistence.

 

How could you call a campaign dynamic if the same bridge can be destroyed in several consecutive missions?

 

Cheers,

Fred

 

Incorrect in F4AF if you destroy a bridge the AI will send engineers to repair it same goes for runways etc. The AI will also bypass a bridge and cross at another location or use engineers to cross the river. IRL you could have a bridge replaced in anywhere from 5minutes to a couple of hours if you have the engineer support units nearby with an appropriate sized bridge. The quickest being armoured combat engineers.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

Check out the mission campaign planning guide from here:

 

http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads.htm

 

This is what you need to do to beat F4AFs campaign as it requires more than just relying on the AI to fight the war for you. The player does have to control ground units and ATO tasking to an extent to beat the campaign.:joystick:

[Silver_Dragon]

The problem of AF has the "abstract" of some items on that campaing, the use of enginier units has unrealistic, no present on the battlefield damaged / destroyed target and making repairs with a shadow, you can destroy once and once a target, runway, bridge, etc, always finish repair them. In real the bridges don´t repair them, only build a temporal fixed of make a baypass to move by that route. The enginier unit has been move to make pressent in the location to make repairs, and can be targetted by enemy units and air attacks, No capable or modeled on AF, and the repair time has been on some big structures very fast with as on reality.

[Didas_94]

Hi,

 

there exist an another game with campaign dynamic : Ennemy Engaged Rasorwork's game and the code is open.

 

In this engine game, you can enter anytime in the campaign.

 

Regards

[NineLine]

The problem of AF has the "abstract" of some items on that campaing, the use of enginier units has unrealistic, no present on the battlefield damaged / destroyed target and making repairs with a shadow, you can destroy once and once a target, runway, bridge, etc, always finish repair them. In real the bridges don´t repair them, only build a temporal fixed of make a baypass to move by that route. The enginier unit has been move to make pressent in the location to make repairs, and can be targetted by enemy units and air attacks, No capable or modeled on AF, and the repair time has been on some big structures very fast with as on reality.

 

Well if this discussion is based on the idea we would like to see a "Dynamic" campaign in DCS World then I am sure things like this would/could be factored in, and no doubt factored to be as real as possible as far as time frame and such. Of course this could be set in the config files for an engineer unit, etc.

[effte]

Well consider Total Air War - that had a very dynamic real time campaign with no persistence with regard to bridges IIRC. Similarly IL2s dynamic campaign did not have such persistence either. The Term "Dynamic Campaign" is too broad a term to fit to any persons idea of what it should be.

 

That said, persistence is important, but if it is maintained only for logistical items, leaving out stuff like bridges, I won't care very much. As long as attrition between opposing forces is possible I'll be happy

 

Nate, my argument was that you need persistence for a dynamic campaign. The bridge was an example to bring the point home. Now you're arguing that yes, you need persistence but not necessarily for bridges.

 

Wouldn't it be much simpler to just say "yes, I agree"? :D

 

Incorrect in F4AF if you destroy a bridge the AI will send engineers to repair it same goes for runways etc. The AI will also bypass a bridge and cross at another location or use engineers to cross the river.

 

Sheesh... what is it with the maps in this game? There are so many trees all over the place that you cannot see the forests!?

 

If you destroy a bridge in one mission, leading to engineers being sent out while you are flying the next mission... that is the very definition of persistence. Bridge is still destroyed, game world acts accordingly - persistence.

 

Of course persistence is not required per se for things not having a significant impact on gameplay.

 

Every time I use an example in internet forums, I end up regretting it... :doh: