Campaign feedback

[TheBlackPenguin]

Perhaps I like torturing myself, but I have been trying the BOM campaign with the P40 and I think I have noticed a rather glaring issue with the campaign, that is a 'missed' contact. Lets say you're not given enough time/distance to reach the required altitude and the bombers simply fly over their target before you get a chance to get high enough, or you're tasked with intercepting an attacking force at 500m, you're more than double that height, yet they manage to outpace you and your AI wingman. I have noticed in these cases your only option is to cancel the mission (unless perhaps trying to find targets of opportunity, which), and of course you're not getting any points for it.

 

Why can't we:

 

a) Declare mission over and a request to return to base? At least then if you land it should give you points for landing (if you don't total it).

 

b) Request secondary target, maybe acknowledge you're going to be finding targets of opportunity.

 

A lot is probably down to my lack of P40 airmanship, but nevertheless it is frustrating to have at least made it to the target area and to have attempted an intercept only to have those efforts basically wasted, even if you bring your kite back to base intact to fight another day you're awarded nothing. At least with the two options above you'll get a few points.

 

Is it just me though (I know about PWCG)? How has your experience been with BOM? I have only really tried the P40 so far with a little time on the Mig outside of fast missions.

[seafireliv]

Agreed. It doesn`t only affect the p40 but any aircraft in any mission that you happen to miss or doesn`t go as it`s meant to. This isn`t the only issue for the SP campaign. There are quite a few basic orders\comms that we should have for certain occasions that simply don`t exist in this sim. I can only hope the Devs add more commands for flying in missions.

Edited May 22, 2016 by seafireliv

[Pharoah]

I kinda poked the bear a bit re the campaign in BOS/BOM. The structure of it just doesn't work - its a collection of single player missions loosely joined together. Anyway, I won't regurgitate again but I will list the points that need to be fixed re this:

 

1. the unlock system is silly imho esp when it impacts the MP environment;

2. the requirement to always be successful is silly as well.

3. the 'oh you died, do it again' principle doesn't work.

4. there's no immersion from a user perspective. Rather than some longwinded story that some wordsmith came up with, I'd rather they put the time/effort into a proper career mode....

5. you shouldn't just be given 20 missions and 10 types of a/c to fly at your leisure. Is that how it works IRL? Don't think so.

6. the missions must have some sort of random generator. My example was being sent in a BF110 by myself to attack a flight of PE-2s escorted by a flight of P40s. I died. 'Cancel mission'. Really?

7. the radio calls are lacking - no ATC, no communication with fighters/bombers/etc, no support

8. missions are based on 1 flight of bombers, 1 flight of escorts vs 1 flight of fighters. Why not 4 flights of bombers and 2 flights of escorts?

[1Sascha]

I kinda poked the bear a bit re the campaign in BOS/BOM. The structure of it just doesn't work - its a collection of single player missions loosely joined together. Anyway, I won't regurgitate again but I will list the points that need to be fixed re this:

 

1. the unlock system is silly imho esp when it impacts the MP environment;

2. the requirement to always be successful is silly as well.

3. the 'oh you died, do it again' principle doesn't work.

4. there's no immersion from a user perspective. Rather than some longwinded story that some wordsmith came up with, I'd rather they put the time/effort into a proper career mode....

5. you shouldn't just be given 20 missions and 10 types of a/c to fly at your leisure. Is that how it works IRL? Don't think so.

6. the missions must have some sort of random generator. My example was being sent in a BF110 by myself to attack a flight of PE-2s escorted by a flight of P40s. I died. 'Cancel mission'. Really?

7. the radio calls are lacking - no ATC, no communication with fighters/bombers/etc, no support

8. missions are based on 1 flight of bombers, 1 flight of escorts vs 1 flight of fighters. Why not 4 flights of bombers and 2 flights of escorts?

Couldn't agree more.

 

Unlocks are for F2P-games. When I *buy* a simulation, I don't want to have to "unlock" stuff like bomb-racks or wing-guns. I mean: When I *bought* my car, I didn't have to "unlock" its air-conditioning by putting X amount of kilometers on it just to stay cool in the summer.

 

Campaign-requirements are kinda weird. When I fly a mission, shoot down a couple of planes but then bend my prop on landing, the mission is pretty much porked for me ("emergency landing"), so I have to do it again.

 

It's unfortunate that I can't seem to run into more than four or five enemy planes and usually will have the same number of friendlies around. Is this how it was in real life? I don't think so.

 

Overall, the motivation to keep going in the campaign should come from the campaign itself and the missions it throws at you. Not from the desire to "unlock" a certain kind of mod that would've been available in real life anyway. I mean: Right now the campaign sends me out to down Pe-2s, but I can't fit additional guns *or* an armored windscreen to my plane. Shooting these things down with a single 151/20 and 2x 8mm MGs is a nightmare. I (or rather: my engine) usually get creamed by the laser-guided tail-gunners on my first pass. If I had the 20mm (or even the 15mm) gunpods for my 109, things might be a bit different.. :D

Edited May 23, 2016 by 1Sascha

[=CFC=Conky]

...

Overall, the motivation to keep going in the campaign should come from the campaign itself and the missions it throws at you. Not from the desire to "unlock" a certain kind of mod that would've been available in real life anyway. I mean: Right now the campaign sends me out to down Pe-2s, but I can't fit additional guns *or* an armored windscreen to my plane. Shooting these things down with a single 151/20 and 2x 8mm MGs is a nightmare. I (or rather: my engine) usually get creamed by the laser-guided tail-gunners on my first pass. If I had the 20mm (or even the 15mm) gunpods for my 109, things might be a bit different.. :D

 

 

Hi 1Sascha,

 

If you read the mission briefing carefully (not that you don't, I'm just guessing here), you'll see the 'victory' conditions for the mission. When intercepting bombers, you can get the mission success message by either shooting down one, or damaging two. Once yo get the message, just bug out. Damaging an aircraft is not as rewarding as destroying it, but at least your campaign will progress. Besides, damaging a bomber will often result in them jettisoning their ordnance, which is a mission kill if nothing else.

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

Edited May 23, 2016 by CFC_Conky

[Jason_Williams]

If you don't like our Campaign system you can fly PWCG for the more traditional experience. That is what it is for.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/99-pwcg-bos/

 

Jason

[unlikely_spider]

Jason, recently it was mentioned that there would be changes to the campaign system. Are those going to be implemented along with the upcoming Steam release?

[Jason_Williams]

Jason, recently it was mentioned that there would be changes to the campaign system. Are those going to be implemented along with the upcoming Steam release?

 

I don't know what "changes" you are talking about. The general Campaign system will remain the same. The only new thing I know about is adding ranks, but I don't know if that will replace anything or just be an addition.

 

Jason

[Pharoah]

If you don't like our Campaign system you can fly PWCG for the more traditional experience. That is what it is for.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/99-pwcg-bos/

 

Jason

 

Its a shame that we have to use a third party program to play a proper campaign, but props to you for pointing me (us) in the direction of the pwcg which is an awesome addon so thank you.

[seafireliv]

I don't know what "changes" you are talking about. The general Campaign system will remain the same. The only new thing I know about is adding ranks, but I don't know if that will replace anything or just be an addition.

 

Jason

 

Well that`s very unfortunate. You`ve dropped the ball there.

 

Yes, we like the PWCG, but a proper made campaign that`s part of the main sim without any need for modding is always preferable. Something even as simple as the old IL2 1946 would`ve been fine. Also PWCG suffers because many of the SP communication required simply are not there in the main sim.

 

There are many people who enjoy flying a single player campaign- Not everyone just flies multiplayer. In fact, I`d argue more people like to play alone in SP than online for the conveniences.

Sorry, but it`s lazy to simply point us away to a mod. It makes you sound like you can`t be bothered. However, perhaps you don`t speak for the whole Dev team but only yourself.

 

p.s I bought this sim on the understanding of a robust SP Campaign. We put our money to it, do us the service of providing it. We did our part, please do yours.

 

pps. Some new info has come to light so I apologise if I appeared too harsh to you. I guess my love of these kinds of sims can appear mean- It is not meant to be.

Edited May 24, 2016 by seafireliv

[Trooper117]

I don't know what "changes" you are talking about. The general Campaign system will remain the same. The only new thing I know about is adding ranks, but I don't know if that will replace anything or just be an addition.

 

Jason

 

Oh dear... this has been my main worry since we saw the rank patches in an update... if they add the rank patches but don't replace the awful points and leveling up system, many SP guys will be gutted...

As usual, without any hard info I'll hope for the best and cross everything that can be crossed!

[SharpeXB]

the unlock system is silly imho esp when it impacts the MP environment;

 

If you just want the unlocks without playing the campaign, get the Premium Editon or buy the two extra planes and you can get them all free.

 

This is another app which creates a Career Mode using the official campaign.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17397-check-out-il2-career-generator-ex-il2commander-campaign-russ/page-1

Edited May 24, 2016 by SharpeXB

[Juri_JS]

I wonder what's the opinion in the community concerning a scripted campaign mode, similar to the static campaign system we had in the old Il-2. Could this be popular or do most players prefer automatically generated missions like in PWCG ?

[Trooper117]

The scripted campaigns were always the favourite in my book... Lovingly hand crafted, researched and documented with a high attention to historical detail for every mission.

Unfortunately, that takes time and effort, and it's something the headshed here have already explained they don't have the time to do...

[Picchio]

Oh dear... this has been my main worry since we saw the rank patches in an update... if they add the rank patches but don't replace the awful points and leveling up system, many SP guys will be gutted...

As usual, without any hard info I'll hope for the best and cross everything that can be crossed!

 

My idea with a ranking system was that it could have been used to add depth to the standard campaign gameplay without having to alter its design. On the most basic level, the player's rank would at least allow to fly as wingman. Of course I hope the devs are aiming for more than this... otherwise it's just going to be a slightly more dignified but still silly XP system.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Picchio

[Juri_JS]

Unfortunately, that takes time and effort, and it's something the headshed here have already explained they don't have the time to do...

 

I was mostly thinking of a system that allows community members to add their own campaigns like in Il-2 1946, so the developers would only have to create such a campaign system, but not the content for it.

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by Juri_JS

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Han said sometime ago that they were open to user-collaboration here, so long as users can bring proposals and material which they can implement without much trouble.

 

In other words, work in things then pitch them to the developers and you might just get it in.

 

I was thinking about this earlier today, one way this could work on a basic level would be to combine a string of missions (like the Il-2 or Bf-109 campaigns that already exist and were made by users) and convert or develop a system like Warhamm's to track kills, awards and unit staff. Point counting could be done in the same way it is in the campaign, but without showing points to the user, and these points could determine awards, promotions and so on. The question is, how easy is it to create a function that inputs mission results into a single file that is used to display overall progress for that one campaign?

 

The funny thing is, the original Il-2 got heat because campaigns were scripted, and it actually did have a points system

[Comes]

@ Juri_JS

I really do not understand why they have not done that yet, and I hope they will do it soon.

 

I also hope that the ranks give you the ability to change the difficulty (because of the higher pilot level) and the ability to fly as a wingman. If they do that, combined with Warham's Tool, the campaign would be pretty good (IMO).

[Scarecrow]

+1 To the OP points. The con argument to the first point is that people will grind xp taking off and landing instead of grinding it by completing objectives

 

Does PWCG generate xp towards the campaign skins?

 

Unlocks has been done to death. Gaming has changed and xp grinding and unlocks is something that many developers and many users feel provides a sense of achievement, progression and value. I don't though

I'm not really bothered but I can see how it bothers alot of online only players. Pretty sure founders have everything unlocked from day one via their profile.

 

Static campaigns are the best. Busy airstrips, custom skins, tailored weather and lighting conditions. This is how you let your community create the outstanding, authentic and historically accurate campaigns that enhance your sim

[seafireliv]

I wonder what's the opinion in the community concerning a scripted campaign mode, similar to the static campaign system we had in the old Il-2. Could this be popular or do most players prefer automatically generated missions like in PWCG ?

I actually prefer automatically generated missions. You never know what you`re going to get. Yes, it may not be perfect to reality, but it`s the closest you can get that will have you wondering what you`re going to meet and best of all, they are continuous, meaning you don`t always have to wait for someone to put something togther. It also allows you to `wander` if you want without breaking anything. You can even fail without the need to restart it,(if you live and aren`t captured).

 

Can`t stand scripted because once they`re done, you know them. You have to then wait for someone to put something new together. Scripted can only give you something surprising once, then it`s useless. Also if you go `off script` the thing breaks down. Fail, restart and restart, even if you lived. Yeuck. The least imaginative of the two.

 

Now if an AI could be programmed that made automatically generated missions, in a `scripted` fashion but different every time (as if a real person was making them for you each mission), yet progressing the Campaign to some kind of logical conclusion, I`d love that. But no AI is smart enough and if there is one I suspected the Devs don`t have the time or resources to make one.

Edited May 24, 2016 by seafireliv

[Trooper117]

Really?... I know what I'm getting every time I go into any generated campaign mission in any of the campaigns so far... the time of day may differ, but mission types, (and you don't have many to choose from) follow the same format time after time... the game may look beautiful, but having played all the way through every campaign to date, I'm seeing nothing new.

 

In that respect, I might as well be playing a scripted campaign then!

[Juri_JS]

I actually prefer automatically generated missions. You never know what you`re going to get. Yes, it may not be perfect to reality, but it`s the closest you can get that will have you wondering what you`re going to meet and best of all, they are continuous, meaning you don`t always have to wait for someone to put something togther. It also allows you to `wander` if you want without breaking anything. You can even fail without the need to restart it,(if you live and aren`t captured).

 

Can`t stand scripted because once they`re done, you know them. You have to then wait for someone to put something new together. Scripted can only give you something surprising once, then it`s useless. Also if you go `off script` the thing breaks down. Fail, restart and restart, even if you lived. Yeuck. The least imaginative of the two.

Yes, the lack of replayability can be  a problem in scripted missions, that's why I prefer dynamic campaigns in Il-2 1946. But the situation in BoS/BoM is a little different, because the mission editor allows the inclusion of triggered random and dynamic mission elements. At the moment I am doing some tests with missions that use lots of random/dynamic elements and it actually works quite well. The objective and flight route doesn't change in such a mission, but the numbers and types of aircraft the player encounters can vary. Moreover certain results in these missions can trigger events - for example when the player's flight takes too many losses, ground control might send reinforcements - that's what I mean with dynamic mission elements.

[PatrickAWlson]

Why not both?  I remember the Aces Over the Pacific where you would get dynamic missions punctuated by historically scripted missions.  I prefer dynamic missions myself, but it was fun getting the odd scripted mission.

 

PWCG could be extended to do the same.  Keep a library of missions.  Add a data file associating each mission with a squadron and date.  If you are in that squadron on that date you fly the scripted mission instead of a dynamically created one.  There would have to be some form of meta data in the mission that would allow PWCG to switch in squadron pilots.  That could be as simple as setting the plane name in the mission to REPLACE_ME_1, REPLACE_ME_2, etc.  

 

For those that wanted a purely scripted campaign PWCG could shut down automated mission creation and just go through the mission library by squadron/date.  

 

Why debate which one is better when you can have either one or a combination of both?

[seafireliv]

Really?... I know what I'm getting every time I go into any generated campaign mission in any of the campaigns so far... the time of day may differ, but mission types, (and you don't have many to choose from) follow the same format time after time... the game may look beautiful, but having played all the way through every campaign to date, I'm seeing nothing new.

 

In that respect, I might as well be playing a scripted campaign then!

The auto-generated missions in BOS/BOM are particularly bad. They might as well be scripted for how lack lustre they are. They are not what an auto-generated missions career system should be.

 

1946 was more what I`m talking about (as Jun_JS mentions) , though that was not perfect.

 

Why not both?

 

Sure, both could work, if implemented right: A good dynamic auto-generated Campaign interspersed with the odd scripted mission that didn`t force you to replay it every time could be one way.

Edited May 24, 2016 by seafireliv

[SharpeXB]

Pretty sure founders have everything unlocked from day one via their profile.

 

The Founders had use of all the unlocks during Early Access but when the game and campaign were officially launched they were all locked again for everyone.

Then later the change was made to give Premium Edition owners the ability to unlock everything except the skins if they want to.

[SharpeXB]

I actually prefer automatically generated missions. You never know what you`re going to get. Yes, it may not be perfect to reality, but it`s the closest you can get that will have you wondering what you`re going to meet and best of all, they are continuous, meaning you don`t always have to wait for someone to put something togther. It also allows you to `wander` if you want without breaking anything. You can even fail without the need to restart it,(if you live and aren`t captured).

 

Can`t stand scripted because once they`re done, you know them. You have to then wait for someone to put something new together. Scripted can only give you something surprising once, then it`s useless. Also if you go `off script` the thing breaks down. Fail, restart and restart, even if you lived. Yeuck. The least imaginative of the two.

 

Now if an AI could be programmed that made automatically generated missions, in a `scripted` fashion but different every time (as if a real person was making them for you each mission), yet progressing the Campaign to some kind of logical conclusion, I`d love that. But no AI is smart enough and if there is one I suspected the Devs don`t have the time or resources to make one.

I agree with all the above. I prefer the random generated career modes like RoF and PWCG. The problem with custom missions is that it's impossible to create enough of them. A random generator gives you unlimited gameplay and for all of the aircraft in the game. It's virtually impossible to run out of missions in RoF or PWCG. For all the investment players put into learning curve and hardware, a flight sim pretty much demands infinite gameplay. Even a well done custom campaign ends at some point. Then what?

 

I like the idea of adding some custom missions to PWCG. That would be interesting.

Edited May 24, 2016 by SharpeXB

[IRRE_Rolluptito]

7. the radio calls are lacking - no ATC, no communication with fighters/bombers/etc, no support

 

 

The radio, the radio, the radio... I feel like this is the most missing thing on this game. I really feel alone and powerless up there in single player compared to other IL2. The current one is useless. 

[Pharoah]

Proper SP campaigns are meant to replicate what RL pilots experienced...and a lot of what they experienced were 'no show' missions (depending on where they were, etc) eg. fighter sweeps where you don't see anything or missions where you were in massive 'furballs'. In addition, your only choice was which air force and potentially which squadron (ie. to show why type of missions/aircraft they flew). Once you chose a squadron, that's it...everything else was out of your hands. You became a 'rifleman of the sky' so to speak...you get told what to do until you got enough xp to take on more responsibility (element lead, flight leader, squadron leader, wing leader, etc). Everyone knows the job of a wingman is to stick with their wing leader.

 

you don't start as flight leader and you shouldn't have to choose which base, which type of a/c, which type of mission. Dunno bout you but I like to make it as close to realism as possible. This isn't it.

 

and no, I shouldn't have to pay for unlocks...I paid for the game already, and this ISN'T BF.

[SharpeXB]

I agree with the above but that's for a Career Mode, not the stock campaign.

The typical player wouldn't like being forced to fly an aircraft they don't like. That's the problem with the RoF campaigns (not the Career). There's 30 different planes and you're stuck flying the worst ones.

 

Really I could see how the BoS/BoM campaign could have an RoF style Career option. Not sure why that would be so hard. Just add a calendar time scale and pilot log, some skins for the regiments and that's it. Basically what the Warum app does.

[Pharoah]

I agree with the above but that's for a Career Mode, not the stock campaign.

The typical player wouldn't like being forced to fly an aircraft they don't like. That's the problem with the RoF campaigns (not the Career). There's 30 different planes and you're stuck flying the worst ones.

 

Really I could see how the BoS/BoM campaign could have an RoF style Career option. Not sure why that would be so hard. Just add a calendar time scale and pilot log, some skins for the regiments and that's it. Basically what the Warum app does.

 

one of the best careers I remember was in Aces of Europe. You basically chose your air force (RAF, Luftwaffe, USAAF), then chose your Squadron and time period, which in turn chose your type of a/c and missions (fighter, fighter/bomber, bomber, etc)...the beauty is that each squadron's mission/aircraft types were based (I understand) on the real life squadrons so if you started out flying fighters (eg. hurricanes) and after a year they converted to Hawker Typhoons, then so be it - you went where they sent you (which is how it worked IRL). You were able to request transfers to other SQNs but they weren't guaranteed. The other beauty is that your a/c was upgraded in line with when RL SQNs got their upgrades eg. Spit IIs to Vs to IXs to XVs or whatever. They also had an awesome 'simulate' option which basically simulated your flight up to either the target/base or if there were enemies nearby..and sometimes you didn't even encounter enemy fighters.

 

You started as a PO, then FO, then FL then SQN Leader, then Wing Leader I think (or something like that) and it was based on missions flown + combat kills (if applic), and you moved up from wingman to element lead to flight lead to SQN lead, etc. For me, it made me 'feel' as if I had actually enlisted in the big RAF and was just one small part of it which is how it is.

 

THAT is how a career mode should be. I've read countless books of fighter pilots from WW2 that went up to Major or Wingleader or whatever and only had something like 2 kills...and a lot of their missions resulted in no combat - the Luftwaffe was stretched thin covering multiple fronts during WW2 (France, Norway, Italy, N Africa, Eastern Front) and they had to pick and choose when they invested their a/c.

[74_jim_nihilist]

I wonder what's the opinion in the community concerning a scripted campaign mode, similar to the static campaign system we had in the old Il-2. Could this be popular or do most players prefer automatically generated missions like in PWCG ?

NOTHING beats scripted campaigns. But hey, what the hell, I would be happy with a campaign generator like in IL2 1946 - that was immersive, not this "play in your coffe break a mission" what is now in the game.

 

I bought BOM and BOS, but I din't know what else I can do to support the devs and hope that they hear our SP-guys pleas. They should at least contact Modders like you and Veteran and work something out with you.

 

It is so disappointing. Will I buy another "Battle of" - I don't know. I don't care much about this F2P-campaign model for a full price game.

 

And I can't program or do anything to propose it to the devs. So I am forced to sit here and wait until some day maybe something happens.

Edited May 25, 2016 by 74_jim_nihilist

[unlikely_spider]

NOTHING beats scripted campaigns. But hey, what the hell, I would be happy with a campaign generator like in IL2 1946 - that was immersive, not this "play in your coffe break a mission" what is now in the game.

 

I bought BOM and BOS, but I din't know what else I can do to support the devs and hope that they hear our SP-guys pleas. They should at least contact Modders like you and Veteran and work something out with you.

 

It is so disappointing. Will I buy another "Battle of" - I don't know. I don't care much about this F2P-campaign model for a full price game.

Have you tried PWCG yet? It's not out for Moscow yet but it's a great addition to BoS.

[CheeseGromit]

I actually prefer automatically generated missions. You never know what you`re going to get. Yes, it may not be perfect to reality, but it`s the closest you can get that will have you wondering what you`re going to meet and best of all, they are continuous, meaning you don`t always have to wait for someone to put something togther. It also allows you to `wander` if you want without breaking anything. You can even fail without the need to restart it,(if you live and aren`t captured).

 

Can`t stand scripted because once they`re done, you know them. You have to then wait for someone to put something new together. Scripted can only give you something surprising once, then it`s useless. Also if you go `off script` the thing breaks down. Fail, restart and restart, even if you lived. Yeuck. The least imaginative of the two.

 

Same for me. It might be rose-tinted glasses but I miss the dynamic campaigns I remember playing in something like Falcon 3. Auto-generated missions may lack the depth of something handcrafted and scripted but I find they have much better replayability, which is far more important to me for the longevity of any game.

[Picchio]

The auto-generated missions in BOS/BOM are [...] not what an auto-generated missions career system should be.

 

 

Good point. Dynamic or not, an automated system should attempt to simulate an environment outside of the cockpit and I think this should be the main focus for single-player gameplay design. But its design choices shoud be supported by the game's general framework. Right now, if the player gets lost or decides not to stay on-course, what he sees is a just a desert map. Literally, even without buildings. The sense of place shatters quickly. I think what is needed is more basic content. I hope that "basic" here isn't just my opinion. PWCG introduced virtual flights: but without a properly thought out and well designed radio environment, their calls are just annoying and mostly useless.

Basic features that are the foundation of a rich gameplay experience in a combat flight simulator; what are they? What makes the atmosphere? Then again I hope we see some sort of change with the addition of ranks...

[LukeFF]

 

 

When intercepting bombers, you can get the mission success message by either shooting down one, or damaging two. Once yo get the message, just bug out. Damaging an aircraft is not as rewarding as destroying it, but at least your campaign will progress.

 

Yep, that's what I typically do, especially if there are enemy fighters around. I'll only hang around if I'm undamaged and no enemy fighters are in sight. 

[PatrickAWlson]

Good point. Dynamic or not, an automated system should attempt to simulate an environment outside of the cockpit and I think this should be the main focus for single-player gameplay design. But its design choices shoud be supported by the game's general framework. Right now, if the player gets lost or decides not to stay on-course, what he sees is a just a desert map. Literally, even without buildings. The sense of place shatters quickly. I think what is needed is more basic content. I hope that "basic" here isn't just my opinion. PWCG introduced virtual flights: but without a properly thought out and well designed radio environment, their calls are just annoying and mostly useless.

Basic features that are the foundation of a rich gameplay experience in a combat flight simulator; what are they? What makes the atmosphere? Then again I hope we see some sort of change with the addition of ranks...

 

Any mission creator, PWCG or other,  has the ability to create content across the entire front for every mission.  Every building, every squadron flying, every likely location with active ground units.  At least in the case of PWCG, it takes more effort to restrict content than to include all of it.  However, could even the best CPU handle 300 AI planes and 3000 AI ground units active at the same time? 

 

Radio activity in the ME is not something that I am familiar with.  I don't want to derail this thread but if you start a new one in the PWCG or - better - the mission creation forum we can talk about it.

[Picchio]

Pat, in regards of radio communications as a sound environment, what I meant is that it needs content on a much simpler level: more voice-overs, and less sterile. I don't mean that it's easy to do as whole, but an active and convincing radio environment just isn't there. And (perhaps) it's not there because it wasn't designed.

It's not directly related, but I remember a radio command being present during EA that basically told your AI flight to proceed autonomously with the mission. It worked because you could follow them without leading them. As for realism, I guess such a situation could present itself, when the leader decides to tell his wingman to take command. It didn't work because if you gave that command on the runway, they would start the take-off roll and those behing your aircraft would crash on yours. Then this command was removed entirely, instead of being adjusted/improved.

I agree that PWCG already does a lot, I wasn't discussing that. On the contrary, perhaps I expressed myself poorly but when I mentioned your virtual flights and units I meant them as a great and necessary feature, given how the engine is heavy on the CPU.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Picchio

[74_jim_nihilist]

Have you tried PWCG yet? It's not out for Moscow yet but it's a great addition to BoS.

I did. Extensively so. It is the only reason I still play BOS and bought BOM.

 

But I think the official campaign mode is not so far off from being good. But there is no immersion, no random element in the missions, every mission follows the same plan, there are no lull missions (which would make the more intense missions stand out). I welcome the mixed in scripted missions. But: Why can I chose my plane, why don't I have a Pilot Roster? PWCG does this, but not the official product? Is the old Campaign Generator in IL2 1946 so unreachable anyway?

 

Here's my list what I play:

 

1. IL2 1946

Even the old mission generator is fun and immersive. Sure the scale on which this game operates cannot be matched by modern games with all these Mods etc. Right now I play a campaign generator campaign from Boelcke. From Sitzkrieg to 1944. These are generated missions, but all in all it recreates the war. You feel progress all over.

 

2. IL2 Cliffs of Dover

I have all Desastersoft Add Ons, together with 2-3 User made campaigns. All are scripted and I have to say it is incredible to play them.

 

3. IL2 BOS/BOM

I dived deep into PWCG and I like it. The only thing I am missing is some feeling of overall progress. Just like in Boelckes campaigns. There is a beginning, a middle and an end instead of endless missions. I don't know how PWCG could create thise sense of time. You could change the settings after a certain date, but I don't know if the change reall would be felt enough? In war you have 3-4 sorties a day, often time over the same area and so on, then there is gear switching, because the Russians start their offense etc. pp.. In IL2 1946 even the briefings are really immersive.

 

I mean in my dreams we have a dynamic front and our missions reflect the moving of the front. For Germany it would be Air Superiority, which slowly deterioates, and in the end there is bad weather and we have to help support the troops. How would it be possible to recreate this with PWCG?

Edited May 25, 2016 by 74_jim_nihilist

[PatrickAWlson]

Since I'm a WWI guy and PWCG is directly derived from RoF I had never looked into radio usage.  If radio messages can be tied to events in the ME then relevant (as opposed to random) radio chatter could be done.

 

Taking it further, I wonder is something could be done to create dynamic events in a mission.  What I mean is this - let's say I have a flight in the mission that could act as reinforcements.  The problem is that you never know where you might be needed.  I could see something like this:

 

1. Create radio call.

2. Links to Spawn flight

3. Links to dynamic way point  - the source of the radio call.

 

The flight spawns and proceeds to the dynamic WP - i.e. the source of the radio call.  Even in WWI such things happened.  Squadrons were linked to the front by telephone.  When a flight crossed overhead the infantry would place a call and the scouts would take off for an intercept.  Same concept.  The necessary mission editor capabilities would be to create a special WP with a dynamic location where the location is based on the source of another event.

 

Just more thinking out loud.

[74_jim_nihilist]

Just more thinking out loud.

That sounds mouth watering.