Simple Suggestions for the coming SP Campaign

[74_jim_nihilist]

I thought it would be cool to collect what Players think makes or breaks a SP campaign.

 

For a start: I still play IL2 1946 and still enjoy the dynamicly created campaigns (and maybe one can take a leaf out of that book, because it works quite well). I don't want to overwhelm the developers, I merely want to point them in the right direction when they create this new feature. Maybe they thought already about this, maybe it is something they can take away for there work. So many things are already there, some simple ideas could enhance these things.

 

This list will contain some obvious points, but I find it important to give a comprehensive list.

 

What I am looking for in a campaign is...

 

UNCERTAINTY

I don't want to know what will happen. I don't want to get a briefing and find only at my destination 3 or 4 planes like it is now. I want to get intercepted or find something different at any point in my flight. Let me search an area, give me overwhelming opposition, maybe none. When I take off I take off into an adventure, into uncertainty - this is the thinking.

 

PROGRESS

The frontline. It would be mighty fine if something is happening, because of my actions or to give me a glimpse of the bigger picture. It doesn't have to be spectacular, but a campaign is basically a storymode. The frontline even can progress automatically for all it is worth, but I have to get a sense that I am part of the bigger picture.

 

VARIABILITY

Patrol, Scramble, Recon, Interception, Escort. Many missions are already implemented, some missions which aren't there would be nice to have. Some missions can get more interesting to give you context in your briefing (it is that simple!). e.g. You have to escort YU52s on a paradrop and this drop is important because some pilots got stranded etc. pp.

 

Maybe the devs can look into warhamms Career Generator tool, because this gives a nice array of different missions.

 

FLOW

This is maybe difficult, but every story has highs and lows. At one point your airfield gets attacked 3 times a day. And after that you have to stop ground forces which want to finish the job. After that the enemy is recollecting himself und you fly maybe a fighter sweep or some recon missions. Let the campaign have something of an AI director which steers the flow of the missions. (It is something I am missing deeply in PWCG).

 

AI

Okay, more commands for my AI wingmen would be nice, BUT this is maybe too complex. My point is: through using PWCG players found some problematic AI behaviour. I know it is difficult, but maybe these things can be fixed? Or looked into?

Edited October 3, 2016 by 74_jim_nihilist

[Bando]

What I also like to see (as it gives a much better immersion -IMHO-) is destroyed buildings are still destroyed the next day.

I hope there's some sort of tracking possible.

Say you get a mission to bomb a bridge, you hit it, the next day it is still (partially) destroyed, but after about a few days it may be (or not) restored and one has to bomb it again.

Same for hangars and such.

[PatrickAWlson]

Per the AI: my biggest suggestion that would add to the sense of immersion would be a sense of survival.  They should do what real pilots did - go home.  I think this might frustrate some players who want to kill, kill, kill but I personally would love to see damaged AI make a meaningful attempt at escape, and do so early and often.

 

One step further, and this is only a few integers and some simple math, give the AI a rudimentary personality described by maybe a half dozen numbers and then factor that into the decision making process.  I am not talking about a Watson like decision tree.  Just some numbers and virtual dice rolls to mix things up a bit.

What I also like to see (as it gives a much better immersion -IMHO-) is destroyed buildings are still destroyed the next day.

I hope there's some sort of tracking possible.

Say you get a mission to bomb a bridge, you hit it, the next day it is still (partially) destroyed, but after about a few days it may be (or not) restored and one has to bomb it again.

Same for hangars and such.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but at the moment I do not think that destroyed buildings are logged.  However, it would not be hard to do.  The information exists.

[=CFC=Conky]

Per the AI: my biggest suggestion that would add to the sense of immersion would be a sense of survival.  They should do what real pilots did - go home.  I think this might frustrate some players who want to kill, kill, kill but I personally would love to see damaged AI make a meaningful attempt at escape, and do so early and often.

 

One step further, and this is only a few integers and some simple math, give the AI a rudimentary personality described by maybe a half dozen numbers and then factor that into the decision making process.  I am not talking about a Watson like decision tree.  Just some numbers and virtual dice rolls to mix things up a bit.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but at the moment I do not think that destroyed buildings are logged.  However, it would not be hard to do.  The information exists.

 

 

Hi Pat,

 

Having the ai try to leave the battle area due to damage, fuel and/or ammo state etc, would indeed be a good feature, another would be getting credit for a 'mission kill', i.e. getting attack aircraft/bombers to jettison their ordnance before reaching their target. In the 'old' IL2 you would get points for defending successfully, not all missions are offensive in nature.

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

[Jade_Monkey]

Per the AI: my biggest suggestion that would add to the sense of immersion would be a sense of survival.  They should do what real pilots did - go home.  I think this might frustrate some players who want to kill, kill, kill but I personally would love to see damaged AI make a meaningful attempt at escape, and do so early and often.

Isnt there a setting for that, where the AI returns home when damaged. I dont have the ME in front of me but i could have sworn that already exists.

[PatrickAWlson]

There

 

Isnt there a setting for that, where the AI returns home when damaged. I dont have the ME in front of me but i could have sworn that already exists.

 

There is for a certain percentage of damage and I use it.  Doesn't seem to work as I would have hoped.  I would like to see the AI break off far earlier anyway, like when it is in a bad situation regardless of damage taken.

[Feathered_IV]

Variability in the briefings is extremely important too.  Half of the immersion and replayability in a good campaign is generated before you even hit the Fly button.

One set of briefing text for every escort mission for example becomes boring after half a dozen flights.  After a dozen it becomes irritating.

A mission briefing needs a preamble, a description, an information packet of specifics and a conclusion.  The preamble and conclusion should have several versions written and the mission chooses one of these at random to display.  Even better by an order of magnitude if the text is accessible to the user so that they can refine and add even more variations to the randomised preamble and conclusions, thus creating the feel of a dynamic and changing narrative. 

[I/JG27_Rollo]

No more must-achieve mission goals

If ranks and medals are still dependent on some kind of (visible or not) XP-system in the envisioned career mode, please loosen the 0 XP failure states which in the current campaign mode come with things like:

- crash landing in friendly territory (or even landing damaged on a friendly airfield) after killing 3 enemy attack planes (yes, the plane needs some major repairs but the pilot is alive and has done a lot of damage to the enemy - no reason to come out with 0 "XP" for that)

- not shooting down at least one enemy attack plane but coming home with 4 fighter kills (again, pilot alive, aircraft fine and damage done to the enemy - just not that particular flight of attack planes - no reason to come out with "0 XP" because "misison failure")

 

Sure, losing your entire flight including your own aircraft after bailing out should not be rewarded (quite the contrary) but the conditions/definitions of "mission success" should be re-evaluated for the career mode.

[Cybermat47]

On the topic of the AI retreating, this is actually one of the thing CloD got right. If a fight's going badly, the AI will pull out - the lower the skill, the more likely they are to retreat.

[Picchio]

A convincing radio and communications environment is nearly essential to me.

Past IL-2 games might not be the best example (also because i haven't played them in years), but for what I can remember they were good, and had a lot more going than what's in BoS, which is very, very basic.

Positive examples are also provided by BoB2, often forgotten...

Good comms should go hand in hand with good combat AI. If both are done right, they can add so much to the experience.

Simple? I don't know...

Edited October 4, 2016 by Picchio

[Feathered_IV]

Picchio, on 04 Oct 2016 - 20:28, said:

A convincing radio and communications environment is nearly essential to me.

Past IL-2 games might not be the best example (also because i haven't played them in years), but for what I can remember they were good, and had a lot more going than what's in BoS, which is very, very basic.

Positive examples are also provided by BoB2, often forgotten...

Good comms should go hand in hand with good combat AI. If both are done right, they can add so much to the experience.

Simple? I don't know...

 

I completely agree!

 

A singleplayer needs to come away from a game feeling like they were a part of something.  The most effective way to do this is with believable and well crafted voices and communications.  Ambient radio chatter has a huge role to play too.  It creates the sense of their being other units near and far, and embeds the player in the in-game world.  It's also cost effective, user friendly immersion, as it works just as well for high as well as low end computers.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

A note about ambient radio chatter, from what I read Soviet units (in 1943-1944 at least) used different independent frequencies for each operation. In other words, a fighter and a bomber squadron would only be on the same channel if the mission involved the fighters escorting the bombers. After that mission was over, the fighter unit's radio specialists would then tune the radios back to the usual frequency used by the fighter unit.

 

Considering how Soviet fighter operations were usually carried out when independent of bombers (fighter division commander in a ground control dugout relaying important information via radio to fighters on duty), one can speculate that either all fighters of the division were on the same channel, or the ground control changed frequency briefly when getting in touch with other subordinate units. Either way, it limited the scope of ambient radio chatter considerably.

[Feathered_IV]

I understand, thanks Lucas.  I was thinking of areas like  the Stalingrad front when there were something in the region of two million combatants and a fair amount of crossover in radio frequencies of air and ground units might be expected.

[csThor]

I understand, thanks Lucas.  I was thinking of areas like  the Stalingrad front when there were something in the region of two million combatants and a fair amount of crossover in radio frequencies of air and ground units might be expected.

 

That's actually a misconception as different radio sets operated on very different frequencies. For example in the Luftwaffe fighter aircraft were unable to communicate with bombers because both had different sets of radio equipment installed that operated on two different frequencies. The same applies to air-ground radio communication. In reality it were only dedicated Forward Air Controllers who could talk directly with aircraft crews - if they had the right radio equipment and the right frequencies. 

 

In general armies spend considerable resources on "bringing some kind of order" to radio communications as an overloaded frequency and a chaotic contest between various users will not be able to accurately and timely transport the really important stuff.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

An example of workarounds for consistent radio comms, from that one interview with Nikolai Golodnikov:

 

"It [the Tomahawk] had a good radio set. Powerful, reliable, but on HF. When he began flying in a Tomahawk, Safonov had a Hurricane radio installed because half of his regiment was still flying Hurricanes, which had UHF radios. So he flew with two radios. [...] These foreign radio sets were light. The receiver and transmitter together weighed perhaps 15—20 kilos."

 

A good way to keep the ambience there without would be to introduce radio chatter within the flight. From banalities like a bad joke while en route followed by a reprimand from the flight leader, to more extravagant cases such as Vadim Faddeev's stunt singing the Eugene Onegin opera during heated air combat, clogging up the frequency in the process. Or a wingman reporting that the engine is acting up, waiting a few minutes then updating that everything appears normal and he will continue with the mission.

[Feathered_IV]

Definitely something is needed to give the illusion of there being a wider world out there.

[seafireliv]

The reason I haven`t pre-ordered Kuban is because I received an e-mail saying the SP Campiagn was scripted. NO! Many us like to play SP and a SP that is dynamic and plays out like a real war, with some unpredictability of both sides, plus a realistic ranking system and missions allocated to you once you`ve chosen your career. No choosing mission afterwards, ie, you get a fighter mission as a fighter, you do it, a fighter bombing mission, so be it or sit it out. Do i really have to explain this?

 

If they can`t give us a good dynamic SP campaign, then I can`t pre-order. Do your bit Devs, and I`ll do mine.

Edited October 4, 2016 by seafireliv

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Actually seafireliv, you will have both a scripted and a dynamic campaign. The main campaign, the dynamic one, will work very much like you want. Here are the relevant snippets from DD132:

 

 

The most important thing is that Career mode is being developed not only for the Battle of Kuban, it will replace the current Moscow and Stalingrad campaigns as well.

 

[...]Each player can have several personages for different sides and different phases.

 

[...]Your personage will serve in a selected squadron day by day and the outcome of previous missions will influence the next ones. [...] each aircraft and AI pilot in your squadron will be tracked. Pilots can be lost in action and new ones will join the squadron while damaged aircraft will require time to be repaired. All pilots of the squadron, both player and AI ones, will have a personal combat score and receive new ranks based on it.

 

[...]Squadron commander can plan new missions, correcting a flight path and assigning aircraft and pilots to carry it out.

 

It will be possible to apply for transfer to another squadron, allowing a personage to change his aircraft and combat role (fighter, ground attack or bomber pilot) in the same career. Another significant change is that there will be historical military awards and ranks.

 

[...]the mission generator will be an improved version of the current IL-2 one, resulting in much more rich environment and diverse combat situations that were possible in Rise of Flight. In addition, the current work of our engineer department on physics optimizations is aimed at increasing the number of aircraft in a mission, so the new Career will feature more intense and rich missions compared not only to RoF, but to the current IL-2 campaigns as well.

[PatrickAWlson]

On the topic of the AI retreating, this is actually one of the thing CloD got right. If a fight's going badly, the AI will pull out - the lower the skill, the more likely they are to retreat.

 

I think that it can be taken to another level with a fairly simple algorithm.  A few parameters: skill, caution, etc.  Come up with a list of possibilities and a list of fighting styles.  

 

Examples:

A highly skilled, highly cautious pilot (possibly the most effective kind) will make a single pass or two and exit.  

An unskilled, cautious pilot (probably the worst kind) will generally be unaware.  When made aware he will usually use simple maneuvers not near the plane's envelope.

A highly skilled, very reckless pilot will throw his plane into the fight and stay there until it is done.  This is the guy that will use the full range of aerobatics in a fight.

An unskilled, very reckless pilot will also throw his plane into the fight and stay there until it is done - he just won't look very good doing it.

 

Two values.  Give them a range and not a simple binary, throw in some virtual dice rolls, add a state machine to avoid decision thrashing, and you have something.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Nice idea, Pat. It would be useful to have wingmen initially follow the leader's routine despite their personal combination, and only go about things their own way if the leader disengages or is shot down.

[PatrickAWlson]

Actually seafireliv, you will have both a scripted and a dynamic campaign. The main campaign, the dynamic one, will work very much like you want. Here are the relevant snippets from DD132:

 

 

The most important thing is that Career mode is being developed not only for the Battle of Kuban, it will replace the current Moscow and Stalingrad campaigns as well.

 

[...]Each player can have several personages for different sides and different phases.

 

[...]Your personage will serve in a selected squadron day by day and the outcome of previous missions will influence the next ones. [...] each aircraft and AI pilot in your squadron will be tracked. Pilots can be lost in action and new ones will join the squadron while damaged aircraft will require time to be repaired. All pilots of the squadron, both player and AI ones, will have a personal combat score and receive new ranks based on it.

 

[...]Squadron commander can plan new missions, correcting a flight path and assigning aircraft and pilots to carry it out.

 

It will be possible to apply for transfer to another squadron, allowing a personage to change his aircraft and combat role (fighter, ground attack or bomber pilot) in the same career. Another significant change is that there will be historical military awards and ranks.

 

[...]the mission generator will be an improved version of the current IL-2 one, resulting in much more rich environment and diverse combat situations that were possible in Rise of Flight. In addition, the current work of our engineer department on physics optimizations is aimed at increasing the number of aircraft in a mission, so the new Career will feature more intense and rich missions compared not only to RoF, but to the current IL-2 campaigns as well.

 

 

 

 

Sounds familiar

[Picchio]

My interpretation might be wrong but I think that what seafireliv intends as dynamic is that the battlefield registers what happens during missions, e.g.:an important bridge, once destroyed, remains destroyed and causes these or those forces to find a different route. A raided airfield carries signs of bombardment and perhaps its operational capabilities in the area become hampered. Etcetera...

This, I think, could be the core of something truly innovative... especially because nobody really tries (and risks) that anymore.

 

And regarding radio comms, what Lucas said is pretty much what I think too. Then I would like to hear that kind of chatter become meaningful during combat. These silent machines are just that and they are not suited for resembling real pilots. Give them voice!

Edited October 4, 2016 by Picchio

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

That's what I understood by "the outcome of previous missions will influence the next ones". Situations like failing to protect your airbase from air attack decrease the number of aircraft available, or killing an enemy ace strikes one ace-level enemy for the rest of the campaign, or indeed the bridge example. It would be great if they could clarify that point, since there appears to be confusion

[hames123]

How about they make the ground support missions more dynamic? Change the number of tanks and AT guns every time you are on a ground support mission. Have tank on tank battles, or have the player hunt and kill AT guns to allow friendly tanks to advance without being knocked out(currently, the player is always on the defending side, and never on the attackers). Change the type of guns(add a screen of Marders to help the AT guns) and the type of tanks(there should not be Panzer 38ts near Stalingrad, replace them with Panzer 3s). Since the air war on the Eastern Front was about supporting the troops on the ground, they should make ground support missions and intercepting ground attackers much more interesting.

[Grancesc]

All campaigns (BOS1, BOS2, BOM) are from level 12 upwards unplayable.

 

- Enemy AI-fighters shoot you down from impossible lead angles
- AAA hits you with the first salvo shooting from a fast moving train
- Both enemy AAA and AI-fighters can see through clouds and will get you
- Gang attacks! All enemy AI-aircraft (also IL-2 tank busters) dogfight you
- Pe-2 have superhuman snipers as rear gunners. They always kill you even when their own Pe-2 is on fire, wrapped in thick smoke and doing fierce evasive maneuvers
- The own wing men do not react to radio commands and will let themselve shoot down

 

I couldn't imagine to be in a more unrealistic environment than that. It is only to be hoped that all of this will be sorted out in the new BOK campaign.

[Zippy-do-dar]

One simple thing I'd like to see is having to start from parked position every mission

Edited February 26, 2017 by Zippy-do-dar

[kendo]

 

All campaigns (BOS1, BOS2, BOM) are from level 12 upwards unplayable.

 

- Enemy AI-fighters shoot you down from impossible lead angles

- AAA hits you with the first salvo shooting from a fast moving train

- Both enemy AAA and AI-fighters can see through clouds and will get you

- Gang attacks! All enemy AI-aircraft (also IL-2 tank busters) dogfight you

- Pe-2 have superhuman snipers as rear gunners. They always kill you even when their own Pe-2 is on fire, wrapped in thick smoke and doing fierce evasive maneuvers

- The own wing men do not react to radio commands and will let themselve shoot down

 

I couldn't imagine to be in a more unrealistic environment than that. It is only to be hoped that all of this will be sorted out in the new BOK campaign.

 

 

The whole level and xp system is being scrapped. Jason has said so.

 

And hopefully the AI ganging issue will be fixed in next update - Han said they will work on it.

 

Was talk also of introducing G effects on gunner's aiming. Not known when exactly but it's on the 'to do' list.

Edited February 26, 2017 by kendo

[Sokol1]

On the topic of the AI retreating, this is actually one of the thing CloD got right. If a fight's going badly, the AI will pull out - the lower the skill, the more likely they are to retreat.

 

The ones used to "fight until bitter end" mentality will disagree: 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/27889-future-ai-aggression-make-sods-realise-war/

Edited February 26, 2017 by Sokol1

[Ribbon]

 

UNCERTAINTY

I don't want to know what will happen. I don't want to get a briefing and find only at my destination 3 or 4 planes like it is now. I want to get intercepted or find something different at any point in my flight. Let me search an area, give me overwhelming opposition, maybe none. When I take off I take off into an adventure, into uncertainty - this is the thinking.

 

PROGRESS

The frontline. It would be mighty fine if something is happening, because of my actions or to give me a glimpse of the bigger picture. It doesn't have to be spectacular, but a campaign is basically a storymode. The frontline even can progress automatically for all it is worth, but I have to get a sense that I am part of the bigger picture.

 

First one is great idea, just great, this is must have! +65739835424354rep

Second one is limited due to performance isuee, to much AI on one spot and fps will dip to the ground

[Sokol1]

A note about ambient radio chatter, from what I read Soviet units (in 1943-1944 at least) used different independent frequencies for each operation. In other words, a fighter and a bomber squadron would only be on the same channel if the mission involved the fighters escorting the bombers. After that mission was over, the fighter unit's radio specialists would then tune the radios back to the usual frequency used by the fighter unit.

 

B of B Eagle Day Luftwaffe early morning cock-up is due the fighters - who received cancellation message - aren't able do talk with bombers, since both use different frequencies.