Jump to content
Praetor

Can we talk about Career Mode/Dynamic Campaign?

Recommended Posts

I agree that the idea that the player's actions have any noticeable impact on the war at all is completely unrealistic, with very rare exceptions. You would not want to have sink the same aircraft carrier twice, for example, something the Pacific Career will have to account for if we make it that far, shoot down Yamamoto or atom bomb Hiroshima two days running.

 

But in the context of tactical air support for a massive ground war, no. A Soviet Tank Brigade at full strength might have over 60 T34s. During major offensives they massed several together supported by hundreds of guns, all on a relatively small front.  What each pilot does makes a difference - but not a difference detectable by that pilot. Hence why people in such battles feel like a cog in a machine.  Bomb a bridge and the engineers rebuild it overnight - that is their job. That is why targets like bridges have to be repeatedly attacked.

 

If you make a career that is very logical, in the sense that if you the player destroy X, then Y happens in game, it starts to feel like a puzzle to me, rather than a simulation.

 

On a related issue: I wish the scripted campaign makers would just leave out mission success criteria altogether. It irritates me immensely having to refly missions, irrespective of why. Up to them how they design of course - but if I have to restart a mission more than twice I tend just to stop and give up on the campaign. Career mode does not do this (it had better not ;)) which is why I prefer it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even without lavishing reams of top secret information in the briefings or tackling them in a terse, grunting missionary position, there are ways of making them more engaging to the modern reader.

 

Have more than one briefing template for each mission type. Let them hint at a broader story, but ensure they are deliberately sparing in the broader details so that the players own mind fills in the blanks and they do not become prey to repetition.

 

We are performing an armed reconnaissance in sector ****. Several aircraft from a neighbouring units were dispatched earlier, but none returned and the task has now fallen to us...

 

The enemy is resuming rail transport within our sector...

 

Several airfields in our sector have been raided over the last few days. Today we will be returning the favour...

 

Etc etc. A little bit goes a long way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even without lavishing reams of top secret information in the briefings or tackling them in a terse, grunting missionary position, there are ways of making them more engaging to the modern reader.

 

Have more than one briefing template for each mission type. Let them hint at a broader story, but ensure they are deliberately sparing in the broader details so that the players own mind fills in the blanks and they do not become prey to repetition.

 

We are performing an armed reconnaissance in sector ****. Several aircraft from a neighbouring units were dispatched earlier, but none returned and the task has now fallen to us...

 

The enemy is resuming rail transport within our sector...

 

Several airfields in our sector have been raided over the last few days. Today we will be returning the favour...

 

Etc etc. A little bit goes a long way.

 

Or, my personal favorite from the original IL2's career mode:

 

"Artists are arriving by rail."  :biggrin:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, my personal favorite from the original IL2's career mode:

 

"Artists are arriving by rail." :biggrin:

Lol :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A) Red Baron or ROF style career: the player role-plays a pilot. In this case missions can be randomly generated, maybe like Pat said linking the type of mission to the specific historical situation. Persistence of the game world is not necessary, or can be limited to a roster of pilot names in the squadron. If you bomb a bridge one day, maybe the next you are doing a fighter sweep somewhere else, so you won't necessarily notice the bridge is still standing...

 

B) Falcon 4 or BOB dynamic campaign: the player is both a pilot and a strategic commander. The player, after being presented with the strategic information, may accept the mission proposed by the campaign management module or change its type and objective or choose a different mission altogether. Then the player flies the mission. After the mission the player reviews and assesses again the strategic information and a new cycle begins. This requires persistence of the game world, and an underlying strategy game mechanics, however simplified (actually the simpler the better, IMO).

 

In MP servers, like TAW or Finnish Virtual Pilots, we have a situation like B) above. The player is presented with a strategic situation with specific goals and plans his mission accordingly. The sense of accomplishment, if the mission is successful, is so much greater because the effects are readily apparent in the changes of the strategic situation in the following map/mission.

 

Of course one may not be interested in taking in the strategic information and planning the missions, but for me this is a great part of the enjoyment, and judging by the success of those MP servers, I'm not alone. 

 

A) is fine and will be well received, but B) is where flight sim nirvana is found :)

Edited by Nibbio
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nibbio - Good summary of the types, even if I would rather have A for flight sims and B -  the operational planning side - in the form of a well crafted war-game, without having sim missions at all.  A matter of taste of course.

 

Anyway, I think the Career mode is going to be A like, as was RoF's, the B type is much harder to program I believe.

 

We shall see. Personally I am fine with it coming out a few weeks late as I am too busy until December to devote full attention to a career, and it will really help the title if the initial release is just about right first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nibbio - Good summary of the types, even if I would rather have A for flight sims and B -  the operational planning side - in the form of a well crafted war-game, without having sim missions at all.  A matter of taste of course.

 

Anyway, I think the Career mode is going to be A like, as was RoF's, the B type is much harder to program I believe.

 

We shall see. Personally I am fine with it coming out a few weeks late as I am too busy until December to devote full attention to a career, and it will really help the title if the initial release is just about right first time.

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure we'll be getting an A) type career. Which is fine, of course, and I'm sure it will have interesting features and will exceed our expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not notice three tanks knocked out but I just used it as an example. What about the progressive destruction of Stalingrad flying as a 111 or 88 pilot? Or bridges? Oil refineries, docks, and other strategic targets?

 

That's why I said the career mode sounds more like a logbook. I was hoping for a BMS style campaign described above, but I'll enjoy the career mode too. I like TAW because your missions have strategic value -- there is an importance to your flight rather than generating stats for your logbook.

 

The possibility of having career tracking with a BMS style campaign in a WWII setting is my steam sim. Allow it to be played cooperatively with good AI and I would probably lose my job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not notice three tanks knocked out but I just used it as an example. What about the progressive destruction of Stalingrad flying as a 111 or 88 pilot? Or bridges? Oil refineries, docks, and other strategic targets?

 

That's why I said the career mode sounds more like a logbook. I was hoping for a BMS style campaign described above, but I'll enjoy the career mode too. I like TAW because your missions have strategic value -- there is an importance to your flight rather than generating stats for your logbook.

 

The possibility of having career tracking with a BMS style campaign in a WWII setting is my steam sim. Allow it to be played cooperatively with good AI and I would probably lose my job.

 

I do agree that persistent tracking of ground structures does provide value.  IMHO tracking the status of your squadron's equipment also provides value.  Even tracking former squadron mates adds value, so if you transfer out and transfer back in they might still be there.  For a career style campaign I think that's about it.  I do not see the value in tracking ground units and other squadrons.  Per previous comments, I really don't think the player would notice.  

 

For a Falcon 4 style dynamic campaign we're back to the mode where your actions are extrapolated over the larger campaign.  In that scenario you have to track everything.

 

Both are fun and they can be combined.  It is possible to write a campaign where you play a career and also influence the larger outcome.  BoB kind of did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there not a debrief or config file generated at the end of every mission that could be used to generate the conditions of the next mission? Or does it not log the coords of destroyed static targets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would sureley bet the greatest if you could join a friend as a wingman on one of his missions. COOP in Campaign, so to say.

Probably very hard to implement properly though for the effort it costs?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would sureley bet the greatest if you could join a friend as a wingman on one of his missions. COOP in Campaign, so to say.

Probably very hard to implement properly though for the effort it costs?

 

Now that might even get me to consider MP finally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that's exciting about the BMS campaign is you never know what you'll run into. There's a whole war going on around you. Another flight can be calling for help near you when you're on your way to your target. Do you stop to help them and forget your target? You always have these sort of decisions to make and you never know what your mission will turn into.

 

This is where scripted missions fail. They get too boring after awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is present even in the current campaign though. I always ran into a small or large enemy group on my way to and from the target and I need to decide if to engage or sneak past them and live with the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that persistent tracking of ground structures does provide value. IMHO tracking the status of your squadron's equipment also provides value. Even tracking former squadron mates adds value, so if you transfer out and transfer back in they might still be there. For a career style campaign I think that's about it. I do not see the value in tracking ground units and other squadrons. Per previous comments, I really don't think the player would notice.

 

For a Falcon 4 style dynamic campaign we're back to the mode where your actions are extrapolated over the larger campaign. In that scenario you have to track everything.

 

Both are fun and they can be combined. It is possible to write a campaign where you play a career and also influence the larger outcome. BoB kind of did that.

Tracking big push/battle to level of ground units would be nice to have - if that big battle would last few days/weeks. Just some major events during time of career, not need for in all ordinary missions . Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Lucas but with a scripted mission that flight will always be there. Fly it more than once and you know where everyone is at any given time. BMS is truly dynamic. Endless replayability because there us no replaying of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the missions won't be scripted in this campaign, they'll be generated dynamically according to the status of your unit and what was happening in real life during that period of time, which personally is what an immersing experience is about (reproducing the war like it happened).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is present even in the current campaign though. I always ran into a small or large enemy group on my way to and from the target and I need to decide if to engage or sneak past them and live with the consequences.

 

Yes, but would it affect the war? Would you get credit for it? Isn't your success or failure based on your mission? Would you accept failure on your mission to help someone else in trouble? 

 

 You think different during a DC compared to scripted missions. You're trying to win a war instead of succeeding in a mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BuzzU, I play the current campaign like you mentioned. If I can save a friendly, then I will put my ass on the line. Die but save your comrade, like Suvorov said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short questions about carrer mode. Will experienced AI pilots in your own squadron really be better then rookies? Will pilots have moral or will they all fight to death? It would be very disappointing to fly every mission with new roster because they all died last missions. Will aces have KI bonus? Is fighting together or against aces an option?

 

I would love to have a stable roster of pilots in my squadron, relative independently from my own actions starting with the lowest rang. What is you experience with RoF, does your wingmen tend to stay alive or is every mission ending with death or mia of many pilots. Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that persistent tracking of ground structures does provide value.  IMHO tracking the status of your squadron's equipment also provides value.  Even tracking former squadron mates adds value, so if you transfer out and transfer back in they might still be there.  For a career style campaign I think that's about it.  I do not see the value in tracking ground units and other squadrons.  Per previous comments, I really don't think the player would notice.  

 

For a Falcon 4 style dynamic campaign we're back to the mode where your actions are extrapolated over the larger campaign.  In that scenario you have to track everything.

 

Both are fun and they can be combined.  It is possible to write a campaign where you play a career and also influence the larger outcome.  BoB kind of did that.

 

C'mon Pat we know you want to do it... :biggrin:

Wish I had your programming skills and enough time on my hands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BuzzU, I play the current campaign like you mentioned. If I can save a friendly, then I will put my ass on the line. Die but save your comrade, like Suvorov said.

 

Feels good huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally I think there is excessive pressure on the developers about many things. There is only so much a small team can do, the community needs to have a little bit of imagination or just take some things into their hands, the devs can't do everything without some work from the other end.

 

For example, they cannot create a fully dynamic campaign which is more expensive and won't please everyone when they have a base to work from in their RoF campaign mode. Those who want an authentic experience can fly those missions with the mindset that your actions matter, and in the end if you let your flight die every time there will be consequences. I flew a great scripted campaign in 1946 some years ago and made it an awesome experience by writing a pilot's diary as I flew, making a roster of pilots and all that, without replaying missions in case of objective failed and instead moving onto the next one. Great stuff, turned it into a short novel in the end.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think many of us are insisting on feature A or B rather just discussing what we'd like in an ideal world.

 

I, for one will be happy with whatever they give us. Whatever it is, it'll be an unexpected bonus.

 

Once we get the limited modding, we'll help where we can. I plan to make English cockpits for those who want them for example, as soon as the textures are unlocked.

 

Hopefully the rest of us are like minded!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Lucas but with a scripted mission that flight will always be there. Fly it more than once and you know where everyone is at any given time. BMS is truly dynamic. Endless replayability because there us no replaying of anything.

You don't understand the power of our mission editor.

I can place any number of randomized entities if I wish, both flights and ground targets.

 

Now I may also wish to have things play out in an exact, choreographed manner for the sake of effect/drama.

I do this quite a bit so that I can maximize the player experience. However I can also design a mission that can play out differently even if you fly it 10 times. Testing those types of missions is tough, but it's possible.

 

When I get to designing a fighter oriented campaign rather than mud-moving, I'll make more use of randomized flights.

Right now it's more useful to placed random shipping and convoys.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't expect they could do a real dynamic campaign like what BMS has. DCS has a lot more resources and they won't even try.

 

A career mode will be good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short questions about carrer mode. Will experienced AI pilots in your own squadron really be better then rookies? Will pilots have moral or will they all fight to death? It would be very disappointing to fly every mission with new roster because they all died last missions. Will aces have KI bonus? Is fighting together or against aces an option?

 

I would love to have a stable roster of pilots in my squadron, relative independently from my own actions starting with the lowest rang. What is you experience with RoF, does your wingmen tend to stay alive or is every mission ending with death or mia of many pilots. Thx

 

The way RoF works is that AI pilots gain experience as their sorties and kills increase - which in game terms can only be reflected in the air by the AI skill rating.  One of the game balance issues is how hard the AI will fight. My own view is that a fair number of pilots refused combat if they were in an unfavourable position - quite right too. Then again some were aggressive maniacs.

 

Unfortunately, if the game AI often refuses to engage, many players complain: after all they are really there to have fun and have a fight, not really to simulate the experience of being a fighter pilot including all the no contact or no engagement missions. So then the developers program the AI to fight on with too little regard for it's own safety. Which annoys a different set of people. In RoF the death toll in the AI was appalling - would have made the RFC look like a bunch of Health and Safety inspectors by comparison.

 

The answer to this is to use options, sliders or whatever to adjust these parameters as far as the underlying game mechanics allow.  RoF Career did not allow this, unfortunately, so it is hard to get much realism unless you are flying solo, and it is still has some silly AI bugs especially on take off and landing. Plus 2-seaters firing through the floor of their aircraft - unless you used mods.To be fair this is also down to the player to an extent, if he is flight leader, not to get his flight into a situation where they will get wiped out. 

 

I hope BoS Career will be better, some of the AI routines that did not work well in RoF -  like landing after a RTB order - seem to  work well in BoS,  but issues like the wingmen running off without orders still need sorting out. Additionally I think that the flak AI needs a tweak. It is far too accurate in the game, as it was in RoF. This might be OK to stop people hanging around bases in MP, but can render SP completely pointless. 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way RoF works is that AI pilots gain experience as their sorties and kills increase - which in game terms can only be reflected in the air by the AI skill rating.  One of the game balance issues is how hard the AI will fight. My own view is that a fair number of pilots refused combat if they were in an unfavourable position - quite right too. Then again some were aggressive maniacs.

 

Unfortunately, if the game AI often refuses to engage, many players complain: after all they are really there to have fun and have a fight, not really to simulate the experience of being a fighter pilot including all the no contact or no engagement missions. So then the developers program the AI to fight on with too little regard for it's own safety. Which annoys a different set of people. In RoF the death toll in the AI was appalling - would have made the RFC look like a bunch of Health and Safety inspectors by comparison.

 

The answer to this is to use options, sliders or whatever to adjust these parameters as far as the underlying game mechanics allow.  RoF Career did not allow this, unfortunately, so it is hard to get much realism unless you are flying solo, and it is still has some silly AI bugs especially on take off and landing. Plus 2-seaters firing through the floor of their aircraft - unless you used mods.To be fair this is also down to the player to an extent, if he is flight leader, not to get his flight into a situation where they will get wiped out. 

 

I hope BoS Career will be better, some of the AI routines that did not work well in RoF -  like landing after a RTB order - seem to  work well in BoS,  but issues like the wingmen running off without orders still need sorting out. Additionally I think that the flak AI needs a tweak. It is far too accurate in the game, as it was in RoF. This might be OK to stop people hanging around bases in MP, but can render SP completely pointless. 

 

Thx for answering and your detailed point of view  :salute:

Edited by JG27_Steini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't expect they could do a real dynamic campaign like what BMS has. DCS has a lot more resources and they won't even try.

 

No one has ever tried after Rowan's BOB and Microprose Falcon 4. It's been kind of uncharted territory since the 90's.

 

Some of you may find this interesting, it's a 2011 interview with Kevin Klemmick, the programmer who was responsible for Falcon 4 dynamic campaign engine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120622184501/http://www.cleared-to-engage.com:80/2011/03/12/interview-with-kevin-klemmick-lead-software-engineer-for-falcon-4-0/

 

Also the source code for Rowan's Battle of Britain is available here:

http://www.remaininplay.com/showgame/Battle%20of%20Britain/

Edited by Nibbio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say Rowan's Mig Alley is a better model for an East Front campaign, tactical air-support oriented. Plane losses tracked so you would be scraping the bottom of the barrel to get a mission together after taking losses. One neat feature was that you would have MiG squadrons rotate in of various skill levels, from poorly trained to Russian flown "honchos" all with unique skins. When the latter showed up in their red-nosed jets you would really pay attention! Multiple mission types from fighter sweeps to CAS, armed recon, bridge strikes, depot raids,  etc. Yes you could "win" the war but that could be turned off or minimized in a newer iteration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way RoF works is that AI pilots gain experience as their sorties and kills increase - which in game terms can only be reflected in the air by the AI skill rating.  One of the game balance issues is how hard the AI will fight. My own view is that a fair number of pilots refused combat if they were in an unfavourable position - quite right too. Then again some were aggressive maniacs.

 

Unfortunately, if the game AI often refuses to engage, many players complain: after all they are really there to have fun and have a fight, not really to simulate the experience of being a fighter pilot including all the no contact or no engagement missions. So then the developers program the AI to fight on with too little regard for it's own safety. Which annoys a different set of people. In RoF the death toll in the AI was appalling - would have made the RFC look like a bunch of Health and Safety inspectors by comparison.

 

The answer to this is to use options, sliders or whatever to adjust these parameters as far as the underlying game mechanics allow.  RoF Career did not allow this, unfortunately, so it is hard to get much realism unless you are flying solo, and it is still has some silly AI bugs especially on take off and landing. Plus 2-seaters firing through the floor of their aircraft - unless you used mods.To be fair this is also down to the player to an extent, if he is flight leader, not to get his flight into a situation where they will get wiped out. 

 

I hope BoS Career will be better, some of the AI routines that did not work well in RoF -  like landing after a RTB order - seem to  work well in BoS,  but issues like the wingmen running off without orders still need sorting out. Additionally I think that the flak AI needs a tweak. It is far too accurate in the game, as it was in RoF. This might be OK to stop people hanging around bases in MP, but can render SP completely pointless. 

It would be cool if they developed AI trait sliders kind of similar to how sports games have AI sliders for different behaviors the AI is more or less prone to engage in.  If you could individually move one guy's slider to BnZ and another to Turning, or adjust their aggressiveness or have these traits adjusted in a manner similar to the Total War series, it would be neat.  Skill would increase, but their traits relating to how passive, aggressive, and style of flying would depend on them as individuals. 

 

Also, I wonder what the option would be like to crowd-source funding for a true dynamic campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there is a reason I played BoB more than any other sim over the years. Its the immersion of the SP campaign, the AI and the little details. The campaign provided so much variation and allowed the player to get as deep into the weeds as they wanted to. If you wanted to be Dowding or Goering you could be them and run the entire battle. Or if you wanted to just fly a Spit or Hurricane or an Emil and let the Generals run the war you could do that. Or you could do all of that. The AI is IMO the best even when held up against the most modern sims. And the details abound with the men and women of RAF Fighter Command calling out raids in such convincing style and your squadron scrambling from a cold start into a sky packed full of friendly and enemy aircraft surrounded by flak bursts. It wasnt one thing, it was everything as a package that made the sim great. What has always amazed me is that all that was delivered originally some 20 years ago.   

 

Now I am totally invested in this game and it is incredible in so many ways. The only thing I find lacking as a primarily SP player is a campaign that provides the feeling of being there with all the variables and some of the sights and sounds of the real battles. PWCG provides more than enough to keep my interest. It adds variety and a dynamic flavor to the sim. But Pat is but 1 hard working and dedicated man and can only do so much on his own. I enjoyed the ROF campaign and hope the coming version for this game will be even better. If it is I suspect I will be entertained for a long time to come. I certainly hope so!    

Edited by TheSNAFU
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would sureley bet the greatest if you could join a friend as a wingman on one of his missions. COOP in Campaign, so to say.

Probably very hard to implement properly though for the effort it costs?

Excuse me for the Off topic but,

 

Is there a way to play a mission generated by the PWCG online with a friend?

 

I searched the forum but I could not find any answer.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me for the Off topic but,

 

Is there a way to play a mission generated by the PWCG online with a friend?

 

I searched the forum but I could not find any answer.

 

Thanks

 

I think it should be easier by the time that BoK is released, considering that co-op is part of the plan.

 

It might be possible in the mean time but would require some faffing around. I think you would have to request a Dserver account, and essentially lock your server with a password that you share with your co-op friends.

 

As to what is involved with setting up missions on a DServer I really don't know. My advice would be to wait for a few more months and enjoy some of the other things IL2 has to offer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be easier by the time that BoK is released, considering that co-op is part of the plan.

 

It might be possible in the mean time but would require some faffing around. I think you would have to request a Dserver account, and essentially lock your server with a password that you share with your co-op friends.

 

As to what is involved with setting up missions on a DServer I really don't know. My advice would be to wait for a few more months and enjoy some of the other things IL2 has to offer.

Thanks for the reply with the big picture.

 

I bought BOS on release but due to RL constrains and performance issues, and the lack of a career mode, I shelved it for a long time.

 

Recently I moved from a 780sli to a 1080 and I discovered PWCG. I decided to give it another go and now I am loving it.

 

I play mainly SP.

 

I've played quite a bit of MP on falcon BMS, and I must say that Falcon's DC it's awesome.

 

I've tried different MP server with ClOD and ROF and I always encounter the same problem. I don't find them really mission oriented.

 

I like to play BMS on MP, because with my vsqn, we do everything very focused on a mission, not only just taking off a looking for scoring some points

 

Maybe my problem is that I never joined the ROF or ClOD MP servers as part of a squadron and maybe I am missing a lot of the whole mission experience, but it looked to me that in general, it's not as mission oriented as I would like it to be.

 

As I said, right now I am loving my SP PWCG campaign, and of course I'll stick around until new features are released . I'm planning on buying BOM next time there is a sale, and BOK later on as well.

 

As for the DC, I think that it would be easier to implement in CloD, since the battle of Britain was almost exclusively an air battle.

 

I agree with Mr. P. Wilson that it would be a waste of resources to track up to the last ground element. IMHO we're dealing with simulators and devs are trying to concentrate on improving the simulation.

 

We're humans. We want it all. And I presume that most of us, hardcore simmers, like as well strategy. It would be awesome if we could get this awesome sim to have also an equally awesome strategy side, but as some posters already stated, the resources are limited and it's normal that devs get focused on the simulation part

 

I used to play an old BOB Commodore64 game that was mostly an strategy game in which the player had to manage the squadrons.

It was like a rudimentary version of the rowans BOB, but man, I loved it.

Edited by Chipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beauty of a dynamic system is that you can see complex behaviours arise from simple rules. It doesn't matter how much you contribute to the system, what matters is seeing how your team's actions can affect outcome and trigger unexpected events, even if your team's actions are primarily decided by the throw of a dice.

 

Look at football managing games: Some decide the outcome simply based on your players' stats, others use a game simulation engine. Both systems have their strength and weaknesses. The dice-and-stats is much easier to develop and tune to produce realistic results. The approach based on simulation is harder to make, often has flaws that gamers will quickly find and exploit. And yet for some people the simulation approach will always been more fun.

 

We'll see what we get with the new campaign system. Even if the war follows a script established by history, you can still have a sort if dynamic complexity in your military career. There is a spectrum from gathering medals and titles to simulating battalion-level human dynamics. Who do you care for, how popular are you, how much respect do you get from your subordinates... Are you known for risking your life to save your comrades, are you willing to sacrifice them to achieve your objective, are you a dedicated humble worker, or do you fly for glory, stealing and over-claiming kills?

 

I don't expect we'll get anything that complex for Kuban, but I'm sure it will be an improvement of the current campaign. Maybe I should go and fly it a bit now to better appreciate what we get later on. To be honest, I don't fly it much these days, but the few times I do I'm usually quite impressed by what I see.

Edited by coconut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any word about the actual missions content?

 

I played the original BOS campaign in the times you had to do that in order to unlock stuff and I quite liked it as it had me to try planes I would normally leave aside. Now I have noticed two new campaigns are available: Moscow and Stalingrad prequel.

 

The first mission (static one) was nice and manageable, I had enough time to get familiar with I-16.

 

Next one. Hopped to I-16 and flew ground attack mission. Had one wingman and we were to attack an airfield. So far so good, but there were 4 Bf F2 protecting the airfield and I suspect 2 more came. Seriously? I managed to damage one, take out some flak pieces and destroy enough static planes to fulfill the objective, but on the way home they gang raped me badly.

 

Will this game aspect be more balanced in the new career system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any word about the actual missions content?

 

I played the original BOS campaign in the times you had to do that in order to unlock stuff and I quite liked it as it had me to try planes I would normally leave aside. Now I have noticed two new campaigns are available: Moscow and Stalingrad prequel.

 

The first mission (static one) was nice and manageable, I had enough time to get familiar with I-16.

 

Next one. Hopped to I-16 and flew ground attack mission. Had one wingman and we were to attack an airfield. So far so good, but there were 4 Bf F2 protecting the airfield and I suspect 2 more came. Seriously? I managed to damage one, take out some flak pieces and destroy enough static planes to fulfill the objective, but on the way home they gang raped me badly.

 

Will this game aspect be more balanced in the new career system?

 

Well . . . Flying a war bird was a dangerous business. I think the most enjoyment I got out of ROF's career mode, was when I took the attitude that if my pilot got killed, he was dead. No mission restarts. Just create a new pilot to join the squadron the day after he died as a Battle Casualty Replacement.

 

My primary focus here was not to measure how many kills my pilot could get, but to see just how long I could get him to live. I think on average, I managed 2 weeks, and the longest was just over 4 weeks, but I think that guy spent some time in hospital through injury. 

 

I don't think the focus should be on balance, but rather try to recreate the kind of conditions that those brave pilots on both sides had to endure. Sometimes this should include difficult odds. Surely part of being a great fighter pilot was knowing when to run, and when to fight. Didn't Richthofen say something along those lines, about only fighting the fights he felt he could win ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with sims is that the AI has no sense of self preservation.  This makes combat much deadlier than it really was.  The AI does not refuse combat and the AI does not disengage anywhere near as willingly as a human would (if at all).  The AI is all knowing and all seeing, so you can't dive low and lose an AI pursuer on the deck, or even just fly away and get lost.  The result is that scoring kills is much easier but surviving is actually harder.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...