Jump to content
dburne

SP Career Appreciation

Recommended Posts

I posted this in the past, it may help to clarify the issue.

 

What we have now is a Red Baron or ROF style career: the player role-plays a pilot. In this case missions are randomly generated, maybe 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...

 

what we don't have: 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.

 

In other words, 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 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. I think it's called "agency". The player's actions have consequences in and effects on the game world.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nibbio said:

I posted this in the past, it may help to clarify the issue.

 

What we have now is a Red Baron or ROF style career: the player role-plays a pilot. In this case missions are randomly generated, maybe 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...

 

what we don't have: 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.

 

In other words, 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 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. I think it's called "agency". The player's actions have consequences in and effects on the game world.

 

 

Yes, that is correct. It was never meant to be dynamic campaign and never will be.

 

In fact I prefer this kind of career and not to be overall strategic commander. Just one piece in a big war machine, nothing more. Much more realistic this way.

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nibbio said:

What we have now is a Red Baron or ROF style career:

 

Ah, the Red Baron Career. I still remember reading flavor text about how some other Ace wanted to duel 1v1 over the front. Except he brought two other fighters when I got there. Bloody turnip.

 

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MarderIV said:

 

Ah, the Red Baron Career. I still remember reading flavor text about how some other Ace wanted to duel 1v1 over the front. Except he brought two other fighters when I got there. Bloody turnip.

 

 

Life is not fair, aces cheat 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Yes, that is correct. It was never meant to be dynamic campaign and never will be.

 

In fact I prefer this kind of career and not to be overall strategic commander. Just one piece in a big war machine, nothing more. Much more realistic this way. 

 

In a dynamic campaign the tasking is done by the AI, like in Falcon 4.

If you want you could easily role-play the small cog in the big machine: just fly the mission you are assigned. In addition, after flying the mission, you would have the satisfaction of verifying how much you actually contributed to your side's efforts.

But whenever you feel like engaging some other part of your brain you could choose to plan and fly your own mission, based on your assessment of the situation.

 

I feel that the current career, regardless of the variety that may or may not be increased in the future, is just a string of random missions against a boring AI, in a rather sparse environment.

 

As to your statement "It was never meant to be dynamic campaign and never will be" I really hope you are wrong. Even DCS is going this way...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Nibbio said:

 

In a dynamic campaign the tasking is done by the AI, like in Falcon 4.

If you want you could easily role-play the small cog in the big machine: just fly the mission you are assigned. In addition, after flying the mission, you would have the satisfaction of verifying how much you actually contributed to your side's efforts.

But whenever you feel like engaging some other part of your brain you could choose to plan and fly your own mission, based on your assessment of the situation.

 

I feel that the current career, regardless of the variety that may or may not be increased in the future, is just a string of random missions against a boring AI, in a rather sparse environment.

 

As to your statement "It was never meant to be dynamic campaign and never will be" I really hope you are wrong. Even DCS is going this way...

I know how they work, I`ve played both. 

 

Well, I`ve had fun in career and that`s all matters to me. I have nothing against dynamic campaign but I don`t have need for it. And I doubt it will never be in BoX for several reasons. 

Edited by LLv24_Zami
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really think dynamic campaign is needed in BoX. It should be depiction of historical battles that happened long time ago. Improving AI and variety of missions would way to go in the future. DCS is different. Campaign there will be based on fictional scenario, so dynamic campaign is good way to go (and kinda needed since SP content for DCS is pretty nonexistent)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

A single pilot being able to change the course of any of the represented battles would feel a little strange to me, I think

 

Yes, if the BOX environment could actually represent Eastern Front battles.

However for example the battle of Kursk involved millions of men, thousands of tanks, tens of thousands of artillery pieces.

In BOX instead we can only simulate minor skirmishes with some dozens of tanks and planes and ground targets, and in that context, a single pilot could and should realistically make a difference.

12 minutes ago, SovietAce said:

It should be depiction of historical battles that happened long time ago.

 

See my reply above. "depiction of historical battles" is impossible due to the obvious limitations of a sim engine. We can however have a faithful depiction of a very small portion of the historical battle.

Edited by Nibbio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nibbio said:

 

See my reply above. "depiction of historical battles" is impossible due to the obvious limitations of a sim engine. We can however have a faithful depiction of a very small portion of the historical battle.

I must disagree. I think that career even in current state gives good depiction on how aerial war on east looked like. There are off course many things that needs to be improved like AI tactics, radio commands etc. You know in real life pilots werent allowed to choose which mission they want to fly. They got the orders from higher command and they must have complete them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view Both DCS and BOX currently suffer from the same fundamental single player limitation.

 

Imagine we were given a beautiful cabinet making simulation, with wonderful realistic tools and all different kinds of wood.
So we can hammer and chisel away, and the tools work perfectly, and the wood damage model is flawless.

 

However, no matter how many wood shavings accumulate on the simulated floor of our simulated workshop, we never get to build anything, because the simulation does not allow us to assemble the pieces we build in a coherent design.

 

Sure, you can take some pleasure in the perfection of your (simulated) workmanship, but there's no tangible result for your efforts, and after a while it feels pointless.

 

That's why the most successfull multiplayer servers (TAW here, HOGGIT in DCS) try to approximate a dynamic campaign: destroy those tanks and the next iteration of the map we get to keep that airfield. Players need agency to feel involved.

 

Edited by Nibbio
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess its about what people want. Trouble with historical campaign is that events are already set and nobody can change it, since it would no longer be "historical." But there is lot of people which enjoy historical things and like "relive" those events (Just like me :) ). MP is very different in this aspect. There is no way to make online matches "historical". MP is mainly about challenge. 

Edited by SovietAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody, but nobody in these forums has a clue as to what it was really like to fly and fight on the Eastern Front... whatever you think, it's only supposition to each individual.

We can certainly 'play and pretend' but ''relive''... not a hope in bringing that off.

I am very very aware that I am playing a game though, as I'm sure most of us are  :coffee:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Nobody, but nobody in these forums has a clue as to what it was really like to fly and fight on the Eastern Front... whatever you think, it's only supposition to each individual.

We can certainly 'play and pretend' but ''relive''... not a hope in bringing that off.

I am very very aware that I am playing a game though, as I'm sure most of us are  :coffee:

The way I think of it is, this is how it looked like back then, and that is as far as we can go.

There are some Vets in here who have seen combat that I know of,  one in a Hellcat in the Pacific, another in Skyraider in Vietnam, one from Korea, but I doubt a WWII pilot from the eastern front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After having been transferred a couple of days ago to an airfield closer to the front I am seeing a lot more attack aircraft intercept and bomber intercept missions.

These are kind of my favorite, great fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RPG vs Strategic gameplay.  Both are fun.  I prefer red baron style RPG but I have to admit that the strategic more in BoB was fun too.  IMHO one can argue the superiority of one over the other but in the end it's opinion.  

 

Some micro level of dynamic campaign is possible even in the context of a historical campaign.  Aces can be killed in a non historic fashion.  A unit can be temporarily depleted of men and equipment.  Tracking damage to structures is certainly possible.  These things can be done without altering who won the war.   

 

I am hoping over time that better hardware combined with continued performance improvements will allow for an increasingly active world.  This has already happened to some degree as the game certainly takes more ground units than it used to.  Hopefully the trend continues.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Some micro level of dynamic campaign is possible even in the context of a historical campaign.  Aces can be killed in a non historic fashion.  A unit can be temporarily depleted of men and equipment.  Tracking damage to structures is certainly possible.  These things can be done without altering who won the war.   

 

Some of that already does happen - pilots can be out of action for several days due to injuries, and sometimes missions are cancelled due to there being not enough planes available (a reality confirmed by pilot autobiographies). 

 

What's missing right now that for me would really make career mode that much better is damage persistence, e.g., a bridge or airfield remains in a destroyed state over multiple missions. That, and a difficulty option that allows more variation in friendly and enemy AI level. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

 

Some of that already does happen - pilots can be out of action for several days due to injuries, and sometimes missions are cancelled due to there being not enough planes available (a reality confirmed by pilot autobiographies). 

 

What's missing right now that for me would really make career mode that much better is damage persistence, e.g., a bridge or airfield remains in a destroyed state over multiple missions. That, and a difficulty option that allows more variation in friendly and enemy AI level. 

 

Yeah that would be very nice.

Flew about 5 missions in my Career this morning, one of them I got injured and missed a couple of days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Some of that already does happen - pilots can be out of action for several days due to injuries, and sometimes missions are cancelled due to there being not enough planes available (a reality confirmed by pilot autobiographies). 

 

What's missing right now that for me would really make career mode that much better is damage persistence, e.g., a bridge or airfield remains in a destroyed state over multiple missions. That, and a difficulty option that allows more variation in friendly and enemy AI level. 

As far as damage persistence, seeing as how the missions are generated server-side, would that be possible (i.e. does the server receive information about what items were destroyed in-mission)? If so I agree that would greatly add to the atmosphere of the career. 

I think the ability to set enemy and friendly AI separately would be great. So you could set your own side's AI and the opposing to both be Ace or Veteran, rather than the current system that ratchets one side down while the other goes up (if I'm understanding it correctly). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 3:06 PM, dburne said:

Let me tell ya, you ain't lived till you fire a nice burst of cannons into the middle of one of those babies in VR and have it explode into a ball of fire about 230 yds in front of you.

Pucker factor man, big time lol !

 

To my own surprise I`m considering trying VR. Which do you have Oculus or that Rift one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, seafireliv said:

To my own surprise I`m considering trying VR. Which do you have Oculus or that Rift one?

 

Wasn't addressed to me but I'll answer anyway :)   Rift is the Oculus product.  HTC Vive is the competitor.  Rift is cheaper.  Online reviews consider the two roughly equal in quality.  I own a Rift and I am very happy with it.  The in game experience with VR is incredible.  It really feels like you are sitting in a cockpit. 

 

Two drawbacks to VR.  The first and IMHO biggest is having to grope for controls.  Voice recognition can help with that.  The other drawback is the fact that VR resolution is not as good as a good monitor.  Spotting is more difficult and the visuals are not as crisp.  Still, the experience of being wrapped in the plane makes it worth  it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Wasn't addressed to me but I'll answer anyway :)   Rift is the Oculus product.  HTC Vive is the competitor.  Rift is cheaper.  Online reviews consider the two roughly equal in quality.  I own a Rift and I am very happy with it.  The in game experience with VR is incredible.  It really feels like you are sitting in a cockpit. 

 

Two drawbacks to VR.  The first and IMHO biggest is having to grope for controls.  Voice recognition can help with that.  The other drawback is the fact that VR resolution is not as good as a good monitor.  Spotting is more difficult and the visuals are not as crisp.  Still, the experience of being wrapped in the plane makes it worth  it.

I'll counter this with, the Vive Pro. It has a much better resolution (about 1080p) than the first generation VR devices. However, groping for controls is still a thing. These two very very minor issues do not out weigh the pros of VR. It's basically like being in a real plane - the shear size of some of the planes can't be realized until you're actually inside it. Spotting is easier (in my opinion) because of the real life size of objects. I also think that snap shooting and understanding energy of a plane is much easier in VR.

 

With a monitor, it's like walking down a set of stairs but you only see the stairs as a flat plane. After awhile, you'll get pretty good at walking down these stairs, but with VR the flat plane turns into an actual set of stairs - depth, width, length, and height are all pronounced. You won't need as much practice going down the stairs now, and as a matter of fact, you'll realize how trivial going down stairs are now. That's the difference with VR.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[TWB]Sketch @seafirelivVive pro and others (Pimax s apparently coming out with one too) are making higher resolution devices but cost is pretty high.  Around the $800 for Vive Pro and $900 for Pimax  where the Rift can be had for $350.  If you've got the cash, go for it :) .  If you don't Rift is still a very good experience at $350.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to add my voice to the (rather small) 'appreciation of career mode' chorus. It's all I play. Sure, a bit more of a dynamic sense of continuation would be nice, but I still have a great time, especially in VR. I expect I would be instantly murdered in MP, but in Career I can slowly become an ace, up the difficulty as I get better, etc.

Major Rainer Onyerparader is halfway through his Stalingrad career in his BF 109 G2, with 112 kills. He started on easy and upgraded to regular. He was my original career, and I learned the game playing him. He has to be more careful now! Lieutenant Shutya Propelozov is doing an earnest if not great job of defending Moscow in his game of musical cockpits between a Mig and an I-16. And pilot and former playboy Germany Sausage just started his FW-190 career in Kuban, but that fella's a rogue. He'll seldom stay with his unit and he'll run if it looks there's too much trouble. It's the playboy lifestyle! He's not as dedicated to saving his buddies as Major Onyerparader is. Propelozov is just a fresh-faced youth trying to survive, still stunned by the invasion, and he seems to spend most of his time fleeing, flying above rivers and roads and between trees 'death star trench run' style in his heavily damaged plane in an attempt to make his pursuers crash into the foliage.

As I get better and better I'll make my settings in each career more hardcore, and maybe one day I'll be ready to dare MP ... Slow Australian internet speeds might kill that mode for me, of course.

Bravo career mode. I would welcome any more persistent depth but since I got VR I've been playing this game every day I can, and this iteration of IL-2 fast becoming one of my favourite games of all time. It's definitely my favourite VR game. Having goggle marks on my sweaty face at the end just adds to the immersion.

I was a huge Rise of Flight fan, though, so when I can afford Flying Circus next fortnight, and once the career mode there is fully implemented, that game might edge up there and snatch the prize of 'favourite' ...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Wasn't addressed to me but I'll answer anyway :)   Rift is the Oculus product.  HTC Vive is the competitor.  Rift is cheaper.  Online reviews consider the two roughly equal in quality.  I own a Rift and I am very happy with it.  The in game experience with VR is incredible.  It really feels like you are sitting in a cockpit. 

 

Two drawbacks to VR.  The first and IMHO biggest is having to grope for controls.  Voice recognition can help with that.  The other drawback is the fact that VR resolution is not as good as a good monitor.  Spotting is more difficult and the visuals are not as crisp.  Still, the experience of being wrapped in the plane makes it worth  it.

 

13 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@[TWB]Sketch @seafirelivVive pro and others (Pimax s apparently coming out with one too) are making higher resolution devices but cost is pretty high.  Around the $800 for Vive Pro and $900 for Pimax  where the Rift can be had for $350.  If you've got the cash, go for it :) .  If you don't Rift is still a very good experience at $350.

 

I got the names mixed up thanks for the clarification. I was considering the Vive, for better vision, etc, but the price is indeed high, for what`s just a game peripheral when I`m still not really sure what I`m getting. Too high I think. The Oculus seems a far better contender for price too and I`ve heard some good about it. I love realism and immersion ingames and have been holding off until the time was right.

 

The groping for controls I believe won`t be an issue (I have Voice Attack).

 

I have a few more days to look at every option and thanks again for your advice. :)

Edited by seafireliv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, seafireliv said:

 

 

I got the names mixed up thanks for the clarification. I was considering the Vive, for better vision, etc, but the price is indeed high, for what`s just a game peripheral when I`m still not really sure what I`m getting. Too high I think. The Oculus seems a far better contender for price too and I`ve heard some good about it. I love realism and immersion ingames and have been holding off until the time was right.

 

The groping for controls I believe won`t be an issue (I have Voice Attack).

 

I have a few more days to look at every option and thanks again for your advice. :)

 

It is sounding like Oculus may be revealing an updated Rift ( some are calling a Rift S) at GDC 2019 this upcoming week.

I have also heard some retail outlets are letting inventory run out on Rift.

Might be an upgrade for Rift coming soon.

https://uploadvr.com/oculus-email-rift-s/

 

I would highly recommend the Rift ( the Touch Controllers are awesome too for other games), but may be worth waiting a couple days or so to see

if any news revealed this week.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dburne said:

 

It is sounding like Oculus may be revealing an updated Rift ( some are calling a Rift S) at GDC 2019 this upcoming week.

I have also heard some retail outlets are letting inventory run out on Rift.

Might be an upgrade for Rift coming soon.

https://uploadvr.com/oculus-email-rift-s/

 

I would highly recommend the Rift ( the Touch Controllers are awesome too for other games), but may be worth waiting a couple days or so to see

if any news revealed this week.

Useful to know. thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, seafireliv said:

...

The groping for controls I believe won`t be an issue (I have Voice Attack).

...

 

We keep the TV and computer in the same room so me yelling attack target, map, hud, icons, etc. while my wife is watch TV is a bit of an issue.  The VR set already provides comic relief as I twist my head and look straight at her trying to pick up the guy on my six.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

We keep the TV and computer in the same room so me yelling attack target, map, hud, icons, etc. while my wife is watch TV is a bit of an issue.  The VR set already provides comic relief as I twist my head and look straight at her trying to pick up the guy on my six.

 

LOL yeah my wife's office and my area are in same room. 

Thankfully Voice Attack seem so to recognize my softly spoken words pretty good.

She does like to make fun of some of my antics though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 7:27 PM, RedKestrel said:


I think the ability to set enemy and friendly AI separately would be great. So you could set your own side's AI and the opposing to both be Ace or Veteran, rather than the current system that ratchets one side down while the other goes up (if I'm understanding it correctly).

It is hard to tell if that changed anything. The AI`s effectiveness seems to be tied to aicraft type more than skill level because of set tendencies. For example, ace AI can do impossible 300m snaphots at tough angles and does very good at head on shooting. At Kuban it made Yaks and Spits a nightmare for me because AI can manage them to go exactly the way it wants, whereas the less maneuverable types like LaGG or P39 struggle at doing the same. In that campaign it is actually a better habit to fly straight and wait for AI tracers flying wide from behind than to do evasive yoyos.

In some ways a player might negate this by spotting approaching headon and opening fire first - at the moment AI will outright abort and extend away, which looks as if the pilot in front of you got scared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

We keep the TV and computer in the same room so me yelling attack target, map, hud, icons, etc. while my wife is watch TV is a bit of an issue.  The VR set already provides comic relief as I twist my head and look straight at her trying to pick up the guy on my six.

You have a great wife. Mine hated me going near any game, didn`t matter if they were historical, realistic ones...

 

Hence, now no more wife. Hehehe. ;)

 

 

2 hours ago, dburne said:

 

LOL yeah my wife's office and my area are in same room. 

Thankfully Voice Attack seem so to recognize my softly spoken words pretty good.

She does like to make fun of some of my antics though.

 

Yes, voice attack is very good at hearing low spoken words. I certainly don`t need to shout.

Edited by seafireliv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very little issue using the keyboard. Just have to feel for the bumps on the F and J keys.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 9:29 PM, Trooper117 said:

I haven't 'groped' anything in years... so I guess I won't be needing VR

 

I know you probably think you don't need it but for sheer immersion, i.e. feeling of flight, terror at tracers flashing over your canopy and sweats hedge-hopping back to base with a posse of fighters after you, there is nothing, but nothing that beats VR...;)

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

×