Jump to content
jack333

dinamic campaign?

Recommended Posts

Good morning and thanks for your attention, in career mode, the campaign is dynamic. Thank´s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really a SP player, but as far as I know the campaign tracks your kills, Assist, your squad kills and deaths etc, they get medals and go up in rank, but the outcome of the whole battle, and each phase are preset and static.

At least on BoS days the front line was also static and only changed when a new phase was started

Like on the atack on the city, the soviet counter atack, the encirclement...

 

You can also check PWCG,  that might have some Sort of dinamic front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

I'm not really a SP player, but as far as I know the campaign tracks your kills, Assist, your squad kills and deaths etc, they get medals and go up in rank, but the outcome of the whole battle, and each phase are preset and static.

At least on BoS days the front line was also static and only changed when a new phase was started

Like on the atack on the city, the soviet counter atack, the encirclement...

 

You can also check PWCG,  that might have some Sort of dinamic front.

 

PWCG is pretty much the same.  Dynamic elements in PWCG are the ability to kill historical aces and temporary disruptions in squadron activities due to losses.  But in the end the Allies still win and the Axis still loses.

 

@jack333 Can you define dynamic?  It means different things to different people.  The kind of career mode offered by 1C and PWCG were often referred to as dynamic.  Others define dynamic as smaller things like destruction of planes and bridges persists.  Others say its not dynamic unless your actions decide the outcome of the war.  What specifically are you looking for?

Edited by PatrickAWlson
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before all, thanks for the answers. When I say dynamic, I mean that to the attrition that is produced over the days, bridges, aerodromes, planes, etc. Despite all the advances of today, we cannot change history😷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jack333 said:

Before all, thanks for the answers. When I say dynamic, I mean that to the attrition that is produced over the days, bridges, aerodromes, planes, etc. Despite all the advances of today, we cannot change history😷

PWCG models pilot and aircraft attrition.  It is a relatively short term effect.  Every time a pilot or aircraft is lost it takes a week to to notify the quartermaster that there is a need for replacement.  Meanwhile replacement pilots and planes are modeled as arriving at the depot.  Once a week planes and pilots are moved to front line units.  If the quartermaster has not been informed of the loss (i.e. one week has not passed) then the loss will not be replaced until the next cycle.  The goal is to model a flow of replacements that is both continuous and delayed at the same time.

 

PWCG does not persist information on damage to structures.  It does emulate ongoing battle by making things close to the lines destroyed and sometimes burning.

 

Front lines change is not continuous.  It happens in chunks at discrete times.

 

Not sure how the stock campaign models any of this.

 

So in some was both the 1C and PWCG careers do some - but probably not all - of the things that you want.

 

As for changing history - it could be done.  If you look at the BoB game from the 1990s or any of the WWII strategy games that is what they are doing.  You would have to find a way to correlate the actions of your four airplanes into meaningful outcomes across a whole front.  Definitely not easy to pull off, but not impossible.  I always look to BoB as the best example of this sort of thing in a WWII flight sim.  That is what many people who refer to dynamic campaign are talking about, and why the phrase "career mode" has replaced "dynamic campaign".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like what most people want is Falcon 4.0's style dynamic campaign...yet not realize just how difficult that is to do 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 357th_Dog said:

It seems like what most people want is Falcon 4.0's style dynamic campaign...yet not realize just how difficult that is to do 

 

I am speaking from ignorance but this campaign was programmed 20 freaking years ago for computers with a performance that was a fraction of today´s budget smartphones. It always puzzled me that nobody have been able to program anything similar.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read jack333's later post he is looking for a career mode with dynamic aspects but not a change in history.

 

Falcon4 career mode was fictional and not historical.  As such it had quite a bit of leeway in terms of what it could offer or not offer.  It did not have to worry about changing history because it wasn't based on history in the first place.

 

I am not that much of a jet guy.  I did play falcon 4 and later Eurofighter (?) that had a fictional RAF campaign against the USSR.  The pretty much amount to evaluating a mission and moving the front based on that mission.  Not easy, granted, but not impossible either. 

 

What I am not sure of is that the majority want a IL2 GB dynamic campaign where the Germans can win. 

 

From a computational point of view nether the Falcon 4 campaign nor the current career modes are all that CPU intensive.  The underlying logic is complex, but complexity and performance are two totally different things and need not have any relationship at all.  Performance killers are usually repetitive tasks run in a tight loop that may or may not be all that complex.  AI is a good example.  It is a killer because it runs constantly (IMHO too often in this game - watch the control surfaces twitch when the AI is flying).  It does not take that long to process an AI cycle, but do it continuously for hundreds of Ai entities and now you have a problem.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@HR_Zunzun, well, you have the dinamic campaigns of this games, similar to the Falcon 4's one:

  • Enemy Engaged: Apache vs Havoc and Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs Hokum
  • Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain II

BTW, the two Battle of Britain games are the only ones that have more than 200 aircraft flying at the same time (with tricks that works). They are the only games I have played where you feel that your wing of Spitfires were nothing againt 200 German bombers...

Edited by E69_Cananas
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

Can someone fill me in about pwcg? Thanks.

 

Im trying to find a way to make the Bodenplatte campaign less boring.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/99-pat-wilson-campaign-generator/

 

Started work on PWCG in 2009 after RoF came out.  Been updating it since.  Trickiest part is making sure you have 64 bit Java installed (not 32 bit).  Just a matter of downloading the right one but the 32 bit link is the big button and the 64 bit link is the small one :) .  Links to instructions and videos are on the download OP.  If you have any questions just ask.

1 minute ago, E69_Cananas said:

@HR_Zunzun, well, you have the dinamic campaigns of this games, similar to the Falcon 4 one:

  • Enemy Engaged: Apache vs Havoc and Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs Hokum
  • Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain II

BTW, the two Battle of Britain games are the only ones that have more than 200 aircraft flying at the same time (with tricks that works). They are the only game where you feel that your wing of Spitfires were nothing againt 200 German bombers...

 

I really believe that this is possible for GB.  if not 200 then at least 40-60.  They need a simplified AI that just keeps formation.  Nothing else.  Maybe not model every gun position (did a B17 navigator with his gun sticking out the side ever hit anything in all of WWII?).  Needs to bubble to the top of their priority list and they need to find a way to finance such improvements.  Everybody wants them but the gates of hell open up when it is suggested that they have to be paid for.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

They need a simplified AI that just keeps formation.  Nothing else.  Maybe not model every gun position (did a B17 navigator with his gun sticking out the side ever hit anything in all of WWII?).  Needs to bubble to the top of their priority list and they need to find a way to finance such improvements.  Everybody wants them but the gates of hell open up when it is suggested that they have to be paid for.

 

Absolutely. The devs went one step forward when simplified the AI with aircraft on the ground.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never want to have the ability to change the history, because it simply is naive to think, you with your one squadron would be able to do so.

Remember the German Africa Corps did not win the war in afcrica, however they had a Marseille, and this was not, because he died, but because in the end, your influence, no matter if you are flying a fighter, a ground attack aircraft or a bomber, is very local. And wars don't get won by one local success, but only by success on the whole front line.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Falcon 4 campaign is special in that way: There are two parties in an ongoing war against each other. You can let them play alone and just watch.

You can change targets and plans to take influence - but not necessarily - so here its a kind of real time strategy game (strategic level)

And you can everytime jump into each aircraft and fly a sortie - here it is the well known simulator. But each mission you fly is only a small stone in the wall. (tactical level)

You can interrupt logistics, defence and so on. Which helps then in the next missions.

 

If you transfer this to Sturmovik - would be great in my opinion. A war between Russia and Germany and i can take influence on a strategic level.

There should be logistics, production, supplies etc.

And you could jump into any flight and take influence on the tactical level.

That means both sides could win, depending on how good your influence is (on strategic and tactical level)

 

This would be a real dynamic campaign.

 

Edit: IL2 with its career is not dynamic - but it has at least some life in it.

DCS in the opposite is a complete desaster regarding immersion and campaign. The map is dead. Every movement of a unit must be scripted. Every mission and every campaign must be scripted. Its a nice high level technical simulation of aircraft - but without a game in it.

By the way: Wings over Flanders Fields has an ongoing war in the background - you can participate as a pilot (but not influence on strategical level)

Edited by PaladinX
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

By the way: Wings over Flanders Fields has an ongoing war in the background - you can participate as a pilot (but not influence on strategical level)

 

I know that WoFF has a lot going on in the campaign but I was unaware that Germany could win the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No, you cant win as a german. But the war is ongoing everytime in the background with flights and fights on both sides, and they differ everytime you play a campaign.

You are only a small pilot in this big war. You can suddenly be in a dogfight of AI vs AI while you fly your patrol. Next time, it does not happen.

If you shoot down enemy pilots, even famous pilots, they will never appear again in this war.

 

You are active in SimHQ too, right? You know exactly what i mean, or not?

Edited by PaladinX
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PaladinX said:

No, you cant win as a german. But the war is ongoing everytime in the background with flights and fights on both sides, and they differ everytime you play a campaign.

You are only a small pilot in this big war. You can suddenly be in a dogfight of AI vs AI while you fly your patrol. Next time, it does not happen.

If you shoot down enemy pilots, even famous pilots, they will never appear again in this war.

 

You are active in SimHQ too, right? You know exactly what i mean, or not?

 

The ace thing is a Red Baron construct.  WoFF campaign was written to some degree 9greater or lesser i do not know) by some of the same people that worked with me on the Red Baron Western Front Patch.  

 

PWCG offers both the ace thing (killing aces early, the possibility of aces achieving non historical victories if they fly with you) and has an extensive behind the scenes simulator to simulate things activity outside of what actually happened.  So the things that you mention are there.

 

Something to understand is that "dynamic" is a whole range of shades of gray (maybe as many as 50) and not black "is" or white "is not".  That's why my original request to the OP to define "dynamic".  PWCG is dynamic in that it models supply lines, tactical disruption of the air war, changes in historical paths for aces, and other things.  It is not dynamic in terms of the ground war or overall history.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With Lowengrin's DCG for Il2 1946, one side or the other is not "destined" to win a given conflict or map - you can push the enemy off the map or the enemy can push you off depending on how things go. However, unlike CFS3, where this was exclusively determined by the player and his success and failures, with Paul's DCG, you are just a single plane in a single squadron and part of a raging conflict or war - success or failure of the conflict is not tied exclusively to the player, but you can influence what is happening (but you are just not going to win or lose the conflict alone - you are a small cog).

Edited by Redwo1f
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Redwo1f said:

With Lowengrin's DCG for Il2 1946, one side or the other is not "destined" to win a given conflict or map - you can push the enemy off the map or the enemy can push you off depending on how things go. However, unlike CFS3, where this was exclusively determined by the player and his success and failures, with Paul's DCG, you are just a single plane in a single squadron and part of a raging conflict or war - success or failure of the conflict is not tied exclusively to the player, but you can influence what is happening (but you are just not going to win or lose the conflict alone - you are a small cog).

 

If not much based on the players actions, and not based on history, then what is the outcome based on? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

If not much based on the players actions, and not based on history, then what is the outcome based on? 

 

All squadrons and ground units are tasked with missions - ground is gain or lost, unit tracking, supply tracked, lines shifting over time. The AI is fighting itself - you are just a part of it - it is a less complex version of Falcon 4.0. Actually the Enemy Engaged series (helo) did this as well.

Edited by Redwo1f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redwo1f said:

 

All squadrons and ground units are tasked with missions - ground is gain or lost, unit tracking, supply tracked, lines shifting over time. The AI is fighting itself - you are just a part of it. 

 

Were ground conflicts modeled as well or was it based on the outcome of the air war?  

Were historical factors included?  Seems that if they were the outcome would in the end be the same - Germans would lose.  But maybe the path to defeat would vary a bit.  If not then I am curious as to how the outcome was decided.

 

I am curious because from an air point of view this already exists in PWCG.  On the eastern front in particular the Russians take a tactical pounding in terms of losses but of course do not lose the war.  They make up for it with better logistics and numbers - i.e. the Russians lose a lot more but they get more replacements to compensate.  That works great for the current goals of PWCG.  However, if I were to do something dynamic based on tactical outcomes the Germans would pretty much win all of the time.  I would have to add something deeper that took better account of Russia's overwhelming material advantage - and then would the Germans ever win?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Were ground conflicts modeled as well or was it based on the outcome of the air war?  

 

 

 

With Lowengrin, it was pretty much tanks that determined line points. And yes, they could fight each other as well. Their advancement, or lack there off dictated line shifts over time. In Enemy Engaged Comache vs Hokum - aside from the numerous air assets in conflict, there was also a much more broader ground war going on too, with tanks, armor personal carriers, troops, etc. And yes, if a situation is stacked in favor of a particular side for the conflict, it is still likely to go their way - however, it isn't written in stone. The draw back being things aren't exactly historical, the benefit is that each mission is actually meaningful in the larger context of the conflict however - so a give and take there. WOFF has an excellent dynamic campaign too (actually amazing!) - but as mentioned, it holds to history in the sense that the lines are going to shift historically as they actually did.

 

You and Paul should hook up some time to talk as he knows the in's and out's of his program:

https://forum.jg1.org/forum/8-lowengrins-dynamic-campaign-generators-dcg-for-il-2-cfs2/

Edited by Redwo1f
added info and typo's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2020 at 8:08 PM, E69_Cananas said:

@HR_Zunzun, well, you have the dinamic campaigns of this games, similar to the Falcon 4's one:

  • Enemy Engaged: Apache vs Havoc and Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs Hokum
  • Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain II

BTW, the two Battle of Britain games are the only ones that have more than 200 aircraft flying at the same time (with tricks that works). They are the only games I have played where you feel that your wing of Spitfires were nothing againt 200 German bombers...

Very true. I forgot about those (I played the BoB quite intensively. I loved the strategic part of the sim). More over, before those two was the Mig Alley (from the same company than Bob) that had the "spring offensive". It was a first iteration of those dynamic campaigns. . In any case it was released about the same time than Falcon 4.0 campaign (1999 or so).

 

If I dig more in my sim memories, I then also remember the Tornado sim from DI. Without having a truly dinamic campaign,  it however had many cool and immersive features. One was that when you attacked communication posts effectively then the enemy "had to use" less reliable comms (wireless) so new targets were "discovered" and availible for missions.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2020 at 9:09 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/99-pat-wilson-campaign-generator/

 

Started work on PWCG in 2009 after RoF came out.  Been updating it since.  Trickiest part is making sure you have 64 bit Java installed (not 32 bit).  Just a matter of downloading the right one but the 32 bit link is the big button and the 64 bit link is the small one :) .  Links to instructions and videos are on the download OP.  If you have any questions just ask.

 

I really believe that this is possible for GB.  if not 200 then at least 40-60.  They need a simplified AI that just keeps formation.  Nothing else.  Maybe not model every gun position (did a B17 navigator with his gun sticking out the side ever hit anything in all of WWII?).  Needs to bubble to the top of their priority list and they need to find a way to finance such improvements.  Everybody wants them but the gates of hell open up when it is suggested that they have to be paid for.

 

Huh? I bought every game in the hopes they would take care of the SP mode. What else can I do? I don't know if I buy the next game anymore. I gave up hope that it would get better. 

 

But if the devs say buy this DLC and I don't get nothing but better Ai and a more delicate campaign ?..  for say 80 Euros or whatever... call me. But don't give me hope. 

 

All I want is a dynamic campaign generator like IL2 1946 had. The user Boelcke did great things with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 74_jim_nihilist said:

 

Huh? I bought every game in the hopes they would take care of the SP mode. What else can I do? I don't know if I buy the next game anymore. I gave up hope that it would get better. 

 

But if the devs say buy this DLC and I don't get nothing but better Ai and a more delicate campaign ?..  for say 80 Euros or whatever... call me. But don't give me hope. 

 

All I want is a dynamic campaign generator like IL2 1946 had. The user Boelcke did great things with that. 

 

Might be a language gap - not sure. 

All of the WWII content has a career mode.  FC does not have an in game career mode but it does have PWCG. ... which is a career mode.

The conversation was (IMHO an interesting one) about all of the different forms a "dynamic campaign" can take and all of the different perceptions one might have when one uses that phrase.  I was trying to make the point that dynamic comes on different shades and not "is" or "is not".  Others were pointing out aspects of other dynamic campaign implementations that they enjoyed.

 

Your post confuses me on so many levels I'm not sure where to start, but let's give it a go.

I gather that you own the game.  So, if any of your modules are WWII,  you know there is an in game career mode as well as campaigns, yes?  

PWCG is a free alternative to career mode.  Use it or don't as you wish.

I don't know what a "delicate" campaign is.  Something got lost in translation.

 

Finally: if the work Boelcke did for 1946 is your idea of a good campaign, can you fill us in on what it was about that that you liked?  There is a ton of SP content available for these modules and we might be able to point you in the right direction.

 

Really, truly not trying to be rude.  Just want to better understand your point of view.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I like to think of the built-in career mode as being semi-dynamic. Yes, you and your squadron cannot change the course of the war or move the front lines, but at the same time:

  • Pilots come and go through all the means you'd expect them to (being killed, wounded, transferred out, or captured), with the one of exception of home leave
  • Pilots can earn awards and progress through the ranks
  • The skill level of pilots increases as time goes on
  • All of the depicted units move about the map and change out their aircraft according to the historical record
  • The player's name can be added to the list of aces in the newspaper
  • The player can add and remove pilots from the flight roster, as they see fit
  • The available armament and equipment options follow the historical timeline

Where the career isn't dynamic and where I personally would like to see it be more dynamic is:

  • Friendly and enemy AI skill levels being chosen based on the time period, instead of the three options we have now, which don't result in any variance in enemy or friendly skill level for flights generated outside of the player's squadron.
  • More variance in the type of enemy and friendly planes encountered, so that the game doesn't just look at the closest enemy or friendly airfield when generating aircraft formations.
  • Targets that are destroyed remain destroyed, instead of coming back the next mission in an undamaged state (e.g., bridges, buildings, parked aircraft, tanks, trains, etc.). Going along with that, sending the player's squadron back to a particular target if insufficient damage was done on the previous mission.
  • More variance in the times a player is hospitalized.
Edited by LukeFF
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/1/2020 at 2:43 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Were ground conflicts modeled as well or was it based on the outcome of the air war?  

Were historical factors included?  Seems that if they were the outcome would in the end be the same - Germans would lose.  But maybe the path to defeat would vary a bit.  If not then I am curious as to how the outcome was decided.

 

I am curious because from an air point of view this already exists in PWCG.  On the eastern front in particular the Russians take a tactical pounding in terms of losses but of course do not lose the war.  They make up for it with better logistics and numbers - i.e. the Russians lose a lot more but they get more replacements to compensate.  That works great for the current goals of PWCG.  However, if I were to do something dynamic based on tactical outcomes the Germans would pretty much win all of the time.  I would have to add something deeper that took better account of Russia's overwhelming material advantage - and then would the Germans ever win?

 

 

Once upon a Time (maybe 10-14 years ago) playing il2 1946 I had the same questions.

 

As far as I understood it, dinamic campaign on the pacific was ruled by points.

On a specific map/Battle, say midway

USA starts with 10000

And IJN starts with 2000

And every object destroyed by you or the AI gets points, and substract ir from the owner of the object.

Say a fighter is 100pts. A bomber 200pts diferent ships 500-1000 and carriers are 2000pts.

So if a IJN Pilot you manage to destroy all USA carriers and to defend yours, the balance of points would be on the IJN favor and the Battle would be won by them.

On the same idea. To win the whole campaign/war you would  need to reach/win over  a higer number of point.

What I dont remember is if one Battle afected the start of the next map.

So if for example IJN sank yorktown at the Battle of coral sea, it would still be present at midway.

And as the campaign moves on, the numerical superiority of the USN would make a win for the IJN virtualy imposible even if they won some key Battles.

 

All this being said, I kind of can see this type of "dinamic" campaign working on a naval set up, where one lucky bomb ir torpedo can sink a valuable ship that is very hard to replace.

 

But how many planes, tanks or bridges would you need to destroy as a single Pilot to change the outcome of the eastern front?

Way too many to be doable

 

Edited by =FEW=fernando11
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just a bit of an aside regarding Il-2 1946 (but still relevant) - it's stock DGEN dynamic campaign system engine did not plot and fight an entire conflict. It number crunched a lot and as far as missions for the player it generated, it only included flights that a player may possibly encounter if they stuck to the mission waypoints. It cared nothing about other enemy or allied squadrons based in the conflict - unless they may by chance cross a player flight waypoint. -- whereas Paul Lowengrin's modded campaign engine (DCG) for Il2 1946, similar in many ways to Patrick Wilson's campaign engine here, plotted and gave missions to various squadrons in that theater/map regardless of whether they may be seen by the player or not -- and this is a big difference. DGEN made missions, DCG made a war. 

 

So, apps/titles that care about everything in the theater and attempt to create a dynamic and realistic battle situation in this sense then include:

Falcon 4.0 

Enemy Engaged series

PWCG (for IL2 GBS)

DCG (for Il2 1946)

Wings Over...  series (WOFF, WOTR)

BoB2

? I think perhaps EF2000 as well ? - been a long while, but I think so

 

...and to my knowledge, these are the ONLY ones to actually do so

Edited by Redwo1f
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Where the career isn't dynamic and where I personally would like to see it be more dynamic is:

  • Friendly and enemy AI skill levels being chosen based on the time period, instead of the three options we have now, which don't result in any variance in enemy or friendly skill level for flights generated outside of the player's squadron.
  • More variance in the type of enemy and friendly planes encountered, so that the game doesn't just look at the closest enemy or friendly airfield when generating aircraft formations.
  • Targets that are destroyed remain destroyed, instead of coming back the next mission in an undamaged state (e.g., bridges, buildings, parked aircraft, tanks, trains, etc.). Going along with that, sending the player's squadron back to a particular target if insufficient damage was done on the previous mission.
  • More variance in the times a player is hospitalized.

I really like that list - well said!

 

Besides making the career mode more dynamic in a traditional sense, I think there is also room for IL-2 to further increase the immersion of SP gaming, which can also provide, in a way, a dynamic feeling to the overall experience without been truly dynamic in nature. For example, been able to contact your home base or other friendly bases by radio or having a ground controller guiding you vocally to the enemy flight (and having the option for the player to contact him as well) could make the whole environment become more dynamic.

 

IMHO this is just another aspect of how to improve the overall career experience for the SP player.

 

Personally I don't think the German player should be able to win the war. Since the player only operates on a squadron level, been able to change the outcome of the war would be silly. Instead, I believe anything that makes the player become immersive is what really counts. Be it a full-blown dynamic campaign as in Falcon F16, more interaction between the player and the environment - anything goes I think.

 

Well, just my two Yen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players need agency to really enjoy a game. That means your actions must have tangible consequences in the game world.

That's why the successful multiplayer servers (TAW, Finnish) provide a dynamic environment: take out those tanks and you get to keep that airfield, or you advance the frontline.

Player fights to try to win the battle. There is a starting point and a possible outcome: tactical victory or tactical defeat. That's a dynamic campaign.

Very black and white, in my view.

Unfortunately not possible for single player at the moment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2020 at 1:00 PM, LukeFF said:

I like to think of the built-in career mode as being semi-dynamic. Yes, you and your squadron cannot change the course of the war or move the front lines, but at the same time:

  • Pilots come and go through all the means you'd expect them to (being killed, wounded, transferred out, or captured), with the one of exception of home leave
  • Pilots can earn awards and progress through the ranks
  • The skill level of pilots increases as time goes on
  • All of the depicted units move about the map and change out their aircraft according to the historical record
  • The player's name can be added to the list of aces in the newspaper
  • The player can add and remove pilots from the flight roster, as they see fit
  • The available armament and equipment options follow the historical timeline

Where the career isn't dynamic and where I personally would like to see it be more dynamic is:

  • Friendly and enemy AI skill levels being chosen based on the time period, instead of the three options we have now, which don't result in any variance in enemy or friendly skill level for flights generated outside of the player's squadron.
  • More variance in the type of enemy and friendly planes encountered, so that the game doesn't just look at the closest enemy or friendly airfield when generating aircraft formations.
  • Targets that are destroyed remain destroyed, instead of coming back the next mission in an undamaged state (e.g., bridges, buildings, parked aircraft, tanks, trains, etc.). Going along with that, sending the player's squadron back to a particular target if insufficient damage was done on the previous mission.
  • More variance in the times a player is hospitalized.

 

Honestly, this is best to me to nowadays. I don't want a fantasy campaign, even though they can be fun from a superman (or is that superpilot?) point of view. Incorporating those additions would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2020 at 4:00 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Where the career isn't dynamic and where I personally would like to see it be more dynamic is:

  • Friendly and enemy AI skill levels being chosen based on the time period, instead of the three options we have now, which don't result in any variance in enemy or friendly skill level for flights generated outside of the player's squadron.
  • More variance in the type of enemy and friendly planes encountered, so that the game doesn't just look at the closest enemy or friendly airfield when generating aircraft formations.
  • Targets that are destroyed remain destroyed, instead of coming back the next mission in an undamaged state (e.g., bridges, buildings, parked aircraft, tanks, trains, etc.). Going along with that, sending the player's squadron back to a particular target if insufficient damage was done on the previous mission.
  • More variance in the times a player is hospitalized.

 

So much this. Especially about variety of AI planes. God I hope the Bodenplatte career is improved in the next patch, especially the german career.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2020 at 8:05 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

From a computational point of view nether the Falcon 4 campaign nor the current career modes are all that CPU intensive.  The underlying logic is complex, but complexity and performance are two totally different things and need not have any relationship at all.  Performance killers are usually repetitive tasks run in a tight loop that may or may not be all that complex.  AI is a good example.  It is a killer because it runs constantly (IMHO too often in this game - watch the control surfaces twitch when the AI is flying).  It does not take that long to process an AI cycle, but do it continuously for hundreds of Ai entities and now you have a problem.

I don't think that's the main issue. I feel the main limitation of GB is that the game utilize just one CPU core. If the game could use all available cores (dedicated server too), we might be able to create more AI planes in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

I don't think that's the main issue. I feel the main limitation of GB is that the game utilize just one CPU core. If the game could use all available cores (dedicated server too), we might be able to create more AI planes in the game.

 

I don't think that is true.  As far as I am aware GB is multi threaded.  

  • Upvote 2

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...