Any side effects of missions results in career mode?

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

But then you need a better model for the decision, is a mission successful or not. As I posted above, if the ground troops you should have protected get destroyed completely by the enemy, the mission can't be successful, because you killed one enemy aircraft.

Same for escort missions. Or say ground attack missions, you have to attack a supply coloumn and your mission is successful, if all escorting light tanks get destroyed. This can't be the target for this mission. The same for attack on armored coloumns. The targets are medium and heavy battle tanks, not the escorting light tanks. So the mission should only be successful, if your flight detroyed some of the battle tanks. This, of course, would need a better logic for the AI, what to attack.

 

I agree, but some of those criteria are already in place. If you lose too many attack planes or bombers to enemy fighters, you will be told you have failed the mission. Likewise, if too many of those planes are lost to ground fire, then you will be told the mission was failed through no fault of your own.

[Gambit21]

15 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

Indeed, not shared by you and four more, I hope this game has sold a bit more than just 10 copies. Anyway I don't need to insist any more, my point of view is clear on this matter.

 

Yes it was clear in your first post and easily refuted.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Even rewards were not really ties to specific mission success.  Germans tended to give medals for sustained success, although rewards for a single heroic action were also given.  Allies tended to awards medals for heroic actions, although sustained success would often lead to higher ups looking for and finding a reason to give the award.  But it was not really mission success.  That was usually just doing your job.  Again, some very dangerous and special missions might be exceptions.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. One example: the Air Medal. In the US 9th Air Force, this was part of the determining criteria:

 

Quote

 

Also, the Ninth Air Force would favor an award of an Air Medal for fighter pilots if they completed five sorties that consisted of, or were a combination of, fighter-bomber missions, either bombing or strafing; escort missions using external fuel tanks; tactical reconnaissance or photographic reconnaissance missions over two hours in duration; or night intruder sorties.

 

Because of the five mission or ten mission criteria for the Ninth Air Force, the tactical air force made clear what constituted a sortie: “A sortie is deemed to have taken place when an aircraft, ordered on a combat operational mission, and in the performance of that mission, enters an area where enemy anti-aircraft or ground fire may be effective, or where enemy fighter patrols occur, or is in any way subject to attack. Credit for a sortie will be given only when in the opinion of the group commander every effort for the success of the mission has been made.”

 

From: https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Timelines/World War II/WWIIDFCandAirMedalCriteriaChronological.pdf?ver=2016-09-16-111147-907

 

Then there are the criteria for many of the Soviet medals, which were very often tied directly to mission completion (including the Order of Glory, Order of the Red Star, Order of the Red Banner, Order of Lenin, and Hero of the Soviet Union - all of these medals and awards had specific numeric requirements that had to be met for the mission to be awarded for mission success).

 

As well, there are the criteria for the Order of the Patriotic War:

 

Quote

 

The Order of the Patriotic War of the 1st degree is awarded to:

Who aptly hit and destroyed a particularly important object in the rear of the enemy;

Who courageously performed their duties in the crew of an airplane while performing a combat mission for which a navigator or pilot was awarded the Order of Lenin;

Who shot down in aerial combat, being a member of the crew:

heavy bomber aviation - 4 aircraft;

long-range bomber aviation - 5 aircraft;

short-range bomber aviation - 7 aircraft;

assault aviation - 3 aircraft;

fighter aircraft - 3 aircraft.

Who committed as a member of the crew:

heavy bomber aviation - 20th successful combat mission;

long-range bomber aviation - 25th successful combat mission;

short-range bomber aviation - 30th successful combat mission;

assault aviation - 25th successful combat mission;

fighter aircraft - 60th successful combat mission;

long-range reconnaissance aviation - 25th successful combat mission;

short-range reconnaissance aviation - 30th successful combat mission;

corrective aviation - 15th successful combat mission;

communications aviation - the 60th successful combat sortie with landing on its territory and the 30th successful combat sortie with a landing in the area where its troops are located on the territory occupied by the enemy;

transport aviation - the 60th successful combat sortie with landing on its territory and the 15th successful combat sortie with landing in the area of the location of its troops in the territory occupied by the enemy.

 

 

Quote

 

The Order of the Patriotic War II degree is awarded to:

Who courageously performed their duties in the crew of the aircraft while performing a combat mission for which the navigator or pilot was awarded the Order of the Red Banner;

Who shot down in aerial combat, being a member of the crew:

heavy bomber aviation - 3 aircraft;

long-range bomber aviation - 4 aircraft;

short-range bomber aviation - 6 aircraft;

assault aviation - 2 aircraft;

fighter aircraft - 2 aircraft.

Who committed as a member of the crew:

heavy bomber aviation - 15th successful combat mission;

long-range bomber aviation - 20th successful combat mission;

short-range bomber aviation - 25th successful combat mission;

assault aviation - 20th successful combat mission;

fighter aircraft - 50th successful combat mission;

long-range reconnaissance aviation - 20th successful combat mission;

short-range reconnaissance aviation - 25th successful combat mission;

corrective aviation - 10th successful combat mission;

communications aviation - the 50th successful combat sortie with landing on its territory and the 20th successful combat sortie with a landing in the area where its troops are located on the territory occupied by the enemy;

transport aviation - the 50th successful combat mission with a landing on its territory and the 10th successful combat mission with a landing in the area of the location of its troops in the territory occupied by the enemy.

 

 

From: http://mondvor.narod.ru/OPatWar.html

 

Now yes, for other nations, awards tended to be awarded for sustained success (especially for the British), but even the Germans had a point system for their awards in the West. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, every nation had their own reasons for why they awarded medals like they did.

Edited September 21, 2020 by LukeFF

[Gambit21]

23 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

Indeed, not shared by you and four more, (so far, in the last hour) I hope this game has sold a bit more than just 10 copies. Anyway I don't need to insist any more, my point of view is clear on this matter.

 

Yes it’s sold quite a few more than 10 copies. Just think of the thousands of others who disagree with you.

[PatrickAWlson]

@LukeFF

Don't want to quote the whole post but: Credit for a sortie will be given only when in the opinion of the group commander every effort for the success of the mission has been made.”

 

Every effort at success is different from success.  Every effort at success is my understanding - the pilots involved did their very best.  PWCG has mission requirements for medals and promotions.  I suspect that career mode has them too.  That makes a ton of sense, but IMHO it is different from a very tightly defined criteria for success.

 

In the bridge example: if the pilot flew the mission, engaged the enemy, dropped his bomb and missed the bridge, it's still a mission.  He did his best.

[LukeFF]

Just now, PatrickAWlson said:

@LukeFF

Don't want to quote the whole post but: Credit for a sortie will be given only when in the opinion of the group commander every effort for the success of the mission has been made.”

 

Every effort at success is different from success.  Every effort at success is my understanding - the pilots involved did their very best.  PWCG has mission requirements for medals and promotions.  I suspect that career mode has them too.  That makes a ton of sense, but IMHO it is different from a very tightly defined criteria for success.

 

In the bridge example: if the pilot flew the mission, engaged the enemy, dropped his bomb and missed the bridge, it's still a mission.  He did his best.

 

Oh absolutely, yes. I just wanted to clarify that, in general, nations did have safeguards in place to keep awards from being awarded too easily. In your example at the end, I would believe that 9 or even 10 times out of 10 an American commander would credit the pilots with a successful sortie. 

 

In general, the idea I've seen with most nations is that yes, successful mission credit would be given if (1) the flight crossed into enemy territory and/or were engaged by enemy forces, either in the air or on the ground and (2) the assigned target was engaged.

 

And yes, career mode does have mission requirements for medals and promotions. It took me a long time to refine everything, but I think I have in place now a good system that reflects the individual philosophy of each nation's stance on how and why medals were awarded.

[40plus]

I love that you two are having a civilised and constructive side-conversation in this thread full of muck 

[Monksilver]

43 minutes ago, istari6 said:

 E.g. if you knock down all the Yak-1Bs and experienced pilots in the area, you face Yak-1s and novice pilots for awhile.  

 

That would be a logical result but it wouldn't be a good idea. A pilot who is good enough to knock out the experienced pilots is not going to appreciate a 'reward' of facing novice pilots as there would be no challenge for them - also as they will kill them off even more quickly then the logic of the system would point to no more experienced pilots coming through so that the rest of the career would be micky mouse territory against novices.

 

The OP's idea, of being deprived of various things if missions are not successful, fails for the opposite reason. The player fails a mission because they weren't good enough that time, so next time it will be even more difficult for them to succeed due to the penalties carried over from the previous failure leading to a vicious circle of failure and deprivation of assets. 

 

Neither of the above sounds like a recipe for fun.

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Monksilver

[Gambit21]

3 minutes ago, Monksilver said:

That would be a logical result but would it wouldn't be a good idea. A pilot who is good enough to knock out the experienced pilots is not going to appreciate a 'reward' of facing novice pilots as there would be no challenge for them - also as they will kill them off even more quickly then the logic of the system would point to no more experienced pilots coming through so that the rest of the career would be micky mouse territory against novices.

 

The OP's idea, of being deprived of various things if missions are not successful, fails for the opposite reason. The player fails a mission because they weren't good enough that time, so next time it will be even more difficult for them to succeed due to the penalties carried over from the previous failure leading to a vicious circle of failure and deprivation of assets. 

 

Neither of the above sounds like a recipe for fun.

 

 

 

 

Yep - which illustrates nicely the need to walk the realism line in a way that is plausible (if not utterly historical) and playable at the same time within the realm of a flight (combat) simulation.

[istari6]

1 minute ago, Monksilver said:

That would be a logical result but would it wouldn't be a good idea. A pilot who is good enough to knock out the experienced pilots is not going to appreciate a 'reward' of facing novice pilots as there would be no challenge for them - also as they will kill them off even more quickly then the logic of the system would point to no more experienced pilots coming through so that the rest of the career would be micky mouse territory against novices.

 

The OP's idea, of being deprived of various things if missions are not successful, fails for the opposite reason. The player fails a mission because they weren't good enough that time, so next time it will be even more difficult for them to succeed due to the penalties carried over from the previous failure leading to a vicious circle of failure and deprivation of assets. 

 

Neither of the above sounds like a recipe for fun.

 

I respectfully disagree.  If I'm a Bf 109 G-2 pilot risking his (virtual) life over Stalingrad with each mission, I would enjoy having a period of time where my earlier hard-fought victories created some "easy pickings" to run up my score.  But then I'd hope to see a larger response where the VVS moves in a new fighter squadron reassigned from another part of the front to restore the front with better airplanes and more experienced pilots.  That kind of see-saw in response to unit success would be very rewarding.  

 

I think the point is to somehow see some effect on the broader world, which would add to the realism and the meaningfulness of each mission.  The hard part is having a broader effect that's scaled to the realistic contribution of a single pilot, flight or squadron.

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, istari6 said:

 

I think the point is to somehow see some effect on the broader world, which would add to the realism and the meaningfulness of each mission.  The hard part is having a broader effect that's scaled to the realistic contribution of a single pilot, flight or squadron.

 

Generally speaking, unless you’re the guy who sank a Japanese carrier that type “effect on the broader world” was basically nonexistent. Thus, this idea and “realistic contribution of a single pilot” are largely mutually exclusive.

 

I don’t know of a single instance where any single pilot basically decimated the Aces in the area thus altering the tactical environment for himself and his squadron.

[Monksilver]

8 minutes ago, istari6 said:

 

I respectfully disagree.  If I'm a Bf 109 G-2 pilot risking his (virtual) life over Stalingrad with each mission, I would enjoy having a period of time where my earlier hard-fought victories created some "easy pickings" to run up my score.  But then I'd hope to see a larger response where the VVS moves in a new fighter squadron reassigned from another part of the front to restore the front with better airplanes and more experienced pilots.  That kind of see-saw in response to unit success would be very rewarding.  

 

 

I can see the attraction but I have doubts about how many out there would share it, would the top notch pilots really like to dumb down their opponents. I myself am mediocre, and no doubt the nation is grateful I wasn't flying in 1940, but I want a challenge so I want to stay at the level I am on or face something harder as a reward for doing well. However, those who want to have some cannon fodder for a few flights can easily get it by simply changing the difficulty setting in options for a couple of flights and then putting it back up. 

 

[Mandoble]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Yes it was clear in your first post and easily refuted.

Can't read a single educated refutation aside of "but but but this is historically accurate", which is 100% false. But don't waste your time trying again.

[Monksilver]

6 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Generally speaking, unless you’re the guy who sank a Japanese carrier that type “effect on the broader world” was basically nonexistent. Thus, this idea and “realistic contribution of a single pilot” are largely mutually exclusive.

 

I don’t know of a single instance where any single pilot basically decimated the Aces in the area thus altering the tactical environment for himself and his squadron.

 

Agreed. There were 2 missions where a single plane had a huge impact but as we don't have 4 engine bombers  or PTO we aren't going to be flying the Enola Gay anytime soon.

 

A single successful mission by a flight/squadron also didn't have as huge an impact.

 

Think of the famous missions of WW2 by small groups of planes, such as the Dambusters' raid, the attack on Tarranto, Amien prison raid, the Doolittle raid, the Swordfish on Bismark they had an  impact (of varying degrees) but not on the enemy's ability to fight in the air.  Those operations which did have a wider impact involved multiple squadrons, and multiple missions such as the Battle of Britain, D-Day, Crete where the success or failure of a mission or missions by a flight/squadron didn't ultimately make a difference as it was the combined effect of the whole organisation rather than the individual units that was key.

 

 

[istari6]

29 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Generally speaking, unless you’re the guy who sank a Japanese carrier that type “effect on the broader world” was basically nonexistent. Thus, this idea and “realistic contribution of a single pilot” are largely mutually exclusive.

 

I don’t know of a single instance where any single pilot basically decimated the Aces in the area thus altering the tactical environment for himself and his squadron.

 

That's a bit of a strawman argument.  What I said earlier was that the game could show the impact from the contributions of "a single pilot, flight or squadron".  If a squadron is regularly shooting down enemy aircraft with lopsided kill ratios, that would absolutely begin to have impact on the local enemy squadrons and their ability to put up airpower.  PWCG's Intel map is great in showing the enemy squadrons with pilots and aircraft available.  There aren't thousands of pilots and aircraft available at any given point of the front.  At any given moment, there were dozens of aircraft on each side.  

 

The trick is giving the player a chance to see "their" impact on the world in a (mostly) realistic way.  If you're an individual pilot and that's all you fly as, you'll have almost no impact on the world.  But if you're a flight or squadron leader, and your flight or squadron is regularly achieving kills and pilots are surviving and gaining experience thanks to your leadership, that could begin to see some small, local impact at your area of the front.  Here's where it would be nice if IL-2 had more interesting and meaningful flight and squadron commands, allowing more leadership control over how the whole squadron does.  But that's a different discussion.

Edited September 21, 2020 by istari6

[Mandoble]

52 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@LukeFF

Every effort at success is different from success.  Every effort at success is my understanding - the pilots involved did their very best.

 

100% agree with that, while way more difficult to implement, specially when AI rarely will do their best at all.

[Monksilver]

6 minutes ago, istari6 said:

 

The trick is giving the player a chance to see "their" impact on the world in a (mostly) realistic way.  

I already get that - my impact on the world is shown by a crater where I crashed ?

[=RS=Stix_09]

On 9/21/2020 at 9:02 AM, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

His impact was more political than material

 

11 hours ago, Elem said:

And the outcome of the war would have remained the same, even if he had never been born.

 

Of the end result yes, but he did still have an impact. No one soldier will win a war, unless maybe he invented a technological advantage... Like a atom bomb.

I think maybe the OP was of the idea that if you do achieve an objective (or don't)that is reflected in following missions, and not the whole outcome of the war/battle changes. You are flying in a squad not as an individual and other missions are also happening, so this should show in following missions depending on outcomes of previous events.

Ie maybe you for example blow up a bridge and that impacts supply lines in the region resulting in flow on effects

In essence this is a dynamic campaign, (and difficult to make or devs would have one by now)

Devs in DCS are working on this and from interviews I listened to its quite a challenge to do.

Edited September 21, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[Gambit21]

42 minutes ago, istari6 said:

 

That's a bit of a strawman argument.  What I said earlier was that the game could show the impact from the contributions of "a single pilot, flight or squadron".  If a squadron is regularly shooting down enemy aircraft with lopsided kill ratios, that would absolutely begin to have impact on the local enemy squadrons and their ability to put up airpower.  PWCG's Intel map is great in showing the enemy squadrons with pilots and aircraft available.  There aren't thousands of pilots and aircraft available at any given point of the front.  At any given moment, there were dozens of aircraft on each side.  

 

The trick is giving the player a chance to see "their" impact on the world in a (mostly) realistic way.  If you're an individual pilot and that's all you fly as, you'll have almost no impact on the world.  But if you're a flight or squadron leader, and your flight or squadron is regularly achieving kills and pilots are surviving and gaining experience thanks to your leadership, that could begin to see some small, local impact at your area of the front.  Here's where it would be nice if IL-2 had more interesting and meaningful flight and squadron commands, allowing more leadership control over how the whole squadron does.  But that's a different discussion.

 

I get what you’re saying, however in response to “there aren’t thousands of pilots and aircraft available” I’d say “neither was there a guy who was worlds better than anyone on the map who never had to worry about actually dying.” Thus making lopsided kill ratios all the more likely. I don’t do straw men, but I also understand where you’re coming from FYI.

 

“Mostly realistic” is a subjective line to walk at times.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, istari6 said:

 

I respectfully disagree.  If I'm a Bf 109 G-2 pilot risking his (virtual) life over Stalingrad with each mission, I would enjoy having a period of time where my earlier hard-fought victories created some "easy pickings" to run up my score.  But then I'd hope to see a larger response where the VVS moves in a new fighter squadron reassigned from another part of the front to restore the front with better airplanes and more experienced pilots.  That kind of see-saw in response to unit success would be very rewarding.  

 

I think the point is to somehow see some effect on the broader world, which would add to the realism and the meaningfulness of each mission.  The hard part is having a broader effect that's scaled to the realistic contribution of a single pilot, flight or squadron.

 

I'm not picking on your post in particular, but I'm just jumping into this conversation at this point.

 

My opinion is that, as this is a game/simulation, any system where you could directly affect the situation on the frontlines is open to great imbalance.

 

I can shoot down an average of 4 planes per sortie in career mode; that's clearly more than any real pilot could manage to do, because this is a game and I have unfair advantages that real pilots didn't have (even with difficulty and realism set to max, or very nearly so). That means in 100 sorties (which could take about 3 months or less), I could destroy 400 planes by myself. Add that to whatever the friendly AI manages to kill, and you have a situation where an entire enemy sector should be effectively depopulated in the air. That would, in turn, have two major results:

 

1) You no longer encounter many/any enemy fighters on your flights. Boring.

 

2) You encounter only raw recruits to further pad your score. Boring.

 

Because of the unfair advantages I have as a virtual pilot, I feel it's balanced that the enemy has the unfair advantage of limitless planes, supplies, and skilled pilots. I have no desire to change the movement of the frontline, or single-handedly save/destroy the Stalingrad pocket. This is a flight simulator, and I only want to test my ability to fly against the most competent AI the game can throw at me; and to do so within the structure of the career mode, because that demands a consistent performance to keep my precious averages up.

 

Everyone else has different reasons for playing and different needs, of course. I simply outlined my own.

[EAF19_Marsh]

I’m not sure why people are getting so cross about this. Theres are wonderful campaigns where the win / lose for a mission is surviving and that is fine.

 

But in online servers the coat of everyone picking the best aircraft and dying is fewer good aircraft. In the old SOEW, the cost of not killing sufficient bombers was that they knocked out your airfield / supplies and you were relocated and likely had either fewer aircraft or an inferior type. If you failed to destroy sufficient tanks or support vehicles then the front line moved against your side. If you continually failed to inflict sufficient damage on the enemy then your side lost.
 

For example, a Stalingrad campaign of the scripted type would see the Germans move from superiority to equality and then defeat Irrespective of the player’s actions. In the second - dynamic approach - increasing destruction of enemy assets in air and ground would offer a German chance of ‘victory’ - let’s say arbitrarily no more Red tanks west of the Volga - and the campaign concludes with German forces controlling Stalingrad. Between then, composition, size, disposition and capability of the enemy varies with the cumulative outcome of the player and the wider squadron and other units (which are affected by success / failure to escort or intercept bombers, cover or destroy ground units etc).

 

Both are perfectly viable approaches to a SP campaign. No one is saying that a single pilot actually changed the course of a campaign, but the dynamic aspect effects the subsequent events. Thus:

 

Scripted

- Mission 1: 4 109: defend Pitomnik and player plus AI destroys all or no inbound Soviet bombers

- Mission 2: whatever you did in the last mission there are now only 2 109s because that  was historically what happened
 

Dynamic

- Mission 1: 4 109s defend Pitomnik and player plus AI shoot down all inbound Soviet bombers
- Mission 2: 4 109s are still available because the bombers in mission 1 did not wreck the support facilities at Pitomnik

- Mission 12: Player plus AI supports 6th Army counter-attacks and breaks the kessel towards Manstein because the preceeding missions saw such player plus AI success against air and ground targets that the Soviet armies could not contain the pocket.

 

A simplistic example, obviously, but there is merit in both approaches.

[Mandoble]

21 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

I think maybe the OP was of the idea that if you do achieve an objective (or don't)that is reflected in following missions, and not the whole outcome of the war/battle changes.

 

Actually reflected in anything that affects you as a player, so that you are really interested into winning the missions. I don't care at all about the outcome of the war, not even about ground lost or own if this doesn't affect the player and the way it plays. Having a career where you simply can skip due innaction the random missions you don't like shows how incredibly rudimentary the career actually is. Is not that it is reallistic, is that it is extremely basic, raw and rudimentary. And about the "incredible" effort that a dynamic campaign might take, well many many years ago we had Falcon 5, perhaps you remember it, 

[Gambit21]

45 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

. And about the "incredible" effort that a dynamic campaign might take, well many many years ago we had Falcon 5, perhaps you remember it, 

 

Falcon 4.0

 

It shipped in an incredibly broken state and was never actually fixed by the original developer - so not the best example as far as allocation of developer resources.

That said, I understand your desire to have your efforts pay off in some way - however it’s not a simple thing to pull off realistically.

[Mandoble]

40 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Falcon 4.0

 

It shipped in an incredibly broken state and was never actually fixed by the original developer - so not the best example as far as allocation of developer resources.

That said, I understand your desire to have your efforts pay off in some way - however it’s not a simple thing to pull off realistically.

Reallistic should be the flight model, damage model, weapons effect, effects on the pilot, etc, there is no such a thing as reallistic career as probably every pilot you ask about will have a very different experience, personal and militar. But at least the career could be exciting and thrilling. Fear to fail and need to win is what is missing here.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Mandoble

[BraveSirRobin]

8 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

Reallistic should be the flight model, damage model, weapons effect, effects on the pilot, etc, there is no such a thing as reallistic career as probably every pilot you ask about will have a very different experience, personal and militar. But at least the career could be exciting and thrilling. Fear to fail and need to win is what is missing here.

‘There is a certain amount of self motivation required here.  If bombing the target and/or shooting down enemy aircraft isn’t fun for you, then maybe combat flight sims aren’t your thing.

 

Or maybe try MP.  There is plenty of thrill in fighting against other people.

[UFA_Bagel]

For me, this is about the process and not the goal. Like, I guess, it was and it is for the most RL pilots. Personally, I appreciate realitic simulation in all departments and this looks more like RL compared to "You failed the mission! Reload!".

 

To be fair, mission results define not only some awards but also promotions. Only problem is that the promotion is too fast and not really meaningful until gaining the commander position, IMHO. I had some ideas on how to improve it:

 

Also, not mission goal completion but overall performance affects the number of planes available including not lost but damaged and not available for any missions the same day. Sometimes I found myself in the situation when I have pilots but no planes. If you keep your wingmen alive they can progress and be a little more useful in the combat.

 

IMHO, the challenge is, if you are up to it, the dead-is-dead mode and keeping your wingmen alive as long as possible. Some people here showed their wingmen with 100+ victories. That was the key challenge for individual pilots and squadron leaders IRL. The rest was left for high command and is more suited, as somebody noted here, for a strategy game.

 

Cheers

Edited September 21, 2020 by elegz

[40plus]

44 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

Reallistic should be the flight model, damage model, weapons effect, effects on the pilot, etc, there is no such a thing as reallistic career as probably every pilot you ask about will have a very different experience, personal and militar. But at least the career could be exciting and thrilling. Fear to fail and need to win is what is missing here.

Man, honestly I don't think it's possible for us to disagree on this point... If the game had shipped with your desired career format, I'd be adamantly pushing for what we have now .. It is so much better and more historically accurate.

[=RS=Stix_09]

There are also mplayer dynamic campaigns like on the finnish server or coconuts dynamic server campaigns. As its all about resource allocation for the developers and what community wants overall , and where $ can be made too. Il-2 GB has had and continues to have a lot of free features being added all the time, ppl are spoilt , but there is always something more the community will want.

 

Its a valid request, but there are many others too...
Maybe in the future we will see this added to the game.

What seems simple to some behind the scenes work can be considerable. Sure its another possible thing we may see. Many want dynamic campaigns.

IL-2 COD is also working on doing this down the track , if they can stay operational and get enough sales.

[Sybreed]

I like how in my current BoBP career, in mission where we had to shoot down P-47s, we instead shot down 8 spitfires and still got a mission failed result.

 

I honestly did not see any p-47s around.

 

edit: and now you guys made me realize I probably missed a promotion

Edited April 18, 2021 by Sybreed

[ICDP]

I think the OP has a point to an extent but a dynamic career/campaign should have subtle outcomes, not war wining outcomes.

 

Resources on both side were not infinite, and it was not unheard of for a single unit to help stall a large attack or change the outcome of a large battle in subtle ways.  If your squadron's misison is to destroy a bridge and it succeeds, the enemey has to find an alternate route or build a pontoon bridge which stalls their advance.  This allows your sides ground units to wihdraw to better defensive positions which means the enemy advance in the local area is slowed or even stopped.

 

Imagine the scenario and the potential outcomes.  Your mission is to destroy a bridge and stall an enemy advance, or cover your bombers while they destroy it.  If the mission succeeds your forces can conduct an orderly withdrawal to prepare better defensive positions.  Your next mission is to fly top cover for your well dug in forces on the their side of the river.

 

Fail to destory the bridge and your ground forces are in total retreat and the less well defended front lines are 10 miles beyond the bridge because the enemy broke out of their bridgehead.  So you next mission is the same top cover for your less well defended forces at a location 10 miles closer to your airbase etc.

 

So it's not about winning a war, it's about having subtle effects on the local campaign/career but not necessarily the ultimate outcome.  So you are not going to win Stalingrad for the Germans because you killed 200 tanks, or shot down 500 planes during a campaign.  But if you fly past that bridge you destroyed yesterday, it's still destroyed today.

 

RIght now there are very subtle effects on your squadron, such as pilot and aircraft numbers etc.  So it does have an element of immersion in that regard but outside your immediate squardon the effects are limited but still enjoyable.

Edited April 19, 2021 by ICDP

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

The player should not have an incidence on the big scheme of things even with 700 air kills in a campaign.

 

However, on a day to day basis, the number of available aircrafts in the vicinity SHOULD be somehow affected. Saturday, I shot down 10 luftwaffe fighters in my Tempest career. Many A8's and a couple of Dora's. On the same day, I took off in the afternoon to attack a railway junction in th same area and again the sky was littered with 190's. I mean come on, this is anything but dynamic. 

 

At the end of Stalingrad battle, the 109's are still pouring out of the surrounded area like there was no tomorrow. The only affected airfield is yours, its the only one that really shows attrition. The way the AI commits suicide all the time, the only real dynamism you'll see is how overwhelmed you'll be compared to AI friendly from neighbouring airfields and enemy planes that are instantly replenished no matter how many planes they lost.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[Airborne506]

This topic is something I try to remind myself of as I get frustrated flying any mission and either missing with bombs/rockets or not shooting down any planes despite an engagement or not running into any enemy at all (has only happened once on the very last mission of my P40 career, squadron was rotated after completion). I blame playing Ace Combat 4/5/0 and blowing up everything in sight. I'm sure pilots in ww2 had plenty of missions where they're ordnance missed, they didn't shoot down any enemies, or they got shot up before getting to the AO and had to bug out and go home but, if they made it back then there was always more missions to fly. I wish the engine allowed for wider variety sometimes - high alt bomber escort in P47/P51 would be cool - but it's gotta fit the time frame and state of the war too.

 

Also not to stray off topic here but can the ww2 community in general just start putting an asterisk on those Luftwaffe aces with 200-300 kills?

Edited April 19, 2021 by Airborne506

[ragvard]

I kind of get the point, but i think mission variety would be much easier to implement and had a greater effect on gameplay. I'd like the missions themselves to be more dynamic: Random encounters, new information about targets, more mission types, etc.

The career is great fun, but i can get a bit repetitive.

 

[Varibraun]

On 4/19/2021 at 9:17 AM, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

However, on a day to day basis, the number of available aircrafts in the vicinity SHOULD be somehow affected. Saturday, I shot down 10 luftwaffe fighters in my Tempest career. Many A8's and a couple of Dora's. On the same day, I took off in the afternoon to attack a railway junction in th same area and again the sky was littered with 190's. I mean come on, this is anything but dynamic. 

 

At the end of Stalingrad battle, the 109's are still pouring out of the surrounded area like there was no tomorrow. The only affected airfield is yours, its the only one that really shows attrition. The way the AI commits suicide all the time, the only real dynamism you'll see is how overwhelmed you'll be compared to AI friendly from neighbouring airfields and enemy planes that are instantly replenished no matter how many planes they lost.

 

If you haven't tried it, you might enjoy PWCG for this reason alone.  @PatrickAWlson's algorithm reflects losses and replacements with each AI pilot in the included squadrons having an actual virtual life that can be impacted both by player actions and the out of player mission behind the scenes action. 

 

In the situation you describe above, that LW squadron you decimated would likely have been out of action for approximately a week in PWCG.  Also, taking out opposing aces (historical and non-historical, both are represented), has an impact because experience levels are applied to individual AI pilots based on missions and kills (I think that the stock campaign applies a uniform pilot level to the opposition based on difficulty selected).  

 

Also, Pat is running a new Beta that throws "Iconic" events into the mix.  Last night, I flew an FW-190D in an attempt to disrupt the Christmas Day airdrop into Bastogne.  I managed to take out one C-47 before the escorting Mustangs showed me the door...

Edited April 20, 2021 by Varibraun

[Groove_GFA]

Even the default career mode can be pretty fun. I understand the impact on the war and theatre is minimal if anything at all, but sustaining heavy aircraft losses resulting in your squadron doing missions with less aircraft can be fun. 

 

Here's an excerpt from my flight log from a past "dead is dead" career - this came to mind as an interesting turn of events, the only time so far in a career I've been sent on a highly questionable mission. Yes - I actually log every single flight I do in a spreadsheet, because I'm cool like that.  Anyhoo, here's the excerpt from my brief mission comments I made on that faithful day of October 19, 1941, flying an Il-2 mod. 1941 for the 62nd ShAP on the Battle of Moscow, sent on an Airfield Attack. The lack of fighter escort was also disturbing (I think command wanted me dead).

 

"Due to lack of aircraft, sent on suicide mission with 1 wingman. Moderate AAA and 3 109s scrambled. Did one pass on the airfield, destroyed a hangar. Managed to evade 109s flying low and fast; however, they intercepted me on the way back. Managed to maneuver kill two of them at low altitude (blacked out during a high speed turn I suspect), the other entered a spin and couldn't recover. Got very lucky. Wingman was shot down and captured."

 

So it's not all bad - you can get into some funny situations. I was certain I was not going to return from that sortie! I had the game on "hard" difficulty but the AI seemed to have issues flying around a few hundred feet off the deck...

 

I do need to go back and play with Pat's tool again. I did a few missions with it and enjoyed it (thanks Pat).

 

-Groove

Edited April 21, 2021 by Groove_GFA
spelling error that annoyed me

[Airborne506]

Oof, boy do I regret making my asterisk comment earlier in the thread I've completely derailed this haha. It was more a reference to Barry Bonds homerun count but meant it more as a comment on (at least my understanding) that the Luftwaffe kill claims particularly in the east were more likely to have been inflated as the system of promotion was related to that as well as the politics/propaganda that comes with having outstanding pilots. Not saying those pilots were any less skilled. For sure each side over claimed it just seems like Luftwaffe "encouraged" it a bit more. I will say I am learning a lot here though, particularly interested in reading more about the Japanese claims i had no idea about that.

 

Back on topic, one thing I certainly enjoy about the career modes is if I have to bail over friendly territory I can still complete a mission. I was playing some of Ice Ring and right at the 2nd to last waypoint my il2 finally ran out of coolant and I had to belly it - mission failed - was not keen to replay it right away. I do like that the scripted stuff has more variety in weather and objectives but I feel more invested in the squadron/pilot in regular careers. I admittedly haven't tried out PWCG so I suppose I should soon!

[PatrickAWlson]

3 hours ago, Airborne506 said:

I admittedly haven't tried out PWCG so I suppose I should soon!

 

Why yes, yes you should  .  Seriously, most people find things they prefer in each.   I just released 12.0..0 about two seconds ago with the new Spitfire and N28. Something that may not be common knowledge: PWCG has been in constant development since 2009 and predates Career Mode in ROF.

[Mandoble]

Point is that if people needs PWCG to have any fun, that means that the game itself is lacking the most important feature of any game.

[Nocke]

1 hour ago, Mandoble said:

Point is that if people needs PWCG to have any fun, that means that the game itself is lacking the most important feature of any game.

In other words, the game showcases all the features you need to have fun with something like PWCG.

[Mandoble]

43 minutes ago, 216th_Nocke said:

In other words, the game showcases all the features you need to have fun with something like PWCG.

I didn't say that. What I said is that the game for me in its current state is simply boring and repetitive, with PWCG is a just bit less boring but way more annoying. There is a ton to do to make this really atractive for people looking for something realistic and fun. It is fine to have some reallistic but terribly boring scenarios to test them from time to time, but in my opinion these should be just like an addon, even optional, and not the kernel of the game as they are now. When you fly your tenth attack mission to the very same spot and against the very same tank column ...