Single player Campaign needs higher chance of random interception

[RydnDirty]

I have been flying some offline campaigns after maybe  10 years of swearing I will never play offline again. 

The campaigns are better than I thought and have some advantages over multiplayer that I hadn't thought about. Such as flying in larger more historical sized groups.

 

But the chance of interception on rout, while not being zero, is so low that I almost never see it. This means the take off, flight to objective return trip plus landing is boring. Tedious even. And yet I want to fly the whole mission for many reasons. Navigation, relative cruise speeds climb rates, ect are part of the context and variety of the different planes and part of the experience...  There is often enemy planes only at the objective. This makes it really boring to cruise.

 

When I play online it is never boring because there is always a chance of an enemy plane diving on me at any time. This creates tension and puts me on the edge of my seat even when the enemy doesn't show up.  So I'm never bored.

 

It seems like it would be so easy to fix this by increasing the risk of interception at any time. Even while sitting on the runway about to take off, the sirens could spin up and a formation of attack planes appear through the clouds.  Is there any way to turn up this probability of random interception ? 

 

 

[Noisemaker]

My flights, especially if bombers or attackers, are routinely bounced en route to target, typically 20-30km out.  I'd like to see it less, honestly.

[BlackSix]

2 hours ago, RydnDirty said:

It seems like it would be so easy to fix this by increasing the risk of interception at any time. Even while sitting on the runway about to take off, the sirens could spin up and a formation of attack planes appear through the clouds.  Is there any way to turn up this probability of random interception ?

Hi! All this is very easy to do, sometimes I use this solution but there are a couple of nuances:

 

1) Random interceptions can easily be inserted into a mission if there is not enough information about that particular sortie, usually on the Eastern Front. When I did two campaigns about British aviation, I didn't dare to insert such things. Operational record books are widely available for each squadron, there are many books describing every day of the air war, and such a sudden interception would be very contrary to the real story. It's a problem.

 

2) Psychological moment. The mission designer usually puts maximum effort into creating events in the main area of your mission. If the player is intercepted on the way to the target, then he will not see the main events of the mission and this is usually very disappointing for designer. The player may not be aware that the interception is random and will not replay such a mission.
If we insert an interception on the return route, then the player may no longer have ammunition, the mission will become very difficult or fail, which can cause a lot of negativity. Yes this happened in the war but usually we don't like to replay the sortie and waste time. Therefore, everything is not so simple.

[Raptorattacker]

10 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

Yes this happened in the war but usually we don't like to replay the sortie and waste time. Therefore, everything is not so simple.

Some good points very well put!

[RydnDirty]

Thank you for the replies. I'm talking about the dynamic campaigns mostly. That's what I have been playing. I assume scripted would be predictable and I want it to be unpredictable... So it requires constant attention. There is a slider for density of units. A slider for the chance of interception would be ideal so that we can all play it as we wish. I would love to be on guard the whole flight. If I get shot down and I experience just a tiny hint of the disappointment of war...So be it. 

 

I too get intercepted 10-20 km from target regularly, but I flew 100 km with nothing to do and no reason to even bother looking out the window for 80-90 km. This is THE problem with offline campaign IMO. When I play online me and my wingman are checking each others 6 the whole time and there is never a sense of boredom. Some times we are taxing out and the air raid sirens go off. It is exciting and unpredictable. 

 

Historical accuracy is a very good argument to make but when I read after action reports there are many cases of a cruising formation getting intercepted. The percentage of missions intercepted in history is not something I know.  If I was very rare then I accept your point. But it is well known that German jets would have allied planes loitering near their airfields waiting for a chance to kill vulnerable landing jets. The Luftwaffe even had Doras top cover because this was so common.  This is very interesting in my opinion for all planes involved. I would love to find myself returning from a strike with low ammo/fuel and find Mustangs loitering near my airfield. Do I try for another field with low fuel? Do I try to draw them down into my friendly flak batteries? Will have to bail out and lose a valuable plane for the squadron?  I would relish all of these difficulties. 

 

I remember back when IL2 46 was first getting modded and they made a B29 and a map of Japan and Marianas. I was excited to fly a whole B29 mission and experience first hand the mindless tedium of 8 hour cruise over blue water .... The excitement didn't last long though  hahahah

[Eisenfaustus]

3 minutes ago, RydnDirty said:

I'm talking about the dynamic campaigns mostly. That's what I have been playing. I assume scripted would be predictable and I want it to be unpredictable... So it requires constant attention.

I also play mostly career or pwcg - so I absolutely understand your point. 
 

Yet I encourage you to play the scripted campaigns as well. They usually have very immersive missions. And if you play them once, they are unpredictable for you at least. 
 

And while many cool campaigns are included for free - The Payware campaigns I bought were worth their money. I really had a Blast flying Birds of Steel!

[Skycat1969]

OP, you didn't specify what career you are playing. Playing mostly as fighter, to me the intercepts felt more common and natural in the Moscow and Stingrad careers vs later products. I think the intercepts are most likely when the mission involves bombers and ground attack planes. In the early days of Bodenplatte I started a P-47 career and it was practically unplayable because the P-47s were always  assigned bombing missions and they were almost always intercepted by multiple squads of Luftwaffe. Now the mission design has top cover for the P-47s, and I see the escorts become engaged in a fight while the P-47s push on to target. Same pattern for Typhoon missions. There might be a fight during egress. The enemy AI used to be notorious for chasing all the way to home field. Now they usually turn back.

[Majpalmer]

I play exclusively offline. I agree with the take on the Stock campaign. But my perception is that the Pat Wilson campaign, especially if you crank up "Air Density" and "CPU Allowance" will generate all kinds of activity. When I play a PWCGBoS career, I often never get to the objective! 

 

Give it a try and see if that helps. 

[SCG_Faerber]

Slightly off topic here but what Single Player in Great Battles really need is better radio options and communication with AI. At least to the extent there was in 1946 or Cliffs of Dover. It doesn't matter if I'm flying with 6 wingmen, it always feels like I am alone. I can't ask for homebase vector, can't ask for flightlead position or heading. It is really barebones and hasn't been developed in forever! 

[Gambit21]

BlackSix just about covered it. It’s a “scripted” campaign because I’m scripting the events. If I want you to get “randomly” intercepted, then I’ll arrange it. (I’ve done this) If not, then that mission is progressing as I’ve written it and as intended - the end.

 

Like Alex said it wouldn’t do to spend days working out logic only to insert a random attack that keeps you from ever experiencing it.

 

 

56 minutes ago, SCG_Faerber said:

Slightly off topic here 

 

 

slightly

[LukeFF]

Regarding the chance of interception in career mode: the chance of it happening is directly tied to the difficulty level.

[twilson37]

I think the real issue is that all what different things when it comes to a campaign and the developers have to walk a tightrope between reality and playability. If for example you are playing a Bodenplatte campaign a realistic campaign may have you fly 150 missions without seeing an enemy aircraft, I think all but the hardcore sim fan would probably not enjoy flying circular patterns around Belgium mission after mission to be particularly enjoyable, furthermore they probably wouldn't like it if their engine suddenly quit 50 miles behind enemy lines for no reason or their own AAA knocked them out of the sky on mission 100 of an ironman campaign.  Personally I have no problems with how the campaigns are set up other than I would like to see more options for the player to set up the campaign as they wish, such as divide campaign difficulty up into chance of interception, number of enemy aircraft possible, and average skill of enemy AI.

[Gambit21]

Can we please not conflate scripted campaigns and career? Happens all the time and is highly annoying.

[Noisemaker]

3 hours ago, twilson37 said:

I think the real issue is that all what different things when it comes to a campaign and the developers have to walk a tightrope between reality and playability. If for example you are playing a Bodenplatte campaign a realistic campaign may have you fly 150 missions without seeing an enemy aircraft, I think all but the hardcore sim fan would probably not enjoy flying circular patterns around Belgium mission after mission to be particularly enjoyable, furthermore they probably wouldn't like it if their engine suddenly quit 50 miles behind enemy lines for no reason or their own AAA knocked them out of the sky on mission 100 of an ironman campaign.  Personally I have no problems with how the campaigns are set up other than I would like to see more options for the player to set up the campaign as they wish, such as divide campaign difficulty up into chance of interception, number of enemy aircraft possible, and average skill of enemy AI.

As a dedicated SP player, I would love to see more missions (Especially in BP.  We get them late stage BK, BM, and BS, so why not BP) where there is no enemy opposition, or, too little, too late.

 

As for friendly AAA taking out my aircraft, it's happened, several times, no enemies around.

 

Random engine problems, well, they'd be a pain in the ass, but also more realistic, so sign me up.

 

I honestly think we can so much better with the campaign generator than targeting an already destroyed asset and having the entire Luftwaffe show up to intercept, as so often happens.

 

[Majpalmer]

I was a historian for a WWII veterans'' tour of Europe back in 1993. One of the guys had flown 35 B-24 missions with 15th AF. I asked him if he wanted to talk about his experiences with the group. No way. I asked him, over a beer, if he'd mind if I asked a few questions. With that he was fine. 

 

I asked a about where he'd flown from and to. Then I asked what did it feel like when you saw German fighters bearing in on you? He looked at me and smiled. "I wouldn't know." Then he explained that not once during his 35 missions had he EVER seen a Luftwaffe aircraft! FLAK, yes. American fighters aplenty. German fighters, never. He flown his missions in late 1944 and early 1945, then went home. 

 

How do you simulate that and make it interesting? 35 FLAK runs over the Alps? 

[Noisemaker]

23 minutes ago, Majpalmer said:

 

I asked a about where he'd flown from and to. Then I asked what did it feel like when you saw German fighters bearing in on you? He looked at me and smiled. "I wouldn't know." Then he explained that not once during his 35 missions had he EVER seen a Luftwaffe aircraft! FLAK, yes. American fighters aplenty. German fighters, never. He flown his missions in late 1944 and early 1945, then went home. 

 

How do you simulate that and make it interesting? 35 FLAK runs over the Alps? 

To be fair, yeah, more historically accurate (Not literally accurate) flak, would be nice, especially on the western front.

 

[RydnDirty]

12 hours ago, Skycat1969 said:

OP, you didn't specify what career you are playing. 

 

 

I play a bit of everything. I have all the modules. With the Arado out I have been flying the German Jets a lot. The Me 262 as a fighter bomber and as an interceptor too. I guess this particular case is notorious for being intercepted while landing... I tried to play the Mosquito but it was just too boring to fly full long missions and I am not interested in air starts or cruising at fast forward. Something like a 15-20%chance of interception at any moment would make these long flights interesting.  At this point I am playing only squadrons stationed closet to the front. What ever campaign I fly. 

 

As for missing out on the designed mission. I imagine the generated campaigns have missions types that repeat within parameters and if sometimes the player is intercepted but sometime the player is not,  this would not be a problem for generated campaigns because the mission type will be regenerated again.  

 

As for historical accuracy of the AI, I would like to see more hit and run tactics which I read about in historical reports. When I play the Spitfire XIV campaign and the FW190A8 try to turn fight me. It is child's play to kill them one after the other.  It would be maybe more realistic for FW190A8 to perform a diving attack or two while has E advantage and then try to run East with their WM50 system engaged. When I used to play on TAW human players would do this because they didn't want to die and it was great to play like that. I can see how new players would like to turn fight all the time but once you have done that the question becomes how would they have used the tools they had to achieve their combat goals and survive. Hit and run.

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

18 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Can we please not conflate scripted campaigns and career? Happens all the time and is highly annoying.

 

Maybe, but IMHO quite forgivable.  Until IL2 "Career Mode" was always called campaign in every sim that I have ever played.  Thus PWCG is Campaign and not Career, although in the context of this game it should be career.

 

Basically, this game has defined as an Orange what in every other game is Apple.  They then define Apple as something else.  Quite understandable if people then get apple and orange confused.

[firdimigdi]

7 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Basically, this game has defined as an Orange what in every other game is Apple.  They then define Apple as something else.  Quite understandable if people then get apple and orange confused.

 

Indeed, rather fruitless getting worked up about it.

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Firdimigdi
squeezed for appealing phrasing

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Maybe, but IMHO quite forgivable.  Until IL2 "Career Mode" was always called campaign in every sim that I have ever played.  Thus PWCG is Campaign and not Career, although in the context of this game it should be career.

 

Basically, this game has defined as an Orange what in every other game is Apple.  They then define Apple as something else.  Quite understandable if people then get apple and orange confused.

 

I 100% agree.

 

Can't blame anyone for confusing/conflating things.

Still annoying though, as it causes us to talk past each other at times.

[=621=Samikatz]

1946 was worse for that, I feel. It kept linear mission sets and generated ones in the same menu often without anything in the description telling you what you were loading into