Pat, are you planning on making PWCG emulate ground war? Making the fronts move based on the battles that happened?

[Gobnik20]

I saw your comment "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"." 

 

Link to discussion: 

 

I loved the fact that you mentioned how older WW2 games let you emulate the war to a different outcome, meaning each playthrough could end the war in completely different ways which in turn makes the game persistent and dynamic to the core.

 

I would love to see this as a feature or at least optional, that would be my dream come through. There hasn't been any good game or mod that can replicate what those older titled did (weird enough) and your mod already emulates the Air war and all the aspects of it very very well. This would be a cherry on top.

 

Is this ever going to happen with PWCG? Anything similar?

Edited May 11, 2024 by Gobnik20

[PatrickAWlson]

Truth is, I don't know how I would do it.  FC would be easier than BoS as it is a single map.  BoB got away with it because it was also a single map at an inflection point in history where it is only Germany and Britain as primary combatants.  The US and Russia are not involved.  Germany wins and Sea Lion proceeds and succeeds.  British win and - they do not win the war - they simply survive.  i don't think lines on a map ever move in BoB.  It is just a possibly alternate outcome based on the air war.

 

In BoS I start history with a faux BoB and proceed to the end of the war.  Both east and west are represented with the ability of Germans to freely transfer between fronts.  How do I impact the east based on events on events in the west and vice versa?  How do I determine German win conditions in the east?  How do I combine all of the area represented in the easter maps into a cohesive whole?  I don't think it works because Germany was pretty much toast as soon as it started wars with Russia and the US.  I don't think that I could come up with a remotely plausible German victory scenario after June 1941.  

 

What might work are alternate history variations.  Recreate the BoB scenario with only Germany and Britain.  An alternate reality where Germany is fighting only Russia.  

[Gobnik20]

20 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Truth is, I don't know how I would do it.  FC would be easier than BoS as it is a single map.  BoB got away with it because it was also a single map at an inflection point in history where it is only Germany and Britain as primary combatants.  The US and Russia are not involved.  Germany wins and Sea Lion proceeds and succeeds.  British win and - they do not win the war - they simply survive.  i don't think lines on a map ever move in BoB.  It is just a possibly alternate outcome based on the air war.

 

In BoS I start history with a faux BoB and proceed to the end of the war.  Both east and west are represented with the ability of Germans to freely transfer between fronts.  How do I impact the east based on events on events in the west and vice versa?  How do I determine German win conditions in the east?  How do I combine all of the area represented in the easter maps into a cohesive whole?  I don't think it works because Germany was pretty much toast as soon as it started wars with Russia and the US.  I don't think that I could come up with a remotely plausible German victory scenario after June 1941.  

 

What might work are alternate history variations.  Recreate the BoB scenario with only Germany and Britain.  An alternate reality where Germany is fighting only Russia.  

"What might work are alternate history variations.  Recreate the BoB scenario with only Germany and Britain.  An alternate reality where Germany is fighting only Russia.  "

 

Exactly what my idea was. If you're familiar with DCG for IL - 1946, you could generate a campaign that wasn't tied to the rest of the world, not transfering between fronts etc. It was just 1 map with 2 countries battling it out in a very dynamic environment. No ties to history, only historical units in terms of ground and air units (Not sure about aces).

 

What I loved is that the war was very procedural, no playthrough was the same and knowing that your small little flight on an enemy depot, in this major war could have some kind of influence on the broader war was what made is replayable and exciting. You could actually influence the course of the war!

 

There's no need to combine the whole war on the East and West together, as that just overcomplicates everything, I don't think the aim should be on "rewriting" history, it should rather be a replayable  "my war" scenario, where you feel like your actions have a some sort of impact. Wether you destroyed a T34 that was harassing the troops near a town or you destroyed a bridge that was important for reinforcing a sector, and for that to be persistent. That to me makes a campaign feel truly dynamic.

 

I feel like PWCG has come such a long way and could use something of this sort. I mean it's not all that realistic when you somehow destroyed 8/10 air squadrons and the war progresses the same way as it would historically.

 

No offense to you of course, just an example. :))

Edited May 11, 2024 by Gobnik20

[Mtnbiker1998]

18 hours ago, Gobnik20 said:

Exactly what my idea was. If you're familiar with DCG for IL - 1946, you could generate a campaign that wasn't tied to the rest of the world, not transfering between fronts etc. It was just 1 map with 2 countries battling it out in a very dynamic environment. No ties to history, only historical units in terms of ground and air units (Not sure about aces).

I think you answered your own question, what we'd need is a whole new form of campaign generator. Like Pat said, I don't think PWCG in its current form could be turned into a dynamic campaign. a modern day version of DCG would be quite fun, as I won't play 1946 without VR, but given the limits of the GB engine I doubt we'd get anything much better than what Pat has done with PWCG.

 

As for the discussion of Dynamic campaigns, I think Falcon 4 did it best. the seamless integration of a 2d strategy game interfacing with a 3d flight sim seamlessly, and in real time!! That means no repetitive template based mission generators or RNG, its totally fluid and units will move and carry out orders as you fly. If you haven't experienced it, it really is worth the learning curve of BMS. What makes it so good is it isn't just a matter of simulating how YOUR flight did on its single mission, but is in fact simulating the entire war and the outcomes of battles across the entire front. I think most of the common complaints from people who think "dynamic campaigns are unrealistic, one pilot shouldn't be able to turn the tide of a war!" simply don't understand what a proper dynamic campaign is actually doing. 

[Gobnik20]

7 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

I think you answered your own question, what we'd need is a whole new form of campaign generator. Like Pat said, I don't think PWCG in its current form could be turned into a dynamic campaign. a modern day version of DCG would be quite fun, as I won't play 1946 without VR, but given the limits of the GB engine I doubt we'd get anything much better than what Pat has done with PWCG.

 

As for the discussion of Dynamic campaigns, I think Falcon 4 did it best. the seamless integration of a 2d strategy game interfacing with a 3d flight sim seamlessly, and in real time!! That means no repetitive template based mission generators or RNG, its totally fluid and units will move and carry out orders as you fly. If you haven't experienced it, it really is worth the learning curve of BMS. What makes it so good is it isn't just a matter of simulating how YOUR flight did on its single mission, but is in fact simulating the entire war and the outcomes of battles across the entire front. I think most of the common complaints from people who think "dynamic campaigns are unrealistic, one pilot shouldn't be able to turn the tide of a war!" simply don't understand what a proper dynamic campaign is actually doing. 

I  completely agree with your comment. Why wouldn't it be possible to implement a dynamic campaign like the one in DCG though? I get that the engine has its limits, in theory, wouldn't it be easier to program a self developing campaign without having to hardcode all the historical events? Start the campaign from a particular date with all historical positions in terms of airfields, troops composition etc, and let the fate of the battles simulate the front?

 

I may be ignorant as I'm not programmist, Pat has the best judgement here and I am forever grateful for his amazing mod, it is the only reason why I play IL2 to begin with, I feel like having a campaign of this sort would really add a whole new layer of gameplay. 

 

I don't mean that you as a player have to influence the whole war, obviously that isn't possible, but knowing that an attack run on a village that holds enemy armor can actually have an impact on the battles to come is a great feeling on its own. You actually feel like you're making a difference, you feel the responsibility of your flight needing to accomplish something.

 

It kind of bothers me that a ground attack mission is kind of just there to be there, there isn't much depth since you can't really influence the ground war. Correct me if I am wrong.

[PatrickAWlson]

Of interest is that I already have an underlying personnel and equipment replacement scheme.  What I do not have are - a lot of things.

1. Rules for movement

2. Rules for victory

3. Dynamic movement of squadrons required due to dynamic line movement.

 

Anything that I could come up with would be kind of hokey, making the outcome of WWII entirely dependent on front line air clashes over a limited frontage, but it could be fun.  

[Gobnik20]

7 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Of interest is that I already have an underlying personnel and equipment replacement scheme.  What I do not have are - a lot of things.

1. Rules for movement

2. Rules for victory

3. Dynamic movement of squadrons required due to dynamic line movement.

 

Anything that I could come up with would be kind of hokey, making the outcome of WWII entirely dependent on front line air clashes over a limited frontage, but it could be fun.  

I personaly think that would be a feature worth persuing if you have the time and knowledge. I also think roleplay could play a big factor, here's my proposition.

 

If you start the game in 1941 battle for Moscow, and you win as Germany, the war moves to Stalingrad, starting with the last date of the previous map, so if you win before the historical date, you may have different planes before their real in service dates.

 

If you win as the Soviets, the campaign ends and you have to restart. Since its battle of Moscow the odds of Germany are higher at the start, and the dynamic fluidity of such campaign could present different results.

As for allies, they will be available at the earliest date they entered the game world. The option of 

transfering to a front would then be available for Germany, this is the roleplay factor. The game forgets about eastern front, history repeats itself. If you beat the Allies before Bodenplatte then they're out of the war and you only fight the Soviets, with their historical compositions. It shouldn't be about balance as it would be semi historical, it's just the fluidity of the frontline that should be different each playthrough.

 

Just a basic idea of what could be in PWCG, let me know what you think.  Here's an example how DCG (mod) for men of war did it pretty well.

Edited May 13, 2024 by Gobnik20

[PatrickAWlson]

I I were to do this it would look like:

Bodenplatte (Berlin substitute) <- Moscow -> Stalingrad -> Kuban -> Moscow (second time to win the war)
The war would start on the  Moscow map and move based on who wins or loses

 

In the west it would look like 

Normandy (Battle of Britain)  -> Normandy (Allied Invasion) -> Bodenplatte

The German's only chance to win would be the BoB scenario. 

 

The war always starts with Germany on the offensive.  If Germany loses a scenario then it goes on the defensive.  If Germany wins a defensive scenario then the war ends without a clear winner.

 

FC would be a bit different.  Only one  map.  Play until victory or Jan 1 1919 which would be a stalemate scenario.

 

I want to level set expectations.  I am not even getting the time to fix bugs promptly, never mind a project of this scope.  This is something that I have had in  my brain for years but have never managed to get off the ground.  I appreciate your post with suggestions and reigniting the thought, but real life is such that I question ever getting to this.

[Gobnik20]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I I were to do this it would look like:

Bodenplatte (Berlin substitute) <- Moscow -> Stalingrad -> Kuban -> Moscow (second time to win the war)
The war would start on the  Moscow map and move based on who wins or loses

 

In the west it would look like 

Normandy (Battle of Britain)  -> Normandy (Allied Invasion) -> Bodenplatte

The German's only chance to win would be the BoB scenario. 

 

The war always starts with Germany on the offensive.  If Germany loses a scenario then it goes on the defensive.  If Germany wins a defensive scenario then the war ends without a clear winner.

 

FC would be a bit different.  Only one  map.  Play until victory or Jan 1 1919 which would be a stalemate scenario.

 

I want to level set expectations.  I am not even getting the time to fix bugs promptly, never mind a project of this scope.  This is something that I have had in  my brain for years but have never managed to get off the ground.  I appreciate your post with suggestions and reigniting the thought, but real life is such that I question ever getting to this.

Pretty much how you described it.

 

Well I hope one day it will come true! Thanks again for giving me the time to share my idea. Really looking forward to the future of PWCG.

[=DW=_BIRDD0G]

No one is expecting a dynamic campaign spanning 1941 to 1945, across both fronts!  If you do ever pick up this gauntlet, I would encourage you start with a dynamic campaign for a single "Battle of...".  They are named for specific battles, after all.  At this scale individual tanks and aircraft still matter in the moment, and you don't have to justify the outcome of a single battle against the outcome of the war.

 

I recently discovered PWCB and the immersive affect has absolutely blown me away (thank you!).  It's the only single-player offering that has tempted me away from the MP environment since... the invention of MP.  It really has the feeling that you're a small part of a huge machine.  It just misses that final satisfaction of knowing you _did_ something.  You want to see the work of your comrades have their affect. 

 

In any case, you don't owe anyone anything.  But it would be so awesome :).

[PatrickAWlson]

5 hours ago, VA_BIRDD0G said:

No one is expecting a dynamic campaign spanning 1941 to 1945, across both fronts!  If you do ever pick up this gauntlet, I would encourage you start with a dynamic campaign for a single "Battle of...".  They are named for specific battles, after all.  At this scale individual tanks and aircraft still matter in the moment, and you don't have to justify the outcome of a single battle against the outcome of the war.

 

I recently discovered PWCB and the immersive affect has absolutely blown me away (thank you!).  It's the only single-player offering that has tempted me away from the MP environment since... the invention of MP.  It really has the feeling that you're a small part of a huge machine.  It just misses that final satisfaction of knowing you _did_ something.  You want to see the work of your comrades have their affect. 

 

In any case, you don't owe anyone anything.  But it would be so awesome :).

 

Appreciate the feedback.  It's motivating for me hear people actually like my work.  In the end you and your comrades can do just as much as Erich Hartmann or Gabby Gabreski ... a little bit to help win or not nearly enough to prevent losing  .  PWCG was always designed to emulate, and hopefully improve on, RedBaron3D.  That was my favorite campaign from days of old.  

Your feedback is helpful and reasonable.  Allowing players to win a battle is much easier than figuring out how to to handle a to and fro over a disjointed series of land masses  

[Russkly]

On 6/7/2024 at 6:43 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Appreciate the feedback.  It's motivating for me hear people actually like my work.  In the end you and your comrades can do just as much as Erich Hartmann or Gabby Gabreski ... a little bit to help win or not nearly enough to prevent losing  .  PWCG was always designed to emulate, and hopefully improve on, RedBaron3D.  That was my favorite campaign from days of old.  

Your feedback is helpful and reasonable.  Allowing players to win a battle is much easier than figuring out how to to handle a to and fro over a disjointed series of land masses  

I like your work, Pat.

 

There, that's my contribution to your motivation levels 😁