Really wish PWCG could simulate ground warfare same way it simulates the Air war

[HavokAvok]

PWCG sure is an amazing tool, but I really wish it had a dynamic frontline system that could simulate the ground war and your accomplishments in the mission. Something like DCG in IL2 1946 would be sufficient. I know Lowengrin (the creator) is  still active on his forum for DCG.  Not expecting anything like Falcon BMS as that is just a whole new pipline. Its just the psychological affect a dynamic campaign has on you feels great, it feels good knowing that you did something, something like the combat box campaigns?

 

I read a few posts where Pat has mentioned that he hasn't got the time nor the knowledge to design something like this, which I completely understand, what he has made for us is honestly the sole reason I still play this game.  

 

Pat if you see this, I am willing to pay you or even help in developing anything like this, of course you don't owe anyone anything, but I feel like this is something that is really missing from IL2. 

Edited October 19, 2024 by HavokAvok
added a few words

[Gobnik20]

1 hour ago, HavokAvok said:

PWCG sure is an amazing tool, but I really wish it had a dynamic frontline system that could simulate the ground war and your accomplishments in the mission. Something like DCG in IL2 1946 would be sufficient. I know Lowengrin (the creator) is  still active on his forum for DCG.  Not expecting anything like Falcon BMS as that is just a whole new pipline. Its just the psychological affect a dynamic campaign has on you feels great, it feels good knowing that you did something, something like the combat box campaigns?

 

I read a few posts where Pat has mentioned that he hasn't got the time nor the knowledge to design something like this, which I completely understand, what he has made for us is honestly the sole reason I still play this game.  

 

Pat if you see this, I am willing to pay you or even help in developing anything like this, of course you don't owe anyone anything, but I feel like this is something that is really missing from IL2. 

Would definately be game changing, I have also posted about this. Eager to see it happen 1 day.

 

I don't understand people that oppose this idea. We know that a single pilot or squadron won't change the course of the war, and that is not the aim of a dynamic campaign. It is  just a framework to emulate all the interconnected variables. It is much better to know that a tank column you destroyed, or planes that were going to attack your rail depot actually had an impact on the war effort, after all the air was impacted the ground war greately and it feels a bit empty especially on ground attack missions. 

 

Pat's work is incredible, and he doesn't even have to acknowledge any of the stuff we're writing here, but a product can't be great without great feedback so here I am writing this. Its good to know that other people share the same ideas!

[PatrickAWlson]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea too.  I'm not doing it because it would mean rewriting almost everything.  Really ... truly ... everything.  Let me give you an idea of what is missing:

 

• Algorithm for results calculation and dynamic line movement.
• With dynamic line movement comes dynamic squadron placement.  Don't have that.
• What happens if the lines squeeze airfields out of existence for one side?
• Since we have map segments, there have to be transitions between maps.  Need rules for that.
• Victory conditions.
• Players will probably want planning capability for the whole front.  Don't have that.
• Tracking of ground units.  
• Dynamic logistics impact.

That's right off the top of my head.  Guarantee you that is a fraction of the real list.  By themselves, all of the above are non trivial development efforts.  Taken together they encompass a rewrite of large chunks of PWCG.  I was 46 in 2009.  I'm 61 today.  For the past few years I have been working longer hours than I have since starting PWCG.  If somebody will kindly hand over $500K I will retire early and get to work.  Barring that, I'm afraid either somebody else is going to have to do it or it has to wait until I actually do retire.

 

For anybody thinking of doing it themselves, PWCG code is available on GIT.  Download it, install Eclipse, and have at it.

 

Why you should not:
PWCG is over 150,000 lines of code.  It has over 1500 classes.  It's test coverage is admittedly imperfect, but there are still over 800 JUnit tests.  It is a product that has been developed over 15 year through thousands of hours of development.   if your level of software development experience is "I've written a little python" then you will be quite challenged.  If you don't have hundreds of hours to spare over many months then you're probably not going to manage more than a few tweaks, regardless of your skill level.

 

Why you should:

If you are a software pro and understand software development concepts like single responsibility, domains, separation of concerns, separation of data acquisition from business logic,  etc. then have at it.  Note that I don't say Java.  if you know another OO language then Java is easy enough to learn.   PWCG has clearly defined domains and is generally well structured.  Think of starting a new job and being presented with 150K lines of pretty decent code.  You're not going to absorb it all right away, but over time you'll get it.  However, if you do decide to go for it, now it's your new job  

 

 

[Gobnik20]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea too.  I'm not doing it because it would mean rewriting almost everything.  Really ... truly ... everything.  Let me give you an idea of what is missing:

 

• Algorithm for results calculation and dynamic line movement.
• With dynamic line movement comes dynamic squadron placement.  Don't have that.
• What happens if the lines squeeze airfields out of existence for one side?
• Since we have map segments, there have to be transitions between maps.  Need rules for that.
• Victory conditions.
• Players will probably want planning capability for the whole front.  Don't have that.
• Tracking of ground units.  
• Dynamic logistics impact.

That's right off the top of my head.  Guarantee you that is a fraction of the real list.  By themselves, all of the above are non trivial development efforts.  Taken together they encompass a rewrite of large chunks of PWCG.  I was 46 in 2009.  I'm 61 today.  For the past few years I have been working longer hours than I have since starting PWCG.  If somebody will kindly hand over $500K I will retire early and get to work.  Barring that, I'm afraid either somebody else is going to have to do it or it has to wait until I actually do retire.

 

For anybody thinking of doing it themselves, PWCG code is available on GIT.  Download it, install Eclipse, and have at it.

 

Why you should not:
PWCG is over 150,000 lines of code.  It has over 1500 classes.  It's test coverage is admittedly imperfect, but there are still over 800 JUnit tests.  It is a product that has been developed over 15 year through thousands of hours of development.   if your level of software development experience is "I've written a little python" then you will be quite challenged.  If you don't have hundreds of hours to spare over many months then you're probably not going to manage more than a few tweaks, regardless of your skill level.

 

Why you should:

If you are a software pro and understand software development concepts like single responsibility, domains, separation of concerns, separation of data acquisition from business logic,  etc. then have at it.  Note that I don't say Java.  if you know another OO language then Java is easy enough to learn.   PWCG has clearly defined domains and is generally well structured.  Think of starting a new job and being presented with 150K lines of pretty decent code.  You're not going to absorb it all right away, but over time you'll get it.  However, if you do decide to go for it, now it's your new job  

 

 

Wow Pat, didn't realise you're 60. Still a young lad you are!

[PatrickAWlson]

41 minutes ago, Gobnik20 said:

Wow Pat, didn't realise you're 60. Still a young lad you are!

 

Yeah, 61 isn't all that old and I still code just fine.  I just need naps more often  

[AtomicP]

From my understanding of Falcon 4.0 the dynamic campaign there that includes ground units as well as aerial ones, the coding was a monstrous task, taken on by an intern with likely no idea of the scale of the undertaking. That it remains one of the few (only real one perhaps) true dynamic campaigns is testament to its difficulty and a massive credit to you @PatrickAWlson for doing what you've done so far.

[Aapje]

@PatrickAWlson

 

I do notice that there are some open PR's, that also haven't been responded to. I might want to look into adding a relatively minor feature (a setting for disabling night missions, since my VR headset makes it impossible to see planes at night), but is there a good chance that it will be merged into the main branch?

Edited October 20, 2024 by Aapje

[czech693]

More ground units would be necessary and infantry would be a PITA for AI programming.  The TC module has not been updated other than new vehicles being added, so no reason for Pat to update PWCGTC.  The AI in air fighting ain't that great, and I've been unable to find any AI coding for ground units in the sim.  Another big problem that I think made the dev's drop more ground combat is that the maps need topographical information.  The Prokhorovka map has contour lines as in real ground unit maps.  But, it encompasses a relatively small area.  To do that for all the other maps would be a monumental task.  Without contour information a ground commander can't plan his tactics using cover and concealment.  So, TC is primarily a head-on competition without slick flanking manuevers.

[Araosam]

If someone is willing to go through this in the future and choose the Falcon 4 route, maybe this video can be of use for inspiration:

 

Spoiler

 

 

It shows some high-level structure for the rationale about ground warfare and it lists its sources:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Full credits to the video creator.