Inquirey if IL-2 Korea Single Player and Multiplayer Dynamic Campaign Mode is possible

[Jackfraser24]

Hi all, I just want to ask a couple of questions regarding whether or not IL-2 Korea could indeed have a dynamic campaign as a mode within the single player part of the game as well as the multiplayer one as well. I know IL-2 is a histroically based game, but couldn't it still have piot career mode as well as a dynamic campaign mode?

 

I envision IL-2 Korea's dynamic campaign mode will have similar features to the one in the game Falcon BMS in single player:

• AI driven strategy - where AI is the overarching commander in the conflict, and manages aspects of the war effort such as in logistics, resource distribution, as well as mission generation for both allied and enemy forces.
• Persistence - where the state of the world persists from one mission to the next. For example, if an air field or any other piece of infrastructure gets destroyed, it stays destroyed for the remainder of the campiagn or for a period of time until it is rebuilt.
• The player's impact - where your actions at the controls of the plane have a butterfly effect on the wider conflict, thus creating opportunities for future missions or leading to losses that affect resource availability. 
• High replayability within different timelines - if your avatar pilot dies, is captured or discharged due to serious injury, the conflict resets and goes on a different path, that is if it is in single player.

However, if it is in multiplayer:

• Instead of doing our own individual things, players will be given a mission objective by the AI commanders and whether we are able to finish it or not is up to us. This way everything will be more organized, from short term tactics to long term strategy.  
• A minority of aircraft on the battlefield would be playable. This is because only 64 people will be able to play at any given time, while there will be hundreds of aircraft from both sides active on the front.
• When someone exits the game, AI will take over that aircraft until another real world player enters the server and grabs that available player slot. This way, others do not depend too heavily on you as that would be a mental burden to have on your shoulders. 
• The conflict on the map could go for an extended period or time or indefinately, depending on how long people want to play the game for.

Here are my questions:

• Is all this possible to do?
• If not, why? 
• Is any of this being done already? Have I missed any details I should have been paying attention to?

Edited November 19 by Jackfraser24

[Avimimus]

 

This was discussed in one of the Briefing Room Videos.

 

The issue with a fully dynamic sandbox is that it doesn't accurately accord to history, so the developers have chosen to prioritise a historically accurate campaign, with squadron management, and an ability to have local persistent effects on the battlefield.

 

So out of your four ideas, my understanding is:

- Strategic level AI doesn't seem to be planned. Although mission generation will take into account things like logistics, and strategies used historically. However, one can also make decisions regarding the logistics of your squadron (and potentially some other decisions around it).

- Persistence between missions is planned (e.g. destroyed targets will stay destroyed until they can be rebuilt).

- The player's impact will be local.

- I'm uncertain about how progression will work when the player dies.

 

IRL, in a conflict with hundred or thousands of aircraft, one pilot won't have that much of an effect on the outcome of the war (barring something like sinking an Aircraft carrier). Past dynamic campaigns that let you influence outcomes were either strategy games (with a flight sim component), or unrealistically amplified the effects of the player's actions.

[Jackfraser24]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

This was discussed in one of the Briefing Room Videos.

 

The issue with a fully dynamic sandbox is that it doesn't accurately accord to history, so the developers have chosen to prioritise a historically accurate campaign, with squadron management, and an ability to have local persistent effects on the battlefield.

 

So out of your four ideas, my understanding is:

- Strategic level AI doesn't seem to be planned. Although mission generation will take into account things like logistics, and strategies used historically. However, one can also make decisions regarding the logistics of your squadron (and potentially some other decisions around it).

- Persistence between missions is planned (e.g. destroyed targets will stay destroyed until they can be rebuilt).

- The player's impact will be local.

- I'm uncertain about how progression will work when the player dies.

 

IRL, in a conflict with hundred or thousands of aircraft, one pilot won't have that much of an effect on the outcome of the war (barring something like sinking an Aircraft carrier). Past dynamic campaigns that let you influence outcomes were either strategy games (with a flight sim component), or unrealistically amplified the effects of the player's actions.

Thanks for your reply.