PDA

View Full Version : A suggestion to make FB the BEST SIM of all time - dynamic camapigns



XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:51 AM
Oleg, this is a real MUST-HAVE for a futur (pay-) addon or patch:
REAL dynamic campaigns. I'm not talking about the stuff we've got right now because the campaigns in FB are only half-dynamic. Every mission consists of your own and an enemy flight group. There are only planes and units which directly belong to your mission. For example Blue attacks an enemy convoy while Red tries to provide cover for their troops. So you have about 30 planes max. up in the sky at the same time. How many of you pilots out there think that the FB campaigns are getting awefully boring and lame?

Think about SIMs like Falcon4.0, Apache vs Havoc (+ Comanche vs Hokum), and the upcoming LOMAC. All these games have full dynamic campaigns where the outcome of the conflict is in YOUR hands. If you start a campaign in FB you know how it's going to end: Blue will be defeated and Red is going to win. The only thing YOU as a player can influence is how long the fighting is going to last. There is absolutely no athmosphere in the campaigns and no surprises because of the way they are designed. It is not possible to have situations where you and your wingman spot an enemy patrol(or other way round) by surprise and bounce it.

In Falcon the action on a whole subcontinent was simulated in real-time. The computer continously created missions which you then could select from a map screen. So in one mission you would fly for squadron A while in the next you would join some other. The downside of this is that you don't fly as one specific pilot but jump from one to another.
The awesome aspect of the Falcon campaign was that there were hundreds of other units fighting everywhere around you. You would fly a CAP mission over North Korea and from 2.000ft AGL you would see gun shells fired by tanks home in on their targets and bombs explode and of course AAA and SAM fire. And even though there was such a mass of units the game was still playable. The athmosphere was incredible because you'd never know how many fighters or other defensive units you'll encounter on your missions. On the map screen you would see your own or the enemy's advance and there were statistics to show you who's got airsuperiority right now etc...

Now imagine FB with such a campaign system. OK, it might not be 100% historically correct but it SURE is some amazing fun. We could have a dynamic campaign for every big map (Moscow, Lvov, Kuban, Stalingrad, Berlin, Gulf of Finland,...) and for every nation (Germany, Russia, Finland, Hungary, USA - the last 3 would be rather small).
An example: It's 1942 and war is raging on the Kuban Bridgehead. JG52 and other squadrons are fighting for airsuperiority in their area. You (in a G2) encounter a flight of IL2s attacking german armoured troops below at an altitude of about 500ft and dive to engage (without noticing the fighter cover - poor you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). At the same time He111 bombers are attacking an airfield. Russian fighters scramble to shoot them down but the german cover will give them a hard time.
Now you could play this scenario on both sides and switch between IL2s, LaGG3/5s, He111s, Bf109Gs and so on.

For this sort of addon I would pay the full price again because it would revive the offline section and give you some serious action. If this is not realistic enough for you leave it alone.

What are your thoughts on this!?

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me109e.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:51 AM
Oleg, this is a real MUST-HAVE for a futur (pay-) addon or patch:
REAL dynamic campaigns. I'm not talking about the stuff we've got right now because the campaigns in FB are only half-dynamic. Every mission consists of your own and an enemy flight group. There are only planes and units which directly belong to your mission. For example Blue attacks an enemy convoy while Red tries to provide cover for their troops. So you have about 30 planes max. up in the sky at the same time. How many of you pilots out there think that the FB campaigns are getting awefully boring and lame?

Think about SIMs like Falcon4.0, Apache vs Havoc (+ Comanche vs Hokum), and the upcoming LOMAC. All these games have full dynamic campaigns where the outcome of the conflict is in YOUR hands. If you start a campaign in FB you know how it's going to end: Blue will be defeated and Red is going to win. The only thing YOU as a player can influence is how long the fighting is going to last. There is absolutely no athmosphere in the campaigns and no surprises because of the way they are designed. It is not possible to have situations where you and your wingman spot an enemy patrol(or other way round) by surprise and bounce it.

In Falcon the action on a whole subcontinent was simulated in real-time. The computer continously created missions which you then could select from a map screen. So in one mission you would fly for squadron A while in the next you would join some other. The downside of this is that you don't fly as one specific pilot but jump from one to another.
The awesome aspect of the Falcon campaign was that there were hundreds of other units fighting everywhere around you. You would fly a CAP mission over North Korea and from 2.000ft AGL you would see gun shells fired by tanks home in on their targets and bombs explode and of course AAA and SAM fire. And even though there was such a mass of units the game was still playable. The athmosphere was incredible because you'd never know how many fighters or other defensive units you'll encounter on your missions. On the map screen you would see your own or the enemy's advance and there were statistics to show you who's got airsuperiority right now etc...

Now imagine FB with such a campaign system. OK, it might not be 100% historically correct but it SURE is some amazing fun. We could have a dynamic campaign for every big map (Moscow, Lvov, Kuban, Stalingrad, Berlin, Gulf of Finland,...) and for every nation (Germany, Russia, Finland, Hungary, USA - the last 3 would be rather small).
An example: It's 1942 and war is raging on the Kuban Bridgehead. JG52 and other squadrons are fighting for airsuperiority in their area. You (in a G2) encounter a flight of IL2s attacking german armoured troops below at an altitude of about 500ft and dive to engage (without noticing the fighter cover - poor you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). At the same time He111 bombers are attacking an airfield. Russian fighters scramble to shoot them down but the german cover will give them a hard time.
Now you could play this scenario on both sides and switch between IL2s, LaGG3/5s, He111s, Bf109Gs and so on.

For this sort of addon I would pay the full price again because it would revive the offline section and give you some serious action. If this is not realistic enough for you leave it alone.

What are your thoughts on this!?

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me109e.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 11:47 AM
Oleg, this is a real MUST-HAVE for a futur (pay-) addon or patch:
REAL dynamic campaigns. I'm not talking about the stuff we've got right now because the campaigns in FB are only half-dynamic. Every mission consists of your own and an enemy flight group. There are only planes and units which directly belong to your mission. For example Blue attacks an enemy convoy while Red tries to provide cover for their troops. So you have about 30 planes max. up in the sky at the same time. How many of you pilots out there think that the FB campaigns are getting awefully boring and lame?
Think about SIMs like Falcon4.0, Apache vs Havoc (+ Comanche vs Hokum), and the upcoming LOMAC. All these games have full dynamic campaigns where the outcome of the conflict is in YOUR hands. If you start a campaign in FB you know how it's going to end: Blue will be defeated and Red is going to win. The only thing YOU as a player can influence is how long the fighting is going to last. There is absolutely no athmosphere in the campaigns and no surprises because of the way they are designed. It is not possible to have situations where you and your wingman spot an enemy patrol(or other way round) by surprise and bounce it.

Put a bit of perspective in here and you'll realise that these so-called "real dynamic campaigns" are nothing but "what-if-scenarios" based on a very limited area of operations and timeframe. To port something like this over to WW2 is ridiculous and impossible. Try it and you'll end up with an unbelievable scenario. A single pilot might make a difference in a small modern war, but not in a conflict as the WW2. Anything else is sham.


In Falcon the action on a whole subcontinent was simulated in real-time. The computer continously created missions which you then could select from a map screen. So in one mission you would fly for squadron A while in the next you would join some other. The downside of this is that you don't fly as one specific pilot but jump from one to another.
The awesome aspect of the Falcon campaign was that there were hundreds of other units fighting everywhere around you. You would fly a CAP mission over North Korea and from 2.000ft AGL you would see gun shells fired by tanks home in on their targets and bombs explode and of course AAA and SAM fire. And even though there was such a mass of units the game was still playable. The athmosphere was incredible because you'd never know how many fighters or other defensive units you'll encounter on your missions. On the map screen you would see your own or the enemy's advance and there were statistics to show you who's got airsuperiority right now etc...

I agree that the next campaign system should be integrated into an ongoing war. This would add a lot more immersion, but in my humble opinion a closer connection to your unit (squad management) would be equally important. And - and this is the most important point for me - the "ongoing war" HAS to resemble the historical actions as closely as possible. I'm not really interested in "What-if" Scenarios ...

Now imagine FB with such a campaign system. OK, it might not be 100% historically correct but it SURE is some amazing fun.

In my book not historically correct = no fun. Different people have different tastes. I don't play the "Army Group North" campaigns right now since they don't resemble the historical events to the point I want. I tried re-doing them but without Starshoy's support this won't be possible and he has a lot more to do.

---------------------------
http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-0001/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg (http://www.lwskins.de.vu)
Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:06 PM
Gen.Firehawk161 wrote:

- REAL dynamic campaigns. I'm not talking about the
- stuff we've got right now because the campaigns in
- FB are only half-dynamic. Every mission consists of
- your own and an enemy flight group. There are only
- planes and units which directly belong to your
- mission. For example Blue attacks an enemy convoy
- while Red tries to provide cover for their troops.
- So you have about 30 planes max. up in the sky at
- the same time. How many of you pilots out there
- think that the FB campaigns are getting awefully
- boring and lame?


You are clearly mistaken here. You can have up to 5 random flights in your area that have nothing to do with your mission (see the patch readme for details), and you have a variety of random ground targets to chose from on the way home.

You are correct in that your actions do not determine the outcome of the war in FB - however your sucess or failure determines the speed at which the front line moves. And every plane, every Ace shot down in one mission will not show up in the next - buildings stay destroyed etc. - Every mission DOES have an influence on all missions that follow.

I think much of the "random, unpredictable" nature you find so appealing in Falcon is already in FB.

PS: LOMACs Dynamic Campaign has been cut for now.



Message Edited on 09/08/0301:52PM by IJG54_Nowi

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:34 PM
Another problem of the current campaign system is that, being the map only populated with an handful of flights, you can cheat by delaying, for example, the take off when you are going to do some Air to Ground bombing so that you won't encounter the enemy CAP..

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:45 PM
maxmars wrote:
- Another problem of the current campaign system is
- that, being the map only populated with an handful
- of flights, you can cheat by delaying, for example,
- the take off when you are going to do some Air to
- Ground bombing so that you won't encounter the enemy
- CAP..


Hey, I ilke this feature! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:18 PM
What we need is an improved Full Mission Builder. Dynamic Computer generated campaigns never work.

Simply put...No pilot in the war ever had the power to affect outcomes, except on a mission per mission basis. Most pilots were doing good to stay alive, much less to think they could affect the outcome of the war or any major engagements of any kind.

Computer generated campaigns are worthless. Think about how many times you've been in a mission generated by a so-called campaign generator and all this worthless stuff filled the mission. or the aircraft pairing were completely stupid, or you missed key timed events, or you just felt like you'd wasted an hour. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

The prime criteria of good Missions should include: The objects and events within the mission should be timed and placed for use and enjoyment of the players only when needed. Who needs a zillion things going on that have nothing to do with the player, and even worse...they're not in the right place at the right time.

Sure it might be fun to think you actually have some power over outcomes, especially if you stay alive and keep having successful missions. It's just this...Do you quit when you're shot down/dead/or captured. That's the real world. The outcome of all the conflict, battles and missions is over for the participant when dead or captured.

I think you're thinking of making IL2-FB into strategy game, which isn't what the 1C:Maddox development team has in mind. The thing of it is, Oleg has been working on an RTS, which is probably more in tune with what you're thinking. There are many games right now that pretty well address what you're thinking and they're pretty darned good,i.e. Operation Flashpoint, Battlefield 1942, MSFT CFS3, etc.

--------------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:13 PM
You forget FB is about planes and history. History says germans retraited from january 1942 onward until their defeat in 1945.

I think Oleg says himself in the interview on the mainpage of the FB site that this is a deliberate choice right from the start of the sim.

I would like more planes formations too (but i think you already get a good deal of them by activiting the "high air activity" setting; and btw what about CPU load?), but I would see no point fighting until 1950 because russians won't give up their last territories near Korea lol

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 06:54 PM
I'm afraid you guys misinterpreted some of my statements. I didn't mean that ONE pilot should be able to turn the tide of war. However your success can help your squad and troops in a limited way. If you can keep air superiority in a small area your troops could try to break through the enemy lines and this could be the beginning of a much larger offensive action.
Of course I dont want this "One man army" stuff... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

nearmiss wrote:
"There are many games right now that pretty well address what you're thinking and they're pretty darned good,i.e. Operation Flashpoint, Battlefield 1942, MSFT CFS3, etc."

You're kidding me, right? Op:F is an amazing game BUT: It's not a flight-sim and it also is NOT dynamic - it has scripted missions.
About Battlefield and CFS3: Once again! YOU'RE KIDDING I suppose...

nearmiss wrote:
"I think you're thinking of making IL2-FB into strategy game, which isn't what the 1C:Maddox development team has in mind. The thing of it is, Oleg has been working on an RTS, which is probably more in tune with what you're thinking."

You describe it as a downside. I would say it's a step forward. Just imagine being able to link both "Battlefield Commander" (the RTS game) and "IL2:FB" up in online games. RTS players would command units on their maps while the FB players would take out the given tasks. You would be able to save a campaign game and then continue it at a latter time.

Anyway I already HEARD (don't know if it's true - Oleg pls comment on this) that "Battlefield Commander" and "FB" are planned to work together. Both use a similar engine so it WOULD be possible.

Pls guys: play Falcon4.0 and THEN come here again and say that you don't want something like that. Does it always need to be realism the hard way? Im satisfied with a hardcore FM. Everything else should make fun instead of boring you to death. Anyway you already GOT your super realistic campaigns - if you don't like the "fun" campaigns don't play 'em and don't buy 'em...
IT'S A GAME!

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me109e.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:13 PM
Got me, What I was trying to say by examples instead of just leaving things as they were at RTS..or Strategy.

I don't have either, but I understand they do have the ability to include air combat in their battle scenarios.



------------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:31 PM
Falcon 4 in its original form was buggy as hell BECAUSE of the "Dynamic Campaign" ... Such an amount of objects will cause trouble and interaction will make it a nightmare to program ...

---------------------------
http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-0001/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg (http://www.lwskins.de.vu)
Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:42 PM
Actually, I like Gen.Firehawk161 idea for a truly dynamic Campaign. I played Apache/Havoc, Falcon, Medieval Total War and similar games.

Imagine you are a pilot in WWII, either on the Allied or Axis side... Did you KNOW how the war was going to end? Were you comfortable in the knowledge that you would win? Maybe some pilots `knew` they would win, but noone knew. It all could have gone one way or the other.

This is what made the Pilots of that time TRULY FIGHT. If they slackened off or took it easy, if one man didn`t really try it could all go terribly.

NO ONE KNEW WHO WAS GOING TO WIN.

This is why I would like the open ended campaign, so I could fight in desperation as those pilots did. The Germans MIGHT win. I want to feel what it must have been like for the pilots in their most difficult hour as in the Battle of Britain- did those pilots fight in the comfort of the fact that they knew they would win? Did the Russian fighters laugh at the start of the German invasion knowing it was all ok by 1945? Did the German flyers fight on in Berlin because there was a chance of them turning things around? I want the experience. Do you understand what I am saying.

Anyway, I like Gen.Firehawk161 idea . Lowengrin`s DCG is the only thing that comes close to that feeling. Dunno if it works withe patched FB though.

"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

Message Edited on 09/08/0306:47PM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 08:46 AM
Well I tried DCG but found setting it up a bit complicated so I deleted it again. I usually don't have trouble reading and understanding english manuals but somehow I ran into a wall here /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well I have a few ideas of "my ideal campaign" (I stick to Eastern Front):

The first thing you choose is your country (just as in FB right now). Then I get another selection screen where I can choose either a fighter campaign, a bomber campaign or a Stuka/Sturmovik/fighter bomber campaign. Then I select the year (maybe even month) where my campaign starts.

So far everything as usual. But now comes the big "difference". Now I do not select a unit and the planetype I want to use, but I am automatically assigned to a unit corresponding to the selected campaign and timeframe. I am also not free to choose the planetype, but I will use the correct planetype of that particular unit and the planetypes are switching according to historical dates (say if I am assigned to I./JG 51 I will get a Fw 190 in September 1942 and will switch back to Bf 109 G in early 1944).

The campaign is embedded into an ongoing war which runs strictly along the historical lines. The only "dynamic" part here is the generation of missions within the flow of war. Missions are flown daily, often two - three or in times of increased activity even up to six or seven. There are also days where I have to stay on gound because of say engine overhaul or bad weather. At first you're just a newbee without own plane and fixed Rottenf√ľhrer. After a few missions you get an own plane (note: all squad members have a "fixed" plane and tactical number) and are assigned to an experienced leader. With time your scores increase and finally you're leading your own Rotte.

Later - in case you made it this far - you're becoming Staffelkapit√¬§n and receive additional information and have a little more control over the missions generated. Imagine this like a very basic strategy game - you receive information on ground actions, enemy air actions and own planned missions which require fighter escorts. Based on them you plan missions in your area of operations (not in detail - more like "Freie Jagd in Area XYZ").

Added to this you might get transfered to other units to - say to take command of a Staffel/Gruppe there. When reaching a certain amount of kills or a certain rank you might receive a ban on operational flying and get transfered to a Staff position etc ...

Did that make sense?

---------------------------
http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-0001/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg (http://www.lwskins.de.vu)
Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters