PDA

View Full Version : Fully Dynamic Campaign in BOB



Raptor_20thFG
07-02-2005, 06:13 AM
S`

Hey quick question would it be possible to have a campaign set in BOB Similar to say Falcon's Campaign. Sorta say a living war. If you take out a bridge it stays gone until the end of the war or until engineers fix it. I think that would increase the offline play tenfold..

Just a thought

let the flames begin

Recon_609IAP
07-02-2005, 03:40 PM
no flames needed - I agree with you.

Both in single player and multiplayer.

NAFP_supah
07-03-2005, 05:25 AM
Fully agreed with you man! The Falcon 4 SP campaign was and is the best out there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FritzGryphon
07-03-2005, 05:50 AM
I think the game should track events to the extent of destroyed infrastructure for continuity, and player/unit stats.

But for the whole campaign to be simulated to the extent of Falcon, I think is excessive.

Because of the numbers of pariticipants, the players performance will not affect the outcome of the campaign at all. The war would progress the same whether you did good or bad.

As far as the player having direct control over high level command (like you could command the war in Falcon), I think is secondary to the flight sim aspect.

So the historical progression of the campaign, or what-if scenarios, could just as easily be done with scripted campaigns. The dynamic parts of the game should be for player development and immersion purposes only. My 2 cents.

Does anyone remember what the plan is for BoB? I remember reading somewhere, Oleg described how the campaign will be.

Dtools4fools
07-03-2005, 05:57 AM
And give me that warp-speed button which lets me advance to the next waypoint/enemy sighting...

Skill level of AI opponents coupled with historical rookie quality would be nice too.

More detailed score info (plane type/date).

****

csThor
07-03-2005, 06:15 AM
Disagree. The background engine of F4 (the things going on around you) is exceptional, but it lacks the soul of a true flightsim campaign. It needs the presentation and "being-there" stuff Red Baron II had.

Raptor_20thFG
07-03-2005, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Disagree. The background engine of F4 (the things going on around you) is exceptional, but it lacks the soul of a true flightsim campaign. It needs the presentation and "being-there" stuff Red Baron II had.

First thank you all for your comments., Thor if you could please explain a little more while you feel this way. I always thought while playing falcon that I felt as though I was really there. Knowing that if I failed to take out that bridge that angry enemy soliders were goin to swarm my men on the other side of said bridge.
I believe the worst thing a flightsim can do is become static to me static=Boring hence while I believe the Il2 offline campaigns can use some work granted they are much better with the latest patch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

S`

ApolloFS
07-03-2005, 10:12 AM
The Falcon 4 UI and realtime nature of the campaign is awsome. The way it generates flights though, is hideous (profiles,waypoints, armaments etc.) Etc., for a WWII sim, less sophistication is needed for the mission taskings, but still, something BoB should definately have is the realtime, continuously running campaign. (As opposed to, fight now, end the mission, then start a new one for the rest of the war to keep going.)

However, unless they start thinking about a "bubble" and a statistical engine, we;re not going to see the scale that Falcon 4 has shown. (Can you say tens of thousands of vehicles and aircraft running simultaneously in a MODERN battlefield with sensors etc.?)

csThor
07-03-2005, 10:38 AM
Raptor - To me the F4 campaign is like "I wanted, but couldn't". I mean the engine calculating the actions of the AI objects is - as I said - exceptional. The problem is that it lacks any noteworthy pilot personality, any connection between you and your squadron and the effects of this war.

To me it is very technocratic in its presenation - to some degree comparable to what we see in Il-2/FB/PF. It's been a while since I had F4 on my HDD so please correct me if I'm saying something wrong, but here come my major gripes with F4:

a) Lack of a real pilot personality. I only saw some impersonal text lines hidden in some menu. Not really immersive.

b) No character development, i.e. promotions, medals etc beyond some simple text lines. Lacks the feeling of "being there" (as does Il-2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif).

c) Ability to choose mission freely. This is a big big No-No in my eyes as it detracts a lot from the feeling of being a small pilot in this conflict. This is also my main gripe with the remotely comparable campaign engine of Rowan's "Battle of Britain".
I want to get assigned to a unit (as it happened and still happens - the Air Force is no free-choice-organization), get to know my squadmates beyond a line of text, want to get my mission orders from my superiour until I become such a commanding officer etc ...

d) This one might be controversial, but I don't think that such a campaign system is portable to a WW2 simulation. In our times a single F-16 might be able to alter the course of war since it can carry more weapons than fighters in WW2. Back then aircraft numbers were still far higher and an individual pilot had far less chances of altering the course of war. Of course individual achievements might have an influence on what might happen afterwards in a small geographical area, but you cannot compare a small-sized theater as the corean peninsula with the seemingly endless fronts of WW2.

NAFP_supah
07-03-2005, 11:17 AM
It still is a LOT better then what we have now in IL2-FB/AEP/BoE/PF. I really added replay value to the game that PF lacks now. Its PTO campaigns are rather bland. The BoE campaigns and original campaigns are nicer though.

LEXX_Luthor
07-03-2005, 08:06 PM
Because of the numbers of pariticipants, the players performance will not affect the outcome of the campaign at all. The war would progress the same whether you did good or bad.
Not really. War is directly dependent on each individual participant -- all of them, working together or against each other.

The important point not told here of Dynamic Campaign is the player NOT already knowing the final outcome even back at the campaign start. Knowing the "future" final outcome, no matter what happens in between start and final end, makes Static or Scripted(?) Campaign the worst possible system to generate player motivation.

csThor
07-04-2005, 01:07 AM
Uhhh Lex ... I think you're quite off the mark here. Speaking for a flight sim it's IMO a rather gross simplification to say a that the actions of a single player could alter the course of war - regardless of factors like economical strengths, raw material situation, technical questions etc.

Taking BoB for example you might be able to defeat the RAF Fighter Command by shooting down scores of their planes, but "Seel√¬∂we" will still not be successful as there is neither a useful plan, nor the necessary technical equipment nor the will to do it among the german leadership. Such things cannot be controlled by a player - unless he's playing a strategy game.

J_Weaver
07-06-2005, 09:26 PM
I agree Thor. I don't think the player's actions should have a direct effect on the outcome of major events. However, player actions should have a "small" scale effect. i.e. Attacks on bridges or troop positions should cause the front to "locally" move slower or faster.

Didn't European Airwar have a similar campaign system?

Bearcat99
07-08-2005, 11:14 PM
I like the original posters idea.... at least where it would take a few missions for it to come back..... and also triggers....

Snoop_Baron
07-09-2005, 10:23 PM
I would love to see this it would be great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Something like Falcon 4 or Red Baron II http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

s!
Snoop

Gato__Loco
07-10-2005, 08:22 PM
Actually, Paul Lowegrin's Dynamic Campaign Generator does all this pretty well. It keeps tracks of the units, engages them in combat, and your actions as a pilot have a noticeable local effect. For example, if you destroy a tank column, the advance of the front along that area is slowed, if you destroy enemy bombers and they do not destroy your columns, your troops move the front forward in that area, etc.etc. Paul's DCG can be set to replace FB's original DGEN. DGEN has improved lately but for me DCG is still better. Hopefully, we'll see something much better for BOB!

You can get IL2DGC here:
http://www.lowengrin.com

GT182
07-11-2005, 01:16 PM
Gato__Loco, I fully agree with you on Lowengrin's DCG. And as he improves it, it only gets better.

stubby
07-14-2005, 06:53 AM
If Oleg and Co are smart, then they'll fully disect various war engines like Scortched Earth, Bellum War, DCG, VEF, and Falcon's 4 AF. All of them are awesome in their own right. Finally what Thor said is most crucial - soul. Il2 always lacked that critical component, at least, out of the box. It took all those various 3rd party efforts to bring soul into the game but that was limited (except for DCG) to just multiplayer. If 1C could bring all the best of those various war engines into a cohesive single player engine with the soul of Red Baron/EAW, then we'll be some happy flyers.

Bottom line - the current dgen stuff won't work for BOB in my opinion. If they want, they could design both a static campaign and a dynamic one. My bet is that most folks would prefer a dynamic campaign as long as it adhered to historically accurate parameters (e.g. plane types, counts, pilot experience, etc..)

csThor
07-14-2005, 07:00 AM
Well ... DCG won't cut it for BoB, either, as it is "nothing more than a different DGen". In BoB the dynamic campaign needs to be an integral part of the game, not an afterthought like in FB/PF.

My ideal campaign was Red Baron II ... presentation, environment, etc were perfect. The player had some degree of freedom, but could not make the laughable "strategic" decisions as in Rowan's "BoB". It was believable.

Secondly I do have a few major gripes with DCG. It can certainly produce prettier missions than DGen, but in my eyes the GUI is overcomplex and too hard to understand. Not that DGen is any better, but I could correct historical errors in DGen campaigns on my own, where I failed three or four times trying to dissect which menu of DCG had which entries and what these things were actually doing.

stubby
07-14-2005, 07:18 AM
The beauty of DCG (at least the way I used it) was flexibility. I never bothered doing campaigns using the 'replace mode'. I did campaigns where I manually generated each mission (typically as online coops though I played them offline). This allowed me easily move my squad close to the action and quickly change mission types (ie ground pounding, escort, cap, recon,etc..) Though the interface may have been on the surface complex, it still allowed me to make changes by simply using a mouse and pointing. I didn't have to edit files in notepad. That to me was the beauty of DCG. DCG is still the best tool around for making quick changes while keeping the action going.

The other beauty of DCG of course was the ability to add custom made templates like a Flying Tiger campaign using the Kuban map for example. Bottom line for DCG - you could use as a power user or just the defaults.

TooCooL34
07-16-2005, 01:51 AM
I don't like F4 style full dynamic campaign. why? It will eat up my fps like hungry pig and cause countless bugs.
I'd rather like static dynamic campaign like DCG.
But what I like most is well-designed static campaign which is branching by success of failure. It will give you various flight experience and dramatic events. (and it's fps-wise)

Raptor_20thFG
07-19-2005, 09:35 AM
My main Gripe is it seems in single player is it seems like the same mission over and over again fly for 45 Min shoot a few enemy planes bomb a railroad go home to me its just plain dull

JG54_Lukas
07-19-2005, 12:30 PM
IMO, these are the things that would make the dynamic campaign for BoB a lot better than the current DGEN system:

-ability to manage your pilots better - once the player is in a command position, he should decide who will fly the next mission.

-pilot morale/fatigue: this should play a part with the above suggestion. AI pilots being sent on mission after mission should experience a degradation in their skills over time. This could also mean, for instance, that pilots with a low morale and skill level will break off combat very quickly when overwhelmed/attacked by the enemy (fight or flight syndrome) and will also bail out quicker when their plane is damaged. Of course, the opposite is true - a veteran pilot with high morale should be very hard to beat

-damage to ground objects should last over the course of several (simulated) game days. Nothing is more frustrating in PF than to heavily damage a carrier in a mission and then come back the next sortie to see it sailing like nothing ever happened.

-Aircraft availability and squadron location: Silent Hunter III has this done right, and Oleg's BoB should do the same. Aircraft should fly from their historically correct airbases in the correct timeframe (e.g, no Fw 190s should ever have JG 52 markings).

-Repair time for damaged aircraft. Again, SH3 models this well. If a given plane suffers just a few bullet hits in a mission, it should be ready to go the next sortie. Softball-sized holes in the fuselage/shredded control surface should cause an aircraft to be out of action for several days. Severe engine damage should cause the plane to be out of action for several weeks or even be simply written off.

-weather that can change over the course of a mission

JG54_Lukas
07-19-2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
IMO, these are the things that would make the dynamic campaign for BoB a lot better than the current DGEN system:

-ability to manage your pilots better - once the player is in a command position, he should decide who will fly the next mission.

-pilot morale/fatigue: this should play a part with the above suggestion. AI pilots being sent on mission after mission should experience a degradation in their skills over time. This could also mean, for instance, that pilots with a low morale and skill level will break off combat very quickly when overwhelmed/attacked by the enemy (fight or flight syndrome) and will also bail out quicker when their plane is damaged. Of course, the opposite is true - a veteran pilot with high morale should be very hard to beat

-damage to ground objects should last over the course of several (simulated) game days. Nothing is more frustrating in PF than to heavily damage a carrier in a mission and then come back the next sortie to see it sailing like nothing ever happened.

-Aircraft availability and squadron location: Silent Hunter III has this done right, and Oleg's BoB should do the same. Aircraft should fly from their historically correct airbases in the correct timeframe (e.g, no Fw 190s should ever have JG 52 markings).

-Repair time for damaged aircraft. Again, SH3 models this well. If a given plane suffers just a few bullet hits in a mission, it should be ready to go the next sortie. Softball-sized holes in the fuselage/shredded control surfaces should cause an aircraft to be out of action for several days. Severe engine damage should cause the plane to be out of action for several weeks or even be simply written off.

-weather that can change over the course of a mission

Aaron_GT
07-19-2005, 04:12 PM
Rowan's BoB is pretty decent in that you can control strategy, which can make the missions (even if technically they are dull) seem more interesting as you, as a player, set up the situations. I think in 1C's BoB the option to not influence things and just go with the flow might also be appropriate. Quite how you would achieve the drama of waiting for a scramble for hours on end I don't know, though. Hard to achieve when we have lives and jobs to also go to.

Online I think something like an expanded VEF is in order, maybe running on a persistent server or distributed system in some way.

stubby
07-20-2005, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Online I think something like an expanded VEF is in order, maybe running on a persistent server or distributed system in some way.

the ultimate mode would be like you suggested but you could fly it 'offline' and log your results to that server. that way, folks wouldn't be forced to put up with all the **** that comes with doing online coops.

Aaron_GT
07-20-2005, 06:55 AM
Ah yes... the "are we ready yet? No, Jim just disconnected. Ok, we are ok now, no, Simon can't get teamspeak working... ", etc?

Raptor_20thFG
07-20-2005, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
IMO, these are the things that would make the dynamic campaign for BoB a lot better than the current DGEN system:

-ability to manage your pilots better - once the player is in a command position, he should decide who will fly the next mission.

-pilot morale/fatigue: this should play a part with the above suggestion. AI pilots being sent on mission after mission should experience a degradation in their skills over time. This could also mean, for instance, that pilots with a low morale and skill level will break off combat very quickly when overwhelmed/attacked by the enemy (fight or flight syndrome) and will also bail out quicker when their plane is damaged. Of course, the opposite is true - a veteran pilot with high morale should be very hard to beat

-damage to ground objects should last over the course of several (simulated) game days. Nothing is more frustrating in PF than to heavily damage a carrier in a mission and then come back the next sortie to see it sailing like nothing ever happened.

-Aircraft availability and squadron location: Silent Hunter III has this done right, and Oleg's BoB should do the same. Aircraft should fly from their historically correct airbases in the correct timeframe (e.g, no Fw 190s should ever have JG 52 markings).

-Repair time for damaged aircraft. Again, SH3 models this well. If a given plane suffers just a few bullet hits in a mission, it should be ready to go the next sortie. Softball-sized holes in the fuselage/shredded control surfaces should cause an aircraft to be out of action for several days. Severe engine damage should cause the plane to be out of action for several weeks or even be simply written off.

-weather that can change over the course of a mission </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I totally Agree

Raptor_20thFG
07-20-2005, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Ah yes... the "are we ready yet? No, Jim just disconnected. Ok, we are ok now, no, Simon can't get teamspeak working... ", etc?

HUH???

Aaron_GT
07-21-2005, 01:06 AM
That was in reply to stubby, who was complaining about the problems with online coops. In my experience it can easily take half an hour or more for all the people in the squadrons due to show up to show up and all be ready.