[Wags]

Recently, there have been a lot of questions and misunderstandings about the campaign system for DCS: Black Shark. What follows is a brief description that I hope bring a bit of clarity.

The campaign system in DCS: Black Shark is not linear, branching or dynamic; it is phased. Let me try to describe this: using the embedded Campaign Editor, you can create as many phases in a campaign as they wish. The one I’ve been working on for example will between 25 and 30. You can think of each phase as a folder. Now using the Mission Editor, you can create a mission using many of the new functions such as a trigger and resulting action system, defined random chance of units appearing, new targeting system that sets “zones” for units to search for and attack targets, etc. After you have created a mission, you can then assign the mission to any of the phases. You can place as many missions within a phase as you want. Obviously, putting more missions in a phase will reduce the chances of the same mission being flown when the user is in a phase multiple times. This process can actually go pretty quickly when you create a base-template for each phase and then add and modify to the template to create multiple, separate missions.

When the mission is created, you assign goals. A goal can be such things as the player surviving, primary target(s) being destroyed, friendly units not being destroyed, time limits, etc. Each of these goals can be assigned a numeric value. At the end of the mission, the goals are evaluated to determine if the player stays in the same phase, drops back to a previous phase or advances to the next phase. The only thing linear about the phased system is that the flow of the phases is linear (although it can flow forwards and backwards). In this manner, a player’s progress in a campaign can go back and fourth according to how the missions turn out. When you tie phases to front lines, it is easy to set up a situation where you have front line that ebbs and flows according to mission results. You will never had to re-fly a mission to progress in the campaign (unlike Lock On).

As you can see, this is not really not linear, branching or dynamic.

In later iterations of the campaign system (it’s is a work in progress), we plan on adding such things as resource management (units and stores) and squadron pilot management.

While it is certainly not out of the question that we will also do a dynamic system that algorithmically generates missions and a battlefield environment, the phased system is what we wish to perfect fist. In addition to providing much better game play possibilities than the linear Lock On system, it takes much better advantage of our Mission Editor system that we are developing for both the entertainment and military markets.

Thanks,
Matt

[shamandgg]

That's just great. Sounds very interesting, but just for better picture... may we see it, some new screenshots of the editor would be nice.

[arneh]

Sounds like a huge improvement over the Lock-On campaigns! Very glad to hear I won't have to refly the same missions to advance the campaign. If the missions are interesting as well it should be fun

[BBQ]

Sounds like a big step in the right direction--

[BBQ]

Originally Posted by Wags

When you tie phases to front lines, it is easy to set up a situation where you have front line that ebbs and flows according to mission results.

You mean, when you are creating missions within a particular phase, you could set up a sort of template, that you previously mentioned, with the frontline the same in each mission--then when you move to the next phase, you could update the template with the new frontline?

Somebody should spearhead a "team" to make some nice, long, realistic campaigns for BS, ala Valhalla for F/A-18. Any takers??!!

Wag: can we expect a similiarly, thorough, realistic, campaign like the one that you created for F/A-18? I mean in terms of the number of missions, complexity, and general similarity to a real ATO?

[bogusheadbox]

Thanks for the post Wags.

Just to know that a dynamic campaign as a possible future makes me happy about the progression of DCS. It will be interesting to see what can be done with the current system you are working on.

I have one big question though.

In previous posts it has been mentioned that there is a limitation to the number of units that can be placed / tracked? by the engine.

In each mission generated. How much of the map are you able to populate with friendly / enemy vehicles?

Or is the limitation on numbers going to mean that we will have the same situation with lock on where if you deviate from the flight path too much you end up in a barren land where there is nothing around ?

[Feuerfalke]

Interesting idea. Looking forward to test it personally.

Thanks for the insights.

[Wags]

Originally Posted by dostoevski

You mean, when you are creating missions within a particular phase, you could set up a sort of template, that you previously mentioned, with the frontline the same in each mission--then when you move to the next phase, you could update the template with the new frontline?

Somebody should spearhead a "team" to make some nice, long, realistic campaigns for BS, ala Valhalla for F/A-18. Any takers??!!

Wag: can we expect a similiarly, thorough, realistic, campaign like the one that you created for F/A-18? I mean in terms of the number of missions, complexity, and general similarity to a real ATO?

Yes, you could create templates in such a fashion, it is really up to the campaign designer. For me, I create a template for each phase that represents a current forward line of troops, and then add and modify the template to create the individual missions for that phase. I personally should for between 4 and 6 possible missions per phase, but this number of course can be determined by the campaign designer.

The campaigns for DCS:BS are currently in work and will focus on attack helicopter operations and fixed-wing CAS.

[Wags]

As has been mentioned before, DCS:BS is based on a modified version of the TFCSE engine (same engine used for Lock On). As such, the same limitations of total units will apply. You simply have to be smart when designing missions and campaigns such that the locations of the battles make sense and that the war does not span the entire map.

Compared to what I consider the "current" benchmark for attack helo sims, you can still have a greater number of units in a mission than you see in any Jane's Longbow 2 mission. Speaking of JLB2, this was the general campaign feel that we are looking for. Additionally, given the nature of helo ops, the operational area is much smaller than a fixed-wing operations. This was another reason with going with the Ka-50 as the launch title for DCS.

As we move though to the new engine, these unit number limits will no longer exist.

Originally Posted by bogusheadbox

Thanks for the post Wags.

Just to know that a dynamic campaign as a possible future makes me happy about the progression of DCS. It will be interesting to see what can be done with the current system you are working on.

I have one big question though.

In previous posts it has been mentioned that there is a limitation to the number of units that can be placed / tracked? by the engine.

In each mission generated. How much of the map are you able to populate with friendly / enemy vehicles?

Or is the limitation on numbers going to mean that we will have the same situation with lock on where if you deviate from the flight path too much you end up in a barren land where there is nothing around ?

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by Wags

As has been mentioned before, DCS:BS is based on a modified version of the TFCSE engine (same engine used for Lock On). As such, the same limitations of total units will apply. You simply have to be smart when designing missions and campaigns such that the locations of the battles make sense and that the war does not span the entire map.

Compared to what I consider the "current" benchmark for attack helo sims, you can still have a greater number of units in a mission than you see in any Jane's Longbow 2 mission. Speaking of JLB2, this was the general campaign feel that we are looking for. Additionally, given the nature of helo ops, the operational area is much smaller than a fixed-wing operations. This was another reason with going with the Ka-50 as the launch title for DCS.

As we move though to the new engine, these unit number limits will no longer exist.

Greater number, no doubt. But in JLB2 units reacted dynamically to your operations. If you took out the air defense in one position, units relayed to close the gap - usually if you felt save going out the same way you went in, you were dead. I doubt you can really script it to that dynamic feeling.

I still hope we will see a dynamic campaign-system in DCS, that will eventually even drop Falcon4 off it's throne.