Musings on Mission Design

I note that many mission authors include lots of action, among dozens of air and ground units, which is "off camera" and totally transparent to the Player. SEAD activity is one example. Apparently the main purpose of these actions is to provide the Player with combat atmospherics. All this atmospheric combat activity, however, requires a great many mission groups and their attendant CPU load. Indeed I have tried to fly missions which are unplayable due to this phenomenon.

I submit that the same effect can be achieved simply by triggering relevant messages to the Player and include some appropriate artful consequences for failure to follow orders. For example I flew an A-10C mission tasking the Player to loiter until cleared to proceed after the destruction of air defenses by a SEAD group. Lots of groups and advanced WP actions were involved in the SEAD activity that were totally transparent to me while I orbited. The same effect could have been achieved by sending the Player some timely relevant messages AND perhaps spawning some AD units if the Player defied orders and departed the loiter zone early.

My purpose here is to encourage mission authors to "think outside the box" (ugh, trite) in providing the Player with a compelling combat experience with a minimum of CPU load. One does not need dozens of active groups to make a lively combat atmosphere. Think statics and explosions.

Yup, I second that. Taking the SEAD as an example, you might just want to blow up the enemy SAMs instead of waiting for the AI to do it (and -quite often - failing miserably, thus breaking the mission). Nobody will notice unless the player uses F2 views to see what other flights are doing :)

In my opinion that is ok for scripted missions, but I prefer the uncertainty of other groups cumplying their orders...

Have you made any missions that incorporate this in a convincing manner?

I am by no means a mission designer, but I am a software developer.

If I was handed a project like this, I would mix the scripted with the dynamic and really make a rich experience.

Perhaps scripted well out of sight of the player and required for mission progression, and more dynamic closer to the player to give the mission the "live" feel, yet still keeping the stoopid AI out of the picture.

All in all, this is a great idea. I'm definitely going to think about this in future mission designs.

...or ED could just give us a truly dynamic multi-flyable-aircraft campaign with smarter AI...

It's all well and good faking it with some voiceover and explosion, but what if you actually want the outcome of said "remote engagement" to be meaningful? Or what if said remote engagement was actually critical to the current mission and you were supposed to actually be there impacting it.

I totally agree with the OP in that wasted CPU cycles are the bane of the mission designer, but the design of the mission should be so that everything is meaningful and the players actions is up to them. it's pretty much like saying you are parked in Tbilisi on Blue Flag and there's a key battle in Anapa you aren't involved in. If not, why not?

I'd be asking the more important question of why the MD decided to make a battle somewhere and isn't explaining the battlespace to you properly in the briefing. I really don't experience any missions where the MD has gone out of their way to create something in a remote corner of the map for absolutely no reason at all.

As for SEAD/DEAD, if it isn't relevant to destroy AIr defences that can also kill you, I'm wondering what the designer is thinking by making that effort at all. Probably some examples here of missions would be good to reference.

[EDIT: on reflection seems you are talking about SP missions. I don't really have much experience of them so your sentiment probably holds true]

I’m wondering if there is a step by step tutorial explaining how to build an effective mission what is needed and why what you should avoid and why?

I think there needs to be a balance, and that is a difficult thing to get right.

@dmatsch, I think what you suggested sounds like the best overall approach to get the balance right.

I have to say that a pet hate of mine is when (say) orbiting the AO waiting for something to kick off and have had ample time to build good situational awareness, but then an enemy armor convoy (for example) might suddenly spawn in an area that I knew was totally clear a moment ago! This is a big immersion killer for me. I wonder why did I even bother painstakingly bother to can all the approaches in and around the AO if the mission designer is going to cheat like that! If there are enemy units hiding in wait for an ambush later on in the mission, then they should be fair game from the start. Sure, the ambush or counter attack might not then happen as intended by the mission designer, but as far as I'm concerned it's the pilots job to stop said ambush/counter attack from happening in the first place (but also be ready to react it if it does happen unexpectedly)!

Further thought is also needed when designing missions where players have access to long range sensors (radar, rwr, tgp etc.). If the mission involves something like a separate SEAD package, then it is only natural that a player in the attack flight might want to maintain situational awareness by attempting to track these assets using any of the available sensors. They may become justifiably concerned or confused if they can't be detected where they are expected to be.

Finally, I really value the build up to the mission you feel when you see a SEAD flight or tanker etc. take off as you are doing pre-flight checks and startup ... you know it's all on for a big show (and they are your buddies ... all in it together ... even if dumb AI)!

But of course all of this is pointless if it slows everything to a point where it's unplayable (hence the need for balance).

However, you don't necessarily need a lot of objects (especially moving ground units) to make an exciting and realistic mission if it is kept reasonably focused. This seems to be the case in most of the (admittedly only single player) missions I've played, including most of the third campaign modules.

I haven’t played through all of them yet but the F15C Red Flag Campaign is where this is done right. There are tons of moving parts and all sorts of SEAD and other flights doing there job. If this was all “faked” I would like the missions way less or not at all. It would just seem too fake to me.

I've tried to incorporate both canned situations and live AI action into my single player missions in order to try and keep the CPU load down some.

For example, in my Vulcan Forge Campaign, I've tried to keep the action close to the player "live", while SOME actions further away "canned" (voice overs, messages and scripted blowin' ups where the player can't even see what's happening, but adds to the element of the story behind the mission). The "canned" ones add to the atmospherics, yet hopefully don't add too much to the CPU. You can even randomize the canned events, so they may or may not happen, or will only happen if something else you do occurs.

Another example is that if you're designing a CAS/JTAC type mission, you don't need to put 50 tanks down on a battlefield when 6 well placed, hidden and well defended will do the trick. It can be more challenging, and more realistic as well! :-)

:pilotfly:

I’m wondering if there is a step by step tutorial explaining how to build an effective mission what is needed and why what you should avoid and why?

There are quite a few videos on the subject floating around but you have to take things with a grain of salt...there are some universal truths i.e. too many units can cause frame rate issues, AI is not 100% reliable etc. but much of it is a matter of personal opinion.

Ranger79 has a very comprehensive series on YouTube where he takes you through the process of creating a relatively simple misson start-to-finish, including recording and processing voiceovers. Not a bad place to start though there are some mentions of bugs etc. that are no longer relevant (we have new bugs now :lol: )