Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[EagleEye]

So anyway, yea, I'd prefer to have a Battlefield Commander mode first, while ED slowly builds up their DC engine. You would have extremely dynamic scenarios if ground forces were under human control too... some retort that "well who would want to do that?" There is someone, or multiple people, in every MP squad that would love being the ground forces commander. I was that guy in the 16th. Back in Beta 3 days, I rarely flew the bird. I was usually popping smoke, positioning/driving my tanks, and calling in coordinates of enemy armor from my binoculars view.

+1 Yeah, want that thing or something similiar back to. There`s always someone who would like to take that role and it made things more dynamic.

[Speed]

Actually, flying those missions over and over is very realistic...

 

So real-life A-10C pilots utilize time travel and parallel universes so that they can participate in the exact same CAS situation 3, 4, 5, 6 times? I had no idea!!!

 

 

Nothing in your post smacks of sarcasm, so I'm going to have to call you on this one:

:D

Edited August 11, 2011 by Speed

[GGTharos]

What a silly argument.

 

You can provide the 'variety' a real A-10C pilot will experience for his CAS missions by choosing a few different towns to operate around, and a few custom requests.

 

Beyond this, these battles will look pretty much the same unless you put huge amounts of effort into somehow randomizing troops movements or initial positioning withing said towns.

 

From there on, things will look the same save for a little scenery change. You probably won't be able to provide too much capability in terms of communications to you and from you (the player that is) without significant effort. Not that I wouldn't welcome such capability.

 

So, yes, realistically speaking, you could easily end up orbiting the same place, being called to put 30mm somewhere once in a blue moon, etc.

 

Your variations end up being:

 

Be advised of target: vehicles, troops, troops in building/cover

Choose weapon (Actually you might well be told what to use): Gun, Bomb, Maverick

Choose aproach vector

 

And that's more or less what today's realistic CAS will be like.

 

There are things in reality you won't be able to represent in the game.

 

So real-life A-10C pilots utilize time travel and parallel universes so that they can participate in the exact same CAS situation 3, 4, 5, 6 times? I had no idea!!!

[Speed]

What a silly argument.

 

You can provide the 'variety' a real A-10C pilot will experience for his CAS missions by choosing a few different towns to operate around, and a few custom requests.

 

Beyond this, these battles will look pretty much the same unless you put huge amounts of effort into somehow randomizing troops movements or initial positioning withing said towns.

 

From there on, things will look the same save for a little scenery change. You probably won't be able to provide too much capability in terms of communications to you and from you (the player that is) without significant effort. Not that I wouldn't welcome such capability.

 

So, yes, realistically speaking, you could easily end up orbiting the same place, being called to put 30mm somewhere once in a blue moon, etc.

 

Your variations end up being:

 

Be advised of target: vehicles, troops, troops in building/cover

Choose weapon (Actually you might well be told what to use): Gun, Bomb, Maverick

Choose aproach vector

 

And that's more or less what today's realistic CAS will be like.

 

There are things in reality you won't be able to represent in the game.

 

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes yes yes, yes, and yes. The argument that I disagree with is that fllying the exact same mission over and over again, and having prescient knowledge of exactly where all SAMs are, where all enemies are going to be coming from and when, is somehow realistic.

[J. Heller]

Obviously you have no idea how ATC operations look like. If you did, you'd know how a >proper ATC< changes everything. Even for four aircraft environment.

 

Obviously you dont know me well enough to make that statement. I have been flying airliners on VATSIM for years and offline with aftermarket ATC programs before that, believe me I know how ATC works.:thumbup:

[Rhen]

Obviously you dont know me well enough to make that statement. I have been flying airliners on VATSIM for years and offline with aftermarket ATC programs before that, believe me I know how ATC works.:thumbup:

 

Yes! I've been playing a surgeon using Operation since I was 4, so I think I know how to repair a chiari malformation in the brain....:huh:

 

High explosive landscapers (air-mud pukes) have had computer resources that display the route of flight using satellite imagery and the known/suspected positions of SAM sites, enemy emplacements, suspected areas of operation, etc. since the late '80s. They can visualize the terrain at the altitudes they're ingressing, and egressing, so they can formulate proper tactics.

 

Yes, dynamic campaigns are the be-all and end-all for all military operations... :no expression: That's why when we do a RED FLAG, we use hand-crafted (LOL!) scenarios. These scenarios have definite learning objectives and require proper tactical execution, both of which have been learned in academics prior to the flight phase of the exercise.

 

After each days battle, the results are tallied and the ATOs are generated for the next day. Each step of the process is optimized so the pilots can learn and practice their tactics, the flight leads can exercise leadership, prioritization, and decision making on the fly, and planners can deal with a realistic battlefield simulation.

 

Yeah, lots of learning goes on, but despite the fluid environment, specific learning objectives are involved - all of which are designed to increase the survivability of pilots in the battlefield. The planners are allowed to learn flexibility in their planning, and the consequences of mistakes without losing personnel and equipment. Command and control learns how to deal with the fog of war and see how their plans fare in the forge of the battlefield.

 

Despite all this, it's really fun for us and ramps up the difficulty level over the course of the simulated war. Flying a human-crafted campaign would accomplish this much more effectively than a dynamic campaign.

 

However, I can see that not everyone has friends, flys with a squadron, neither possessing the ability or heart of a fighter pilot, yet want to be a part of this type of process. Thus you are in need of a way to experience this without all the human interaction that would make this a more organic and living process. Then you need a DC to play the bad guy, take account of your abilities, whether you've accomplished your mission objectives, and spit out another mission for you.

 

You do realize that the success or failure of ONE pilot in the entire war effort usually, unless the circumstances are extraordinary, are negligible on the general tactical or overall strategic outcome of the war, right? DCs seem to make one single pilot the linchpin of the entire effort. Now THAT'S realistic, right?

 

Usually the AI must cheat in some way to allow it to have a fighting chance against its human opponent. They regenerate pilots and materiel more rapidly, have "all-seeing" sensors, can dodge SAMs or AIMs with near impunity, ground forces are AI vs AI. Now THAT'S realistic too, right?

 

Having a DC dictate your missions, plan them out, etc. is kind of like... no, it's EXACTLY like going 1v1 against an AI pilot. It's a good initial learning experience, but no substitute for fighting against another human.

 

We've, as of yet, in this community, seen a real RED FLAG, the way it was meant to be used - to help junior pilots understand what it's like to use the tactics and flying abilities they've learned in a near-real combat environment to help them survive when a "real" war breaks out. To help flight leads become better leaders, to help planners understand how to deal with fluid situations, commanders to deal with making decisions with the information they have and optimizing mission accomplishment in the shortest amount of time with a minimum of loss.

 

This is the real test of your "hard core" skills.

[Impact]

You do realize that the success or failure of ONE pilot in the entire war effort usually, unless the circumstances are extraordinary, are negligible on the general tactical or overall strategic outcome of the war, right? DCs seem to make one single pilot the linchpin of the entire effort. Now THAT'S realistic, right?

 

Who says that the human pilot has to be the one who turns the tide of war? Ever flown Falcon 4.0? You could set the dynamic campaign on autopilot, and the war would be won by NATO forces everytime.

 

You are just one bullet in a whole magazine of hurt.

 

I have never seen a dynamic campaign with emphasis on having the human play an important role in it. Dynamic campaigns are more about the feeling THAT you are just one of many, working together to finish it.

[Frostiken]

We've, as of yet, in this community, seen a real RED FLAG, the way it was meant to be used - to help junior pilots understand what it's like to use the tactics and flying abilities they've learned in a near-real combat environment to help them survive when a "real" war breaks out. To help flight leads become better leaders, to help planners understand how to deal with fluid situations, commanders to deal with making decisions with the information they have and optimizing mission accomplishment in the shortest amount of time with a minimum of loss.

 

I think this has more to do with the fact that we don't have DCS modules for 10 different aircraft, and even if we did, you're still relying on stupid AIs to do a lot of lifting. In Red Flag, you have EA-6s flying around doing whatever electronic warfare crap they do, you have F-16s flying SEAD while F-15s are flying CAP missions against the aggressors, etc. Even the F-111s from Australia will get a piece of the action.

 

This all makes for a much more realistic scenario involving multiple people doing different roles (flying escort for bombers, for example) rather than, what - 8 A-10Cs all shooting at tanks? Seriously? How is that good for anything? You seem to talk like a fighter pilot (I'd be interested to hear your qualifications here), then you'd know that combat missions are two-ship affairs.

 

Additionally, Red Flag, in fact just about all training flights, you're operating within a set of rules as well, rules that may or may not exist in wartime. The rules are there for several reasons - to keep a modicum of safety on the whole thing, to see how they operate in set parameters, hell there's even an entire region out there called "the container" that pilots have to avoid.

 

Additionally a problem with human-generated missions is that they take rather large amounts of time to make, especially to accommodate a large number of players, specifically to avoid the cluster-**** of A-10s all trying to perform the same tasks. This also means that whoever makes them and whoever's played them before is going to effectively be cheating. The Smerch Hunt mission might be fun a time or two but eventually you remember that there's SA-18s scattered around in a few places and you work off that knowledge to avoid them. A dynamic campaign is primarily to present largely unknown factors to the whole thing.

 

Finally, I don't want to join a VFS, and you may say it's a dumb reason, but I've had this experience in many a game before whether you call it a clan or something else. See, the people in a VFS are going to know a lot more about flying than me, because some of them take it far, far more seriously than I do. Note that in a sim game, this doesn't mean I just **** around and goof off in the A-10 - in the world of simulators, there will *always* be some 45 year old nut who's playing out his mid-life crisis and trying to live out his unrealized dream fantasy of being a fighter pilot. You know, the kind of people who have this in the garage.

 

But anyway, if I had joined a VFS when the game was brand new, we'd all be on the same foot, nobody really knew dick about it. If I joined one now, ages after most of these people started playing, I'd be subject to some moronic 'entry test' where I'd be treated like a little kid, I'd have to fret over silly mistakes because I have to prove myself to a stranger on the internet, and whether I do or do not get in, someone whom I don't know and have no reason to respect is going to be telling me how I *should* be doing things. I had a lot of fun with Tactical Gamer playing ArmA, up until they started taking it a bit too seriously and would chew you out for not talking like a pretend infantry-man on the radio. I'm not saying I was shit-talking and goofing off, but rather there was a page and a half long printout I was expected to memorize for how to call for artillery, and if you deviated from it, someone would get upset.

[NineLine]

I personally would love to see more work on the Multiplayer front, obviously the dedicated server option to start with. I dont know if there is a time line on that. But anyways from there, whats more dynamic than Multiplayer. So maybe MP missions where forces could be commanded, and missions assigned on the fly.

 

I dont know if anyone will get what I am saying, but a sort of RTS built into the Mission Builder, where each side could be given certain amount of resources and Players could jump in on either side and control elements, fly missions in any number of DCS releases and try to achieve whatever goals are set up.

 

Dynamic Campaigns would be fun and all, but flying against only AI gets lonely, a online war, so much more fun. :)

 

I dunno, doesnt sound so far fetched to me, alot of work yes, but would be very cool.

 

Anyways, interesting discussion, and good read.

[159th_Viper]

 

Finally, I don't want to join a VFS, and you may say it's a dumb reason, but I've had this experience in many a game before whether you call it a clan or something else. See, the people in a VFS are going to know a lot more about flying than me, because some of them take it far, far more seriously than I do. Note that in a sim game, this doesn't mean I just **** around and goof off in the A-10 - in the world of simulators, there will *always* be some 45 year old nut who's playing out his mid-life crisis and trying to live out his unrealized dream fantasy of being a fighter pilot. You know, the kind of people who have this in the garage.

 

But anyway, if I had joined a VFS when the game was brand new, we'd all be on the same foot, nobody really knew dick about it. If I joined one now, ages after most of these people started playing, I'd be subject to some moronic 'entry test' where I'd be treated like a little kid, I'd have to fret over silly mistakes because I have to prove myself to a stranger on the internet, and whether I do or do not get in, someone whom I don't know and have no reason to respect is going to be telling me how I *should* be doing things. I had a lot of fun with Tactical Gamer playing ArmA, up until they started taking it a bit too seriously and would chew you out for not talking like a pretend infantry-man on the radio. I'm not saying I was shit-talking and goofing off, but rather there was a page and a half long printout I was expected to memorize for how to call for artillery, and if you deviated from it, someone would get upset.

 

Your reasons are woefully misguided.

 

I have personally never encountered such behaviour in any DCS virtual squads out there. In any event, it's akin to any social club out there. Each have their own way of dealing with matters and there is always a squad that does things the way you would have done them if only had you stepped up and taken the first step. It''s more of a group of friends, virtual and otherwise, who get together at regular intervals and do what we do - and that's fly. This is after all a Hobby.

 

Until you've had experience in a DCS Community Squad, you'd be wise to kindly refrain from passing judgement on matters that you know not about - It does not reflect well, which is a shame best avoided.

[EtherealN]

Well, to be fair, he might encounter something similar to that if he were to join the 44th. :P

But of course, the 44th isn't really something you apply to in the first place, and even though there's very strict requirements to "flying the flag", it's still essentially a group of people having fun. And of course, what the 44th is doing is actually an exception to most DCS squadrons.

 

Basically, it sounds like Frostiken just needs to be a bit selective about which squad he would seek to join. There's squadrons all the way from "just having lols" to "replicating RL training". Everyone is then able to just take their pick depending on their own attitude and time allotments.

 

Also, Frostiken, do remember that several squads have actual pilots in them. The interesting thing of course is that you don't always find them in the "hard-core" squads, though the are of course there too. "Real" pilots might be as interested as any gamer in just having fun, after all. ;)

[159th_Viper]

Well, to be fair, he might encounter something similar to that if he were to join the 44th. :P

 

I already have problems taking life seriously.........that would absolutely kill me!

 

:P

[J. Heller]

Yes! I've been playing a surgeon using Operation since I was 4, so I think I know how to repair a chiari malformation in the brain....:huh:

 

High explosive landscapers (air-mud pukes) have had computer resources that display the route of flight using satellite imagery and the known/suspected positions of SAM sites, enemy emplacements, suspected areas of operation, etc. since the late '80s. They can visualize the terrain at the altitudes they're ingressing, and egressing, so they can formulate proper tactics.

 

Yes, dynamic campaigns are the be-all and end-all for all military operations... :no expression: That's why when we do a RED FLAG, we use hand-crafted (LOL!) scenarios. These scenarios have definite learning objectives and require proper tactical execution, both of which have been learned in academics prior to the flight phase of the exercise.

 

After each days battle, the results are tallied and the ATOs are generated for the next day. Each step of the process is optimized so the pilots can learn and practice their tactics, the flight leads can exercise leadership, prioritization, and decision making on the fly, and planners can deal with a realistic battlefield simulation.

 

Yeah, lots of learning goes on, but despite the fluid environment, specific learning objectives are involved - all of which are designed to increase the survivability of pilots in the battlefield. The planners are allowed to learn flexibility in their planning, and the consequences of mistakes without losing personnel and equipment. Command and control learns how to deal with the fog of war and see how their plans fare in the forge of the battlefield.

 

Despite all this, it's really fun for us and ramps up the difficulty level over the course of the simulated war. Flying a human-crafted campaign would accomplish this much more effectively than a dynamic campaign.

 

However, I can see that not everyone has friends, flys with a squadron, neither possessing the ability or heart of a fighter pilot, yet want to be a part of this type of process. Thus you are in need of a way to experience this without all the human interaction that would make this a more organic and living process. Then you need a DC to play the bad guy, take account of your abilities, whether you've accomplished your mission objectives, and spit out another mission for you.

 

You do realize that the success or failure of ONE pilot in the entire war effort usually, unless the circumstances are extraordinary, are negligible on the general tactical or overall strategic outcome of the war, right? DCs seem to make one single pilot the linchpin of the entire effort. Now THAT'S realistic, right?

 

Usually the AI must cheat in some way to allow it to have a fighting chance against its human opponent. They regenerate pilots and materiel more rapidly, have "all-seeing" sensors, can dodge SAMs or AIMs with near impunity, ground forces are AI vs AI. Now THAT'S realistic too, right?

 

Having a DC dictate your missions, plan them out, etc. is kind of like... no, it's EXACTLY like going 1v1 against an AI pilot. It's a good initial learning experience, but no substitute for fighting against another human.

 

We've, as of yet, in this community, seen a real RED FLAG, the way it was meant to be used - to help junior pilots understand what it's like to use the tactics and flying abilities they've learned in a near-real combat environment to help them survive when a "real" war breaks out. To help flight leads become better leaders, to help planners understand how to deal with fluid situations, commanders to deal with making decisions with the information they have and optimizing mission accomplishment in the shortest amount of time with a minimum of loss.

 

This is the real test of your "hard core" skills.

 

Your post reeks of insult to those who choose to fly offline, or agains AI opponents. In truth, for me at least, none of the things you have said is true. It is ALL about being the one little piece in a very large war machine, that is what makes the DC so valuable. With your argument you have basically stated that all DCS missions are Red Flag exercises, and you would be right. Well, I dont need/want no stinkin' exercises, I want an experience. And as of now I have nothing left to experience, play with or explore. Repeating the same campaign over and over holds no appeal, same with the single missions and, for now, DCS is on the shelf. Just for your benefeit, flying an airplane is nothing even close to brain surgery, though for those of a limited capacity I can understand how they might make the comparison.

[EtherealN]

Mind your manners, please.

 

On repeatibility, tried the mission generator?

[NineLine]

On repeatability, your message just repeated ;)

[EtherealN]

Yeah, I deleted the double. The hilarity of it isn't lost on me though. :D

(My Internet Connection went down so I'm tethering through my phone, which uses a provider that has crap coverage here. It seems to have caused havoc with my browser. :( )

[NineLine]

 

You do realize that the success or failure of ONE pilot in the entire war effort usually, unless the circumstances are extraordinary, are negligible on the general tactical or overall strategic outcome of the war, right? DCs seem to make one single pilot the linchpin of the entire effort. Now THAT'S realistic, right?

 

 

I dont know if I buy this, I suppose that its true that it wouldnt be a huge impact overall, but if a pilot is tasked with objectives, and he fails to accomplish those objectives and is no long available from here on out, I think that would impact the Campaign going forward.

 

If you are tasked with providing air support for troops, and you fail, it could mean the the troops on the ground are lost as well, or allows the enemy to advance or other resources have to be reassigned... or any given scenario.

 

That doesnt make any one pilot the linchpin of the entire effort, but every resource an important cog on the gear of the war effort.

[GGTharos]

Just for your benefit, you really have no idea who you just said that to. You pretty much just owned yourself.

 

Just for your benefeit, flying an airplane is nothing even close to brain surgery, though for those of a limited capacity I can understand how they might make the comparison.

[NineLine]

Just for your benefit, you really have no idea who you just said that to. You pretty much just owned yourself.

 

Who, me? huh?

[GGTharos]

It makes things harder, but such things (failures) are planned for. There's a reason why you always fly in 2-ships minimum and multiple flights as well.

 

Realize that you don't have to fail, all you need is to suck a bird into an engine or lose your IFFCC as an example. These things happen - do you think that would stop an air force or cause incredible hardship? Not likely unless things are truly dire, there are too few airframes and useful flights etc.

 

I dont know if I buy this, I suppose that its true that it wouldnt be a huge impact overall, but if a pilot is tasked with objectives, and he fails to accomplish those objectives and is no long available from here on out, I think that would impact the Campaign going forward.

 

If you are tasked with providing air support for troops, and you fail, it could mean the the troops on the ground are lost as well, or allows the enemy to advance or other resources have to be reassigned... or any given scenario.

 

That doesnt make any one pilot the linchpin of the entire effort, but every resource an important cog on the gear of the war effort.

[GGTharos]

Gosh, I didn't put the quote there for nothing, man!

 

It wasn't addressed at you, but you did just provide comic relief! :D

 

Who, me? huh?

[NineLine]

It makes things harder, but such things (failures) are planned for. There's a reason why you always fly in 2-ships minimum and multiple flights as well.

 

Realize that you don't have to fail, all you need is to suck a bird into an engine or lose your IFFCC as an example. These things happen - do you think that would stop an air force or cause incredible hardship? Not likely unless things are truly dire, there are too few airframes and useful flights etc.

 

I guess that sounds reasonable if you base that off current military actions around the world, where the US has plenty of resources (in comparison to its enemies) and doesnt need to worry so much about small bumps in the plans, but if it were a wider scale battle against an enemy with equal resources, a failed mission might have more of in impact in the long run, wouldnt you think?

[GGTharos]

That depends on what you mean by mission failure, how you failed, etc.

If we go with equipment failures, then it would be one of those dire situations I just spoke of, and in those cases you might even end up flying a broken bird as long as you could shoot stuff.

 

But what you're talking about is far, far too complex to encompass in a simple discussion. In such a situation the battlefield is large and, a failure at one particular point might matter a lot or not at all. You're taking a view so large that you pretty much can't really imagine it other than making up examples.

 

You'd have to simulate it ;)

 

I guess that sounds reasonable if you base that off current military actions around the world, where the US has plenty of resources (in comparison to its enemies) and doesnt need to worry so much about small bumps in the plans, but if it were a wider scale battle against an enemy with equal resources, a failed mission might have more of in impact in the long run, wouldnt you think?

[EtherealN]

but if it were a wider scale battle against an enemy with equal resources, a failed mission might have more of in impact in the long run, wouldnt you think?

 

World War 2.

Each individual pilot had a habit of not being all that important.

Hell, even among the dambusters they had measures in place to allow individual (even multiple) planes to fail to achieve their objectives without seriously impacting the mission.

 

Similarly, on the british side of the battle of britain, it was a few that did so much - but there was to my knowledge no instance where a single pilot had a hugely disproportionate effect on the ongoing battle. (Excepting that solo Junkers that accidently bombed london, causing a motive for the Berlin raid, which motivated the Blitz, which motivated the wholesale carpetbombing of Germany... :P Now THAT navigator did have a major effect. :P )

[NineLine]

Is world war 2 a fair example though? The production speed and cost of air craft and the training curve of pilots might be a little different? I dont know though, I am not an expert on the subject.

 

I am not saying every individual action in a battle, campaign, war will effect the outcome, but as you pointed out, some do.

 

As I posted a few days ago, my ideal dynamic campaign would be multiplayer based, with more controls than just your single pilot and air frame. That said, I still say that individual unit losses have a greater impact than can always be measured... fun discussion anyways :)