[Guide] How to rationalize the Dynamic Campaign engine
-
Nevertheless very interesting.
Perhaps a dev gets interested on it and makes these entries specific for each side in the campaign. That would be a huge jump towards simulation of real operational doctrines in campaigns, I think. -
Interesting topic, even though I never work with campaigns myself.
Out of curiousity, and a bit of devil’s advocating:
-
Changing the values the way you did now, does that mean that the ATO will always ONLY task SEAD / Stealth Strike inside active GBADs areas? If so, how vulnerable are SEAD flights to enemy air threats if they don’t have an OCA to clear the airspace in front of them? (assuming the OCA will stop short of, and won’t enter the GBAD area, as per risk management)
-
Do SAMs have different threat values (i.e. SA-3 is a lower threat than an SA-10) or is that a fixed number? In case of the latter, how much does this impact the campaign flow if strike packages can only be tasked after SEAD has destroyed a GBAD in the area, while some aircraft should be more than capable to defend against the AD threat on their own, and still complete their strike objective?
-
-
+1 Eagle-Eye.
Altering as you say will create “also” suicide missions.
U will send SEAD and SSTritke undefended. The red side will not have threat on their territory so they will be up and waiting for u in the skies. -
From what I have heard / read, this is often the case for the SEAD missions who are leading the whole package.
The SEAD escort might be behind IRL, but even then, the SEAD takes the main risk.As for Stealth strikes, of course they are undefended, like the F-117 were above Bagdad.
-
Gold post of the year.
-
Wow, precious information shared here, thank you so much, Mystic!!
I’m messing around with new campaigns for POH Theater and this info comes in the perfect timing.Thumbs up, thank you Sir!
-
From what I have heard / read, this is often the case for the SEAD missions who are leading the whole package.
The SEAD escort might be behind IRL, but even then, the SEAD takes the main risk.As for Stealth strikes, of course they are undefended, like the F-117 were above Bagdad.
Least risk. Different readings of the situation, also. 2D, sweep goes through like a charm, even SA10. 3D, slaughter. Real life, I don’t know, not relevant. Escort jammers? Not sure it follows very sophisticated tactics as default.
The ATO frags regardless of 2D or 3D, of course. I prefer the idea of fragging stuff that is relevant to 3D, they usually work in 2D too. That’s what Mystic proposes IMHO. Sweep in SAM dies or is useless, SEAD ahead of escort can survive and still operate.
-
Thx Mystic, in my name and Dado. This is very , very usefull information for camp building.
-
Very cool info, thanks!
-
Honestly, sticky for campaign creators…
Many thanks as I was just starting working on a Baltic campaign update!
Cheers
-
Make it sticky please, a pdf version to download.
-
Hi!
Be extremely carefully when “playing” with this. IIRC, some Flags behaviors has been modified. Some options has critical consequences … could be much more than what you can witness once in game.
If you like to play with it, try do modify as less as possible, especially the flags. -
Is there any chance that composition of package will alter threat calculation? For example package without SEAD or jamming escort will consider threat too high but package with will not?
Or maybe have package types that will accept high risk environment absolutely requires SEAD/JAM in composition?
-
Deejay,
Science progressed thanks to experiments and taken risks.
Maybe BMS can actually benefit from trials of the community.
I am willing to push the boundaries a bit further on an online server to check how stable it is…Cheers
PS: there are pieces of c code for FF that actually explain the flags and help on the understanding…
-
Deejay,
Science progressed thanks to experiments and taken risks.
Maybe BMS can actually benefit from trials of the community.
I am willing to push the boundaries a bit further on an online server to check how stable it is…Cheers
PS: there are pieces of c code for FF that actually explain the flags and help on the understanding…
This is why I tend to believe that it is a good thing that Mystic thrown it on the public forum. But I stey prudent. It could also have some very bad consequences if everyone are messing their install as soon as 34 is out. Same story about TvT events … we can’t monitor anything and any bug reports/investigations will be void.
But of course I will consider it … once I will have a bit less to do on my current todo list.
Lets see what happens.
PS: there are pieces of c code for FF that actually explain the flags and help on the understanding…
^This. Some of them may have been been “hijacked” on current BMS code to serve a different purpose or no longer works the same. I wouldn’t trust FF code.
-
One of the most interesting posts I’ve seen in a while. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that this is one area that the BMS devs have apparently not tweaked yet.
Dee-Jay makes an excellent point and suggestion– Like Ellie’s dad said in the movie ‘Contact’-- “Small steps…”. Based on what Mystic said, I would make smaller changes than he suggested and take my time with studying the results.
I’ll be following this thread closely for feedback on different values.
-
yeah interesting finding!
on a side note… for historical vietnam campaigns, we need lots suicidal flights generated…or we cannot reproduce historical scenes.;)
-
yeah interesting finding!
on a side note… for historical vietnam campaigns, we need lots suicidal flights generated…or we cannot reproduce historical scenes.;)
Do you put Fortunate Son in the background too ?
-
One of the most interesting posts I’ve seen in a while. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that this is one area that the BMS devs have apparently not tweaked yet.
Dee-Jay makes an excellent point and suggestion– Like Ellie’s dad said in the movie ‘Contact’-- “Small steps…”. Based on what Mystic said, I would make smaller changes than he suggested and take my time with studying the results.
I’ll be following this thread closely for feedback on different values.
Hi SoBad
While I don’t disagree, In my limited experience making small changes while trying to evaluate the effects of edits to settings can be counter productive. Larger changes can lead to a quicker understanding of what influences what.After understanding is established, with some documentation, then it becomes time to fine tune.
This type of editing is only for those with the experience needed and determination to put in the amount of testing needed, and is always better as a team or squad endevour.
Get used to starting a fresh campaign every week or even sooner.
-
I’m a little surprised that this is one area that the BMS devs have apparently not tweaked yet.
We did (on various areas) But in some/many cases we have reverted to previous values because benefits were not balanced. For instance, there is no point in increasing the max ditance of a SAM missile to make it “closer to rl) as long as objectives do not remains deagged until missile reaches its tgt. Same applies to many other things. It is all about compromises.