[Guide] How to rationalize the Dynamic Campaign engine
-
Question for Devs:
I believe it is in the interest of the devs, as well as of the community, that new exciting campaigns are created, isn´t it?
Why the devs don´t make a short document (or perhaps a chapter in the 4.34 manual) describing what all those variables are doing inthe .aii file? I beleive that could save a lot of time and trouble for many of us.
Anyway, just a suggestion.
-
Gold Post!
-
Question for Devs:
I believe it is in the interest of the devs, as well as of the community, that new exciting campaigns are created, isn´t it?
Why the devs don´t make a short document (or perhaps a chapter in the 4.34 manual) describing what all those variables are doing inthe .aii file? I beleive that could save a lot of time and trouble for many of us.
Anyway, just a suggestion.
doing such document will require hundreds of hours of code reading / testing / analysis…
i think you guys just dont realize the spaghetti plate !!!
IMO, It can be rated as a development project as a whole since it touches some of the inner principles …a single change could have unexpected consequences etc etc…
And, as usual, the more we will dig, the more shit we will find, and the more code we will need to erase / redo …
that is the curse of Falcon4 development.
i put a bet that more than 50% of the variables in that .aii file are not working as they should
-
This is one of the major issue. It applies to all camps in all scenarios of a given Theater.
Should be made for separated file for each theatres and each campaigns?
-
Should be made for separated file for each theatres and each campaigns?
let the game begin
that would mean filter EVERYTHING by teams impacted by those variables, and we can talk about hundreds / thousands of places …. and you can add on top of that the dozens we’ will forget and the dozens we couldnt know beeing impacted etc etc…
Welcome in the 3 to 4 weeks dev time world guys
-
let the game begin
that would mean filter EVERYTHING by teams impacted by those variables, and we can talk about hundreds / thousands of places …. and you can add on top of that the dozens we’ will forget and the dozens we couldnt know beeing impacted etc etc…
Welcome in the 3 to 4 weeks dev time world guys
I’m not exactly sure we have an issue for not. In case any campaign both sides has SEAD capable jet as I understand well these changes has positive changes on both sides.
Of course from my POV at first step it would be great to have better loadout and role scores for all jets. -
guys it’s just simple.
The dev tells it’s a mess.
understanding DC when reading it on docs it’s a head banging.To measure actual impact if not on debug mode u need at least a tool to visualize all the values and kinda crosscheck the behavior and actions, which will also be very difficult I presume, both to create such as a dev, and to monitor as a user.
what would be best is to break down current implementation, exclude non working parameters and variables, create a new clean implementation where u can enrich with new additions and parameters.
-
This is one of the major issue. It applies to all camps in all scenarios of a given Theater.
Or you can create an f4patch and select the campaign you want along with savexx.cam, savexx.tri, falcon4.aii,mission.dat. Works fine
-
Should be made for separated file for each theatres and each campaigns?
Since few years we are in the plan to make a separated mission.dat for each scenarios. So … I let you imagine that we didn’t waited that post to start digging all of this.
But during the process, we have found many other things must be changed before … so it takes time.To measure actual impact if not on debug mode u need at least a tool to visualize all the values and kinda crosscheck the behavior and actions, which will also be very difficult I presume, both to create such as a dev, and to monitor as a user.
There are what you can see … and what you won’t see. Fixing/enhancing => gooood. Breaking stuff without realizing it => less good.
Or you can create an f4patch and select the campaign you want along with savexx.cam, savexx.tri, falcon4.aii,mission.dat. Works fine
Cheap.
You could also copy/past …
That’s not good…
-
When I say break down, I mean break down analysis and not break it down like destroy it.
Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Since few years we are in the plan to make a separated mission.dat for each scenarios. So … I let you imagine that we didn’t waited that post to start digging all of this.
But during the process, we have found many other things must be changed before … so it takes time.I’m very happy that DB + camp. and other things are in focus. YEAH!
-
-
FYI
i had a first look at it,
And as i expected, this is incredibly ****ing complex, not to mention that some functions are used both by air and ground units in the path choosing….
this would need a freaking lot of work to understand it entirely in order to improve it
as far as OP , ceertainly those value can be changed to adjust the scenario to what is needed…
HOWEVER.
It seems obvious at first glance that the priority should be to make those files CAMPAIGN dependant AND TEAM dependant ,
indeed…
if you have a scenario RED vs BLUE where RED have nealry no SEAD capacities but huge amount of equiment while blue has SEAD capacity but few Aircraft
if you set up your files so that only SEAD can go to ennemy territories, that means RED will never attack BLUE…whereas the doctrine could be to send huge amount of aircraft despite the losses…
so, having a generic set of files is certainly not the best way to achieve the scenario the campaign builder wants…
After a first look, it might be not so difficult to make those files cam and team dependants…but maybe not all values need that treatement as many of values are GENERIC…
-
FYI
i had a first look at it,
And as i expected, this is incredibly ****ing complex, not to mention that some functions are used both by air and ground units in the path choosing….
this would need a freaking lot of work to understand it entirely in order to improve it
as far as OP , ceertainly those value can be changed to adjust the scenario to what is needed…
HOWEVER.
It seems obvious at first glance that the priority should be to make those files CAMPAIGN dependant AND TEAM dependant ,
indeed…
if you have a scenario RED vs BLUE where RED have nealry no SEAD capacities but huge amount of equiment while blue has SEAD capacity but few Aircraft
if you set up your files so that only SEAD can go to ennemy territories, that means RED will never attack BLUE…whereas the doctrine could be to send huge amount of aircraft despite the losses…
so, having a generic set of files is certainly not the best way to achieve the scenario the campaign builder wants…
After a first look, it might be not so difficult to make those files cam and team dependants…but maybe not all values need that treatement as many of values are GENERIC…
Sounds painful
-
FYI
i had a first look at it,
And as i expected, this is incredibly ****ing complex, not to mention that some functions are used both by air and ground units in the path choosing….
this would need a freaking lot of work to understand it entirely in order to improve it
as far as OP , ceertainly those value can be changed to adjust the scenario to what is needed…
HOWEVER.
It seems obvious at first glance that the priority should be to make those files CAMPAIGN dependant AND TEAM dependant ,
indeed…
if you have a scenario RED vs BLUE where RED have nealry no SEAD capacities but huge amount of equiment while blue has SEAD capacity but few Aircraft
if you set up your files so that only SEAD can go to ennemy territories, that means RED will never attack BLUE….whereas the doctrine could be to send huge amount of aircraft despite the losses…
so, having a generic set of files is certainly not the best way to achieve the scenario the campaign builder wants…
After a first look, it might be not so difficult to make those files cam and team dependants…but maybe not all values need that treatement as many of values are GENERIC…
This is why I allow fly SEAD DPRK with massive qty of J-5, J-6 and H-5. Maybe the losses are big but at least they can kill SAMs and the situation is different from what is today and ever. Red side files again and again in SAM zone and the fish in the barrel shooting starts. If a HAWK battery is attacked by 8 aircraft by CBUs, well… Good luck HAWK.
-
FYI
i had a first look at it,
And as i expected, this is incredibly ****ing complex, not to mention that some functions are used both by air and ground units in the path choosing….
this would need a freaking lot of work to understand it entirely in order to improve it
as far as OP , ceertainly those value can be changed to adjust the scenario to what is needed…
HOWEVER.
It seems obvious at first glance that the priority should be to make those files CAMPAIGN dependant AND TEAM dependant ,
indeed…
if you have a scenario RED vs BLUE where RED have nealry no SEAD capacities but huge amount of equiment while blue has SEAD capacity but few Aircraft
if you set up your files so that only SEAD can go to ennemy territories, that means RED will never attack BLUE…whereas the doctrine could be to send huge amount of aircraft despite the losses…
so, having a generic set of files is certainly not the best way to achieve the scenario the campaign builder wants…
After a first look, it might be not so difficult to make those files cam and team dependants…but maybe not all values need that treatement as many of values are GENERIC…
Later on, I will edit the first post to elaborate a bit more.
Mav, the current situation in campaigns is this (regardless of blue or red side). In 2D, aircrafts ingress in med to high alt straight into the MEZ of SAMs. The DC toss the dice here (i.e hitchances) and the outcome is rather unrealistic. In RL, even a Red side without SEAD or DEAD capabilities as you described, will not ingress into A2/AD bubbles inside enemy territory, jauntily, in high altitude to SWEEP or to conduct SCAR missions.
What I posted is a way to make things more realistic given the specific scenario each campaign presents. In my campaigns, I follow the modern NATO doctrines regarding ATO, ACO, SPINS. Whilst, these make sense in a human only scenario, by tweaking a little of bit given what we have now, we can make things appear more realistic.
Of course, as you already mentioned, there are lots of variables to consider, however, this is a good start. And of course, this piece of info is orientated towards dev teams in various theaters.
-
Mav have fallback on those.
Generic should stay.
Else double or triple work for the campaign builder.
Generic values, campaign values, team values.
If no team value use campaign values, if no campaign values use generic values.Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
First post updated with Edit #1, at the bottom.
-
I always wandered, why the system creates such suicidal missions,
It truly awesome that it can be modified! -
I thought some of you may be interested on some tests.
So, I expended the whole afternoon today tweaking and flying and managing some campaigns and the results are very interesting.- My first test was to run exactly how Mystic suggested and the following happened on Korea Default:
At the very beginning of the campaign, one or two AI Strikes went deep in enemy territory in suicidal mode. First I thought that the ATM found a gap in the SAM cover, but then I noticed that the problem was lack of intel. At the beginning of the campaign, the ATM does not know where all enemy SAMs are based, and the it fragged two suicidal missions. After that, it ran exactly as advertised.:-)
I tested in many ways: Set only OCA strikes and PAKs for the north in the campaign, and no mission was generated.
Made test with sweeps, strikes, etc. All perfect.:-)
The values suggested my Mystic are too conservative though for Korea threats and density of AD. Very few SEAD strikes were fragged in my tests, and they were not deep in enemy territory. Most AD was targeted close to the FLOT.
I was looking at the old leaked F4 code and the ATM uses a SAM map coverage that is used to calculate the threat score. If one has a theater with a very high density of AD with high strength, then you need to increase some of the values, otherwise missions are not fragged at all. And that was what I did….see next.-
I increased the values of the high threat and the MinAvoidThreat, and worked as expected. Aggressive SEAD Strikes, from BOTH sides Red and Blue. Nothing changed, as expected, with the other missions running in standard/low settings.
In one mission, I even got FOR THE FIRST TIME in my life in Falcon a smart mission: The ATM made a mission and put the flight plan more or less around a SA-2 close to the FLOT! As one would normally plan. I had to smile when I saw that! I need to repeat that more times and see how to achieve that more consistently. -
Then I used that knowledge and applied to my Cold War campaign running in the Balkans. As more or less expected, I had to changed almost all values to avoid an stagnation of the air war at some points. The cause for that, I think, is that my campaign has too many ADs in some regions.
-
Finally, there is one important lesson for me in all that: The values in the AII file are VERY sensitive to the 2D stats of AD, for example. If you have a DB that you tweaked to for some reason, this will affect how the ATM will generate the missions. I did that in the past in (3) to correct the 2D stats to mirror the outcome of engagements in 3D world.
@Mystic: You gave, for me at least, the joy again of flying/commanding campaigns. By playing with the PAKs and these settings, one can achieve much more interesting air campaigns than before! Imagine the day that red and blue will have different fragging strategies and ROE, Mav ;-)…wow!
Cheers!
- My first test was to run exactly how Mystic suggested and the following happened on Korea Default: