Campaigns: how do you enjoy them?
-
I think CASE1 is better
-
The problem with the ‘case 2’ campaign is that it loses gameplay value if everytime you play it you know how it is going to end.
I usually enjoy more disabling most of the AI air tasking (just leave them handle the defensive counter air scene and CAS operations around the FLOT) and planning the whole offensive air campaign myself, although this means normally spending more time in the Ui than cockpit itself, and also having a lot of patience when your perfect plan ends up in disaster because of unexpectedly dumb AI decisions or your amazing strike package suffers 20 loses to KS-19s :p. I normally leave the ground tasking alone with minimal interaction. ‘Case 1’ is probably the closest one to this.
EDIT: if we go into the MP TvT area of course that is the better balance as you are just a pawn in your whole team. But it has also a few other drawbacks as then you step into people using arcadish tactics and exploiting all the simulator’s weakspots to gain an advantage.
-
If the player(s) actions do not count within a minor random factor every campaign would be the same…
The answer is very easy. Case 1.
The point of the dyn. campaign is many but maybe some goals are more important.1. It should provide semi random environment for replay. The location of units are the same if you restart a campaign but you can set different qty. with sliders for SQ. and battalions.
2. The act of the players should matter. If a campaign cannot be won regardless what you do from gamer POV is simply not acceptable.
Just imagine the Secret Weapon of the Luftwaffe (SWotL) GAME without the winning option on German side. What would be the point?
In fact the Falcon 4 used the same approach that “action of players matters” just the TFH:BoB (1989), SWotL (1991), or the 1942: The Pacific Air War (1994). The campaign engine of Falcon 4 did not reinvent the wheel again but so far is the most complex wheel ever produced.I know this because…
OFF
…I’m working on about article series about evolution combat flight simulators. Maybe one day I will translate that into ENG just I’m doing with SAM evolution and other stuff.This is the first part in Hungarian. It was 41 page long in Word.
https://htka.hu/2019/10/12/szimulator-tortenelem-1-resz/The series focuses not only from gamer POV but also the level and detail of the modeling, physics, abstraction, etc.
ON
The problem with the ‘case 2’ campaign is that it loses gameplay value if everytime you play it you know how it is going to end.
Exactly.
I usually enjoy more disabling most of the AI air tasking (just leave them handle the defensive counter air scene and CAS operations around the FLOT) and planning the whole offensive air campaign myself, although this means normally spending more time in the Ui than cockpit itself, and also having a lot of patience when your perfect plan ends up in disaster because of unexpectedly dumb AI decisions or your amazing strike package suffers 20 loses to KS-19s :p. I normally leave the ground tasking alone with minimal interaction. ‘Case 1’ is probably the closest one to this.
I played one campaign such way in AF against advanced opponent. Because the ATO works differently than a human it was childplay to beat the AI.
I concentrated my 50% of total force to strike on the airbase wit the most valuable squadrons. I created as I can remember 2x16 and 2x8 plane large packages against a single target. Nothing could stop them. Following the 2nd hour I had total air superiority. Every airbases with Su-30s and advanced jets were knocked out. About 50% of the forces did BARCAP and minimal strike at the first hours. From that point my only task was monitoring what was airborne. When I met in the air again Su-30s I checked which airbase was repaired and I made another large strike against it. Because I had 100% accurate recon.
As long as ATO is not able to make such very extreme decision this can be close to “cheating”. AI cannot do such thing and I’m not sure is able to react such attack wave.
If the ATO of BMS4.34 restrict the sortie rate this cannot be done but I have not tried it.It would be great to see fog of war more deeper for ex. on recon screen the spotted battalions should not contain detailed info about vehicles in it. Depending on the asset what spotted you can see only estimation about vehicle qty. which could be even wrong. For example:
1-10 some
11-20 pack
21-30 lots
40+ hordeOr any word which fits.
And displaying only the type of typical combat unit with uncertainty because it couples because of battalion structure with certain AD units.
More fog of war = more random environment and element of surprise. -
Probably important to place something back in the center: it’s not about disabling the players input, but about short and fast paced campaigns versus long-term campaigns. Players’ positive input can’t be disabled, so this is a non-topic. What you destroy and defend is destroyed and defended, what you do to help in the campaign can’t be cancelled, either in short-term or long-term. What can be discussed is disabling the penalty for players absence in 3D (NoPlayerPlay line), which I immediately consider as a given for the discussion.
So, if you understand that and compare case 1 and case 2, you have either fast-paced campaigns (usually short) or long-term campaigns with slow progresses.
The interesting point raised here is the manual control of ATO. That is a parallel question, that appears mostly in long-term situation, since fast-paced are almost necessarily a manual job of fragging, for offensive actions at least.
If you look closely, most theater devs design long-term campaigns. Are we telling them (let’s let the poll and thread elaborate) that this is in vain…
I lately got interested into flying a long (Balkans) campaign with 2 sorties for one campaign day (ATO priorities are manual), trying to influence the outcome by succeeding in missions the best I can, both by the positive “score” input and “concrete” input. For a solo continuous experience, I find the experience is more interesting and realistic that way, rather than trying to frag the flight that will save the world every time (which can be fun, but rather in MP).
EDIT:
Ahmed: “I usually enjoy more disabling most of the AI air tasking (just leave them handle the defensive counter air scene and CAS operations around the FLOT) and planning the whole offensive air campaign myself, although this means normally spending more time in the Ui than cockpit itself, and also having a lot of patience when your perfect plan ends up in disaster because of unexpectedly dumb AI decisions or your amazing strike package suffers 20 loses to KS-19s . I normally leave the ground tasking alone with minimal interaction. ‘Case 1’ is probably the closest one to this”.
Yes, exactly what I (we) do as well in case 1 situations. I say we, because solo playing this way usually drives to frustration related to AI indeed, since you can’t totally replace it everywhere, nor can expect them to be up to your plans, 2D or 3D.EDIT2: Molni and Ahmed, if you have a chance to fly MP, Poseidon is probably a must-try for you.
-
I can not pick case 1 or 2 because if BMS is attempting to simulate “what a real campaign” is, then it would need to change some key factors of the campaign and how victory conditions are met.
First, I am going to say that the Falcon campaign engine is one of the most technically advanced algorithms for a war simulation I have ever seen. With that said, when we look at modern combat, the conditions exist for winning such a conflict resides with 1 mantra that has existed since modern warfare began. That mantra is… “REDUCE THE ENEMIES CAPACITY TO WAGE WAR”. This doctrine includes the targeting of C & C assets, POL’s, area denial (both air and ground), airbase neutralization and key infrastructure targets. Those targets are of high priority. Therefore, if the player wants/needs to have a much bigger impact in a campaign, then tasking orders would need to be more centric towards those types of missions. Since Falcon BMS sets the AI and does have a “key to victory” condition, once the high priority targets are neutralized, the capitulation of enemy forces becomes stronger with each passing hour. Therefore, a fast campaign would require such missions done at the start and would require a mass effort to neutralize those assets quickly.
We know that long drawn out conflicts occur when the enemy (blue or red fore) has a large infrastructure and assets available to sustain a long (well defended) conflict. Wars are never won by 1 man/woman, 1 pilot in a jet or 1 person in command of a unit. It is the efforts of all involved. Therefore, the AI in campaigns needs to be able to operate (both sides) algorithms that in effect deal with the lower priority aspects of a campaign. The logistics of your forces are extremely important. Defending them is of high priority. Who wants to fly escort logistics missions? Yeah, thought so. Falcon BMS does this pretty well actually. But as in all things, it could use some improvements.
So, case 1 or 2 does not fit the reality of campaigns in real life. There are many things to include in this which I have not mentioned. I just related the primary factors of priorities and the true keys to victory. If an enemy can no longer wage war, the conflict will end. Short or long. War games is a practiced and studied art. These are the primary factors you deal with. The mantra still stands. So designing any camp’s would require this approach. Yes, your personal missions do move the balance in your favor, but in reality, it is a combined efforts by all of those involved.
-
And in conclusion jhook, how do you enjoy campaigns in BMS?
(EDIT: ah, you mean “Mantra”?)
-
And in conclusion jhook, how do you enjoy campaigns in BMS?
(EDIT: ah, you mean “Mantra”?)
If MP, a combined effort to neutralize logistics, CCC and airfields. Take control of the air. Then unleash hell on the ground. Single player; take the time to push control of the air forward. Hit key logistic sights at the FLOT.
Desert Storm for example. Well defended enemy. We (as a coalition) choked there supplies, cut off there escape routes and pounded them into submission. It was a very fast conflict. That mantra was in the fore front of planning and execution.
(Mantra, yes, sorry for that)
-
So, whether they are supposed to end in 6 days or 30 days, it is the same for you, copy. Also, I assume you never fly a 30 days campaigns until the end of it. Understood.
-
So, whether they are supposed to end in 6 days or 30 days, it is the same for you, copy. Also, I assume you never fly a 30 days campaigns until the end of it. Understood.
Well, think about it my friend. The only good thing about war is it’s end. So, the quicker, the better. But this is a simulation. No one dies here except the GFX burning down an asset. Thank God for that.
-
I’m much closer to case 1. Quite hands on and flying what I think are vital missions, especially in regards to greasing the wheels for the ground war/advance.
In the early hours I tend to focus on what I call HARMCAP missions. This means loading the jet with a couple of HARMs and air-to-air missiles and going on a hunt for EA and SAM radars.
Once superiority is gained and the enemy ADA has lost it’s eyes I tend to switch to interdiction, clearing the axes of advance.
Once this is done then I tend to switch over to strategic targets since I love bombing nuclear plants and the like.
I tend to control everything, from ordnance and steerpoints for AI missions to which ground units are sent to capture the objectives and everything in between.
Not sure I answered the question?
-
Case 1 are short campaigns. I’m not sure you’re describing a short or long campaign, you could mean flying a long campaign to the end as well, while controlling everything and flying a lot. Or sometimes. Not sure.
-
Recently I started (again) with the Sandwar campaign in POH in the role of a Portuguese F16AM.
Because I simply love the theatre
Since the auto saves and manual saves don’t function (yet), I let my pc run after exiting the cockpit.
Although in this campaign the PAF only tasks is BARCAP’s , I still enjoy it very much so.
Probably because the missions have a realistic level, and everything is not overdramatized.
Even a boring mission is not boring to me, especially at sunrise and sunsetsFor every mission in whatever scenario it is important for me that it resembles real world dynamics.
That is also the reason why most TE’s are very enjoyable as well, it give that realistic experienceSo my answer would be, rather be a part of something big, than the key player in a entire war.
-
Struggling to find an answer for which I prefer….
I find myself loving both case 1 and case 2. As you know Lorik, I rate your campaigns extremely highly and each one has required altered tactics (due to defenses, enemies technologies and support, and positioning and as importantly, our lack of bluefor tech (limited munitions, blks)) which have made things very refreshing. Which makes me sound like I am all for case 1… but as you know me… you also know I like other ways to approach campaigns. The long campaign haul is also very interesting to me where my direct mission support can shape AI’s movements and I sort of help the engine along. It makes me think quite deeply as to how to best support the AI… which has a very good feeling of authenticity to a real world situation… sure…I like the boring flights where you hit tankers and just make sure the AI can do what they need to do. You and I have been on some of those and with you on my wing it has never been dull.
There is also another way of fragging which you and I both have enjoyed, although it is harder to control (but with PAKs priority can help) and thats supporting frags that the AI build… making sure they get to and back from a target which also is very enjoyable. Just refrag the crazy ones…lol. But yes by knocking all the paks to 0 and concentrating on one region on pak 5, and supporting those frags is interesting for sure)
So I am stuck in both camps… CASE 1 and CASE 2… I don’t necessarily feel that CASE 1 or 2 inflict anything against the multiplayer exprerience… but think that CASE 1 is harder (not impossible) to manage in Single Player… but not true to some of your above mentioned campaigns…(Posiedon). In Loriks Balkans, there has been some flights where I just needed a human wingman to get the job done. Hope that makes sense.
Another thing which I do like which mixes case 1 and 2 is Kaos’s Joseon Campaign… due to the continuous onslought of flighters set off by a triggered event (China joining when N.Korea’s supplies take a hit) can really reboot a campaign half way through and change the tactics required. Also with the air bases of enemy being off-map so they never stop coming in an endless supply of doom makes for a very challenging campaign…
-
I voted case 1 and case 2.
-
I voted case 1 regardless if Long or short campaign. I micromanage as much as possible. Would even love to have back ground micromanagement capabilites as it was in AF
-
Im enjoying both as well. But I do tend to gravitate towards hand managing one-two squadrons. I’m also a big fan of the 80s tech campaigns. And would love to see COIN ops one day.
-
Like Corridors of Death?
-
I cannot really vote for either because I usually add a human controlled sqdn of F-16s of my choosing at some airbase and do the same (HQ controlled, of course :)) with some MiG sqdn at some random base for the red forces as well to balance out the additional planes on the blue side.
Following this I use this sqdn to create my own packages targeting sites and taskings that strike my fancy: could be a TASMO (day one in Balkans “powderkeg”), might be DEAD using SDBs near the FLOT in KTO or whatever seems to be a sensible thing to do.
When planning an online flight I also use this human controlled sqdn to task a flight or package to the BMS campi AI can basically do its thing.
All the best,
Uwe
-
Whoops , didnt play this one.
I confess being somewhat of a ITO fan and not a fan of how units in mountains of BTO are hanging off the cliff.
But you make great campaigns, I’ll try that one out. -
Hello all,
actually and after two days of thinking. I voted for both cases. I know this doesn’t make sence, but …
… I enjoy both kind of campaigns. Typically I fly a short and after that a longer one and vice versa. And sometimes I like to manage the whole war and sometime I like to survive a suicide mission planned by the default ATO.
And I hope to see much more campaigns from you, as I really enjoy them. Many thanks for your effort of creating such campaigns and obviously still planning for the future
Have a great day,
Tweety