Campaigns: how do you enjoy them?
-
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 -
Voted case 2. Going on a mission I planned feels like housework, just something I have to do real quick to facilitate some mundane purpose, like meeting the quota for time since last mission (in the absence of missions for squadron), or getting rid of some AA battalion that’s causing 50% loss rates for AI flights flying over it on their drive to work (well, the latter can be satisfying occasionally)
-
I play mostly sp.
In campaigns I only fly 2 or max 3 sorties per day because I don’t want affect outcome of war too much. That makes campaigns bit more harder and I must choose missions with “human effect” -
Voted cases 1&2 for similar reasons given by Code
to be honest, I never played your campaign Lorik. I’m attached to the idea of belonging to a squadron and with a precise aircraft model ( block 50). When I or we start a campaign, we apply ourselves some constraints like the airbase position defined at the beginning, etc …
now receiving sometime some precise orders could be also interesting in term of challenge : that would let only the user choice to plan the mission with a known target & its constraints
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.
Agree
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.Agree
If you multiplay and fly very regularly with the same people missions after missions, you may want to give a particular sense to your sessions with the first kind.
If you’re a solo player or not playing MP regularly in a campaign, undoubtedly will you be inclined to make the second kind. In that case, do you, indeed add a NoPlayerPlay line, and fly less often to let time do its effect between every sortie, maintaining a level of one or two sortie per campaign day as a more realistic frequency, which will also help reaching the end of a long campaign?I though that reducing the flights frequency had a bad effect on campaign result : I don’t know how it is coded …
-
Sukhoi: then you’d like the Baba Yaga campaigns. Concerning absence penalty, check my OP.
-
Good Day, Lorik,
I voted Case 1 as you keep asking about long or short campaigns, and indicate Case 1’s are short. I usually abbreviate my campaigns anyway when the Bad Guys run out of Sam’s. Beyond that, I’m like others I’ve read as kind of being a little of both cases. I do let the UI run it overall, but I do a lot of “self fragged” missions and let the AI handle the BARCAP’s, etc. I also add a squadron here or there in order to get my Viper and Hornet time what/where I want to fly. Also, over the years I’ve tried , from time to time, to add a Red SAM battery or 2(because of the aforementioned lack of SAM’s)
Compadre, I know my focus on DEAD may be uncommon in our BMS family. I do fly, and “self-frag” a lot of Pre-Planned-CAS,TASMO, etc. too. I’ll look at the map, seeing an advancing Bad Guy, and attack it.I think my point is I go for more direct attack , and that seems to fit more in your case 1, if I’m understanding you. I can tell you I would love short, heavy duty campaigns with less BARCAP’s etc., if that answers your question -
While case 2 is probably the more realistic scenario, I voted case 1 because - to me - ultimately BMS is a game, it is something I do for my enjoyment and fulfillment, in particular when flying with a group of friends together in PvE or PvP/TvT scenarios, where we can congratulate ourselves on better efficiency and better outcomes.
Case 2 is probably more realistic - specific, individual sorties rarely determine the outcome of an air campaign. This is evident when looking at the number of aborted sorties during Linebacker I+II, Desert Storm or Allied Force, whereby aircraft returned with full ordnance as weather prevented them from dropping on their targets, or struck secondary targets of lesser (or any) importance. In the overall scheme of things, these wasted sorties did not significantly influence the outcome of these campaigns.