Dynamic Campaigns Series
-
i do not agree about your claim of “A Full Dynamic Campaign is only possible by simulating with low fidelity”,
As far as i know, its not a real barrier, but the way of implementation and of course, your optimization of the Simulator itself.
You did described well that not all the equations can be implemented as they are (we are not NASA), but using advanced methods allows to fake most of the realistic cases in a way which no one could notice it. Doing so, involving tons of knowledge, allows making everything right, even without real calculations of Maxwell equations or radar cross sections.Besides that, im hoping you are enjoying Falcon BMS
-
Thanks for the answer @Magic49th!
And what about this one? Do you have any clue ?
@VDK said in Dynamic Campaigns Series:
Another question is… The supply chain (from the refinaries and factories) are distribuited by supply trucks? I mean… if i destroy the supply trucks the flow of the enemy supplies are going to be disrupted?
-
@VDK Not yet…;-)
-
@molnibalage
Brigades are commanded by the GTM, which then commands the battallions.
Several routines then run properly with fire support etc and positioning of the battalions…routines inside the Brigades.Battalions outside Brigades receive different orders depending on the type etc. All hard coded.
-
@vAiCon "to fake most of the realistic cases in a way which no one could notice it. " is exactly to simulate with low fidelity.
You would not fake the Maxwell Equations by writing Relativistic Electrodynamic EquationsThe shear amount of units on a full battlefield is huge…in Balkans there are more 15000 vehicles/planes/ships.
When I code a DC in Command Modern Operations in one of the next videos, you will see how difficult it is to get closer to these numbers in a PC.
And, BTW check part 3 where I will talk about real models for campaign simulation of the USAF. -
@VDK Complementing what magic said:
Art comes in two flavors, inside Brigades and outside brigades. The first one is activelly used in combat and fire at the enemy.
The second one right now, like for example in Tiger Spirit, goes to arty emplacements and defend from there. -
@tiag said in Dynamic Campaigns Series:
@VDK Complementing what magic said:
Art comes in two flavors, inside Brigades and outside brigades. The first one is activelly used in combat and fire at the enemy.
The second one right now, like for example in Tiger Spirit, goes to arty emplacements and defend from there.Thanks for the answer!
The type of engagement that art units do is more like armoured battalions fire (direct fire) or is indirect fire?
I mean… if i place an allied armoured battalion in front of a hill and an allied art battalion behind the same hill (inside the same brigade as the armoured one), will the art battalion engage the enemy? Or it has to be “in the line of sight” ?
Thanks again!
-
@vAiCon said in Dynamic Campaigns Series:
i do not agree about your claim of “A Full Dynamic Campaign is only possible by simulating with low fidelity”,
As far as i know, its not a real barrier, but the way of implementation and of course, your optimization of the Simulator itself.
You did described well that not all the equations can be implemented as they are (we are not NASA), but using advanced methods allows to fake most of the realistic cases in a way which no one could notice it. Doing so, involving tons of knowledge, allows making everything right, even without real calculations of Maxwell equations or radar cross sections.Besides that, im hoping you are enjoying Falcon BMS
-
You need a supercomputer even if just model on division level a war.
-
The modern SAM system are so complex and has so many modes which is impossible to model.
-
Even the 3D world is modeled in many ways with low fidelity so imagining that a campaign can have high fidelity is quite a strange thought. Such basic things are not modeled as half leading vs three point guidance of the SA-2, or the three point guidance of the SA-8/15.
The DC of the F4/BMS4 fulfills the role what is needed. Large scale semi-random campaign. But just place a single SA-10 into the theater and the AI + ATO is ruined.
Or just compare the performance in 3D world a 2-4 ship A-10 flight vs 3D world…
-
-
@tiag
Good reading … only you forgot mother of all dynamic campaigns - aggr/deagg - “The Sims”But “jokes” aside,… Please could you go into more specific strategy element of Falcon4/BMS … eg. Fuel/Supply/Losses columns and their relations to a objective types - values…, why “Losses”=235 on bridges, villages, towns etc…
Keep it up. Nice work.
-
@tiag Very interesting series so far. Looking forward to more - Thanks for posting
-
@tiag said in Dynamic Campaigns Series:
@vAiCon "to fake most of the realistic cases in a way which no one could notice it. " is exactly to simulate with low fidelity.
You would not fake the Maxwell Equations by writing Relativistic Electrodynamic EquationsThe shear amount of units on a full battlefield is huge…in Balkans there are more 15000 vehicles/planes/ships.
When I code a DC in Command Modern Operations in one of the next videos, you will see how difficult it is to get closer to these numbers in a PC.
And, BTW check part 3 where I will talk about real models for campaign simulation of the USAF.Part 3?
-
@molnibalage “…I will talk…” in preparation. I think I need a couple of weeks.
@ThisisTheWarNottheWarning Cheers!
@white_fang I can imagine that you are talking about what you read in the MC, correct?
-
@tiag said in Dynamic Campaigns Series:
I can imagine that you are talking about what you read in the MC, correct?
Well, yes (and no). eg. BMS is not using “Losses” anymore, but original F4 did, so what was the meaning of this in essence.
One would need to disassemble the code to understand this, but, maybe after 20yrs someone still remembers
-
@white_fang
Old F4 had a supply system, which part of it is still in BMS.
When battalions were resupplied, the unit was required to trace back to some objective. This field defined in % how much of fuel/supply would be lost when passing this objective.
The 235 seems to be wrong, that would be a too strong loss factor. Ty for reporting. -
It makes no sense - DPRK, ROK , China… all losses
-
First post updated with new video.
The origin of the Falcon 4 Campaign. -
Comments related to Map Sector Structure & Falcon PAKs @19:33 in the video
1/ Didn’t found very relevant actual korea maps justifying Falcon PAKs either
Maybe it could be justified that with a mix of main cities and road structure in Korea ?2/ What is for sure : PAK correspond to the objectives parent structure. But I suppose it is not a something new for you @tiag.
Bellow layering PAK structure from BMS PAK control windows & Parents structure from Mission Commander map :
-
@CheckPoint said in Dynamic Campaigns Series:
Comments related to Map Sector Structure & Falcon PAKs @19:33 in the video
1/ Didn’t found very relevant actual korea maps justifying Falcon PAKs either
Maybe it could be justified that with a mix of main cities and road structure in Korea ?2/ What is for sure : PAK correspond to the objectives parent structure. But I suppose it is not a something new for you @tiag.
Yes, the sector/zone scheme on these maps used in TACWAR/THUNDER was also not random. They distributed it in such a manner to aggregate the geography in a way that made sense for the piston-like combat. Falcon 4 aggregates in a slight different way, but the idea is very similar: Use roads and terrain, cities, as reference. That is why some borders are shared by both maps in TACWAR and F4. As I said in the video, my guess is that someone noticed that it was becoming too similar to the original ones and they decided to change it.
-
@CheckPoint said in Dynamic Campaigns Series:
What is for sure : PAK correspond to the objectives parent structure
But, that’s exactly what it is. , Parent structure defines PAK’s.
Nothing new, well, for some
Cheers -
I have enjoyed the series, thank you