From e33e19d0587146859d48a134ec9fd94e7b7ba5cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "FWoltermann@gmail.com" Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 14:53:40 +0000 Subject: Initial upload --- Doc/dynamic campaigns.txt | 701 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 701 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Doc/dynamic campaigns.txt (limited to 'Doc/dynamic campaigns.txt') diff --git a/Doc/dynamic campaigns.txt b/Doc/dynamic campaigns.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..75e3263 --- /dev/null +++ b/Doc/dynamic campaigns.txt @@ -0,0 +1,701 @@ +From - Mon Nov 02 22:29:24 1998 +Path: news.rdc2.occa.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail +From: dennya@mindspring.com (Denny Atkin) +Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim +Subject: Dynamic Campaigns: Discuss. +Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 04:03:25 GMT +Organization: Not officially representing CGW here in my free time +Lines: 40 +Message-ID: <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com> +Reply-To: dennya@mindspring.com +NNTP-Posting-Host: user-38ld6ro.dialup.mindspring.com +Mime-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Server-Date: 3 Nov 1998 04:05:20 GMT +X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 +X-No-Archive: yes +Xref: newshub1.home.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:30154235 + +Okay, there are a number of folks here who SWEAR by dynamic campaigns, some +going so far as to say they won't buy a sim that doesn't feature them. + +Here's the big question: Which sims are you holding up as examples of good +dynamic campaigns? Because until VERY recently, there haven't been that many +opportunities to experience a good dynamic campaign. Falcon 3.0's is often held +up as the previous Holy Grail, but that's mostly people remembering things +better than they were. Falcon 3.0 had a number of kludgy elements and faked +occurrences in its campaign--such as the MiG-19s that often spontaneously +spawned to harass you when you were landing. EF2000 had a fully dynamic +campaign, but the mission structures were so repetitive that I bored of it as +quickly as I did any "canned mission" sim. Longbow 2 had a good dynamic +campaign, but the most interesting missions were the prescripted ones. + +So I pose these questions, just for discussion: +1) What are the examples of good past dynamic campaigns? What made them good, +and kept them from getting boring? + +2) If a mission featured a scripted campaign, but had features that kept it +from being repetitive -- targets that stayed destroyed, enemy locations and +force makeups that were randomly generated to keep them from being predictable, +being retasked to destroy missed targets -- would that be an acceptable +substitute? + +3) Is it replayability or the chance to affect the outcome of the war that +makes dynamic campaigns appealing to you? + +4) A dynamic campaign is never going to generate a mission such as "shoot down +Admiral Yamamoto in your P-38. " Don't scripted campaigns have the potential to +be a lot more interesting? + +(I'm not at all saying I'm not a fan of dynamic campaigns, and I'll outline +what I think the perfect campaign for today's techology is in a future post. +But I want to hear from some of the rest of you without "leading" into a +discussion of my own theories. And let's not even open hte multiplayer can of +worms. :-) + --------------------------------------------------- + Denny Atkin / dennya@mindspring.com + I have not yet begun to procrastinate + --------------------------------------------------- +From - Mon Nov 02 22:29:24 1998 +Path: news.rdc2.occa.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!news +From: "Greg Cisko" +Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim +Subject: Re: Dynamic Campaigns: Discuss. +Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:19:54 -0600 +Organization: ICGNetcom +Lines: 81 +Message-ID: <71m0g1$bim@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> +References: <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com> +NNTP-Posting-Host: chf-il5-83.ix.netcom.com +X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 02 8:23:29 PM PST 1998 +X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 +X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 +Xref: newshub1.home.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:30154240 + +Denny Atkin wrote in message <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com>... +>Okay, there are a number of folks here who SWEAR by dynamic campaigns, some +>going so far as to say they won't buy a sim that doesn't feature them. +> +>Here's the big question: Which sims are you holding up as examples of good +>dynamic campaigns? Because until VERY recently, there haven't been that +many + + +In shirt I would almost have to say there are no good dynamic +campaigns yet :-) I did hear the campaigns in iF22 were supposedly +good. But the rest of the game was basicly crap so I wouldn't even +give it a shot. + +>opportunities to experience a good dynamic campaign. Falcon 3.0's is often +held +>up as the previous Holy Grail, but that's mostly people remembering things +>better than they were. Falcon 3.0 had a number of kludgy elements and faked + + +Correct. I remember vividly the first mission if the Kurile(sp?) campaign +was +always the same mission. Not very dynamic imho. Also not very realistic +to shoot 15 migs only to get wasted while I was on final approach. Like +there wouldn't be any air defenses near an american base... + +>occurrences in its campaign--such as the MiG-19s that often spontaneously +>spawned to harass you when you were landing. EF2000 had a fully dynamic +>campaign, but the mission structures were so repetitive that I bored of it +as +>quickly as I did any "canned mission" sim. Longbow 2 had a good dynamic +>campaign, but the most interesting missions were the prescripted ones. + + +I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too :-) + +>2) If a mission featured a scripted campaign, but had features that kept it +>from being repetitive -- targets that stayed destroyed, enemy locations and +>force makeups that were randomly generated to keep them from being +predictable, +>being retasked to destroy missed targets -- would that be an acceptable +>substitute? + + +For me yes definately. + +>3) Is it replayability or the chance to affect the outcome of the war that +>makes dynamic campaigns appealing to you? + + +Replayability for me is not the issue. But rather a chance to effect the +outcome. + +>4) A dynamic campaign is never going to generate a mission such as "shoot +down +>Admiral Yamamoto in your P-38. " Don't scripted campaigns have the +potential to +>be a lot more interesting? + + +Yes. Until you run into one that you cannot beat. Which you always know +a flight of migs will be at a certain place every time. Yada, yada yada :-) + +-- +Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. + +cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com + +>(I'm not at all saying I'm not a fan of dynamic campaigns, and I'll outline +>what I think the perfect campaign for today's techology is in a future +post. +>But I want to hear from some of the rest of you without "leading" into a +>discussion of my own theories. And let's not even open hte multiplayer can +of +>worms. :-) +> --------------------------------------------------- +> Denny Atkin / dennya@mindspring.com +> I have not yet begun to procrastinate +> --------------------------------------------------- + + +From - Mon Nov 02 22:29:25 1998 +Path: news.rdc2.occa.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail +From: silenus@home.com (David Clark) +Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim +Subject: Re: Dynamic Campaigns: Discuss. +Message-ID: <363e80ff.260853340@192.168.0.2> +References: <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com> +X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 +Lines: 89 +Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 04:42:17 GMT +NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.112.120.121 +NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:42:17 PDT +Organization: @Home Network Canada +Xref: newshub1.home.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:30154251 + +On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 04:03:25 GMT, dennya@mindspring.com (Denny Atkin) +wrote: + +>Here's the big question: Which sims are you holding up as examples of good +>dynamic campaigns? + +Umm... perhaps EF2000 and Longbow 2. The best "dynamic campaigns" that +I've seen weren't Flight Sims at all - they were strategy games like +X-Com and Jagged Alliance. + +>So I pose these questions, just for discussion: + +Good questions, well phrased. + +>1) What are the examples of good past dynamic campaigns? What made them good, +>and kept them from getting boring? + +IMHO, the property that makes a dynamic campaign valuable is that the +missions seem plausible, but unplanned. Modern warfare is +extraordinarily fluid and chaotic, and set-piece battles are very +rare. Battles should just sort of 'precipitate' out of the strategic +situation - often large air battles are unplanned, and are simply the +result of a few fighters running into one another - the furball grows +as both sides dump in additional aircraft, while neither commander +really understands the scale of the battle that is developing. + +The thing that made EF2000 so enjoyable was that most of the battles +had a 'meeting engagement' feel to them - since there was no 'plot', +my actions weren't constrained at all. I could avoid battles (if I was +lucky), or search out more fights, depending on my understanding of +the tactical situation. + +>2) If a mission featured a scripted campaign, but had features that kept it +>from being repetitive -- targets that stayed destroyed, enemy locations and +>force makeups that were randomly generated to keep them from being predictable, +>being retasked to destroy missed targets -- would that be an acceptable +>substitute? + +I guess so. My criteria is that the forces I face have a _reason_ for +being there (even if the 'reason' is just random chance). If I feel +like a scenario has been 'tweaked' for 'balance', my suspension of +disbelief is gone. I want to fight the forces that would _probably be +there_ in real life, not the ones that a scenario designer feels I can +handle. I never minded being outnumbered in EF2000, since if I was, it +was just my bad luck, not designer maliciousness. + +>3) Is it replayability or the chance to affect the outcome of the war that +>makes dynamic campaigns appealing to you? + +The chance to affect the outcome of the war is not important to me at +all. Most pilots won't affect the outcome of a war materially either +- the reason I play flight sims is to role-play (however inaccurately) +the experiences of someone with a much more interesting job than me - +and the limits of individual power is part of that role. + +Of course, I also loved the occasional uneventful CAP mission in +EF2000, so I guess I'm kind of peculiar. + +>4) A dynamic campaign is never going to generate a mission such as "shoot down +>Admiral Yamamoto in your P-38. " Don't scripted campaigns have the potential to +>be a lot more interesting? + +I suppose. I find the generated missions in EF2000 and Longbow2 to be +extremely interesting - no two are the same, since the strategic +situation, the position of the threat, etc are always different. +Others disagree, and say that after a while, one dam-busting mission +is pretty much like the next. I've never felt that way, but I can +understand their position. + +>(I'm not at all saying I'm not a fan of dynamic campaigns, and I'll outline +>what I think the perfect campaign for today's techology is in a future post. +>But I want to hear from some of the rest of you without "leading" into a +>discussion of my own theories. And let's not even open hte multiplayer can of +>worms. :-) + +Without having seen the game, I guess Falcon4 offers the most +promising type of dynamic campaign. + +What I really want to play is a highly detailed 'world simulator' in +which both armies would carry out their war plans in real time. My +aircraft would be one of the combatants, neither more or less +influential than any other. In the end the victor would win because +they _won_, not because I managed a 75% kill rate instead of a 65%... + +David Clark +Third World War (GDW) website... +http://members.home.net/silenus/tww/index.htm + + +From - Mon Nov 02 22:29:25 1998 +Path: news.rdc2.occa.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!192.220.250.21!netnews1.nw.verio.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.nodak.edu!not-for-mail +From: "Michael J. Iverson" +Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim +Subject: Re: Dynamic Campaigns: Discuss. +Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 22:48:53 -0600 +Organization: North Dakota Higher Ed. Network +Lines: 62 +Message-ID: <363E8B35.64CBAFDD@badlands.nodak.edu> +References: <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com> +NNTP-Posting-Host: und-as3p28.und.nodak.edu +Mime-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) +X-Accept-Language: en +Xref: newshub1.home.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:30154263 + +For me, a dynamic campaign should give me that "OK, time to go to work" +feeling when I roll down the runway (or lift off from the FARP). It +might not be the most challenging mission I've ever flown, but I know +that I'm contributing towards the "war effort." I'd like to feel that +the world is alive around me. One thing I didn't like in LB2 was that +after a half hour or so, the "world" would just go to sleep - no more +enemy CAPs or strike missions, no more enemy advances. + +Show me stats, supplies, squadron members, and info on my pilot. I +think Red Baron II was one of the only sims that made me genuinely +pissed off by having my pilot killed in action. I definitely wanted to +stay alive in that sim. + +IMO, scripted missions have a tendency to be made a little too hard. +Some game designers seem to think that impossible odds = fun. I +disagree. + +Mike +http://volunteers.warbirds.org + +From - Mon Nov 02 22:29:25 1998 +Path: news.rdc2.occa.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.ycc.yale.edu!mars.its.yale.edu!rjl26 +From: rjl26@mars.its.yale.edu (Robin Lee) +Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim +Subject: Re: Dynamic Campaigns: Discuss. +Date: 3 Nov 1998 05:14:22 GMT +Organization: YLS +Lines: 61 +Message-ID: <71m3fe$pk3$1@news.ycc.yale.edu> +References: <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com> +NNTP-Posting-Host: mars.its.yale.edu +Xref: newshub1.home.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:30154269 + +In article <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com>, +Denny Atkin wrote: +> +>(I'm not at all saying I'm not a fan of dynamic campaigns, and I'll outline +>what I think the perfect campaign for today's techology is in a future post. +>But I want to hear from some of the rest of you without "leading" into a +>discussion of my own theories. And let's not even open hte multiplayer can of +>worms. :-) + +Just a few thoughts... + +1. For me, the "generic mission" problem is not a particularly +troublesome issue because I find little appeal in the high dramatics of a +"mission that won the war." Drama on that level does not take place very +often in air warfare; by and large, an air campaign consists of a series +of routinized mission profiles run on targets that aircrews know little +about. Even for those rare missions that do wind up having a hugely +significant impact on the war, aircrews are not likely to know about this +until after the fact, though they may have some good guesses as to what +they are doing (witness Smallwood's account of the anti-Saddam missions +during Desert Storm, for instance). A so-called "routine" sortie provides +more than enough drama for me -- "blow up the Death Star" missions have +a little too much of Hollywood about them for my taste. + +2. Extension of the first point: for training, planning, and proficiency +reasons, mission types are by nature generic. You want aircrews to be +able to fit the mission into one of a fixed number of profiles for which +they have been trained. Even where the mission is genuinely different, +the operations structure of a modern air force is going to try to force +the situation into familiar terms. Therefore, missions that "feel the +same" may be realistic, and while some may argue that they become boring +and therefore undesireable, I don't necessarily see them as such. + +3. An interesting mission does not have to be scripted; a relatively +generic, template-based sortie can be turned into a genuinely memorable +mission by the introduction of those random events that make tactical +military aviation such a chaotic affair -- assigned tanker could go down, +somebody crashes and fouls the runway, somebody goes down and you get +called to CAP the survivors, etc. There is no particular reason that +these events need to be scripted; their very randomness is what makes them +exciting. + +4. As a general matter, I view mission generation and campaign dynamics +in much the same light as I view sausage production; I don't really want +to inquire too closely into the details of either. The illusion that I +want to maintain is that the missions are generated by a real operations +staff reacting to unpredictable events, not by a software campaign engine +or by selection from a fixed database of mission scripts. And like +sausages, the worst imaginable case is when the mission itself reveals +obvious hints as to its origin. To me, a so-called "dynamic +campaign" produces missions that simply *look* less contrived than +"handpainted" missions, and therefore is a little better at maintaining +the illusion. + + +-R. +-- +_____ +Robin John Lee +YLS '99 - New Haven, Connecticut, USA +Vulture's Row/Russian Navy - +From - Mon Nov 02 22:29:25 1998 +Path: news.rdc2.occa.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!204.210.0.20!news.san.rr.com!not-for-mail +From: "Jarrod Smith" +Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim +References: <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com> +Subject: Re: Dynamic Campaigns: Discuss. +Lines: 105 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; + charset="iso-8859-1" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 +X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 +Message-ID: <2Rw%1.5101$q15.153954@news.san.rr.com> +Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:50:44 -0800 +NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.210.61.137 +X-Trace: news.san.rr.com 910072254 204.210.61.137 (Mon, 02 Nov 1998 21:50:54 PDT) +NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 21:50:54 PDT +Organization: TWC Road Runner, San Diego, CA +Xref: newshub1.home.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:30154285 + + +Denny Atkin wrote in message <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com>... +>Okay, there are a number of folks here who SWEAR by dynamic campaigns, some +>going so far as to say they won't buy a sim that doesn't feature them. +> +>Here's the big question: Which sims are you holding up as examples of good +>dynamic campaigns? + +For me, it is Longbow2 and Falcon 3.0. I had a hiatus from simming during +my collegiate years (lack of hardware fundage :-), so I can't comment on +anything in between. + +> +>So I pose these questions, just for discussion: +>1) What are the examples of good past dynamic campaigns? What made them +good, +>and kept them from getting boring? + + +Essentially, I don't much care for branching type missions that make up a +"campaign". It annoys me that the mission objectives will be the same each +time you play through the campaign in one of the "winning branches". That +detracts from replayability which is something I value very much in a sim. +What keeps a dynamic campaign interesting for me: + +Each mission provides different objectives depending on the state of the +total war (air and ground, supply lines, etc.). If your supply lines are +out, you open them up. If you are losing ground, you cover the retreat. If +you are taking ground, you take out critical elements of the enemy's +defenses, and/or defend your ground assets as they move forward to capture +territory. This type of ebb and flow can go on indefinitely until you make +some decisive moves toward accomplishing your objective. This is limited by +your performance both in the cockpit as well as inventory and personnel +management, etc. This is what immerses me into a dynamic campaign. The +individual missions are less important, and any good stout mission generator +with subsequent mission editing options will fill the bill in that dept. I +did like the splash of hollywood that was infused into LB2 by virtue of its +scripted missions interspersed with the generated ones. You still can't +argue with the entertainment value of a well-designed scripted mission. I +guess for me, I seperate the mission from the campaign. I can enjoy flying +a cool scripted mission. But it is different from fighting war from the +campaign perspective. I guess I like the illusion of a strategic element +that is infused into a good dynamic campaign engine. + +>2) If a mission featured a scripted campaign, but had features that kept it +>from being repetitive -- targets that stayed destroyed, enemy locations and +>force makeups that were randomly generated to keep them from being +predictable, +>being retasked to destroy missed targets -- would that be an acceptable +>substitute? + + +Much of what you said above would go a long way toward fixing some of the +problems, but in the end, even though this is realistic and believable, it +doesn't help the replayability aspect a whole lot. I'm not saying a sim +like this wouldn't be fun, though. It certainly could be an acceptable +substitute, but there would have to be some type of extraordinary +multiplayer capability and/or mission builder to enhance the experience. +Otherwise, it wouldn't last that long on my harddrive. + +>3) Is it replayability or the chance to affect the outcome of the war that +>makes dynamic campaigns appealing to you? + + +As outlined above, I think both are important to me. Also the illusion of +strategy going on behind the scenes and you playing your part in that +strategy makes a good dynamic campaign compelling to play. + +>4) A dynamic campaign is never going to generate a mission such as "shoot +down +>Admiral Yamamoto in your P-38. " Don't scripted campaigns have the +potential to +>be a lot more interesting? + + +Scripted *missions* do have the potential to be more interesting. Scripted +campaigns do not, IMO. + +>(I'm not at all saying I'm not a fan of dynamic campaigns, and I'll outline +>what I think the perfect campaign for today's techology is in a future +post. +>But I want to hear from some of the rest of you without "leading" into a +>discussion of my own theories. And let's not even open hte multiplayer can +of +>worms. :-) + + +Here is what I think would be incredible in a "campaign engine". The engine +calculates orders which get handed to you from on high. These orders state +that you need to accomplish some objective to further the war effort. Say +it is to reduce the opposition's EWR capabilities by some percentage, or +reduce their naval capabilites in some capacity. Whatever. This becomes +your short-term objective over the next handful of missions. The sim then +hands you tools: Intelligence gathering tools, a sophisticated mission +planner/builder, updated information on the assets that you have to complete +the task, etc. Then you set out to work and build your own campaign, or at +least part of it. Then jump in and fly whichever missions look to be the +most fun to you. The combination of immersion, strategy, replayability, and +challenge in a sim like this would make it irresistable, IMO. +Unfortunately, it also sounds difficult and expensive to put together :-) + +Jarrod Smith +The Scripps Research Institute +http://www.scripps.edu/~jsmith + +From - Mon Nov 02 22:29:25 1998 +Path: news.rdc2.occa.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed-east.supernews.com!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail +From: "enzo" +Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim +Subject: Re: Dynamic Campaigns: Discuss. +Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:07:25 -0800 +Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here +Lines: 186 +Message-ID: <71m6db$49n$1@supernews.com> +References: <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com> +NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.211.61.222 +X-Trace: 910073067 WUENVH4GT3DDECFD3C usenet78.supernews.com +X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com +X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 +X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 +Xref: newshub1.home.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:30154288 + +Denny's starting a new thread! I'm getting verklempt! ; ) + +Ok, I've gotta bite on this one - can't allow the possibility for a new +pro-canned movement (or even a "maybe scripted isn't so bad" +movement, for that matter either!) : ) + +Disclaimers - this is all MHO. I ended up getting really wordy. My apologies, + but I wanted to write until I got it all off my chest. + +Denny Atkin wrote in message <364067e5.15703318@news.mindspring.com>... +>Okay, there are a number of folks here who SWEAR by dynamic campaigns, some +>going so far as to say they won't buy a sim that doesn't feature them. +> +>Here's the big question: Which sims are you holding up as examples of good +>dynamic campaigns? Because until VERY recently, there haven't been that many +>opportunities to experience a good dynamic campaign. Falcon 3.0's is often held +>up as the previous Holy Grail, but that's mostly people remembering things +>better than they were. Falcon 3.0 had a number of kludgy elements and faked +>occurrences in its campaign--such as the MiG-19s that often spontaneously +>spawned to harass you when you were landing. EF2000 had a fully dynamic +>campaign, but the mission structures were so repetitive that I bored of it as +>quickly as I did any "canned mission" sim. Longbow 2 had a good dynamic +>campaign, but the most interesting missions were the prescripted ones. +> +>So I pose these questions, just for discussion: +>1) What are the examples of good past dynamic campaigns? What made them good, +>and kept them from getting boring? + + +----Top examples were Falcon 3 and Longbow 2. + + Both integrate air and ground +combat well, give a certain degree of flexibility, and both calculate the +progress of the war according to the ability of the ground forces to fight, not +according to your mission score. Therefore, you can get killed in a mission, but +still win a battle, because you managed to make a positive impact. You are a +part of the picture - important, but you are *in* the world, not "the world revolves +around you" - critical distinction to make. + +--------Good examples include iF/A-18E, TAW, and apparently Tornado (although I +didn't get very far into Tornado's campaign, but for non-campaign related reasons) + +iF/A-18E is good, but TALON still needs more refinement before it will realize it's +goals properly IMHO. Very important that friendly assets (eg friendly naval ships) +will try to protect you/themselves with their SAM screens - opens up possibilities +TAW took an interesting "multiple scoreboard" approach, but it seems to have taken +a purely political aspect to the war rather than considering the ground war. That +pays too much homage to the low-intensity conflicts IMHO. That prevents it from +being ranked with Falcon 3/Longbow 2. + +(I could even sneak X-COM into the picture! : ) + +----------Mediocre examples include RB2, EF2000, M1TP2 + +RB2 - basically a random mission generator. M1TP2 - same thing. +EF2000 - no ground war, your FEBA moves as a result not of +the battle, not even of your accomplishments, but exclusively as a +result of your mission score. + +---------Examples that deserve to be shot are iF-22 Raptor and Team Apache. + +iF-22 Raptor claimed dynamic and was scripted. Team Apache either +also claimed it, or at least hinted strongly at it with it's real time clock +(that ended up being utterly superfluous). JSF might belong here, too, but +frankly I got sick of it way too fast to figure that out. + +>2) If a mission featured a scripted campaign, but had features that kept it +>from being repetitive -- targets that stayed destroyed, enemy locations and +>force makeups that were randomly generated to keep them from being predictable, +>being retasked to destroy missed targets -- would that be an acceptable +>substitute? + + +You seem to be describing Janes F-15 for the most past. My answer is no. + +For starters, poor scripted missions are no better than random mission generators. +Good scripted missions, no matter how you shake or stir it, end up where the +player is always trying to second-guess the designer. Also, "randomizing" a +scripted mission isn't a whole lot more fun than shaking up one of those +glass paperweights with the fake snow inside. Sure, a few elements may +shift around, but you're looking at the same scene no matter what. IMHO, even +when dynamic campaign missions get somewhat repetitive, it still doesn't +feel as rigidly constrained. + +>3) Is it replayability or the chance to affect the outcome of the war that +>makes dynamic campaigns appealing to you? + + +Both, but there is more to it than that. + +Several things (most have a little interrelation): + +1- Yes, replayability + +2- Not doing the same mission over again just because I failed it the first time + +3- Being able to play a part/have an affect in a simulated war, absolutely - + as long as the designers carefully balance my ability to affect that war so as not + to over or under value my contribution. If I find myself *caring* about the state + of the war when I'm driving to class, that's a good sign. That's never happened + to me in any game except those with dynamic campaigns. + +4- related to #3 - What you do, actually **matters**. There is a point to it + other than simply "jumping through hoops", then getting Pavlovian + reinforcement by little FMV treats. :^P Phooey! I want a sense of + accomplishment that's more profound than that. + +5A - Not second guessing the designer. You are focused on what needs to be + done, what you can do to help the war effort, not "Would the mission + designers really hide an ambush over there? Do they expect me to have to resort + to guns or try something else? Maybe I'm supposed to use a stealthy fighter?" + +5B - MISSIONS ARE NOT PUZZLES!!! + the worst examples - "Ok - let me get this straight - I have to first go to point A + and hit the tanks with the Mavericks, then I have only a few seconds left to + afterburn to point B and use the AMRAAMs on the Mig-21's to protect my + rescue helo from being shot down, then I have to go to point C and dogfight + with another group of MiGs before they bomb my airbase. Whew, that only + took eight failures to figure out!" + +6 - Unpredictability - I've repeatedly heard the claim that only a scripted mission can + really surprise a player. I disagree - There are many things that I have experienced + in dynamic campaigns that were surprising, entertaining, and all the more fun + because elements create situations that mission designers couldn't or wouldn't + have possibly dreamt up. + + Ask me if I'd prefer to explore the state by train, car, or helicopter... + Sure, a train may go through some nice scenery, but really you're just along for the ride. + In a car, you can go pretty much where you want. In a helicopter, you can do whatever + you want. Even if you still choose to travel in a straight line, just the knowledge that there + is a wide expanse of possibilities is very powerful. + +7 - Dynamic campaigns tend to have a world that reacts more to what you and other + vehicles do. Scripted campaigns tend to only care about what happens in the + context of the mission design. (Example - In Team Apache, enemy helicopters + and AAA are only located along the line created by your waypoints. Take the + scenic route instead, and you can completely bypass the vast majority of threats. + Worse yet, the helicopters in Team Apache can only operate in a little tiny area. + They're nothing more than flying roadblocks. Even if I was spotted in another + location, they couldn't be vectored in after me.) Now while there are exceptions, + the fact is that such omissions would be *glaringly* obvious in dynamic campaigns + where they may be more subtle in a scripted one. In other words, you can't fake things + as much. + + +>4) A dynamic campaign is never going to generate a mission such as "shoot down +>Admiral Yamamoto in your P-38. " + + +Why can't it generate such a mission? It really wouldn't be all that hard if you think +about it. Games like Warlords have "heroes" that lead the armies as they move +around the board. A WW2 dynamic campaign could fairly easily model the +movement of such VIPs as they travel around to lead their forces. Some dynamic +campaigns already model intelligence assets. Given that the computer is tracking +the movement of VIPs and an intelligence asset is present in the area (in this case, +in-theatre codebreakers and a transmission intercept, as I recall), a dynamic "kill VIP +mission" to "shoot down Yamamoto in your P-38", "Go shoot Saddam's Winnebago" +or "drop a bunker-buster on Saddam's HQ" is certainly possible. It only takes +imagination, a little development time, and perhaps the development of a few tools +to help make such things possible. + +> Don't scripted campaigns have the potential to +>be a lot more interesting? + +I don't believe so. The simplest way to put it is this - take the number of times +you've finished a mission and said to yourself or a friend afterward "Wow! That +was one hell of a mission!" For me, the number of times I had that feeling in +a scripted campaign to the number of times I felt that in a dynamic campaign +is not even remotely close. I'd honestly ballpark the frequency at an 8-to-1 ratio +in favor of the dynamic campaign. + +>(I'm not at all saying I'm not a fan of dynamic campaigns, and I'll outline +>what I think the perfect campaign for today's techology is in a future post. +>But I want to hear from some of the rest of you without "leading" into a +>discussion of my own theories. And let's not even open hte multiplayer can of +>worms. :-) + + +Good idea. Let's focus on the campaign. : ) + +Bottom line for me - If forced to choose, I'd still take a mediocre dynamic +campaign over the best scripted campaign any day of the week. + +Neil M. + + -- cgit v1.1