If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this in the last eighteen years, I could probably bribe @BeachAV8R out of his F-14 press copy.
3 Likes
F-111’s. Yay !!!
I approve ! and so does…
4 Likes
This brings up an interesting aspect of intelligence work that does not get much attention outside of the ready room, counting flight hours.
Boring work? You bet! Bight right now, this very minute, some airman and/or petty officer is essentially counting the flight hours that different countries use for training. How they do it, how often, how accurate, etc. I’m obviously not saying.
Regardless, we then add in obvious capability factors. Do they fly at night? Do they fly over water? Do they fly over water at night? etc. These all factor in to an assessment–a very serious assessment\–of an adversary’s pilot’s proficiency and capabilities.
We also into basic aircraft and weapons capabilities, maintenance data if we can get it and even age of missiles (they do have a shelf life),
In GW1, The Iraqi’s had the world’s 4th largest Air Force. Although the kill ratio for the coalition was about 11-1 (about 44 to 3-4), the Iraqis showed initiative and some, fairly good proficiency and even viable strategy that cost us two F-15s (to SAMs)
In GW2, when the Iraqis started burying their MIg-25s in sand rather than fly them…I’d think the assessment–and the Iraq’s own assessment–of pilot’s proficiency was fairly low.
Why do I bring this up? In GW1 Iraq had about 750 western and eastern aircraft. If we were to create a DCS GW1 scenario, “Iraqi” DCS experienced pilot proficiency would be greatly elevated. Maintenance would be perfect. Plus they would have the example of history to give them 20-20 hind sight. I think they wold give the “Coalition” pilots a run for their money…I wouldn’t mind being an Iraqi Mig-29 pilot. Substitute Mirage 2000 for Iraqi Mirage F-1 and I’d gladly fly that too.
3 Likes
This brings up an interesting aspect of intelligence work that does not get much attention outside of the ready room, counting flight hours.
Auh, now we are getting deeper into the crux of the whole area of game design a “Dynamic Campaign System” producing Intel Reports with ATO and OOB (Air Tasking Orders and Order of Battle Planning) and the wider subject of capabilities gap for all to enjoy. Also its never boring its the vital info you need to plan an air war and networking your way in for a successful mission… this is where like a good game of Chess we could have a blast. This is where you employ some tactics and utilize different aircraft platforms discussed earlier in thread that suit the mission brief.
Another good read - COMBATSIM.COM: Falcon 4.0: Campaign AI, Player Bubble, Force on Force
Its really the missing feature in DCS considering the wider community sim gamer audience for it to be developed in single-player and multiplayer on a world map scenario.
Its been the achilles heel for combat sims since Falcon 4.0!
I now desire even better than F4 DC something even more intelligent with advanced A.i programming and awe inspiring where immersion and interaction is of more interest. The possibilities are endless considering that F4 was the framework for future advancement and improved game play development for combat sims.
A dream at this stage… 
1 Like
Agreed for sure. The effort to make that feature was huge. “A strategy game within a flightsim” as someone else on this forum phrased it. ED dismissed it as too big a bite to chew and chose a staged system instead. They’ve since determined that the game needs a DC to make us happy and to keep the sim viable. Cue the limitations of F4’s dynamic campaign engine…
1 Like
@RAZZOR, I think what you mean by OOB is called the Intelligence Preparation of the Battle Space; IPOB…don’t worry, they’ll change the acronym again sometime…I knew what you meant. OOB production is a part of that but IPOB goes deeper and wider.
US doctrine breaks war into 3 levels: Strategic, Operational and Tactical.
ATO and IPOB production is war planning at the Operational Level of War. It is the force movements, fires, logistics, etc. within a geographic theater. It includes Air, Maritime and Land forces. The idea is to fight in a “Joint Environment” in a coordinated manner.
The Tactical Level of War is the actual fighting part. Putting bombs on target, taking a hill, sinking a submarine, etc. The Tactical is obviously driven by the Operational (just as the Operational is driven by the Strategic), but it is its own “entity” for lack of a better word.
DCS World operates at the Tactical level, not the Operational level. Falcon 4.0 had an operational flavor to it, with its self generated ATO, but as the F-16 pilot, you were also fighting at the Tactical level.
What would it take to make DCS World into an Operational Level of War game? If you can make the AI do it, great but I sincerely doubt you could.
If not…well…the Operational Level of War is not fought from cockpits, ship’s bridges or a tank turrets. It isn’t even fought that much in the various 24/7 command centers.
It is fought in a seemingly endless series of meetings and VTCs that is called the Battle Cycle. The Battle Cycle is where operational plans are formed, where the movements of forces are ordered and Operational Fires are determined. Products of the Battle Cycle are the ATO and a constantly updated IPOB. There are also BDA reports, Target Folder Generation, logistics summaries, etc. …did I mention there are a lot of meetings…mind numbing meetings.
So is this a missing feature in DCS World? Yes it is. Would I like to see a few more maps? Sure. Naval units are a bit too basic for my liking but then I’m a Navy man…I have no idea how realistic the ground forces are. I do keep hitting “holes” in what can do with the Mission Editor but that just means I need to learn more Lua.
However, I can certainly do with out all the meetings. 
4 Likes
The meetings can be nodes of code meeting other nodes of code. I just want the briefing lol.
What I’d really love ED to do is add (or open up to) a metric sh!t ton of AI units. I want six different marks of floggers to hunt. At least as many fishbeds. Flankers of all colours and makes. Forgers and firebars and fiddlers on the roof. I want starfighters, alpha jets, ginas, slufs, tadpoles, varks and all kinds of english metal.
I think we need more (AI) aircraft even more than we need more ships. I don’t think we need to be very picky about their quality. If they’d open them up for 3rd party modelling that’d be great.
I bet the community would churn out the prettiest of models of the oddest of ducks in no time flat and that would be win/win for ED and their users.
5 Likes
There’s another of those good ideas. We don’t want any of those.
3 Likes
Yep. I remember asking myself if the Serbian Air Force even had that many Fulcrums that could fly when I was strolling around in F4AF. It is a massive undertaking. Third Wire tried something similar that worked, but then the AI essentially killed it. Personally, if DCS invests in a mission generator that allows me a virtually unlimited number of scenarios to play with, a dynamic campaign would be nice, but not as necessary for me to enjoy the game.
2 Likes
VTC technician memories flashback They were just in there snoring and sleeping on one another, man. S*** was just f****** up. Then the general came on and it was… Brutal. I’ll never forget, man. And then this one girl brought live chickens into the room and- and- I don’t wanna remember!
Ahem
I think we tend to get a little bit too obsessed with a dynamic campaign at times, to the detriment of the overall experience. I’m reminded of EEAH/EECH and IL2’s systems, which didn’t give a good feeling despite being dynamic in nature. They lacked a personal flare to draw one in despite the fact they were dynamic. This is the same problem I have with DCS currently, in that we run a mission and it feels very by the numbers rather than a “ready room” feeling as we got with old titles. Longbow 2 had a “dynamic” campaign in name only, but the interface and style made it feel like something more. For the short term, I’d really like to see ED revamp the briefing and debriefing parts, opening up those to either custom UIs or more immersive ways to present them. ArmA did this really well with allowing debriefings to be tailored for almost every outcome the mission designer intended.
A linear campaign can be very good in its own right, even if it’s not dynamic in nature; it all comes down to how well it’s built and how immersive it is. The current system is flexible enough from a scenario creation standpoint, but we need to allow for extra fluff to go the distance. How is the guy actually flying the mission going to see things? How can we replicate that in a fun way? For example, we get a “General” tab of the overall mission, what the objective is, and so on; then we get an “Intelligence” tab of what we know, threats, etc.; and additional tabs for any additional data as necessary. I’m spitballing here because I don’t really know all the intricate details of how it happens in the real world, but the end result is we need more control over the process. Getting that control is a lot easier than a dynamic campaign and I think the end result will offer a lot of bang for the buck.
In essence, I can understand @RAZZOR’s frustration because on the face of it, we have a lot of potential to make a very fun environment, hampered by a few small fiddly bits. I don’t believe that’s exclusively due to the focus on realism and systems modeling, but more by what ED’s vision is and where they intend to go. Their focus seems to be exclusively on an aircraft study simulation, with little on the auxiliary bits of how it fits into an environment. The Yak-52, for example, doesn’t have much of an ATC model to rely on for civilian aviation. I can think of a lot of uses for it in a campaign/career format, but ED doesn’t make that part easy. The same is true of the combat aircraft, in that we have these very detailed models but the effects of their actions on the game world is limited. We need a way for these modules to be meaningful to the player beyond just learning how to fly and operate them.
If we think of it that way and consider what the FC/MAC level aircraft are intended to do, they’re pretty much just getting the air quake crowd and that gets old fast – and the competition has a huge leg-up as it is.
4 Likes
Good way of expressing it!
So what ED -DCS needs in regards to…
Perhaps it’s just more of a case of poor scenario design instead of a capabilities gap?
Is 3 Levels of Game Design:
Strategic - Operational - Tactical from a Dynamic Campaign perspective!
Also lets use common sense here too, we cannot simulate every detail and military system or operational planning approach. So like I have stated many times compromises need to be made. For example Intel Reports can be generated say dynamically through advanced A.i programming on progress reports and let the A.i take care of war operational planning… its just about programming the darn thing. Similar to the Falcon 4.0 code (damn who would have thought that we would have even gotten a DC if it wasn’t for F4 devs) but with improvements new features and capability to use other aircraft platforms to meet the mission brief. Where in Falcon 4.0 it was solely based on the F-16 and in DCS we can source a variety of air assets ( A-10C - B1-B - F-18 - F-16 - F-111 etc with entry level FSX type systems was the point bla, bla. bla )
to fulfill the mission.
So yeah new A.i and Dynamic Campaign engine that can improve and produce…
- Generate progress Intel Reports
- War Planning
- ATO
- OOB
- Assign specialized platforms for mission brief
- etc… any other feature needed or improvements
The VCT meetings your on about again simple let the A.i coding do that.
It can be designed based on compromises with clever programming.
Please remember its just a game we are trying to simulate as best as possible a virtual air force, allowing the program to decide how best to proceed or make decisions that in real life would be communicated differently of course.
You need some things automated for a game to function as it would in reality, common sense!
However a check box concept would be good to have when participating with live squadrons and design your own Intel reports and tactical engagements, war planning strategies which can be coordinated via TeamSpeak, right!
The point really is that there is so much missing in DCS the darn thing is all BETA atm so asking for more fidelity complex air craft systems where a flat out “NO” is what your going to get and wasted projects on aircraft that wont make the release date due to “CLASSIFIED” data is just that, wasted development time.
Why not accept the fact that there will always be limitations but don’t sacrifice the game design allow for simpler FSX type air craft systems and enjoy it in a operational - tactical -strategic realistic role-play. “A strategy war air power game within a flightsim” and have other desperately needed features like a Dynamic Campaign developed ASAP! 
There are three thread’s right now over ED-DCS Forum that are absolutely on point when we discuss people wanting the impossible in regards to more but are “CLASSIFIED” material, some people just don’t get it they are thick as bricks and make matters worse for developers or even the sim to progress and have that permission to do so.
You gota be mad to think that we public/ community are going to get what military or even private commercial entities have, to train real pilots.
Get real folks, really get real these are games, nothing more!
When by now so much could have been achieved … ED is wrong here and if it wasn’t for the other side of their business they would be on the verge of collapse since the game is incomplete by F4 standards… and still in BETA mode. Well we can post TL:TR posts all day long and yet the madness is still ongoing I rather see the end of it lets go back to arcade air combat please! (SARCASM INJECTED) 
Side note… just give me a world map to fly in at least with a high end graphics engine for immersion!
1 Like
I think from the mission/campaign side of the house, ED really isn’t too concerned about how realistic it is, especially with the mini campaign they just released for the Bug. A dynamic campaign that focuses primarily on fun will be just fine, something like the IL2 model (yeah, right… 300 kills in 30 days? And promoted to Col. at the end of it? Don’t lie, y’all did the same!) would be adequate. However, we need to get skin in the game. We need a career mode to track your progress and keep track of the pilots flying with you. Start out with only a few veterans and a bunch of rookies, focusing on keeping them alive and building up their skills. Having faceless pilots in infinite numbers doesn’t really help much, even if the campaign tracks overall progress toward a strategic objective.
For what we simulate, I don’t see the need to get too in depth with things outside of the tactical level. As pilots on the line in something like a squadron commander, I firmly believe the immediate focus should be on what they do and their concerns. How much ordnance do we have on hand? When/if do we get resupply? Are our aircraft in good shape? How many pilots do we have and what is their status? Yes, the system needs to track stuff outside of this such as ships, ground vehicles, win/lose conditions, etc. but for what we do, we want an experience related to flying. An emotional focus per se, because that’s what people really connect with.
I don’t want to end up with a dynamic campaign that just makes me feel like a robot, which is what IL2’s system did. I want to feel as if I have a vested interest in the success of the campaign and not just going through the motions.
1 Like
The reason I want a campaign system is that it makes me care. If I don’t care, I don’t play. The scripted story campaigns, no matter how good, loose my interest quickly. I like writing them. I hate playing them. It really comes back to me caring and me feeling invested in the outcome. That’s why I fly only multiplayer unless I am just goofing off around the boat.
1 Like
Great points.
I especially liked the part about no VTCs
EDIT: I thought about this some more. IMHO to get the feeling that you are part of a larger conflict, you need more than the Mission Brief. F4 then in an entire campaign that was dynamic and on going.
That was very cool, however, you didn’t really see much of that campaign except the parts that were happening near your mission. Sure you could have flown around Korea and watched the other stuff going on…but did you? I was lucky to RTB, so I never did any sightseeing.
I think we can acknowledge that DCS is not going in the F4 direction. So, good missions and campaigns need a good “backstory” as it were. A nice PDF or e-book…something with maps and pictures (screenshots) and intel reports and some target folders and BDA reports…stuff like that…maybe even press reports from both sides…but NO VTCs.
It would have to be coordinated with the rest of the DCS theater/map so that if a bridge was dropped by some other sortie, out of the area/timeframe of your sortie, that bridge is actually destroyed (ME trigger).
You read through the Operational level stuff, then your mission brief, then go fly the Tactical level mission and (hopefully) return. Next day/chapter and there is additional stuff to look at and read…wash, rinse, repeat.
Just a thought…in fact I may give it a try.
1 Like
To me a well written and voiced script is as good or even better than a DC. Of course my memories of Falcon 4 are faded, its been a long time. But my memories of @Baltic_Dragon’s excellent work on the mirage 2K campaign or the Museum Relic flights are fresh and those were thrilling to me.
Of course re-doing a flight meant having the “whoa did that just happen?!” moments spoiled but c’est la vie, ne c’est pas?
4 Likes
All interesting points of view… but its never going to happen just NEVER!
The subject has come up before here at Mudspike anyway after I did a quick search… Dynamic campaigns - why can't they do it? - #45 by katana1000s
AND if you Google there has been extensive discussions online … “CLICK HERE”
Its just never going to happen No Vietnam Theaters, no world Map nothing what you see is what you get!
Its why I’m not buying anything anymore, over it really to be honest.
There has been so many heated discussion over the years, why bother… I mean you want to remain positive but it seems its to no avail, its just all talk a dream at best.
mimimimi
Breath In.
Breath out.
Say it with me. It’s a video game
It has no significance beyond that which you give it. If the trend of DCS development is filling you with existential ennui, it might be time to give it a little less significance.
7 Likes
