First: Please think before you write (i think too) , no flame wars bms vs dcs , only just talking what it may be or should be
So dynamic campaing is coming but maybe not this year.
Personally i think that we get dynamic campaing system soon as they can make biger maps.
DCS aimâs for realistic operations and full war in current map sizes is not very realistic. Many airbases are under enemy mrls systems range. So thats why i think that its still quite far away.
Or maybe we get first somekind small conflict generator so its mini wars that last 1-2 days only ??
Probably not this year. And we wonât be seeing conflict sizes of BMS campaigns in DCS, itâs simply not possible.
If you compare DCS and BMS, by todayâs standards, BMS is a Fiat 500. DCS started out as a Fiat 500 but as engines (hardware) became more capable, ED changed the body. DCS is now a 50 ton truck with a 300 horsepower engine. BMS is still a Fiat 500 only now with a 300 horsepower engine. Go figure.
BMS is very lean, it was from the ground up designed to handle large conflicts through admissions in the realism of things that happen far away from the player. DCS has a fundamentally different approach. DCS was built to simulate everything that happens on the battlefield to the same level of realism (no bubble). Both approaches have their pros and cons, but unless graphical progress in DCS halts in eating away the gains of improving hardware, conflict sizes will remain the size they are right now.
I see others equating dynamic campaigns with full scale war scenarios.
A campaign can be âdynamicâ without simulating the entire war.
A real war, even the really big ones, are usually fought in campaigns. There are theatres of operations with campaigns where strategic goals are obtained.
It is possible to break down the virtual war in similar smaller elements, which also is quite realistic.
So, no, we wonât be able to simulate wars fought in multiple theatres, or big strategic campaigs.
But thatâs not a requirement for a dynamic campaign.
I think maybe 7-10 day campaigns will be possible on the maps we have today. There will be many mission types to be flown. Fly the CAP, and watch the Strike packages do their thing, under your cover. Do the SEAD before the Strike. Watch everybody else execute their missions. The ATOs will shift depending on the success of previous missions.
What I hope ED will achieve, with their dynamic campaigns, is proper resource management. I want to manage a squadron, with pilots amd airframes. I also want that feeling of being a small part of the big puzzle, so to speak. The AI need to be able to handle themselves. I donât want to have to do everything myself, as that would be unrealistic.
Itâs not an easy task.
But none of the above requires larger maps.
Thereâs been multiple occasions where ED spokespeople have stated that larger maps are not possible with current tech and amounts of RAM. So we and they will have to make do.
Not with the level of detail of the current maps, no.
But, as with all computer hardware, RAM requirements will increase with timeâŠ
I donât doubt weâll see larger maps in the future. Itâs just that itâs not a requirement for dynamic campaigns.
I am pretty much with @Troll here.
While I would love to have bigger maps and be able to simulate the full war, I think it will be possible to simulate a part of the theater in a believable, somewhat realistic way.
My main fear is that the AI in its current state is not able to do the job. They will have to improve it considerably to make it suitable for that.
No easy task.
I agree with troll too, i personally can live without full dynamic campaing. But something like Janes F-15 or F-18 style career with limited weapons , airframes etc⊠and fell of that things what i do will effect outcome.
And curent AI is usable , but default taskings and ârulesâ are really bad in mission editor. But thats offtopic , its what is and i dont think that it will improve near future.
Exactly, dynamic campaign and âconquer the mapâ or often incorrectly used synonymous. Best example would be the Battle of Britain, which is a textbook case of a real air campaign that would work very well as dynamic campaign, that included no significant ground combat at all.
Other ones might be the Falklands, where the war mainly was fought at sea, and not with a big amount of assets actually.
Or Kosovo, where for quite some time basically only the Serbs had significant ground forces.
I would not be surprised if weâd see some pretty significant improvements to both (ground/air) unit AI and editor unit programmability in the forseeable future. It is neccesary for much of what ED are planning, integral part of those plans.
Personally I think this is not really a showstopper for most people⊠They could use the current maps for the 8GB people (how many are still among us?) and expand them for people that have 16GB of RAM. the 2,200,000 subscribers to Star Citizen have zero problems with that for instance.
What is more worrying though is of course the fact that if you make two dimensions twice as big, you need 4 times as much RAM. So ED would need to incorporate some kind of container streaming idea, similar again to star citizen (or the player bubble in F4.0). That is a development cost decision but I hope they will go for it someday as the current maps, beautiful as they are, can feel a little claustrophobic with the F18 sometimes.
@MBot, no ground combat only air? that would be disappointing.
I donât agree with arguments about it being too complicated or âDCS is more complicated than BMSâ. That is simply untrue and no good reason why with modern tools it would be impossible to make a similar or better DC experience, see it as a strategy game in real time with player interaction. It is a lot of work though thereâs no denying that, but if a single guy couldâve managed it in 98â (true story) thatâs our light at the end of the tunnel.
All I am saying is that a ground war is not a defining property of a dynamic campaign. It can feature ground combat or not, but it is not what is making a dynamic campaign dynamic.
In fact I can think of many scenarios for a DC that would not require a ground war: Battle of Britain, strategic bombing of Germany, North Vietnam (Rolling Thunder, Linebacker) or the first month of Desert Storm, just to name a few historical ones. Add fictional ones and the possibilities become countless.
In fact you are going to get such a dynamic campaign for DCS very soon
My problem with the term âdynamic campaignâ is that everyoneâs definition is different. It is going to be very difficult to meet everyoneâs expectations.
In fact, if you look at all the 90s sims youâll see that fully scripted campaigns were always in the minority. However, the dynamic ones could range from âaugmented random single missionsâ all the way up to what F4 did. There is plenty of room to make one below there that is still enjoyable.
I think the minimum things needed for a DC include:
variety (if you get the same mission over and over because target X wasnât destroyed and the campaign is fixated on that happening next, youâre sunk)
a realistic consistent ORBAT, where you canât shoot down 10 MiGs every single mission for 10 missions and the enemy just keeps throwing them at you, at least not for any conflict post-1975 or so
persistent damage, a must really, where a bridge lost one mission isnât back the next, but with realistic repair timelines so that a damaged airfield might be back after 2 or 3
