Il-2 Stalingrad Announced

[jomni]

CoD and RoF are both soul less in my opinion.  They are technical marvels in the visual and simulation aspect but they really need a good dynamic campaign that lets you experience the war.

[republic]

I agree, I'm not sure why dynamic campaigns have been avoided so much.  Especially when Minecraft ushered in a new era of dynamic worlds for other games.

With multicore CPU's they could easily simulate the battle on one core while the others are running the simulation.  Just make a quad core CPU a requirement. 

Modern developers have it opposite from when computer games began.  Back then they made the game and waited for the hardware to catch up.  Don't hamper the game to fit low end technology, make a game people will want to upgrade to play.

[Yskonyn]

I agree, I'm not sure why dynamic campaigns have been avoided so much.  Especially when Minecraft ushered in a new era of dynamic worlds for other games.

With multicore CPU's they could easily simulate the battle on one core while the others are running the simulation.  Just make a quad core CPU a requirement. 

Modern developers have it opposite from when computer games began.  Back then they made the game and waited for the hardware to catch up.  Don't hamper the game to fit low end technology, make a game people will want to upgrade to play.

This is not as easy as you think, republic.
There are some sims already which use more than 1 core (X-plane 10 comes to mind), but 'just' running the world on one core is not a simple solution to the question.
There are countless of intricate calculations involved, especially in a combat sim with projectiles, armor, atmosphere, gravity, inertia, you name it.
Just claiming that running the campaign on a seperate core is the solution is pretty unfounded imho.

Dynamic campaigns are avoided mostly because they cannot provide the same detailed immersive experience scripted missions can provide. On another note Dynamic campaigns tend to have a multitude of AI problems (as Falcon 4 has shown us) or are pretty boring (as IL-2 Sturmovik: FB showed us) and bland.
The development cost for a dynamic campaign doesn't make it very feasable in relation to what results you get.

The only interesting dynamic campaign people keep on talking about are Falcon's and Battle of Britain.
The former still has some big flaws in its BMS incarnation, while Falcon 4 AF improved on the campaign but lacked in other aspects.
BoB didn't have to worry about any supply and demand , or ground movement in general, so its a much simpler thing.

Case in point being that there really isn't a perfect dynamic campaign in any sim to date.

[Swatter]

Perfect is a silly standard.

Have you ever player Falcon 4? I played it when it was new and barely patched. They were very few issues I can recall and the dynamic campaign was spectacular. Anything can happen when a war is going on around you, and I ran into many situations that knocked me off my chair. One time after returning from a mission, I began the landing sequence, bombers flew over my airfield and bombs tore everything up as I aborted my approach. I remember going on "unscheduled" missions near the Chinese border to bomb the airfield DPRK's SU-27s operated from, and blew the crap out of the airfield as they were attempting to scramble aircraft to stop me. That, sir, is what dynamic campaigns are about.

Scripted missions are frankly crap when compared to a well executed dynamic campaign. Dynamic campaigns have been around forever and are not about hardware, they are about a team that is committed to a dynamic and cool experience.

[Swatter]

And about IL-2 Stalingrad, they have left their dynamic campaigns behind for good to be replaced (no doubt) by pay per plane content entirely focused on multiplayer. If WoT can pretend to be free and make lots and lots of money- we can too!

Too bad the herd has moved to multiplayer centered games, something will be lost in the process.

[Yskonyn]

Perfect is a silly standard.

Have you ever player Falcon 4? I played it when it was new and barely patched. They were very few issues I can recall and the dynamic campaign was spectacular. Anything can happen when a war is going on around you, and I ran into many situations that knocked me off my chair. One time after returning from a mission, I began the landing sequence, bombers flew over my airfield and bombs tore everything up as I aborted my approach. I remember going on "unscheduled" missions near the Chinese border to bomb the airfield DPRK's SU-27s operated from, and blew the crap out of the airfield as they were attempting to scramble aircraft to stop me. That, sir, is what dynamic campaigns are about.

Scripted missions are frankly crap when compared to a well executed dynamic campaign. Dynamic campaigns have been around forever and are not about hardware, they are about a team that is committed to a dynamic and cool experience.

Have I? Oh boy! :) I got it on release, yes. Played the heck out of it and still do.
The probable reason you didn't notice the flaws was that a) it was new and pretty groundbreaking and b) it took a while to uncover the issues because the campaign is so massive.
Still, it's a fact that the Dynamic Campaign has some serious issues. Bridges unable to become repaired and halting a ground offensive is one of the more severe ones.

I agree that 'perfect' is a silly standard. It was merely a figure of speech, though. :)

[republic]

What if they did a combo type thing like Achtung Panzer/Graviteam Tactics or even Wargame: Airland?  Have a strategic map that the war is fought in turns with some abstract realism, and let the player jump in to fly sorties.  It wouldn't have to be realtime like Falcon.

However...I remember SVGA Harrier's dynamic realtime campaign was actually pretty fun.

[Yskonyn]

Yeah that would be a very interesting solution. SVGA Harrier was pretty cool too! :)

[Toonces]

You guys have both pretty much summarized the arguments for and against dynamic campaigns.

For my part, I think dynamic campaigns are essential for the longevity of a sim.  As I said in the SimHQ thread, about the only reason that Over Flanders Fields can exist is because RoF completely lacks a meaningful single player experience.  In every other way RoF is just a better sim.  But the feeling of actually being part of the war in OFF is very appealing and immersive.

The crux of my argument, which was stated above, is that creating a dynamic campaign isn't reinventing the wheel.  There are numerous examples of dynamic campaigns: Falcon 4, IL-2, OFF, BoB 2, arguably Strike Fighters series...so programmers don't have to start from scratch.  Plenty of examples exist that can be copied to some extent (yes, the programming is from scratch, but conceptually the ideas are well fleshed out).

In my opinion, the decision to forego a DC in Stalingrad is purely money.  They know they're likely to sell plenty of product focusing on a RoF model and screw what the SP wants.  From a business perspective I suppose that makes sense.

Truly, it seems that hardware finally became capable enough to create really spectacular sims, but now we've forgotten that these things are supposed to be FUN to play. 

[republic]

Truly, it seems that hardware finally became capable enough to create really spectacular sims, but now we've forgotten that these things are supposed to be FUN to play.

I agree 10,000%.  We have more fidelity than I ever dreamed was possible...but often I feel that Aces Over Europe provided a more fun experience... 

Strike Fighters is a good example of providing something that 'feels' realistic, but also light enough to get in and out.  If there was multiplayer with reliable servers and a little tweaking to smooth out the rough edges....Strike Fighters would be my goto game.

[Toonces]

Strike Fighters is so fun, but it falls just short of being my go-to sim.  And it's frustrating because the discrepancies are so small, yet they're vital.

For example, you can't command your wingman to attack your primary target.  This is crucial.  In Falcon 4, you give your flight a "weapons free" command in the vicinity of the primary target and they will self-motivate to attack it.  The only way to get your element to attack a specific target is to lock it using visual cues, which I prefer to turn off for realism, and so it's not possible.  I end up telling my element to attack ground targets, but then my wingman is essentially useless.

The voice comms are almost useless.  You'll get radio calls with no identification, no direction or anything, and they provide no SA.  If there was some variation in their actual voices you could tell which comms were from different aircraft but even that is missing.

In the mission planning screen before the flight, I have no idea what supporting flights are doing.  The whole briefing is practically useless.

The planning map should have some way of portraying known SAM and AAA and allow for standoff rings so I can plot out a flightpath around the defenses.

And so on.  I go back to SF2:Vietnam from time to time and enjoy it for about 3 missions and then I ultimately get so frustrated that I shelve it again.  I haven't tried SF2:North Atlantic, so I don't know if any of my perceived discrepancies have been cleared up.

[Swatter]

"Over Flanders Fields can exist is because RoF completely lacks a meaningful single player experience.  In every other way RoF is just a better sim"

I couldn't agree more x 100

I really enjoyed just flying in RoF, but you really need a campaign experience. There is a campaign, but last time I played every single AI pilot was a carbon copy. That was the ultimate tease. The campaign wrapper was up to snuff, but once you take to the air, you can't forget to make it fun.

I am currently playing Il-2 1946 with DCG. Its been buggy in the past, so I am running no other mods and hoping for a more stable experience.

[jomni]

And so on.  I go back to SF2:Vietnam from time to time and enjoy it for about 3 missions and then I ultimately get so frustrated that I shelve it again.  I haven't tried SF2:North Atlantic, so I don't know if any of my perceived discrepancies have been cleared up.

More of the same.  I think taking out the visual lock icons is your source of frustration.  Keep it on and you will have fun... gamey fun.

[republic]

I'm afraid TK has given up on the PC though.  :(

[jomni]

I'm afraid TK has given up on the PC though.  :(

True, but at least SF2 just had a July 2013 patch.  Visual rendering became quite crisp (or is it just me). :/