Playing more than once.

[IceFire 0]

I was curious about an aspect of OPF, and wanted your opinion.

I was recently playing the single player mission called "Convoy"(on veteran mode, I NEVER play on cadet mode).

It was the first time I had played it. I normally avoid it because it looked like a dumb, boring mission.

But after playing it, I realized that this mission was VERY well done.

I truly felt like everything was happening in a dynamic, almost random style which resulted from your actions.

And it didn't feel like the makers put in extra "leeway" in that allows you certain ways of winning the mission.

It was like, "Oh shit, the mission has gone to hell. Let's see how we scrape ourselves up and get out of this alive".

We were attacked, half of everyone got killed. I got command of like 8 men, we retreated(barely avoiding getting killed), ... etc. Things happened fast, and hectic.

I managed to scrape enough resources for a somewhat decent defense of the town.

Then as attacks began, choppers, etc, ... I had to quickly bark out orders to the men could properly defend against the attacl .... etc.

The point is, when the whole thing happened the first time, it felt real. Like I had to think on my feet and react in a split second, figure out what was going on, and what to do, or risk getting killed.

But once you die, and play it again, the same thing happens.

It doesn't feel right when you die, and then you do the SAME thing over, and you start to "preplan" for certain occasions. Like you know what's coming up, and you "preact" accordingly.

This is the one main aspect that ruins the feeling of it being "real" for me.

What about you?

What can be done about this?

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

Don't Die!

Seriously I dont know. I don't think anything can be done. Just keep Downloading new missions and stuff. If you dont get it done first time then just get rid of that level and DL some more new ones. I dont really have this problem though.

[Mister Frag 0]

Some of that can be addressed by the mission designer. Insertion points, waypoints, timed triggers and even the probability that a given unit appears in the mission can be controlled using random values and location radiuses.

You could thus be facing just a small group of enemy infantry one time, and a force two or three times that size the next time, or get attacked from a completely different direction.

I must admit that I do the same thing, though: sometimes I do something I would never do without some prioer knowledge, such as chucking a grenade over a house because I know there are enemy troops on the other side, or planting a mine in a location that I know will be visited by enemy armor. That does take some of the fun and excitement out of playing.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Feb. 27 2003,01:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some of that can be addressed by the mission designer. Insertion points, waypoints, timed triggers and even the probability that a given unit appears in the mission can be controlled using random values and location radiuses.

You could thus be facing just a small group of enemy infantry one time, and a force two or three times that size the next time, or get attacked from a completely different direction.

I must admit that I do the same thing, though: sometimes I do something I would never do without some prioer knowledge, such as chucking a grenade over a house because I know there are enemy troops on the other side, or planting a mine in a location that I know will be visited by enemy armor. That does take some of the fun and excitement out of playing.<span id='postcolor'>

Good points.

-----

I mainly play co-op, and we used to have a bit of a house rule that if we failed a mission, we would put ourselves in the "sin-bin" for 1 week before we attempted that particular mission again. It helped keep the missions feeling more relaistic.

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Feb. 27 2003,01:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I must admit that I do the same thing, though: sometimes I do something I would never do without some prioer knowledge, such as chucking a grenade over a house because I know there are enemy troops on the other side, or planting a mine in a location that I know will be visited by enemy armor. That does take some of the fun and excitement out of playing.<span id='postcolor'>

Yup, same here.

[John C Flett 0]

I've always felt that the best kind of campaign should be made up of missions which are much smaller and easier than is normal for a game like this. And they should be played once. The idea of the old fashioned dynamic or branching campaign.

A mission should be played unprepared and be of a challenge level that a decent player can probably complete it first time. But it should also have a lose condition and an associated penalty. If death is the only risk then we end up in the trap discussed.

It seems to be the norm for almost every game these days to have these fixed mission structure where the player just keeps trying again and again until they get it right. Partly unrealistic as has been pointed out but also it devalues a good performance. We know eventually were ging to win OFP so we never feel the full pride of that victory. If a branching campaign allowed us also to lose that war then victory would really mean something.

The catch with that and I think the reason we see less of it is that a designer can spend a lot of time on a mission and will as such want the player to spend a lot of time on it. Bigger, complex missions may impress more. Even worse if you have branching players will only ever see less than half your work. Not very cost or time effective for a designer.

I'd still plead for more, simpler missions so that we don't get caught in the die/retry cycle and a real chance to fail while still alive.

[IceFire 0]

Maybe they'll do something about this in the next patch.

[Tonebender 0]

Interesting points, all! I've always thought that the die-retry-til-it-works cycle is the most unrealistic thing in games like OfP, which often succeed very well at being realistic otherwise. In a real war, I only have one try, one life. Your points John were the most interesting I've heard when it comes to curing this problem.

[walker 0]

Hi all

This is why at the CoC we are making dynamic missions we leave the AI to make the majority of decisions. In bagels Dynamic Tour of duty Nam mission/campaign strategies may work untill the enemy AI learns how to defeat it but the tactics are never the same.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have already observed the OFP AI doing exactly this in Sainte Marie Hill and larger missions. Yes it ignores CE waypoints gets the job done and then goes to the waypoint weird huh!

I observed a unit of my mech infantry (after playing the mission several times) had aquired a habit of first destroying the MG placement by sneeking right round the side of the Hill to take out the MG the distance covered being 10 or more times that to the WP then come back to the WP to attack the now destroyed MG via the WP I set. Untill the AI learned to do this the section was usualy destroyed or reduced to a state where they panicked. They dont always win but they win more often.

The human equivalent is the leutenant on the ground disobeying an order of a major because he can see how to do the job on the ground.

Also while playing Sainte Marie Hill and my Invasion of Nogova I have observed the Enemy AI chainging strategies to beat my winning strategies! I had a strategy of attacking up the hill from the trees near the Observer position at first the enemy used to charge down the hill and I would take them out with mortars. Now they flank me to my right coming up the valley via the forests far nastier!

In the Invasion of Nogova mission I had a system for creating an LZ with the apaches clearing the LZ It worked the first 5 times and never since the enemy AI just sends all its Shikas to take me out I have had to change my strategy. <span id='postcolor'>

The above is from a discusion about AI in the CoC developers forum.

Over scripting missions reduces their long term playability far better to just set a trigger that says go to the enemy AI than say do this then do that then etc.

Kind Regards walker

[John C Flett 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe they'll do something about this in the next patch.<span id='postcolor'>

Sadly, way beyond the scope of a patch but for those willing to do the work, all ( or enough of ) the tools exist in OFP if somebody wanted to build a new campaign from scratch. It would simply be a matter of putting the time and enough missions into it since OFP already supports branching.

[Mister Frag 0]

Beyond the sheer scope of such a change, it would break many existing missions, both those included with the game itself and those created by the OFP community. I therefore would not expect it to be included in a simple patch.

[John C Flett 0]

Having playes some of the CoC missions they add a lot and deal with many of the problems but I feel they also leave the player a bit removed from the action. A commander should keep their distance but as a player I like to get in and get my hands dirty.

Can the CoC engine run in the background without player control and instead just assign the player missions? In the Dynamic Vietnam mission for example, would it be possible to create a varient where the player flys helos and just gets assigned transport and CAS missions as they arise?

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tonebender @ Mar. 01 2003,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting points, all! I've always thought that the die-retry-til-it-works cycle is the most unrealistic thing in games like OfP, which often succeed very well at being realistic otherwise. In a real war, I only have one try, one life. Your points John were the most interesting I've heard when it comes to curing this problem.<span id='postcolor'>

Year but how would you then complete the campaing I would like to see you play 40 missions and dont die.

STGN

[Tonebender 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STGN @ Mar. 04 2003,09:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tonebender @ Mar. 01 2003,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting points, all! I've always thought that the die-retry-til-it-works cycle is the most unrealistic thing in games like OfP, which often succeed very well at being realistic otherwise. In a real war, I only have one try, one life. Your points John were the most interesting I've heard when it comes to curing this problem.<span id='postcolor'>

Year but how would you then complete the campaing I would like to see you play 40 missions and dont die.

STGN<span id='postcolor'>

No, of course it's impossible, but if the die-retry cycle is repeated too much it becames a bit silly sometimes. I'm not saying OFp is a badly designed or too unrealistic game, but on some missions, I retried way too many times (maybe it was just me?).

Of course, in a real war, nobody would survive a 40 mission campaign like David Armstrong and his buddies. People die, and to win the war, replacements are called for and new missions are set up. Games have to be a bit different to be enjoyable. There's also fun to be had in retrying -- in a real war, when you've died, you never know if the "other way" would have been better.

[walker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tonebender @ Mar. 04 2003,13:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STGN @ Mar. 04 2003,09:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tonebender @ Mar. 01 2003,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting points, all! I've always thought that the die-retry-til-it-works cycle is the most unrealistic thing in games like OfP, which often succeed very well at being realistic otherwise. In a real war, I only have one try, one life. Your points John were the most interesting I've heard when it comes to curing this problem.<span id='postcolor'>

Year but how would you then complete the campaing I would like to see you play 40 missions and dont die.

STGN<span id='postcolor'>

No, of course it's impossible, but if the die-retry cycle is repeated too much it becames a bit silly sometimes. I'm not saying OFp is a badly designed or too unrealistic game, but on some missions, I retried way too many times (maybe it was just me?).

Of course, in a real war, nobody would survive a 40 mission campaign like David Armstrong and his buddies. People die, and to win the war, replacements are called for and new missions are set up. Games have to be a bit different to be enjoyable. There's also fun to be had in retrying -- in a real war, when you've died, you never know if the "other way" would have been better.<span id='postcolor'>

Hi all

Not True.

There will always be people in armies that survive 40 missiosn in fact some will survive 100s. It is just statistics whan you have hundreds of thousands and even millions in battle there are some that are (luckier / better at it) than others. There is a doccumented case of a sergeant in the british army (not a sniper) who by D Day had killed more than a 100 enemy many in hand to hand combat. You dont get to kill that many human beings in just one mission.

Of course I would probably die in the first mission if my OFP experience is anything to go by.

Kind regards walker

[stgn 39]

Yes but unfriendly soldiers shot a bit better than in real world.

STGN

[Guest jacobaby]

OFP has the scope, far more than any other game I have seen, to be almost fully dynamic.

But its up to the mission designer.

There are so many variables to be tweaked that a well designed mission should never be the same twice.

The AI can be tweaked for skill and courage, and this can be adjusted mid mission according to how the battle is going or upon strategic advantages being gained. Add to that the combat modes and you have awesome variability.

The whole map may be utilised by random locations of objectives, some will prove more challenging than others. Hours of daylight/visibility/weather can also come into play.

With the very powerful scripting language we have it is possible to make the AI do almost anything, including retreating to regroup and call re-inforcements.

So I guess at the end of the day it's down to the mission designers to make the most of the excellent tools they have.

As far as real life objectives/battles, for thousands of years the tactic for a failed objective was "Send in the next wave" who would try to do exactly the same thing as their unfortunate predecessors. So retrying the same battle again and again isnt THAT unrealistic, as long as the AI have been scripted professionally and dont appear in the same place each time.

Ideally I would like to see a HUGE online battle with thousands of AI available as playable slots. You could join, play your part in the battle, amass kills/gain rank etc and when you log off, as long as you are in safety you will be able to rejoin the battle next time you join. The whole thing would take place over several weeks or longer. Of course, when you did lose a particular soldier in the battle, that would be it for him, you would have to choose another, but could perhaps keep your rank/experience status and have control of an appropriate company.

Something like that anyways.........

TJ

[theavonlady 2]

So, TJ, when are you going to get back to making great missions and stop wasting time posting long winded posts on the forum, when everyone knows you just to show off your sig.

[John C Flett 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as real life objectives/battles, for thousands of years the tactic for a failed objective was "Send in the next wave" who would try to do exactly the same thing as their unfortunate predecessors. <span id='postcolor'>

True for the classic take the hill kind of scenario though even there attrition and other factors mean that things are never the same twice.

I'm thinking for the classic time limit type missions though that you should get one shot and pay the price in the next one for failure; ie Mission a) Ambush an armour column on its way to the front. Mission b) Fight an infantry advance against unsupported infantry if you won or infantry with armour if you blew mission a.

There can be a dozen different ways to approach things like this and lucky for us many of them can be done within OFP. We just need more designers to take advantage of them.