Mission ideas

[Platoon_EFeKT 0]

From the general posting here i dont think i ever encountered a major item that oddly should have been mentioned before (and if it did im sorry ) - I think the new game should support in some way the missions from the first flashpoint... think of all the missions that have been done to the first game, all the work that the modding community done up untill now - even though the first game wont parish, it'd still be neglected and all the work should be done from the beginning once again.

Enabling full mission support to the old OFP would make sure that:

1. missions could be kept on being produced to the 1st game.

2. modders from the 1st game's community would "feel comfortable" with the new game and start on making those wonderful things they do now without being forced to learn new editor techniques (even though i suppose the new game's editor would be more user friendly, there's always things that would never be the same)

3. (the most importent thing) this would enable players which are playing OFP2 to play MP games with players that use the older game, thus creating a huge MP gaming potential at the minute the game is released.

There are probably more good things about it then i've mentioned that i just cant really think about right now, but still as you see enabling full (or partial) mission support between the two games has alot of potential, to the gamers from one side and to the developers from the other...

[Mugon 0]

I'm just thinking about some new characters such as journalists, intelligence agents or civilian medics such as International Red Cross medics, with new missions, campaigns, and of course new gears.

I think these new characters are as essentials in a real conflict as soldiers or commanders, and it may be a good way to make new kind of missions, such as report news and pictures from the front line, collect essential intelligence informations behind enemy lines, or help and protect civilian population in war situation.

[Snypa UK 0]

continuing on the Dynamic campaign idea perhaps it could all be one mission. for example if we take the OFP resistance campaign wouldnt it be cool if you had one base in the hills at the start along with some troops then you plan the mission all in game so you decide where you go perhaps you perform reconnaisance first on your own then go back to base and have your troops join you then go blow it up you would have to excercise judgement so you dont attack a tank company using 12 men with a few AKs between them. Then youve completed your mission and the game autosaves. You then get a few more troops join you from the woods and you sit there with the map all in real time and plan what to do. If BIS made a command engine you could make a multi section platoon and wait till night and attack a tank base. steal some tanks and hold the city this could capture you another savegame once you capture the city. This means you have a base more troops join you and you start getting enough people to command and not have to lead or you could be at the front of every attack taking over a squad leader.

A good game with the same kind of dynamic campaign is Apache Havoc except you dont get more troops each time (or choppers) but you plan your sorties and you can fly them yourself or leave others to do it for you

[debug2112 0]

Bruupo, there-in lays the problem.

Regardless of which direction BIS chooses it will involve a marketting concern, and they will never be able to capture the large share of serious realism gamers without loosing a share of the run-n-gun kids. A happy medium of both works only for the short term, and word of mouth throughout history has placed more signs on empty buildings than not.

It is a very well placed tounge-n-cheek issue as to whether or not have dynamic campaigning to please one crowd, versus straight scripted, and finite blast-n-bang missions to please another.

This brief chat could get into deeper issues as well, such as the incorrectly termed "product branding", PR, packaging, product placement, and who smoozed who on the 9th hole last week.

Makes you want to be a fly on the wall at their table'd meetings.

[TheManWithManyIdeas 0]

Mission Idea- Perhaps the emphasis on alternative approach should be stressed?

In other words, i would like to see missions in this kind of structure. [do] "A" [through] "B" [or] "C" [then] [try] D.

Also, i would like to see missions taken forward at the speed and style of commando-like raids. Perhaps even a kind of Rainbow 6 approach of storming and taking prisoners.

[superskunk 0]

Start on a recon mission with a squad. After a while the leader commands you to take the lead. Passing some horrifiing sights and slipping passed bobytraps, your squad is ambushed by large enemy force.

You where lucky not to be shot at on contact, givving them all the firepower you have. You finally killed the last man of the enemy attackers. When you look back you find noone of your squad is left...

Since the radio has suffered serious dammage you cannot contact HQ. You deside to go on on your own.

As the night falls you find a an enemy command centre hidden in the bush. YOu attack the base all by yourself, and kill a hundred men, steal a vehicle and drive the way back home...you'll be awarded a purple heart and get the nickname Rambo!!!

Hehe what a stupid tale~

[SnypaUK 0]

I believe the market for tactical missions is more for OFP as most people who play this beautiful game are the kind of people who like ultra tactical gaming and want to see the greatest military simulator ever. people who want run and gun military games all buy CS CFDS call of duty etc There could be two campaigns one unlocked after the other one as a grunt in a squad getting promoted up to a sergeant in a squad then another as an officer from a different perspective. commanding large bodys of troops from platoon right up to a battalion or perhaps further if players want it to be a RTS game but i doubt it or they would have bought empire earth or other RTS games

[GI_Rutger 0]

What I'd like to see in OFP2:

- In OFP1, each civilian is innocent. Maybe they can set in OFP2 some collaborators and resistance civilians. For example: You, a escaped POW, runs to a civilian for help, but the civilian runs to the telephone and calls the Russians.

- Not that kind of promotions like in CWC. You know, when Dave Armstrong was a grunt, het was private, half a year later he's luitenant! That's impossible!

- No missions were you can gun down (for example:) twenty russian soldiers and 2 BMP's, with 6 guys with AK's and one RPG.

- When you make an quite good mission in the OFP1 editor, an original firefight, the mission will be completed in 15 minutes.Maybe they can make in OFP2 missions were you stand in front of the enemy trenches, but you can't attack, like in real times combats like Bastogne/WW1.

- In OFP1 there were 5 helikopters, 20 trucks and a few Abrams for each company soldiers, that's unrealistic. And in OFP1 there's always a BMP/Tank in the village you have to seize.

- A medical kit, which you can pick up (if you're a medic), and use it, although by three soldiers. You cannot heal a soldier which is heavy wounded.

I'd lime to see it at an other point. I'd like to see this kinda battle. Here's my example, I hope one mission in OFP2 will be kinda this:

You, a sergeant, are the platoon leader of the 2nd Platoon. Your battalion leader, some stupid Major, wants you to take a small town, it's called X. In X there are 20 Russians, with no armoured support but with a mortar. The best way (the most unexpected), is to cross the river and attack the Russians in the night. That night, 7 boats cross the river, filled with men of your platoon. Your men crosses the river silently, and take there positions. But the Russians spotted your men and are opening fire with an PK, from a window in a flat. Nailed to the ground, your men can't do anything. Two MAGs at the othere side of the river are giving support, but they don't shoot all the RUssians in 1 minute. After a minute you and your men have to retreat, hunted to the death by mortars, AK's, and PK's of the Russian.

When you put this mission in Resistance, 10 or 15 men of your platoon would be death. In OFP2, there have to be 2 men death, 2 wounded.

[GI_Rutger 0]

What I'd like to see in OFP2:

- In OFP1, each civilian is innocent. Maybe they can set in OFP2 some collaborators and resistance civilians. For example: You, a escaped POW, runs to a civilian for help, but the civilian runs to the telephone and calls the Russians.

- Not that kind of promotions like in CWC. You know, when Dave Armstrong was a grunt, het was private, half a year later he's luitenant! That's impossible!

- No missions were you can gun down (for example:) twenty russian soldiers and 2 BMP's, with 6 guys with AK's and one RPG.

- When you make an quite good mission in the OFP1 editor, an original firefight, the mission will be completed in 15 minutes.Maybe they can make in OFP2 missions were you stand in front of the enemy trenches, but you can't attack, like in real times combats like Bastogne/WW1.

- In OFP1 there were 5 helikopters, 20 trucks and a few Abrams for each company soldiers, that's unrealistic. And in OFP1 there's always a BMP/Tank in the village you have to seize.

- A medical kit, which you can pick up (if you're a medic), and use it, although by three soldiers. You cannot heal a soldier which is heavy wounded.

I'd like to see it at an other point. I'd like to see this kinda battle. Here's my example, I hope one mission in OFP2 will be kinda this:

You, a sergeant, are the platoon leader of the 2nd Platoon. Your battalion leader, some stupid Major, wants you to take a small town, it's called X. In X there are 20 Russians, with no armoured support but with a mortar. The best way (the most unexpected), is to cross the river and attack the Russians in the night. That night, 7 boats cross the river, filled with men of your platoon. Your men crosses the river silently, and take there positions. But the Russians spotted your men and are opening fire with an PK, from a window in a flat. Nailed to the ground, your men can't do anything. Two MAGs at the othere side of the river are giving support, but they don't shoot all the RUssians in 1 minute. After a minute you and your men have to retreat, hunted to the death by mortars, AK's, and PK's of the Russian.

When you put this mission in Resistance, 10 or 15 men of your platoon would be death. In OFP2, there have to be 2 men death, 2 wounded.

Sounds good?

ps. sorry for my bad english, I'm Dutch.

[SpecOp9 0]

I think it would be cool to walk around base and ask various commanders what jobs they have for you. And you can accept if you want, or no.

[Korpisoturi 0]

That wouldn't be realistic  ;)

A soldier cant do what he wants...

Yes, but in SPECOPS missions more ability to choose would be good. I think that next instructions shouldn't come after you have breached perimeter in one way, but after you just have reached the perimeter. Kinda style:you will receive further orders after you have breached Line Alpha, not after you have reached point Fa50. Also, collaborator civilians would be cool.

[IceFire 0]

I have an idea as how to design a dynamic campaign.

The player would have to act as both General, Soldier, and basically the general designer of the whole campaign.

Basically at the beginning of the game, the player would be informed as to how many total troops, tanks, choppers, crew, special operations units, boats, and other vehicles he has available for total for the entire campaign, and where on the island(or wherever) they are positioned. And a figure of how many units the enemy has and where on the island they are.

Before the first mission, the player would have to decide what to do first. He would most likely spot the closest and most vulnerable, or perhaps most valuable enemy defense and decide how to attack it. He would have to determine how much of his forces(troops, tanks etc) to send in and in a large scale .. what troop/tank/ chopper formation. That meaning where will the different platoons attack from, from where and when will the tanks and choppers strike. Once all the major planning for the mission is complete, the player would then actually start the mission.

In the mission, the player would have the opportunity to play one of the squad leaders in the battle. How well the mission goes would depend on how well he planned it out. Did he use choppers? Are there enemy Anti Air systems in the area?

After that mission, he would recieve 2 mission complete reports. One for the player as the soldier who was fighting, and one for player as the general who planned out the mission. This would be something like how many of his troops died, how many are left in the area, how many enemies were killed. He would also be updated if the enemy is reported to be planning a counter attack or if during the mission YOU played the enemy already attacked another base of yours, and in how much troop strength the enemy might be planning to use etc...

Then the player would plan out what he wants to do next. Where to move more troops, again like before the first mission.

In the end it would be up to the player to use what he has wisely to acheive the objective and win the game.

Basically this would work like a turn based strategy game, something like "Lords of the realm". But using a large zoomable map to plan out the "mission" portions of the game where the action actually take place.

Nothing happens except for during the missions when the player is actually out in the field.

The game AI would actually have to determine how to react to your own actions. It would have to calculate and "plan agianst the player". It would plan out it's own actions during the same time the player is planning out his own.

I think this form of a game would have alot of possibility. The actual missions would still be from the same perspective as OPF is now. You would play as the same squad leader or tank/chopper man as you can now. But you would have the opportunity to plan out the whole campaign and how and where you want to attack, and using which forces.

The bad part about this whole system is that there could not be alot of scripted/cut scene moments in a game like this.

What do you all think?

[Friedchiken 0]

awsome idea but the best thing would be to make mod support be able to do this. I hope BIS doens't lose track of whatever their original plans were.

But hey, I don't call the shots. And a campaign like that would be the best turn-based game ever!

[IceFire 0]

Thanks, but it wouln't REALLY be turn based, but kinda.

Basically it would work like this. You(general) would choose where you want to move troops and what other actions you want to take during the next mission.

Then you would get to choose who you want to play during the next turn. Any other action that you wanted to do on that turn would not be witnessed by you. You would hear about it when the mission is over.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

...that is turn based.

[IceFire 0]

...that is turn based.

Ok, fine.

[SnypaUK 0]

Quote[/b] ]You, a sergeant, are the platoon leader of the 2nd Platoon. Your battalion leader, some stupid Major, wants you to take a small town, it's called X. In X there are 20 Russians, with no armoured support but with a mortar. The best way (the most unexpected), is to cross the river and attack the Russians in the night. That night, 7 boats cross the river, filled with men of your platoon. Your men crosses the river silently, and take there positions. But the Russians spotted your men and are opening fire with an PK, from a window in a flat. Nailed to the ground, your men can't do anything. Two MAGs at the othere side of the river are giving support, but they don't shoot all the RUssians in 1 minute. After a minute you and your men have to retreat, hunted to the death by mortars, AK's, and PK's of the Russian.

When you put this mission in Resistance, 10 or 15 men of your platoon would be death. In OFP2, there have to be 2 men death, 2 wounded.

I think what this due is saying is that firefights should be more drawn out with lots of lead flying around but not everyone dead in a minute of fire unless its an ambush of course.

[SnypaUK 0]

I think that the best idea for high level command is up to company or battalion level at most. We do not want to turn this into a RTS game. For high level command to work individual squads need more initiative. taking cover and adopting the correct formations for situations. as well as handling MOUT and FISH all in their own initiative

[TheManWithManyIdeas 0]

I have an idea as how to design a dynamic campaign.

The player would have to act as both General, Soldier, and basically the general designer of the whole campaign.  

Basically at the beginning of the game, the player would be informed as to how many total troops, tanks, choppers, crew, special operations units, boats, and other vehicles he has available for total for the entire campaign, and where on the island(or wherever) they are positioned.  And a figure of how many units the enemy has and where on the island they are.

Before the first mission, the player would have to decide what to do first.  He would most likely spot the closest and most vulnerable, or perhaps most valuable enemy defense and decide how to attack it.   He would have to determine how much of his forces(troops, tanks etc) to send in and in a large scale .. what troop/tank/ chopper formation.  That meaning where will the different platoons attack from, from where and when will the tanks and choppers strike.    Once all the major planning for the mission is complete, the player would then actually start the mission.

In the mission, the player would have the opportunity to play one of the squad leaders in the battle.    How well the mission goes would depend on how well he planned it out.  Did he use choppers?  Are there enemy Anti Air systems in the area?

After that mission, he would recieve 2 mission complete reports.  One for the player as the soldier who was fighting, and one for player as the general who planned out the mission.  This would be something like how many of his troops died, how many are left in the area, how many enemies were killed.  He would also be updated if the enemy is reported to be planning a counter attack or if during the mission YOU played the enemy already attacked another base of yours, and in how much troop strength the enemy might be planning to use etc...

Then the player would plan out what he wants to do next.  Where to move more troops, again like before the first mission.

In the end it would be up to the player to use what he has wisely to acheive the objective and win the game.

Basically this would work like a turn based strategy game, something like "Lords of the realm".  But using a large zoomable map to plan out the "mission" portions of the game where the action actually take place.

Nothing happens except for during the missions when the player is actually out in the field.  

The game AI would actually have to determine how to react to your own actions.  It would have to calculate and "plan agianst the player".  It would plan out it's own actions during  the same time the player is planning out his own.  

I think this form of a game would have alot of possibility.  The actual missions would still be from the same perspective as OPF is now.  You would play as the same squad leader or tank/chopper man as you can now.   But you would have the opportunity to plan out the whole campaign and how and where you want to attack, and using which forces.

The bad part about this whole system is that there could not be alot of scripted/cut scene moments in a game like this.

What do you all think?

Quote[/b] ]The player would have to act as both General, Soldier, and basically the general designer of the whole campaign.

Sounds like an attractive idea. However is scraps 2 equally good ones.

1) Rank climbing scrapped

2) Some people like to play as just a grunt.

[IceFire 0]

Yes, rank climbing would definitely be scrapped.

But as for playing as a grunt, when you decide to go into the mission, you pick the officer/characted you play as. You can still move around and shoot/be shot at.

Best thing to do is to pick a unit that has critical importance when you go to the action phase. Whether that be an officer leading the attack, a sniper taking out some enemies, a specs ops soldier doing recon or sabatoge.

Whatever you decide to do on the mission.

[SnypaUK 0]

More Mindless assault missions ive decided. With lots of tanks and helicopters whinging around. perhaps you could have an entire city being taken block by block if enough power is on your computer

[skynet 0]

Sounds like fun, but then u will need new parts for the computer every time u play that particular mission

[kazi 0]

Campaign - 1970s "Asia" - South Asia

Gurrela "Freedom Fighters"

Enemy "Army and Air Force"

there should be battle. you are the lead of a squad, taking the assualt in Gurrela Effort to stop the Bombing of your headquarters and supply depots. It will be a full on assualt on the airfield, from all sides, the enemy is stiff, and is well equipped with tanks and helicopters.

Destroy Everything, except the the supply helicopters and save at least 4 attack telicopters and 3 planes.

The Gurellas would have "AK47s, SLR, .303 Rifles, Lee Enfield, Sten Guns, Bren Guns and RPGs.

"and 2 allied squads with 2 tanks (Heavy Armour)"

2 Cannons fire onto the airfield simutaniously, when you call in them, 4 shots each.

1 allied Fighter plane does a carpet bombing once, and leaves

when you call him in

The Enemy would have "AK47s, M16, Bren Gun, Sten Gun, SLR, Tracer Rifles, Pistol, 6 Heavy Tanks, 2 AA Guns (Mounted), 3 Machine Guns Mounted, 1 Sniper (Normal)

RPGs and LAWS, 12 Jet Fighters, 12 Attack Helicopters, 6 Supply Helicopters.

Approx 300 Gurellas including Allied Squads

Approx 250 Enemy Soldiers

[SnypaUK 0]

More of the firefights that we see in OFP and resistance and less infiltration B*******

[firedrake 0]

Everybody should see the film the Thin Red Line, nobody gets a choice of what, when, who and where. Can't we go around them, you been ordered to take the hill Captain!

Thats war!