Mission ideas

[Silver Falcon 0]

I would like to add link to informative (sticky) thread on Flashpoint/Editing and scripting:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....y667780

It contains wery useful information or links to sources. These are Field manuals an so on. This thread is made to give mission editors good informations needed to make realistic missions, briefings and so on. I think it could be useful for OFP2 too - at first for suggestors and at second for BIS mission makers too (perhaps for AI too as it contain manouvers and tactics).

[superskunk 0]

How about a condition level for every human.

We know in ofp a human can get injured, and can die. When you are injured, your aim gets worse. Also when you run a while, and start breathing louder...you aim is worse, untill you have rested enough.

Perfect system, but it could have more improvements, like:

WHen you are a trained soldier you have condition 60 (for example) ... a terrorist or rebel, might be trained littlebit less, so he gets 40-50 condition points. A civilian gets only 20-30 condition points. And special-forces may get even higher points for condition as 60.

The condition points affect the time they can run in straight line, without rest. In ofp, a civilian, with m16 armed, could run same speed, same length, as a trained soldier which isnt the way it is in real life. Ofcourse a soldier has more equipment..but still.

So a civilian should get tired much sooner then a soldier.

Im not sure this will be an improvement or, just irritating for players...but i believe it is a bit more realistic!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Just make the missions seem more like there is a real war going on meaning more ambience.  More of driving through a town and seeing destroyed vehicles, dead bodies, thumbs up, stuff like that.  The battle ambience noises in flashpoint were cheap and not high quality so improve those to sound like a real war.

It would be cool, if you could see the flashes on the horizon at night, just like in Band of Brothers. For example: you and your squad are riding with a hummer, getting closer to the battlefield. The closer you get, the louder the explosions get.

Sounds too much like WWII. The rigidity of the frontline and combat zones have decreased since then.

[funkster 0]

Funnyguy, I think you have some good points.

We all want realism, and CWC was close, but when you think about it, if you REALLY want the experience of a soldier, from what Ive read, 'war is 99% bordem and 1% terror'!

Frankly, most of the time would have you doing guard duty where nothing happens, you might be there for eight hours, and all you do is let a few people in the gate, never once raising your rifle. And then later on, if you've been bad, maybe you'd get a mission where the objective is 'clean the toilet block', yay!

Would a game like this sell? Somehow, I doubt it.

CWC came as close as any game to being realistic, ie, there are long periods without enemy contact, just patrolling etc, and at first this is fine, as one marvels at the ambience of the game and the virtual world BIS has created. But after a while, periods of nothing become quite boring once you feel you know the gameworld.

I think this is great that BIS created a fairly realistic depiction of the soldiers experience, but lets face it, most people do not want to play a mission where there is half an hour of patrolling without enemy contact, maybe a breif firefight, and then another half hour of nothing. Personally, I do.

I think, like funnyguy said, the best option is to have two campaigns, or two play modes. Maybe 'realistic' and 'action'.

In actions mode, you would know that every mission is going to contain, well, action.

In realistic mode, you may spend forty minutes out doing a patrol and never see an enemy and then come home mission completed.

What would REALLY up the suspence though, is if enemy patrols were realistically placed. Eg, you're out in the forest, maybe 10kms or more from the nearest enemy base, but you still happen to run into an enemy patrol, in this way, you could never let your guard down knowing that, just as in real life, an enemy may be anywhere. In Resistance esp., you knew you could totally relax, and not have to even bother taking cover or scanning around, because you would only ever encounter an enemy patrol within 300m of an enemy base - too easy.

Anyway, like all of you, I want more realism, but this must be balanced with exitement, because their needs to be a way to sell copies to the masses, unfortunately!

TWO DIFFERENT PLAY MODES/ OR CAMPAIGNS PLS BIS!!!!

PS, Hi people, first post, been hanging out at Codie's forums. Might start hanging where the real OFP2 lives now!

[OFPDude 0]

funkster wrote

Quote[/b] ]'war is 99% bordem and 1% terror'!

Hmm.....your wars involve dominoes and your grandad ??

I think you got it the wrong way round war is 99% terror/fear and 1% bordem.

[Friedchiken 0]

Funnyguy, I think you have some good points.

We all want realism, and CWC was close, but when you think about it, if you REALLY want the experience of a soldier, from what Ive read, 'war is 99% bordem and 1% terror'!

Frankly, most of the time would have you doing guard duty where nothing happens, you might be there for eight hours, and all you do is let a few people in the gate, never once raising your rifle. And then later on, if you've been bad, maybe you'd get a mission where the objective is 'clean the toilet block', yay!

Would a game like this sell? Somehow, I doubt it.

CWC came as close as any game to being realistic, ie, there are long periods without enemy contact, just patrolling etc, and at first this is fine, as one marvels at the ambience of the game and the virtual world BIS has created. But after a while, periods of nothing become quite boring once you feel you know the gameworld.

I think this is great that BIS created a fairly realistic depiction of the soldiers experience, but lets face it, most people do not want to play a mission where there is half an hour of patrolling without enemy contact, maybe a breif firefight, and then another half hour of nothing. Personally, I do.

I think, like funnyguy said, the best option is to have two campaigns, or two play modes. Maybe 'realistic' and 'action'.

In actions mode, you would know that every mission is going to contain, well, action.

In realistic mode, you may spend forty minutes out doing a patrol and never see an enemy and then come home mission completed.

What would REALLY up the suspence though, is if enemy patrols were realistically placed. Eg, you're out in the forest, maybe 10kms or more from the nearest enemy base, but you still happen to run into an enemy patrol, in this way, you could never let your guard down knowing that, just as in real life, an enemy may be anywhere. In Resistance esp., you knew you could totally relax, and not have to even bother taking cover or scanning around, because you would only ever encounter an enemy patrol within 300m of an enemy base - too easy.

Anyway, like all of you, I want more realism, but this must be balanced with exitement, because their needs to be a way to sell copies to the masses, unfortunately!

TWO DIFFERENT PLAY MODES/ OR CAMPAIGNS PLS BIS!!!!

PS, Hi people, first post, been hanging out at Codie's forums. Might start hanging where the real OFP2 lives now!

I think someone of significance said that "drama is life with the boring parts cut out." Why not give the player the option to place an AI character to do the boring things like march or stand guard as the time scrolls by in an instant?

I think that the game Vietcong had one of the best balances of realism with drama as you controlled your character on all the "exciting" missions while you also had the option of reading about his less fun (but darkly humorous) experiences in his memory book.

(like getting severe swamp foot, patrolling an abandoned sector, getting pissed at the allied indigenous troops, standing in gaurd duty).

In the campaign, you could have a 2d map where you could issue marching plans (optional by difficulty toggle), or other tactical actions that don't involve contact. I'm thinking something like Jagged Alliance's camp management map along with an auto-walk system like in Fallout's world map.

In this map you could do things like arrange an humanitarian aid convoy, train indigenous troops, get an interpretor for villiage elders. Then the game generates the calculations for getting into contact and then a message pops up saying "PFC White: sir, I see someone" or "*contact: ambush*". You take control and investigate. It doesn't need to be the enemy either and you would need to confirm things before you blow away friendlies or civilians with artillery fire.

Keep in mind that this feature is an option and some people might want to experience all the waiting. But many RPGs allow you to set a time to wait with and interrupt you when an enemy crashes your rest.

In a way, I think it would be cool to handle decision-making like in Jagged Alliance 2 where you can do non-combat activities by making turn-based style menu decisions. (training police/rebels, or negotiating with local leaders)

Then we could have single missions that parody the boring things soldiers do like mow the lawn or man a checkpoint kiosk. I think tossing in a Military Police joke would be funny, if irreverent.

(I guess these ideas apply more for a US Army Special Forces style campaign where non-military activities have everything to do with the war at hand.)

[DracoPaladore 0]

I'd like to see more combat patrols or recons that straight out assaults. Meaning your squad moves to a certain sector to secure it, check for enemy, or hold a position until reinforcements arrive. Enemies could be randomly or in set locations to ambush or counterattack depending on what you're doing.

I'd also like to see a larger role in the vehicles, like tanks and aircraft. While they were there, I wish they could be more fluid with the infantry and not clunking around the small village your assaulting on its own (doing its usual spin-move-spin-spin-move stupid duck maneuver) while the infantry are still crawling on their bellies towards the edge under heavy fire from a group of guys still lying prone even after the tank rolled right by them.

[The Frenchman 0]

As far as missions go, I would like at least one checkpoint guarding mission. It would be something similar to the checkpoint mission in the 1969 Vietnam campaign by Spanky G.

[Friedchiken 0]

I'd like to see more combat patrols or recons that straight out assaults. Meaning your squad moves to a certain sector to secure it, check for enemy, or hold a position until reinforcements arrive. Enemies could be randomly or in set locations to ambush or counterattack depending on what you're doing.

I'd also like to see a larger role in the vehicles, like tanks and aircraft. While they were there, I wish they could be more fluid with the infantry and not clunking around the small village your assaulting on its own (doing its usual spin-move-spin-spin-move stupid duck maneuver) while the infantry are still crawling on their bellies towards the edge under heavy fire from a group of guys still lying prone even after the tank rolled right by them.

Patrols and cache raids were authentically depicted in that old game "Seal Team" (1993) by Electronic Arts.

While the enemy at first were just VC irregulars, you needed stealth and weapons discipline in order to overcome your lack of numbers and ammo. Then when you started demolitions missions under the faces of the NVA regulars, that helicopter support you had became very very important, as there were even more enemies that were harder to kill.

For the easier difficulty levels in "NoName", a time compression mode would make a quiet patrol very exciting for the average player as he would jump from one firefight from the next

[fatcroc5 0]

not really on topic here but you need the floowing things integrated into a mission to be realistic:

-dynamic artillery, AI or human

-air strikes

-helo support

-misc support

in real life arty can be called down in seconds, but as far as OFP1 is concerned (with CoC arty) it takes alot longer, and the target may have moved. (or killed you )

[dslyecxi 23]

in real life arty can be called down in seconds, but as far as OFP1 is concerned (with CoC arty) it takes alot longer, and the target may have moved. (or killed you )

This is a Hollywood-induced misperception of yours. "Real-life" artillery behaves basically like what you see in the CoC UA.. you call for fire, they dial it in, load the guns, fire the mission, and then you have to wait for the rounds to fly to your target before you get any of those satisfying booms. That's assuming that you don't fire spotting rounds first to make sure everything's aimed in properly. If you want it faster, you'd better pre-plot some locations for arty so that you can call fire on pre-plotted stuff when the SHTF.

Bear in mind that BIS has developed an extremely high-fidelity artillery simulation for VBS1, so they of all people will have a good idea how the "Real stuff" works. It's up to them whether they simulate it at the same level for us PC gamers..

[smoot 0]

I would like to have the option of choosing what type of role I will have in combat.  

example:

I start the campaign and I then get run through boot camp.

After boot camp I then have a choice of helo Pilot, Jet Pilot, Soldier, Special forces, Tank, Support, sniper, etc.

Lets say I choose Jet Pilot, I then get run through a pilot training camp.  Or if I choose soldier i get run through a training camp geared for soldiers.

After advanced training I then get shipped out to battle and my role through the battle is that of which I enlisted as.  This would give lots of replay value, and make the different classes have more meaning then what they do now.

I think something like this would really make the single player more fun.

[morglor9 0]

We should have real soldier life coming through, not, okay we're on Everon, let's take morton then montignac then the area is secure, oh no it isn't the Ruskies just camcreated a hind. Let's spend more time on islands, so you get to know them, and make friends with civvies while doing checkpoint duty. Let's also have an island where the resistance is working against you, you have to do patrols through sniper towns and bascially live the life of a UN soldier in Kosovo or a British soldier in Northern Ireland, where you are despised, but are trying to help.

That would be cool, but i doubt that the casual gamer would find it very interesting  

well, that may be true, but Flashpoint wasn't really for casual gamers either. too immersive to be for the casuals.

[Jinef 2]

Well it's interesting I said that before BIS announced the new info about the games. We now know there is going to be more interaction with civilians.

Some Operation Types:

Attack

Defend

Patrol

Rear Security

[B.B. 0]

missions where this mission has to do with the results of the last mission.  a strategic campaign with good planning involved.  everything from air drops of supplies and ammunition to special forces missions that the story hinges on to overt missions using regulars.

[Stendac 0]

I hope the next gen game includes two-team coop missions in the online multiplayer. There were coop missions, but it would be cool to have coop type missions with two opposing teams. They would begin at different points on the island and be tasked with retrieving an item from a city guarded by enemy AI. Both teams will by trying to be the break through the enemy AI and be the first to get their item and get out, yet at the same time they will be looking out for the opposing team and doing their best to keep them from completing their mission.

Damn, I guess that isn't really a "coop" anymore.

[berghoff 11]

I don't know if this is mentioned before, but It would be nice to have the ability to create your own "map" instead of the OFP map where you see all trees and bushes located in pinpoint precision. It would be nice to see a handdrawn map.

[funnyguy1 0]

About the campaign...

I would like to see a realistic campaign in therms of real military tactics and events on the battlefield...

I would like to se some kind of priority, or I don`t know, order of warfare...Some operations like precise rocket attacs and bombings are performed before others etc...It`s quite self-evident thing, but well, I just wanted to make sure....

[codarl 1]

I hope the next gen game includes two-team coop missions in the online multiplayer. There were coop missions, but it would be cool to have coop type missions with two opposing teams. They would begin at different points on the island and be tasked with retrieving an item from a city guarded by enemy AI. Both teams will by trying to be the break through the enemy AI and be the first to get their item and get out, yet at the same time they will be looking out for the opposing team and doing their best to keep them from completing their mission.

Damn, I guess that isn't really a "coop" anymore.

already possible in ofp...

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Rear security missions appeal to me, but I also like "chewing-the-fat" kinds of missions.

I once made one where you went on a small patrol, had a chat with the lads, and then drove a truck to a main base. Once there, a bit of reward-orientated target practice finished off the mission. Got 8/10 at OFPEC, and not one enemy killed.  

As for new ideas, I would like to start editing with Game2 right away, to make a "better-than-original" campaign. I hope to see some resupply missions, as well as even...

...a drag your wounded comrade to safety will occasionally dropping him and returning fire kind-of-scenario.

[firedude_edd 0]

I always thought a dynamic campaign would be good. Anything can happen during missions, you might go on a patrol and find nothing, and whilst returning to base you run into a tank battallion heading towards the base.

Yes, it would be nearly impossible to do such a thing(although it has been used in Flight Simulators like Falcon 4.0, where events including ground forces occured in real-time around you).

Maybe randomizing missions? Give a number of different events that randomly get added during the mission would be good.

[Stryder 0]

Ideally, you'd have both a dynamic and a scripted campaign (yes, some games do have both)

[funnyguy1 0]

AI generals and commanders should now where and how the can attack. For example, AI should calculate the number of enemy units, and hold the attack/retreat (an I mean the tactical movement not a run for your life).

Particular units should have a morale system that motivates them or makes them flee/panic or surrender (and that should be a completely independent thing of the AI general/commander level, however would be extremely cool if a commander under certain circumstances could surrender a whole squad).

Moreover some templates should be done, like possitions in buildings that are best for mg nests, possitions for rpg`s, possitions for entrenching tanks, guns, possition for snipers.

Templates just like in DMA dynamic missions, "attack a city", "patrol here", "destroy tanks there", "black op here", "hold possition here". Some templates however should be connected together shomehow, (with some randomness) for example if you take a city or a village, the nex night a milita or a resistance could try sneak in and destroy your supplies, ammo or vehicles, or when on patroll you could be ambushed...or no, If the AI commander decides to call support.

Things like convoys, entranching, diging foxholes, creating fire possitions, and minefields, securing important objects such as power plants and bridges, should be automaticall. No matter if player is assigned for such task or no...would be cool also if the campaign had a mode in which you observe the warfare on a detailed map, the AI general or you can give orders and move forces around the map, and you can jump into action wherever and whenever you want.

Taking a large city is a matter of couple days or weeks, and securing it and holding is even harder...the dynamic war system would allow you to stick so long ina one city...That would require months to finish the game...

edit:

Quite important thing imho...

What about some strategic points (places, buildings etc.) on map? I mean points like hospitals, power plants (nuclear ones or water-power station maybe?) oil fields, bridges were mentioned many times, but what about other things?

When entering a city It`s obvious that there are some places/buildings you must secure first like post office, local media office (radio, tv etc). It would add a lot more of  immersion and realism. The economy aspect is very important, and controling those volunerable and important places really helps with your progress.

edit2:

What about ambushes? Would be nice if AI knew how to hide in the foliage or in buildings, and I`m not talking about simply taking cover...What I mean Is to make the AI able to cover so that the enemy couldn`t see them. Both friendly AI and the enemy AI of course. Ambushes would be really messy..

[Stickler 0]

I agree with FunnyGuy. While there should be a back story, someone invades or oppresses then someone else comes in to help or what not, but in the end the fights and progress of the war may change dramatically during the war. I agree that a sort of General AI would be a great implementation. Instead of a Dynamic campaign there could be dynamic objectives. A whole campaign would be hard to create on the fly but if the player were given objectives on the run it would be much easier to give local and immediate information to the player to allow them to execute the objective. Many soldiers may not know exactly what it is they're fighting for or where they will go to next until given further orders after completing objectives. I believe that along with this AI General proposed by FunnyGuy there could be a sort of preset list of priorites that this AI General can create objectives. For example, as mentioned above, a bridge that controls a lot of traffice or is a huge checkpoint to and from a certain objective. Well the AI General may want to attack a speecific place, let's say a power plant, then before that they create a list of prioritized objectives before they can actually get to that power plant. And to get there you must capture and secure the bridge.

I believe, in a multiplayer aspect, that there should be more of an emphasis on class based objectives. For example if a squad was to attack a bridge and secure it, could there be an objective for the engineers in the area to locate and create a sort of defensive structure or barrier in case of a counter attack. I don't mean in the sense of an RTS like construction but let's say an engineer has the ability to create a small sand bag barrier in case a defense is needed for something like a bridge or crossroad. I also believe that if you give these sort of class specific objective it may open up more tactical freedom or choices and allow those who play seemingly minor support roles, like engineers, to actually become involved in the choice making of defending or assaulting. I also would like to be able to set up garrison's or essentially create small field HQ's in the cities based off of existing buildings like an office turned into a fortified position looking over a large intersection in a town. the closest I can come to it look at the garrisoning in Red Alert 2 but from a first person tactical point of view.

[sniper pilot 36]

I belive they should have both, where you could choose between a storyline Battlefield or the Dynamic