Mission ideas

[peanuckle_00 0]

I'd like to see more ww2 style missions but played out using modern weaponry. I like the old ww2 movies where they go on these big adventures throughout europe to do stuff like kill hitler and find gold, kidnap someone from a mansion, then contact a resistance group and get to an airport. I like the long ww2 style adventure missions. I like those and demolitions team missions, conquering bases, and siezing towns. I also occasionally like the surprise mission where you have no idea what to expect because things seem so normal and then you end up in some big side mission. Oh yeah!!

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @ 06 May 2003,00:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

You need COOP MISSIONS

[Xenios 0]

Two very basic things I would change about missions: First, no more missions that don't end until every single enemy is dead--and the last guy is wounded and hiding and you're never gonna find him. Let the AIs be smart enough to know when they're beat and when it's time to get the hell out of Dodge. Let a retreating enemy count as a victory.

Second, if there's another semi-dynamic campaign in which you must collect arms and resources (ala Viet Cong): When the mission goals have been met, don't end the mission suddenly and automatically. Let me end by pressing ESC or something, after I've collected all the booty from the defeated enemy. And if I dawdle too long, maybe enemy reinforcements start showing up. And if I want to throw in the towell and admit I can't win this mission by pressing ESC, let that count against me in a semi-dynamic campaign.

Of course I would love to see a fully dynamic campaign, but I can't think any game that has pulled this off successfully yet. Even attempts at doing this with persistent online worlds, like WWII Online haven't worked out as promised.

[vortex3d 0]

Dynamic campaingns make more sense since all the wars have been pretty much played out. It's great to play the game and not know where you're going to be sent next.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MP Studio @ 24 April 2003,19:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That wouldn't be realistic  

A soldier cant do what he wants...<span id='postcolor'>

But a soldier has to do whats needed to accomplish the mission.

[Jinef 2]

All within parametres of course and without risking casualties proportionate to the damage inflicted.

[Cannon Fodder 0]

I suppose it all comes down to whether you felt like you made a difference to the outcome of the game. Blowing a bridge to slow an enemy advance in one mission, for example, could prevent resupplying and weaken their forces in another mission. I fully support a completely dynamic campaign with a presistant set of soldiers in your platoon, each with a particular vocal style and appearance, so you can recognise those under your command / in command. This would add immeasurably to immersive nature of Flashpoint.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

I think scripted/predesigned campaigns usually have the most immersive atmospheric feel, but at the same time I think there's always this feeling of being forced through an obstacle-course, i.e. a linear, predefined chain of events.

On the other hand, totally random missions, generated by the computer often feel "pointless" to fight, because after all, it's just another random battle with no actual purpose. The uniformity also grants less Kodak-moments somehow.

I kinda like the mid-way path BIS seems to have struck. The mission objective is storybased and predesigned, yet there's enough of alternative paths within the mission itself, to play it out differently. Some of the official campaign's missions can easily be solved in 10-20 entirely different ways, yet the objective has meaning to the storyline. Sure, your kill ratio will not affect the next mission's starting conditions, but will atleast give you a nice scoresheet to take screenshots of, at the end of the mission

[whisperFFW06 0]

I totally agree...

BTW, OT, nice to see you here, Gimbal

Whis'

[BronzeEagle 2]

I think it'd be a neat idea to mimic one of those missions from those sixties and fifties era ww2 movies where they go on long journeys to destroy bridges and wreck train tracks or possibly steal some papers. I think it'd be a cool idea to go deep into enemy territory to meet up with a militia and have to use a multiple choice option thing to negotiate an alliance. That'd be neat.

[Crazysheep 1]

They had some non-linear paths on OFP, such as the mission where you attack montignac for the first time. If you fail, you get that mission where you start in the truck and then go to fight in the village, before losing and getting rescued by the Resistance....however, if you took montignac, you could go on and then your team dies and you wake up alone in the woods, deep in enemy territory......more missions like that would be good.

[BronzeEagle 2]

How about if you go on an air mission you can get captured for parachuting into an enemy village.

[mmtt 0]

Well, I would like campaigns like the ones you can find in Falcon 4.0.

At start, you can choose if you want to attack enemy air forces, tanks, troops or cities and where to strike mainly(as it is in Korea, it will mainly be defend Seoul and the frontline).

Once campaign stared, HQ shows different types of mission, CAS, BOI, SEAD, Strike... You can then modify it(waypoints, objectives), load up your plane.

Once mission achieved, depending on your results, your success in your squadron may shorten the war or make you lose it. Though it's mainly your squadron which is affected. After each missions or events, a small update appears on the screen showing the last offensive, bombings.

Operation Flashpoint could use such dynamic campaigns a less extent. It is hard work but you are really into the war as you see the Reds armored columns rolling past your lines and threatening the capital. Thus, in a bold move, you could blow up the bridge to stop dead cold their advance, try an insertion mission on a fuel depot or simply counter attack calling artillery support and the tanks.

That would give entertainment for all, those who likes covert ops or big assaults to answer a problem.

Though, those dynamic campaigns are more adapted to Air Combat simulators and are not the best to play into a story.

(Sorry for my losy English)

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

Im going to quote Marek Spanel from a interview made before (!) Operatione Flashpoint was in "Beta stage"

Quote[/b] ]We wanted to create a fully dynamic campaign, originally. But the time showed us it wasn’t the best way to go. We needed to create more immersive feeling and the computing power is still so limited. We had to go for more conventional design and use almost normal campaign. Anyway, there are still non-linear features in the campaign structure. But it’s not the real dynamic campaign we’ve dreamed about. However, thankfully to this change there’s an easy to use mission editor built-in the game and I think this is much more fun and opens the gamers endless opportunities to create, play and share hundreds and thousands of completely different missions and campaigns and this is great value.

This was when the minimum system requirements were expected to be PII-300 with a Voodoo2. Anyway This shows that BIS was/is interested in dynamic campaigns.

[cornhelium 0]

Hi

I think Longbow2 & EF2000 could be good reference points on the question of structure vs. freedom in dynamic campaigns.

1. Longbow 2

The focus on the LB2 campaign was the front line, and concerted forward thrusts were the events that moved the campaign along and gave it structure. In your Apache you would fly seek and destroy/interdiction/insertion escort missions behind enemy lines while ground forces consolidated for the next big push, and the enemy would be doing the same.

If a division was weakened enough by attacks, it would not be in a position to make an advance, which made your actions behind enemy lines worthwhile. If a division on your side was left unweakened by attack for long enough, it would prepare to make a forward thrust to some tactical strongpoint* behind enemy lines, and nearly all flyable missions for that day would be Close Air Support over the advance.

Also there seemed to be some pre-scripted missions that were thrown in at certain points in the campaign (maybe just xx number of days in), and had to be completed (this would be stuff like supporting a Spec-Ops raid on a bunker or prisoner rescue at a fortified base).

It felt like a pretty small-scale war; semi-dynamic compared to something like Falcon 4.0, visible activity was sparse, and it got repetitive. Despite all this the detailed text reports, crew rosters, rookies progressing to Aces etc. made it feel more alive and immersive than any other sim at the time. I guess it boils down to how much of the inherent complexity in a dynamic system you want to make apparent to the player.

The great Enemy Engaged games have model, truly dynamic, campaigns, but the nature of the interface conversely makes it harder to get immersed in the business of being a chopper pilot...You can watch frigates moving offshore/enemy jets taxiing to the runway as easily as you can choose a mission with any Commanche/Apache/Havoc/Hokum unit and fiddle with your FLIR, but you never really attach to your base, unit, crew or bird and consequently, a lot of the tension of facing the unknown is lost.

* Not sure if these strongpoints were a pre-defined sequence, or determined dynamically in response to intelligence gathered about the enemy (Obviously the latter would be nice!). Either way, the great thing about them was they had detailed enough text summaries to make it seem that the Plan was the very core of the game, not the Arena (Enemy Engaged).

...Text tells a story, and so do cutscenes - maybe cutscenes/conversations between generals could replace the text summaries attached to strongpoints? For example:-

Attack on a fortified hill position in the Ia Drang valley, Intro:

Generals discuss the importance of the position from their bunker while the camera shifts to a Firebase where artillery open up, moving to the hill and down into the tunnels beneath and the face of the enemy commander in his planning room.

End sequence:

Narration from your Platoon leader's diary as the sun sets over your camp ("Charlie company down xx%, assault failed on Hill xxx, 1st Platoon dug in on lower ridge, air support is poor since use of LZs xx and xx were lost due to enemy advance etc."),the camera shifting to burnt-out foxholes, APCs etc. at the battle scene. A tiger drinks from the river, and the enemy moves through the jungle as the stars look down...

2. EF2000

Still an incredible sim/game (the Windows version is freeware now).

One of the great things about it was the mission maker embedded within the dynamic campaign. The automated mission planner was a bit limited (this was in 1995/6), and would send many AI flights to their death by plotting waypoints over Anti-Aircraft sites etc, but the mission maker meant that if enough planes were available you could plan your own simple mission, complete it, then stay active for as long as you wanted. Coming to a dead stop on any Allied runway automatically rearmed/refuelled you, and you could go on and on, clearing out SAM sites, hitting bridges, factories, parked aircraft etc. until you started tipping the balance single handed. Hardly realistic, but easily the most fun I've had with a game before OFP.

I know this isn't a good premise on which to create a campaign engine - the automated planner should be good enough that the player doesn't need to step in and correct mistakes. However, in the context of a dynamic OFP campaign, the option to create your own missions would be a great way of getting a quick fix of dynamic action, a bit like the current mission editor only with all the enemy/non-player activity done for you!

Eg. If you want some seek and destroy action in the jungle, set your squad a patrol objective, assign a firebase for artillery/illumination, then go hunting; If spec-ops is your thing, take a SEAL team on aggresive recon, maybe you'll capture an officer and extract to an LZ; If you're a shit-hot chopper pilot, take out that AAA site that's giving the bombers a hard time; etc.

I'm contradicting myself of course - with #1 I'm asking to be part of a focused and structured war effort, and with #2 I'm asking for the ability to opt out and do my own thing!

I guess I'm trying to say that; #1 describes the priorities I'd want BIS to focus on in a dynamic campaign, while #2 would be a nice concession to the seasoned player that wants a change, or the my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy/girl

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]That wouldn't be realistic

A soldier cant do what he wants...

This is true, however, the initial plan never survives first contact. I have had missions go to complete sh!t because an AI squad failed to take out some armor. The ability to improvise would be great, since OFP is styled to go where ever you want, when you want. I'm able to do this in the original game somewhat (hence my nick name), but if mission structures were a bit more open ended, it would be cool.

[metto 0]

This would be very important in OFP2. We must have frontlines. Every town should be manned (doesn't lag if the engine creates soldiers in the village only after you are close, and deletes, when you are far). I hate in original game, you have the mission to seize a town. You don't go there, instead you look around the island: All other towns are empty and you can even visit Guba's house without anyone disturbing you.

[Hara Kiri 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, dude - making the gameplay a bit more dynamic would be increasing your freedom of doing whatever you want to achieve your main goal.

But on the other hand it might confuse some people who simply don't know what to do and how to do next things..

And all of you who had played Hitman knows what that can be in worst.

[Gollum1 0]

Cornhelium, you won´t mind if I post your great mission idea from the "animals" thread?

Quote[/b] ]I read an awesome book, can't remember the name or author right now, but it was a guy who was brought in by the Indian government to hunt down maneating tigers. Apparently a tiger wasn't designated a maneater until it had killed at least 20 or 30 people...

Anyway - this guy used the alarm calls of chital and other wildlife to locate the tiger. Some awesome scenes, like when he moves into a village that's deserted because of the tiger, seeing its tracks all over the place - pure OFP tension! Could do a great mission where you have to win favour with locals by stalking a maneater...

[Commando84 0]

Some air-air fights maybe? That would be cool.

[ABsintheminded 0]

In addition to the single player story game, single missions, and the online play, a "command" campaign would be nice. Instead of a set of missions all predetermined, it could play out like a responsive mission editor, with you in general command of all the troops. Where they go, what their orders are, and when all is said in done, you could have the option to play an individual part in one of your troop movements. So enemy tanks are gathering and preparing to cross a bridge to attack one of your cities. Place your available units, give their orders on the map, and enter the game as, say, a demolitions expert set to destroy the bridge while your troops hold the tanks back. Or a tank commander fighting from the hill behind the line. Let's say that fails, and certain ai-determined objectives are reached by either side, and it'll return to the map for more orders. Now you've gotta retreat, and get ready to defend the city.

Perhaps the command map could be accessed at any time, allowing you to roll with the punches of the war as both commander and soldier at the same time, which could also allow you to take over any position whenever you see fit. This could eliminate the need for "turns" that many large-scale strategy games use.

Something like this seems, in my head, no different from the custom mission option in ofp1, with the addition of a responding enemy ai and a continuity that will let you return to the command map. But, with all the cpu power this game might take, running a full army of units in several places around the whole island could get tricky. Especially with no clear way to cut out whole sections of the map to resolve without actually computing every bullet's trajectory. Unless there is. Which would be cool. Just a thought.

[ABsintheminded 0]

Oh... missions. My bad.

I'd like to see a mission where you are on the line, but you are not there to fight. Perhaps find a certain sergeant in the fight for some reason. Radio is broken, or something. And through the mission, you have the option of fighting, helping certain units where they might need it, or just running in and out and completing your objectives. If you help, -maybe- things go okay. If you don't, lots of guys die. Who knows, with you there they may just win the skirmish hands-down, but you find your man dead. Win-lose situation, yo.

[SnypaUK 0]

MORE HELICOPTER INSERTIONS god those are kickass with all the banter as you look out the window while whizzing over a forest maybe while you hear radio chatter and the pilot and copilot talking eg come right were on radar. you could also make more atmospheric insertions like as you look out the window you watch as the helicopter on your right explodes in a big ball of flames as everyone yells and you hear chopper down!! screamed over the radio. you should also have more door opening animations on choppers as well as people jumping out on both sides of the chopper and hitting the deck

[ethereal 0]

Maybe they should give you only one fixed objective-and I expect this would only work as well with the Spetz Natz-Black Ops missions, a major goal, but you can achieve that goal using any means you deem necessary. Taking it further, there could maybe be consequences for your actions, suck as, maybe if you kill some of the civs then they'll be pissed at you and not help you in a later mission...

[Bruupo 0]

I think the problem of making the game appealing to casual gamers/action gamers is a serious marketting concern.

Which is why making a fully dynamic campaign could easily devolve into micromanagement and minimized cinematic rewards for those types of gamers.

Perhaps a dynamic campaign mode could be unlocked after finishing 20 well scripted, cinematic, semi-dynamic missions. This would get casual gamers used to the game before they attempted tackling a dynamic campaign, and would lower the cinematic expectations for the dynamic mode. The dynamic campaign mode would be seen as a bonus, would not have to be "perfected" to launch the game, and the mod community would have a great opportunity to help the devs flush out the dynamic mode.

There could still be lots of dynamic elements to the scripted missions, some might directly affect further missions- but too much of that would make the game very difficult for anyone who didn't want to stomp around the map looking for every easter egg each mission. Still, the easter eggs are important.

I would really like to see a camera item become important, perhaps the screenshots a player took with their "camera" could be loaded into an intelligence folder. It would be nearly impossible, I imagine, for the game to correlate anything to those screenshots other than where the player was standing at the time they took it, but even a sector based organization of those images could be important to experienced, tactically minded players who want to take a quick picture of an enemy position or installation which they feel they will have to tackle in a future mission. There are probably also ways of rewarding non-combat exploration by experienced players by giving them additional info in their next mission briefing. In short, I think intel objectives make great easter eggs, which have tactical effect, but still don't prevent casual players from succeeding if they only have access to the default mission briefing. The strengths and types of enemies scripted into a future mission don't have to be changed in response to intel side-objectives, but they could in certain circumstances.

Within a Vietnam setting, however, I personally feel that the best balance could be acheived between dynamic and scripted elements by essentially modeling two enemy forces for the player to confront. Regular army forces, such as the NVA, and guerrilla elements, such as the Vietcong. The NVA aspects of the campaign would be the more heavily scripted, and less affected by player success and attention, while the attitude and actions of various guerrilla forces (which could include "allied" Hmong tribesman, etc. in addition to Vietcong) could be much more responsive to player decisions.

This could go as far as allowing the player to decide between accepting a "main" campaign mission and a side mission meant to stave off a future Vietcong attack, by pacifying a village, assisting and cementing a friendly relation with a guerilla group, etc. One aspect I really liked about Vietcong was the way it preloaded the character into the base before the mission was loaded, allowing the player to use the firing range to determine load-out, walk to the HQ to get their briefing, etc. I believe this model could be extended to allow the player to pick his squad right from the barracks of whatever base they were stationed at, but also would allow an excellent opportunity for a dynamic attack by guerrilla forces, when the player least expected it. Particularly if the player has been neglecting guerrilla force objectives in that region.

The key to having a semidynamic campaign of that type would seem to be having default load-outs and "recommended" missions to give casual players a rewarding and successful campaign, while allowing players who want to customize their missions and seek out all the easter eggs to not remove all difficulty from said campaign.

More thoughts later...sorry for the length.