Combined Air-Land-Sea campaign

[Blake 0]

I recently noticed that Falcon 4.0:Allied Force also has Malden (Levkas) on it's Balkans theater:

http://koti.welho.com/amustone/misc/f4malden.jpg

Also, the naval sim Dangerous Waters has 'Malden' on it's global map:

http://koti.welho.com/amustone/misc/dwmalden.jpg

...and then there's our familiar, cozy OFP's Malden (or Maldevic, Al Maldajah and other variations).

http://koti.welho.com/amustone/misc/ofpmalden.jpg

So, there is a kind of golden oppoturnity for some creative people to create a multiplayer campaign based on Air War (F4:AF), Land War (OFP) and Naval War (DW) each affecting the others with some cleverly set out rules.

Things concerning supply flow to land forces, air superiority, tomahawk attacks on stratetigic targets, SEAL raids, rescues of downed pilots etc. come into mind. Possibilities are probably endless but it would need pretty much brainstorming how to use each game's powerful editors to create a sort of 'unified' gaming environment.

I just put out this idea which some might already be thinking, but I dont remember a case in gaming history where you'd have all three elements covered in such an excellent simulators in their respective fields...

[hellfish6 7]

I'm interested. Are you looking to simulate an entire conflict in the Balkans, or just a limited action around Levkas?

There is also the sim "Tacops" which I have that could simulate the larger land battle (and allows up to 20 players in MP). We'd only need to bring in Levkas into the game, which is possible with the map editor.

Edit - I played something similar in scope to this before, the Combat Mission Meta Campaign. My strongest advice to this project is that you don't get bogged down in rules. In the CMMC, it could take 1-3 months just to simulate 6 hours of game time due to the heavy load of rules and the general difficulty associated with PBEM games.

My thoughts are this:

1. DW to run the naval battle (duh)

2. F4AF to run the air battle (duh)

3. OFP to run SpecOps, helo and infantry actions

4. TacOps to run the larger land battles (company to divisional in size).

Subjects to determine:

1. Timeline and background story

2. Teams (NATO vs Serbia?)

3. Orders of battle (who has what and how much)

4. Rules

5. Who will be the game masters/designers?

[Blake 0]

TacOps looks interesting and would probably be essential if one wants to simulate ground combat on a big scale.

But I'd prefer that the action takes place in 'first-person' view in each game and I'd use only three games to simulate these aspects. Adding fourth game would also multiply the complexity and add too much burden for campaign mission designers.

I was thinking maybe 10-30 people could be good amount of players to simulate platoon level action in OFP. 2-6 people for Dangerous Waters and 2-8 for F4:AF. Players could also have dual roles and characters for various games, like naval officers in DW (from Commander to Rear Admiral), 2nd LT -> Colonel in F4:AF and Private -> Captain in OFP. Each branch of arms would have naturally chain of command according to real life.

A web page could track each characters status, promotions, kills etc - like we used to have in 'Kiirastuli' OFP campaign in my squad (which was pretty much limited scope). When player's character dies he's gone for good and player has to enlist with a new one (character could have full name not just some nick). When he's captured (like pilots) he could probably be rescued by ground forces depending on the situation.

Quote[/b] ]1. Timeline and background story

Quote[/b] ]2. Teams (NATO vs Serbia?)

When things get started war should maybe concentrate around Levkas. While part of Greece perhaps that fact could be ignored and treat it as one war-torn part of collapsed Yogoslavia (like Maldevic portrays). Player's side could be US, Russia, Germany...whatever since the campaign structure shouldn't be fixed too much if various squads using variety of mods could play it.

The friendly ground forces would try to retake to island from the paramilitary elements supported by better regular infantry and possibly later by Russian, Albanian, Yogoslavian whatever volunteers with more potent arsenal.

Timeline probably depends on the fact how linear the campaign is supposed to be.

Quote[/b] ]3. Orders of battle (who has what and how much)

The enemy forces should be limited like the player's with some specific strengths in ground forces, air forces and navy. Maybe the 'Levkas' Navy could have only older vessels in the beginning (dozen Osa-II boats, dozen Foxtrots maybe few Kilos and perhaps Grishas or Koni Frigate as flagship). Air Forces could consist of older aircraft like MiG-21s and 23s and few top of the line MiG-29s plus Mi-8s and some Mi-24 attack helos. Land forces could be divided to militias performing mostly defensive duties and guarding on the island (with some light armor and AKs) and regular forces which would be more mobile and do more demanding fighting (with maybe T-72s and better weapons).

Later on when the Levkas would get more outside support, they'd get volunteers with better weapons and skills (Su-27s, Akulas and T-80s for example).

Players would also have limited amounts of naval vessels, aircraft, supplies and men which would not be instantly replaced just like the enemy forces.

Maybe 2-8 players F-16s would fly at one time in F4:AF, 2 subs and maybe two Frigates max in DW and 10-30 men plus 1 helo and couple of vehicles max in OFP.

Maybe Levkas could be divided into sectors in OFP, each holding it's own strategic targets. Militias would guard these sectors while regular forces would mostly do the counter-attacking and defense of key installations. All these installations, like ports, airfields, radar stations etc. would be predetermined before the campaign starts.

Quote[/b] ]4. Rules

SUPPLY

Ground Forces on the island would be dependent on supply flow. The supplies would arrive by ships and supplies consist of tanks, ammunition and fuel.

At first, the players ground troops would make a landing on Levkas and their first objective should be to occupy to port to enable supply flow. Once first port is captured they'd get an APC as a reward and maybe few more weapons.

Every supply convoy (in Dangerous Waters) would consist of

fuel tanker and cargo ship. If fuel tanker is sunk in DW, the players in OFP would not get fuel to their APC or vehicles. If cargo ship is sunk, players would get only reduced ammo in OFP. If any of the ships is sunk twice in a row, supply situation would fall even more drastically, down to a mag per rifle for example. In that way OFP players would be dependant on naval warfare in DW.

I probably would not count captured weapons and ammo as 'core' weapons. They should vanish after the battle and should not be counted in the land battle. If a strategic target like ammo dump of fuel dump is captured the players would get temporary relief to their supply situation.

Supplies could also be airlifted (F4:AF) when players in OFP capture airfield on Levkas.

Enemy supply flow could be disrupted especially when foreign powers begin to support Levkas' government with more advanced weapons. They could be then hunted down in predetermined missions in F4:AF and DW.

CHARACTER RULES

Players can have multiple characters, naval officer for DW, pilot for F4:AF and soldier for OFP (Pvt. John Smith, CMDR John Doe for example). Each character will follow the chain of command according to his branch of service. Promotions and decorations could be awarded by recommendations passed to some of the lead players in the campaign.

When a character dies, player will have to re-enlist with a lower rank character. Dead character will be then moved to unit history web page along with cause of death and other info. If the dead player had a leader role, a surviving player from the outfit will be promoted to his place so 'more experienced' and willing old hands will lead so there's a bit of role playing involved.

Death in Dangerous Waters occurs when a vessel is destroyed. The player (along with the crew) is considered captured if the vessel is immobilized far from friendly military vessels.

In F4:AF death occurs when aircraft is destroyed and player has failed to eject. If a player ejects far from friendly lines he's considered captured. If the pilot had considerable rank or some sort of specific value, a rescue operation in OFP could be perhaps mounted (dual role players will play their OFP character). A rescue operation would only consist of OFP players which would volunteer to it, not to entire OFP player contigent.

Dying in OFP occurs 'the usual way'. Player could probably be captured if he's left legless behind enemy lines while other players have gone to retreat area.

I'm not sure how getting wounded would be implemented, since players probably dont want to spend missions recovering from their wounds.

Needless to say people should be mature enough not to disconnect when things look bad to avoid getting their beloved characters killed or captured...

GENERAL GAMEPLAY

The campaign should probably have 2-3 key game leaders (which could also play it) to keep track of enemy losses, create missions and make random events.

The campaign gameplay would naturally consist of air, sea and land war sections. One mission per pre-specified evening should be enough, but sometimes on weekends it could also be possible to play all three types of missions in one evening.

The supply phase would be constant cycle which would make up to 50% of DW gameplay - the convoy escort missions. Air forces would take over some supply escort tasks once airport is captured by ground forces.

If possible many of the missions should be premade with room for ajustments at the last minute if needed. If none of the missions are made beforehand there's always the risk of cancellation at the last minute and people will get frustrated.

The game area in OFP could be divided into sectors with some strategic locations, power stations, radars, ports, army bases etc. The Air Force, Navy and Ground troops could each have overall commanders which would decide together which sectors and targets to attack. Land forces could only attack sectors which they are bordering and sector access could be limited by road network. Tomahawk strikes from subs and Air attacks however could be launched to any location regardless of the borders in OFP map. Sectors in OFP would be always guarded by some enemy units, mostly militias and AA but key locations could be guarded by better regular troops. The regular troops would also make a counter-attack once players capture a sector. The ferocity of the counter-attack would depend on the importance of the sector's strategic installations. Counter-attacks could be harassed, even prevented if enough destruction is inflicted, by air forces with CAS sorties on their mission phase. Air Forces could also have preliminary bombardment missions against enemy ground units preceding the attack of friendlies in OFP.

Most of the attack missions in OFP could be premade with core defenses put in place in each sector plus fixed installations.

Retreat should be an option because getting entire squad killed in OFP would make the players loose the sector and reduce the quality and amount of weapons.

Anyways, the harders part probably is to find balance, not to make missions too hard or too easy.

The battle cycle could be something like this:

Day 1: DW - Landing of Navy SEALS to destroy coastal battery and AAA weapons

Day 2: F4AF - Preliminary bombardment of sector on SE tip of Malden to destroy tanks and men (If Navy seal landing fails in DW the AAA is still active)

Day 3: OFP - Landings and securing of the beachead in SE malden (If bombardment fails tanks are still active and enemy infantry in full strength while coastal battery and AAA are also active if DW mission has failed)

Day 4: DW - Naval Battle against Malden's Navy which tries to bombard beachead

Day 5: F4AF - Air Superiority mission over Malden (potential AA from ships if DW phase has failed)

Day 6: OFP - Defense of the Beachhead against Maldenese Army regulars (shells from ships rain on players if naval battle in DW fails and enemy aircraft bombard if Air Superiority has failed)

[hellfish6 7]

What about we start walking before we start running? Maybe a handful of ships/subs, a battalion for each side and a squadron of aircraft for each side.

This will provide the ability to work slow and small first so that rules can be refined and systems worked out. Maybe 6-10 players at first. Everyone should have at least two roles in the beginning - either air or naval, ground or command, etc.

[Blake 0]

Yes you are right, I just put out some general suggestions.

Then again, if we have some simple rules first then it's easier to start and expand. If there's not some genuine interaction with each sim people probably get bored soon. And it's not fun to play if there are just piles of missions made ad-hoc eg. 'what has he come up this time'...

I would love to get going and playing right now...the question are there enough willing Dangerous Waters and F4:AF players in OFP community?

[shinRaiden 0]

Hate to be the reminder (not bearer, been posted elsewhere iirc) of bad news, but Malden is ~25% the size of Levkas, which would probably end up confusing the heck out of some of your planning.

That said, if there was true multi-sim interoperability capability, that would be by far the coolest thing ever for sim games, at least until Game2 introduces the functionality hooks needed to end all competition.

[Blake 0]

I think this is not the case where 'Size does matter'. F4AF and DW have only limited detail of Malden/Levkas when compared to OFP but all thins I mentioned in 'Battle Cycle' example at the bottom of my above post are easily done with each game's powerful editor, I think it could be tested once missions get done...

[hellfish6 7]

How about this for an initial scenario:

Year is 1996. One team is NATO, the other team a group of Serbian seperatists on Levkas.

NATO has a battalion drawn from SFOR (one American, one German, one French and one British company). Additionally, they have two Perry-class frigates and one 688i Sub. The USAF has dedicated four F-16C fighters to support the operation. Additional elements are one SEAL team and one USAF PJ team with two HH60s. SEALs can be based off of frigates or off of the SSN.

Serbians have one company-sized force of militia with some armor. They defend Levkas. They additionally have one OSA II class PGM and one Kilo SSK, plus an Mi8, Mi24 and two MiG-21s.

Levkas itself has three main Serbian supply facilities, and one ex-Yugoslavian naval base (where the Osa and Kilo are normally stationed). There is one section of two SA-11 SAMs to guard the island as well as SA-7s and a battery of six ZU-23-2s.

While Serbian forces are outnumbered and outgunned, they get bonus "victory" points for casualties inflicted onto the NATO forces, reflecting the lack of willingness of NATO nations to suffer losses in an unpopular police action.

Whichever team has the most victory points at the end of the campaign wins.

OFP addons required, with the above force structures, could be as follows:

Combat! HMMWVs and M2 Bradleys

Laser or HYK US infantry

MMP German infantry and vehicles

OpFrenchpoint infantry and vehicles

Edge's Resistance guerillas (or maybe the new CSLA ones?)

Sigma6's T-72s (for M84s)

RHS T55s

BKM (?) SA-11

and more, depending...

The overall game master can determine intelligence for both sides. If the F-16s overfly the island in F4, the game master might be able to provide NATO with intel that the F-16s saw tanks massing near one of the towns.

If the NATO naval commander parks an OH Perry too close to the coast, we can plant a ship in OFP off the island and see if the Serbians can attack it with mortars or ATGMs.

There's lots of possibilities...

[Blake 0]

Sounds good. Levkas and surrounding waters/airspace alone is too small for air and naval action, I like the idea of adding more Yugoslav/Adriatic territory to the operation. Intel and hazards to shipping near the coast are also nice ideas.

I must admit I was initially thinking of a cooperative campaign since things can get hairy when you put up two human teams against each other in so many sims, there's bound to be a hell of a debate on game balance and moreover F4:AF lacks playable MiGs. So, I'd rather have a couple of 'renegades' aiding the AI on the Serb etc. side in OFP and DW so there would not be worries about making each side balanced on the field, their job would just be to put up a hell of a fight against NATO invaders and watch them sweat.

One problem in human vs. human fights is also that the mission maker probably wants to play too so when he has some clue, despite randomizations, of the enemy's position and objectives he gets unfair advantage. Playing against AI mostly it wouldn't matter that much.

If AI is included, there could be probably a batallion of militia, assigned to on separate local defence platoons guarding towns and facilties, generally in static defence and patrol duties (around 600 men). Regular army could probably consist of a tank batallion (two companies of T-55s and two of T-72s, forty tanks altogether), two co of mech infantry with BTRs or BMPs and an infantry batallion plus supporting units, totalling around 1000 men. While the numbers appear big the campaign is going to last weeks of real time and total maybe 15-20 missions per simulation. The enemy could only get more tanks by cargo ships which in turn could then be sunk by F4:AF pilots or skippers in DW.

In OFP the AI could have max. of one company of infantry or couple of platoons on the field in biggest battles, perhaps 3-6 tanks or APCs.

Keep em coming...

[hellfish6 7]

Ohh... I see. Co-op is cool too. In some ways I actually prefer it to PvP.

Yeah, let's do co-op. We can model Serbian stuff in F4AF and DW, but I think the ground conflict should be limited to Malden. Unless the SEALs are used to take out SAMs near the Serb coastline.

[Blake 0]

Ground war definately only on Malden/Maldevic/Levkas whatever In DW however you can insert SEALs wherever you like but it would then have to reflect to the war on Malden then. Same goes for deep strikes into Yugo territory, surely strikes to a powerstation would be nice to fly but it should also affect the war on Malden, maybe some powercuts on towns there so NATO can use it's overwhelming night vision technology But seriously there should be some consequence on each action, even a remote one...

So maybe this thing ought to get rolling, if there are no other volunteers I perhaps put up a few test missions this week and see how things are getting together on the field in multiplayer. It would be nice to know though are there many DW or F4:AF owners on this forum...

EDIT: Oops, almost forgot - Everon (Krk) is on F4:AF Balkans and Dangerous Waters too:

http://koti.welho.com/amustone/misc/f4everon.jpg

http://koti.welho.com/amustone/misc/dweveron.jpg

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

What you guys are talking about is VERY similar to a concept introduced around the time F4 was released. Only you have taken to it to another level.

It's funny that the ideas from F4 can only be realised using current technology and already you guys are coming up with ideas that might not be ready for a couple of years.

Basically, they were pushing something called the "Electronic Battlefield" series, which in theory looked GREAT on paper.

You would buy Falcon4 which had the dynamic campaign, and there was talk of selling separate products such as an A-10 sim and M1Abrams sim that would "plug in to" the electronic battlefield.

So in theory, you were supposed to be in a tank and could have your buddy assigned to a dynamic campaign mission that would offer you CAS. Now, OFP came along and implemented that to a degree. You could be a grunt or tank and have buddies watch over you (albeit with less flight sim qualities available).

But imagine tying in all these elements with a server that runs a persistent, 24/7 campaign like F4 does. Where you can pick missions as grunts, ships, planes or armor.

That would rock! Even if you guys are dreaming in this thread, I am right there dreaming along with you

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

You guys got me started. I read before about the rules associated with getting shot down in F4:AF.

But...imagine having a game where you fly as the pilot, get shot down and then escape and evade while you call on the radio for a SAR mission. This mission gets generated by the server and assigned to a unit, which like in F4, can be computer controlled or taken on by a human player. Missions get assigned to a helo crew but also the CSAR crew and a human can either play the role of the helo or the grunts rescuing. This would truly rock!

I would love to see the dynamic war campaign module of F4 being implemented in a broader sense for a product as powerful as OFP.

The gameplay possibilities are very exciting.

[hellfish6 7]

Ah yes, the Electronic Battlefield. I remember that with stars in my eyes. Such a great concept was, inevitably, doomed to failure. Microprose intended Gunship III, M1 Tank Platoon III, an A-10 sim and Falcon 5 to work on an integrated battlefield. Unfortunately, and somewhat inexplicably, Microprose, one of the greated game publishers in history, tanked and got bought out by Hasbro.

This was Hasbro's first move into the gaming industry, IIRC, and they had no idea what they were doing. They dumbed down Gunship III, renamed it "Gunship!", and not suprisingly the game tanked. Hard. M1TP3 (err... "Tank Platoon!") was pretty far in development when the decision to scrap the entire thing was decided, and the Electronic Battlefield died.

I haven't heard anything similar in scope or scale coming down the pipeline.

[hellfish6 7]

Some interesting articles on this topic:

Janes World War

Quote[/b] ]A few weeks ago, Janes released a press statement in which they announce their new online war concept, called "World War" Plans are to use their next release USAF as a beta for the World War concept. This is the next big step to a virtual battlefield. Here's their press release:

Falcon 4 and the EBS

Quote[/b] ]Four or more years ago Microprose started the development of Falcon 4.0. From the very start Microprose has had big plans for F4. We all know that the original plans of Microprose is/was to create a Electronic BattleField series (EBS) in which the player could have a choice of controlling many or almost any type of unit in the sim. Obviously this can not all be done in one release due to development cost, time, and CD space. However, they released the game early (maybe due to Christmas sales) and the sim was far from complete. This is obviously the reason that the sim had so many bugs in the beginning. Yes, yes, I know, this is just old news. Now, lets talk about the past patches.

About M1 Tank Platoon 3 and Gunship 3

Quote[/b] ]This may be the first serious attempt at a real cross-platform "electronic battlefield" and the armored battlefield seems to be a logical first step. How much expandability will the M1TP3/GS3 world have for future products?

Right now we're focused completing and polishing these upcoming titles, so it's unfair to speculate on what's down the road. I would have to say though that lateral expansion of the battlefield is more likely than any future vertical expansion.

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

Great stuff dragging that out Hellfish. Such great concepts.

It would be great to have a persistent campaign server for OFP. With the advent of MMORPGs I truly believe we are at a point where the technology and programming techniques are there. The problem will be that it will not be able to make money like the RPGs and therefore no one will spend dollars making it.

Another argument for why we need an open source project for the killer FPS game......hey...I can dream can't I?

[hellfish6 7]

WWII Online did it. I'd like to see BIS do it.

[Blake 0]

Electronic Battlefield...I remember reading about it back in 1991 before Falcon 3.0 was released. Too bad it never saw the light of day.

While WW2 online was immersive when it came out it quickly lost it's appeal for me. Probably because the flight simulation is not as good as IL2, the infantry stuff is lightyears behind OFP. The tank fights though are probably the best there are in WW2 market but it was still too limited to be a sim of it's own. Overall, the war was too much about respawning in various vehicles again and again. Admittedly, it can be a lot of fun when there are dedicated players fighting it out together for common objective. Then again, when you've just taken a city with 30 guys then go to sleep, in the morning you see that the town has changed hands because a single infantry guy playing on a different time zone has retaken it...a handicap on 24/7 servers in my opinion. Not very realistic when you think of decisive battles and campaigns in WW2.

Anyways, I've done couple of missions for Dangerous Waters and Falcon 4:AF to the cooperative 'joint-sim' campaign. Still a few more for OFP then it should be ready for testing.

[Blake 0]

We've been playing a mini campaign called 'Operation Dangerous Falcon' with my squad (Kyllikki) so far it has been OK except attendance to F4:AF portions of it has been neglible. The story is basically about overstretched US military stuck in conflicts in Iraq and with Iran & possibly North-Korea. Taking advantage of dissent in EU and US troubles elsewhere, the nationalists in Serbia arrange a coup and start supporting slavic rebels in Maldevic...and NATO gets sucked in unprepared and with limited resources.

The campaign is played with simple rules - there are four variations of each OFP mission A,B,C,D. A is uploaded to the OFP server if Dangerous Waters and F4:AF portions both succeeded, B if F4 was OK but DW failed, C if F4 failed and DW was OK and finally D is loaded if both F4 and DW failed (The worst alternative and harders for OFP ground forces to tackle with). Then you repeat the playing cycle F4:AF->DW->OFP once the ground mission is passed.

Not very dynamic, but at least it allows all maps to be done before the whole thing starts. I might put it up for download once we finish it...

Some shots of campaigning over here:

Falcon 4 - Allied Force

Dangerous Waters

OFP

[hellfish6 7]

I'm semi-functional in F4:AF now and I'd be willing to give MP missions a shot.

[Blake 0]

Great, we'll probably fly around 16 GMT or so next sunday. You are most welcome to join. I'll PM you details as soon as they're decided.

[hellfish6 7]

That will probably be doable - I might have to get out of bed before noon, though.      Will there be a TS/RW/Ventrillo server available and will there be English speakers? My Finnish is non-existant...  

I was just thinking. Given what we know about Armed Assault, especially the JiP capability, it might be VERY possible to create a kind of mini-WWIIOL experience, where there's a server up 24/7 with people coming and going as they can and fighting a combined air-land-sea campaign. Of course, this can be made simpler with some engine limitations lifted or improved (larger naval vessels, improved simulator experiences in aircraft) but it would help negate the need to play over three different games.

Edit: Oh, and I've got DW as well, but I've hardly ever played it.

[Blake 0]

There are probably only 2 other pilots flying, im sure english and TS are no problem

JiP would really allow oppoturnities, but I'm affraid AA won't have any improved vehicle physics or handling let alone simulation. But it would also be cool to play a role in 'different branch of arms' or so...

[hellfish6 7]

Cool. Don't expect me to be able to fly in formation. I do know how to land, though.

[JAP 2]

I got my original copy of F4 lying around somewhere ...

Can you post a list of links of all the stuff i need to patch/update an original install of falcon, or is it waaaaay too long ?

Been meaning to reinstall a few times now over the years but when visiting the Falcon forums and seeing the downloads just makes my courage to do it sink into my boots.

I ll have to practice i guess ... give me a few days and i will have got the engine started.

Does anyone need someone to help with MP Missions for OFP ?

Anyway, lemme know about the falcon downloads, only the essential stuff or things you think you ll need that to make it better.

Greetz,

JAP