GDCE2 for AA

[kutya 0]

GDCE2 (Generic Dynamic Campaign Engine 2)

progress: 11%

developed by: The Fronline Assembly

sides: default AA, primary development for west side

date: present day (2006)

map: Sahrani

addons needed: most probably the Mapfact radio and some military symbols

release date: humanity will be extinct until then

description: a brand new version of GDCE, with totally reworked structure and gameplay. No promises, but everything placed on the map should have it's purpose, no eye candy.

This thread is about GDCE2. This thread will be used for discussion about it, until it is released. This will be similar to the GDCE thread in "OFP: addons & mods" discussion. Always check this first post of the thread about progress update.

For now, GDCE2 is in a project phase. If the plans will be realized in practice, it will have much greater depth than GDCE. Some of the new AA scripting possibilities are helping in this. It would be harder for conversion, because of great attention to detail. More info in the future.

Everyone's ideas are welcome. Just please give constructive ideas about a dynamic campaign, not about AA.

The Frontline Assembly is:

kutya - lead designer and almost everything else

Asso - support, beta testing, and many more

[kutya 0]

(reserved)

[colligpip 0]

Glad to hear that G.D.C.E. is being worked on for AA

Here are a few rambling thoughts about a Dynamic War -

Games that have good dynamic campaigns

1. il 2

2. Falcon 4

3. Commanche vs Havoc (EECH)

4.silent hunter 3 has a good campaign as well.

Of these Falcon 4 is the best with a whole war with supply chains and critical targets to knock out. The war runs in real time with multiple missions being genereated by the AI, the player picks one of these missions and the outcome of each mission affects the whole war with battle lines moving backwards and forwards depending on how well the player is doing. ( I supose it is kind of like a CTI but without so much building of bases and on a massive scale)

Could a front line style war be simulated with G.D.C.E. by having the  missions affect a real time front line - you do well the front line moves foward you do badly the enemy advance  could this be done with G.D.C.E?

I have played falcon 4 for years and long for a similar ground sim - is this posible in ofp. I also like the way in EECH (heli sim)you have certain high value targets that if you take out radically effect the dynamic war (this is in G.D.C.E already)

Basically I would like Missions + an ongoing realtime  frontline that shifts back and foward depending on your skill at missions.

I hope these ideas arn't to far fetched for the AA engine just a few thoughts really.

I hope G.D.C.E has some sort of multiplayer co-op this time hint hint.

[kutya 0]

I was just in a middle of a dogfight in IL2 when you mailed

Actually there were 4 titles that made me developing GDCE:

- Falcon 4.0 & F4:AF

- IL2 (especially DCG)

- Total Air War (an older DID title)

- Gunship (an old heli sim, that maybe the older players remember)

My thinking is similar to yours. I found that I want to play a dynamic war, but on ground. I suppose that flight sim players are in general more serious than FPS players (don't flame me). I don't say there aren't serious players in the FPS genre, but they're a minority. Most casual players won't even touch flight sims, because "it's so hard" (same for OFP). So I think that's the reason why FPS lacks dyn camps. I hope we'll change that.

Quote[/b] ]Of these Falcon 4 is the best with a whole war with supply chains and critical targets to knock out. The war runs in real time with multiple missions being genereated by the AI, the player picks one of these missions and the outcome of each mission affects the whole war with battle lines moving backwards and forwards depending on how well the player is doing. ( I supose it is kind of like a CTI but without so much building of bases and on a massive scale)

I thinked similar, but:

- you wouldn't choose from missions, since you're a regular squad leader. You're given a mission whether you like it or not. (from start I had a regular grunt on my mind - that got promoted to a squad leader )

- no offense, but IMO CTI is more like an RTS in OFP engine. Well, I don't like RTS's. If Falcon4 is an RTS, GDCE2 will be too. I like when things are going on, and you're not a general (who somehow personally pariticipates in battles), just a regular guy, who needs to follow his orders.

What I had in my mind in short: I'll say the curse word: BattleField. The global engine (the global engine not gameplay! ) will be similar to it. There will be interest points that are controlled by one of the sides. Who controls more, gets more resources for repairing/healing units and requesting new ones from high command. But the whole thing should be MUCH more static than in BF. You would be usually stationed at an IP (interest point) at the frontline. So there would be an enemy IP neighbouring yours. It would be a high probability that you would have several missions at that place until you would occuppy that IP (or lose your own?). Of course you wouldn't advance by a line, but there would be a network of IP's. There wouldn't be a storyline, but you would have (more than in GDCE1) a sense that a war is going out there, whether you participate in it, or not. For now, this much. Even this was more than I wanted to reveal. Supply lines, high value targets... all planned...

In short imagine playing IL2 DCG on the ground.

My main concern is that, if ArmA contains the same savegame bug as OFP did, then GDCE2 (as a current idea) remains an abstraction.

EDIT: about MP: I don't know nothing about MP or COOP scripting (and I don't play those), so if nobody helps, that remains out.

[Snake Man 402]

Quote[/b] ]the outcome of each mission affects the whole war with battle lines moving backwards and forwards depending on how well the player is doing.

Only true on stock default Falcon 4.0, the newer SuperPAK patches added feature to disable the player rating/score to effect the whole campaign. I think its the most absolute top priority to use this feature, to disable players poor performance to downgrade AI's performance also.

Okay I know its nitpick thingy but just wanted to clear that up

Quote[/b] ]Basically I would like Missions + an ongoing realtime  frontline that shifts back and foward depending on your skill at missions.

I haven't yet been able to comprehend how to script moving front lines. My random missions (see, I didn't use the dirty word here) usually are semi organized by the AI, but there is no front line to be mentioned about. I would definitely try to achieve such mission scripting.

Quote[/b] ]I suppose that flight sim players are in general more serious than FPS players (don't flame me). I don't say there aren't serious players in the FPS genre, but they're a minority. Most casual players won't even touch flight sims, because "it's so hard" (same for OFP).

In flight sim community there is Jet Fighter III and Falcon 4.

In FPS community there is quake and OFP.

Do I need to explain further?

Quote[/b] ]no offense, but IMO CTI is more like an RTS in OFP engine.

CTI, DM, TDM, CTF, LOL... yawn.

Quote[/b] ]Who controls more, gets more resources for repairing/healing units and requesting new ones from high command.

Not sure this is good idea in realism sense. I mean in Iraq, does US troops get more support and healing if they capture An Najaf faster? I don't think so

While I understand what you mean by this in OFP terms, if there is any way to avoid such "point hunting" it would be a good thing. I mean when the war starts you have all the assets you need (unless storyline comes to play of naval Task Force arriving in X days etc) and thats it, there is no more support coming if you keep the civilians happy. You have what you got and you have to work with that.

Quote[/b] ]but you would have (more than in GDCE1) a sense that a war is going out there

I'm no expert on GDCE1 but what I understand its just the target + few AI soldiers spawned around it just like rhe random mission alliance work. There is no WAR around the area where you're operting. When you return to base there is no chance that enemy has attacked it etc. You don't run into enemy patrol while moving into the objective.

Quote[/b] ]if ArmA contains the same savegame bug as OFP did, then GDCE2 (as a current idea) remains an abstraction.

Thats why you should do it as Campaign.

[kutya 0]

Quote[/b] ]Only true on stock default Falcon 4.0, the newer SuperPAK patches added feature to disable the player rating/score to effect the whole campaign. I think its the most absolute top priority to use this feature, to disable players poor performance to downgrade AI's performance also.

Okay I know its nitpick thingy but just wanted to clear that up

IMO, it's isn't nitpicking haha. No really. The player should affect the war EXACTLY by hees deeds. At least, GDCE2 will work that way. No compromise.

Quote[/b] ]I haven't yet been able to comprehend how to script moving front lines. My random missions (see, I didn't use the dirty word here) usually are semi organized by the AI, but there is no front line to be mentioned about. I would definitely try to achieve such mission scripting.

Never tried, but I suppose it could be achieved with a bit of trigonometry (like in F4:AF). But I don't intend to do it in GDCE. The fronline will move, but you will see only bases controlled by your side and eventually some of the enemies (if your side has enough recon info). This would be decided of course from the global situation (including the players ations, but as for every other unit).

Quote[/b] ]In flight sim community there is Jet Fighter III and Falcon 4.

In FPS community there is quake and OFP.

Do I need to explain further?

You're right. But IMO OFP/ARMA (abbreviation sickness) is way less dynamic (not random) than Falcon. In OFP all is scripted stuff. Of course it allows dynamic stuff, but Falcon allows too and there is a dyn camp included which proves that. Would you play Falcon that much, if it didn't have those really good dyn camps?

Quote[/b] ]Not sure this is good idea in realism sense. I mean in Iraq, does US troops get more support and healing if they capture An Najaf faster? I don't think so

While I understand what you mean by this in OFP terms, if there is any way to avoid such "point hunting" it would be a good thing. I mean when the war starts you have all the assets you need (unless storyline comes to play of naval Task Force arriving in X days etc) and thats it, there is no more support coming if you keep the civilians happy. You have what you got and you have to work with that.

Now this was really constuctive. I'll keep that in mind. Most games function in the way I described. But yes, if you died at Stalingrad willfully, it wouldn't mean that the Russians would bring more troops just because of your deeds. Will think about this.

Quote[/b] ]I'm no expert on GDCE1 but what I understand its just the target + few AI soldiers spawned around it just like rhe random mission alliance work. There is no WAR around the area where you're operting. When you return to base there is no chance that enemy has attacked it etc. You don't run into enemy patrol while moving into the objective.

It seems that I'm the only expert You're mostly right. But there aren't a few AI soldiers running about. If you set up DAC correctly you'll have a frontline, and on the whole territory (usually marked the fronline) you cannot be ever sure if you're safe. If you read some old post (BIS but don't know thread/user), you'll see that there are attacks on the base itself. If the enemy destroys the arty, it won't be available until reinforcements arrive. But this is a so rare possibility, that probably no GDCE player experienced this.

But this is a simple egoistic defence of my state-of-the-art work   . Here, I'd like to discuss the next version, which has nothing to do with the previous one, except the idea.

Quote[/b] ]Thats why you should do it as Campaign.

But then I'd have to save every single soldier/health/gunshot/daytime/mission schedule/mission state/etc variable to be able to decently simulate the continuation of the war. Theoretically this is achievable, put in practice... (only if BIS would give me a full time job )

[colligpip 0]

How did you get email in ww2    

Its funny you should mention the dread word BF as I actually think the layout of interest points in it is quite a good way of simulating an ongoing real-time battle.  Now combine this with the realism of AA and we have a really good dynamic mission.

I like the way in BF if you take out the airport there is no air support for the enemy take out the Arty no arty cover etc I would love this sort of thing in dynamic mission in AA- you could add in specific bunkers or radio stations that have to be taken out etc. And before anybody flames me i dont like the gameplay in BF just the attack certain tactical positions causes point loss for enemy element of it.

I wouldnt think the savegame bug still exisits it was such a major flaw in the game.

By the way Kutya have you seen the UPS script released in user missions its a really good urban patroll script may be handy just thought I would mention it.

ALso i often ran into enemy patrolls i didnt know about in GDCE 1. DAC was very good at this IMO

[kutya 0]

Hi colligpip

Quote[/b] ]By the way Kutya have you seen the UPS script released in user missions its a really good urban patroll script may be handy just thought I would mention it.

I saw the thread about UPS, but didn't loook at it. Thanks for the info.

Quote[/b] ]ALso i often ran into enemy patrolls i didnt know about in GDCE 1. DAC was very good at this IMO

Don't want to boast, but this is highly dependent on the mission maker.

[froggyluv 2130]

I've always been a big fan of GDCE but have yet to play ArmA so I'm speaking in the dark here. I liked the way your men would accumulate points from succesfull kills etc... but in reality couldn't see much difference in their combat effectiveness. I think that had more to do with OFP's engine then anything else. I'd like to see this taken to a greater level somehow so that you'd have high incentive to keep your crack squads alive rather than just heading back to HQ to re-inforce. This would add a high degree of tactiacl planning and a small degree of emotion which I think is sorely lacking in most combat sims. Keep your buddies alive!

[MehMan 0]

Uhh, I am definatley looking forward to this.

I'd also like to see some AI fights, like AI fighting between themselves that would bring down some bases or intrest points. I'd make the war feeling come even more home since it wouldn't all depend on you and your squad.

[kutya 0]

@froggyluv:

Quote[/b] ]I've always been a big fan of GDCE but have yet to play ArmA so I'm speaking in the dark here. I liked the way your men would accumulate points from succesfull kills etc... but in reality couldn't see much difference in their combat effectiveness. I think that had more to do with OFP's engine then anything else. I'd like to see this taken to a greater level somehow so that you'd have high incentive to keep your crack squads alive rather than just heading back to HQ to   re-inforce. This would add a high degree of tactiacl planning and a small degree of emotion which I think is sorely lacking in most combat sims. Keep your buddies alive!

I agree with your idea, but you should be more clear how would you like to achieve this. I'd really like to expand on this, but have no idea.

@MehMan (or TheOne):

Quote[/b] ]I'd also like to see some AI fights, like AI fighting between themselves that would bring down some bases or intrest points. I'd make the war feeling come even more home since it wouldn't all depend on you and your squad.

If it will be made what I had on my mind, it will happen. It happened even in GDCE1, but in an unorganized way. In GDCE2, all other squads will have their missions too just like you (but a narrower range of mission types). Random AI fights were in GDCE1 too, but they didn't change much the outcome of the war.

@MehMan: Don't know if you noticed, but the old prob from OFP still remained: if you make the AI travel too far, it won't go. This is one of the reasons I like to call AA actually OFP 1.5. And this is the reason I fear of the savegame bug.

I'll take into consideration everyone's suggestions.

Bye

[MehMan 0]

Ah, so that means chopping up the flight path is necesary.

I think this only applied to helicopters in OFP, at least that's how it worked for me, jets still flew normally across the biggest map possible.

[kutya 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think this only applied to helicopters in OFP, at least that's how it worked for me, jets still flew normally across the biggest map possible.

Dunno. I had an opposite experience with a Phantom in VTD. If I recall correctly there was a 7000m limit (or around there).

[froggyluv 2130]

@froggyluv:

Quote[/b] ]I've always been a big fan of GDCE but have yet to play ArmA so I'm speaking in the dark here. I liked the way your men would accumulate points from succesfull kills etc... but in reality couldn't see much difference in their combat effectiveness. I think that had more to do with OFP's engine then anything else. I'd like to see this taken to a greater level somehow so that you'd have high incentive to keep your crack squads alive rather than just heading back to HQ to   re-inforce. This would add a high degree of tactiacl planning and a small degree of emotion which I think is sorely lacking in most combat sims. Keep your buddies alive!

I agree with your idea, but you should be more clear how would you like to achieve this. I'd really like to expand on this, but have no idea.

@MehMan (or TheOne):

Quote[/b] ]I'd also like to see some AI fights, like AI fighting between themselves that would bring down some bases or intrest points. I'd make the war feeling come even more home since it wouldn't all depend on you and your squad.

If it will be made what I had on my mind, it will happen. It happened even in GDCE1, but in an unorganized way. In GDCE2, all other squads will have their missions too just like you (but a narrower range of mission types). Random AI fights were in GDCE1 too, but they didn't change much the outcome of the war.

@MehMan: Don't know if you noticed, but the old prob from OFP still remained: if you make the AI travel too far, it won't go. This is one of the reasons I like to call AA actually OFP 1.5. And this is the reason I fear of the savegame bug.

I'll take into consideration everyone's suggestions.

Bye

Hi Kutya,

I guess what I'm thinking is something along the lines of SLX's suppression system.Only modifying them so that elite troops are less affected by the shooting/fatigue penalties that system incurs. Also increasing 'greener' troops probability of breaking and fleeing. Don't know if it's possible but think it would be cool to see

                Merry X-mas

[marcusm_uk 0]

Just wondering. What is the relationship(if any) to the DMA system? Hopefully this is as good, it is the most useful addition to OFP I have used.

marcus

[kutya 0]

Well, the old GDCE is based on the DMA Dynamic War template. But greatly reworked. GDCE2 will have nothing to do with it.

[kutya 0]

Just a notification, that today I start coding GDCE2.

If someone is interested in testing or has some ideas regarding dynamic campaigns, please PM me. But it will take a while before I make something playable.

Wish me luck

[silola 1086]

hi m8

great news !

And yes ... I wish u good luck

bye

silola

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Sounds very interesting mate!

If you're staying close to the DMA 'style' i guess i'd like to see taking control of enemy areas on a per mission basis.

For example:

- at start you only have your homebase as a friendly area/zone/AO. missions happen in enemy areas, scattered all over the island.

- everytime you win a mission in a certain area, you take control of that area (you could add an AI convoy driving up from the homebase to the new area, unloading units/crates. units 'build' tents, a helipad, etc)

- now you can also start a mission from that new area. from now on it's some sort of a forward outpost. You can repair/rearm/refit on men here (heli brings recruits from homebase)

- here's the fun part: forward outposts have a far more higher chance of being attacked than your homebase. whenever you screw up a mission in a nearby area/ or fail to defend your outpost, it's overrun by the enemy again. (maybe enemy artillery renders outpost unusable)

Basically it's like classic DMA but adds a moving homebase and a CTI feature (capture & hold) to the campaign setting.

Would be great if you could post more specific infos about the direction you're going with ur concept. There may be more ppl like me who dunno how the dyn campaigns in Falcon4/IL4 etc work.

[SHWiiNG 0]

Hmm, if this is going to turn out the way that i think.. eg.. Falcon 4 on the ground, then mabe other publicising projects will stem off like for example if a multi-player version was made, then news sheets could be produced on that weeks engagements. like in WW2 online.

[kutya 0]

Thanks guys for the support!

To explain a bit more, what I intend to do:

Well, architecturally, GDCE2 will be built from scratch. Architecturally it won't have almost anything similar to the DMA works. But from the player's standpoint, it may seem similar at first look. There is the battlefield, and you get missions. With GDCE1, I tried to increase the immersion factor compared to the DMA works. DMA, please don't take offense, I fully respect all your work! I just tried to make the missions having more purpose, by the more phases, unit skill progress and various statistics. Now, GDCE2 should rightfully bear the number 2. In GDCE2 things should be MUCH more interconnected. Missions won't be generated randomly, instead they'll be given depending on the situation. For example, when your side, detects an artillery position, there is a chance that you'll get a Destroy Artillery mission when you finish your current mission. This is just a simplified example. In short when the game gives you a mission, it always evaluates the current situation. Don't want to promise too much, but no more randomly cruising friendlies/enemies. Every group will have it's mission. The global idea is, that when you start it, and just watch, you should have a feeling that there is a war going on. When I put up a reasonable document on functionality, I'll make it public. I have currently some texts, but the functionality is mixed with the architecture and it would just annoy the casual reader.

GDCE2 is ambitious, but GDCE1 was too when I made it. I'll try to make GDCE2 full of small details, so you could be amazed even after many days of gameplay. Because of the greatly increased complexity, conversion will be also more difficult than before.

[kutya 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm, if this is going to turn out the way that i think.. eg.. Falcon 4 on the ground, then mabe other publicising projects will stem off like for example if a multi-player version was made, then news sheets could be produced on that weeks engagements. like in WW2 online.

Well, the idea is similar like F4, but this would be a much simplified design. Especially the earlier versions.

Please describe in more detail the WW2 Online part, because I never played it.

[malick 0]

Great news Kutya !

I'm glad you started working on a port of your mission. I liked it for OFP, I'll like it for ArmA.

What I'd like to see implemented is a career progress : when the player finishes mission, he earns points and if his total reaches a certain amount, he gets promoted, new responsabilities, new missions, new features.

O/T : I already started coding a quite simple dynamic mission from scratch. In fact it is really closer to what DMA did for OFP than GDCE. I guess that I coded what I knew better !

Malick

[SHWiiNG 0]

Well WWII online is just a massive online game, where the progress of the game is recorded in weekly "News sheet" where the progress of the front line is recorded.

http://www.wwiionline.com/scripts/wwiionline/index.jsp

here daily or weekly reports are produced on the movement of allied and enemy men, equipment supply lines and also a bit of news on the home front.

I think if something like this is produced, it would really help publicise this Campaign and add a bit of outside realism.

[kutya 0]

~Malick: Only some aspects of career progress will be implemented. Regarding mission types, maybe if your reputation is too low, you won't get tougher missions. What is planned, is that when you're starting a mission, you'll have the option to request vehicles. They'll cost "reputation" points. So if you're a badass, you can request an APC, because you think the mission is tough. The old radio support options will probably work similar as before.

~SHWiiNG: Now I get it. The idea is really nice, but there are 2 problems:

- GDCE2 will have a REALLY complex code and I don't know anything about MP coding. As I read, if you want to implement a MP feature into a mission, it multiplies development difficulties multiple times. IMO it would be unrealistic from me, to try to acomplish such a thing. Maybe if someone does it...

- it would need an admin, who would need to constantly update a webpage on the news.