Just how dynamic should the game be?

[ebns72 0]

We've heard so far that there will be randomly generated missions, and that the player will have an effect on the game world and his squadmates.

I'm wondering though if it would be possible to have entirely dynamic campaigns as seen in some flight sims.

It seems like right now BIS is leaning toward a more pre-set campaign progression with the player merely taking part in it. However, I would love to see a completely fluid, dynamic campaign where the door could swing both ways. Every single time you play, a town may be captured, another time it may be lost - maybe sometime it won't be assaulted altogether. It should be also very possible to lose; if a side loses too many men in combat, it will have less to defend its cities and thus will be pushed back until defeat.

By doing this, the game could contain a few more RTS elements. If a supply depot gets bombed, the soldiers on the front will have less ammo. A town falls, the tactical AI now has a new staging point for more assaults on the player.

Perhaps, if the player gets promoted to the rank of colonel, the game could transform into a field RTS - now that would be an impressive display of engine flexibility IMO, considering all the mechanics are in the current flashpoint engine*; all that would be needed is an interface to select and move troops to waypoints. As a general, one could work on a larger scale, choosing which towns to hold or attack.

*Ever think how easily the game would work as a tactical RTS? AI is already there, the battles currently play out very tactically depending on squad positions and the like; all that would be needed is an interface to have completely control over a battlefield, assigning waypoints and targets to tanks, infantry, and helicopters.

Also, I think other soldier simulation should be extremely in-depth; with the possibility to skip over the more mundane things. One of my favorite things about other sims like silent hunter III is the possibility of "living the boredom" so to speak - it is very immersive, but after maybe about 5 minutes of doing mundane tasks you can hit time compression and skip to action. IMO, that would work very well in this game.

I think it would be fun and immersive, personally, to set up field camp, create fortifications, and have a chow-time discussion with your fellow soldiers in between action.

Speaking of chow, I would like to see eating and sleeping modeled in the game - the player should not be able to die from lack of either, but rather have stamina penalities applied. On a tactical scale, this would simulate the idea of sieges well; draining the enemy of provisions and morale and attacking when they are weak and at the end of their rope.

Again, though, all of it could be skipped if the player desires to, to cater to the wide ranging tastes of players that will play the game.

So what do you think?

[Sergei_Q 0]

A private would not get promoted to an officer based on his combat record; certainly not to Colonel or General. You'll have to study years in military academies to get to that point. Also, I think that modelling availability of food would complicate the game a bit too much. We're talking about a game in which a brief visit to a medic instantly heals a crippled man, when in reality he'd be in a hospital for months and never be quite the same as before.

But a dynamic campaign like in Falcon could be immersive. Maybe a system similar to Jagged Alliance games.

[churnedfortaste 0]

A private would not get promoted to an officer based on his combat record; certainly not to Colonel or General. You'll have to study years in military academies to get to that point. Also, I think that modelling availability of food would complicate the game a bit too much. We're talking about a game in which a brief visit to a medic instantly heals a crippled man, when in reality he'd be in a hospital for months and never be quite the same as before.

But a dynamic campaign like in Falcon could be immersive. Maybe a system similar to Jagged Alliance games.

Maybe you could choose to start off as a soldier recruit, or officer cadet. With the two paths being different styles of gameplay, the soldier recruit's job is to learn and put into to practice field combat skills, the officer's job is to learn about and use strategy, instruct formal parades (by parades I do not mean a parade that marches through a city, I mean the organised parade where the soldiers stand to attention / at ease e.t.c.) and maybe manage things such as the armies finance, the standard issue of kit e.t.c (???)

Of course this is my vision of the game being a tactical FPS/RPG/RTS which would just be amazing.