Imagine a dynamic battle field

[dayglow 2]

I've been writing in a few theads here when something struck me that I think would totally change the face of a game like OFP. I know this isn't possible to do now, but in the future in OFP 2 or 3.

My idea is a dynamic battle field, where as the whole campaigne structure from the top down is run by the computer. Basically there is an overall stratigic goal, ie defend island, invade. From there another thread in the logic routine transilates these stratigic goals into tatical troup movements while another thread coordinates logistics, ie supplies, troup movements in the rear etc. Now me as the player can jump in at any level I want. I can plan the stratigic goals, what areas should be controlled and what assets should be used to reach those goals, or I can just be a squad leader, or a private following orders at the bottom.

Battles would come much more alive because reforcements and groups from other areas could spill into the battle field, while you could make a retreat and not worry about having to play the same mission over again.

This would call for a huge amount of objects to be moving and fighting on the islands, but Falcon 4 has proven that todays computers can simulate armed conficts with 1000's of units all at the same time. How it does it is that there is a 'bubble' around the player and when the war sim running undernieth detects a unit enters the players bubble the unit 'de-agrates' and becomes a true 3d object. planes, sams, tanks, vehicles, etc all come alive around the player. Now in Falcon4 this is difficult because of the ranges involved in modern air combat. You can detect other planes and ground objects from over 40nm. But in a land sim such as OFP the bubble could be a lot smaller. I think is very do-able.

Just a neat idea I had and wondering who else would like to see a 'true' battle field in the sense that nothing is scripted, all the waypoints generated by the computer on the fly. I guess the missions wouldn't be as indepth just because of all the heavy scripting by the computer, but we could take a page from the Longbow 2 book and have a dynamic campaigne, but when the varables are right take a special scripted mission file. This could be a POW rescue or a stratigic hit on a hi-ranking officail behind enemy lines. This could keep things interesting by inserting a highly involved mission into the more standered infantry assualts or defends that the campaigne would make most of the time.

It's not perfect, but for me it would be fun knowing that all this is going on below the hood and that I don't know what I'll be facing.

COLINMAN

[Satchel 0]

That would be super,

a fully dynamic campaign would rise the replay value of OFP to an insane height, apart from that it has a good replay value already. Most older games having dynamic campaigns are still played today, even if they were released a couple of years ago. It´s always something new everytime you´d start a campaign, you won´t be sure about it´s outcome, you always face new tactical and strategical constellations. Random troop movements, that do not relate necessary to the actual mission, so that no matter where you go on the map, there could be a possibility of activity in this region, either enemy or friendly, depending on the "frontline".

[John C Flett 0]

This has long been something I've wanted to see though I'd take Comanche Hokum as the model. Sit watching the map of the whole war and then take a mission in the planning or just jump into an aircraft already in flight. Play as much or as little as you want.

It would be a very different game but I'd still like to see it someday.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Wait till battlefield 1942, i predict it to be OFP's replacer.

*edit* 1942, and of course not 1982

[Damage Inc 0]

It's been made by the people that made Codename Eagle right?

If yes I predict that it is a big load of crap.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I think it could be the replacer. I dont hope so, and ill still play OFP afterwards. But it just looks so good.

Well, im not sure weather or not they focuse TOO much on the plane models, and infantry will get crap, but who knows?

[ralphwiggum 6]

for me:

dynamic battlefield== fail within 20 minutes(i suck)

[Sith 0]

DayGlow: what you just described is Conquest in campaign form.

We're currently working on such a dynamic AI battle script, so I can already tell you quite a bit about it. But it's not all good news...

In Conquest, the whole dynamic battlefield thing is represented in just one mission. This works out fine (gameplay wise) because you have a relatively small scale conflict ("just" one big mission), so we can pretty much control what's going on.

Now if we take this to campaign level (and possibly larger maps), the biggest problem that pops up is mission diversity. AI generated missions lack all the excitement we know from the OFP campaign missions, since the AI will usually stick to missions like "Conquer this area", or "Defend this town", combined with time consuming troop movements all over the place. This is fun and all for the first....5-6 missions, but after that gets REALLY boring, since you always end up playing exactly the same mission types over and over again.

To keep a campaign exciting for your average gamer (so not just army nuts), you will need an exciting, story driven campaign, with lotsa action and dramatic moments. In a fully dynamic campaign this is not possible.

You can however, have a partially dynamic campaign. You make a whole bunch of exciting missions, and link them up depending on the previous mission's outcome. If you do this right, you can have like 10 possible endings to a mission, each with their own follow-up mission, giving you the impression of a totally dynamic campaign. The big downside to this solution is the fact that you'll have to make tonnes and tonnes of missions, and check all possible paths through the campaign to see if they all work out well.

As for BF42:

Espectro, I really think you have some wrong ideas bout that game there m8. BF42 will NEVER be anything like OFP, since it's a 100% arcade shooter. You play OFP for realism, immersion, stuff like that. If you've ever played Codename Eagle, you'll know that you wont have to expect those in BF42.

BF42 indeed looks good, I sure will give it a try...but it's a totally different game than OFP.

[John C Flett 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the biggest problem that pops up is mission diversity. AI generated missions lack all the excitement we know from the OFP campaign missions, since the AI will usually stick to missions like "Conquer this area", or "Defend this town", <span id='postcolor'>

Not sure I agree entirely, if the AI has enough elements at its command diversity will occur naturaly. Your right you won't get a story but that doesn't mean it won't be interesting. Certainly EECH could throw up a few surprises even though you could only fly Helos. It was still possible to get caught in armour battles or ambushes and even the superb dynamic weather could change the face of a mission seriously while you were flying it. It did help of course that the player had pretty much there choice of missions to fly from all those generated.

I'll agree it would be a VERY different game but if the campaign generator used things like transport, escorts, air support and black ops properly there should be no less diversity than in OFP.

Mission balance? Now thats another matter!

[Sith 0]

Mission balance is another issue indeed.

As for EECH's campaign: It worked because you could select what mission in what combat zone you wanted to play, and because a flightsim doesnt rely on tiny details as much as an infantry sim does. OFP's gameplay relies quite a bit on character interaction and familiarisation (sp?). If you're gonna allow the player to jump to any area of the map and perform any mission available, this will alienate him from what IMO is the best part in an infantry game: getting to know your team m8s and area of operations, the whole immersion thing. Like when you have to fight real hard to conquer a town and you succeed, and then the next mission requires you to defend it from an enemy counter-attack. That kinda stuff makes you feel that you're actually there.

[malick 0]

This is very interesting, indeed.

I thought of an option, that is worth being looked at...

Maybe some of you remember, but back in 1994 a role playing game (RPG ) called Daggerfall came on our PC. The diversity in its quests and missions is tremendous, and the way they are generated maybe implemented here:

there are important or main quests that the player may play, these are fully scripted, and that's why they are really interesting.

and then, there are other quests, generated by the computer, relying on many factors. In fact they are just a customization of 'generic' quests, where many things could change. Thanks to this system, the game has an infinite replayability, cause quests took only 10 minutes to script. So there were some 100's of differents generic quests

Do you think this may be done for OFP ? We would only have to script imortant missions, really treaky ones, with drama and a good story behind it, and then script a whole bunch of generic missions, the computer linking them together, according to where you are, how many,etc..

Hope this is an useful idea ?

[Sith 0]

Sounds very interesting indeed.

I think it can be done, but you'll have to define the generated mission "boundaries" very well to avoid any fuckups.

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Malick @ Mar. 11 2002,13:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe some of you remember, but back in 1994 a role playing game (RPG   ) called Daggerfall came on our PC. The diversity in its quests and missions is tremendous, and the way they are generated maybe implemented here:

there are important or main quests that the player may play, these are fully scripted, and that's why they are really interesting.<span id='postcolor'>

I still play Daggerfall thanks to it's neverending possibilities.

[amos m 0]

Sith, that conquest looks really good. I've been contemplating how to do something very similar to that myself, dynamic missions, but don't have the programming experience, or the time to take on such a task myself, and have few friends interested in ofp to help.

One suggestion after reading about your mines prob, maybe actually a suggestion for bis. Maybe there's a way to make units avoid an area. I was thinking you could script so that when ie mines are detected that waypoints are created so as to give the unit alternate routes. Then I remembered you can't create waypoints mid game.

Maybe bis could implement a way to force the creation of a waypiont near an area deemed as "no go zone" so ai will go around.

I also think that if there's a sequel to ofp that waypoints should be used solely as a means of causing ai action and determing if any particular action (ie move to, get in) has been completed and activating next orders, and not as a visual guide for the player. I think this kinda ruins the realism a bit, and in my opinion is a big part of why mp doesn't really work in ofp.

[Sith 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One suggestion after reading about your mines prob, maybe actually a suggestion for bis. Maybe there's a way to make units avoid an area. I was thinking you could script so that when ie mines are detected that waypoints are created so as to give the unit alternate routes. Then I remembered you can't create waypoints mid game.<span id='postcolor'>

We havent updated the page in a while...but rest assured, we already found a way to solve this

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sith @ Mar. 11 2002,02:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mission balance is another issue indeed.

As for EECH's campaign: It worked because you could select what mission in what combat zone you wanted to play, and because a flightsim doesnt rely on tiny details as much as an infantry sim does. OFP's gameplay relies quite a bit on character interaction and familiarisation (sp?). If you're gonna allow the player to jump to any area of the map and perform any mission available, this will alienate him from what IMO is the best part in an infantry game: getting to know your team m8s and area of operations, the whole immersion thing. Like when you have to fight real hard to conquer a town and you succeed, and then the next mission requires you to defend it from an enemy counter-attack. That kinda stuff makes you feel that you're actually there.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't see how this would be a problem. If the game was dynamic and you take a town, a counter attack would very well be a possiblility if it was a stratigic point.

Also what I invision is deep recon missions. Take a patrol deep into enemy territory and hole up in a forest by a town and watch troop movement. Have a laser designator for air strikes, or be told by HQ to mine a road and ambush a convoy going to the front. All this time random patrols are moving around. Did that contact a day ago in game time cause the enemy to go on high alert and start searching for you?

For the story element you could attach your alter ego to just one man-squad-platoon and follow the action from there. Like in your example you take a town. Next mission is to recon the sourounding area -- contact with a enemy recon force -- Dig in for the expected counter attack. What would be needed is a skip time function, sort of go ahead a few hours -- days, what is needed to keep the action hi.

Also having an action window while viewing a grand campaign would make it more action packed. Designate what type of mission you want to run. Maybe you want to do some special ops style hit and run missions, but don't want to spend the days moving through enemy territory, holing up and watching targets. The campaign engine could notify you that the spec ops mission is ready to go and from there you could assume the ai.

Damn all this imagining is making really crave this game. Damn Damn Damn Damn Now I'm all depressed

COLINMAN

[jimz0rz 0]

Well, it's nice to see people talking about this idea. I've been ranting on about some sort of dynamic OOB style gameplay for a while now.

I went back to playing EECH a few moths ago and thought how good it would be if it was applied to the OFP engine. EECH is just a chopper sim, but combined with OFP's diversity it could make a cracking conflict sim. You could take on the role of an attack helicoper pilot and engage in a SEAD mission. Or you could grab a rifle and mount an infantry assault, or even put on your balaklava and go recce an enemy base with the Black Ops. Gaining rank, medals and experience on the way.

I really hope this sort of gameplay takes off.

[dayglow 2]

spam

there now I'm at 100, can get back to topic now

COLINMAN

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Yea, i think dynamic gameplay would be easy to make, even in mp missions - which would replace the need for JIP.

We only need a feature so that OFP can export data into a file, and another map can then import from that map (base positions, outposts, money, men, equitment). So you sort of plays several missions, and still the same mission.

So u play 1 mission 1 day, and play the same next day. Would be cool for a tournament-war.

[MosquitoMkVI 0]

Dyanmic battlefield in an FPS would be amazing, I loved the dynamic campaign in Longbow Gold, as it kept the replay value high.)

Hell, I'd take lower graphics in exchange for a dynamic campaign and more advanced AI (both friend and foe). And if missions were sort of generated on the fly depending upon where you were, and what was around you it could be really cool. Example: you do a deep recon with a 4 man black ops team, find important intel (ie: a SCUD or two) is spotted in the area, so your mission gets updated to search and destroy. After completing the mission you have to extract, but on route other opportunities.....Is that an enemy convoy over there???

Knowing that my actions on the battlefield were having a direct result in a ground war would increase the replay for me10 fold!! Especially since the next time you play the game, the campaign is different, 2 forces attacking and counter attacking across a large area with reinforcements always arriving, it'd be almost impossible to have the same run twice, and hey, you could do really well, but there could be an enemy breakthrough a couple of miles away meaning all forces need to withdraw..

It would ROCK!!!!

[Guest]

Actually, creating a dynamic battlefield is fully possible today in OFP. You have a very powerful script language and the of course the rand() function. It is only the question of computer power to handle many units, otherwise it is just a question of writing the script-code.

Perhaps a chalange to someone? Write a general dynamic battlefield script-library!

[walker 0]

Spinor's Command engine script allready does some of these things.

There is also a project to do C and C using OFP (I dont personaly like the idea but to each their own)

denoir The point you made about computer power is correct but my own experiments with very large battles show that if units are activated in waves even my puny 633mhz can cope with numbers of units up to OFPs Limit on numbers on one side.

[timmy 0]

this may be a stupid question, but what is falcon 4. Ive heard a lot about it, but is it a first person shooter, or another type of game

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (timmy @ Mar. 11 2002,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this may be a stupid question, but what is falcon 4. Ive heard a lot about it, but is it a first person shooter, or another type of game<span id='postcolor'>

There is never a stupid question, only stupid answers, so here we go:

Falcon 4 is a complex flightsim of the F-16. It was created by micropose. It was in development since, I don't know, about 1993 when Falcon 3 was released and took over 5 years to make, bankrupting the company in the process. It simulates a war on the Korean peninsula. And we mean SIMULATE. You can set your plane to unlimited fuel and invinsible and fly over the whole region (around 500,000 square miles) and there will be activity everywhere. Ground forces battle it out on the front while supplies are moved from the rear. 1000 of planes can be in the sky at the same time all doing there own thing, ie flying there waypoints, attacking there targets or flying CAPs. It is so neat to be flying and actually seeing off in the distance the tracers flying back and forth as two tank companies battle it out and CAS planes and helicopters on both sides assisting in the battle.

Also the source code was leaked to the online community where they completely re-wrote the sim. It was released in a semi-broken state, but the online community has created the Super Patch 2 where the sim has been completely re-written from the avionics up. It's really a new flight sim. Also it's a bit of a soap opera with the Realism patch people on one side and the SP people on the other getting really emotional about how things are simulated (these are sim nuts, the people that will complain that the drag from the paint on the plane doesn't affect the flight model in the right way)

It's what all flightsims are compared against now and one of the reasons that the sim market is struggling right now. Very complex planes and environments are being modeled, taking multi-years to develope only to sell a limited number of copies. Most people don't want to spend a month to learn how to fly a plane and in Falcon 4 right now you can flip every switch and start the engine cold on the ramp, just like the real jet (about a 20 step prossess of flipping switches in the cockpit) So selling a few hundred thousand copies is a success after spending a few million in development, only to have people bitch that the plane can't snap-roll or accerate in the vertical

That my friend is what Falcon 4 is.

COLINMAN

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 11 2002,14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, creating a dynamic battlefield is fully possible today in OFP. You have a very powerful script language and the of course the rand() function. It is only the question of computer power to handle many units, otherwise it is just a question of writing the script-code.

Perhaps a chalange to someone? Write a general dynamic battlefield script-library!<span id='postcolor'>

That's the beauty of the Falcon 4 campaign. The computer power question with all the units is solved in the flight sim through the idea of the player bubble. All the units in the bubble are actually 3d objects with their own AI, but the ones outside the bubble are aggrgated into their parent units, ie a flight of 4 planes in a package are treated as a single unit to the compaign, the same with ground units (not sure how they are grouped together) and the war engine simulates combat through tables. i.e. stats are used to solve battles that the player isn't near. Now the bubble in Falcon 4 has to be large to accomidate the ranges of detection and attack that modern fighters have, but even a MBT on the ground can only engage at most, what around 2miles? Not 40-80nm like a jet.

Not sure that could be scripted in OFP and how much cpu power it would take. That's something that would have to coded right into the underlying engine me thinks, but you never know what people can do.

OFP is turning into the Falcon 4 of ground combat sims in the sense that the community has taken the game farther than I could imagine, but with OFP the developer is still around and making improvements as well It should be interesting to look back in a year or two and see how far this game was come. (this is also my agruement on why I like it better that GR)

COLINMAN