Imagine a dynamic battle field

[Sith 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

I never said this to be a problem. As a matter of fact, like I said before, this is already pretty possible in Conquest.

The thing is that I forsee the player missing out on alot of dramatic scenes when he's able to jump from place to place in the campaign. It'll kill every bit of character building.

Denoir: Once again....Conquest does just that

Oh...and great avatar...RG is my hero

[amos m 0]

And it'll kill the characteristic that makes ofp, it's realism.

[Sith 0]

My point exactly

[malick 0]

I can see that many of you are heading to a REAL dynamic battlefield... But, as you seem to say, isn't it one of the reasons of the failure of Microprose ? Spending millions in a single game system, which is fairly realistic BTW.

Developping such a dynamic battlefield requires a whole team working full time on the project. Is BIS ready, or able, to do this ? Or do you really believe that third party programmers are gonna spend the time (obviously, w/o being paid for it ) ?

I don't really know... It's a struggle between money and ingeniosity

[Hidden 0]

Sorry to say, but I am one of those who never completed all of the lessons in Falcon 4.0 and never got into serious fights.

I still have the sim, though, with the paper manual (some get it with the manual on a CD you know, and have to print it out! Ouch..).

And now I see that TM Cougar comes out very soon. What to do, what to do.. and I know G2 Interactive are working on Falcon V (5), and that they just hired another expert that will make sure it gets as real as possible.

I stopped visiting the Falcon 4 forum on Delphi because of all the whiners are bitching "simmers". They hardly did anything but bitching like dogs and cats over the freakin patches, but I know as well there will be another round of bitching when Falcon V comes out and I will just have to ignore it.

While I´m waiting, maybe it´s time to buy a new joystick (or wait for the Cougar HOTAS..) and install Falcon 4 again. Am kind of missing it, for some strange reason, even though I was just toying around with it without getting into the campaign.

Hidden

[CCCP 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sith @ Mar. 12 2002,12:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point exactly <span id='postcolor'>

It doesn't have to be like that BTW

Good to see ppl played EECH, true - it exposed the missions practically all of them on the map and that's why "jumping" was possible, but those in the know also remeber that amongst missions there are transfers - some even choose for enhanced realism to fly transfer and only then take up missions from the new base. Now I'm too of the opinion that scripting functionality of OFP is such that it all can be implemented even now (best thing BIS done by far is not spending Microprose's way on developing all those details of combined warfare, but exposed the functionality for us to do the job we want). So one can imagine in a full dynamic map-scale warfare there are sectors - it's quiet in one - hot in another. Grab a jeep, call in transport chopper or damn walk to sector X = mission objectives updated - you join another squad/mission/action. You can even chage your speciality this way - become a tanker, pilot, etc.

Some dynamic features are implemented in Conquest, some are in others such as KaRRiLLioN's CH_EVERON WAR(AllNorth) (see topic Ctf, ch, dd, tdm, coop missions of mine for dload), so the only problem is to bring it all together and optimize so that clinet/server scripting excution doesn't screw up the fun.

To add a bit of details to good things in EECH engine and some ideas to move it OFP:

- it has for AI so called hot spots - the coordinats to which AI strategic actions of conquest directed (that can be opposit tip of the island or tatality of all sectors)

- ground troops have system of roads to advance on and when the unit comes to the crossroad, hot-spot direction "decides" which turn to take. (this simplified in OFP as not only roads are usable so key positions, towns might be strategic waypoints and form sectors around themselves)

- unit which spent it's ammo and fuel to low - stops at next crossroad and generates the supply mission (done by transport aviation dropping crates/transport choppers visiting the unit at that crossroad) (would be nice to implement in OFP and I wish expendeture of fuel would be udjusted to grater to raise importance of resuply, which can be done by ground as well)

- if next crossroad occupied the advance down that route is halted to avoid traffic jams (squential advance - hmm might be good per orute, alternatively other units move on to other sectors)

- recon missions are generate to confirm status of bases and such if out of action=capture mission, if in action=strike mission, if defnede=supression mission etc.. The recon missions are most important for the engine as it's excution not only on primary mission objective but also along the route would discover/encounter enemy units/objects and generate missions on those as well. (some can be taken to OFP AI mission generation in which player could be involved if it's in his/her sector)

- strike generates BDA(Battle Damage Assessment) or another recon and so on

- the captured objectives - bases are repaired and resuplied, which are also missions and defnded - since enemy AI objectives are to recon, advance and capture sectors as well (that's where time delayed repair can be done in OFP which would spring up some defence boxes, hospital tent or such and resuply would "bring" ammo crates, vehicles or such)

- enemy units on deeper recons can be dealt with - convoy is discovered - intercept generated BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) (additionally in OFP can be special ops jobs to mine the road/ambush or such)

different missions can be taken up by whatever appropriate unit is free in this/adjustent/base sector - let say strike mission can be picked up by an attack chopper or pare of gunship jets or a tank detachment

the whole system interacts on itself and plays on nicely

just to illustrate here types of missions in EECH

(sorry for long one - EECH is my favorite)

Mission Types

The following airborne mission types are contained within Comanche Hokum.

Only missions marked with an asterisk (*) can be flown by the player. You will receive

confirmation of a successful mission completion or failure.

*Anti-ship Strike

Anti-ship strike missions are direct airborne assaults against enemy surface ships.

The mission is successfully completed when sufficient enemy ships have been destroyed.

BARCAP (BARCAP)

BARCAP missions are used to defend surface ships from attack. Fighter aircraft fly a circuit

(barrier) between the sea force and any potential threat.

*BDA (Battle Damage Assessment)

BDA missions are flown following a strike mission to assess the damage caused. Depending

on the information gained subsequent strike or troop insertion missions may be generated.

For successful mission completion the flight group leader must fly to within 500m of the

target waypoint and transmit recon data using the ‘Transmit Recon’ radio message.

*BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction)

BAI missions are used to strike rear area reinforcements and supplies in order to destroy or

delay the enemy’s military potential before it can be used against friendly forces.

The mission is successfully completed when sufficient ground forces have been destroyed.

*CAP (Combat Air Patrol)

CAP missions are airborne patrols over a friendly area for the purpose of intercepting and

destroying enemy aircraft before they reach their target.

CAP missions last for a predetermined period of time. The mission is successfully

completed when this time has elapsed.

*CAS (Close Air Support)

CAS missions are airborne attacks against enemy forces which are in close proximity to

friendly forces.

The mission is successfully completed when sufficient enemy ground forces have been

destroyed.

*Escort

Armed escort missions provide protection for any vulnerable aircraft flying in a hostile area.

The mission is successfully completed when the escorted aircraft reach their destination.

*Ground Strike

Ground strike missions are direct airborne assaults against enemy ground installations.

The mission is successfully completed when sufficient enemy ground structures have been

destroyed.

OCA Strike (Offensive Counter Air Strike)

OCA strike missions are airborne attacks against landed air units at enemy airbases or

FARPs.

OCA Sweep (Offensive Counter Air Sweep)

OCA sweep missions are airborne attacks against enemy aircraft patrolling a target area.

*Recon (Reconnaissance)

A recon is mission is undertaken to obtain information about the activities and resources of

the enemy.

For successful mission completion the flight group leader must fly to within 500m of the

target waypoint and transmit recon data using the ‘Transmit Recon’ radio message.

Repair

Repair missions are used to deploy engineers and equipment at friendly ground installations

in order to repair damage caused by the enemy.

*SEAD Strike (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences)

SEAD missions are used to destroy enemy air defences.

The mission is successfully completed when sufficient enemy air defence units have been

destroyed.

Supply

Supply missions are undertaken to deliver supplies to units and installations.

*Transfer

Transfer missions are used to move aircraft to where they are most needed.

The mission is successfully completed when the aircraft reach their destination.

Troop Insertion

Troop insertion missions are used to capture an enemy installation once the area has been

secured by a previous Strike or SEAD mission.

Advance

Ground units only

Retreat

Ground units only

Appologies for long post - but the subject is very interesting

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Malick @ Mar. 12 2002,04:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can see that many of you are heading to a REAL dynamic battlefield... But, as you seem to say, isn't it one of the reasons of the failure of Microprose ? Spending millions in a single game system, which is fairly realistic BTW.

 Developping such a dynamic battlefield requires a whole team working full time on the project. Is BIS ready, or able, to do this ? Or do you really believe that third party programmers are gonna spend the time (obviously, w/o being paid for it ) ?

I don't really know... It's a struggle between money and ingeniosity <span id='postcolor'>

OFP is still a FPS which sell a hell of a lot more than flight sims, also the military theme in shooters is getting stronger. Everybody seems to want a piece of the action. I don't know where to check, but I imagine OFP probably has sold more boxes than Falcon 4.

As for the inginuity of the online community, remember Falcon 4 is a prime example of a group of people spending countless hours rewriting a game from the ground up. Also any real mod for Halflife, Unreal, etc all of these are done for the love of the game (some are lucky and get retail status, but the ones that are soully in for that would peter out long before they got offered any cash)

COLINMAN

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amos m @ Mar. 12 2002,03:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And it'll kill the characteristic that makes ofp, it's realism.<span id='postcolor'>

Not sure I understand what you mean by this, how would a dynamic battle field kill realism?

COLINMAN

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hidden @ Mar. 12 2002,05:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry to say, but I am one of those who never completed all of the lessons in Falcon 4.0 and never got into serious fights.

I still have the sim, though, with the paper manual (some get it with the manual on a CD you know, and have to print it out! Ouch..).

And now I see that TM Cougar comes out very soon. What to do, what to do.. and I know G2 Interactive are working on Falcon V (5), and that they just hired another expert that will make sure it gets as real as possible.

I stopped visiting the Falcon 4 forum on Delphi because of all the whiners are bitching "simmers". They hardly did anything but bitching like dogs and cats over the freakin patches, but I know as well there will be another round of bitching when Falcon V comes out and I will just have to ignore it.

While I´m waiting, maybe it´s time to buy a new joystick (or wait for the Cougar HOTAS..) and install Falcon 4 again. Am kind of missing it, for some strange reason, even though I was just toying around with it without getting into the campaign.

Hidden<span id='postcolor'>

I'd say get back into it. The whole patch thing is pretty much cleared up with the Super Patch 2. Basically you have to add the 1.09us patch then the SP2, that's it.

Just be ready to print up a new manual There has been a lot of changes, especailly in the cockpit. I like it because you have something to do now on your ingresses and egresses. Took me a few days to learn how to work the cockpit again, but it's easy once you've got the hang of it

As for a joystick all I have is a Logitech Wingman Force 3d. It has 7 buttons and a hat, nothing more. But I also have Game Commander 2 with all the wingman commands programmed in and a lot of the keyboard switches. I really suggest you get this program. I use it OFP to direct my men. My casualties have gone down by around 50% now that I can just order my ment the way it was ment to be, by speaking It's a lot easier to split my men up and use smaller groups of 4 men to flank and attack an enemey.

[Sith 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not sure I understand what you mean by this, how would a dynamic battle field kill realism?<span id='postcolor'>

He was referring to the fact that jumping from character to character will destroy immersion and realism.

CCCP: You have no idea how awefully close that all is to Conquest We did borrow some of our ideas from Falcon4 and EECH, so that explains it. The only exception is that you wont be able to select what mission you're gonna play, but you'll get one assigned to you from the General (unless you play as General that is).

[MosquitoMkVI 0]

Why jump from charachter to charechter? Allow missions to be generated on the fly depending upon the player's position, and what is around them. Mix in targets of opportunity, and a dynamic campaign would have great replay potential! Besides, in real life a units objectives can easily change on the fly, war is a highly dynamic series of events! What is a high priority objective right now, can become a smoking ruin, or the capture of a key strategic point can easily change priorities. I think a dynamic campaign would result in a more life-like feel to the game.

[Bucko 0]

All the reference to “Conquest†seems a little premature, seeing that there is no mission available.  And me thinks its been bought up  Oh  about 100 times on this forum..  

 Maybe a due-date or shut up # dude is required here.

[Sith 0]

Errr...wtf?

People are wondering whether certain things are possible in OFP, and I gave them an example of those things we actually worked out ingame already.

What on EARTH is "premature" about giving such examples?

Get yer facts straight before telling some1 to shut up!

[Bucko 0]

Can I have my hook back?. ....  

It would be nice to have some of the options that are available but my peeps are wondering off now. Looking for new games and IF there was a DUE-date of completion !!(probably all will be in Resistance anyway). We play mostly coop and would like a continues rewarding war to fight or lose with out restarting and knowing where every tank and sniper is waiting for us.

You are doing a wonderful job here by the way

.....

[hellfish6 7]

I am thoroughly excited about the idea of a dynamic campaign for OFP. I see it a little bit differently, I think, than some of you, though. I've never played Falcon 4 (I crash my aircraft in OFP all the time... I think that's telling me something) so I don't quite understand the full capabilities of it.

However, my idea for a dynamic campaign system involves several levels.

Command: Player or AI in overall command of battle. Assigns sub-units (composed of tank platoons, infantry squads, etc) to missions. Missions are generated into an overall list. The game would be continuous time, so that these missions could be generated constantly with the results of previous missions.

Mission list could be like the following:

1. 0615: Recon (Recon sector XXXX)

2. 0615: Seek and Destroy (seek and destroy enemy units in sector XXXX)

3. 0630: Raid (Destroy enemy supply depot somewhere in sector XXXX)

4. 0645: Attack (Take Lolisse)

And the player would get to pick his mission and his equipment. For the seek and destroy mission, for example, he could be a sniper and walk to his destination or take a Blackhawk there. Or he can be an AH-64 pilot and seek and destroy with his helicopter. It doesn't matter as long as the mission gets done.

Another level would be intelligence. The computer would keep track of enemy spottings and place them on the battlemap accordingly. If a convoy is spotted near Dourdan, then a convoy will be placed on the map and the computer could generate a mission to destroy it.

An important component in a dynamic campaign would, I think, be finite forces. The enemy shouldn't have exhaustive supplies and reinforcements and neither should you. If you blow up three T-80s out of the ten that were originally on the island, then there should only be seven T-80s left. And they would be rare to encounter.

I can rant and rave some more.. but not now.

[benreeper 0]

Hey Sith what parts of Conquest have you completed? Is the Command system finished yet as that is the main thing that I am waiting for.

Also... is there any way they can put in the ability to reload while moving, you can do that in real life and that always gets me killed (I'll be running from the enemy and hit reload to early and BAM I stop dead in my tracks and am shot).

[Sith 0]

Bucko: As we have stated many times before, Conquest is an ongoing project. We dont have any deadlines, due-dates, or time schedules. We work on it with intervals, so sometimes we leave it to rest for a few weeks, and then come back and work some more on it. We dont 'owe' anything to anyone, so we take our time and will release it when we feel it's done.

This might sound a bit strange to some ppl, but the thing with Conquest is that it covers so much new ground in OFP editing, that we spend much more time thinking out new scripts and AI routines, then that we actually need to work them out. So far, about 90% of the project exists on paper, but we do know that every single part of it is possible. The biggest chunk of work is the advanced AI scripting, and that's what we're working on right now.

So is the command system finished? Well...depends on what you see as a 'command system'. If you mean the interface that allows you to move your units/squads from town to town etc, then yes, that part is already done. But it also is one of the easiest parts (relatively speaking). There are already several missions out there that use such a system (made by spinor).

[malick 0]

Hi !

Everybody except me knows about Conquest

Is it a completely new game, or is it based on an existing engine ?

[amos m 0]

Ummm...read through the topic a bit and you'll find out.

Conquest is a mission that Sith and his mates are working on which implements a bunch of scripts.

I still don't think that being able to choose your mission suits ofp. Sure, it's a nice idea, particularly for those of us who have little time, or patience, to play big missions, but for the purpose it doesn't fit.

I think one of the biggest features of this sort of implementation of this great game is that it's really gonna help out the mp aspect of the game. If you go jumping from mission to mission, squad to squad, the squad leaders, let alone the team mates, are not going to know who does what well, who is ai, or where ppl are, or any of the important things there are to think of when in the heat of battle in ofp.

I think that Sith and his mates have thought this thing out alot more than most of us, and have the right ideas and are headed in the right direction with this thing.

I can't wait to see the finished product. I took a look at your trailer and that was impressive enough in itself.

[Random 0]

More Falcon 4 stuff for a sec:

Hidden, I had the same experience as you about Falcon 4. I got it when it first came out with the excellent binder (they don't make 'em like they used to ), but I never really got into it.

I mostly mucked around with the quick dogfights and didn't pay attention to the campaign (because of the bugs, like wingmen flying off by themselves). I have put it back on recently and played through some training missions, but now my joystick is broken. I will have to pick up a new stick this weekend and see if I can get back into it.

[Sith 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everybody except me knows about Conquest

Is it a completely new game, or is it based on an existing engine ?<span id='postcolor'>

It's a fan project that allows the player to participate in a completely dynamic battlefield, with advanced AI tactics, vehicle purchasing and upgrading, etc. Basically OFP goes RTS. You can find the website here and the trailer here.

I'll stop the pimping now

Let's get back to the topic's original subject: dynamic campaigns in OFP.

[Oligo 1]

The game engine is actually quite robust. I have made a mission, where you command a russian half battallion (two tank companies (10 tanks each) and a mech. infantry company (ten BMPs and about 80 infantry)) using user markers. You also have (commandable) air support and artillery strikes. Your task is to smash through a U.S. half battallion in defensive positions. I have a 1000 Mhz computer and the game runs smoothly as long as EVEYTHING is not visible at the same time.

I made this mission, because I felt the game lacks continuity (you just jump from predetermined mission to mission) and I thought something resembling a dynamic battlefield would be nice. It's cool to see somebody else has thought of this too.

[Sith 0]

Ah you guys beat me to it...posting on the forums and working on a school project at the same time aint working out too well

As for the OFP engine: it's possibilities are indeed endless. It is actually possible to make a player bubble in OFP, using the createUnit command. However, we're still testing how (CPU) effective this is over the standard way OFP handles units (always present on the map).

Both amos and Random bring up 2 valid points against a fully dynamic campaign that allows for "character hopping".

One being the fact that the familiarisation with your squad and combat zone will practically disappear (both in singleplayer and multiplayer). This was mentioned before in the thread and IMO really is the biggest con on the whole character jumping thing, because I feel extensive interaction between the player and NPC/AI teammates really is one of the next big steps in these kind of shooters.

The second is a new one (AI mess-ups in Falcon4)...but very true indeed.

Having such a fully dynamic campaign is a pain in the royal rear to make "glitch free". There simply is no way you can test and tweak the game enough to ensure that the AI never messes something up real bad. You'd have to prepare the AI to react correctly to every single weird situation in the game, or severely limit their influence on the course of the campaign, otherwise you could get situations like where all your your side's supply trucks are piled up, just because the first two had a collision and the AI wasnt programmed to react correctly to that particular situation. Or a certain objective cant be completed because some enemy soldier is hiding his coward ass in the bushes, resulting in the commanding AI to send way too many troops to "conquer" that town...which in it's turn will make the front so weak that the enemy will just smash through it.

I know...these problems each have their simple solutions, but the fact is that there are thousands of situations like this where the AI might fuck up, so there's no way to take it all into account and 'learn' the AI what to do in such a situation.

Having a partially dynamic campaign will greatly reduce problems like this, since you can actually test most of the possible paths through the campaign (although it'll still be a time-consuming process).

[Chill 0]

I love falcon SP2. I always play it!

Back to OPF. I have been making a mini war that does not go on like F4, but there are so mamy options to do in my opf war.

I have scripted it so there are so many options to fight the war. It has been made that you decide what to do as you would in real life. Unlike F4 you have to do set missions, my opf war leaves it up to you to make desions on what type of missions to do. My website will be up very soon with this war.

[benreeper 0]

Thanks Sith.