First of all, let me convey my belated but well deserved thanks for the update, especially since we've been told that it was not easy to get it done for us.
Things look better and better each week and that's all i can say about it for now
Now, as for the campaign engine, i guess it is within the scope of the thread since
a) it deals explicitly with important game features and
b) i don't see anyone getting banned because of discussing it, so i suppose it's safe to join in
Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor
This is exactly what I don't want. It is against my idea of what a flight simulation campaign must be like. Strategic decisions (which you have to take in BoB) are the prerogative of generals which - and yes, I know I am repeating myself - do not fly combat missions.
A flight sim cannot depict the layer above the regimental plane (= Geschwader or Wing). As such any flight sim campaign that tries to mingle these two very different things is a gamey crutch and I can't stand such things. There is a lot to be done when the layers of responsibility are accurately depicted (management of aircrew, tactical planning of how to fulfill the task/mission which one's assigned by the Fliegerkorps / Luftflotte / Group Command etc). What you propose is a strategy campaign that is about as immersive to me as a blank sheet of paper. 
So what I wish for? Let's take Flanker's example of Erprobungsgruppe 210 and assume the player chose the rank of Hauptmann/Major and is in command of said unit. The player receives a mission target (or a group of targets) such as a bunch of CH and CHL stations in the Dover area. He receives a timeframe during which the attack has to take place (which is interwoven with the other ops of Luftflotte 2 that day) and in this case he has to plan how to employ his three Staffeln to take out the target(s) without suffering too many losses. For the briefing I see something along these lines:
" Einsatzbefehl - 13 August 1940
To: Erprobungsgruppe 210
From: Stab Luftflotte 2
You are tasked to conduct a strike against the british radar stations at Dover and Rye (map with marked target locations). The attack has to be conducted between 7:45 a.m. and 8:05 a.m. in order to reduce interceptions against our bomber forces which will cross the french coast at 8:10 a.m."
Then comes something about weather conditions, recon information, target photos and intelligence (i.e. known allocation of enemy fighter forces, enemy AAA positions etc), the aircraft pool and pilots available for that mission. Then it's up to you - you can either auto-plan the mission or do it manually.
So you can plan something but it's within believable and reasonable limits. |
That's pretty much what i had in mind as well for a campaign system. I don't mind having an extra, full-on strategic mode where you are planning missions as a theater commander but flying them as if you are in the shoes of many different pilots for those who would like something like this, but not to the detriment of having what you describe: the feeling of being a tiny cog in an enormous war machine, recreating the day to day life of a single pilot in a single unit.
The player could then decide on the things he would historically have responsibility for, based on his rank. The HQ and generals assign your unit's orders/general goals/targets and if you have the appropriate rank you can plan the raids according to intel,weather and requirements of other units (or press the auto-generate button) and then fly them.
As for the effect on history, it doesn't have to be a black or white case of "either full-on ahistorical or totally scripted". Anyone remember European Air War? Whatever you did the allies would still win. However, you could influence
how fast and how easily/hard it happened.
If you were doing well in your missions you got promoted and took command of a unit. If you took care to protect your pilots and accomplish your missions (thanks to that game's very good radio command interface), your unit's overall contribution to the war effort increased.
It was a very balanced deal. You actions had an effect in the dynamic campaign without overturning the historical outcome of the war. How? Small stuff and local effects.
I think this would be a very good campaign system for the SoW series as well, especially since we know we'll be getting multi-layered AI (an old example from an interview by mr Oleg Maddox: shooting the generator turns off the searchlights and the flak guns can't aim anymore).
Since SoW will feature so many individual details per each unit modelled, i think we'll have enough tools to focus on having dynamic occurences around the player while still preserving the historical accuracy in the grand scheme of things. I think this is the perfect mix, because you feel small enough to convey the feeling that you are just a soldier in a war, but not totally powerless to influence day to day situations in your part of the front.
For example if you command the best fighter bomber unit in the 8th AF, the D-day landings might happen a couple of weeks earlier and the troops on the ground in your sector might advance a little faster thanks to your support.
In a similar fashion, if you rise to command a luftwaffe unit that excels under your leadership, maybe you can delay D-Day for a couple of weeks and the allied troops in your sector advance slower because of your determined resistance, but they will still advance all the way into Germany.
The broad outcome is still historically correct, but the local situation in the air and on the ground is subjected to the effects of the player's actions, so we get the best of both worlds: historical accuracy and replayability/incentives to improve. It gives a varied yet accurate experience for each campaign we will ever start
I'd really love to know what the developers think about this, because i have a feeling we'll be very pleasantly surprised.