Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[dflion]

Thanks Feuerfalke for posting these pics - they were first posted in 2005 - just shows you how time has slipped away during the development of BOB-SOW - it will still be very worth the wait when finally released.
DFLion

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by III/JG11_Tiger

Zapatista, most of what you want is available now if you use the scorched earth campaign engine

no it doesnt, because in scorched earth
1) it does not occur in real time while the server is running
2) the scorched earth system is still "scripted missions" that are planned one at a time by human intervention, and it is then played one mission at a time as a coop server.

what we need in a true dynamic campaign engine (similar to the old mig alley, or the falcon 4 engine), where the "in game world" is proceeding over a number of weeks according to its own inbuilt scenario (and if left undisturbed or without human intervention will arrive at its pre-scripted conclusion). but small scale interventions by humans interacting with that virtual world should have a direct effect in real time, presuming their intervention is on a significant enough scale to be relevant (eg destroying the complete fuel storage area at an airfield, versus just destroying one part of it) . we should be able to directly affect what is happening in the game in real time, for ex
- destroying fuel storage at an airfield means for X amount of time no fuel is available from that field
- destroying a bridge means trains supplies cant reach their destination untill that bridge is repaired in X time
- replacement aircraft for a squadron at an airfield are flown in at semi regular intervals by AI, shooting down those replacement aircraft reduces new aircraft availability at that airfield
- whatever aircraft (new, or being repaired etc..) that are available at an airfield should actually be visible at that airfield (in hangers out of sight, or out in the open etc..), destroying aircraft on the ground should then mean those aircraft destroyed are not available anymore for X amount of time (till replacements arrive, or damaged ones are repaired after X amount of time). ie people who spawn at that airfield can only choose an aircraft if it is actually available there.

those are fairly simple elements of a dynamic campaign that make the world you fly in "come alive", actions have consequences and directly affect what happens in the game. adding some factors like that while the game is being designed is important, adding them later will be much harder. it doesnt need to take much computing power either, it can be done in a fairly basic way if needed.

mig alley and falcon 4 are each about 10 years old now, yet those types of dynamic campaigns still set the benchmark. it should in 2009 be possible to have a basic version like that integrated in BoB. oleg is obviously thinking in that general direction, because his last post refers to some of those integration factors, hence my question.

ps: the question was directed at Oleg, if you want to discuss it start a separate thread

[Flyby]

I did search, but I haven't found anything relevant, so I'll ask Oleg about AI pilots this way: If in building a mission I assign Stukas to bomb a convoy, and the lead AI Stuka sinks a targeted transport ship, will the other Stukas of the flight break off and target other ships in the convoy? I noticed in IL2 if I assign a flight of Kamikaze planes to attack a ship, and the first plane sinks that ship the other planes tend to mill around instead of attacking other ships in the area. Anyone?
thanks!
Flyby out

[csThor]

zapatista

Unfortunately one reason why campaign engines as Falcon4 and MiGAlley/BoB are still considered state of the art is that they broke their creators's backs. Falcon4 bancrupted Microprose (and didn't work properly for a long time) and the same can be said about Rowan. Such engines - done correctly, which is the key phrase here - cost a lot of time and manpower to develop. And these "commodities" are the rarest in nowadays game development industry. Unfortunately ...

[III/JG11_Tiger]

Zapatista, I get what you mean, but my squad flew ongoing campaigns against AG51 for a couple of years and we enjoyed many of the features you require, unfortunately there was a need for quite a bit of planning input, but we had tanks running out of fuel etc and supply was important to keep airfields active and many more features, maybe Oleg could speak to the developers of SE, as knowing one of the team that created SE, I am fairly sure that a lot of what you require could be added if SE was built into SOW, it will be interesting to see what maddox games comes up with.

[dflion]

Hope the following answer helps your query 99thFlyby.

When making campaigns in IL2 1946, at the beginning you often see 'Select the highest rank before commencing the campaign'. This then puts you in command of the whole flight/squadron. Using the 'Pilot voice commands' (TAB) you now have total control of your flight/squadron.
To stop your Stukas repeatedly attacking the convoy you select the 'Tactical voice command' then select 'rejoin' - your Stukas will break-off their attacks and rejoin you.
You can then issue new commands to attack new targets - once you have 'padlocked/highlighted' them either in the air or on the ground.

To take this a bit further, I would imagine Oleg is working on new dynamic set of pilot voice commands for SOW/BOB which will give us all much more control than with IL2. For example -if your leader is shot down your wingman may take-over command (you may be flying as a wingman). You may see a new 'voice command' - 'Takeover command' which will immediately give you 'leader status' with all the necessary command privileges to command your flight/squadron.
Ground control will be much more comprehensive in SOW/BOB, for example 'climb to 3,000m', target distance 5kl, vector 120 degrees etc. I would be interested in having some futher discussion with this aspect of the game.

Zapatista - I fully agree with your comments - SOW/BOB must have a true dynamic campaign engine.

DFLion

[Flyby]

dflion,
thanks for the input, but per youtr example I'd want the Stukas to keep attacking ships. What i would not want, per mission building, is for a flight to stop attacking even after the designated target for that flight was destroyed. In other words I'd like for a flight to seek other targets. Per my Kamikaze flight example, once the designated target was destroyed (by the lead plane, or any plane), the other planes in the flight would not attack other targets. I want the AI to attak other targets even if the flight lead is dead. I should have added that in my example, the flight lead of the Kamikaze flight was an AI pilot. I'd want an AI Stuka to attack other ships even if the AI leader of that flight was shot down. I'm asking if the AI will seek other targets in SOW if the assgined target is destroyed.
thanks!
Flyby out

[dflion]

Originally Posted by 99th_Flyby

dflion,
thanks for the input, but per youtr example I'd want the Stukas to keep attacking ships. What i would not want, per mission building, is for a flight to stop attacking even after the designated target for that flight was destroyed. In other words I'd like for a flight to seek other targets. Per my Kamikaze flight example, once the designated target was destroyed (by the lead plane, or any plane), the other planes in the flight would not attack other targets. I want the AI to attak other targets even if the flight lead is dead. I should have added that in my example, the flight lead of the Kamikaze flight was an AI pilot. I'd want an AI Stuka to attack other ships even if the AI leader of that flight was shot down. I'm asking if the AI will seek other targets in SOW if the assgined target is destroyed.
thanks!
Flyby out

I am hoping that Oleg has ' considerably stepped up the artificial intelligence of AI aircraft' in SOW/BOB, especially in the ground attack mode. After they have attacked and destroyed a specific target, they then seek out other live targets in the immediate vicinity, if ammo and bombs are still available (this does happen to a certain extent in IL2 now - though it is not reliable) - at the moment in IL2, if you are not the leader, you are powerless to re-direct the AI aircraft to attack other targets and they all end up 'milling-around' the original target until they are all shot down, or limp back to base damaged, or wounded? The way out of this dilemma is that if you lose your AI leader the AI 'second in command' (or yourself, if you are second in command) takes over and redirects the AI flight to other targets, or if you are the Squadron Leader you take over all the AI flights by issuing specific commands to attack other targets.
You must always remember that in the current IL2 flight simulator you are in control of your own ultimate destiny - as you are promoted you are are then controlling the destiny of your flight or Squadron pilots (In the offline mode, all the other AI pilots, in the online mode, other live pilots).
DFLion

[Bobb4]

Maybe the bunny in the screenshot was meant for an Easter update that never happened or they are so far ahead of schedule they were meant for Easter 2009? I am betting on the former http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_02.jpg

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by csThor

zapatista

Unfortunately one reason why campaign engines as Falcon4 and MiGAlley/BoB are still considered state of the art is that they broke their creators's backs. Falcon4 bancrupted Microprose (and didn't work properly for a long time) and the same can be said about Rowan. Such engines - done correctly, which is the key phrase here - cost a lot of time and manpower to develop. And these "commodities" are the rarest in nowadays game development industry. Unfortunately ...

not quite true,

falcon-4 was very much aimed at a niche market that was already small to start out with, and they had significant competition at the time. falcon4 was the most hard core of the group, and was a niche within a niche, and that is mainly why microprose didnt recover its money. it was also released in an extremely buggy state.
- many flightsim enthusiasts who bought it when originally released because they like aircrafts and flightsims, tried it a few times but soon it was gathering dust on their shelves, being to complex and the learning curve being to steep for many. the f-16 it used, an advanced modern plane, also interested only a smaller part of the flightsim community.
- the campaign engine was but one of several factors that made that it an expensive game to design and create. the complex real time avionics, advanced radar guided weapon systems, etc.. took a lot of resources. it was also one of the first mainstream flightsims that tried to provide good online multiplayer functions. the campaign engine they implemented was also very complex, involving the whole korean peninsula over a long time period, and most resources went to modeling ground troops action.

simply put, "the dynamic campaign engine" is definitely not what killed off falcon-4, but i would like to point out to you that it is the main factor that has ensured its longevity and kept it going until today !

il2/BoB is in quite a different situation, it is THE flightsim of the day with a large customer base (yes flightsims are still a small part of the gaming market we all know that). but we need a major step up from what we have now in il2 to keep the current customer base interested for the next 8 years (which is how long oleg expects his current BoB game engine will last).

in BoB the dynamic campaign engine can also be implemented in a more simple way compared to other sims/games, because:
- it only involves aircraft, there is no ground troops involvement in that historical period
- there is also extremely detailed day-by-day information on exactly what happened during the june to september period, only being 4 months.
- online BoB dynamic campaign servers dont need to run for years at a time, they can cycle and repeat the same 4 month period, but because human actions will varry, it will never be exactly the same
- game design and game engine physics have evolved a great deal in the last 10 years, making it easier, better and quicker to design. pc's technology has also evolved a great deal, and computing power being available has significantly increased.

Oleg doesnt need to allocate large resources to implement it initially, it can at first be done in a simple way as long as he provides the basic structure of it from the start, but that still adds a huge immersion factor for the longer term player and il2 enthusiasts.
- the dynamic campaign can have a pre programmed main skeleton to it, where it follows some of the main events of the BoB period, not every single action needs to be modeled, but it needs to be a dynamic server that can progress 24/7 through the 4 month BoB period when left unattended, where people can join at any time and have a choice of a number of flights to be tasked (either flying in supplies to various bases, bomber missions, escort missions, etc...). it basically needs to cater for 30 to 50 people being on a server at any given time, combining AI with humans (as is done in a coop server).
- historically only on some specific days might you have had about 200 aircraft of either side in the air in the same sector and engaging in large numbers, most of the time it was significantly smaller groups, and on many days no large engagements at all. what modern cpu couldnt keep up with limited variables and small computations like that in a pre-scripted fashion? (err we are not talking about having to model each bullet from every aircraft, it is a matter of keeping track of the general numbers for ex 34 hurricanes and 12 spitfires engage 60 german bombers with 40 escorts in sector XYZ, resulting in 8 British lost and 12 germans lost).
- whatever number of aircraft lost from a particular airfield, then less aircraft become available there, until new replacements are flown in at roughly the correct historical times it took. if no humans interfere significantly with historical losses, the server arrives at its logical conclusion 4 months later.

if oleg adds the skeleton of a 24/7 dynamic server in BoB, and structures it in such a way that it can be expanded on later, there will be many dedicated il2 fans who can then progressively add flesh to the bones, and increase the detail. just have a look at the number of people involved at AAA, all working on different parts that interest them, many hands making light work ! but if the skeleton of the dynamic campaign is not added in the creation phase with BoB, then it will NEVER be possible to have it later, and it wont be a feature for the next 10 years either (expansions of BoB will involve new planes and new theaters, but the game engine itself will stay exactly the same)