IL2DCE: A dynamic campaign engine for IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by adonys

Hi mate, glad you're back! if you need any help, just let me know

Roger. Will try to make the next release quickly and then try to get everything better structured and documented to allow working in a team. I hope I will soon be able to host a server regularly so people can see it in action.

[SNAFU]

Hi Banks,

I understand your system is more or less a script compilation which uses a given template to start with. Is it feasible without too many issues to use the DCE with any other starting template/map?

F.e. if I want to use the whole map and a certain starting condition of 10th July 1940?

BTW:

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by SNAFU

Hi Banks,

I understand your system is more or less a script compilation which uses a given template to start with. Is it feasible without too many issues to use the DCE with any other starting template/map?

F.e. if I want to use the whole map and a certain starting condition of 10th July 1940?

Exactly, it works with every map and every settings. So far the template is created entirely in the FMB (and it's my intention to keep it that way). Simply add the air groups (one waypoint is enough) with the first waypoint set to takeoff and "spawn on script" checked. Then add the front markers and some ground units. The ground units will automatically try to capture the enemy front markers and so on.

There is also a small ini-info file for every campaign that defines the date and the names. You can optionally overwrite the default plane settings for a campaign, e.g. if you want to disable a loadout or change the role of an aircraft (e.g. enable recon missions for Bf 109 or disable airfield attacks for Ju 87 or change the mission altitude ranges).

To keep the world persistent I will write a new "template" when the battle is stopped that reflects the current positions of the units, so basically the mission file is used to store all information and the current state.

I'd recommend to wait with creating a own template at the moment. I need to define the various "markers" in the template first, because at the moment this can change from release to release, e.g. at the moment I use front markers to define the target locations for ships and ground units, which obviously doesn't work if both are on the map.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Exactly, it works with every map and every settings. So far the template is created entirely in the FMB (and it's my intention to keep it that way). Simply add the air groups (one waypoint is enough) with the first waypoint set to takeoff and "spawn on script" checked. Then add the front markers and some ground units. The ground units will automatically try to capture the enemy front markers and so on.

Isn't that a bit excessive WRT the workload in the FMB? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to define the airgroups along with the types they can field, their air bases and pre-defined transfers at certain dates in a separate text file (which DCE can read and interpret)? That would be a lot more flexible IMO. Based on experiences with DGen editing I am not a fan of defining too much in the mission template.

EDIT: To give an example of what I'm talking about WRT "lack of flexibility". The phase Kanalkampf began with a limited number of units doing active missions (i.e. Stab/JG 51 and its subordinated Gruppen, KG 2, the Stukas etc). That doesn't mean there aren't other units still "resting" on the map and those may become active at some point. If, however, we define them and their base in the FMB the DCE will see them as "active" and will use them ... I hope that makes sense. If not we can meet somewhere else to talk about this in german.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by csThor

Isn't that a bit excessive WRT the workload in the FMB? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to define the airgroups along with the types they can field, their air bases and pre-defined transfers at certain dates in a separate text file (which DCE can read and interpret)? That would be a lot more flexible IMO. Based on experiences with DGen editing I am not a fan of defining too much in the mission template.

EDIT: To give an example of what I'm talking about WRT "lack of flexibility". The phase Kanalkampf began with a limited number of units doing active missions (i.e. Stab/JG 51 and its subordinated Gruppen, KG 2, the Stukas etc). That doesn't mean there aren't other units still "resting" on the map and those may become active at some point. If, however, we define them and their base in the FMB the DCE will see them as "active" and will use them ... I hope that makes sense. If not we can meet somewhere else to talk about this in german.

I don't like to define location based information in a text file, they should be defined on a map for better usability. So either use the map tool that is available (FMB) or create own map tool. The benefit is that everyone can adjust a existing template (e.g. change the aircraft of a squadron) without the need to read the whole manual.
Availability date or more general special events at a certain date are time based information and obviously can't be defined in the FMB and would require a own text file (or for better usability a calendar editor). However so far I have no idea how to combine certain events with the dynamic changing front-line. But this is stuff for the advanced user.

[csThor]

Quite honestly the idea of stuffing most things into the template was proven insufficient by DGen years ago. It was not flexible enough to depict changes of aircraft types (i.e. the switch from Bf 109 to Fw 190 within a sub-campaign, not between two of them) or sudden transfers to other locations for reasons you as a player had no control over, a thing which later happened so frequently (i.e. transfer of parts of Fliegerkorps VIII from Kharkov to Orel during Citadel).

I, personally, believe that only certain things should be defined on the template:

- airbase locations (i.e. deactivating air bases which weren't in use at a certain time)
- major railway lines (= primary supply lines)
- major railyards
- if applicable shipping lines (= major supply lines)
- major roads (= secondary supply lines)
- major harbour installations
- minor harbour installations
- bridges (weak spots of supply lines)
[ - Army Group or Army Level Supply Dump location(s) ]

... basically all things that are mostly static or cannot be moved somewhere else. Anything that is mobile or even semi-mobile should be defined in another file. I mean I am a rivet counter when it comes to historical details and I would invest considerable time into adding such details. But not everyone would do the same and I understand that. But if you cram all such things into the template and don't use external files you're automatically limiting the amount of historical details, accuracy and flexibility your tool can generate.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by csThor

Quite honestly the idea of stuffing most things into the template was proven insufficient by DGen years ago. It was not flexible enough to depict changes of aircraft types (i.e. the switch from Bf 109 to Fw 190 within a sub-campaign, not between two of them) or sudden transfers to other locations for reasons you as a player had no control over, a thing which later happened so frequently (i.e. transfer of parts of Fliegerkorps VIII from Kharkov to Orel during Citadel).

I, personally, believe that only certain things should be defined on the template:

- airbase locations (i.e. deactivating air bases which weren't in use at a certain time)
- major railway lines (= primary supply lines)
- major railyards
- if applicable shipping lines (= major supply lines)
- major roads (= secondary supply lines)
- major harbour installations
- minor harbour installations
- bridges (weak spots of supply lines)
[ - Army Group or Army Level Supply Dump location(s) ]

... basically all things that are mostly static or cannot be moved somewhere else. Anything that is mobile or even semi-mobile should be defined in another file. I mean I am a rivet counter when it comes to historical details and I would invest considerable time into adding such details. But not everyone would do the same and I understand that. But if you cram all such things into the template and don't use external files you're automatically limiting the amount of historical details, accuracy and flexibility your tool can generate.

The good thing is that the new engine allows to calculate the waypoints for ground units on the fly, so there is no need to define roads, railroads and bridges. (IIRC destruction of bridges can't be logged at the moment). Airfields are also directly available, of course I can't disable a airfield.

I agree it would be practicable to define the locations of cities, rail yards and harbors for every map (the default definition can be overwritten by every campaign). But this would be a "map template" (location of map characteristics) opposed to a "campaign template" (location of units).

I still have some problems with adding "scripted events", of course I can define that unit x was transferred to airfield y at date z. However, what happens if airfield y is already in enemy territory? We see that "events" won't work in combination with a dynamic frontline. Of course a dynamic frontline is not desired if you want to create a historical campaign. So basically if you want to create a historical campaign you want to define the frontline and location of air units and maybe even for ground units. I don't think you want to define that for every day but let's say for every week. Between these dates the frontline may develop dynamically. But what happens if a unit is destroyed? Will it reappear with the next define situation?

I think it would be very possible to add "reinforcement events" to a dynamic campaign that define which air or ground units become available at a certain time. It may be even possible to define a "preferred location" for them that is used if it is in friendly territory.
It would be cool to add some "special events" where a scripted mission is loaded, e.g. to stage a scripted paratrooper operation or a key assault. But then again this would produced problems with the dynamic front line.

One solution for the front line dilemma would be to link the events to the front situation, i.e. they only happen if the corresponding area is still in own hands.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

The good thing is that the new engine allows to calculate the waypoints for ground units on the fly, so there is no need to define roads, railroads and bridges. (IIRC destruction of bridges can't be logged at the moment). Airfields are also directly available, of course I can't disable a airfield.

You misunderstand the purpose, Banks. By defining certain roads and railways I force the engine it use it as primary channels for supply traffic. Even today this vital part of military operations is dependent on good railway connections and good roads. Even with our modern offroad vehicles the need for roads is still there as offroad driving considerably increases wear and tear and therefor ups the need for maintenance. These supply lines are primary targets for the medium bombers and ground-attack aircraft of the two sides. Don't forget that!

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I agree it would be practicable to define the locations of cities, rail yards and harbors for every map (the default definition can be overwritten by every campaign). But this would be a "map template" (location of map characteristics) opposed to a "campaign template" (location of units).

Guess why I am such an opponent of a "campaign template". It's not able to depict the constant shift of forces that was so common in later years.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I still have some problems with adding "scripted events", of course I can define that unit x was transferred to airfield y at date z. However, what happens if airfield y is already in enemy territory? We see that "events" won't work in combination with a dynamic frontline. Of course a dynamic frontline is not desired if you want to create a historical campaign. So basically if you want to create a historical campaign you want to define the frontline and location of air units and maybe even for ground units. I don't think you want to define that for every day but let's say for every week. Between these dates the frontline may develop dynamically. But what happens if a unit is destroyed? Will it reappear with the next define situation?

Remember when we discussed the issue over at sturmovik.de? I told you back then that I don't think a totally "dynamic" campaign is realistic. I am of the opinion that a single pilot can't influence the course of the war that much because too many factors are totally outside the scope of a flight sim. I do, however, agree that a transfer list is more sensible in a static environment as the BoB. Some transfers (i.e. from one area to another, from one supreme HQ to another) should be pre-defined (i.e. as part of the concentration of forces for a historical operation) or done as reaction to enemy actions.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by csThor

Remember when we discussed the issue over at sturmovik.de? I told you back then that I don't think a totally "dynamic" campaign is realistic. I am of the opinion that a single pilot can't influence the course of the war that much because too many factors are totally outside the scope of a flight sim. I do, however, agree that a transfer list is more sensible in a static environment as the BoB. Some transfers (i.e. from one area to another, from one supreme HQ to another) should be pre-defined (i.e. as part of the concentration of forces for a historical operation) or done as reaction to enemy actions.

I'm totally with you a dynamic campaign is not realistic. But how to create a semi-dynamic campaign? Which are the dynamic variables, which are static?

If looses are dynamic but front line is static there could be a situation that one side has lost all ground units but still the front line doesn't move. Or a vital air unit can't operate anymore because it lost all aircraft in a unlucky operation. How to have static locations/transfers of air units of the front line moves dynamic?
In addition it's not possible to simulate the whole ground war in detail for performance reasons.

As far as I can see at the moment the only practicable way would be to have a scripted definition of the exact locations of air and ground units for certain dates, e.g. 1 August 1940, 7 August 1940 and 14 August 1940.
Between those dates everything happens dynamic, but when one of the dates is reached the scripted definition is applied and basically resets the dynamic changes to the ones defined for the date.
The only exception could be the squadron of the player where looses and experience of the squadron mates remains throughout the campaign.
This would result in a basically static campaign progress with randomized missions and dynamic development of the own unit.

[csThor]

I took some time to really think about this but quite honestly all I can offer is an opinion and some snippets.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I'm totally with you a dynamic campaign is not realistic. But how to create a semi-dynamic campaign? Which are the dynamic variables, which are static?

Quite honestly I think only the missions can be dynamic, not the setting and the "strategic environment". At first at least I think you should concentrate on making the missions dynamic enough to be believable (use of submissions, triggers, events etc) and logging damage states to static area targets once that is possible (i.e. airfields, bridges, radar stations, railway installations etc). The second step would be to give these things a meaning: damaged railway means impact on supply situation in an area and - if possible - rerouting of supply trains to another line (with all the congestion this overload of traffic causes), damaged airfield means lower maintenance states for your squadron if the hangars are down, etc etc pp ...

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

If looses are dynamic but front line is static there could be a situation that one side has lost all ground units but still the front line doesn't move. Or a vital air unit can't operate anymore because it lost all aircraft in a unlucky operation. How to have static locations/transfers of air units of the front line moves dynamic?
In addition it's not possible to simulate the whole ground war in detail for performance reasons.

Influencing frontlines is a very difficult matter and I think this shouldn't be attempted too much, if at all, since too many factors and variables are outside the scope of a flight sim. As you said it's not possible to simulate the whole ground war with its ten-thousands of vehicles, guns and tanks so a situation like "one side has lost all its ground forces" just should not happen.

Historically ground warfare was heavily dependant on different sets of factors such as training, doctrine, Command&Control, Communication and whether one side was on the strategic offense or defense. The Red Army of 1941 was numerically powerful but totally unprepared for the Blitzkrieg style of war practiced by the Wehrmacht. The germans won a lot of battles not through firepower but through coordination, movement and training. We can't simulate those advantages in a flight sim ... Which in turn means the impact of a player should be confined to the location he is in and the timetable for the advance/retreat could be shifted only minimally.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

As far as I can see at the moment the only practicable way would be to have a scripted definition of the exact locations of air and ground units for certain dates, e.g. 1 August 1940, 7 August 1940 and 14 August 1940.
Between those dates everything happens dynamic, but when one of the dates is reached the scripted definition is applied and basically resets the dynamic changes to the ones defined for the date.
The only exception could be the squadron of the player where looses and experience of the squadron mates remains throughout the campaign.
This would result in a basically static campaign progress with randomized missions and dynamic development of the own unit.

This may be a way. We do, however, have to take into consideration that there were two reasons for unit relocation during the BoB:

1.) A unit may have lost too many aircraft and/or its crew is suffering from fatigue so RAF FC may decide to move it to a secure location to recuperate and bring a fresh squadron to the battle area. Same goes for the LW.

2.) The LW may want to concentrate certain assets in one area for increased impact on operations, just as it happened to the fighter units which were concentrated in the Pas-de-Calais area in August/September 1940.