From Forgotten Battles on, IL-2 had dynamic missions. "Dynamic", as in "take a snapshot of the picture of the situation and choose an appropriate mission type".
This is no different from the mission generation system in Falcon 4, EECH, TAW or else with the only difference that IL-2's system works basically turn based instead of real time. You and the AI fly their missions and the results influence the battlefield picture in the next one.

For example, at the start of my current campaign I was up against a lot of flights of LaGG-3s. My squadron mauled them time after time, so at one point the skies over the front were clear of LaGG-3s until the Russians got enough reinforcements to send up a flight of 'em again.
Over the course of 60 to 70 missions, the german ground forces managed three quarters of the way to the current map's objective, endured a counteroffensive, then counter-counterattacked and are now kind of bleeding dry because the opposing side has superior reinforcement abilities (as it was in the real battle).
Would I play the map again, in the same role and with the same aircraft, but decide to strafe everything in sight or do as bad as I could, the situation would be different. Not in the big picture (we're talking WW2 here and nothing fictional), but notably different locally.

This totally qualifies IL-2s campaigns as dynamic.

(I have to say though that I only fly with Lowengrin's Dynamic Campaign Generator in IL-2, but this program is nothing than a beefed up version of the original one, with more units, better calculations, etc...the principle remains the same though.)

With the advantage that the mission intervals (daily, although 2-3 per day would be a tad more accurate) are more realistic than in their real-time counterparts where you can fight non-stop 24/7 (e.g. F4 or EECH).


Strike Fighters works in the same way as IL-2, although I get the feeling that player successes there are a bit more influential for winning or losing than in IL-2.

I didnt know you could win or lose a campaign in IL2 I also thought it was just a load of independant missions. Well I bought IL2:FB ages ago and sold it shortly after so maybe its changed since I tried it. Certainly that is nothing like how CoD works though ('works' being said tongue in cheek).

I haven't tried CoD. Not because of the bugs, but rather because of the non-dynamic campaigns and an uninteresting scenario (BoB...*yawn*). The former also applies to all the DCS titles.

It's just beyond me how a 200x flightsim just can't have a dynamic campaign. Falcon 4's had a more than excellent campaign, systems modelling and (at that time) superb graphics. And that was even back in the day when there still was a considerable market for (and thus competition between) flight simulators...

Yes you wouldnt think that the intersts of gamers would have change much from what it was in the 90s even when you had Privateer, Wing Commander, X Wing, Strike Commander, TFX, Gunship 2000, M1 Tank Platoon, F19 Stealth Fighter, Silent Service etc and loads more I cant remember. Now we just have FPS, RPG and RTS games and thats it.

I think developers fell into the trap of feeling they had to produce superbly accurate flight games and also with the better computers and graphics available they just priced themeselves out of the market. I dont see why there wouldnt be a great interest in another EF2000 or Elite today if one ever came out. People like great plane and space games with user choice, skill and rewards provided, and ones which you can win at easily and enjoy the ride - they dont have to be complex. I think thats why FS games have been so popular for so long - they dont stress you out and they provide a great reward whilst you are playing them and you can choose what you do and when, and if you want to go explore somewhere outside the mission area you can.

Most other games these days are just extremely complex, extremely stressful, just boring or linear. I just dont understand the developers today - but then I think economic greed has taken over from pride and the desire to produce rewarding games in many of them, these days computer games are big business and have a lot of money rising on them so they stick to well worn formulae. Its all rather sad really.

Well, to be fair, times did indeed change. You used to have just a single platform (PC) to develop for until console gaming got popular and networked gaming is getting more and more important as well. To actually make money and still be up to date, you have to develop a product that appeals to as many people as possible. And if the people dictate systems fidelity over campaign modeling, devs can't do much if they don't want to extend development times and risk losing interest of possible clients.

Kind of sad, but what you're going to do?
(Well, except going guerilla and doing an open source flight sim after your own taste.)

Came upon this thread late but I think what you are looking for is here. http://www.fseconomy.com/