Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
#3654815 - 10/02/12 04:50 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: CTR69]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
It's a Russian thing. All the Russian flight sims I have (Il-2/CloD, Flanker/LOMAC/DCS, ROF) suffer from that same issue of being, well, dull. When you're in combat it's exciting because of the combat, but just flying around normally it feels sterile. After having pretty much nothing but Russian sims for the past decade...I think other than TK's no-frills sims last one I bought that wasn't was CFS3 on release!!...I've grown used to that, but I remember the older sims fondly.
The Jane's series was best, the Dynamix ones were good, 1942: PAW/Euro Air War was good, even some of the smaller series like EF2000 or the iMagic ones seemed to get that nebulous "feeling" down better.




The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
Inline advert (4th to 5th topic)

#3654948 - 10/02/12 07:43 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master

The Jane's series was best, the Dynamix ones were good, 1942: PAW/Euro Air War was good, even some of the smaller series like EF2000 or the iMagic ones seemed to get that nebulous "feeling" down better.


The Jedi Master


MAN, the old day!! How I miss the old days (specially regarding sim and also because I was a few years younger). Just don't forget the Microprose titles such as B-17 and B-17 II (this last one is still one of my favourites of all times!!).

Anyway Flexman's concept regarding Combat-Helo sim is to revive the feeling of those sims that you and I mentioned and I definitly would NOT want to see anything such as a "Combat-Helo becoming a DCS module" to ruin this concept.

This may seem odd to many and somehow controversial but I would rather see this project "to die" than to see it turning into a "DCS module"! But what I would rather see is that this project finally sees the "light of the day" and finally bring us the so missed realistic-looking combat flight sim with the great feeling from the 90's sims.

#3655062 - 10/02/12 10:34 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: CTR69]  
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
redpiano Offline
Member
redpiano  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
What exactly makes Jane's different from DCS?

#3655502 - 10/03/12 02:52 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: CTR69]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
The sims Origin built? Well, let's put it this way: think of DCS when you're NOT in the cockpit. When you're in the menus, the various screens, picking loadouts for your missions, reading the briefings, the debriefs, etc.
The best thing you can say is "it's functional".

Compared to the Jane's games, DCS' menu system was designed by one drugged-out guy in his basement between meth episodes...because perhaps that's all his mind could focus on when high. Same with all the other Russian sims. You'd think it would be relatively easy to load up those old sims, or look at screenshots in old magazines even, and emulate that setup. But no, they decided "functional is all that is needed" and you're left feeling empty...you KNOW you're in a simulator.

DCS is awesome in the cockpit, but only there. Jane's was awesome wherever you were, and even the lighter titles like USNF which simplified the flying and fighting were great because the menu system was just as good as the full-on ones like Longbow or F-15. You felt like you were a combat pilot even before you strapped in.


The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#3655527 - 10/03/12 03:18 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: CTR69]  
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
redpiano Offline
Member
redpiano  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
So it's better because it has text based fluff? Ehhh, I've never cared for backstory and the DCS menus are fine.

I would like a flight sim that focuses on personalities and story as well as flying but for me to be impressed it would require a lot of voice acting, good writing and cinematics.

#3655708 - 10/03/12 07:20 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: redpiano]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
Portugal
Originally Posted By: redpiano
What exactly makes Jane's different from DCS?


If you're asking this is because you never played any Jane's titles, like for example Jane's Longbow 2 (IMO the best of all Jane's titles)!

To reply to your question, I'll sim it up:
-> Like Jedi said the menus - For example the menus in Jane's Longbow 2 made the player feel like he was on the REAL AIRBASE or Military facility! This is also and specially true where you were on the briefings which made the game much more immersive (even before playing an actual mission) than DCS where briefings mostly consists in a limited mission editor.
-> DYNAMIC CAMPAIGNS (did I ever mentioned this in the past?? rolleyes ) on titles such as Jane's Longbow 2 or SEMI-DYNAMIC campaigns (on titles such as Jane's F/A-18 and F-15) which in both cases allows the player to keep moving on the campaign even if he or she fails a mission. There's nothing more frustrating and less realistic and in the end arcadish than not being able to move in a campaign because the player failed a mission, many of the times due to a single aircraft or tank that wasn't destroyed (and should have been according to mission parameters). It's curious that DCS games are considered ultra-realistic because they supposedly have ultra-realistic flight models, avionics, etc... but at the same time they have completly arcadish campaigns and missions (an another example of this is the existance of deep-strike missions in DCS:A-10, missions that in real life would never be done by an A-10!!)
-> IMO, what makes a Combat Flight Simulators great is not only the realistic and/or high-fidelity aircraft that you control/fly but also the scenario where that same aircraft flies and fights in. What's the point of having a realistic and/or high-fidelity aircraft if the world (or the rest) is just dull, sterile and unimmersive?? This is the biggest advantage of Jane's sims: Jane's sims were not only great regarding the aircraft that were modeled and/or controlled by the player but also great modeling the "world" surrounding them while DCS sims are only great modeling the aircraft controlled by the player while being completly dull and lame regarding the rest!

#3656204 - 10/04/12 01:50 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,130
EagleEye[GER] Offline
Member
EagleEye[GER]  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,130
Germany
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
... which in both cases allows the player to keep moving on the campaign even if he or she fails a mission. There's nothing more frustrating and less realistic and in the end arcadish than not being able to move in a campaign because the player failed a mission, many of the times due to a single aircraft or tank that wasn't destroyed (and should have been according to mission parameters).

AFAIK that have changed. You can proceed in Campaign even you failed a mission.

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
It's curious that DCS games are considered ultra-realistic because they supposedly have ultra-realistic flight models, avionics, etc... but at the same time they have completly arcadish campaigns and missions (an another example of this is the existance of deep-strike missions in DCS:A-10, missions that in real life would never be done by an A-10!!)

Thats because there is no playable fast mover/bomber yet in DCS series. So if you have only the A-10C to fly, then you have to make such deep-strikes or let the AI do it.

I of course agree on all other points you and Jedi have made.
Regarding the menue screens: Wouldn`t that be weird to have, say a american built hangar and or base in the menue screen and you want to fly a russian aircraft (i.e. Su-25/Ka-50)? Janes (LB2) have had only american types in game so it was ok to have a american style base as the menue screen. And you know, there are so many people out there who would just whine about that, I guess.

Sure, it would be great to just have a render of the aircaft type for the arming screen or something like this.

Flex concept to have the "menues" in 3D game engine is interesting and I look forward to see if that is working well. But again, that would not work for EDs sims.

Last edited by EagleEye[GER]; 10/04/12 01:58 PM.
#3656448 - 10/04/12 07:28 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: redpiano]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
Originally Posted By: redpiano
So it's better because it has text based fluff? Ehhh, I've never cared for backstory and the DCS menus are fine.

I would like a flight sim that focuses on personalities and story as well as flying but for me to be impressed it would require a lot of voice acting, good writing and cinematics.


LOL, no it wasn't text-based! You SAW everything. You heard things. Some sims even had setups where you could interact with other pilots between missions. There WAS good voice acting (especially compared to some recent sims) and pretty decent writing. Cinematics were restricted to the Origin non-Jane's games like Strike Commander and Wings of Glory.

In fact, if not for a few questionable design decisions, Wings of Glory would've been my favorite WWI sim of all time! The bad part was forcing too many enemy encounters on you when you had a realistic ammo load and while planes would go down with only a handful of hits, they had you fight your way TO the target, AT the target, and BACK from the target, and rarely did I still have any ammo for the BACK time. Still, it was IIRC the first WWI sim to make the plane creak under g's. Rockets and incendiary ammo vs zeppelins... Ah WoG, we miss you when you weren't being frustratingly difficult...

As for the airbase idea, how hard is it to make it a joint base? From Desert Storm to present day it's pretty normal for multiple nations to share the ramp space at one airport near the conflict zone.

I don't think the premise is unachievable. I just think the resources are stretched so thin the idea is discounted at the design stage (if it's thought of at all) so they can focus on the in-cockpit experience. What they've missed is that a sim is more than just being "in the cockpit".




The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#3656550 - 10/04/12 09:57 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: CTR69]  
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
redpiano Offline
Member
redpiano  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
Sounds interesting, I don't know I never got a chance to play it.

On another note, if anyone is looking for something to tide you over for Combat Helo, there's a really cool project going on for ArmA 2 that makes the AH64D much more detailed and realistic.

Here's a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zBMB8WjiKU&feature=relmfu

Sounds like we might get it this year so.

#3656627 - 10/05/12 12:07 AM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: EagleEye[GER]]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
Portugal
Originally Posted By: EagleEye[GER
]
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
... which in both cases allows the player to keep moving on the campaign even if he or she fails a mission. There's nothing more frustrating and less realistic and in the end arcadish than not being able to move in a campaign because the player failed a mission, many of the times due to a single aircraft or tank that wasn't destroyed (and should have been according to mission parameters).

AFAIK that have changed. You can proceed in Campaign even you failed a mission.


When and in what DCS/ED sim did this started to happen?

Anyway and lets suppose that you're right -> having a static campaign where you can advance even if you fail a mission but still that doesn't affect the next mission is only marginally better than a campaign that doesn't allow you to advance if you fail a mission.


Originally Posted By: EagleEye[GER
]
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
It's curious that DCS games are considered ultra-realistic because they supposedly have ultra-realistic flight models, avionics, etc... but at the same time they have completly arcadish campaigns and missions (an another example of this is the existance of deep-strike missions in DCS:A-10, missions that in real life would never be done by an A-10!!)

Thats because there is no playable fast mover/bomber yet in DCS series. So if you have only the A-10C to fly, then you have to make such deep-strikes or let the AI do it.


Then it's very simple: Don't make those sort of missions (deep strike missions) for an A-10C!! This is just as stupid has having intercept missions on a helicopter sim such as Jane's Longbow 2 and you don't have intercept missions (or any other unrealistic kind of missions) in Jane's Longbow 2 (for example), do you??
IMO, this just proves what I've been saying: the ED guys just don't care about anything which is outside the cockpit itself!

#3657123 - 10/05/12 05:06 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: CTR69]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
I think I shot down maybe half a dozen fast movers in Longbow actually over the years. biggrin
As for one mission affecting the next in a campaign, how realistic is that really? How much can one pilot effect an entire military campaign?

If the campaign is one of those "you fly several times a day going back to the same spot" types, yes it should reflect previous battle damage/unit attrition in the area, but I've done that in Il-2 and UGH was it boring! You feel like you're reflying the same mission over and over with different times of day and more wrecks around each time.

If it's a "you fly every day or two and keep attacking different targets or flying different types of missions" types, then it doesn't really matter if you took out that bridge yesterday as you attack the airfield today and then the shipyard tomorrow. MAYBE there will be some sort of "less enemy air presence at shipyard if airfield attack succeeded" feature, but all too often you won't notice.



The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#3657194 - 10/05/12 06:18 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 190
Rusty_M Offline
Member
Rusty_M  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 190
Edinburgh UK
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Originally Posted By: EagleEye[GER
]
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
... which in both cases allows the player to keep moving on the campaign even if he or she fails a mission. There's nothing more frustrating and less realistic and in the end arcadish than not being able to move in a campaign because the player failed a mission, many of the times due to a single aircraft or tank that wasn't destroyed (and should have been according to mission parameters).

AFAIK that have changed. You can proceed in Campaign even you failed a mission.


When and in what DCS/ED sim did this started to happen?

Anyway and lets suppose that you're right -> having a static campaign where you can advance even if you fail a mission but still that doesn't affect the next mission is only marginally better than a campaign that doesn't allow you to advance if you fail a mission.


Originally Posted By: EagleEye[GER
]
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
It's curious that DCS games are considered ultra-realistic because they supposedly have ultra-realistic flight models, avionics, etc... but at the same time they have completly arcadish campaigns and missions (an another example of this is the existance of deep-strike missions in DCS:A-10, missions that in real life would never be done by an A-10!!)

Thats because there is no playable fast mover/bomber yet in DCS series. So if you have only the A-10C to fly, then you have to make such deep-strikes or let the AI do it.


Then it's very simple: Don't make those sort of missions (deep strike missions) for an A-10C!! This is just as stupid has having intercept missions on a helicopter sim such as Jane's Longbow 2 and you don't have intercept missions (or any other unrealistic kind of missions) in Jane's Longbow 2 (for example), do you??
IMO, this just proves what I've been saying: the ED guys just don't care about anything which is outside the cockpit itself!


In the Georgian Oil War campaign in DCS Black Shark, the game will make you fight a different mission depending on the results of the preceeding mission. ED have not created other semi-dynamic campaigns yet AFAIK, but the tools are supposedly there to change subsequent missions to a degree based on what happens in the current mission. It's not fully dynamic, but branching is better than fully static IMO.

I'm not well versed enough to comment otherwise.

I hope Combat Helo does well. Competition is good for the consumer and variety is the spice of life, so more sims/more aircraft is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, whether CH is successful on its own or whether it becomes a DCS Module (which seems very unlikely).


The world is going mad. Me? I'm doing fine!

Asus Sabertooth X58, i7 950 @4GHz, 6GB corsair Dominator 1600 MHz, EVGA GTX 570, Samsung 1Tb, 60 Gb OCZ Vertex 2E SSD
#3657267 - 10/05/12 07:58 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I think I shot down maybe half a dozen fast movers in Longbow actually over the years. biggrin


So did I, but that's not what I meant: One thing is in Longbow 2 (for example) having to shot down an enemy airplane or helicopter that was threatening you (for example in Longbow 2 I even managed shot down enemy Mig-29s with Stinger missiles) other completly diferent is playing a "what-if" intercept mission where for example the player needs to intercept ande destroy enemy incoming Mig-29s with his Apache helicopter (which is totally unrealistic and rubish) and deep strike missions while playing with an A-10 is just as realistic as this! But I believe that in the end you always knew what I meant with my previous post...


Originally Posted By: Jedi Master

As for one mission affecting the next in a campaign, how realistic is that really? How much can one pilot effect an entire military campaign?


Well, "one mission affecting the next in a campaign" usually seen in dynamic campaigns is definitly much more realistic than Static campaigns where the player can't advance if it fails a mission (time doesn't stop, I'm sure you and everyone else here knows it wink ) and where the damage that you inflicted on the enemy in the previous mission doesn't affect the same enemy on the next mission (which is seen in Static campaigns)!
If you destroy an enemy target you should expect that same target will continue to be destroyed, at least for a considerable lenght of time (for example in the following mission you should see that same target as destroyed). Or if you destroy, lets say a considerable number of enemy aircraft or tanks in a mission or sequence of missions you should expect that the number of enemy air forces and tank assets available will be considerably less in the following missions! What's the point for a military force to bomb/attack the enemy if it doesn't expect that many or most enemy units and assets eventually get destroyed or "put out of service"??

Yes, I admit that the attrition that the player inflicts on enemy forces in a dynamic campaign may sometimes happen a bit too fast but that's a gameplay consideration. But yes it's realistic to expect that the target, airplane, tanks, etc... that you destroy in one mission is still destroyed in the next mission, afterall that target, airplane, tanks WAS ACTUALLY DESTROYED!

#3657274 - 10/05/12 08:03 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: Rusty_M]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Rusty_M
In the Georgian Oil War campaign in DCS Black Shark, the game will make you fight a different mission depending on the results of the preceeding mission. ED have not created other semi-dynamic campaigns yet AFAIK, but the tools are supposedly there to change subsequent missions to a degree based on what happens in the current mission. It's not fully dynamic, but branching is better than fully static IMO.


Humm, didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up!

While a semi-dynamic (or branching) campaign still isn't a dynamic campaign, I completly agree that a semi-dynamic campaign is definitly much better than a fully static campaign!

#3657873 - 10/06/12 08:47 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: CTR69]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
There's nothing I hate more than not being able to progress in a campaign because I failed a mission, especially when it's because it's difficult. I dislike being forced to replay the mission ad infinitum until I crack it.

However, my point was more "how much would mission success or failure affect pilot X"? While some pilots might be sent to the same target over and over day after day, others will find their next mission has little to nothing to do with their last, success or fail.
A locked campaign where you don't progress till you win is cheap to make...each mission knows the outcome of the last (you won!) so you proceed from there. However, all too often those campaigns ignore it anyway. You crater an airfield, but next mission you still get swarms of enemy planes!

A branching campaign seems to me to the best compromise because you just use the same mission and have 2 sets of preconditions: either they won and there are fewer planes in the next mission, or they lost and there are more. You still are going after the fuel storage area, though. No "keep attacking the airfield till it burns enough for the campaign logic to accept" which is prone to interpretation. Telling me I did it because I blew up 1 hangar is just as unsatisfying as telling me I failed when every object I can see is burning because "you needed 3 craters in areas X Y and Z for the runway to be inactive".

Quite simply I've played many, MANY scripted, branching, and dynamic campaigns over the years, and just being dynamic =! good. Il-2's dynamic campaign was one example. I used Lowengrin's 3rd party one when I bothered because Il-2's was so mind-numbingly dull and repetitious.
Longbow 1 had a scripted branching campaign that rocked. LB2 had a semi-dynamic one with scripted missions that would appear during certain windows or not at all in between the random generated ones. EECH had a great dynamic campaign that would inevitably die with a whimper as the enemy-base-takeover bug reared its head and the advance ground to a halt (although I understand the modders fixed this YEARS later, after I gave it up).
I've also seen dynamic campaigns that ignored attrition! You would never run the enemy out of weapons/tanks/planes because I guess the designers thought that sort of victory was too "easy."

So just because a campaign is considered dynamic doesn't mean it will be good. Likewise scripted doesn't mean replayability will be zero.



The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#3657920 - 10/06/12 10:41 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: CTR69]  
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
redpiano Offline
Member
redpiano  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
I forget which mission it was but I played a mission in Blackshark 2 that I really thought was well done. It's a night mission and you take off with the goal of simply doing a fly around, during the mission you get a call on the radio that there's a convoy trying to escape an engagement or something and you're to enter their coordinates, find them and destroy them before they make it into town. This is the type of mission I personally want to see, make things more personal and interesting; give each mission a story instead of just feeling like a mindless turkey shoot.

So far every campaign I've played basically feels exactly like that, a mindless turkey shoot, take off, fly X distance, kill X targets, return to base.

Reading Apache by Ed Macy has really made me question all this, he talks about taliban insurgents climbing trees to spot for a mortar crew, firing flechette rockets into the trees to take out the mortar crew that's raining down fire on royal marines and later on a mission where he coops with a Harrier jet that drops a bomb on a ridge line while the two apaches do clean up on running insurgents. I don't see this type of mission in other flight sims, albeit I haven't played Jane's games or any of the other older flight sims people always rave about.

I do hope Combat helo is successful and has a good campaign.

#3658161 - 10/07/12 02:30 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Quite simply I've played many, MANY scripted, branching, and dynamic campaigns over the years, and just being dynamic =! good. Il-2's dynamic campaign was one example. I used Lowengrin's 3rd party one when I bothered because Il-2's was so mind-numbingly dull and repetitious.
Longbow 1 had a scripted branching campaign that rocked. LB2 had a semi-dynamic one with scripted missions that would appear during certain windows or not at all in between the random generated ones. EECH had a great dynamic campaign that would inevitably die with a whimper as the enemy-base-takeover bug reared its head and the advance ground to a halt (although I understand the modders fixed this YEARS later, after I gave it up).
I've also seen dynamic campaigns that ignored attrition! You would never run the enemy out of weapons/tanks/planes because I guess the designers thought that sort of victory was too "easy."

So just because a campaign is considered dynamic doesn't mean it will be good. Likewise scripted doesn't mean replayability will be zero.



The Jedi Master


Please don't get me wrong but it really puzzles me when you say that EECH campaign while LB2 campaign is semi-dynamic! To me it seems clear that LB2 campaign is definitly dynamic (and not semi-dynamic), since for example:
-> The more enemy ground units (tanks for example) that you destroy the more attrition you will inflict in that particular or in those enemy formations even if you fail the mission's main objective (just like EECH for example) - A thing that doesn't happen in a semi-dynamic campaign!
-> When one friendly or enemy army formation (battalion for example) decides to launch an offensive that's not due to mission specification but this happens when that army formation is ready for it - The army formation is reinforced and with a high level of supplies.
-> Yes, it's true that sometimes you get scripted missions (the rescue POWs mission for example) but for the rest of missions aren't dependent of any branch tree (like happens in a semi-dynamic campaign) but instead they spawn randomly accordingly to factors such as your actions on previous missions, the past and present actions of other units (friendly and enemy) and of course a random factor (anyway, just like happens in EECH).

The only diferent in how the campaigns work in LB2 and EECH is the following:
-> In LB2 one mission equals one day. While the EECH campaign happens in real time. So the diference is that LB2 campaign is a "turn based" dynamic campaign while the EECH is "real time".


I do agree that just because a campaign is dynamic it doesn't mean that it will be good, but an "average" dynamic campaign is IMO much better than a "very good" static campaign (and even semi-dynamic) even if it's only due to the fact that a dynamic campaign which is always random gives the player a much higher replayability value to the player (everytime you play a dynamic campaign it's not always the same due to it random mission generating nature).
Also a semi-dynamic campaign is not random in nature since you always know that if you win a mission you get the "X mission" as the following mission while if you fail that same mission you get the "Y mission" instead so this will definitly limit a semi-dynamic campaign replayability value!

#3658173 - 10/07/12 02:52 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: redpiano]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,836
Portugal
Originally Posted By: redpiano
I forget which mission it was but I played a mission in Blackshark 2 that I really thought was well done. It's a night mission and you take off with the goal of simply doing a fly around, during the mission you get a call on the radio that there's a convoy trying to escape an engagement or something and you're to enter their coordinates, find them and destroy them before they make it into town. This is the type of mission I personally want to see, make things more personal and interesting; give each mission a story instead of just feeling like a mindless turkey shoot.

So far every campaign I've played basically feels exactly like that, a mindless turkey shoot, take off, fly X distance, kill X targets, return to base.

Reading Apache by Ed Macy has really made me question all this, he talks about taliban insurgents climbing trees to spot for a mortar crew, firing flechette rockets into the trees to take out the mortar crew that's raining down fire on royal marines and later on a mission where he coops with a Harrier jet that drops a bomb on a ridge line while the two apaches do clean up on running insurgents. I don't see this type of mission in other flight sims, albeit I haven't played Jane's games or any of the other older flight sims people always rave about.

I do hope Combat helo is successful and has a good campaign.


BlackShark 1, was one of the three only ED games that I purchased (the other two where Flanker 2 and Lock On) and IMO my favourite BlackShark mission was one that you had to escort a Mi-8 which was going to pick up a downed Su-25 pilot which was hidden on a housing complex (near a river bank). In this mission you would only fight against enemy infantry (one of the best features of Blackshark, IMO) which was composed of enemy insurgents that would come out from a nearby forest and going after the pilot - As expected you must eliminate the enemy infantry threat so that the Mi-8 could land an pick up the pilot. Very thrilling and original mission inded.

IMO, the main problem of most combat helicopter sims isn't IMO that you must "take off, fly X distance, kill X targets, return to base", IMO the main problem is that in most combat helicopter sims the "X targets" are for the most part enemy tanks or other vehicles (sometimes "escorted" by mobile air defence systems such as Shilkas or Tunguskas) and there's a complete lack of infantry units (which composes the VAST MAJORITY of ANY army formation). BlackShark while having a great modeling of infantry units unfortunally only uses infantry in a few missions (specially in the campaign). Most of BlackShark's missions still consists in the typical blow up enemy tanks and other vehicles stuff!

#3658183 - 10/07/12 03:10 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: redpiano]  
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 356
CTR69 Offline
Member
CTR69  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 356
Originally Posted By: redpiano
Reading Apache by Ed Macy has really made me question all this, he talks about taliban insurgents climbing trees to spot for a mortar crew, firing flechette rockets into the trees to take out the mortar crew that's raining down fire on royal marines and later on a mission where he coops with a Harrier jet that drops a bomb on a ridge line while the two apaches do clean up on running insurgents. I don't see this type of mission in other flight sims, albeit I haven't played Jane's games or any of the other older flight sims people always rave about.

I do hope Combat helo is successful and has a good campaign.


Nothing like killing people with 30mm grenades, ey?


I don't think CH will do this kind of "combat", it should be force-on-force, hunting tanks and providing CAS. But on their site it does say counter-insurgency...

#3658199 - 10/07/12 03:57 PM Re: Combat-Helo development starts again at the end of September! [Re: CTR69]  
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
redpiano Offline
Member
redpiano  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,110
It's a gruesome and grim business, but if you're making a simulation shouldn't it be honest and realistic? How much tank hunting do Apache's do in Afghanistan? Are there ANY opposing vehicles besides 4x4's?

All footage I've watched since that war started has been tanks blowing up buildings, soldiers firing into mountains and down streets, apaches/harriers/warthogs/cobras taking out 4x4 vehicles with guns mounted on them, people and buildings. So if Combat helo boils down to the same DCS 'BS' of blowing up tanks for hours on end I'm going to be a very disappointed panda bear. It's a sterile feeling experience and I think it's a contributing factor to why so few people still play flight sims these days.

The game is supposed to be set in Afghanistan so that type of stuff is exactly what I expect to see, taking out insurgents, covering friendly troops and eliminating strongholds and such.

Last edited by redpiano; 10/07/12 03:58 PM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  RacerGT, Wklink 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
This is almost like the Holodeck
by NoFlyBoy. 10/04/23 03:13 AM
Hey Panzer!
by Chucky. 10/03/23 01:01 PM
30th Anniversary of the Battle of Mogadishu
by bones. 10/03/23 12:16 PM
Your game of the year vote so far?
by PanzerMeyer. 10/02/23 05:09 PM
Tech support
by KraziKanuK. 10/02/23 06:35 AM
Anyone here a vet or friends with one?
by Mr_Blastman. 09/30/23 10:59 PM
is microsoft trying to kill hotmail ?
by Blade_RJ. 09/28/23 03:40 PM
September 28th, 1987
by NoFlyBoy. 09/28/23 12:34 PM
Sir Michael Gambon was 82
by F4UDash4. 09/28/23 12:32 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0