If the developers have the time,energy and money it is fine. But feel MP is what most people are interested in .(And don't think it cost as much but may be wrong there.) Esp if you are trying to bring younger people into the hobby. Have one brother that liked Campain in
RB and also MP but the other 3 of us were MP only. Like the human rec when I get a kill from a human player . Don' want to get HAL mad . If both can be done great but don't want to bogg down this project before it can get out of the gate.There are no tank sims out as of late and I'm a Tank nut . WW2 only.

Who the hell is this addressed to?

Well I for one are only interested in SP so a dynamic campaign is important to me and the MP part can come later... SO THERE

LOL... seriously, I know poeple enjoy MP but please don't go dissing the SP part just cause you feel it is unimportant to you, different strokes for different folks

AK, I presume he is talking about this new sim being developed and directing his comments to the devs

Yup singleplayer is the most important aspect for me also. Multiplayer is something that should be attached at the end, if the developers have the time (unless the title is specifically developed as a mutliplayer title, like BF2 or Guild Wars, etc).

I feel that far too many developers, these days, use multiplayer as a cheap excuse for not designing an immersive, entertaining amount of single player content. This, unfortunately, is a trend that we see more and more with the release of new titles.

Often it's a very short singleplayer campaign, with a handful of missions that you can complete in 10 hours. When people complain that the game was too short, there's always someone around who will say, "Hey, now it's time to try multiplay". Loads of hours of gameplay... hmmm?

Give me a good singleplayer experience anyday over multiplay content. I enjoy multiplay, but not as much as I enjoy the singleplayer experience.

In the perfect world would be nice to have both . And not dissing anyone cause as I said my brother likes SP . But with limited resources in an area that doesn't get much attention (WW2 armor) a bird in the hand ... . Can't bog down a project with so many requests that it never gets made . Better to have the MP than nothing at all.

This was supposed to be a reply not a new topic that's why it seems out of place.

I have sent to Rainer and he has forwarded it to the developers of the upcoming tank sim, a concept that allows for both singleplayer and multiplayer online dynamic campaigns. Also the concept allows for both singleplayer and multiplayer randomly generated missions. Plus, historic battles.

But it has a big problem, the need for either an extremely large battlefield or theatre of war, ie one enormous continuous combat area. This is clearly technically possible, because WWIIOL has it, and has had it for a few years now. If the developers are willing and able to create such a battlefield and incorporate my dynamic campaign concept, all your dreams will come true.

Python.au

Would be nice . But might need to start small and work our way up . Otherwise it again gets bogged down.

Devil M,

I am not going to give details of my dynamic campaign concept. But I believe that it address many of your concerns regarding previous efforts in this area.

You realise that historically, the majority of commanders would wait till they had numerical superiority before attacking. They did this because the attacker can generally expect greater losses than the defender.

Most of what you say above seems to me to be related to the AI programming of the units. I think that my concept will help units with their decisions, at least regarding where to move. The rest is up to the AI programmers.

I think that my concept will overcome most, if not all of the difficulties you have outlined above.

I can't give details, as I don't want to lose my intellectual property. Because if it is as good as I think it is, it is very valuable.

Python.au

Yes if it can overcome what Devil M said you may have something .

It's best to have the numbers advantage but humans don't always think that way.

Germans at Battle of Kursk

Gen Lee at Gettysburg and just about the whole war

Destroyers at Phillipines attacking the Japanese fleet.

This all again goes back to human element which I mentioned before and Devil M explained so well .

Hope it works for you. I just prefer MP myself.
Like the Germans said during WW2 . "It's impossible to attack the americans by knowing their docturine cause they don't follow their own doctrine.
That helps to win battles if your enemy can't predict what you will do . And what is more unpredictable than the human mind. Moods etc.
"Rommel you SOB I read your book." Gen Patton.

Operation Flashpoint 2 will have a Dynamic Campaign (with a narrative spliced in.) From the previews Bohemia seems to be making good use of the system to generate interesting situations. Ambushes... patrols whatnot.

Demon M,

You mentioned Blitzkreig, and you made a terrible mistake, as you have overlooked the very first planned action of a blitzkreig battle. The use of an overwhelmingly superior force, at the point of an attack. Bigger force attacking little force.

The defender may overall have superior numbers, but generally does not know where the enemy intends to attack their lines. Think Ardennes 1940. Therefore they spread their forces thinly. So the superior force penetrates the enemy's lines by defeating an inferior force. Then other tactics mentioned in your paragraph come into play, such as spreading panic, breaking lines of communication, etc.

OOPS!

How do you think WWII was won? Overall it was a numbers game, the Allies outnumbered and outproduced the Axis. There are very few cases in WWII where the Allies won on strategy alone. Mostly it was weight of numbers.

Clearly the AI needed to run units in a battle is very complex. But my concept will help in many ways. Again I can't elaborate, but I am sure my concept will greatly assist in overcoming many of the problems encountered in creating a dynamic campaign.

Python.au