Integrated Dynamic Campaign

[Antler]

From what I remember seeing, the following aircraft are either in FO, or will be at a later date: F22, F16, A10. Forgive me if I'm not correct, but these aircraft are best suited at air-air, air-air and air-ground, air-ground attacks respectively. If I am wrong about that, the point still stands - just replace the offending aircraft with one that would fit into that category.

The way I see it, the dynamic campaign would fit into one of the following categories if you only fly one aircraft:

1. Missions purely based on the aircraft you choose, e.g. if you choose A10, you only get air-ground attack missions.
2. Both air-air and air-ground missions (that are sometimes not best suited to the aircraft you chose), e.g. air patrol with an A10.

My idea is this: have an integrated campaign where you get both air-air missions and air-ground missions. But for example, if you get an air-air mission, you can choose to either fly an F22 or an F16. If you get an air-ground mission, you can choose to either fly an F16 or an A10. That way, you can fly different aircraft if you choose, but if you don't want to spend time learning to fly more than 1 aircraft, you don't have to. I came about this thought from 2 points:

a. In Operation Flashpoint, you get to play the roles of an infantry solder, a special ops, a pilot (and one more I seem to remember, but I can't remember what). Granted its all the same thing with your character having a different skin, but the point is that you play from different viewpoints all on the same story.

b. I remember someone saying somewhere something (I think about Falcon) along the lines of: "I hate linear campaigns. I hate reflying missions. That's the point of a dynamic campaign. If you die, it doesn't matter because you play as a (general) pilot in a squadron - not a specific pilot within that sqadron."

I understand that this might undermime the point of having both fighter ops and bomber ops (for example), but it might make for a more satisfying experience.

I remember a thread discussing how pilots would be 'qualified' to fly certain aircraft, and how realistic certain approaches would be. So, if anyone thinks this is a bad idea PURELY because it would be unrealistic, please answer the following question in you post: "how realistic is it that you can get KIA, and then fly the next mission in the war, which takes into account your death in the previous mission?"

[spyro23]

If you dont know F-22 become now F/A-22 so Raptor is also able fly A-G missions (main A-G weapon are various types of JDAM bombs). Its obvious to me that in A-10 you wouldn't fly for example escort or fighter sweep mission.

[Antler]

Thanks for the info on the Raptor!

[jhook]

Pilots,
The F-22 Raptor can carry limited air to guond ordinance. And, the F-22 is the worls best fighter when it comes to air to air missions (as well as gound missions). With a dynamic campaine in the works, everyone will want to fly the Raptor! :thumbsup: The truth is, there will only be 2 squadrons active this year, and there will be 2 more activated in the next four years. That is all. The Raptors are extreemily expensive (150 to 200 million US, projected over the next 4 years) 4 squadrons in all as of the next 4 years. Fighter Ops (G2I/Gen Av) should remember, the F-22 has limited numbers, only plans to build 80 to 100 planes at present time. But we can always hypothisize and formulate all kinds of excusses, but the F-22 in the game can unbalance a conflict in the US 's favor. 8)

[jenkx11]

Has it been mentioned that the F-22 will be in the game? If it does unbalance the gameplay in favor of the US than that is realistic isn't it. That is what the Raptor was built for right? One other question that I have. Will there be other flyables besides US planes?

[Antler]

Pilots,
The F-22 Raptor can carry limited air to guond ordinance. And, the F-22 is the worls best fighter when it comes to air to air missions (as well as gound missions).


Well as you can see, I'm not that clued up on the Raptor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought an A10 would be more suited to an air-ground mission, and therefore make people more inclined to fly that as well as the Raptor.

I didn't think the number of Raptor actually available would be a problem for the dynamic single player campaign. Obviously not too many would be available, so if you got shot down in say 2 Raptors, they would be unavailable for the rest of the campaign.

[Antler]

Another thought: if the concern is that flying the Raptor may make it too easy, this is where flying from the viewpoints of different pilots come in: simply make the Raptor available to fly in say 5 missions.

[Buckshot]

Hi Antler.
The F/A-22 will not be one of the aircraft in the initial release. As for your campaign question, most pilots will probably chose to specialise in a particular aircraft especially when they are using the full realism options. Virtual pilots will have a lot to learn with each aircraft being modelled in an extremely detailed manner, with vastly different procedures etc for each. Sure people will be free to change squadrons/aircraft throughout the campaign, but I would think this would not be done too frequently.

As such the missions that get assigned to you would be based on what squadron you are in at that time, so in answer to your question, if you are in an A-10 squadron, no you would not get tasked a CAP.

[Charlie_VFP]

Also remember that because an aircraft has the ability to perform multiple missions, it does not always, or ever, fill that role.

The most perfect example is the F/A-18C Hornet. We can carry Aim-9 and Aim-120. However, how often do you see the Hornet used as a fighter? Hardly ever. In fact, the ONLY time we used Hornet's as an AA aircraft in OEF was as carrier defense. Not once did an AA Hornet go over the beach to my knowledge.

The reason? We had more capable aircraft to do that job... ie. the Tomcat and mutliple USAF ground based aircraft.

So, even though the Raptor has limited AG capability, I doubt you will ever see it used in that fashion except for MAYBE a few times to make the Congress critters happy that their new multirole fighter really is multirole and they didnt waste money voting on it. But any smart general would use them solely for the purpose of air supremancy and use his better AG aircraft (15E, 18C/D, 18E/F, 10A, ect) as his pounders.

Now, the F-14D being used as a bomber is a little different. The Tomcat crowd has been against being turned into an AA/AG multirole for years but is now doing their best to become such. The reason is because they are looking at extinction. They knew a long while ago that a pure Naval AA interceptor had no place in the future. So, either change or leave. They decided to change and have pushed for the capability, of which they got with the D. We used them in this fashion very limited in OEF... mainly to drop a bomb and then provide CAP.

I forgot what my whole point to this post was. :)

[jhook]

Buckshot wrote;

The F/A-22 will not be one of the aircraft in the initial release.

I think that the F/A-22 will be releasd in a future mod though, such as 'Advanced Fighter Ops", but I don't think that will be out for awhile. I do think that once the initial "Fighter Ops" is released, the ajoining mods will follow very quickly (hopefully within a few months of each other) and a "Advanced Fighter Ops" should be one of them. :thumbsup:

[Vampyre]

Now, the F-14D being used as a bomber is a little different. The Tomcat crowd has been against being turned into an AA/AG multirole for years but is now doing their best to become such. The reason is because they are looking at extinction. They knew a long while ago that a pure Naval AA interceptor had no place in the future. So, either change or leave. They decided to change and have pushed for the capability, of which they got with the D. We used them in this fashion very limited in OEF... mainly to drop a bomb and then provide CAP.
I was out there for OIF on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the Tomcats would leave loaded with a mix of Pavewave's and JDAM's and comeback empty. The drop one bomb and then get on with the real mission of CAPing is wrong. Towards the end of the operarion they would come back with bombs because there just weren't any more worthy targets out there. The great thing's the Tommy has over the Hornet is its bring back weight and range.
Love them Tomcats and hope to see a flyable one. :wink:
you guys are doing a great thing making this game and I am eagerly waiting for the end result whenever that may be. Take your time and get it right is all I ask. Here's to the FO staff :drink:

[jhook]

I think that Naval Ops will model the Tomcat, as well as Hornets and Prowlers and other venerable US Navy aircraft, as well as other naval aircraft around the world. :thumbsup: I think that Naval ops will be one of the best mods, but problebly one of the most difficult to model because of all the naval units that also must be rendered. Hang on for some cat launching in the future!!! :thumbsup:

[Juggernaut]

From

My idea is this: have an integrated campaign where you get both air-air missions and air-ground missions. But for example, if you get an air-air mission, you can choose to either fly an F22 or an F16. If you get an air-ground mission, you can choose to either fly an F16 or an A10. That way, you can fly different aircraft if you choose, but if you don't want to spend time learning to fly more than 1 aircraft, you don't have to. I came about this thought from 2 points:

a. In Operation Flashpoint, you get to play the roles of an infantry solder, a special ops, a pilot (and one more I seem to remember, but I can't remember what). Granted its all the same thing with your character having a different skin, but the point is that you play from different viewpoints all on the same story.

b. I remember someone saying somewhere something (I think about Falcon) along the lines of: "I hate linear campaigns. I hate reflying missions. That's the point of a dynamic campaign. If you die, it doesn't matter because you play as a (general) pilot in a squadron - not a specific pilot within that sqadron."

I understand that this might undermime the point of having both fighter ops and bomber ops (for example), but it might make for a more satisfying experience.

I remember a thread discussing how pilots would be 'qualified' to fly certain aircraft, and how realistic certain approaches would be. So, if anyone thinks this is a bad idea PURELY because it would be unrealistic, please answer the following question in you post: "how realistic is it that you can get KIA, and then fly the next mission in the war, which takes into account your death in the previous mission?"

Hi,

Interesting idea.

I'm not concerned about it being realistic but I am concerned about it disrupting the feeling of simulating being a particular "fighter pilot". Ie. it might take away from simulating being an F-16 pilot if sometimes (or every time) I am forced to choose which jet I fly.

-Also, how can the ATO plan the missions of each package if the type of aircraft to be used is not know until right before the mission is flown?

-Wouldn't simply being able to choose the squadron you fly with and their general mission type and aircraft type give you the same options?

-Would this idea mean giving up the idea of flying as part of a particular squadron?

It is late and I am tired, so perhaps I did not understand you correctly.

Please let us know more details?

Thanks!
Juggernaut

[Charlie_VFP]

I was out there for OIF on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the Tomcats would leave loaded with a mix of Pavewave's and JDAM's and comeback empty. The drop one bomb and then get on with the real mission of CAPing is wrong.

It may be wrong for OIF, but I spoke from what I knew to be true when I was on the Roosevelt for OEF.

And I did say that their mission is constantly changing as the times go by as they struggle to fight back against extinction.

Besides, during OIF there were land based USAF aircraft more capable of CAP and making the F-14's prime mission a little reduntant over the skies of a country that hasn't flown a combat aircraft (seriously) in a long long time.