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

[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.