A couple of months ago I started working on a Qbasic program to supplement the Dynamic Campaign Generator. The Qbasic program edits the DCG "Mission" file in the following manner:
1. Changes fighter formations from the DCG standard echelon left to finger four, which is more realistic and reduces collisions somewhat.
2. Spreads the bomber formations vertically to reduce collisions.
3. Finds and fixes 3 known DCG "Mission" file errors.
4. Re-assigns unneeded AI CAP's as escorts for bombers and fighters originating from the same runway/carrier that are assigned to strike missions. DCG only assigns the player flight to escort duty. This change provides better protection to strikes and also allows long range escorts in the ETO, which is something DCG does not do.
5. Allows player input to set a minimum number of CAP's covering runways or carriers. The program may then re-assign additional CAP's as escorts.
6. Allows the player to change the loadouts of each element of the player flight.
All of the above was working as advertized, but there was one remaining problem. In the ETO, DCG for some reason has strike flights originating from runways other than the player runway starting @15 nm from their targets. This was causing their re-assigned AI escorts to be left behind. I spent part of yesterday fixing that, and in the process found and fixed a couple of minor programming bugs. Now the re-assigned AI escort flights start 2000 ft directly above the strikes they're escorting, where-ever they are. Except for those originating from the player runway, which start at their original DCG starting points, since the strikes they're escorting also start near the player runway.
For my next trick, I plan to try to improve on the DCG front-movement. DCG front-movement is currently solely dependent on the campaign date. I'd like to have front movement tied more directly to what happens in the campaign.
Another possibility would be to work in some automated file-swapping, to put more variation into the DCG campaigns - i.e., different AI squadrons, different ship formations, and different infrastructure and target locations. This should have the effect of expanding the campaigns without increasing the number of units present in any one mission.
Eventually I plan to upload the program and a couple of campaigns for you basement denizens to have fun with. I'm looking at target date of about a month from now. That should give me enough time to build a couple of campaigns, experiment with the additional options, and do some play testing.
DCG campaigns do have a few things going for them compared to hand-built campaigns:
1. It's easy to substitute in different aircraft. If you don't happen to have or don't like a plane the campaign calls for, you just go to the DCG squadrons editor and write in the plane you want. That's all there is to it.
2. It's easy to switch sides, and you don't need a separate campaign for each side. If you want to switch sides, you just go to the DCG squadrons editor and change the allegiance, type, and location of the player squadron. Then all you need is a pilot of the required nationality.
3. DCG builds the campaign missions as the campaign progresses, so you can play the same campaign repeatedly and it won't be exactly the same twice. And you never know exactly what is going to happen in a given mission.
4. Losses and victories are tracked. The results of previous missions apply directly to the next mission.
5. Your wingmen and all AI pilots and crews get better with experience and survival, and worse when they get killed and have to be replaced by rookies.
However, we do have some great mission-builders around here. Hand-built missions and campaigns have the advantage of being able to precisely re-create the conditions and elements of actual historical dogfights, battles, and campaigns, whereas DCG campaigns can only re-create the order of battle.
1. Changes fighter formations from the DCG standard echelon left to finger four, which is more realistic and reduces collisions somewhat.
2. Spreads the bomber formations vertically to reduce collisions.
3. Finds and fixes 3 known DCG "Mission" file errors.
4. Re-assigns unneeded AI CAP's as escorts for bombers and fighters originating from the same runway/carrier that are assigned to strike missions. DCG only assigns the player flight to escort duty. This change provides better protection to strikes and also allows long range escorts in the ETO, which is something DCG does not do.
5. Allows player input to set a minimum number of CAP's covering runways or carriers. The program may then re-assign additional CAP's as escorts.
6. Allows the player to change the loadouts of each element of the player flight.
All of the above was working as advertized, but there was one remaining problem. In the ETO, DCG for some reason has strike flights originating from runways other than the player runway starting @15 nm from their targets. This was causing their re-assigned AI escorts to be left behind. I spent part of yesterday fixing that, and in the process found and fixed a couple of minor programming bugs. Now the re-assigned AI escort flights start 2000 ft directly above the strikes they're escorting, where-ever they are. Except for those originating from the player runway, which start at their original DCG starting points, since the strikes they're escorting also start near the player runway.
For my next trick, I plan to try to improve on the DCG front-movement. DCG front-movement is currently solely dependent on the campaign date. I'd like to have front movement tied more directly to what happens in the campaign.
Another possibility would be to work in some automated file-swapping, to put more variation into the DCG campaigns - i.e., different AI squadrons, different ship formations, and different infrastructure and target locations. This should have the effect of expanding the campaigns without increasing the number of units present in any one mission.
Eventually I plan to upload the program and a couple of campaigns for you basement denizens to have fun with. I'm looking at target date of about a month from now. That should give me enough time to build a couple of campaigns, experiment with the additional options, and do some play testing.
DCG campaigns do have a few things going for them compared to hand-built campaigns:
1. It's easy to substitute in different aircraft. If you don't happen to have or don't like a plane the campaign calls for, you just go to the DCG squadrons editor and write in the plane you want. That's all there is to it.
2. It's easy to switch sides, and you don't need a separate campaign for each side. If you want to switch sides, you just go to the DCG squadrons editor and change the allegiance, type, and location of the player squadron. Then all you need is a pilot of the required nationality.
3. DCG builds the campaign missions as the campaign progresses, so you can play the same campaign repeatedly and it won't be exactly the same twice. And you never know exactly what is going to happen in a given mission.
4. Losses and victories are tracked. The results of previous missions apply directly to the next mission.
5. Your wingmen and all AI pilots and crews get better with experience and survival, and worse when they get killed and have to be replaced by rookies.
However, we do have some great mission-builders around here. Hand-built missions and campaigns have the advantage of being able to precisely re-create the conditions and elements of actual historical dogfights, battles, and campaigns, whereas DCG campaigns can only re-create the order of battle.
