Opinions wanted on mission writing

[_486_Col_Wolf]

Before I go into the details of this post I want to state clearly that this is in no way a criticism of Rami's or anyone elses missions or campaigns. Rami and others here at SOH have given me so much help with my CFS2 Europe install and I have a great respect for him and everyone who have helped me out. I just want opinions on my style of mission and mission breifing writing. That being said....here we go.

When I write missions and thier briefings I'm not as concerned with historical accuracy (date time place ect). I'll get a general overview of what was hit a certain month in a certain area and build around that. For example, target one of the Euro Targets near the day in the month it was actually hit, use squadron numbers that may or may not have gone on that mission, and use the AC that were there (109's and 190's mixed, P-51's and B-17's ect)

I also write the breifings in a different manner to give the "game" (which it is after all) a certain feel. I'll use one sentence in the overview describing what you're to do on that mission like "Today you will escort to B-17's of the XYZ squadron hitting 123 target in whereverville". In the background blurb I'll say something related to that target like "123 target is putting out too many aricarft a month and needs to be knocked out". Then in the intelligence section I'll say someting like "Fighter and AA cover will be high owing to the high priority of this target" or low or medium depending on what I've placed over and around the target.

I feel that in this way when you read the mission breifing you feel like you're sitting in a room full of pilots with your CO telling you where you're going that day and not being a historically accurate person or squadron. Just you as yourself as if you were there. Also, without any historically detailed missions you're not compelled to do anything but what your mission states, either defending bombers or doing a low level attack ect. Again, not historically accurate but how it may have been and how you're presence may haved changed general things if you were there. I also write my campaigns that put you in one squadron throughout just as you may have been unless of course if I write a transfer into the campaign.

Again, this is just my opinion and style of mission and campaign wrtiting and I'd be very interested in hearing what anyone else feels on the subject.

 

[Cody Coyote]

Personally I feel that it depends on what you plan to do with the mission. If you are writing the mission just for yourself, with no intent of uploading it for others to use, then it doesn't matter what you write. You are familiar with the mission, and even if you come back to it years later you will probably remember the key elements as soon as you start flying it again. Since it's for your eyes only, write whatever you want.

On the other hand, I feel missions that are intended for others to fly should have a well written and detailed briefing. "Detailed" doesn't necessarily mean lengthy. You can write a thorough yet concise briefing that conveys the important information. Remember, you know what is supposed to happen, the person who downloaded your mission doesn't. Therefore, give them enough information so that they know what is going on and what they need to do to successfully complete the mission. Like the real life briefing you referred to, the written briefing should be as complete as possible, without disclosing hidden goals or other surprises you may have included in your mission.

Within this framework you can be as detailed as you wish. I have seen some historically accurate missions which had lengthy descriptions of the actual mission being simulated. That can be perfectly appropriate and it gives an interesting back story to what you are about to fly. Since there are no "rules" regarding what is right or wrong, each briefing is a reflection of the author's view of what you need to know. You should never look at writing the briefing as a chore, or an afterthought. It is as much a part of a well constructed mission as are the waypoints, triggers, and events.

I am a strong proponent of well written, properly detailed briefings and discuss that several times in my Mission Building Handbook. I also believe that you should strive for briefings that are grammatically correct and free of spelling errors. It is, after all, a reflection on you. In the end, as I stated, there is no right or wrong answer. We each do what feels comfortable for us.

 

[dhasdell]

For me, Cody is The Man where missions and mission building are concerned. It may seem a minor thing, but I completely agree with:

I also believe that you should strive for briefings that are grammatically correct and free of spelling errors.

One game in particular with the most stunning of graphics is ruined for me in any sort of career mode because the briefing notes have shaky spelling and seem completely unfamiliar with the use of the apostrophe. It was years in the making, yet still there was apparently not time to get a native English speaker to run an eye over the text files.

 

[Devildog73]

So far, I have only built historically accurate missions for campaigns. I use several sources for my mission building, from books, to personal accounts, to the USAF museum day-by-day briefing blips of each theater during WWII. It is amazing what is currently available online if one wants to be as accurate as CFS2 coding will allow. In my briefings, I usually state the mission, state the azmuth of flight and altitude. I usually try to hide the mission goals of shooting down X number of bogies or destruction of x number of ground targets. Those, to me, are immaterial. Except for the few that were in competition with other aces, the number of splashes on a mission were not anticipated in advance. Some missions even for Foss, Bong, McGuire, and others were empty of shoot-downs. Many of my missions, if you arrive alive back at the field or bail out over Allied territory, the mission is counted as successful. Where I have you flying as a specific ace, your goal may actually be to shoot down the same number of enemy aircraft as they shot down on that day.

In as much as it is up to me, I attempt to spell everything correctly and use proper American English grammar. Hopefully with Rami, a school teacher, doing the editting and taking literary license to change some things in the missions, we accomplish that.

Bottom line, we are all in this to enjoy the simulated air combat. We all have ego enough to want to NOT get simulatedly shot down. I don't know about the rest of you, but I actually enjoy landing successfully, even with a shot up aircraft. When my landing gear is shot up, I almost always attempt to belly land, rather than gain altitude and bail out. I enjoy NOT using auto-rudder and twisting my joystick to keep my aircraft from veering off the runway on takeoff. I enjoy NOT using auto fuel management and setting the simulator as close to real as possible.

I build my missions in the same fashion, without enhancements and without cheats. I do run out of ammo sometimes and run out of bombs before the target is destroyed, just like in real life. Of course, as we all know, each individual sets those values in their own install and the missions do not control those.

All of this verbose diatribe to say that I agree with Cody Coyote.

;-):salute:

 

[Shadow Wolf 07]

Mine tend to be as short but informative as possible. What I do in the overview is give the heading and distance to the next waypoint which I call the Rendezvous Point (RP) for those who wish to fly rather than warp. I will often give distance, altitude, speed and heading from the RP to the target and a brief target description - sometimes a specific ship name - and mode of attack (tops, bombs intercept etc).

In the background paragraph I usually throw in the historical data - past actions, enemy and friendly. And in the intelligence para, I inform the player of weather - wind direction and speed (if any), cloud cover/visibility. I also put in info about enemy probable intentions, defenses - FLAK and fighter defenses and anything else that might be pertinent.

Do these in any way you like, but keep in mind, someone else who didn't write the mission may need this info to complete it successfully. I try as mentioned above to give the feel of a briefing room. I try not to be too wordy so they don't get lost in a library of info bt a good guide is to use the elements old an old, slightly related Army acronym: SALUTE = Size (your and enemy forces); Activity (fighter sweep or strike); Location (identifying features); Unit (unit callsigns); Time (not really necessary); and Equipment (bombs, rockets guns and for the enemy, type and strength/intensity).

In the mission I almost always use the "hide" function for enemy air and surface formations and use a lot of random spawning, so you can't see locations of squadrons and ships on the map until spotted. A good briefing helps. I use ship names turned on to help ID the specified target or ID the target by location, ie: lead cruiser and often identify the specific target in an update mission goal message, mid flight.

Be creative... :salute:

 

[Rami]

Reply...

486_Col_Wolf,

I can't agree more with what everyone is saying here. We all have different styles of writing, and there is no right way or wrong way to do it. I have my own standards for writing, and try to write in a style that is suitable for a German mission, a Russian mission, a British mission, or an American mission, for example. I tend to treat the first box as an overview, use the second one for historical background, and the third for intelligence.

For Dunkirk, here is an example for a German bomber mission (This is for a Dornier Do-17 - The "Flying Pencil")

"title_string"=Fall Gelb (Kampfgeswader) - Fliegender Bleistifte
"summary_string"=Achtung! While the attack by our Stukas inflicted damage to the enemy ships, the Port of Dunkerque is also playing a vital role in the rescue effort, so we're dispatching your bombers on a raid in order to damage the docks and facilities, hoping that we can knock it out of action, rendering it useless to the evacuating forces.
"objective_string"=Following their rapid advance to the Channel, the Wehrmacht was forced to halt the Panzer advance on Dunkirk on 24 May, while the Luftwaffe vowed to destroy the British evacuation effort from the air. Though there were reasons for this decision, (namely supplies and fatigue) the forty-eight hour delay gave Britain vital time to regroup & fortify their defenses.
"intelligence_string"=Escorting fighters for the Stuka attack reported a Spitfire flight mixed in with their Hurricanes, so their aerodromes in Kent must be providing fighter cover for the evacuation. As you attack the harbor facilities, try to focus on the anchored ships and supplies which are reported to be scattered along the docks.

This is for a British Dunkerque mission...

"title_string"=Dunkerque - Escort to Pas-de-Calais
"summary_string"=Listen up, chaps! Bomber Command is getting into the fray and will now begin conducting a series of interdiction missions against German targets. The goal is to isolate the evacuation beaches from the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht forces so far have not advanced from their stop positions of a few days ago. Let's keep it that way.
"objective_string"=Herman Goering made a promise to Hitler that his Luftwaffe could destroy the British Expeditionary Forces at Dunkirk. The Wehrmacht was stopped at the gates of victory by the Fuehrer's orders prior to reaching Dunkerque when the fleeing BEF was at its most vulnerable.
"intelligence_string"=Your mission today will be to escort a formation of Blenheim bombers that will hit a German vehicle supply convoy located to the south-southeast of Dunkerque. Enemy fighter activity is expected, so keep a sharp eye out. Weather forecast is for clear skies and unlimited visibility.

To be honest, my tendency to be a bit verbose comes into play when I write the briefings, and I enjoy writing them. However, my way is just that, mine. I have no desire to police the writings of other mission writers, and frankly, I like looking at the way others set the scene for you before you fly.

The bottom line? Do what works best for you.

 

[Captain Kurt]

Great topic. My 2 pfennigs:

I don't think there is a right way or a wrong way. It comes down to personal preferences, and that includes whether or not the player enjoys your campaign writing style. There are a lot of campaign choices now and I doubt any of us have flown all of them. I pick and choose what to load and fly, and I'd bet we all gravitate to a style we like.

In the first mission I built, I tried to create a novella around a fictional foreign volunteer in the Spanish Civil War, who was actually a compilation of several real characters. The action around him was historically correct though.

Since then however, I have tried to build historically correct campaigns about specific units - The Legion Condor, the 9th Fighter Squadron and now the 354th Fighter Group currently in production. I follow the actual missions flown as much as possible to recreate the units combat history. In each mission, I try to recreate a portion of what an actual briefing would have been but the real thing would have had much more detail than could be put into the CFS2 briefing. I vary what gets covered on different missions so it does not get too repetitive or boring while still conveying what to expect of the mission. Since these missions are historical as possible the intelligence and background information is used to describe the particular mission and what was occurring to or around the unit at the time. How the player performs or what he does is striclty up to the player, just like real life. The only goal is to survive. You can fly the entire campaign successfully and never shoot down a single enemy plane. (like you guys would ever do that HA! - but that was true for many fighter pilots)

I am attempting to provide both a recreation of a pilot in the unit in action, and a history lesson at the same time. Is that successful? I don't really know the answer to that, but it's fun for me to try. To me, the ability in CFS2 to recreate what really occurred and involve the player as though they were there throughout a period of time is what makes CFS2 a true simulation and not just an arcade game. There are plenty of the latter game types around and I get profoundly bored with them pretty quickly. However, most other people evidently do not.

That's why in the end, my advice to all campaign builders is to create what you enjoy and have fun doing it. If the other flyers like it, great. If not, oh well, because you enjoyed doing the campaign. Doing a campaign for recognition or praise is a sure way to get frustrated or discouraged because feedback is always meager.

By the way, that's something we all should work on improving - each freely given contribution is a gift and it is a very good thing to say thank you when you are given something. A thank you to a contributor is a real contribution too, and it will help keep the game we all love alive for a long time to come.

 

[Devildog73]

Great topic. My 2 pfennigs:

I don't think there is a right way or a wrong way. It comes down to personal preferences, and that includes whether or not the player enjoys your campaign writing style. There are a lot of campaign choices now and I doubt any of us have flown all of them. I pick and choose what to load and fly, and I'd bet we all gravitate to a style we like.

In the first mission I built, I tried to create a novella around a fictional foreign volunteer in the Spanish Civil War, who was actually a compilation of several real characters. The action around him was historically correct though.

Since then however, I have tried to build historically correct campaigns about specific units - The Legion Condor, the 9th Fighter Squadron and now the 354th Fighter Group currently in production. I follow the actual missions flown as much as possible to recreate the units combat history. In each mission, I try to recreate a portion of what an actual briefing would have been but the real thing would have had much more detail than could be put into the CFS2 briefing. I vary what gets covered on different missions so it does not get too repetitive or boring while still conveying what to expect of the mission. Since these missions are historical as possible the intelligence and background information is used to describe the particular mission and what was occurring to or around the unit at the time. How the player performs or what he does is striclty up to the player, just like real life. The only goal is to survive. You can fly the entire campaign successfully and never shoot down a single enemy plane. (like you guys would ever do that HA! - but that was true for many fighter pilots)

I am attempting to provide both a recreation of a pilot in the unit in action, and a history lesson at the same time. Is that successful? I don't really know the answer to that, but it's fun for me to try. To me, the ability in CFS2 to recreate what really occurred and involve the player as though they were there throughout a period of time is what makes CFS2 a true simulation and not just an arcade game. There are plenty of the latter game types around and I get profoundly bored with them pretty quickly. However, most other people evidently do not.

That's why in the end, my advice to all campaign builders is to create what you enjoy and have fun doing it. If the other flyers like it, great. If not, oh well, because you enjoyed doing the campaign. Doing a campaign for recognition or praise is a sure way to get frustrated or discouraged because feedback is always meager.

By the way, that's something we all should work on improving - each freely given contribution is a gift and it is a very good thing to say thank you when you are given something. A thank you to a contributor is a real contribution too, and it will help keep the game we all love alive for a long time to come.

Here, here, Captain Kurt! oops; late fall,

One of the biggest compliments I think that the CFS2 old timers have gotten is Rami's updating of some very good works by our predicessors.
I have flown many of the originals and am working on getting Rami's updates installed to see how they compare. I am looking forward to them.
I have a separate install of your 9th and have flown many of the missions, though not all. I have gone to doing almost separate installs of the campaigns from all or you due to the plane and weapons requirements. It is difficult to stay within CFS2's limits otherwise.

In any case, thanks to you and the rest of the fine builders of aircraft, airfields, ships, scenery, missions, campaigns, etc., for this old but fine simulation. CFS2 is like a high-end red wine. It is good when it is new, and with age it gets even better. Until M$ comes out with a true CFS2 style replacement, I suspect that all of us hobbiers will keep it alive with our own versions of updates, as has been the case thus far.

M$ is missing out on more than they know by not doing something on the lines of their own CFS2 in a newer format.

 

[_486_Col_Wolf]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for all of your replies on this subject. I know I have picked up a few good ideas from the posts. I few things I've read here have certainly made me say "Hey, I never thought of doing it that way" and will definetly make mission writing and flyng more fun for me. I hope to see more replies to this thread and think this is a topic well worth continuing.

And specifically to Devildog, if you like NOT using auto rudder and auto fuel management ect, you'd love the simpit I'm sitting in right now as I write this. I have to get some pics and description of it online here one day.

So thanks again guys for all the replies and by all means if anyone has anything to add let's keep this topic going!

 

[Blondi]

Before I go into the details of this post I want to state clearly that this is in no way a criticism of Rami's or anyone elses missions or campaigns. Rami and others here at SOH have given me so much help with my CFS2 Europe install and I have a great respect for him and everyone who have helped me out. I just want opinions on my style of mission and mission breifing writing. That being said....here we go.

When I write missions and thier briefings I'm not as concerned with historical accuracy (date time place ect). I'll get a general overview of what was hit a certain month in a certain area and build around that. For example, target one of the Euro Targets near the day in the month it was actually hit, use squadron numbers that may or may not have gone on that mission, and use the AC that were there (109's and 190's mixed, P-51's and B-17's ect)

I also write the breifings in a different manner to give the "game" (which it is after all) a certain feel. I'll use one sentence in the overview describing what you're to do on that mission like "Today you will escort to B-17's of the XYZ squadron hitting 123 target in whereverville". In the background blurb I'll say something related to that target like "123 target is putting out too many aricarft a month and needs to be knocked out". Then in the intelligence section I'll say someting like "Fighter and AA cover will be high owing to the high priority of this target" or low or medium depending on what I've placed over and around the target.

I feel that in this way when you read the mission breifing you feel like you're sitting in a room full of pilots with your CO telling you where you're going that day and not being a historically accurate person or squadron. Just you as yourself as if you were there. Also, without any historically detailed missions you're not compelled to do anything but what your mission states, either defending bombers or doing a low level attack ect. Again, not historically accurate but how it may have been and how you're presence may haved changed general things if you were there. I also write my campaigns that put you in one squadron throughout just as you may have been unless of course if I write a transfer into the campaign.

Again, this is just my opinion and style of mission and campaign wrtiting and I'd be very interested in hearing what anyone else feels on the subject.

HI Col Wolf,I have always enjoyed doing actual missions which really flew.Correct dates,places,types of aircraft flown ,even the weather were what I was looking for.I don't like totally made up missions.I have seen some missions others have done in which research was totally lacking.(Mustangs flying in the battle of Britain type stuff)Some even very well made otherwise.If you are going to do "what if "missions at least you should do some research so they sound plasible like they could have happened.I did a whole WW1 campaign where the pilot, and combat was fictitious but the aircraft,correct squadron,Enemy aircraft,squadron,airfields,and timeline were as correct as I could make them.I usually use Debreifings to tell what really happened on this day to the people involved but there is nothing wrong with doing it as if the pilot were in a debreifing room.

I find there is room for several types of campaigns.The ones where the pilot is in the same squadron throughout the Campaign is fine but don't suddenly have a fighter pilot flying a B-25 for a mission with not much info why he is .Then the other kind of campaign. I am currantly writing a campain where there is no set pilot[when it asks for a pilot name just say "Japanese" or "American"].Instead the missions are all set in a specific area,a specific timeframe,and including all of the important air combat that happened here as accuratly as I can make them.The player flys fighters,bombers,recon,seaplanes,most differant squadrons,and differant airbases.I have the Japanese side pretty much done and now must do the readme with all the details usually in there.I will release that on its own, and finish the allied side[American,British,Austrailian,Dutch] and release it later.

It sounds like you are doing fine.Spelling and puntuation are nice but if you make a mistake I would not have a meltdown about.it we have all seen our share of butchered sentences and made our share to.When your missions are done to your satisfaction thats all that counts.Have a good one BLONDI:cost1: