View Full Version : What do you want in a DCS WW2 MP or SP mission?

Aug-12-2014, 02:01
Original topic on ED forums:

Hello everyone!

I'm working with the mission editor to create a new WW2 multiplayer mission. I have a couple of cool ideas and I kind of know how I could implement them, but I began to realize that it doesn't matter if you have ideas if people are not interested in them.

I decided to create this topic to gather input for mission-makers. I know there's a couple of very talented individuals here, and I'm pretty sure they would be glad to have a thread with some suggestions. So here it is.

When playing a single-player of a multiplayer mission, what are you looking for? What do you guys want to do? What feature have you wanted for ages but never found in a server? What motivates a player to stay in a server? What makes a mission interesting? What makes it boring?

What if the mission was not only about dogfighting but about being part of a larger scale operation? Small actions could have an impact on the battle and trigger troop movement. What kind of actions would you want to do? Control an airspace zone? Destroy command vehicles? Destroy an airfield? Destroy ships? Fight against AI flights?

Personally, I always thought that the issue with big maps was that it is sometimes hard to find someone to fight. I think that part of the solution is to create hot zones (or objective zones) where people have an incentive to go and stir up some trouble. Not only to dogfight, but also to accomplish actions that have a direct incidence on the outcome of the mission. These actions would not necessarily be to bomb a tank... they could be varied, interesting, and not always combat-related.

Aug-13-2014, 03:12
I began working a more immersive airfields using static objects. They do not take much space (and should not, in theory affect FPS too much if used with moderation), which is great. Static buildings will also "camouflage" a-historical objects like missile launchers, helicopters and those pesky russian biplanes. Each individual aircraft has a distinct serial number and callsign on the radio. Radio frequencies will also be properly configured for each airplane (2 channels for 2 friendly ATC towers, 1 channel for Command and 1 channel for misc). What do you guys think?


Aug-13-2014, 05:40
That airfield looks really cool :bravo:

I think keeping an airspace clear is always a good way to guarantee action. Say you have some ground forces fighting it out over some towns, and each side has to try and keep general air superiority, so that their sides ground forces can call in close air support with relative impunity.


Aug-13-2014, 06:20
This is exactly what I thought, TheVino. I'm working on a script that will create some kind of Air Domination. Basically, one side has to control an air space zone during a certain amount of time. So far, it seems to be working pretty well. :)

Aug-13-2014, 19:34
Historic range of the number of bombers attacking with the historic range of escort fighters with the bombers having to be defended by the escort and interceptors having to attack the bombers. Anything less is not realistic. I have no idea how to enforce such a thing. Maybe if you are a fighter and don't do your job you just blow up and get no points?

Aug-13-2014, 20:18
Unfortunately there are no bombers yet but they promise a B-17G for the P-51 to defend against the 190 and a Lancaster at some future date that would not require defending.

We could defend fighter bomber missions though. The problem is lack of period ground forces to attack. Sorry Chuck, no suggestions that I have not made to you on TS yet.