As a self-described immersionist (def. One who seeks immersion in a sim as a primary goal), this opens up a whole new realm. While mission-driven sims are not new (WWIIOL, Screaming Demons Over Europe, Falcon 4.0), I’ve yet to see a MMOG do it properly. That’s why I’m really excited to HTC taking it on. Many missions that were common in WWII air combat are rarely if ever seen in the MA. Things like CAS, interdiction (either of trains, convoys, or armored columns), SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses), strategic bombing are a few examples. Part of the reason for this is that even those like myself who like the immersion of historical missions don’t bother with them in the MA because they are perceived to have little or no affect on “the War.” Plus, our immersion is somewhat spoiled when our Lancasters and Forts are met and attacked by P-51’s, Tempests, and F4U-1C’s. So I’m really excited by the possibilities. Because the “Mission Theater” (HTC’s term, not my own) doesn’t have to conform to the MA strat and supply system, a whole host of possibilities arise to allow these heretofore little used mission types to become viable and useful. The following is a list of mission types and their targets/objectives I can think of off the top of my head. Feel free to expand on it.
- Strategic Bombing Strike: cities, refineries, ammo factories, radar factories, troop training facilities
- Escort (loose or close): defend strategic, operational, or tactical strike packages
- Operation Level Strike: airfields, vehicle bases, rail yards (got to have these), bridges, damns, depots, ports
- Deep Interdiction: truck convoys, barge convoys, trains, armored columns (like truck convoys, only composed of armored vehicles; represents operational maneuvering of ground forces behind the FEBA)
- Close Air Support: deployed and/or engaged enemy ground forces
- Combat Air Patrol (CAP): Point defense of bases, strategic targets, or operational targets against enemy air attacks
- BARCAP: CAP of an area, forward deployed versus directly over a target to be defended
- Maritime Strike: Task groups and merchant convoys
- Reconnaissance: Locate specific targets, or just general assessment of enemy positions and dispositions
- Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD): Anti-aircraft guns, radar antennas, Air Defense Centers (HQ)
- Amphibias Assault: Destroy shore defenses and land X-number of troops within Y-miles of objective
- Air Assault: Drop X-number of paratroops within Y-miles/yards of an objective
- Armored Assault: Ground attack against a target to destroy or occupy it
- Supply Mission (air or ground): Drop X-tons of supplies within Y-miles/yards of friendly target
The next question is whether base capture as it exists in the MA would be enabled, or whether some other method would be used to determine how the front moves and who is “winning.” For that matter, would a way to win the war even be included. I hope so since, in addition to participating in a historical mission and advancing my rank and stats, I also want to see some tangible results from a well-executed mission. In a real war, you take a piece of real estate by destroying the enemy forces in that area (or forcing them to withdraw), then occupying it with your own forces. Air and naval attacks on operational and strategic targets is done to reduce the enemy forces and resources used to either attack your territory or to resist your advance into his territory.
Falcon 4.0 had an A/I controlled war, where missions were generated on the fly for the human player. Your level of success in each mission was abstracted into a complex algorithm to determine if the front moved forward or backward, and by how much. A lot of code went into this. As en example, an enemy A/I controlled North Korean armored column would be launched towards Soul. The campaign code would generate an opposing South Korean/US armored column to meet it, which is only half the size of the enemy force. An interdiction mission would be generated for the player to perform. Should the player and his A/I wingmen manage to take out 50% of the North Korean column, than there was a 50/50 chance the South Korean/US force would manage to halt and turn back the assault. The more enemy armor the player destroys, the better the odds the South Koreans would win the ground engagement, with the level of victory or defeat determining whether the front moves north, south, or remains as is. This is in contrast to WWIIOL’s capture the flag method for taking territory, where all forces are player-controlled, including the foot soldiers doing the capturing. It really all depends on how much HTC wants to automate, how much code they want to write.
In an 8th Air Force/RAF vs. the Luftwaffe scenario as proposed for the first set up, you could simply set and monitor victory conditions, such as bombs on strat targets, bombers destroyed, defending fighters destroyed, run it for a week or two and add up the score. This is vulnerable to milk-running on the Allies part of course, and would have to be addressed somehow. These are just my initial thoughts on the subject.
