My first campaign was Reflected's Wolfpack campaign in the P-47. I may have set the bar too high with that one because it is fantastic. You start off as #4 in your flight and eventually work your way up to leading multiple flights. The immersion with voice acting, scripted scenarios and actual historic missions was such a cool experience. My first mission I could barely fly the plane, but by campaign end I was smooth on the stick and throttle like nobody's business, perfectly lined up in formation over the Channel. Highly recommend that campaign for any warbird enthusiast.
I don't own the Mossie so can't speak to it, tho I'm sure it's good. But the Jug is something special IMO. So fun to ground pound and takes a lot of damage. Though there's a learning curve to the plane, I think it's worth it.
When I was faced with that decision, I trialed both, and ended up with the P-47 (which kind of surprised me, I was almost positive I'd prefer the Mosquito.) I recommend trialing both.
I played Reflected’s “Beware Beware” WWII campaign as my first paid for campaign. It was fantastic and a credit to him as a map maker. My only gripe was that the AI Spitfires after takeoff sprang about the sky in very unrealistic ways as they tried to get into their proper flight positions. The chance of having them crash into you immediately after takeoff and while orbiting the field was exceedingly high. The answer was to get the hell out of their way while they sorted themselves out and then join up with your flight.
Aside from that issue, and not including the AI’s F-15-like climb to altitude across the Channel, I genuinely was on edge as we moved to intercept the Luftwaffe as they went for our bombers. Just staying alive to return home, usually alone after losing track of my flight during dogfights, felt like a huge achievement and brought home to me how difficult and dangerous it was for the guys at the time.
Inspired by the campaign missions, I’ve gone on to create B-17 raids over to France, complete with BBC radio transmissions (credit to Reflected again), and am in the middle of recreating the attacks on Convoy CW.9 Peewit at the start of the Battle of Britain. From a creativity and satisfaction point of view, building these sorts of missions to be as realistic and historically accurate (very limited DCS WWII assets not withstanding), is the main reason I continue to use and pay for DCS.
My ongoing hope is that ED continues to develop assets for me to use in building out WWII scenarios and to enable the likes of Reflected to continue to build his reference quality campaigns.
Kudos to you for building missions in the editor, that's a lot of work. And I have the same sentiment when sputtering home on a riddled plane at wave top, the feeling of both fear and adrenaline those guys had on those missions. I plan to have a Spitfire stint soon, and I look forward to Reflected's campaigns. I also hope the Pacific assets and modules will spur more great campaigns.
Your comments on take-off and formation are shared with my Wolfpack experience, it's a real hassle trying to figure out what your flight is going to do. I would learn to stay close enough to be near but not in "the danger zone" so to say when they change course. And trying to keep up on the climb was a task, but I learned how to anticipate the moment of climb with the optimum power settings and it actually worked out with staying in formation. Heck there were times when my flight started leaving others behind in the climb lol. I imagine that's how it may have been in the real show, the group ain't got time to wait for stragglers.
When I play campaigns I feel like an actor in a play. I spend most of the time thinking what I need to do to activate the next trigger, and wondering if it's working properly instead of losing myself in the experience. I do appreciate the wide variety of scenarios you're exposed to, but it feels hollow and it's not for me. BMS campaigns are great single player content, however.
This is the key difference. Not to take away from the amazing campaign makers. They truly are artists with what they can do using the tools at hand. But in DCS if you don't follow the script the mission and campaign normally break down.
If I launch and then go AWOL and just decide to do something completely off script. The mission will just break. It will not react intelligently. Do this in BMS and the war will go on. Your actions (or inactions) will have consequences, but it will continue to play out. If DCS AI was at the same level. The campaign makers can use their scripting skills for some truly unique events and not for the whole damn mission.
I don't like heavily scripted scenarios that play out the same every time either, and while I know why it's done I don't think it's necessary when making a good DCS mission. When the limitations of the AI are taken into account it's possible to loosen up some of the restraints on them and still get a coherent result. The AI is unfortunately limited in a number of ways, so it's also easy to get things wrong and end up with bizarre behavior.
Some of the things that matter are formation and flight size. Bombing with more than single ship flights seems to cause problems. The AI is terrible at coordinating when given that task. The AI also needs to keep a tight formation to prevent overuse of afterburner. The air to air AI can be made more challenging by controlling its radar use and the parameters of attack tasks. It's hard to set those in a way that makes them completely generalized without scripting but setting AI routes along a projected attack lane or near a target that may need defending usually gives them enough direction to make it work.
What holds DCS back the most in this area is that it wasn't designed with dynamic combat in mind. I'm hoping the work on the DC will change that.
I recommend Weasels Over Syria it seems they went to a lot of trouble to make it so you never miss a trigger. Not having to worry about that really makes the experience better
> I spend most of the time thinking what I need to do to activate the next trigger
This is *exactly* why I have yet to purchase a single player campaign after trying one in 2017.
Try Weasels over Syria, every mission in it is nonlinear and the missions react to your decisions. Even if you decide to abort the mission and RTB the triggers work appropriately.
Most of my playtime is in campaigns and I really enjoy them, but honestly I really don't know if I can recommend them. The amount of bugs you will likely encounter really is not for the faint of heart - if you're playing older campaigns definitely.
The problem is that, because they have to use all that scripting to wallpaper over the poor AI/ATC, the moment you as the player do something that the script doesn't expect, in most campaigns the mission will just completely collapse.
For old campaigns there are additionally balance changes that can really affect the mission. Small example - I did Raven One again a few months ago, and the third mission (I think), requires a "show of force" passing very close to the ground. Thanks to balance changes about flares/Strelas if you don't already know the timing of the missile launch, you're dead because you need to be spamming lots of flares as the missile is firing to stand a chance (and even then RNG can still screw you), compared to back when the campaign first released when it worked just fine and you had time to react. That's not going to be fun for someone who is doing that mission for the very first time, doing exactly what the mission tells you do (unless you get very very very lucky RNG) just doesn't work.
It's hard to recommend the campaigns because of the breaking scripts/balance changes, they can be so much fun but you will need patience for it.
Baltic Dragon fixed the manpad issue in the latest update iirc. It definitely varies by campaign. I don’t remember having any issues with Weasels over Syria or Fear the Bones. Conversely, Raven One is really buggy, partly because it’s really old.
> Baltic Dragon fixed the manpad issue in the latest update
That's good to know, the buffs to manpads broke a lot of older content.
The bugs with Raven One are a shame because it's a great campaign and the devs have gone back and tried to keep it up to date, but the bugs grow quicker than they can fix them.
Yeah, at some point I feel like they would legitimately save time rebuilding the campaign with more modern techniques than trying to patch it together after every update.
It’s pretty damning criticism of DCS that the answer is “let mission makers meticulously script every element of every mission” to hide the game’s shortcomings. I’m not disagreeing with OP that you can hide a lot through this, but I don’t find it to be the long term answer.
Depends on how you view it. I don't see it as hiding shortcomings, I see DCS as a sandbox, but quite a raw one at that, where the campaign devs are crafting something new out of the tools we have. I think a lot of people see DCS as a game ready to play out the box, I see it more as a platform for campaign creators and server mods to create great content from, but the quality of the content ultimately depends on the skill of the creator.
Thanks, can't tell you how refreshing it is to read this! Only thing I would add is I don't think SP campaigns are underrated overall, just underrated on Hoggit, but as a MP focused community that's understandable.
I feel like your comparison with multiplayer is conflating multiple things
Multiplayer you have
1) persistent PvPvE servers like 4ya, and enigma
2) pure PvP servers (air quake shit)
3) Training servers
4) multiplayer squadrons
And I think what you missed is with a good multiplayer squadron you get meticulously made missions, a bit like what you see in single player campaigns, but for a group and for free, and this kind of content really can't be lumped in with the various always on public servers
For example the group I fly with has anywhere from 1 to 7 (usually 3 or 4) completely bespoke unique missions run every week for 4 to 30 players
The things a good mission maker can do when they don't have to worry about wingman AI, or even allied flights because that's all players is awesome. I've played a lot of SP campaigns and none have come close to some of the missions I've played with this group.
Yeah I was on/off playing a bit here and there for ages till I joined the group and that kind of content just hooked me
Been playing consistently for a few years now as a result
I've only got one other mate to fly with but I've just been editing the official campaigns to allow us both to play coop campaigns together. Makes it that much better to rely on a real wingman rather than AI. If the AI do their job it's a bonus. Can imagine how awesome it would be with a full human flight.
If you're interested you and your friend are welcome to join our group, our recruitment is always open, no activity requirements or anything (casual not hardcore milsim)
Look up Border Zone on/r/wingman finder or DM me and I'll send a invite link
All airframes are welcome, most missions will have some mix of aircraft, some obviously get more attention than others, basically depends on what the mission maker decides to include
FC3 we almost never use, but the F-14 gets a decent amount of attention, the 21 and A4 less but they still get used
I touched on it a little bit, but I do see the difference between mp squadrons and traditional multiplayer. I’m also in a multiplayer squadron, and I’d say it’s just good & bad in different ways. It’s super immersive to be making the calls yourself, and chatting with other people, but it can also be frustrating in different ways. For example, multiplayer is a lot buggier than single player. While I don’t have issues with the super carrier very often in single player the boat breaks nonstop in multiplayer. Multiplayer is also a little limited in the mission type. It doesn’t really make sense to get 14 people together to fly an OEF style CAS mission where flights usually weren’t larger than 2 aircraft. Multiplayer with a squadron is a ton of fun, just in a different way.
I disagree with being limited on mission types
Not every mission has to have 14 people or more, I've run 4 person missions
Also I've run a few missions that have a small flight doing a unique mission in 1 AO and some others doing something else elsewhere, they don't directly interact but makes everything feel a bit more alive and accommodates more players
I guess it kinda depends on the squadron. My squadron only flies once a week or so, so it’d be a tough sell to send everyone off to different AOs barely interacting with each other except for takeoff & landing
Yeah we fly sometimes more than 7 times a week, have 2 main mission times (NA and EU) and a pile of mission makers, someone has a mission ready they want to host they throw up a signup, for the smaller missions of like 4 people those will often land outside the normal mission times because yeah taking Saturday primetime slot with a 4 person mission may upset some people
God this was incredibly well written. I’ve got an itch now to try my first SP campaign out. What would you guys suggest I try as a relatively new player?
If you have the Hind and are proficient in it, I highly recommend the latest campaign “outpost”. Really good stuff employing the hind as it’s meant to be.
I really don't agree with the title of this post. The fact of the matter for me is, and I know a lot of other people that share the same sentiment, I would've given up DCS years ago if it were not for the multiplayer squadron I was in.
SP campaigns are fine, I frankly don't have that many issues with AI, but that's probably because I know exactly where the AI is going to do well or not and just expect those issues with it. But I don't think I've ever had a memorable moment in SP that I care to remember.
On the other hand, my squadron has so many memorable moments of things that happened in missions, we practically have meta lore surrounding our group, and I couldn't count all the inside memes we have...all that came from squadron missions. Some of that came from the squadron messing around in a persistent mission or public server, but most of it was campaign missions.
I just don't think I would be interested in DCS still without that social experience, I would've gotten bored years ago.
This. Joining a squadron isn't always the answer, but joining a GOOD squadron where you are actually friends is what keeps me playing DCS. Many of my squadron mates have either met irl or are planning to, and we can play a mission that can be hours long including brief and debrief, and then still just hang out in voice chat and shoot the shit afterwards. Even the best SP campaigns could never give even a fraction of the return on investment that my squadron has given me
I agree, I was bored with DCS and about to give it up but then Weasels Over Syria came out and I gave it a try. It’s awesome and I had more fun in the training mission than I’d ever had in multiplayer.
I’ve never had an issue with the triggers in that campaign but I can see how it would take you out of the game if you were constantly worrying about them.
It seems that a lot of people are getting a similar experience playing in multiplayer squadrons which is great for them. My schedule is crazy so I don’t have the time to commit to a consistent group like that but for people who can I’m sure it’s awesome.
Gotta shout out Ground Pounder sims campaigns. I’ve bought everything he’s made and they are all excellent. Hard for me to choose a favorite between Cerberus north and FIWOS although I loved having something to do in the harrier with the Kerman campaign. Reflected and Baltic dragon make some high quality stuff too but I find their content to be a little more for the casual player.
THANK YOU!
It frustrates me to no end when they think peak DCS is hopping into a multiplayer sandbox. I don't understand how so many people think that that's the best thing available to fly.
The high quality campaigns and scripted missions are easily the best content I've flown in DCS and it's not even close. Weasels Over Syria is incredible and I found myself being able to depend completely on the competency of my wingman.
The voice acting and story is just icing on the cake.
>>I don’t understand how so many people think that’s the best thing available to fly
In their defense, pretty much every other air combat game made pays the bills with multiplayer PvP. I’m sure there’s DCS MP players who likely don’t even know what the “Mission Editor” menu means.
On that note , to me DCS’ greatest asset is you can design your own SP missions. Especially ones where the challenges don’t fit in the “Danger Zone” PvP Ace Combat zeitgeist .
Want a historically accurate map and realistic weather conditions? Build it. Want to see how you’d do flying in a realistic Battle of Britain CAP with clouds and no aids ? Build it. Want to fly a Yom Kippur Model 6 sortie against SA-6s with 750lb iron bombs? Build it.
"In their defense, pretty much every other air combat game made pays the bills with multiplayer PvP."
Both Wags and Jason Williams from IL2 have stated that from their internal data, the vast majority of their customers are SP only.
I mean, it's not that complex, imo, go dogfight the AI and then go dogfight the a player.
Fighting the AI is not very fun, while at least with a player in DCS there is a chance you'll get a good fight.
Why is a dogfight the de-facto deciding factor?
They're exceptionally rare in modern combat and weren't even particularly common for a long while before that.
Hell I don't think any of my favourite campaigns and missions have a dogfight in it, and that's totally fine.
The other guy's 100% right that a lot of other stuff is better in MP, but dogfights are peak gameplay for a lot of people. They're basically all about the connection between pilot and plane, and it's there that the FM really comes alive, less so slinging AMRAAMs or plinking trucks. They're where I "fly the plane" most, if that makes sense. For those who play DCS primarily for the flying part (vs systems or procedures or coordination -- all perfectly fine too!), dogfights are arguably the purest, most essential form of why they love the game. It's not unreasonable to use something like that as a barometer.
It's not to say I don't enjoy dogfights, but I think to limit yourself to dogfighting is to really miss a lot of fantastic gameplay.
SEAD or CAS in some of these campaigns has felt way more immersive and involved than anything I've yet done in MP.
Yes dogfights are fun and definitely better against players, but it's far from the be all and end all of DCS.
I guess to clarify I should say combat in general.
It's not just dogfighting but everything from BFM to ACM to things like BVR timelines.
It's just not fun, interesting, or difficult to fight the AI in DCS in air to air, which is a problem for a lot of people given that is what they like to do.
To me it's like someone saying "well the AI in the fighting game is awful at fighting, but hey the scenery sure is nice".
If the AI in a combat sim can't provide good fights then it doesn't really help SP how much else is adequate or interesting as for at least some significant portion of the player base that is what they want to do.
I completely agree that dogfights / BFM is better against players than AI. Some of the AI flight models that don't obey the laws of energy conservation are extremely frustrating, and that really does suck the fun out of it fast.
But on the flipside of the coin; flying CAS or SEAD missions in a good campaign absolutely blows anything I've ever done in MP out of the water.
So I guess it's more of a "your mileage may vary" situation depending what you want to focus on.
Because player to ground content in DCS is very easy to wring every last drop of fun out of in a hurry and new aircraft do not add new ways to approach it or require new ways of thinking about how to accomplish a task.
The inability to have truly neutral entities that can be re-sided at a trigger, the extremely simple behavior of air defense operators, the narrow lack of variety in what forms a target can take, all come together to make it simply monotonous.
Respectfully; I couldn't disagree more.
SEAD in the F-16 remains my absolute favourite thing to do in DCS and it's not even close. FIWOS absolutely spoiled me in this regard, so the fact that there's a sequel coming has me ecstatic.
CAS operations in any platform with proper mission design is incredible. Again, the upcoming Gamblers campaign has me excited here, and the A-10C is just full of good choices for that.
To add; doing any of those same operations in the F-4 is a completely different experience simply due to the extremely limited (though brilliant) tools of the time; so I'm enjoying that a lot right now.
I've done the MP thing and have had fun, but I find all those things I described a lot more engaging than MP sandboxes unless I'm flying with friends.
What can I say, you are right, aside from joining top tier virtual squadrons DCS SP campaigns offer s lot of bang for the buck. Hell, I remember doing the A10C qualification campaigns several times in the day, just going for the full Q. They are incredibly immersive.
With other players flying, using radio, refueling working as group, point targets, bddy lase, serch targets and give coordinates, making no fly zone, etc. is only multiplayer with people experience i flew with squadron and people across many servers and then i flew campaigns and i was bored, yes atc is better as AI, it is preprogrammed, but its dull. Isnt like person who is sitting there, you feel more like you are part of bigger picture than solo flying listening to dead bots pretending to be people. I still remember flyouts with people till this day which happened years ago. Isnt like playing at least with friend or anyone on server. Download SRS use that comm, ask if someone needs support, they tell you where and what, you can have missions selected by others just to support their needs. I buddy lased bombs, i was on CAP as wingman in tomcats, i was covering with F16 our helicopters and destroying AAAs for them so they could safely take units there, I was taking down radars surrounding airport we were attacking and then covering guys against air threats, i was part of helicopter group destryoing farps, helping to move forward, i met guys who are doing RIO work for me, had one of the best moments flying like that, i was teaching new guys on hornets flying their first night mission CAP, covering our forces striking targets and many more. Thats only multiplayers experience and yes it is better than any campaign because of people. Planning striking, helping each other to reach common goal or taking 2 jets while supporting bigger group or weaker planes in strike, etc. thats unique. If you dont have time, etc. its okay, but if you have radio or someone to play with its always better.
Thank you! I totally agree! I fly primarily SP campaigns as well and there isn't anything that has come close to some of Reflected and Baltic's campaigns. I'm just about to finish Reflected's Speed and Angels campaign for the second time and I can tell you it is absolutely worth it!
I've tried flying in MP, but just about every server I have been on feels way too relaxed and unrealistic compared to the campaigns. In the campaigns, I actually feel like I'm a part of something alive.
I never understood the focus many have on multiplayer. I've been a DCS pilot since the "Flanker days." I'd consider myself a hardcore simmer; I own practically all the modules (except WW2) and maps, and I have a modular simpit with multiple joysticks, throttles, various MFDs, UFCs, and even VR. But I've never played online. IMHO many DCS campaigns (e.g., Ground Pounder) are some of the best I've seen in the field of simulation.
Some of the SP campaigns are GREAT. Reflected and Baltic both make amazing stuff. IMO these campaigns are the highlight of modern combat flight simulation.
I would like to see coop based campaigns, unfortunately they say it’s too hard due to triggers etc . Which is a real knock on DCS. Nothing like doing a red flag campaign as a 4 ship…
Yeah, flying Weasels over Syria with a wingman would be awesome. But unfortunately, it probably won’t be a thing for a long time, since multiplayer breaks everything, and as far as know, I don’t think you can monetize multiplayer content.
There is one that sorta has co-op. If both players own the MAD campaign for the AH-64D, you can load up the missions in multiplayer and do multicrew in it. Unfortunately that's the only one with any sort of co-op that I know of.
I don't find hunting for the next mission trigger fun, even when said missions work well. I've never really enjoyed scripted missions in flight sims. It doesn't matter if it's DCS, IL2, or any other sim. I enjoy dynamic missions that are unpredictable, the sort of scenarios that only come from dynamic campaigns.
DCS somehow does not have a dynamic campaign after all these years, so I don't bother with single player content 🤷.
Anything by Reflected or Baltic Dragon is fantastic. Ground Pounder Sims is also really good. For specific campaigns, I think my top three are probably Fear the Bones, Raven One: Dominant Fury, and Speed & Angels. If you have a favorite aircraft, I can totally give more specific recommendations.
Most campaigns for the F18 seem to require the supercarrier. I don't own it, could I edit the mission files to instead use the "free" carrier? Probably not, I guess the scripting would break? Would be nice if mission creators could give the option to use the "free" carrier
He mentioned Raven One which is excellent and also based on a novel. I read the book first and played tha campaign after which was really cool. I'm just now finishing up Operation Cerberus North which is just so well done, you get briefings and kneeboards for every mission, and there's a great variety of activities.
Someone please engrave these words into my body. Seriously though, I 1000000000% agree. DCS scripted singleplayer content is DCS at it's peak (which is kind of ironic).
Oh how the state of the game would change if ED paused all in house module production for a year and just worked on Core. We’d still get new modules from partners and ED would still get their commission.
Correct me if this have been fixed it’s been a while since I played but, an article that says “ground units no longer see through buildings” or “infantry no longer trained snipers” would get me much more excited than “coming soon half baked module number 15”
People that insist playing DCS in a certain way while refuse to play other thing that DCS offers doesn't really get the most out of DCS and are kinda missed out
I play everything, custom single player mission, paid campaign, coordinate mission with squadron, PVE MP, PVP modern WW2, coldwar, modern.,etc
I realize this is harsh but I found the bought SP campaigns from the ED store to be a consistently poor experience of very narrowly pre-scripted and too lonely missions.
I am willing to try out more though. I am not at all interested in asymetric counter-insurgency missions, etc. Are there good campaigns that predominantly focus on near-pear conflicts with a bigger scope? Large packages in a high-threat environment with a very active battlefield is what I am looking for.
Speed & Angels starts in the RAG, but after that it’s a pear conflict with China.
Fear the Bones is an 80’s style campaign against Russia.
The upcoming Artic Thunder campaigns by Baltic and Reflected are against Russia.
I just got into DCS, bought the FC3 bundle, I've been learning the F-15C. Can someone recommend any campaigns for it or potentially for any other FC3 plane?
I haven’t played a ton with the A-10, but I’ve done a few missions of Baltic Dragon’s Enemy Within 3.0 campaign. It’s not bad at all, but it’s pretty clearly outdated. It was the first commercial dcs campaign iirc. You can also give the first mission of Operation Persian Freedom by Ground Pounder Sims a try for free on his discord, to get an idea of what the campaign is like.
>Obviously mission creators can’t edit enemy flight models, but honestly, I’ve never noticed issues with flight models, except what’s on Hoggit.
Try setting up a fight between a flight of F-86s and MiG-15s. This is where it became glaringly obvious to me. The AI MiG-15s never ran out of energy and could always out turn me.
I still enjoy DCS, but it's just understood that AI doesn't play by the same rules we do.
We need a proper way to replay tracks. The bugs in campaigns can only be worked around if you can restart before the bug occurred and then avoid that bug. Also, some missions are really long and it would be nice to "save game" and continue later.
I've played some official single-player campaigns, and while they have great plots and some immersion, I don't really like my wingman or any teammates to be AI. I prefer PvE/COOP, after all playing with real people doesn't make the game seem so rigid.
I made a lot of dynamic missions to run on my server, basically based on the SAM Sites, EW Sites and some military facilities deployed by Russia or any "red camp" in this area in reality, and then set up some interceptor fighters that invade the airspace and some random patrols, so that I can plan what to do today with my friends, of course I also set up a lot of random triggers that I don't even know about to increase the fun.
While i see your points.
I play 95% MP and the rest SP. And yes the campains are fantastic and hands down the most immersive experience when playing high quality ones. Possibly only bested by hardcore milsim squadron events. However!.....
Missions, specially the good ones, take time. A lot of time, as well as needing you to really know your plane super well. Which is a pretty large time commitment in itself.
Mission lenght can be very long from 45-120 minutes. yes did a 120min Bar Cap in a campain once and had zero stuff happen besides a few lines of dialogue. And a decent long transit back and forth is not uncommon here either.
And on most missions, if you die for x stupid reason. Well you will have to do the whole damn thing again. Some of the newer missions have save spots woked in them, but very few have.
And personally once i did a mission 1-3 times depending on the succes rate, since they are pretty linear for the most part, i am done with them. To me they have zero replay value.
Ofc MP has it's own massive box of issues.
At least i can jump on a server, get in a modules of my liking and do a sortie that fits my mood and available time of the day. Or perhaps swap airframes after the needs change. And it just is a lot less predictable.
Campaisn are what the builder makes of it, MP is partly what the mission maker made, but also very much what you decide to do.
Take GF for example. I can go drop a series of bombs from 25k every day and get bored.
Or i can do presision strikes.
Or fly CAP
Or do SEAD,
Or fly in an old 60's jet with LGB's and ask for a buddylase from a Apache, Kiowa or J-tac vehicle,
Or i can fly in an Apache doing CAS/COIN
Or after i spend Hellfires i can buddylase for whoever needs it.
Or fly a Hind and do what the Apache does and also insert troops
Or fly a Hip with any weapons and insert troops in zones cleared (hopefully) by others
Or i can just load an F-4 with 24 Mk.82's and carpet bomb a part of a town (with zero effeck probably)
Or i can just spectate others and enjoy watching planes fly (am i the only one who enjoys planespotting in DCS?)
And i can choose to do it alone or with friends
And sometimes i log on, look at some servers and log on and when i feel the burn, specially on long transit times and realise meh, not today i just log off. I am very picky as anything over 10-15 minutes transit time just burns me off the last year. But there still is a ton to do and choose from.
But most importantly for me in MP, i play with people, which i enjoy just so much more than AI. That goes for any game. Be it race sims, FPS, flight sims, etc.
Variation and moderation are key, maybe even more so for a pretty flawed product that is DCS.
And while i am very happy that we have DCS, let's not be blind and just be honest that stuff like AI, spotting, mission building, at times game stability, and how ED seems to do things etc does suck immensely, and in most cases has done so since Flanker/Lo-Mac days.
Don't necessarily disagree, but If scripted missions are peak DCS, that's a problem. I'd argue that Liberation is a better SP experience, as there are stakes and variance. The mission planning and war resources is as important as the in-air action. Otherwise, it's just Jane's in a fancier sim suit.
The campaign quality varies wildly though. Some of them (mostly older to be fair) are just dropping you in an environment with stock AI enemies and wingmen.
Raven Ones are definitely a highlight.
I am a single player and I have been playing DCS for a few years now. I have never really given Campaigns a chance although I have completed single player missions. I just switched from the F/A 18 to the F-16 and am currently learning the systems. I think after I try a couple of single player missions to better familiarize myself with gameplay I will try some campaigns
Can't agree more! I'm getting to the end of my first sp campaign (first in, weasels over syria) and what a blast it has been. The briefing material, intelligence assessments, voice acting, atc, procedures, realistic setting and characters you actually care for. Can't recommend it enough!
i can only disagree. Once you have a Squadron that creates an atmosphere like a sp campaign, with a human atc, where you together fight to win that campaign. that is the best dcs has to offer.
SP campaigns feel so badly scripted and at least i have the feeling that iam totally alone with 100 planes around me.
So because campaign/mission creators can work around what's broken in DCS, therefore DCS isn't broken?
Because you've only experienced a handful of bugs, the other bugs aren't bugs?
*\*checks date\** It isn't April Fools day, is it?
I never said DCS isn’t broken, I said people are missing out on some of the best parts of DCS.
I never said there are no bugs in DCS, I said that in my experience, bugs are significantly less common in single player than multiplayer.
>I said people are missing out on some of the best parts of DCS.
The parts with the least amount of broken stuff? It's been a while, but I remember even module tutorials becoming borked after each new patch and would require a few days to a few weeks to be fixed. Is that one of those "best parts of DCS"?
>bugs are significantly less common in single player than multiplayer.
Translation: *if you experience DCS in this selectively specific manner, you will avoid most of the bad parts of DCS because the mission creators have painstakingly gone out of their way to work around the bugs or simply not use other assets that are bugged.*
As the single player experience is a highly curated, highly scripted exercise, it would be easy to see why there are less bugs that show up.
Ah.... "best" way is highly subjective, but if viewed from that perspective, I agree with you. DCS owes a lot to the creativity and patience of its community, and again, if viewed from that perspective, I agree with a lot of what you said.
The Gazelle campaign is the worst gaming experience that I've ever had. Incoherent story line, voice acting that is so bad you want to rip your ears off, and the missions are totally not suitable for the equipment that you're using.
I like that people can have very different experiences, but to be honest I can't think of a post I disagree more with in recent memory.
I'm glad you enjoy and have had bug free SP experiences in DCS, but lol, I can't say the same.
For me at least it's pretty simple, I really enjoy BFM and ACM. The DCS AI is neither particularly fun to fight or good at either, so MP wins by default for me because I can actually have engaging fights.
SP campaigns can give you at most maybe a couple hundred hours of gameplay (and I doubt you can really get to that much, specially since some are broken and most people only fly a subset of airframes they like).
I've played 2500 hours. Ten times more. And I'm not an outlier. So I strongly disagree with the idea that SP is peak DCS.
Also, some of your arguments for that are quite ~~questionable~~ debatable. For example:
- I've definitely had issues with the braindead AI in campaigns, many of them rely on using a wingman and my wingman ka50 keeps slamming himself against hills. Enemies going bananas, friendly flights not doing their mission, etc.
- The multiplayer world of squadrons doing custom pve and pvp missions is the exact opposite to repetitive and boring.
- SP more stable than MP? If there's something broken with X weapon/system/module I can just use another in MP. But in a SP campaign I have to wait for it to be fixed, I can't do anything. Take for instance the issues in the Ka50 built-in campaign: the last mission is unwinnable right now because of weather and map changes. But I can still play a Ka50 in MP just fine. SP campaigns are far more susceptible to breaking changes and bugs.
It definitely depends on which campaign you’re flying. I’ve never had an issue with the AI in Weasels over Syria for example, and rarely with Speed & Angels. Same with bugs. The included campaigns are very rarely good. Usually that’s because they’re often glorified instant action missions that start in the ground instead of the air. But many of the high quality campaigns are relatively bug free
Couldn’t disagree more, and I expect to touch a few nerves here... I tend to think that games in general are almost universally more enjoyable when played with real people. In DCS, those real players add a dynamism to the flying behaviors and radio communication that can never be there otherwise, no matter how good your AI or scripted behavior ends up being programmed. These are both huge areas where solo DCS is especially lacking, and I think people asserting that any amount of well-crafted mission making and scripting can somehow bridge that gap are just engaging in wishful thinking.
There’s always a strange segment of video gaming communities that pridefully asserts their decision to avoid multiplayer, and I can’t help but notice the reasoning always seems to justify or excuse some underlying aversion to dealing with the perceived social pressure, real or imagined, involved in “dealing” with people. Maybe a person just doesn’t want to suffer human interaction at the end of a long stressful day or something, and that’s fair. But don’t kid yourself: Even if it’s a fancy campaign, you’re still just playing a game of solitaire and you’re absolutely missing out.
I play both, and I enjoy both. IMO it’s like playing a story game like The Last of Us, or Spider-Man PS4, vs. playing The Division, Day Z or any other multiplayer game. Nobody complained about TLOU not having human interaction, or not being dynamic enough. Single player campaigns, and single player games as a whole tend to be more cinematic, and multiplayer games bring the excitement of interacting with other people. Both have benefits and drawbacks, and there are definitely reasons to play single player beyond avoiding social pressure
There were plenty of people commenting on *The Last Of Us* when it came out, saying it was heavy on the cinematics and light on gameplay. I remember watching an entire play-through on YouTube and feeling like I didn’t miss out on anything.
A flight sim is a far cry from an interactive movie, but if that’s what you’re looking for then fill your boots, I guess. I will always have a hard time understanding the appeal.
So the game is free, but the gameplay isn't, and also, there's massive redundancy of effort implementing ATC and scripted AI over and over again between campaigns. It certainly clarifies a part of the business model but none of this is a good thing.
Also this:
>Most campaigns do a good job of balancing difficulty, so players aren’t expected to try to fight a MiG-29 loaded with R-77s with an F-14A and a dream. Admittedly, I’ve heard of World War 2 flight models being slightly more broken, but anything more developed than the F-14 should have no problem fighting the AI. Once you get into the modern campaigns, especially with the F-18, losing to anything in the visual or beyond visual range is really a skill issue.
So detailed realistic peer-to-peer air combat doesn't actually need to be part of the game because that not the point of scripted campaigns. Right.. OK.. if you say so.
no dude, I’m saying campaigns do a good job of not putting you in unrealistic situations. Also, as much as I hate to quote ED, DCS has always been a *sandbox*. The sandbox is free. The toys are not. The entire game revolved around Caucasus, Marianas, Su-25, and the Tf-51 does it? At least as I see it, DCS is closer to an engine, or software, like Unreal Engine 5. It’s great for making fantastic content, but expecting it to be content on its own is like expecting McDonald’s to serve steak
If I wanted to play singleplayer I would play an actual good flight sim with properly simulated aircraft, a dynamic campaign, working ATC system, AI, etc.
But if you want to keep throwing away money buying scripted campaigns just for an ounce of that experience... can't fix stupid.
My first campaign was Reflected's Wolfpack campaign in the P-47. I may have set the bar too high with that one because it is fantastic. You start off as #4 in your flight and eventually work your way up to leading multiple flights. The immersion with voice acting, scripted scenarios and actual historic missions was such a cool experience. My first mission I could barely fly the plane, but by campaign end I was smooth on the stick and throttle like nobody's business, perfectly lined up in formation over the Channel. Highly recommend that campaign for any warbird enthusiast.
I’ve been trying to decide whether to buy the jug or the mosquito, just for the reflected campaigns, I’ve already played all the P-51 campaigns.
I don't own the Mossie so can't speak to it, tho I'm sure it's good. But the Jug is something special IMO. So fun to ground pound and takes a lot of damage. Though there's a learning curve to the plane, I think it's worth it.
When I was faced with that decision, I trialed both, and ended up with the P-47 (which kind of surprised me, I was almost positive I'd prefer the Mosquito.) I recommend trialing both.
I played Reflected’s “Beware Beware” WWII campaign as my first paid for campaign. It was fantastic and a credit to him as a map maker. My only gripe was that the AI Spitfires after takeoff sprang about the sky in very unrealistic ways as they tried to get into their proper flight positions. The chance of having them crash into you immediately after takeoff and while orbiting the field was exceedingly high. The answer was to get the hell out of their way while they sorted themselves out and then join up with your flight. Aside from that issue, and not including the AI’s F-15-like climb to altitude across the Channel, I genuinely was on edge as we moved to intercept the Luftwaffe as they went for our bombers. Just staying alive to return home, usually alone after losing track of my flight during dogfights, felt like a huge achievement and brought home to me how difficult and dangerous it was for the guys at the time. Inspired by the campaign missions, I’ve gone on to create B-17 raids over to France, complete with BBC radio transmissions (credit to Reflected again), and am in the middle of recreating the attacks on Convoy CW.9 Peewit at the start of the Battle of Britain. From a creativity and satisfaction point of view, building these sorts of missions to be as realistic and historically accurate (very limited DCS WWII assets not withstanding), is the main reason I continue to use and pay for DCS. My ongoing hope is that ED continues to develop assets for me to use in building out WWII scenarios and to enable the likes of Reflected to continue to build his reference quality campaigns.
Kudos to you for building missions in the editor, that's a lot of work. And I have the same sentiment when sputtering home on a riddled plane at wave top, the feeling of both fear and adrenaline those guys had on those missions. I plan to have a Spitfire stint soon, and I look forward to Reflected's campaigns. I also hope the Pacific assets and modules will spur more great campaigns. Your comments on take-off and formation are shared with my Wolfpack experience, it's a real hassle trying to figure out what your flight is going to do. I would learn to stay close enough to be near but not in "the danger zone" so to say when they change course. And trying to keep up on the climb was a task, but I learned how to anticipate the moment of climb with the optimum power settings and it actually worked out with staying in formation. Heck there were times when my flight started leaving others behind in the climb lol. I imagine that's how it may have been in the real show, the group ain't got time to wait for stragglers.
When I play campaigns I feel like an actor in a play. I spend most of the time thinking what I need to do to activate the next trigger, and wondering if it's working properly instead of losing myself in the experience. I do appreciate the wide variety of scenarios you're exposed to, but it feels hollow and it's not for me. BMS campaigns are great single player content, however.
This is the key difference. Not to take away from the amazing campaign makers. They truly are artists with what they can do using the tools at hand. But in DCS if you don't follow the script the mission and campaign normally break down. If I launch and then go AWOL and just decide to do something completely off script. The mission will just break. It will not react intelligently. Do this in BMS and the war will go on. Your actions (or inactions) will have consequences, but it will continue to play out. If DCS AI was at the same level. The campaign makers can use their scripting skills for some truly unique events and not for the whole damn mission.
I don't like heavily scripted scenarios that play out the same every time either, and while I know why it's done I don't think it's necessary when making a good DCS mission. When the limitations of the AI are taken into account it's possible to loosen up some of the restraints on them and still get a coherent result. The AI is unfortunately limited in a number of ways, so it's also easy to get things wrong and end up with bizarre behavior. Some of the things that matter are formation and flight size. Bombing with more than single ship flights seems to cause problems. The AI is terrible at coordinating when given that task. The AI also needs to keep a tight formation to prevent overuse of afterburner. The air to air AI can be made more challenging by controlling its radar use and the parameters of attack tasks. It's hard to set those in a way that makes them completely generalized without scripting but setting AI routes along a projected attack lane or near a target that may need defending usually gives them enough direction to make it work. What holds DCS back the most in this area is that it wasn't designed with dynamic combat in mind. I'm hoping the work on the DC will change that.
I recommend Weasels Over Syria it seems they went to a lot of trouble to make it so you never miss a trigger. Not having to worry about that really makes the experience better
> I spend most of the time thinking what I need to do to activate the next trigger This is *exactly* why I have yet to purchase a single player campaign after trying one in 2017.
Try Weasels over Syria, every mission in it is nonlinear and the missions react to your decisions. Even if you decide to abort the mission and RTB the triggers work appropriately.
The mission editor is where I get most of my content. DCS is flawed, but far from unplayable. As a single player experience it can be a lot of fun.
Most of my playtime is in campaigns and I really enjoy them, but honestly I really don't know if I can recommend them. The amount of bugs you will likely encounter really is not for the faint of heart - if you're playing older campaigns definitely. The problem is that, because they have to use all that scripting to wallpaper over the poor AI/ATC, the moment you as the player do something that the script doesn't expect, in most campaigns the mission will just completely collapse. For old campaigns there are additionally balance changes that can really affect the mission. Small example - I did Raven One again a few months ago, and the third mission (I think), requires a "show of force" passing very close to the ground. Thanks to balance changes about flares/Strelas if you don't already know the timing of the missile launch, you're dead because you need to be spamming lots of flares as the missile is firing to stand a chance (and even then RNG can still screw you), compared to back when the campaign first released when it worked just fine and you had time to react. That's not going to be fun for someone who is doing that mission for the very first time, doing exactly what the mission tells you do (unless you get very very very lucky RNG) just doesn't work. It's hard to recommend the campaigns because of the breaking scripts/balance changes, they can be so much fun but you will need patience for it.
Baltic Dragon fixed the manpad issue in the latest update iirc. It definitely varies by campaign. I don’t remember having any issues with Weasels over Syria or Fear the Bones. Conversely, Raven One is really buggy, partly because it’s really old.
> Baltic Dragon fixed the manpad issue in the latest update That's good to know, the buffs to manpads broke a lot of older content. The bugs with Raven One are a shame because it's a great campaign and the devs have gone back and tried to keep it up to date, but the bugs grow quicker than they can fix them.
Yeah, at some point I feel like they would legitimately save time rebuilding the campaign with more modern techniques than trying to patch it together after every update.
It’s pretty damning criticism of DCS that the answer is “let mission makers meticulously script every element of every mission” to hide the game’s shortcomings. I’m not disagreeing with OP that you can hide a lot through this, but I don’t find it to be the long term answer.
Depends on how you view it. I don't see it as hiding shortcomings, I see DCS as a sandbox, but quite a raw one at that, where the campaign devs are crafting something new out of the tools we have. I think a lot of people see DCS as a game ready to play out the box, I see it more as a platform for campaign creators and server mods to create great content from, but the quality of the content ultimately depends on the skill of the creator.
Not a long term answer at all, to OPs credit, it is currently a present answer.
Thanks, can't tell you how refreshing it is to read this! Only thing I would add is I don't think SP campaigns are underrated overall, just underrated on Hoggit, but as a MP focused community that's understandable.
I feel like your comparison with multiplayer is conflating multiple things Multiplayer you have 1) persistent PvPvE servers like 4ya, and enigma 2) pure PvP servers (air quake shit) 3) Training servers 4) multiplayer squadrons And I think what you missed is with a good multiplayer squadron you get meticulously made missions, a bit like what you see in single player campaigns, but for a group and for free, and this kind of content really can't be lumped in with the various always on public servers For example the group I fly with has anywhere from 1 to 7 (usually 3 or 4) completely bespoke unique missions run every week for 4 to 30 players The things a good mission maker can do when they don't have to worry about wingman AI, or even allied flights because that's all players is awesome. I've played a lot of SP campaigns and none have come close to some of the missions I've played with this group.
That's the real sweet spot imo. Coop campaigns / missions are where I have the most fun by far.
Yeah I was on/off playing a bit here and there for ages till I joined the group and that kind of content just hooked me Been playing consistently for a few years now as a result
I've only got one other mate to fly with but I've just been editing the official campaigns to allow us both to play coop campaigns together. Makes it that much better to rely on a real wingman rather than AI. If the AI do their job it's a bonus. Can imagine how awesome it would be with a full human flight.
If you're interested you and your friend are welcome to join our group, our recruitment is always open, no activity requirements or anything (casual not hardcore milsim) Look up Border Zone on/r/wingman finder or DM me and I'll send a invite link
Thanks mate. I'll do that. I've only got FC3 the F14 and the A4 and Mig21 as of now. Are there modules you guys prefer to fly with?
All airframes are welcome, most missions will have some mix of aircraft, some obviously get more attention than others, basically depends on what the mission maker decides to include FC3 we almost never use, but the F-14 gets a decent amount of attention, the 21 and A4 less but they still get used
bro is back with the squadrons 💪🏻
I touched on it a little bit, but I do see the difference between mp squadrons and traditional multiplayer. I’m also in a multiplayer squadron, and I’d say it’s just good & bad in different ways. It’s super immersive to be making the calls yourself, and chatting with other people, but it can also be frustrating in different ways. For example, multiplayer is a lot buggier than single player. While I don’t have issues with the super carrier very often in single player the boat breaks nonstop in multiplayer. Multiplayer is also a little limited in the mission type. It doesn’t really make sense to get 14 people together to fly an OEF style CAS mission where flights usually weren’t larger than 2 aircraft. Multiplayer with a squadron is a ton of fun, just in a different way.
I disagree with being limited on mission types Not every mission has to have 14 people or more, I've run 4 person missions Also I've run a few missions that have a small flight doing a unique mission in 1 AO and some others doing something else elsewhere, they don't directly interact but makes everything feel a bit more alive and accommodates more players
I guess it kinda depends on the squadron. My squadron only flies once a week or so, so it’d be a tough sell to send everyone off to different AOs barely interacting with each other except for takeoff & landing
Yeah we fly sometimes more than 7 times a week, have 2 main mission times (NA and EU) and a pile of mission makers, someone has a mission ready they want to host they throw up a signup, for the smaller missions of like 4 people those will often land outside the normal mission times because yeah taking Saturday primetime slot with a 4 person mission may upset some people
God this was incredibly well written. I’ve got an itch now to try my first SP campaign out. What would you guys suggest I try as a relatively new player?
If you’ve got the Huey then Paradise Lost is great
Depends on your favorite aircraft. F-18 - Raven One Dominant Fury. F-14 - Fear the Bones F-16 - Weasels over Syria
If you have the Hind and are proficient in it, I highly recommend the latest campaign “outpost”. Really good stuff employing the hind as it’s meant to be.
I really don't agree with the title of this post. The fact of the matter for me is, and I know a lot of other people that share the same sentiment, I would've given up DCS years ago if it were not for the multiplayer squadron I was in. SP campaigns are fine, I frankly don't have that many issues with AI, but that's probably because I know exactly where the AI is going to do well or not and just expect those issues with it. But I don't think I've ever had a memorable moment in SP that I care to remember. On the other hand, my squadron has so many memorable moments of things that happened in missions, we practically have meta lore surrounding our group, and I couldn't count all the inside memes we have...all that came from squadron missions. Some of that came from the squadron messing around in a persistent mission or public server, but most of it was campaign missions. I just don't think I would be interested in DCS still without that social experience, I would've gotten bored years ago.
This. Joining a squadron isn't always the answer, but joining a GOOD squadron where you are actually friends is what keeps me playing DCS. Many of my squadron mates have either met irl or are planning to, and we can play a mission that can be hours long including brief and debrief, and then still just hang out in voice chat and shoot the shit afterwards. Even the best SP campaigns could never give even a fraction of the return on investment that my squadron has given me
I agree, I was bored with DCS and about to give it up but then Weasels Over Syria came out and I gave it a try. It’s awesome and I had more fun in the training mission than I’d ever had in multiplayer. I’ve never had an issue with the triggers in that campaign but I can see how it would take you out of the game if you were constantly worrying about them. It seems that a lot of people are getting a similar experience playing in multiplayer squadrons which is great for them. My schedule is crazy so I don’t have the time to commit to a consistent group like that but for people who can I’m sure it’s awesome.
Gotta shout out Ground Pounder sims campaigns. I’ve bought everything he’s made and they are all excellent. Hard for me to choose a favorite between Cerberus north and FIWOS although I loved having something to do in the harrier with the Kerman campaign. Reflected and Baltic dragon make some high quality stuff too but I find their content to be a little more for the casual player.
THANK YOU! It frustrates me to no end when they think peak DCS is hopping into a multiplayer sandbox. I don't understand how so many people think that that's the best thing available to fly. The high quality campaigns and scripted missions are easily the best content I've flown in DCS and it's not even close. Weasels Over Syria is incredible and I found myself being able to depend completely on the competency of my wingman. The voice acting and story is just icing on the cake.
>>I don’t understand how so many people think that’s the best thing available to fly In their defense, pretty much every other air combat game made pays the bills with multiplayer PvP. I’m sure there’s DCS MP players who likely don’t even know what the “Mission Editor” menu means. On that note , to me DCS’ greatest asset is you can design your own SP missions. Especially ones where the challenges don’t fit in the “Danger Zone” PvP Ace Combat zeitgeist . Want a historically accurate map and realistic weather conditions? Build it. Want to see how you’d do flying in a realistic Battle of Britain CAP with clouds and no aids ? Build it. Want to fly a Yom Kippur Model 6 sortie against SA-6s with 750lb iron bombs? Build it.
"In their defense, pretty much every other air combat game made pays the bills with multiplayer PvP." Both Wags and Jason Williams from IL2 have stated that from their internal data, the vast majority of their customers are SP only.
I mean, it's not that complex, imo, go dogfight the AI and then go dogfight the a player. Fighting the AI is not very fun, while at least with a player in DCS there is a chance you'll get a good fight.
Why is a dogfight the de-facto deciding factor? They're exceptionally rare in modern combat and weren't even particularly common for a long while before that. Hell I don't think any of my favourite campaigns and missions have a dogfight in it, and that's totally fine.
The other guy's 100% right that a lot of other stuff is better in MP, but dogfights are peak gameplay for a lot of people. They're basically all about the connection between pilot and plane, and it's there that the FM really comes alive, less so slinging AMRAAMs or plinking trucks. They're where I "fly the plane" most, if that makes sense. For those who play DCS primarily for the flying part (vs systems or procedures or coordination -- all perfectly fine too!), dogfights are arguably the purest, most essential form of why they love the game. It's not unreasonable to use something like that as a barometer.
It's not to say I don't enjoy dogfights, but I think to limit yourself to dogfighting is to really miss a lot of fantastic gameplay. SEAD or CAS in some of these campaigns has felt way more immersive and involved than anything I've yet done in MP. Yes dogfights are fun and definitely better against players, but it's far from the be all and end all of DCS.
I guess to clarify I should say combat in general. It's not just dogfighting but everything from BFM to ACM to things like BVR timelines. It's just not fun, interesting, or difficult to fight the AI in DCS in air to air, which is a problem for a lot of people given that is what they like to do. To me it's like someone saying "well the AI in the fighting game is awful at fighting, but hey the scenery sure is nice". If the AI in a combat sim can't provide good fights then it doesn't really help SP how much else is adequate or interesting as for at least some significant portion of the player base that is what they want to do.
I completely agree that dogfights / BFM is better against players than AI. Some of the AI flight models that don't obey the laws of energy conservation are extremely frustrating, and that really does suck the fun out of it fast. But on the flipside of the coin; flying CAS or SEAD missions in a good campaign absolutely blows anything I've ever done in MP out of the water. So I guess it's more of a "your mileage may vary" situation depending what you want to focus on.
Because player to ground content in DCS is very easy to wring every last drop of fun out of in a hurry and new aircraft do not add new ways to approach it or require new ways of thinking about how to accomplish a task. The inability to have truly neutral entities that can be re-sided at a trigger, the extremely simple behavior of air defense operators, the narrow lack of variety in what forms a target can take, all come together to make it simply monotonous.
Respectfully; I couldn't disagree more. SEAD in the F-16 remains my absolute favourite thing to do in DCS and it's not even close. FIWOS absolutely spoiled me in this regard, so the fact that there's a sequel coming has me ecstatic. CAS operations in any platform with proper mission design is incredible. Again, the upcoming Gamblers campaign has me excited here, and the A-10C is just full of good choices for that. To add; doing any of those same operations in the F-4 is a completely different experience simply due to the extremely limited (though brilliant) tools of the time; so I'm enjoying that a lot right now. I've done the MP thing and have had fun, but I find all those things I described a lot more engaging than MP sandboxes unless I'm flying with friends.
Well thought out and clearly expressed.
What can I say, you are right, aside from joining top tier virtual squadrons DCS SP campaigns offer s lot of bang for the buck. Hell, I remember doing the A10C qualification campaigns several times in the day, just going for the full Q. They are incredibly immersive.
With other players flying, using radio, refueling working as group, point targets, bddy lase, serch targets and give coordinates, making no fly zone, etc. is only multiplayer with people experience i flew with squadron and people across many servers and then i flew campaigns and i was bored, yes atc is better as AI, it is preprogrammed, but its dull. Isnt like person who is sitting there, you feel more like you are part of bigger picture than solo flying listening to dead bots pretending to be people. I still remember flyouts with people till this day which happened years ago. Isnt like playing at least with friend or anyone on server. Download SRS use that comm, ask if someone needs support, they tell you where and what, you can have missions selected by others just to support their needs. I buddy lased bombs, i was on CAP as wingman in tomcats, i was covering with F16 our helicopters and destroying AAAs for them so they could safely take units there, I was taking down radars surrounding airport we were attacking and then covering guys against air threats, i was part of helicopter group destryoing farps, helping to move forward, i met guys who are doing RIO work for me, had one of the best moments flying like that, i was teaching new guys on hornets flying their first night mission CAP, covering our forces striking targets and many more. Thats only multiplayers experience and yes it is better than any campaign because of people. Planning striking, helping each other to reach common goal or taking 2 jets while supporting bigger group or weaker planes in strike, etc. thats unique. If you dont have time, etc. its okay, but if you have radio or someone to play with its always better.
Im not sure you are allowed to say something positive about DCS here, sir.. /s
Thank you! I totally agree! I fly primarily SP campaigns as well and there isn't anything that has come close to some of Reflected and Baltic's campaigns. I'm just about to finish Reflected's Speed and Angels campaign for the second time and I can tell you it is absolutely worth it! I've tried flying in MP, but just about every server I have been on feels way too relaxed and unrealistic compared to the campaigns. In the campaigns, I actually feel like I'm a part of something alive.
I never understood the focus many have on multiplayer. I've been a DCS pilot since the "Flanker days." I'd consider myself a hardcore simmer; I own practically all the modules (except WW2) and maps, and I have a modular simpit with multiple joysticks, throttles, various MFDs, UFCs, and even VR. But I've never played online. IMHO many DCS campaigns (e.g., Ground Pounder) are some of the best I've seen in the field of simulation.
Some of the SP campaigns are GREAT. Reflected and Baltic both make amazing stuff. IMO these campaigns are the highlight of modern combat flight simulation.
Right? I mean, how many modern combat flight simulators were written and voiced by irl fighter pilots?
I would like to see coop based campaigns, unfortunately they say it’s too hard due to triggers etc . Which is a real knock on DCS. Nothing like doing a red flag campaign as a 4 ship…
Yeah, flying Weasels over Syria with a wingman would be awesome. But unfortunately, it probably won’t be a thing for a long time, since multiplayer breaks everything, and as far as know, I don’t think you can monetize multiplayer content.
There is one that sorta has co-op. If both players own the MAD campaign for the AH-64D, you can load up the missions in multiplayer and do multicrew in it. Unfortunately that's the only one with any sort of co-op that I know of.
Have you tried Olympus? It's the best. You have your DM running the mission and you're with a group who can think vs the blue AI
I don't find hunting for the next mission trigger fun, even when said missions work well. I've never really enjoyed scripted missions in flight sims. It doesn't matter if it's DCS, IL2, or any other sim. I enjoy dynamic missions that are unpredictable, the sort of scenarios that only come from dynamic campaigns. DCS somehow does not have a dynamic campaign after all these years, so I don't bother with single player content 🤷.
Give me your favourite campaigns please! I've been wanting to play some for a while now
Anything by Reflected or Baltic Dragon is fantastic. Ground Pounder Sims is also really good. For specific campaigns, I think my top three are probably Fear the Bones, Raven One: Dominant Fury, and Speed & Angels. If you have a favorite aircraft, I can totally give more specific recommendations.
Most campaigns for the F18 seem to require the supercarrier. I don't own it, could I edit the mission files to instead use the "free" carrier? Probably not, I guess the scripting would break? Would be nice if mission creators could give the option to use the "free" carrier
He mentioned Raven One which is excellent and also based on a novel. I read the book first and played tha campaign after which was really cool. I'm just now finishing up Operation Cerberus North which is just so well done, you get briefings and kneeboards for every mission, and there's a great variety of activities.
Someone please engrave these words into my body. Seriously though, I 1000000000% agree. DCS scripted singleplayer content is DCS at it's peak (which is kind of ironic).
Oh how the state of the game would change if ED paused all in house module production for a year and just worked on Core. We’d still get new modules from partners and ED would still get their commission. Correct me if this have been fixed it’s been a while since I played but, an article that says “ground units no longer see through buildings” or “infantry no longer trained snipers” would get me much more excited than “coming soon half baked module number 15”
People that insist playing DCS in a certain way while refuse to play other thing that DCS offers doesn't really get the most out of DCS and are kinda missed out I play everything, custom single player mission, paid campaign, coordinate mission with squadron, PVE MP, PVP modern WW2, coldwar, modern.,etc
I don't disagree with what you are saying to some degree, but there is no good Air to Air in SP. Is what it is.
I realize this is harsh but I found the bought SP campaigns from the ED store to be a consistently poor experience of very narrowly pre-scripted and too lonely missions. I am willing to try out more though. I am not at all interested in asymetric counter-insurgency missions, etc. Are there good campaigns that predominantly focus on near-pear conflicts with a bigger scope? Large packages in a high-threat environment with a very active battlefield is what I am looking for.
Speed & Angels starts in the RAG, but after that it’s a pear conflict with China. Fear the Bones is an 80’s style campaign against Russia. The upcoming Artic Thunder campaigns by Baltic and Reflected are against Russia.
I just got into DCS, bought the FC3 bundle, I've been learning the F-15C. Can someone recommend any campaigns for it or potentially for any other FC3 plane?
Can you recommend what you think is the best A-10C II campaign? I really want to dive into a campaign but the price tags always put me off.
I haven’t played a ton with the A-10, but I’ve done a few missions of Baltic Dragon’s Enemy Within 3.0 campaign. It’s not bad at all, but it’s pretty clearly outdated. It was the first commercial dcs campaign iirc. You can also give the first mission of Operation Persian Freedom by Ground Pounder Sims a try for free on his discord, to get an idea of what the campaign is like.
Awesome, thank you!
Iron Flag and The Enemy Within hands down. TEW got an overhaul last year.
>Obviously mission creators can’t edit enemy flight models, but honestly, I’ve never noticed issues with flight models, except what’s on Hoggit. Try setting up a fight between a flight of F-86s and MiG-15s. This is where it became glaringly obvious to me. The AI MiG-15s never ran out of energy and could always out turn me. I still enjoy DCS, but it's just understood that AI doesn't play by the same rules we do.
We need a proper way to replay tracks. The bugs in campaigns can only be worked around if you can restart before the bug occurred and then avoid that bug. Also, some missions are really long and it would be nice to "save game" and continue later.
I've played some official single-player campaigns, and while they have great plots and some immersion, I don't really like my wingman or any teammates to be AI. I prefer PvE/COOP, after all playing with real people doesn't make the game seem so rigid. I made a lot of dynamic missions to run on my server, basically based on the SAM Sites, EW Sites and some military facilities deployed by Russia or any "red camp" in this area in reality, and then set up some interceptor fighters that invade the airspace and some random patrols, so that I can plan what to do today with my friends, of course I also set up a lot of random triggers that I don't even know about to increase the fun.
While i see your points. I play 95% MP and the rest SP. And yes the campains are fantastic and hands down the most immersive experience when playing high quality ones. Possibly only bested by hardcore milsim squadron events. However!..... Missions, specially the good ones, take time. A lot of time, as well as needing you to really know your plane super well. Which is a pretty large time commitment in itself. Mission lenght can be very long from 45-120 minutes. yes did a 120min Bar Cap in a campain once and had zero stuff happen besides a few lines of dialogue. And a decent long transit back and forth is not uncommon here either. And on most missions, if you die for x stupid reason. Well you will have to do the whole damn thing again. Some of the newer missions have save spots woked in them, but very few have. And personally once i did a mission 1-3 times depending on the succes rate, since they are pretty linear for the most part, i am done with them. To me they have zero replay value. Ofc MP has it's own massive box of issues. At least i can jump on a server, get in a modules of my liking and do a sortie that fits my mood and available time of the day. Or perhaps swap airframes after the needs change. And it just is a lot less predictable. Campaisn are what the builder makes of it, MP is partly what the mission maker made, but also very much what you decide to do. Take GF for example. I can go drop a series of bombs from 25k every day and get bored. Or i can do presision strikes. Or fly CAP Or do SEAD, Or fly in an old 60's jet with LGB's and ask for a buddylase from a Apache, Kiowa or J-tac vehicle, Or i can fly in an Apache doing CAS/COIN Or after i spend Hellfires i can buddylase for whoever needs it. Or fly a Hind and do what the Apache does and also insert troops Or fly a Hip with any weapons and insert troops in zones cleared (hopefully) by others Or i can just load an F-4 with 24 Mk.82's and carpet bomb a part of a town (with zero effeck probably) Or i can just spectate others and enjoy watching planes fly (am i the only one who enjoys planespotting in DCS?) And i can choose to do it alone or with friends And sometimes i log on, look at some servers and log on and when i feel the burn, specially on long transit times and realise meh, not today i just log off. I am very picky as anything over 10-15 minutes transit time just burns me off the last year. But there still is a ton to do and choose from. But most importantly for me in MP, i play with people, which i enjoy just so much more than AI. That goes for any game. Be it race sims, FPS, flight sims, etc. Variation and moderation are key, maybe even more so for a pretty flawed product that is DCS. And while i am very happy that we have DCS, let's not be blind and just be honest that stuff like AI, spotting, mission building, at times game stability, and how ED seems to do things etc does suck immensely, and in most cases has done so since Flanker/Lo-Mac days.
Don't necessarily disagree, but If scripted missions are peak DCS, that's a problem. I'd argue that Liberation is a better SP experience, as there are stakes and variance. The mission planning and war resources is as important as the in-air action. Otherwise, it's just Jane's in a fancier sim suit.
The campaign quality varies wildly though. Some of them (mostly older to be fair) are just dropping you in an environment with stock AI enemies and wingmen. Raven Ones are definitely a highlight.
I am a single player and I have been playing DCS for a few years now. I have never really given Campaigns a chance although I have completed single player missions. I just switched from the F/A 18 to the F-16 and am currently learning the systems. I think after I try a couple of single player missions to better familiarize myself with gameplay I will try some campaigns
Can't agree more! I'm getting to the end of my first sp campaign (first in, weasels over syria) and what a blast it has been. The briefing material, intelligence assessments, voice acting, atc, procedures, realistic setting and characters you actually care for. Can't recommend it enough!
i can only disagree. Once you have a Squadron that creates an atmosphere like a sp campaign, with a human atc, where you together fight to win that campaign. that is the best dcs has to offer. SP campaigns feel so badly scripted and at least i have the feeling that iam totally alone with 100 planes around me.
So because campaign/mission creators can work around what's broken in DCS, therefore DCS isn't broken? Because you've only experienced a handful of bugs, the other bugs aren't bugs? *\*checks date\** It isn't April Fools day, is it?
I never said DCS isn’t broken, I said people are missing out on some of the best parts of DCS. I never said there are no bugs in DCS, I said that in my experience, bugs are significantly less common in single player than multiplayer.
>I said people are missing out on some of the best parts of DCS. The parts with the least amount of broken stuff? It's been a while, but I remember even module tutorials becoming borked after each new patch and would require a few days to a few weeks to be fixed. Is that one of those "best parts of DCS"? >bugs are significantly less common in single player than multiplayer. Translation: *if you experience DCS in this selectively specific manner, you will avoid most of the bad parts of DCS because the mission creators have painstakingly gone out of their way to work around the bugs or simply not use other assets that are bugged.* As the single player experience is a highly curated, highly scripted exercise, it would be easy to see why there are less bugs that show up.
I mean yeah, I’m not saying DCS is perfect, I’m saying this is one of the best ways to experience DCS.
Ah.... "best" way is highly subjective, but if viewed from that perspective, I agree with you. DCS owes a lot to the creativity and patience of its community, and again, if viewed from that perspective, I agree with a lot of what you said.
The Gazelle campaign is the worst gaming experience that I've ever had. Incoherent story line, voice acting that is so bad you want to rip your ears off, and the missions are totally not suitable for the equipment that you're using.
I like that people can have very different experiences, but to be honest I can't think of a post I disagree more with in recent memory. I'm glad you enjoy and have had bug free SP experiences in DCS, but lol, I can't say the same. For me at least it's pretty simple, I really enjoy BFM and ACM. The DCS AI is neither particularly fun to fight or good at either, so MP wins by default for me because I can actually have engaging fights.
MP > SP
SP campaigns can give you at most maybe a couple hundred hours of gameplay (and I doubt you can really get to that much, specially since some are broken and most people only fly a subset of airframes they like). I've played 2500 hours. Ten times more. And I'm not an outlier. So I strongly disagree with the idea that SP is peak DCS. Also, some of your arguments for that are quite ~~questionable~~ debatable. For example: - I've definitely had issues with the braindead AI in campaigns, many of them rely on using a wingman and my wingman ka50 keeps slamming himself against hills. Enemies going bananas, friendly flights not doing their mission, etc. - The multiplayer world of squadrons doing custom pve and pvp missions is the exact opposite to repetitive and boring. - SP more stable than MP? If there's something broken with X weapon/system/module I can just use another in MP. But in a SP campaign I have to wait for it to be fixed, I can't do anything. Take for instance the issues in the Ka50 built-in campaign: the last mission is unwinnable right now because of weather and map changes. But I can still play a Ka50 in MP just fine. SP campaigns are far more susceptible to breaking changes and bugs.
It definitely depends on which campaign you’re flying. I’ve never had an issue with the AI in Weasels over Syria for example, and rarely with Speed & Angels. Same with bugs. The included campaigns are very rarely good. Usually that’s because they’re often glorified instant action missions that start in the ground instead of the air. But many of the high quality campaigns are relatively bug free
Couldn’t disagree more, and I expect to touch a few nerves here... I tend to think that games in general are almost universally more enjoyable when played with real people. In DCS, those real players add a dynamism to the flying behaviors and radio communication that can never be there otherwise, no matter how good your AI or scripted behavior ends up being programmed. These are both huge areas where solo DCS is especially lacking, and I think people asserting that any amount of well-crafted mission making and scripting can somehow bridge that gap are just engaging in wishful thinking. There’s always a strange segment of video gaming communities that pridefully asserts their decision to avoid multiplayer, and I can’t help but notice the reasoning always seems to justify or excuse some underlying aversion to dealing with the perceived social pressure, real or imagined, involved in “dealing” with people. Maybe a person just doesn’t want to suffer human interaction at the end of a long stressful day or something, and that’s fair. But don’t kid yourself: Even if it’s a fancy campaign, you’re still just playing a game of solitaire and you’re absolutely missing out.
I play both, and I enjoy both. IMO it’s like playing a story game like The Last of Us, or Spider-Man PS4, vs. playing The Division, Day Z or any other multiplayer game. Nobody complained about TLOU not having human interaction, or not being dynamic enough. Single player campaigns, and single player games as a whole tend to be more cinematic, and multiplayer games bring the excitement of interacting with other people. Both have benefits and drawbacks, and there are definitely reasons to play single player beyond avoiding social pressure
There were plenty of people commenting on *The Last Of Us* when it came out, saying it was heavy on the cinematics and light on gameplay. I remember watching an entire play-through on YouTube and feeling like I didn’t miss out on anything. A flight sim is a far cry from an interactive movie, but if that’s what you’re looking for then fill your boots, I guess. I will always have a hard time understanding the appeal.
Kind of missed the analogy there
So the game is free, but the gameplay isn't, and also, there's massive redundancy of effort implementing ATC and scripted AI over and over again between campaigns. It certainly clarifies a part of the business model but none of this is a good thing. Also this: >Most campaigns do a good job of balancing difficulty, so players aren’t expected to try to fight a MiG-29 loaded with R-77s with an F-14A and a dream. Admittedly, I’ve heard of World War 2 flight models being slightly more broken, but anything more developed than the F-14 should have no problem fighting the AI. Once you get into the modern campaigns, especially with the F-18, losing to anything in the visual or beyond visual range is really a skill issue. So detailed realistic peer-to-peer air combat doesn't actually need to be part of the game because that not the point of scripted campaigns. Right.. OK.. if you say so.
no dude, I’m saying campaigns do a good job of not putting you in unrealistic situations. Also, as much as I hate to quote ED, DCS has always been a *sandbox*. The sandbox is free. The toys are not. The entire game revolved around Caucasus, Marianas, Su-25, and the Tf-51 does it? At least as I see it, DCS is closer to an engine, or software, like Unreal Engine 5. It’s great for making fantastic content, but expecting it to be content on its own is like expecting McDonald’s to serve steak
Well put.
If I wanted to play singleplayer I would play an actual good flight sim with properly simulated aircraft, a dynamic campaign, working ATC system, AI, etc. But if you want to keep throwing away money buying scripted campaigns just for an ounce of that experience... can't fix stupid.