[MarkShot]

NOTE: Admin feel free to move this thread ... originally, I put it here, since I was talking more about a way of playing SC/DW, then actual techniques of mission writing. However, now, the conversation will probably be getting more technical.

I have noticed what you described with regards to long missions resulting in the CTDs.

You are proposing the "bubble" as opposed to the "full stage" method of simulation:

Bubble: Only instantiate world events/objects within a range that the player would be able to perceive them. Distant events are abstracted and the outcomes are purely summarized as opposed to being decided by simulation.

Full Stage: The entire stage is set and put in motion. Although it is not necessarily likely that the player may bring his troops a few miles (by foot) across the battle field in 20 minutes, if somehow the player achieved a break in the lines and exploits it, there will be something more than emptiness awaiting him and his brigade beyond the next ridge line.

I see that the advantage of the "bubble" in the reduction of complexity especially since doctrine language is interpreted and probably results in two orders of magnitude of simulated code lines being realized for simple scenario constructs.

However, I was hoping that the "full stage" method would result in the creation of random situations with a depth and richness not realizable by simple permutations or decision trees. The thinking was: if you apply some random objects and locations into a complex battlefield situation, then you will realize further complexity based on how things proceed from initial conditions. Now, the player has X number of hours to live in that world; maybe with an extention clause such that he needs to break contact in order to close the current session after 24 hours have passed.

Now, in terms of carry out an initial mission, he does not know what other assets might roam into his initial orders area. After completing the first mission, perhaps he now transits to pick up a convoy to escort for his second mission. What he will run across in the transit or what shape the convoy is in no one can say based on things that had happened hours earlier. Even the scenario designer after a few hours of running cannot predict the state of the space as permutations of outcomes arise rapidly and each juncture further complicate the possibilities. The world continues to become an increasingly chaotic situation despite the firing off mission orders at various intervals. With the "bubble" approach, the player can expect one of a few possible variants (especially if it is the designer or someone who has inspected the scenario). With the "full stage" approach, it is quite possible that other units with other missions and previous orders have wondered into the clean little defined problem which has just been delegated to you. Not even the designer after many hours can know what is lurking. The world is not a set of little disjoint action areas where you walk from one ride to the next in the theme park. The world is alive and while having dropped off commandos and moving to closing off a shipping lane, you may run into sub who has survived another mission and sees you as a target of opportunity along the way. Or perhaps you find yourself close to a friendly battle group that is unexpectedly being decimated by a wolfpack. A distress signal is sent to any close assets to join the fight and even the odds. Effectively, there are hostilities taking place along a broad front. At any given point in time, one cannot know where you will be along that broad front and what role you make be invited to play.

Your kills and their quality for the current session is tallied and sets force levels for the next cycle. Good performance and enemy assets being instantiated for the second day is reduced. Poor performance and the flood gates of enemy units are open. Each day (if you live), the balance of forces may shift. Perhaps, the player may trigger various difficulty options such that reinforcements will play a role in later cycle independent of performance related results. As the war drags and political solutions come closer, the player may bring an early victory to his side by helping his side to acheive sea dominance before a political peace can be imposed. Or the players has lived, but fails to be aggressive, the enemy are dominating the seas. Either the enemy wins before a political solution or the player fails to survive a sea ever saturated with hostile units. So, besides individual risk to the player, an aggressive player (despite randomness) will shift the course of the war with each cycle as the enemy suffers from attrition. A cautious captain will find the odds each cycle mounting against him. So, you have a complex dynamic where excessive focusing on realistically preserving ownship will make the war harder to survive.