Amiga games with Dynamic Campaigns?

[Angus]

I was reading somebody's forum post enthusing about Falcon 4.0 on the pc and describing it's excellent dynamic campaign, recently. It made me think about which Amiga games I could remember that offered one.


But what does "Dynamic Campaign" even mean?


To me it means a game where there is a conflict, which you are a part of, but only a part of, and it will rage on between 2 or more AI opponent "Generals" despite the success or failure of your own efforts - although I suppose your efforts do influence the outcome, it's not as as simple as, complete missions 1-10 to win the game.


Would Midwinter count? I'm a bit hazy now about the details, and if you had to inhabit the various characters in order to make them take part in the hostilities. Carrier Command is a borderline case, in that once you took over some islands they would defend themselves autonomously against the enemy carrier. ......but you had to take them over first and they didn't undertake offensive action - and you were very much the central figure, one of the Generals.


Although I didn't play it myself, I gather F16 Combat Pilot qualified, as well as Birds of Prey and Combar Air Patrol (none of which I can claim to be an expert on).






M1 Tank Platoon would seem to qualify.
http://agdb.abime.net/DBM1/M1TP3.html



I'd like to compile a list of games that qualify, can you suggest any?

[Aardvark]

AV8B Harrier Assault https://amiga.abime.net/games/view/av8b-harrier-assault

[DanScott]

Elite surely was a dynamic campaign ?

[Angus]

Originally Posted by DanScott

Elite surely was a dynamic campaign ?

Well...... :-). because you were at the centre of it, and there wasn't a specific campaign (I'm not knocking it, that was the point) I'd say not quite. More so in Frontier probably, but I'd argue the games are really a step beyond dynamic campaigns and more dynamic galaxy games?

Love 'em, in any case.

[kremiso]

if you are searching also for non just flight-sims, i think Lords of the Rising Sun should match your parameters

you must challenge other 5 (iirc) generals, in a not linear war
iirc in the battleground sequence was possible to have more than two armies
like your soldiers and two AI ones

[lordofchaos]

Birds Of Prey is a good example, you can end the game quicker by choosing various methods of attack and how you dismantle your foes infrastructure.

I suppose it's very similar to carrier command in that respect, but to my memory has much more depth as a simulator.

[demether]

Wing commander maybe ? I did the game only one time, so I canno't confirm.

[arkiruthis]

I never played the Amiga version, but I believe Star Crusader also had a dynamic campaign. The war is ongoing and iirc you could play for difference sides.

[CodyJarrett]

Possibly the Armour-Geddon games, the Midwinter games and Ashes of Empire.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by kremiso

if you are searching also for non just flight-sims, i think Lords of the Rising Sun should match your parameters

Absolutely, I'm definitely not restricting it to flight-sims. You got me thinking, and now I'm womdering if Steel Empire/Cyber Empires should be included. There were 5 possible AI Generals, you could set their skill level from 1-5 and you didn't even have to include human players, you could make all players AI and just let it run. :-)


[ Show youtube player ]

[kremiso]

Megalomania

[Seiya]

Gunship and Gunship 2000

[dreadnought]

Well, Microprose were the kings of this design template- which is why it's my favourite retro publisher/developer. You can add M1 Tank Platoon to their other games ITT and, to some extent, Pirates! and Covert Action.

[d4rk3lf]

Well, if you consider "game over" as an end, in alternative world, where life still thrives, even after "game over", then every game falls into the criteria.
But I got your point.

Originally Posted by demether

Wing commander maybe ?

This should be a perfect candidate.
Campaign is non linear, and apart from you can loose your comrades during the mission, the whole campaign have a good and bad endings, and it's determined by how much succeeds you have in total, through all the missions.

Wiki said it better:

The mission tree is designed so players on the "losing" path could work their way back to the "winning" path, and conversely players on the "winning" path could fail subsequent missions to fall into the "losing" path. In addition, the wingmen can be killed permanently in combat, and thus be gone for the rest of the campaign.

I guess, that counts as a perfect candidate.

Apart from WC, isn't Civilization good candidate as well?
You have few ways to win, and even if you don't win in any of the ways, and just survived until 2050, the game still recognize you've been there.

Originally Posted by lordofchaos

Birds Of Prey is a good example, you can end the game quicker by choosing various methods of attack and how you dismantle your foes infrastructure.

I am not sure how Birds of Pray could be on this list.
From my memory (and I played it a lot, and I think it's awesome game), you just have 6 missions, and true, nobody forcing you to choose which one to play first... err...
Let me put it this way:
The fact that game doesn't really have a campaign (only 6 missions) doesn't place it in a list that it's unilinear campaign.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

I am not sure how Birds of Pray could be on this list.
From my memory (and I played it a lot, and I think it's awesome game), you just have 6 missions, and true, nobody forcing you to choose which one to play first... err...
Let me put it this way:
The fact that game doesn't really have a campaign (only 6 missions) doesn't place it in a list that it's unilinear campaign.

I don't know too much about the game, but isn't it more 6 mission types, rather than 6 missions? So you could fly 20 Ground attack missions and each one would further degrade the enemy's infrastructure?

In Dante Mendes De Patta's review on the AGDB, he makes an interesting point. If he selects the Border Patrol mission, but then disobeys his order and does his own thing, the game design is broad enough that he can influence the campaign.
http://agdb.abime.net/DBA1/BoP3.html

[demether]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Well, if you consider "game over" as an end, in alternative world, where life still thrives, even after "game over", then every game falls into the criteria.
But I got your point.



This should be a perfect candidate.
Campaign is non linear, and apart from you can loose your comrades during the mission, the whole campaign have a good and bad endings, and it's determined by how much succeeds you have in total, through all the missions.

Wiki said it better:


I guess, that counts as a perfect candidate.

.

thank you, I was not sure. I "felt" that, but since I did the game only once, I was not sure it could go another way.

[Angus]

Guys, help me with the concepts, here. :-)


On the one hand, there are a lot of games with a campaign that is to some extent dynamic.... but you are still essentially a one-man-army, and no advances are made without your direct participation.

On the other hand, there's a more complete version of the dynamic campaign where battles can be lost and won without your participation. Your behaviour influences events but does not dictate it.

And there's a lot of stuff in between, like Carrier Command where islands will fight (defensively) on your behalf provided you have previously captured them and built the defences......


So, in the first example, DCL (Dynamic Campaign Lite)
Falcon Mission Disk 1, if you bomb a factory, it will remain broken for 5 further missions and not produce armaments for the other side during that time. But this is entirely down to your action.
In the Midwinter games, you have a lot of scope in the way you conduct your campaign, but (as I understand it) it all comes down to you, nobody else is fighting on your side, although in the first game you can inhabit a range of other people and fight with them.


In the second example, DCX (Dynamic Campaign eXtreme)
Here you are engaged in the campaign and can influence it, but just as an individual, with the war raging around you, and not as Captain Super Hero. I'm actually struggling to think of an example of that. :-/


Regarding some suggestions made above:
Star Crusader: (great game) there were a couple of forks in the mission paths, but I don't think there was a great amount of freedom.
Wing Commander: Mission success/failure causes different results triggering changes in your next mission etc.

[alkis21]

Does Wings count? Your missions are only your personal story, while World War I rages on independently.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by alkis21

Does Wings count? Your missions are only your personal story, while World War I rages on independently.

Great game, but I don't think so.

There's 230 missions, you can't really lose the game (or so it says in the manual) you've just got to stay with it till the armistice in November, 1918, right?

So, it's kind of on rails as far the final result goes.

[lordofchaos]

Regarding Birds Of Prey. The game only has one campaign, beating the enemy into submission, and the player has the choice in how they end game, the various mission types are just more choices in how this is achieved.

The game is dynamic in that the AI fights back, seemingly unscripted.

I tried to play it again recently but it's not very accessible, especially without knowing a ton of stuff, controls, tactics etc..