Dynamic Gameplay
I've been wanting to have some elements of mission state evolution for a long time, but whether it's possible in a way that's fun enough to pursue is a topic that still needs some thought. I'll quickly go over what Aggressor has now and what can be done in a reasonable timeframe. First off, Id like to address what is understood under the concept of a dynamic campaign and how Aggressor's engine stacks up.
What makes a good dynamic campaign
The general definition of a dynamic campaign calls for a strategic sim that evolves in time based on player action, or inaction. Missions are not premade, but rather emerge from this strategic simulation that runs even if the player is not actively flying a mission. Perhaps the best example of a game that does this exceptionally well is Falcon 4.0. Throughout the entire map, supply chains and conflicts between factions are simulated continuously. You as the player are dropped into this world and everything you do is decisive in pivoting the direction of the war. Naturally this makes for good fun. I should add that Falcon 4.0 represents what is probably the holy grail of dynamic campaign simulation and this won't be possible to replicate in Aggressor. But if anyone still wanted to know what a true dynamic campaign looks like, that is the best example out there.
What can be done in a reasonable time
A map view of an evolving conflict, where the map size is limited to 100x100km (60x60 mi)
An increase in the number of active units in a scene through better LOD
Procedural mission & map generation -> fly the mission
Action at a distance -> physics sim does not break down far from the player
More varied static ground targets
Engine limitations
Runtime instantiation of units
(Strategic progression while flying the mission itself is halted because of this)
Maps cannot be larger than around 120x120km without compromise on detail
In-mission runtime map generation (required for Aggressor to go past 120x120km)
Large scale aerial conflicts (aircraft in Aggressor are CPU-intensive multi-rigidbody setups)
Determinism & state prediction (aforementioned rigidbody setup, also why multiplayer is out of the question for this game)
Grey area
Road networks at scale (pathfinding)
Convoys (current maps in Aggressor are difficult to traverse by land)
Strategic planning and procedural assembling of strike packages for squadrons
Procedural map generation in Aggressor works, but only during the initialization step. It's possible to generate procedural arena-like maps, but not a continuous infinite world. The practical size limit for these worlds depend on resolution. The map above is 90x90km of playable area and runs at a framerate similar to default Aggressor maps. Resolution is high enough to maintain some sense of speed.
Relevance for Aggressor
The topic of dynamic campaigns is a broad one. So I'll keep it focused on what is possible right now. Some dynamic elements can make their way into the game. Missions in Aggressor are fully data driven, so it technically allows for some strategic planning engine to act on that data and change it over time. The gamemodes can feasibly be modified to have at least some of the aforementioned features, but never all of them. It will still be a confined mission space because of map size limitations, and the number of active units will be quite low.
Scramble
This gamemode could be expanded to have the player start at a random airport of choice. Going further, the player could make upgrades to this airport to get better defenses, and the mission planner could respond with more numerous adversaries. The key thing here is that these upgrades will not happen while the player is flying. They happen back in the interfacing scenes and only go through when the player goes back into the world, reloading it.
Strike
A new gamemode that involves a map with multiple airbases. The airport layouts are chosen randomly, and the number of aircraft/ground units would be procedural. The objectives would be simple, but it would be different each time you fly the mission. This is not really dynamic though, it's merely a sort of procedural mission generation.
Fury
Fury can be compared to the Skirmish gamemode in Aggressor, except you also deal with ground/sea targets. Enemy installations are spread out over the map, and you and your wingmen are tasked with destroying them. The ground targets will mostly be static. This could either be airstart or operated from a central friendly airbase. If Scramble is the defensive gamemode, this is it's polar opposite.
In Summary
I recognize there's a need for this sort of gameplay, but it also happens to be technically intensive to pull off. This is more of an invitation for discussion on the topic of dynamic missions. Everyone's welcome so let me know what you think. In other news: An update with some changes to Scramble & Skirmish will be released on the 27th.