Thinking out loud...a CT question

[TexMurphy]

Dan.

Ive been thinking very much along the same lines as you. I was actually about to write a post very similar to yours last week but RL work got in the way.

What I wonder is what kind of "win conditions" can be set in AH?

For example atm there can be win conditions set to number of fields left when one nation is down to X fields. Thats the way its set in MA as we all know.

Is it possible to set a "win condition" to 80% of all cities destroyed?

What I would like to see is the CT beeing different in game play. CT needs to be different in gameplay to profile it self. Now its just a limmited MA. Dont get me wrong I like the limmitations on the plane set but 99% of the players se CT as "limmited MA". Limmited is never good. Different is good.

For example say that a map could be "won" if 80% of all the cities where destroyed, or 80% of all the training facilites or what ever.

That would put focus on strategic bombing. Im not saying that CT should become a bombing arena but an arena with different gameplay.

Say that focus would be on strategic bombing (instead of base taking) then it would mean defending cities, or what ever other strat is the key to the current map. Defending it would mean bombers needing escorts which would mean alot of fighting.

Personally I dont want CT to be just a furball arena. I like to furball but when its only furballing without a goal to it it can get booring in the long run.

Another thing I would like to see is field limmitations on planes.

We have talked about moving perked planes to only certain fields but I would like to see bombers moved to certain fields as well.

This way fighters would have to fly CAP in vicinity of friendly bomber fields inorder to allow for the friendly bombers to get up. Atm CAP is only viewed as "vulch over a enemy base" but CAP is much more.

Putting focus on strategic bombing and having "bomber fields" would give a offensive target for the defending nation and would create need of true CAP sorties.

Tex

[oboe]

Great thread, great discussion.    If I may add my .02 -

I'm all for disabling field capture and scoring, and favor field basing limitations over perks for the traditional perk planes for the same reason as Star - it lets infrequent visitors to the CT fly the perk planes right away - the only cost is ferrying them to the action.    I enjoyed the realistic aspect of having to land and refuel carefully while ferrying a plane into the combat area when I did it with P-40s on the Guadalcanal map way back when.

I'd even be in favor of disabling GVs altogether.   Nothing is worse IMO than rolling a fighter in a near empty arena only to be vultched by a spawn camping GV.    Plus it makes it harder to find a fight in an arena with 12-15 ppl if 8 of them are playing in GVs.

I like the CT best when it depicts a particular time frame/theater with a variety of well matched planes.   I know these can be hard to find but I enjoyed the Finnish setups and Okinawa with the Ki.84, and latewar ETO P-51 vs 109 fights (though I would've preferred a choice in P-51s rather than limiting it to the 51D).

I think certain setups suggested (Channel Dash, Midway) can be probematic in a 24/7 arena, and may be better suited to Scenarios.   (The problem being, for example, the US midway CVs sunk by unopposed players during the nonpeak hours).    That is not to say its impossible to do but it may require a CT staffer to check on/reset the arena at the beginning of peak hours each day.

I also enjoyed visiting the CT multiples times in a week when a modified two-stage RPS was in place - after Wednesdays the CT staffers enabled the later war planes for the theater.    Just made it feel a little bit more like a campaign to me.    
 
all

[Grits]

I'm for disabling GV's with the exception of sets where they played a major role. Tunisia, Rhine, D-Day and FinRus should have them, but BoB '40-'43, and all PAC sets should have NO GV's, none, not even M16's and Osti's. BoB should not have GV's or C47's, that battle was a struggle for air supremacy, a prelude to an invasion, an invasion which never happened.

I'm also for killing scores/ranks, its a detriment to good gameplay in the CT.

[soda72]

I agree with what you wrote Grits....

But sometimes it's nice to know you can pull out that m16 or ostwind when vulchers are about whether it's historically accurate or not.....

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by TexMurphy
Dan.

Ive been thinking very much along the same lines as you. I was actually about to write a post very similar to yours last week but RL work got in the way.

What I wonder is what kind of "win conditions" can be set in AH?

For example atm there can be win conditions set to number of fields left when one nation is down to X fields. Thats the way its set in MA as we all know.

Is it possible to set a "win condition" to 80% of all cities destroyed?

What I would like to see is the CT beeing different in game play. CT needs to be different in gameplay to profile it self. Now its just a limmited MA. Dont get me wrong I like the limmitations on the plane set but 99% of the players se CT as "limmited MA". Limmited is never good. Different is good.

For example say that a map could be "won" if 80% of all the cities where destroyed, or 80% of all the training facilites or what ever.

That would put focus on strategic bombing. Im not saying that CT should become a bombing arena but an arena with different gameplay.
Tex

Personally I'd take out any kind of "Win" conditions.  I think it's one of the biggest detriments to the game there is.  It makes the focus too much on reseting the map.

Let's face it, when we play the game we are on the hamster wheel to some degree. Take off, find the fight, either die or RTB and do it all over again With a map reset it basically means to run to a certain point, then go back to the beginning and start over.

I'd rather aim for 'Fun" conditions that allow folks to do the things they enjoy without wrecking it for each other, so at any time someone came into the CT they could find the fight and do the things they enjoy.  I know if I pop into the MA and whatever country I'm flying for that day is back up into a few fields and is being ganged by the horde, it's just not much fun to go up.  And frankly with the kinds of numbers that the CT has, it's gotta start small and stay fun in hopes of drawing in new folks when the word gets around that the CT fighting is fun and different from the MA style.

Using the Rabaul idea I mentioned in my first post.  It was never about taking Rabaul.  It was about isolating it and keeping it's resources from having an impact.  It was a constant battle of attrition there.  And it was some brutal fighting and dangerous for both the fighter and bomber drivers that went in.

Say you do Channel Front, 1943.  There wouldn't be any sort of win conditions as it was essentially stalemate at the time.  Yet the options for both sides were many, whether it be two ship rhubarbs to shoot up ground targets, sweeps to airfields to draw up the baduns, escorts of the mediums to bomb different targets. etc. for the RAF.  And the LW was sending 190s lugging bombs to hit targets on the south coast, tying up lots of RAF fighters flying patrols or intercepts.  The Ju88s and 110s were out and about.  THe 109s and 190s certainly had targets to intercept in bombers and fighters.  Throw in shipping in the channel and there is all kinds of variety.

I guess that's just my typical longwinded way of saying I think everyone wins if there are no win conditions.

Dan/CorkyJr

[TexMurphy]

Dan.

If there is no "win condition" or any kind of goal for the teams to commonly achive then game play will be furballing.

I dont mind furballing but we got that in MA.

Half focusing on taking bases and half furballing.

Personally I enjoy furballing but just furballing aint enough for me.

Ive got a very strong love for strategy. I love how when different type of pilots in different type of plane work together to achive a goal. Team work, tactics and strategy is something I love just as much as piloting.

When it all comes together then that is the ultimate enjoyment for me.

When I fly my fighter and I have a goal to achive (keep the bombers alive or stop an incoming raid) I focus 200 times more then when Im just furballing. It brings out the best of my abilities.

Fighting without that goal makes the fight it self much less intense.

Tex

[TheBug]

Hmmm,

StarAfrica you make an excellent counter-argument.  So you're approach would be(correct me if I'm wrong) to totally eliminate the "rare" planes from the setup instead of perking them?

I would be much more in tune with that then just enabling them.  I don't take any offense to your comments and enjoy a good constructive argument.  Just curious as to what your approach would be to filling out the 2nd TAF OOB.  This is a great thread, btw.

As for GVs I am more into allowing the setup limit their use than completely eliminating them.  But I do agree this is a flight sim and if I had my way it wouldn't take much arm twisting to eliminate GV's if I felt it would get more people in the air fighting.

SECOND TACTICAL AIR FORCE(AVM Arthur Coningham)

No. 83 (Composite) Group (AVM Harry Broadhurst)

No. 15 Sector
122 Wing
19 Squadron, Mustang III (Funtington, B.7 25Jun, B.12 15Jul) QV
65 Squadron (S/L Westersra) Mustang III (Funtington, B.7 25Jun, B.12 15Jul) YT
122 Squadron, Mustang III (Funtington, B.7 25Jun, B.12 16Jul) MT
125 Wing
132 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.11 25Jun, B.19 13Aug) FF
453 (Australian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.11 25Jun, B.19 13Aug) FU
602 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.11 25Jun, B.19 13Aug) LO
129 Wing
184 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.10 27Jun, B.5 16Jul) BR
No. 17 (Canadian) Sector (G/C Bill MacBrien)
126 (Canadian) Wing (W/C George Keefer)
401 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Lorne Cameron) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.4 18Jun, B.18 8Aug) YO
411 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Graham Robertson) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.4 18Jun, B.18 8Aug) DB
412 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Shepherd) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.4 18Jun, B.18 8Aug) VZ
127 (Canadian) Wing (W/C Lloyd Chadburn)
403 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Bob Buckham) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.2 16Jun) KH
416 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Fred Green) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.2 16Jun) DN
421 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Wally Conrad) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.2 16Jun) AU
144 (Canadian) Wing (W/C Johnny Johnson)
441 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Danny Browne) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.3 15Jun, B.11 15Jul) 9G
442 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Dal Russel) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.3 15Jun, B.4 15Jul) Y2
443 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Wally McLeod) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.3 15Jun, B.2 15Jul)) 2I
No. 22 Sector (G/C Paul Davoud)
121 Wing (W/C Bob Davidson)
174 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.5 17Jun, B.2 19Jun, B.5 24Jun) XP
175 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.3 20Jun, B.5 24Jun) HH
245 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.5 27Jun) MR
124 Wing (W/C Basil Carroll)
181 Squadron (S/L Frank Jensen) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.6 20 June) EL
182 Squadron (S/L Pugh) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.6 20Jun, Holmesley 22Jun, B.6 3Jul) XM
247 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.6 20Jun, Hurn 23Jun, B.6 27Jun) ZY
143 (RCAF) Wing (W/C M T Judd)
438 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Fred Grant) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.9 27Jun) F3
439 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Hugh Norsworthy) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.9 27Jun) 5V
440 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L W Pentland) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.9 27Jun) I8
39 Recce Wing (W/C Bunt Waddell)
168 Squadron, Spitfire XIV (Odiham, B.8 1Jul)
400 (Canadian) Squadron, Mosquito XVII (Odiham, B.8 1Jul, B.21 15Jul) SP
414 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Smoky Stover) Spitfire XIV (Odiham, B.21 15Jul) RU
430 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L F Chester) Spitfire XIV (Odiham) G9
Spotting Wing
652 Squadron, Auster
653 Squadron, Auster
658 Squadron, Auster
659 Squadron, Auster (East Grinstead)
662 Squadron (Maj Alec Hill) Auster
83 Group Reserve Squadrons in ADGB
64 Squadron, Spitfire V SH
234 Squadron, Spitfire V AZ
303 (Polish) Squadron, Spitfire V RF
345 (French) Squadron, Spitfire Vb (Shoreham) 2Y
350 (Belgian) Squadron, Spitfire Vb (Selsey) MN
402 (Canadian) Squadron(S/L Jeff Northcott) Spitfire V (Digby) AE
501 Squadron, Spitfire V SD
611 Squadron, Spitfire V FY
No. 84 Group (AVM L Brown)

No.18 Sector
131 (Polish) Wing
302 (Polish) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 4Aug) WX
308 (Polish) Squadron (Maj W Retinger) Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 4Aug) ZF
317 (Polish) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 4Aug) JH
132 (Norwegian) Wing (W/C Rolf Berg)
127 Squadron (S/L Bradley) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.16 22Aug) 9N
66 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.16 20Aug) LZ
331 (Norwegian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, b.16 30Aug) FN
332 (Norwegian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.16 20Aug) AH
134 (Czech) Wing (W/C Tomas Vybiril)
310 (Czech) Squadron (S/L Hrbacec) Spitfire Vc (Apuldram, B.10 28Jun) NN
312 (Czech) Squadron (S/L Liscutin) Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 28Jun) DU
No.19 Sector
222 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Coolham, B.5 26Jul) ZD
349 (Belgian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Coolham, B.17 26Aug) GE
485 (New Zealand) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Coolham, B.17 31Aug) OU
145 (French) Wing
340 (French) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Merston, B.8 19Aug) GW
341 (French) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Merston, B.8 19Aug) NL
133 (Polish) Wing
129 Squadron, Mustang III (Coolham ) DV
306 (Polish) Squadron, Mustang III (Coolham, ) UZ
315 (Polish) Squadron (S/L Harbaczewski) Mustang III (Coolham) PK
No.20 Sector
123 Wing (W/C Desmond Scott)
198 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.5 8Jul, B.10 11Jul, B.7 19Jul) TP
609 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Thorney Island, B.10 1Jul, B.5 9Jul, B.7 19Jul) PR
136 Wing (W/C Ed Reyno)
164 Squadron (S/L Ian Waddy) Typhoon Ib (Thorney, Funtington 18Jun, Hurn 21Jun, B.8 17Jul, B.7 20Jul) FJ
183 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Thorney, Funtington, 18Jun, Hurn 23Jun, Eastchurch 15Jul, B.7 25Jul) HF
263 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, Eastchurch 23Jul, B.3 6Aug) HE
146 Wing
193 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 20Jul) DP
197 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 17Jul) OV
257 Squadron (S/L Walter Ahrens) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 15Jul) FM
266 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 17Jul) ZH
35 Recce Wing
2 Squadron, Mustang I (?, B.10 29Jul, B.4 19Aug) O1
4 Squadron, Spitfire IX (?, B.10 29Jul, B.4 19Aug) TV
268 Squadron, Mustang I (?, B.10 27Jul, B.4 13Aug)
84 Group Reserve Squadrons in ADGB
149 Wing
33 Squadron, Spitfire IX (North Weald) 5R
74 Squadron, Spitfire IX (North Weald) 4D
233 Wing
80 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Hornchurch) W2
229 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Hornchurch) 9R
274 Squadron (S/L Stocky Edwards) Spitfire IX (Hornchurch) JJ
No. 85 Group (night fighter and misc.) (AVM C Hamilton)

141 Wing
264 Squadron, Mosquito XIII (A.8 ?, B.6 11Aug) PS
322 (Dutch) Squadron (S/L K Kuhlmann) Spitfire IX (Selsey) 3W
410 (Canadian) Squadron, Mosquito VI RA
142 Wing
124 Squadron, Spitfire V ON
147 Wing
488 (New Zealand) Squadron, Mosquito VI ME
604 Squadron(W/C Desmond Hughes) Mosquito XIII (A.15 24Jul, A.8 6Aug) NG
148 Wing
29 Squadron, Mosquito VI RO
91 Squadron, Spitfire V DL
409 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Wendy Reid) Mosquito XIII (B.17 25Aug) KP
150 Wing
3 Squadron, Tempest V (Newchurch) ) JF
56 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Newchurch) US
486 (New Zealand) Squadron (S/L Iremonger) Tempest V (Newchurch) SA
Reserves from ADGB
406 (Canadian) Squadron, Beaufighter (Winkleigh, Colerne) HU
418 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Russ Bannock) MosquitoXIII (Hurn) TH
No. 2 Group from Bomber Command (AVM B Embry)

137 Wing
88 Squadron (S/L Lyle) Boston III RH
226 Squadron (S/L Betts) Mitchell II MQ
342 (Lorraine) Squadron (S/L Campbell) Boston III OA
138 Wing
107 Squadron, Mosquito VI OM
305 (Polish) Squadron, Mosquito VI SM
613 Squadron, Mosquito VI SY
139 Wing
98 Squadron, Mitchell II OE
180 Squadron, Mitchell II EV
320 (Dutch) Squadron (S/L H Burgerhout) Mitchell II NO
140 Wing
21 Squadron, Mosquito VI YH
464 (Australian) Squadron, Mosquito VI UP
487 (New Zealand) Squadron, Mosquito VI SB
Headquarters Group

34 Wing
16 Squadron, Spitfire IX PR (A.12 4Aug) EG
69 Squadron, Wellington XIII WI
140 Squadron, Mosquito ZW
3 Naval Wing
808 Squadron, Seafire III
885 Squadron, Seafire III
886 Squadron, Seafire III
897 Squadron, Seafire III
Aerial Spotters
26 Squadron, Spitfire V XC
63 SQuadron, Spitfire V NE

[Eagler]

Originally posted by soda72
I agree with what you wrote Grits....

But sometimes it's nice to know you can pull out that m16 or ostwind when vulchers are about whether it's historically accurate or not.....

you fix that by cranking up the deadliness of the ack (not flak, which should be removed totally) to the point where no one can survive a pass through it - vulching solved

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by TheBug
Hmmm,

StarAfrica you make an excellent counter-argument.  So you're approach would be(correct me if I'm wrong) to totally eliminate the "rare" planes from the setup instead of perking them?

I would be much more in tune with that then just enabling them.  I don't take any offense to your comments and enjoy a good constructive argument.  Just curious as to what your approach would be to filling out the 2nd TAF OOB.  This is a great thread, btw.
 

I honestly dont know.  I'd like to find a way to have them enabled without upsetting the balance of the setup.  People dont often get a chance to fly the perk stuff in the MA, it would be nice to have them available in the CT if the setup allows for them.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by TexMurphy
Dan.

If there is no "win condition" or any kind of goal for the teams to commonly achive then game play will be furballing.

I dont mind furballing but we got that in MA.

Half focusing on taking bases and half furballing.

Personally I enjoy furballing but just furballing aint enough for me.

Ive got a very strong love for strategy. I love how when different type of pilots in different type of plane work together to achive a goal. Team work, tactics and strategy is something I love just as much as piloting.

When it all comes together then that is the ultimate enjoyment for me.

When I fly my fighter and I have a goal to achive (keep the bombers alive or stop an incoming raid) I focus 200 times more then when Im just furballing. It brings out the best of my abilities.

Fighting without that goal makes the fight it self much less intense.

Tex

Back in my AW days when I first started, there was no map reset.  Only certain fields could be captured and they were few.  It created a little ebb and flow and some massive fights when one country got the little foothold airfield on the other guys turf.

We always found the missions we wanted.  Whether it be trying to escort fortresses to the Spit factory or trying to run unarmed Mossies in on the deck to a distant target avoiding the flak alleys.

There has to be a way to create targets that matter without it meaning capturing all the fields to reset the map.

I understand what your saying in having to have a goal. I just wonder if there is a way to come up with other goals that fit within the historical framework of the CT

Dan/CorkyJr

[soda72]

Originally posted by Eagler
you fix that by cranking up the deadliness of the ack (not flak, which should be removed totally) to the point where no one can survive a pass through it - vulching solved

As soon as that's done people will start complaining about someone always running to their ack for safety... heck people complain about it now and the level is set so low it doesn't even matter...

[SKJohn]

Originally posted by soda72
As soon as that's done people will start complaining about someone always running to their ack for safety... heck people complain about it now and the level is set so low it doesn't even matter...

Not if you made it like real ack - so that it doen't discriminate between friend and foe!

[storch]

Originally posted by SKJohn
Not if you made it like real ack - so that it doen't discriminate between friend and foe!

that's the key, make like the ack that killed George Preddy, deadly to friend and foe.  the problem is how do you handle takeoff and landing?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by soda72
As soon as that's done people will start complaining about someone always running to their ack for safety... heck people complain about it now and the level is set so low it doesn't even matter...

 like you said, they do that now and will always do it

with deadly ack, you will just have to stay out of its range

if the **** won't leave his ack, find another fight

historically, how many fights actually took place under 7k directly over an airfield?

turn off the land based flak, and crank up the ack to two ping death

make those that bomb out hangars, do it from above 7k

[TexMurphy]

Dan.

I know this is a bit off topic and risks to hijack but I still think it does add to the subject.

It is dangerous to try to make something into something that ones was. (ouch bad english but I hope you understand).

AW was AW. I didnt play it but from what everyone says it was a blast. Though trying to find the same blast in another game, even though AH beeing close, is very dangerous because one risks to always be disapointed. If a game has a "magic" to it its not only due to how the game is implemented. Its just as much a factor of who played it and when it was (both in sence of technical timeline and personal timeline).

Even if the exact same gameplay was implemented in AH that was once in AW the game experience will NEVER be the same.

Im not saying you are trying to make CT into AW. Im just saying one has to be aware of that what once was great was so not only due to the implementation of the game mechanics.

Though it is always good to use past experiences and evolve these into new ideas. Important though is that its always evolved into something new.

Tex