Altitude and scenarios

[Brooke]

People often talk about altitudes in scenarios.  Some folks do not like aircraft up at 35k and would like everyone restricted to, say, 20k.  They do not like spending the time to get up to 35k, and they don't see 35k as being realistic for WWII fights.  They advocate altitude limits in the rules or other limits on altitude (such as large down drafts at the alt limit).

Me, I'm not bothered by it.  Some WWII fighting did commonly happen way up high (e.g., USAAF vs. Luftwaffe).  Some didn't (e.g., Russians vs. Luftwaffe).  I figure altitude in a scenario should be determined by whatever works best given the objectives.  I don't like artificial limits such as just stating alt limits in rules or the large down draft.  If people don't want very high altitudes, I'd rather see limits imposed simply by high altitudes not being the best way to go.

There are some things we could put in a scenario to limit altitude this way.  We could reduce visibility so that planes at 35k can't see aircraft at 20k or 15k.  This way, you'd miss bombers coming in if you were too high.  We might be able to  reduce visibility at higher altitudes only -- is that possible?  If so, then going higher would mean it would be harder to find and to engage the enemy.  We could use clouds.

In absence of those or in conjunction with those, if it is to be enforced by rules, the one that seems to work more naturally is limiting bomber altitudes.  This seems more natural to me.

Or we could mix in more ground attack, where to protect or attack the ground attacker, people do have to be lower.

[mechanic]

just my 2c, but ti dont think an alt limit should be implemented, its a scenario of a real fight, they could go as high as they wanted, so should we.

[Brooke]

Mechanic, I agree.  I think the altitudes pilots pick should be a result of what is most effective given the circumstances.  If pilots in WWII didn't always fly at 35k, there were practical reasons for it; and if we want fights tending to particular altitudes in a particular scenario, then I think it would work best to replicate the practical reasons rather than establish just an altitude rule.

[DoKGonZo]

In a perfect world we'd have control over all the aspects that shaped the way the air war was fought in every theatre.

In a scenario the designer needs to get a large number of players into a combat situation that represents the battle being portrayed. You can't have an event like Rangoon with Betty's coming in at 30K anymore than you could have a 1944 event with B24's flying over Germany at 10K. That's a key difference between a scenario and reality - the scenario is staged to some degree to reflect the reality.

And we need to acknowledge that we're dealing with people who will bend and twist everything and anything to get an advantage - even if it means the equivalent of breaking operational orders. So hard rules are required to remove any kind of ambiguity. Just look at the barrels of whine that come from a 2000 foot altitude limit difference.

Altitude limits now can be enforced somewhat via radar visibility. And that's a nice way to at least set an operational limit to keep things kind of where they should be for a theatre. But if players are left to their own means they'd all fly 50 feet below the radar deck and pop-up madly at first visual contact clawing for an *individual* advantage. And that's more stoopidly than just setting cruise altitudes for each formation.

What I find most interesting is that in the MA things usually happen under 15K. But in a scenario people will go stratospheric.

[Brooke]

DoK, good points.

I think the difference in the main arena is that death isn't as big a deal, so folks aren't as willing to get up there very high to help their survival chances.

In scenarios, I do think it works fine to set bomber alt limits.  That also seems more realistic as the WWII high command would often get involved in picking bomber altitudes for reasons like enhancing bomb damage (setting a lower alt) or reducing bomber loses (setting a higher alt) depending on a lot of strategic factors.

Once bomber alts are set, that sets the stage for altitude of fighters that want to find them and to protect them.  So maybe once bomber alts are set, if visibility (by using haze or clouds) is such that you won't see the bombers if you are too high above them, that might be one tool to use.

I am wondering about various reasons that fighters didn't always fly very high in WWII.  I'm sure part of it is that bombers could hit things better the lower they went and that planes escorting the bombers didn't want to get too far away.  Another would be clouds restricting altitudes so that bombers could find their targets and keep in formation and so that fighters could find the bombers and each other.  No GPS in those days -- it was mostly dead reconing and using the Mk. I human eyeball.

Another might be that, since in real life exact times of attack weren't generally known, pilots might be more inclined to fly at altitudes where they'd be more sure of finding enemies -- not so high that they'd miss everything from 10k down, for example.

[Gypsy Baron]

Originally posted by Brooke
Mechanic, I agree.  I think the altitudes pilots pick should be a result of what is most effective given the circumstances.  If pilots in WWII didn't always fly at 35k, there were practical reasons for it; and if we want fights tending to particular altitudes in a particular scenario, then I think it would work best to replicate the practical reasons rather than establish just an altitude rule.

 HiTech needs to model oxygen usage/availability and fatique factors, methinks...

   =GB=

[ROC]

Hmm, model con trails  

I wonder if it would be difficult to change the Airshow Smoke to white, extend it's length and life, and auto enable on bombers over 20 or 30k lol

[HB555]

Now there is a good idea. Automatic contrails above a setable altitude.
Wonder if Mr. Skuzzy cringes when he reads all our "Good Ideas"?
Snoopy Bell
HB555

[OOZ662]

Originally posted by HdBgl555
Now there is a good idea. Automatic contrails above a setable altitude.
Wonder if Mr. Skuzzy cringes when he reads all our "Good Ideas"?
Snoopy Bell
HB555

Skuzz likes us bette than the coad monkehs.

[Bodhi]

The only thing that I think people need to realise is the intense forces flying above 30k in an unpressurised bomber or fighter exerts on a human body.  It is so much so, that people died immediately from loss of oxygen.  They went into hypothermia from loss of heat.  The aircraft guns froze up, and metal fatigued at these altitudes.

Seeings that I would rather HT not waste time implementing random O2 and heat failures, and guns freezing up, I suggest some sort of hard cap being imposed on the participants in a scenario.

You want to fly at 25k in a jap zero, well guess what, Truk did not have 02 available to enable these flights... so you're limited to 18k.

You want to fly at 35k at Malta in a hurri or spit, well, neither aircraft had proper defrosting equipment, so you can't because of the humidity difference.

Thats reality folks.  To stage a scenario and claim it is representative of a real combat, then allow EVERYONE to do opposite of what happened operationally is redicuolus, you are better off just saying the axis fights the allies here, and you can do wtf you want.

[Easyscor]

I wonder if there were economic costs for altitude and if that played a part in pilot orders.

[Brooke]

Bodhi, good points.  Of course, anyone who has P. J. O'Rourke quotes in his signature is bound to have good points.

[Delirium]

The altitude of the participants is the #1 reason I will not fly in scenarios, man-made restrictions help but do not eliminate the problem, the last BoB scenario is a good example, the British flights routinely flew at 40k and we ended up seeing 109Es even higher.

I'm not asking to fly in a scenario with a pre-arranged outcome (either side winning or losing) but I want it to feel at least a LITTLE realistic with altitudes, combat situation, etc.

The other reason I refuse to fly in scenarios is the lack of participation... if either side gets a large lead in the first 2 frames, you might as well cancel the remaining frames for lack of attendance on the one side. I don't care if my side wins or loses, I normally download music for the period and enjoy it during the scenario for the historical feel. Score is the least important thing to me.

List of importance to me (this would make a good poll question for the scenario site btw).

1. Realistic feel- not a carbon copy, but more than just historic match ups at 40K).

2. Participation- during BoB, I had a different XO every frame and was extremely stressful, more so since I had so many computer problems during that time.

3. Sense of fair play and respect for the other guy- this includes both the boards and the rule settings. Included is a lack of whining and static rule set, unaffected by said whining.

4. Kills- except for when I fly with Guppy in a scenario , I don't care if I get kills, so long as the group I am flying with has fun.

5. 'Winning' the scenario- for me, taking part in a good scenario FAR outweighs the score factor.

[Brooke]

Originally posted by Delirium
The other reason I refuse to fly in scenarios is the lack of participation...

Sounds like a Catch 22 situation.

I've flown in four Aces High scenarios now (Battle of Britain, Rangoon, Coral Sea, and now Malta).  While attendance usually drops off a bit as the frames go on, I haven't noticed it being that bad.  Also, even reduced numbers are enough to have a very fun scenario, as you still have over 50 people per side.  Here are some stats.

Let R1 be the ratio of last-frame number of players divided by first-frame number of players for side 1.  Let R2 be that for side 2.

scenario, R1, R2
---------------------
BoB, 0.79, 0.97
Rangoon,  0.81, 0.83
Coral Sea, 1.05, 1.10
Malta, 0.84, 0.79

The stats don't bear out large disparities in loss of players in scenarios except possibly for Battle of Britain, and it was perhaps the closest score of all going into the last frame, with the outcome coming down to a small handful of buildings at one target not destroyed resulting in the axis just missing a win.  Also, attendance in Coral Sea actually increased.

Still, scenarios aren't for everyone.  This isn't an argument that Delirium should like them or play in them.  This is just an analysis of player participation changes over time.

[Brooke]

Originally posted by Delirium

List of importance to me (this would make a good poll question for the scenario site btw).

1. Realistic feel- not a carbon copy, but more than just historic match ups at 40K).

2. Participation- during BoB, I had a different XO every frame and was extremely stressful, more so since I had so many computer problems during that time.

3. Sense of fair play and respect for the other guy- this includes both the boards and the rule settings. Included is a lack of whining and static rule set, unaffected by said whining.

4. Kills- except for when I fly with Guppy in a scenario , I don't care if I get kills, so long as the group I am flying with has fun.

5. 'Winning' the scenario- for me, taking part in a good scenario FAR outweighs the score factor.

BoB and Malta had some very high-alt action.  Rangoon and Coral Sea (at least from my perspective) didn't.  Even a scenario with unrealistic altitude is more realistic than anything else available in the world, as far as I know.  Certainly more realistic than the main arena and uncomparibly more so than a stand-alone sim.

I've had the same GL's in nearly every frame of every scenario.  Regardless, scenarios vary.  Some CO's and command staff are more organized than others, so you can't judge all scenarios by how it was in a particular squadron of a particular scenario.

Fair play is largely present in my experience.  Just as you will never have a scenario (or anything else in the world) that everyone likes, you will always with group participation have a small number of people who whine about something.  If you restrict yourself to participation in activities only where there are zero whiners (as opposed just to a low percentage), forget about scenarios or volunteer organizations or working in any company larger than a few people, for that matter.  Whiners are always there, but unless things are bad, they usually aren't the majority.  They seem more plentiful than they are because they make a lot of noise -- but in my experience, out of, say, 100 people playing, maybe 5 will be annoying whiners.

Your points 4 and 5 are not at odds at all with my experience in every scenario.  From my perspective, most enjoy filling their roles even if those roles don't end up resulting in lots of kills or even winning.

At any rate, I don't bring up these points to persuade you to like scenarios.  I think a person is either going to like them or not, and reasons one way or the other are irrelevant.  I bring up these points only to remark that my experience is totally at odds from yours in many areas.