Upcoming Event Thoughts.

[ROC]

The next event is on the horizon.

It's going to be Pacific based.

DGS showed that immersion, with the right leadership, can propel an event into some pretty fantastic directions.

With that, how much immersion is too much?

There is going to be an opportunity to try and control an important island.  There will be fleets involved.

With that, how much involvement is practical?

We have the opportunity to put several fleets into the control of a single Admiral, much like =GB= did during Coral Sea a couple of years back.  That was cutting edge, having someone dedicated solely to putting the carriers into the wind, turning to launch and recover, evading attacks and the like.

This is clearly going to be required in the next one.  Now, how far do we do this?  We have enough fleets so that we could actually put control of a single destroyer into the hands of 1 person, thereby creating a fleet of a couple of independently controlled destroyers/cruisers alongside a carrier.  Those of course needed individual gunners.  (Yes, guns hardened so they actually last a while, those details are being thought through, I'm going conceptual for now)

Is this something that players in an event could do for the duration of the event?  Would we have the players who would take command of a fleet or a single ship within a fleet and have that be their role?  Is this taking the scenario down too far into immersion and detail?

Imagine a Sea Battle, with the carriers, and ships, hardened up well, with the 8" guns hardened up, so that a massive ship to ship engagement could last well into 45 min to an hour, back that up with the positioning, locating the fleet and such.  

Of course, that is one element, there will be a massive force of dogfighters and attack elements, but this single piece of play could be worked in, if there is interest.

Just thinking outloud, have at it.

[Husky01]

Immersion is good, it has proven in DGS that it can bring more fun and historical knowledge to the event as a whole. Now, I believe that when you go into too many details, to much immersion per say, that an event can become to nit picky. [Nit picky may not be the word I am looking for here].

Is this something that players in an event could do for the duration of the event? Would we have the players who would take command of a fleet or a single ship within a fleet and have that be their role? Is this taking the scenario down too far into immersion and detail?

The player base of the Scenarios in Aces High is grand, but the community as a whole in my own opinion is not ready for this level of immersion.  I know that there are plenty of capable leaders in Aces High who can handle these sort of high priority tasks. But with the number of players who are sure to be involved in this event I believe these deep immersion details will slowly become over the course of the event to time consuming, head splitting tedious deeds that will only bring frustration and tension to the event.

My 2c

[Krusty]

H'lo ROC

I'm not back in-game yet (for those curious) but the past week I've been reading the forums more.


I've got an opinion or two.

1) If you're going to do the massive fleet thing, you need to build into the rules a manner such that IF (big IF) one side's entire CV force is wiped out, they can still operate -- that is give them "fresh" CVs every frame or "new" CVs from other theaters, whatever. You don't want another Op Downfall

2) I think your task force splitting (or "fleet command delegation" or whatever it's called?) is an interesting one, but one before its time. Any such commander would be a full-time "pilot" for their ship(s) and it would be frustrating and boring to no end, perhaps never seeing the enemy until they show up and sink you in the first bomb release.

3) Gunners are always important, and manning the fleet ack guns is a nice touch, but it will a) take away from the number of pilots if you stick them all in gun mounts and b) probably do little to no good, as 99% of the player base cannot aim, track, or kill, with puffy ack

4) How are you going to balance it? The japanese planeset is one of the worst in the game. If you go for the more "fun" early war set you've got zeros vs f4f4s, and ... well lack of variety can get old. Not to mention lack of early decent bomber. There's almost no mid-war planeset for the Japanese (remember, the Ki61 is the only 1943 plane there!). If you go late war, you've got the same problems that Op Downfall had, in that you get N1K2s and Ki84s vs F4u4s and F6Fs... There's still a side and capability imbalance. It's tough to do a balanced PTO setup.

5) If you're making a PTO setup, don't do a "2-frames then swap" deal like "Pearl" -- that's the major reason I won't participate in Pearl, if it ever runs. Either you've got enough "story" to run 3 or 4 frames, or you don't. If you don't, keep looking for a setup/story that WILL give you this. Sneak attacks and 1-way slaughters are not proper basis for a scenario, IMO. So hopefully you'll come up with something that gives both sides enough to do that they can keep doing it all the way through the scenario.

6) (A minor issue) can we not call it "Operation _______" ? Give it a real name like Fire over Malta, Battle of Britain, Midway, etc... (just a request! )

[hubsonfire]

What about running a series of frames that cover a particular time frame, instead of a specific battle? A series of actions, like you find in a boxed game? Maybe a frame or 2 of fleet vs fleet, then island vs fleet, then fleet vs island, as an example. I'm not much of a historian, but something that captures the feel of the island invasions and subsequent battles, even if it compresses a period of several months might hold some folks' interest.

You will certainly find some people that will play otherwise dull roles for events, but I don't know if you could get them every frame for a month, or find a suitable replacement for something like commanding a number of fleets, or coordinating batteries of gunners in a frame where losses could upset the balance for the remaining frames, regardless of who fills those later roles.

Just thinking out loud here, sitting around nursing a cold and waiting for the !@#$%^ snow to start.

[RTGorkle]

I'm not sure it would be possible to keep a fleet of individually controlled ships in any sort of formation using the very un-granular control system we have now. Without being able to directly control speed and without finer heading control, I think you'd have ships circling all over the sea trying to stay together. Of course it depends on how close you want the ships to stay together.

[Fencer51]

Good to see you back Krusty.

[edit to add]

One problem with individual ship control is that the speed of all ships is the same and constant.  So, it would be very difficult to manuver and regain formation.

I am in favor of having a normal CV formation augmented by a CVless TF or two (with some ship deletion if necessary) to bring the assigned escorts up to the actual levels.

This is an air combat game, and whilst conning a ship can be fun, it should be secondary.

I could see the "Skipper" of a cruiser turning into flight of torpeedo planes to break them up as they try and form for an attack.  It would be nice to spread the ships out away from the CV some too.

[Brooke]

I think DGS's popularity also had a lot to do with it being all aircraft (no vehicles, no base capture) and it being one of the matchups with broad appeal to the masses (main-stream US vs. LW, sort of like how Battle of Britain has broad appeal).

I don't think many players will want to be in the role of controlling ships -- each side will need to specially recruit people willing to do that, I think.

[trotter]

Does ship control need to be for the duration of the frame? What about a one life event where those "dead" can take control of ships or man guns on the ships?

I know for me this has a lot greater appeal than "if you die, you can jump in a gun on a field or join someone as an observer"

Plus, this would make the combination between fleet action and air combat much smoother, I think, as this order of events would happen:

1) Major air actions sort of thin out the mass number of pilots (each side aiming for air supremacy)
2) Fleets get closer to each other, and by this time those who did not survive the first massive air engagements are getting comfortable in their spots on the ships, either on the bridge or as a gunner
3) Fleet action begins, far fewer planes in the skies.
4) Remaining pilots are either making coordinated, specific attacks, or defending. No hordes swarming into fleets and dropping ord.

Personally I think that something like a 10v10 attack and defense around a carrier group can be more exciting than having something like a 45v45. By using the one life rule with second life on fleets, we would be thinning out the number of planes in the skies, but giving the "dead" pilots an entirely different phase of the battle to look forward to participating in.

Perhaps I'm just being overly optimistic in hoping to see some great fleet action come out of this one.

[Husky01]

Originally posted by trotter
Does ship control need to be for the duration of the frame? What about a one life event where those "dead" can take control of ships or man guns on the ships?
 

All this will do is cause a major headache for the CO by having new players and players who have no idea what the overall battle plan is for their side taking over CVs and doing god knows what with them.

[Fencer51]

Like make geographic designs or spell names... Now who would do that right before the start of a scenario... (looks west)

[blkmgc]

I like the fleet idea. One life sure would put a whole different perspective on things.

[leitwolf]

Individual ships under player control? I'm thrilled.
You have your first volunteer

[Hoffman]

Well if you really think about it... Let's say we've got two fleets.  Each with 6 Carriers + Escorts.

You could have the default AH2 Carrier group under the command of the CG Admiral, his XO who would likely be the AG Commander for the Squadrons based on the carrier.  (And flying with them)
This would put what... 4 Destroyers, a Cruiser, and a CV under the control of 1 person, who won't be bored, because he has to tell the AG where to go, etc. etc. while the AG has to keep the squadrons in formation and make decisions out there.

Then for each Carrier Group you'd have an Escort Group, which is the CG just without the Carrier,  This under the control of an Admiral and maybe 4-5 other players manning the flack and running as security for the CG.

That means that for the Ships you'd need... 36 Players per side at the most...  With Manned flak being beefed by dead pilots.  Or simply 12 Player per side dedicated to the ships while everyone else flies.


Sounds like a heckuva lot of fun... Personally I'd love to command one of the Carrier Groups.
Not much more immersion than DGS, we had entire Staffels who never saw action in some frames.  And some pilots who... never... actually.. shot anyone...

I wouldn't go so far as to have individual ships under player control (BF 1942...)  But Escort Groups and Carrier Groups under player control would be cool.

<------ First Volunteer for CG Admiral  (Can I have CV-16 please?  I'm rather partial to the Blue Ghost.)

[MMMKKK]

Hello Gentlemen

Brand new here but a long time flyer from another sim.
I like Hoffman's plan. Just a little something to add. The last big naval scenario I was involved in , the CM's gave the responsibility of driving the boats to the squads. They were to supply 1 boat driver per squad.
It all worked out pretty well and as dead guys became available (1 death per frame) they swapped out driver roles and the boat captains could then fly.

With the large numbers you have over here and the good squad based co-operation I witnessed in the last FSO you should have few problems.

Can't wait to watch this evolve mk

[Husky01]

I think the only ones that should have power over the task groups are the CO his XO and players he has picked out ahead of time. They will know the battle plan they will know what the CO is trying to accomplish in the frame and they will know what and what not to do. When you open the Task Groups up to anyone who has died I don't think you realize the giant headache this will cause the side CO and the lead CM who has to listen to everyone gripe about "Player X took this CV!" Player X is drawing stuff with the CV" "Player w get out of the CV!".