Feedback on Rangoon, '42 (2008)

[Brooke]

I flew with the bombers at some point in each frame.  Their dots and icons disappeared from my sight in a couple of cases, although it was far from 100% of the time.  Frame 4, that didn't happen for me at all, but I wasn't with them constantly.

Everyone seemed to have the problem at some point of enemy fighters suddenly appearing.  For me, that happened in frame 3, for example.  A squadron of Spitfires materialized 1-1.5k in front of me as I was flying forward protection for the bombers, which was quite exciting.

I think the solution here, other than forcing separate bomber groups as was done in Der Grosse Schlag, would be to limit registration to the original numbers.  Someone else suggested that also as a way to get more consistent numbers, and I agree.

[Kermit de frog]

Wind set for 14k instead of 16k.

Remove the rule about being at 12k or lower unless in icon of an enemy plane.  Too much energy was diverted to this rule during this scenario on the battlefield.

[BlauK]

I, personally, cannot see any serious reasons for alt cap for fighters either by rules or by winds. I think it would be enough to restrict the bombers. If everyone knows that their cap is 10K, why would the fighters go all the way to 25 or 30K? If they want to climb that high, let them. Cloud layers can be used in such way that they cannot see too well from up high. E.g. a new cloud layer every 3K or so.

I am always for less rules over more rules. If something can be achieved in some other way without making a new rule, it is always the more desirable option. Also I am pretty much against rules which require constant attention (like obeying alt cap) and/or are difficult to supervise and judge afterwards.

One alternative to alt cap would be to show radar dots above the limited altitude... Yes, you can go up there, but then you will reveal your position. No additional rules or supervision needed.

-----------------------------
Then to personal observations:

I flew 2 frames as a walkon. Start-up went pretty smoothly, one just needs the right attitude of a newbie coming to a front-line squadron. "I dont know nothin, I just follow orders"

Most fun, personally, in these 2 frames was trying to maintain some kind of proper formation and to try moving with it properly without losing sight of the bombers.

What was not fun? Warping dots, the one or two times an enemy squadron or two zapped magically among us from nowhere (too many planes at same area? server/client? problem) and then losing sight of them pretty soon again. Meeting lone A-20:s or P-40:s and realizing after several chases that there is no way to catch them in my A6M2.

Most fun of it all (for me) was the beta frame, where there were no warping/magic zap problems and there were several engagements with various enemies.

---

Maybe the DGS and Rangoon are 2 opposite ends of a bombing campaign. In DGS the units are all spread out with so many liable targets, while in Rangoon they all concentrate at the same target. What would it be like somewhere in between of DGS and Rangoon?  ....BoB?  What else?

---

Even though I may have flown in 2 frames in 2 slightly boring spots, a scenario is always a scenario... its like pizza or like sex. It is always pretty good

Good job guys 

[Hajo]

The more participating in the Scenario the better imho.  The Allies threw 1000 Bomber raids at the LW during the end of 1944 and the LW would frequently put up 500 fighters to engage them!  That's the real end of the spectrum the numbers!

As for alt limits....I'm of the opinion we don't need them.  Thick cloud layers as mentioned before could be used to shield bombers that have a wide marging for cap, say 10K.  Giving Bombers a cap say of 19K to 26K would suffice.  There is a window of 7K the Bombers would have to fly within.  Placing various cloud layers at differing alts would also boost the realism and shield the bombers somewhat.  It could also hide the fighters in escort and fighters enroute to intercept.  Gee....navigating with instruments?  In a cloud layer?  Would that be fun or what?

[Krusty]

Alt monkey fights are no fun. They happen all the time in FSO and other scenarios. I actually LIKED the alt cap on this one, but even so almost half the zekes I saw were well above me any time I got into the fight.

It really puts a damper on things sometimes.

I don't think wind downdrafts are the way to go, however.

Brooke:

"I think the solution here, other than forcing separate bomber groups as was done in Der Grosse Schlag, would be to limit registration to the original numbers.  Someone else suggested that also as a way to get more consistent numbers, and I agree."

Out of the original numbers, how many additional slots were added? Even in localized areas, these dot issues popped up. I had it happen with a single 110c and only 2 friendlies within a sector, and he appeared out of nowhere and his icon didn't show until 800-1000 yards.

[Dace]

I have not read all the replies so I apologize if this has already been said. Rangoon is one of my favorite scenarios to participate in for the pure fact that it has such a variety in the plane set. And with all that variety it is still a VERY well balanced scenario. One where planning, organization and discipline play a crucial role. The best plan and most well organized, disciplined group wins the day.

[Brooke]

Out of the original numbers, how many additional slots were added?

I think we added 24 or so to the allied side and 30 or so to the axis side.

[Sloehand]

Quickly...

- Impose an alt restriction in some manner, or don't have one.  Pilot nature (and diverted attention) will violate a self-regulating one, in spite of best intentions.

- Our plane options are what they are.  Scenario designers have done (IMO) the best capabilities match ups they can, considering all issues. Live with it.

My biggest concern was with adhering to 'historical accuracy' too much to make this playable.  We want immersion, but we have limitations.  It has to be fun, fair, playable and win-able for both sides, and that feeling should persist for both sides, as much as possible, through all four Frames. 

Admittedly, the final outcome was closer than anyone expected, and I think everyone had fun in at least one if not two Frames. (There's fun and then there's FUN).  But due to very serendipiteous events occuring simultaneously on both sides, the Axis got very lucky in two Frames to keep it close.  Imagine how hard it would have been to retain Axis players, if we'd lost the 2nd Frame like the first, which is what should have happened given the tactical situation.  Barring pure chance (which does and did happen this time) and a little fortuiteous daring-do by our C.O. in the second frame, probability-wise we would have had our heads handed to us in all four frames. 

The problem was that the tactical options really weren't there.  Given the terrain/bases set up, time limits, and really only one set of bombers, it was come in from the South-to-West arc.  Even if scouts missed us, the Allies could easily recovery and congretate (which they did twice) to cover the only target we had. 

I'm curious (not being up on this theater), what made it a success for the Japanese in WWII, if this was the anywhere near the way it was?  In my mind, because of the single target, limited approaches, small number of bomber assets, our scenario was like the Allies had the Japanese High Command riddled with spies.  They knew when the attack was, where it would come from, what and how many planes would be involved, and exactly where it was going.  All we could really do was try to bull our way through and hope for a mistake by the Allies.

My point is, some consideration for adjusting a scenario from the absolute historical setup could be made in order to put more tactical variations in the mix, if the historical reality is too narrow.  This makes for a more even probability that both sides have a chance to win.  Realism and historical accuracy, yes.  But 'YES, YES', to fun, playabiity, and an even chance to win.

And don't get me wrong. Actually winning or losing the scenario is not really important.  What is important, is having the perception throughout the scenario that both sides have a fairly even chance of winning, mostly by the merits of their choice of tactics and how they execute them. 

[Serenity]

Weather. I REALLY want to see more accurate or detailed weather. Perhaps it wouldn't ground groups as Hajo said, but whats wrong with finding pea-soup over your target in a bomber? That would be GREAT so long as there were multiple targets that could be bombed. It would test comand's coordination, changing the target en-route. The thing I don't like is that in all of the MAs and far too often in snapshots and scenarios, its blue skies, no clouds, 30 mile visibilty, and 12-noon. That REALLY annoys me. It would be nice to see some frames look like youre flying in a rain squall. Some frames may take place earlier in the morning, or later in the afternoon. Visibility should vary between frames... Basically, just give us less-than-perfect weather more often please.

Other than that, this scenario, like every other one ive played, was absolutely outstanding!

[Brooke]

Weather is a bit of a pain to deal with.

You have to create a weather file, and it is based around making a front that travels along.  You can't just create weather in a specific location that stays there.  There are ways to get around that, but it's sort of a pain, in my opinion.  So, there is design time.

Every weather file then needs to be tested by the CM making the file, which adds testing time.

Dux likes to test each weather file.

Every weather file needs to be uploaded by Skuzzy, not by the CM's, which takes up some of his time.  And then you need to test what is on the server to see if it is correct.  You have to have time available where your schedule matches up to when the Special Events Arena is available so that you can load the weather and check it out.  If there is a problem, you need time to fix it.  This can make it tough to work everything out within the one week you have between frames.  So, there is some risk to it.

Altogether, each weather file takes an aggregate of perhaps 1-3 hours of screwing around, testing, communicating, loading, etc. and introduces some risk of things getting screwed up.

We did different weather in Der Grosse Schlag.  It did result in one whole bomb group on one frame not being able to find any target that wasn't socked in, and so they flew all the way out and all the way back without dropping bombs.  Yes, that happened in real life, and they were good about it, but most people are not enthusiastic about such a thing.

So, there will be scenarios where we put in the work for that (basically, scenarios with that designed into them from the start), and there will be scenarios where weather is not meant to be a major feature where it will be about the same frame to frame.

[Serenity]

Weather is a bit of a pain to deal with.

You have to create a weather file, and it is based around making a front that travels along.  You can't just create weather in a specific location that stays there.  There are ways to get around that, but it's sort of a pain, in my opinion.  So, there is design time.

Every weather file then needs to be tested by the CM making the file, which adds testing time.

Dux likes to test each weather file.

Every weather file needs to be uploaded by Skuzzy, not by the CM's, which takes up some of his time.  And then you need to test what is on the server to see if it is correct.  You have to have time available where your schedule matches up to when the Special Events Arena is available so that you can load the weather and check it out.  If there is a problem, you need time to fix it.  This can make it tough to work everything out within the one week you have between frames.  So, there is some risk to it.

Altogether, each weather file takes an aggregate of perhaps 1-3 hours of screwing around, testing, communicating, loading, etc. and introduces some risk of things getting screwed up.

We did different weather in Der Grosse Schlag.  It did result in one whole bomb group on one frame not being able to find any target that wasn't socked in, and so they flew all the way out and all the way back without dropping bombs.  Yes, that happened in real life, and they were good about it, but most people are not enthusiastic about such a thing.

So, there will be scenarios where we put in the work for that (basically, scenarios with that designed into them from the start), and there will be scenarios where weather is not meant to be a major feature where it will be about the same frame to frame.

Very good point! I didn't realise all the work that weant in to just the weather. Would it be possible to just have it less-than-perfect for each frame? By that I don't mean completely socked in, but for example, england has a reputation for being cloudy. Is it possible to just make the clouds a bit more dense, the haze a little more prevalent, and make it just a bit darker? Its not terribly important, its just even in Hawaii the sky is almost never as clear and blue as it is in AH, lol.

[Brooke]

Very good point! I didn't realise all the work that weant in to just the weather. Would it be possible to just have it less-than-perfect for each frame? By that I don't mean completely socked in, but for example, england has a reputation for being cloudy. Is it possible to just make the clouds a bit more dense, the haze a little more prevalent, and make it just a bit darker? Its not terribly important, its just even in Hawaii the sky is almost never as clear and blue as it is in AH, lol.

Yep, that is definitely possible, and is (at least to some extent) the plan for BoB 2008.

[Krusty]

On the other hand, I read a couple of BOB books not long ago. Amongst the things in them, a pilot noted the clouds overhead and breathed a sigh of relief; Jerry would not come today (to paraphrase) and basically it was fair-weather-fighting. No total fog bank clouds like AH generates. If you can get the clouds small enough it's reasonable, but not so overcast that the mission would have been recalled.

[Brooke]

It won't be unplayable or fogged in.  It will have some clouds, though -- just not clear blue skies everywhere.

[Serenity]

It won't be unplayable or fogged in.  It will have some clouds, though -- just not clear blue skies everywhere.

Thanks brooke! I remember, a few weeks ago, during that "Battle of the Aces" or whatever they called it in the AvA, they REALLY brought fog in and visibility down... it was amazing how much it increases the immersion factor!