BoB deisgn change suggestions

[2Slow]

Some very good stuff here.  There is one thing I thought of that happened in the real deal and does not happen here.

Here the LW has an 8th AF attitude.  The LW continues the air raid regardless of enemy contact or losses.  As I recall from the movies and history accounts there were LW raids, in the real deal, that aborted when bounced by the RAF.

I seem to recall an event where there were no MA style airfields.  Just a couple of hangers and a large pasture.  This would make for more realistic period airfields in BOB.

[MAG1C]

Previous posters have covered this topic pretty well.  I think I've flown in every BoB (starting in Air Warrior II) since 1998, usually alternating sides between the RAF and LW.  They have all been fun.  The LW won only in 2006 and now 2008.   In my limited perspective the LW won in 2006 and 2008 because they learned from history and did not get distracted from the original objectives (destroying the designated targets and attacking radar as a tactical necessity).  The Aces High LW also used the available fighter types more effectively (i.e. Bf110s used slashing attacks and avoided turn fights when possible, fighters communicated and coordinated escort shifting needs with the bombers, groups of fighters worked together). 

I don't know if there were radar controller issues during BoB 2008.  A lack of ground observers to track incoming raids has been argued but I've read that there were a number of times when partly cloudy conditions over England prevented the ground observer network from detecting and tracking raids, causing a breakdown in the ground control system and missed interceptions.  Historically, even under ideal conditions, the percentage of missed interceptions was pretty high. 

I miss the BoB scenery we had before Aces High II was released.  If there is one change I would make it is to increase the fog of war by not showing radar and city damage on the Aces High clipboard (I don't know if it is even possible to turn those things off).  Also don't release frame reports until the end of the scenario. 

I'm looking forward to the next BoB scenario.  It's time for me to switch sides again.  <BG>  Say, there's an idea.  How about a switch sides BoB scenario?

[Brooke]

Side switches are difficult in AH currently, as I don't think we yet can do more than about 4 frames without too much dropoff in attendance.

It can work well for some situations, though, where a couple of frames is enough to decide a battle (Coral Sea scenario worked well that way).  For BoB, I'm not sure if a couple of frames is enough to give appropriate depth to it.

[Brooke]

Here are some things I was thinking of a while back.  These aren't all important (or even wise or desirable, perhaps), but I'd be interested to hear what people think.  I have other thoughts, too, now fresh out of playing in all the frames of BoB 2008.

-- Revise rescue rules so that it is much, much less labor intensive.
-- Get rid of artificial "end hostilities"/"grace period to return to base".
-- Up hardness of radar.
-- Add some aspect to victory points so that it matters to get aircraft home by end of frame.
-- Think about tweaking lethality of puffy ack.
-- Some way to deal with radar so there is less (or no) need for dedicated radar operators (which most people consider to be a tedious, undesirable job that they are unwilling to do).
-- End restriction of RAF not allowed over France.
-- Allow RAF to set position and courses of fleets?
-- 5 mph wind at ground level?

[Brooke]

Here are my fresher thoughts, which I discussed somewhere else (but forget where, so I will post them here even if it is redundant).

In the real BoB, with dirt airfields, was it even possible to close them?  (Mostly, couldn't they just quickly fill in the craters?)  If not, is the real reason of attacking airfields not closing the field but destroying the aircraft at the field?  I don't know enough about the real BoB to know, but if the real reason was to destroy aircraft, perhaps the fields should then stay open, but there should be more things to destroy with bombs than the hangars, such as baracks, ammo, etc., and points are calculated on number of objects destroyed on the ground.

[Brooke]

So what has changed?

The terrain

AH1 Bob terrain was purpose built with special objects.
Radar sites were multiple pyloned affairs with radar huts under them. They were harder than present standard radar towers.
There was puffy AA across the south of England and at standard airfields
Gguns were more lethal than they are set now.
Hanger hardness may have been harder than the standard MA arena setting.

In BoB 1 fuel management was a major, major issue for LW 109 fighters.

I have no idea on how things were in AH during BoB1, but all of these are modifiable regardelss of the terrain:
-- We can make radar towers harder (I think a good idea).
-- We can up the lethality of guns (not sure about this one).
-- We can increase hangar hardness (I think a good idea).

In BoB 2008, fuel was adjusted as per the rules, so that should be the same as BoB1.  I know we in I/JG3 had less trouble with fuel in our 109E's because we flew a lot of the time at greatly reduced RPM.  Maybe pilots in BoB1 didn't do as much fuel management.

[2Slow]

Here are my fresher thoughts, which I discussed somewhere else (but forget where, so I will post them here even if it is redundant).

In the real BoB, with dirt airfields, was it even possible to close them?  (Mostly, couldn't they just quickly fill in the craters?)  If not, is the real reason of attacking airfields not closing the field but destroying the aircraft at the field?  I don't know enough about the real BoB to know, but if the real reason was to destroy aircraft, perhaps the fields should then stay open, but there should be more things to destroy with bombs than the hangars, such as baracks, ammo, etc., and points are calculated on number of objects destroyed on the ground.

I always thought the destroy hanger/close field was a gimmick to simulate the overall effort to destroy aircraft and support services on the airfield.  In AW the bomb craters were a terrain feature.  Taxi over a crater, crash your aircraft.  One could close an airfield by hemming in the spawn points with craters.

Now if closing the base through destroying hangers is simulation of destruction of aircraft and support services then it should remain.  Unless one is going to put aircraft next to the pasture in earthen berms for one to strafe and bomb.  Destruction of aircraft waiting to be scrambled is the closing of a base.

The RAF must scramble, seek, and destroy LW forces.  When the RAF intercepts the LW they must not get into a 6 o'clock chase.  They need to make their runs on the buffs from the 1,2,3,11,10, or 9 o'clock positions.  Extend and then attack again in the same manner. 

The current dar setup simulates the historical conditions quite well.

Increasing the hardness of dar stations is nothing more than an artificial skewing of matters in the RAF favor.

Heck, in frame 4 city buildings hardness was increased by a factor of 16.  There were only two targets for the LW.  Southhampton and High Wycombe.  Now knowing that there were only two sectors to defend, the RAF still came up short.

The LW had many objectives that had to be met for victory.  The RAF had but one.  Shoot down LW aircraft.  If the RAF had shot more of the LW down, then they would have won.  I think it is just that simple.

Nuff said

[Dantoo]

I'm scratching my head.  If you can agree 2006 was an anomaly, then after a  long series of Allied victories we finally have an Axis victory and there is suddenly an intense campaign to stop such a terrible outcome happening again?  Why?

-- We can make radar towers harder (I think a good idea).
-- We can up the lethality of guns (not sure about this one).
-- We can increase hangar hardness (I think a good idea).

I'm not sure I see much in that list that targets increasing immersion or fun factor for ALL involved - just looks like a simple attempt to ensure we get the RIGHT result next time?  That's not it, surely?

- Get rid of artificial "end hostilities"/"grace period to return to base".  (How is this more fun?)
-- Up hardness of radar. (Why now?  Why not defend the most obvious targets of the first frame?)
-- Add some aspect to victory points so that it matters to get aircraft home by end of frame. (Has this been a major problem?)
-- Think about tweaking lethality of puffy ack. (It's far too deadly and random.  It takes away from fun but is perhaps immersive.)
-- Some way to deal with radar so there is less (or no) need for dedicated radar operators (which most people consider to be a tedious, undesirable job that they are unwilling to do).  (Just let me cry a little and move on by.  I begged for the job in 2006. Spurned then and ever since.  Might go burn my licence.)
-- End restriction of RAF not allowed over France.  (Were they allowed over France in 1940?  If so, then why not here.)
-- Allow RAF to set position and courses of fleets? (RN thingy?  As long as they stay within the battlezone why not? If LW sink all the ships then the fleet is just removed).
-- 5 mph wind at ground level? discussion of wholesale changes to prevent this occurring again? (Why? What?)
--- Revise rescue rules so that it is much, much less labor intensive. (Sure but keeping the rules and just doing it well might work too.)

In summary, I can't believe that there is any evidence at all that this scenario is "broken" and needs changes. If any are contemplated, they surely should pass the test of increased fun and immersion.  Any other reason for change seems less compelling.

[Have]

- Get rid of artificial "end hostilities"/"grace period to return to base".  (How is this more fun?)
Much more immersive since no plane is guarateed a safe passage to home after the CM running the show calls ceasefire.

-- Up hardness of radar. (Why now?  Why not defend the most obvious targets of the first frame?)
Keep the radar operational longer -> allows the RAF planes to find LW planes better and thus increasing air-to-air combat, which at least I would categorize as fun in this game.

-- Add some aspect to victory points so that it matters to get aircraft home by end of frame. (Has this been a major problem?)
This one adds to the immersion hugely and it has been tried and tested in several snapshots. Basically your side gets paid if you can nurse your damaged plane back home. It might also be worthwhile to escort damaged friendly planes back to home bases as was seen in DGS scenario (Guppy35 posted some nice screen shots of this back then).

-- End restriction of RAF not allowed over France.  (Were they allowed over France in 1940?  If so, then why not here.)
Pretty sure recon planes were allowed over France, but then again recon has a whole different meaning in this game as in reality it was about taking photos of ground installations and not about spotting enemy formations in the air.

-- 5 mph wind at ground level? discussion of wholesale changes to prevent this occurring again? (Why? What?)
Different weather conditions add to the immersion. Wind should not be constant, but could and should be an variable, which could change even during a frame.

--- Revise rescue rules so that it is much, much less labor intensive. (Sure but keeping the rules and just doing it well might work too.)
Waiting 15 to 30 minutes of being rescued is not much fun nor does it really add to the immersion when a C-47 is coming to get a single pilot from the bushes. I'd change the rescue system so that it would be only used in the sea and bailing out or ditching over friendly territory would not need rescue.

[leitwolf]

We can assume that in a rerun in the future the next LW CO is going to follow Kermit's blueprints of how to take out the RAF radar.
Maybe the "scramble" rule for the RAF should be dropped in order to have a fighting chance at stopping NOE anti radar raids early in each Frame. Making the radar hardness is backwards imho, the RAF just needs a chance at actually protecting it.

[Brooke]

I'm scratching my head.  If you can agree 2006 was an anomaly, then after a  long series of Allied victories we finally have an Axis victory and there is suddenly an intense campaign to stop such a terrible outcome happening again?  Why?

The changes I wrote aren't about changing the outcome or forcing a different outcome.  Here are the reasons I had in mind for each of them.

-- Get rid of artificial "end hostilities"/"grace period to return to base".  (How is this more fun?)  It's totally artificial for a voice to come out of the heavens to all pilots and announce "OK, everyone time to stop figting.  Please disengage and start flying back to base."  Less artificial (i.e., not doing that) is more fun, in my opinion.

-- Up hardness of radar. (Why now?  Why not defend the most obvious targets of the first frame?) Radar currently is destroyable by strafing from 110's.  I'd rather see that not be an option, as I doubt it was a good one in real life.  Upping hardness of radar doesn't make it any harder for Stukas that are carrying more than enough ord to do the job.

-- Add some aspect to victory points so that it matters to get aircraft home by end of frame. (Has this been a major problem?)  Not major, but some.  The way it is now, you can launch a mission that has no chance of making it back to base by end frame, but can get to a target before end frame.  I would like it better if there were practical reasons not to do that (such as aircraft losses count).  Also, aircraft losses did count in the real BoB

-- Think about tweaking lethality of puffy ack. (It's far too deadly and random.  It takes away from fun but is perhaps immersive.)  That is why I recommend tweaking it -- to turn down puffy ack lethality.  No one enjoys puffy ack deciding their fate in a scenario.  It should be lethal enough that you don't want to hang out in it, but not lethal enough to kill you in one hit, in my opinion.  We can't change the hit probability or firing rate, but we can adjust the lethality of it.

-- Some way to deal with radar so there is less (or no) need for dedicated radar operators (which most people consider to be a tedious, undesirable job that they are unwilling to do).  (Just let me cry a little and move on by.  I begged for the job in 2006. Spurned then and ever since.  Might go burn my licence.)  Heh!  Well, if we have it, I know whom to ask.   In general, though, it is hard to get people who want to do that.  Maybe we keep it as long as you want to play.

-- End restriction of RAF not allowed over France.  (Were they allowed over France in 1940?  If so, then why not here.)  I don't know enough about the real BoB to know.  Just seemed that they had the range to go poke around in France some, so why not let them if they want?

-- Allow RAF to set position and courses of fleets? (RN thingy?  As long as they stay within the battlezone why not? If LW sink all the ships then the fleet is just removed).  Indeed.

-- 5 mph wind at ground level? discussion of wholesale changes to prevent this occurring again? (Why? What?)  This is just a thing in general for me. It is much more realistic to have a small amount of wind at ground instead of always 100% perfectly calm.  In this one, people are landing and replaning and going on another mission a lot.  It might be interesting to add a little more realism to that part of it.  Maybe not a good idea, though, as so many AH players have trouble landing even in perfect calm.

--- Revise rescue rules so that it is much, much less labor intensive. (Sure but keeping the rules and just doing it well might work too.)  The current rescue rules done well still require a large staff that can't fly.  As a CM, I much prefer a scenario that I can fly in.  That can be done if the rules aren't written to require a lot of CM labor.  You can make rules that don't require a grounded staff and still are 98% as much fun as one that requires people not to fly.

The following three were just replying to Tilt's comments about what has changed since BoB1.

-- We can make radar towers harder (I think a good idea).  Discussed above.

-- We can up the lethality of guns (not sure about this one).    Still -- not sure about this one.

-- We can increase hangar hardness (I think a good idea).  Like with radar hardness, upping hardness so that there strafing isn't going to do anything (but not so high that bombs on target don't take it out) would be good.  Unless hitting airfields is a surrogate for destroying RAF aircraft on the ground, then we should not up hardness and open up other ground targets (barracks, etc.).

[2Slow]

We can assume that in a rerun in the future the next LW CO is going to follow Kermit's blueprints of how to take out the RAF radar.
Maybe the "scramble" rule for the RAF should be dropped in order to have a fighting chance at stopping NOE anti radar raids early in each Frame. Making the radar hardness is backwards imho, the RAF just needs a chance at actually protecting it.

The scramble rule is a major factor in realism.  I agree with your radar thoughts.

Well said Dantoo.

[Kermit de frog]

The RAF GLs could provide War stories as entertainment for the first 10-20 minutes.

The scramble factor should remain.
We could change the "base warning" sound to the sound of a phone ringing.

Add grass fields, custom radar objects, add tiles on the terrain to help with navigation.  (Maybe simply have sector numbers on the tile or simply group objects to count to figure out sector number for low altitude navigation and have large tiles to see high above.  Make some white cliffs near Dover.  Have rivers and bridges for London and other cities with objects that ignite.  Smoke perhaps that is affected by the wind.  Have ships at port, and broken or bombed cities in France near LW airfields.  Have equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk.  When you bail, just as you can press "o" to open your chute, perhaps add a button to open your yellow lift raft so rescue can see you better.

Allowing the RAF over France would make things very interesting and may disrupt LW operations.  Vulching is frowned upon.


The above are just random thoughts lumped together. 

[2Slow]

The RAF GLs could provide War stories as entertainment for the first 10-20 minutes.

The scramble factor should remain.
We could change the "base warning" sound to the sound of a phone ringing.

Add grass fields, custom radar objects, add tiles on the terrain to help with navigation.  (Maybe simply have sector numbers on the tile or simply group objects to count to figure out sector number for low altitude navigation and have large tiles to see high above.  Make some white cliffs near Dover.  Have rivers and bridges for London and other cities with objects that ignite.  Smoke perhaps that is affected by the wind.  Have ships at port, and broken or bombed cities in France near LW airfields.  Have equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk.  When you bail, just as you can press "o" to open your chute, perhaps add a button to open your yellow lift raft so rescue can see you better.

Allowing the RAF over France would make things very interesting and may disrupt LW operations.  Vulching is frowned upon.


The above are just random thoughts lumped together. 

IMHO the clipboard maps should remain.  I treat mine as a paper map.  The map shows a coastline of a certain shape, I look out the windscreen for that shape.  To me, the clipboard map represents the efforts of my navigator/bombadier and his navagation aids.

White cliffs at Dover?  Sounds like a "duh" to me. 

RAF over France during BOB sounds more like a snapshot to me.  Since the scenario is an attempt to reproduce an actual campaign conditon.

[Babalonian]

How about the next BoB we only make 2 frames long.  Then imediatley after those two frames we have another two frame scenario, but we call it the allied invasion of normandy or something else that's catchy.  We can link the two together in terms of player registering and groups/group leaders, etc.

This way it's essentialy the same map, just the first two frames the axis get to bomb and the allies defend, then in the last half the allies get to bomb and the axis defend.  We could choose one or two plane sets for the whole thing, or a new plane set for each frame (do an earlier and later war version in each frame). 

This would also give the chance for the other side to attack/defend while avoiding switching sides or countries.  The downside I see to it is lets say you have Bob in the scenario, and Bob for some wierd religious reason won't fly in anything that's not a bomber.  This essentialy pigeon holes Bob into doing something he doesnt want to do half the time, or drives him away and he doesn't attend the frames he won't be in a bomber.