« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD  (Read 1145 times)

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« on: February 28, 2009, 12:04:01 PM »
Please post any discussion or questions regarding the setup in this thread.

Logged
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2009, 12:56:27 PM »
You have the word "formations" in the A20 quotas.
Logged
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2009, 02:32:06 PM »
Quote from: moot on February 28, 2009, 12:56:27 PM
You have the word "formations" in the A20 quotas.

On that note, I really dislike formations because of their warps when the lead aircraft isn't going straight and level.  Any chance we can not have formations in this FSO? ;) :pray

Is this going to be a 50/50 side split?  You're probably already fudging the historical numbers, but the number of Spitfire VIIIs (48max) versus 190A-5s (28max) seems imbalanced for gameplay.  My $.02.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 02:41:08 PM by Anaxogoras »
Logged
gavagai
334th FS

RPS for Aces High!

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2009, 02:51:54 PM »
Quote from: moot on February 28, 2009, 12:56:27 PM
You have the word "formations" in the A20 quotas.

Good catch Moot, thanks.
Logged
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Fencer51

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4679
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2009, 02:52:32 PM »
Quote from: Anaxogoras on February 28, 2009, 02:32:06 PM
On that note, I really dislike formations because of their warps when the lead aircraft isn't going straight and level.  Any chance we can not have formations in this FSO? ;) :pray

Is this going to be a 50/50 side split?  You're probably already fudging the historical numbers, but the number of Spitfire VIIIs (48max) versus 190A-5s (28max) seems imbalanced for gameplay.  My $.02.

Gava, the 190s were very limited and were 190Gs.
Logged
Fencer
The names of the irrelevant have been changed to protect their irrelevance.
The names of the innocent and the guilty have not been changed.
As for the innocent, everyone needs to know they are innocent –
As for the guilty… they can suck it.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2009, 02:55:58 PM »
Quote from: Anaxogoras on February 28, 2009, 02:32:06 PM
On that note, I really dislike formations because of their warps when the lead aircraft isn't going straight and level.  Any chance we can not have formations in this FSO? ;) :pray

Is this going to be a 50/50 side split?  You're probably already fudging the historical numbers, but the number of Spitfire VIIIs (48max) versus 190A-5s (28max) seems imbalanced for gameplay.  My $.02.

Current numbers are planned at a 48% Axis to 52% Allied.  Allied will have 8 offensive/2 defensive objectives per frame with Axis having 2 offensive/8 defensive objectives per frame.  I've done a pretty thorough job of researching as many available Axis and Allied AOB's as I could get my hands on, and this aircraft mix is roughly proportional to what was in theater at the time.  I believe its pretty well balanced, but obviously, if frame 1 illustrates any glaring problems, I'll adjust.
Logged
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2009, 02:58:39 PM »
Oh, well then wouldn't the 190F-8 be a better choice than the A5?
Logged
gavagai
334th FS

RPS for Aces High!

Offline 33Vortex

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4754
      • Dirac's equation (non truncated)
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2009, 03:02:19 PM »
Yeah... wasn't the G a ground attack version? Perhaps the A-8 is more similar though, it really comes down to the armor plating.
Logged

GameID: Turner
Truth has no agenda.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2009, 03:06:59 PM »
Wow, the two Axis offensive objectives should be interesting. That could make for a titanic air battle.

One of these days I'd love to see a frame where one side is pure attack and has ONE offensive objective. One massive air battle. It'd kill the frame rate, but man wouldn't that be crazy. :D
Logged
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Fencer51

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4679
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2009, 03:09:38 PM »
Quote from: Anaxogoras on February 28, 2009, 02:58:39 PM
Oh, well then wouldn't the 190F-8 be a better choice than the A5?

Dunno..

Quote
Stab/Sch.G 2, II./Sch.G 2, II./SKG 10, and III./SKG 10 had Fw-190G fighter bombers in September in Italy and were engaged in the fighting for Salerno.  Seems they started getting 190A6s and A5/U8s in March 1944.
Logged
Fencer
The names of the irrelevant have been changed to protect their irrelevance.
The names of the innocent and the guilty have not been changed.
As for the innocent, everyone needs to know they are innocent –
As for the guilty… they can suck it.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2009, 03:10:13 PM »
Well Sax, I empathize with that--I think a lot of us do.  However, current game mechanics prevent us from doing that.  With 10 objectives per frame, we'll average 50+ pilots per battle, which should be sufficient for decent action without framerate-jamming the participants systems.
Logged
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Nefarious

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15858
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2009, 03:13:18 PM »
Looks like a great writeup, 412th is requesting Allies after two tours flying Japanese Aircraft.

EDIT: The Squad Ops Welcome page still lists August Storm as the current FSO.  ;)
« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 03:15:04 PM by Nefarious »
Logged
Quote from: 100hooch on July 27, 2014, 02:44:19 AM
There must also be a flyable computer available for Nefarious to do FSO. So he doesn't keep talking about it for eight and a half hours on Friday night!

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2009, 03:15:23 PM »
Quote from: Nefarious on February 28, 2009, 03:13:18 PM
Looks like a great writeup, 412th is requesting Allies after two tours flying Japanese Aircraft.

I'll see what I can do...    :rofl

Well, I changed the text hyperlink and forgot to change the graphic hyperlink...fixed now
« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 03:17:15 PM by Stoney »
Logged
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline TheBug

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5652
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2009, 03:16:02 PM »
Really looking forward to this one!

Looks good Stoney.  :aok
Logged
“It's a big ocean, you don't have to find the enemy if you don't want to."
  -Richard O'Kane

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: PRELUDE TO STALEMATE: OPERATION AVALANCHE DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2009, 03:27:23 PM »
Stoney, any thoughts on the 190F-8 as a better substitute for the 190G?
Logged
gavagai
334th FS

RPS for Aces High!
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »