No fly Zones

[kilo2]

Since no one has started a thread let me. Opinions with respect please.

I personally believe they cut into the fun of events. They are to often heavy handed and do not represent the air war in Europe. Cap1 this last event tried to make them viable but further proved the point that there is no good way to implement them. I understand why allies believe they should have them and agree to an extent. There is no reason why a map should be cut in half for the axis so the allies can land.

[perdue3]

Since no one has started a thread let me. Opinions with respect please.

I personally believe they cut into the fun of events. They are to often heavy handed and do not represent the air war in Europe. Cap1 this last event tried to make them viable but further proved the point that there is no good way to implement them. I understand why allies believe they should have them and agree to an extent. There is no reason why a map should be cut in half for the axis so the allies can land.

Nothing should be added. Well said. It is not fun for Axis to chase little girls to a no fly zone then turn around. I am sure running from rabid 109s and 190s as fast as you can to a no fly zone as an Allied pilot is not very fun either.

Enemy Coast Ahead was DESTROYED by no fly zones, therefore it is properly named "Don't Go Feet Wet."

Get rid of them, or put them WAY WAY WAY in the back.

[68Raptor]

Gotta disagree.. Think about it... on a map like the one we just had the Axis would end up chasing the bombers until the point of no return for the Axis. They would then need to make the decision to continue the chase hoping to catch someone landing and not make it back to a friendly base in time or turning around at the last second to fly several sectors back to a friendly field to land.

I've always thought of the no fly zones as a "time warp" setup to help moves things along. As was brought up in another post the frame is 2 hours long. That's it.

[Spikes]

Gotta disagree.. Think about it... on a map like the one we just had the Axis would end up chasing the bombers until the point of no return for the Axis. They would then need to make the decision to continue the chase hoping to catch someone landing and not make it back to a friendly base in time or turning around at the last second to fly several sectors back to a friendly field to land.

I've always thought of the no fly zones as a "time warp" setup to help moves things along. As was brought up in another post the frame is 2 hours long. That's it.

And the bombers were already back across the original no fly line before T+60 (where the Axis get 1 more sector to fly after T+60). So half of the planes we get to shoot down are already out of the fight.

[perdue3]

Accuracy and Playability are the main factors in an event's design. If you are a CM and do not know this, I pity the CM team. The no fly zone in Frame 3 more so than the rest of the frames severely killed the playability factor. Accurate? Maybe so. Fun and playable for those stationed a sector away from the no fly zone? Hell no.

Designers must find a happy medium between playability (fun) and historical accuracy. I preach this all the time. Shifty's last month was good. Frame 1 was a little odd but 2 and 3 were very good.

[surfinn]

So perd ya want to take your wolf pack to the allied fields and vulch aircraft landing late in the frame? We have to have some protection against you guys, no fly zones work well for both sides.

[Stampf]

So perd ya want to take your wolf pack to the allied fields and vulch aircraft landing late in the frame? We have to have some protection against you guys, no fly zones work well for both sides.

Really?  I don't know about Perdue...but YES...I know I want to follow the enemy out and nail his arse when he's landing.  Just like this from last night:


aztec
23:24:23 Departed from Field #52 in a Fw 190A-8
00:12:01 Takes on fuel/ammo/ord at field #47.
00:33:21 Helps Stampf shoot down Badmood.
00:39:54 Helps Ernst21 shoot down McTunes.
00:43:38 Was shot down by 12High (exploded).

8 of us were gear down and landing when the vultching 38's came in.  Az couldn't tower in time. 

If you want to pick a fight or argue an opinion, at least keep it real.  Better yet...just keep it real.

 

[aztec]

Probably an uninteresting and useless sidenote; I didn't cry.

[Viper61]

You know Stampf is right.  If the ALLIES can vulch then the AXIS should be able to as well.  Its only fair.

The No fly zones are needed in the beginning in order to allow the ALLIED bombers and escorts to get into position after airspawning.  Historically this probably replicates "The Channel" fairly well in that the ALLIED bombers would be at altitude, in formation with escorts and up to full speed before crossing it.  Also we don't need the AXIS vulching the spawn points or rushing them in the first 5 minutes etc.

But after say 15 minutes the No Fly Zone could be eliminated and then its just a normal map with targets and fields you can land at.  Map would have to be divided up fairly evenly so that there were many fields to land at thus avoiding a situation where the AXIS could just focus their efforts into a small area.  Just divide the map 50/50 ALLIED / AXIS fields.

As for AXIS vulching as the ALLIED bombers land.  I don't think it would happen that often.  A smart Strike Package Leader would just keep his escorts with him and then set up a CAP and the landing airfield.  He would also select a landing airfield much further to the rear.  Simple and straight forward.

[perdue3]

Luftwaffe doesnt need to vulch to win.

[Guppy35]

Accuracy and Playability are the main factors in an event's design. If you are a CM and do not know this, I pity the CM team. The no fly zone in Frame 3 more so than the rest of the frames severely killed the playability factor. Accurate? Maybe so. Fun and playable for those stationed a sector away from the no fly zone? Hell no.

Designers must find a happy medium between playability (fun) and historical accuracy. I preach this all the time. Shifty's last month was good. Frame 1 was a little odd but 2 and 3 were very good.

Your application is in the mail I take it?  Your opinions are very strong so I'm assuming you've roughed out some ideas to make a really good FSO?

I get it Perd.  You want a fight at the beginning, at the end, and in the middle. 

Basically what would be ideal then is to throw out the notion of any historical context other then the planes.  A generic map with generic targets and a plane set that's as even as you can make it between Allied and Axis so that it can be proven once and for all that the Axis is better or the Allies.  You throw any historical context out of it.

And that's fine if that's all you want.

You brought ECA into the discussion.  OK since I had something to do with that one, here was the intent.  It's summer of 43 and the Germans are on the defensive as the USAAF is into the game and the heavies are flying.  The RAF in the meantime is sending over medium bombers and fighters to try and stir the Luftwaffe up in a war of attrition.  The Luftwaffe has to pick and choose as they don't have the resources and in some cases it makes no sense to lose pilots to essentially irritation raids.  To try and keep the RAF on their heels a bit the LW has small numbers of 190 fighter bombers that they send to coastal towns like Hastings just to tie up RAF resources patrolling for them.

The fight was meant to be over France.  The Luftwaffe wasn't going over England hitting bases.  The advantages they had were picking and choosing where and when they intercepted raids.  They had alt and better radar cover as they were fighting over their own turf.  it also meant more sorties for them as they didn't have to fly as far.    Historically the Allies had the advantage of numbers to offset the lower sorties flown.  There is no way to make that work in a scenario that has a historical context to it.  So the Allies go into it knowing it's going to be fighting uphill.  Historically the Luftwaffe from 41-43 was able to fight that battle of attrition and stay ahead.  If an RAF pilot went down and survived it was over France and he was evading or a POW.  If a Luftwaffe driver went down and survived he was back at his base and in a new plane.

So in the end the only Allied advantages are knowing that once they get back across the Channel they are able to get down as the Luftwaffe wasn't following them back.  The Luftwaffe generally broke off combat for fuel reasons before that and went home to prepare for the next raid.

The problem seems to be the Luftwaffe guys are only looking at it from that perspective.  If you get 4 sorties in to an Allied pilot's 1 sortie that's a huge difference.  Say it's 50 fighters aside.  The luftwaffe ends up with 200 sorties to 50 for the Allies.  So it would make some sense that the Allies over France would try and hit the Luftwaffe down low or at their fields to try and offset that sortie differential.  It's what they did historically.  Yet you don't find 109s or 190s over England shooting up Allied birds at their airfields.

In the end for me it's the desire to provide an opportunity within a scenario to encounter things that happened for real as best we can provide them in a computer game based scenario.

We'll be encountering the same issues in DGS II.   For those of us putting this one on, the history matters.  We want those encounters to take place.  I want to know Stampf is sucked into the cockpit of his 190 when he sees the first formation of bombers covered with escorts as I hope to be sucked into the cockpit of my 51 the same way.

In the end it's about trade offs.  The Luftwaffe will have most of the advantages as they are fighting over their own turf and can generate far more fighter sorties then the Allies can due to the distance traveled for the Allied Fighters.  The Allied fighters if they can survive the initial encounters with the Luftwaffe fighters will be able to attempt to stop the second waves by going after them down low as they did historically.  Each side has options and how they work together to use those options is usually the indicator of who has the edge.



In the end folks need to decide though if it's all about making it a 50/50 even fight with both on offense and defense.  If so, come up with a Generic map that has fields the same distance away so that everyone has exactly the same advantages and disadvantages at take off.  Throw out any pretense of history other then the plane set time frame.  Then you can fly and drink with your buddies and kill to your hearts content anywhere on the map.

[kilo2]

Your application is in the mail I take it?  Your opinions are very strong so I'm assuming you've roughed out some ideas to make a really good FSO?

I get it Perd.  You want a fight at the beginning, at the end, and in the middle.  

Basically what would be ideal then is to throw out the notion of any historical context other then the planes.  A generic map with generic targets and a plane set that's as even as you can make it between Allied and Axis so that it can be proven once and for all that the Axis is better or the Allies.  You throw any historical context out of it.

And that's fine if that's all you want.

You brought ECA into the discussion.  OK since I had something to do with that one, here was the intent.  It's summer of 43 and the Germans are on the defensive as the USAAF is into the game and the heavies are flying.  The RAF in the meantime is sending over medium bombers and fighters to try and stir the Luftwaffe up in a war of attrition.  The Luftwaffe has to pick and choose as they don't have the resources and in some cases it makes no sense to lose pilots to essentially irritation raids.  To try and keep the RAF on their heels a bit the LW has small numbers of 190 fighter bombers that they send to coastal towns like Hastings just to tie up RAF resources patrolling for them.

The fight was meant to be over France.  The Luftwaffe wasn't going over England hitting bases.  The advantages they had were picking and choosing where and when they intercepted raids.  They had alt and better radar cover as they were fighting over their own turf.  it also meant more sorties for them as they didn't have to fly as far.    Historically the Allies had the advantage of numbers to offset the lower sorties flown.  There is no way to make that work in a scenario that has a historical context to it.  So the Allies go into it knowing it's going to be fighting uphill.  Historically the Luftwaffe from 41-43 was able to fight that battle of attrition and stay ahead.  If an RAF pilot went down and survived it was over France and he was evading or a POW.  If a Luftwaffe driver went down and survived he was back at his base and in a new plane.

So in the end the only Allied advantages are knowing that once they get back across the Channel they are able to get down as the Luftwaffe wasn't following them back.  The Luftwaffe generally broke off combat for fuel reasons before that and went home to prepare for the next raid.

The problem seems to be the Luftwaffe guys are only looking at it from that perspective.  If you get 4 sorties in to an Allied pilot's 1 sortie that's a huge difference.  Say it's 50 fighters aside.  The luftwaffe ends up with 200 sorties to 50 for the Allies.  So it would make some sense that the Allies over France would try and hit the Luftwaffe down low or at their fields to try and offset that sortie differential.  It's what they did historically.  Yet you don't find 109s or 190s over England shooting up Allied birds at their airfields.

In the end for me it's the desire to provide an opportunity within a scenario to encounter things that happened for real as best we can provide them in a computer game based scenario.

We'll be encountering the same issues in DGS II.   For those of us putting this one on, the history matters.  We want those encounters to take place.  I want to know Stampf is sucked into the cockpit of his 190 when he sees the first formation of bombers covered with escorts as I hope to be sucked into the cockpit of my 51 the same way.

In the end it's about trade offs.  The Luftwaffe will have most of the advantages as they are fighting over their own turf and can generate far more fighter sorties then the Allies can due to the distance traveled for the Allied Fighters.  The Allied fighters if they can survive the initial encounters with the Luftwaffe fighters will be able to attempt to stop the second waves by going after them down low as they did historically.  Each side has options and how they work together to use those options is usually the indicator of who has the edge.



In the end folks need to decide though if it's all about making it a 50/50 even fight with both on offense and defense.  If so, come up with a Generic map that has fields the same distance away so that everyone has exactly the same advantages and disadvantages at take off.  Throw out any pretense of history other then the plane set time frame.  Then you can fly and drink with your buddies and kill to your hearts content anywhere on the map.

Historical argument work only if the entire event is totally 100% historical. There has been certain exceptions made for fun. ECA turned into people hiding in England that is fun that makes me want to spend my time playing. It was almost if we were on the offense and the RAF was on the defensive with an arbitrary no fly zone. Perd didnt say it needed to be as you describe it just needed more balance.

We are not reenactors we shouldn't try and do the exact things the Luft or allies did. We should be making our own choices and seeing how the battle could have gone better or worse with different choices.

Half the map with targets a sector from the no fly zone is not the answer nor is it "historical."

[Guppy35]

So taking out any historical context is the way to go.  As for ECA since you don't have any idea what went on behind the scenes, the best I can tell you is it did not run as the design intended.  It was a hard lesson learned in not letting the folks from the cheap seats run you over with all their expertise.  They aren't ever going to be happy anyway so I should have stood my ground.  It would have been a totally different event.  I won't make that mistake again.

But you seem to be missing the point.  If there is no Historical aspect to it then you can run your perfectly even 50/50 offense defense anything goes bit.  if that's what you want, then so be it.  To me that would really spell the end to special events

It's never going to be a reenactment.  To do that means using correct numbers and in that regard it was never fair from the Blitzkrieg to Nagasaki.  No one would show.  if we ever did try that with a late ware bomber campaign I know I'd then fly Luftwaffe, just to get a feel as to what it must to have been like to go up against those odds.  With the numbers balance and the up to 4 to 1 fighter sortie difference for the Luftwaffe that just is never the case.

I would genuinely love for you gents to rough out a design of what you see as how it should be done however.  I'd be curious how you'd do it.  With your strong opinions on this stuff I imagine you have done it already.

To try and present the chance to connect the history with this cartoon game we play will always be important to the design guys.  What's the point otherwise?  You can stay in the MA and shoot to your hearts content.

[kilo2]

So taking out any historical context is the way to go.  As for ECA since you don't have any idea what went on behind the scenes, the best I can tell you is it did not run as the design intended.  It was a hard lesson learned in not letting the folks from the cheap seats run you over with all their expertise.  They aren't ever going to be happy anyway so I should have stood my ground.  It would have been a totally different event.  I won't make that mistake again.

But you seem to be missing the point.  If there is no Historical aspect to it then you can run your perfectly even 50/50 offense defense anything goes bit.  if that's what you want, then so be it.  To me that would really spell the end to special events

It's never going to be a reenactment.  To do that means using correct numbers and in that regard it was never fair from the Blitzkrieg to Nagasaki.  No one would show.  if we ever did try that with a late ware bomber campaign I know I'd then fly Luftwaffe, just to get a feel as to what it must to have been like to go up against those odds.  With the numbers balance and the up to 4 to 1 fighter sortie difference for the Luftwaffe that just is never the case.

I would genuinely love for you gents to rough out a design of what you see as how it should be done however.  I'd be curious how you'd do it.  With your strong opinions on this stuff I imagine you have done it already.

To try and present the chance to connect the history with this cartoon game we play will always be important to the design guys.  What's the point otherwise?  You can stay in the MA and shoot to your hearts content.

I think you missed my point rather than the other way around. It surprises me that you pass the buck for the failure of ECA to others. It was bad for everyone there was not many luft pilots as well. So it was obviously no fun for every body. There is no historical connection with a no fly-zone which is the issue of this thread. Once again no one is saying to wipe out "historical context" just a better balance.

[Guppy35]

I think you missed my point rather than the other way around. It surprises me that you pass the buck for the failure of ECA to others. It was bad for everyone there was not many luft pilots as well. So it was obviously no fun for every body. There is no historical connection with a no fly-zone which is the issue of this thread. Once again no one is saying to wipe out "historical context" just a better balance.

The fact that you can make a statement that it was no fun for anybody seems a bit strong.  I had a lot of folks who enjoyed it.  As I said it was a hard lesson learned and certainly was my mistake in listening to all the bbs experts.

In terms of no fly zones most definitely there were.  The difference is when you don't have the numbers to create them with a boatload of fighters that would have been there to cover the withdrawal you have to improvise.  There was a reason the LW was hiding their fighters in the trees while the Allies weren't. 

You are flying Allied in DGS Sukov.  Do you think you'll see as much action and get as many sorties in as Perdweeb flying Axis?  How do you balance that?  Or is the trade off the different experience you'll get flying that Jug?  Do you think it will be fair?