Mediterranean Maelstrom

[KCDitto]

So lets run it again and switch sides

NO, because it is a messed up set up.     

[kilo2]

So lets run it again and switch sides

That would not solve the problem. I won't fly this setup again until the problems have been addressed. If it stays the same I just won't fly it on either side.

You continue to view this as an axis vs allied issue when it is obvious that it's a setup issue.

[Guppy35]

That would not solve the problem. I won't fly this setup again until the problems have been addressed. If it stays the same I just won't fly it on either side.

You continue to view this as an axis vs allied issue when it is obvious that it's a setup issue.

I didn't say it was perfect.  I didn't say it was Axis vs Allied.  I said escorts and bombers are always going to have the tougher route in scenarios as we don't get to provide the bombers with enough escorts to really do the job as it makes the numbers way off and the other side doesn't want to play then.  If you have the answer to that one, I'm all ears. 

I'm saying I'd like to try it from the other side as the one frame I got to fly this time around was in a Spit.

[SIM]

Blah Blah Blah......................... .



I had a GREAT time in this scenario and the last one..........


So to all you with delusions of granduer...................lo sers.

[kilo2]

I didn't say it was perfect.  I didn't say it was Axis vs Allied.  I said escorts and bombers are always going to have the tougher route in scenarios as we don't get to provide the bombers with enough escorts to really do the job as it makes the numbers way off and the other side doesn't want to play then.  If you have the answer to that one, I'm all ears. 

I'm saying I'd like to try it from the other side as the one frame I got to fly this time around was in a Spit.

Well go ahead you are part of the team that can make it happen. I won't be there though.




As for you SIM 

[KCDitto]

I didn't say it was perfect.  I didn't say it was Axis vs Allied.  I said escorts and bombers are always going to have the tougher route in scenarios as we don't get to provide the bombers with enough escorts to really do the job as it makes the numbers way off and the other side doesn't want to play then.  If you have the answer to that one, I'm all ears. 

I'm saying I'd like to try it from the other side as the one frame I got to fly this time around was in a Spit.

You also did not say anything was wrong sir? By that I would assume you thought it was perfect, or at least good. We are all trying to make it better, we fly scenarios, we love scenarios, that is why we fly. I have no animosity towards you or any CM. You guys get questioned and take the defensive. I just want to improve the gaming experience. By that, we will increase the numbers and maybe get back to 300 + flying on a Saturday afternoon.

With that, I also understand that I am a rookie when it comes to some of you who have been here for over 10 years. So I am on the outside looking in, I get that, I also get that there is a dynamic about this that I do not understand. I just remember the numbers were not an issue in my first scenario. I would like to see that again and have all the talk about individual fights, not about set up.

Does that make sense?

[ROC]

I've already said the setup wasn't perfect and needed work.  I also said numbers had an impact. I also said what was possible to do didn't always happen.  Basically said that just about everything that could go wrong in this one, did. I hear that the ONLY thing wrong was the design, from some players, but also other players seemed to like it. There goes the "fact" that it was wrong by the way, it can't be factually wrong if others think it was fine.  That, if you think about it, clearly is just an opinion.  Everyone's got one. 

This event won't run again exactly like it was designed this time , there are plenty of things to fix, but don't think for one minute that the ONLY thing wrong was the design. You can, however, count on this not being put forward in the foreseeable future, there are other events on the books, you won't see this one again for years.  Granted, what we have coming down the pipe in terrains, planes and set up tools pretty much suggests that no matter what we "decide" on today, it'll be kind of irrelevant when it comes around again. Far too many variables, far too many unknowns.  So, please forgive me if we don't personally invest a great deal of time redesigning this particular event today, but the comments and ideas are being collected and will be considered when and if this one shows up on the plate again.
Everyone has a valid opinion on how they experienced the event and what could have been done different, nothing wrong with having an opinion.  At the end of the day though, we design them and sometimes they are embraced and other times they are not. See you around August for the next one. 

[perdue3]

Numbers? NUMBERS!!???

This is scenario. Scenarios are not fun. Scenario numbers will continue to fall. There is a fundamental problem with Scenarios that only the Scenario Team can fix.

Guppy, LOLZ.

SIM, wow.

[Delirium]

The only thing fundamentally wrong with scenarios is the community... allow me to explain before jumping down my throat.

1. Very few want to fly a historically accurate ratio of friendlies versus enemies. If people were willing, design would be much easier as the design team could just crack a book and emulate the force layout. If memory serves, it was attempted many years ago in an Eastern Front scenario and having the Luftwaffe fight against overwhelming numbers made for an event that wasn't liked by many (including the Russian flyers, I might add).

2. Not many like to fly with people they don't know. This is one of the reasons that FSOs are doing so well.

3. Attendance is a major issue in scenarios but not FSO. The FSOs make the players police themselves to a large extent and it seems to work better.

4. The variety of aircraft in a FSO is one of the big factors. This isn't because FSOs are designed better, but they force players into them and they still need to attend the event. In the old days, it was a badge of honor to fly a lesser performing aircraft in a scenario but now the more capable rides fill first.

It appears to me the player base increasingly wants a fair fight, even scripted if necessary. Every scenario becomes a 'what if' event; the hardcore scenario players aren't returning as frequently and the 'scripted/fair fight' players aren't happy either because current design isn't aggressive enough.

[Brooke]

A couple of things that I think are important to keep in mind.

If you didn't like a scenario, it's not because there was some secret conspiracy among scenario CM's to make it unpleasant for you.  Scenario CM's always try their best to make a scenario be realistic, historical in feel, balanced, and fun.  Some of those elements pull in different directions (usually realism pulls in an opposite direction of balance, for example, as Del points out in #1), and so judgment comes into play.  The scenario team, being humans like everyone else, are not always going to have perfect judgment, but it's not a malicious conspiracy.

With regard to changing the rules of scenarios while they are underway, running a scenario is more like maneuvering an oil tanker than it is like maneuvering a speed boat.  The scenario team's policy is not to change the rules of a scenario that is already underway unless (1) the problem is severe enough that not changing means people won't play and (2) both CO's agree to the change.  This policy is not in there to cause problems but to avoid problems that we have seen from experience.  Like any guideline, it is not a perfect fit in every case, but again that guideline is not because of some malicious intent.

Statements about scenario attendance being lower and lower over time is incorrect.  Below is the actual attendance of scenarios back to 2004.



To me, what this shows is that, prior to early 2011, typical was about 175 players with late-war 8th AF being about 1.5 times typical.  Then the player base had a step-like decline between BOG and RtR.  Now, typical is 125, steady over the past two years, with the late-war 8th AF scenario (DGS II) still being about 1.5 times that.  AH overall has had a reduction in players a couple of years ago, too.  I think it is because of and timed with this:



Anyway, if this scenario were run again, there would likely be changes in it.  Me, I think it would be great with three easy changes:  more axis fighters, lower hardness of ships, and more ships spread out a bit (if that was historical of the Med during this time period).  Oh, and I'd love it if there were Beaufighters at in the game for next time (and if the allies had bombing and/or antishipping to do, then the sides could be made 1:1).

[perdue3]

Regarding number 1:

Would you enjoy flying an accurate Operation Bodenplatte as Allies in this video game? What about Marianas Trench as Axis? Although a positive outcome, Battle of Dieppe as Axis (this one is arguable because in AH it would have a much different outcome)? Or Winter War as Axis? If I misunderstood you Del, I do apologize.

Who in their right mind would willingly fly outnumbered 2:1 in this video game that we pay 15 dollars to play. Not to mention waste a Saturday on a bum scenario. Why in the hell would we sign up to fight a fight that finds us outnumbered 2:1? I am not claiming that Malta was 2:1, I am responding to number 1.

Who wants to fly a B-17 on a beautiful summer Saturday from Biggin Hill to Berlin or Dresden? AND BACK!!! The notion that we need more accurate sorties in Scenarios is idiotic and ludacris. FSO's are quick (comparatively) and fun. The setups are generally very good. If there are problems with one, the designer will know about it . I am banned from FSO right now, and I am in denial. I shake all day long on Friday. I am addicted to the only event left in this once glorious game. FSO is the heartbeat of AH Events. It is the only thing left. I would aspire to be more like it.

We do not need another FSO on Saturdays. However, Scenarios need a change. They have needed a change for 4 years now. FSO finds the medium between accuracy and playability 95% of the time. This means that the event never has 65% of either. When that percentage of either goes above 65% it falls into the 5% that doesnt meet the medium. Scenarios RARELY get close to the medium. I understand that scenarios offer realism, accuracy, and immersion but my God man. Malta sucked, DGS2 wasn't that bad, Winter Sky was awful, Dont Go Feet Wet was the worst excuse of an event I have seen in the last 3 years. Ketsu Go FSO is a very, very close second. I am not jabbing the designer wit these events. I dont even know who designed them. Please dont take it that way.

I will keep flying scenarios for two reasons: Commitment to my squadron and support the event. In the end I want Scenarios to be the flashy, posterboy of AHEvents. I feel that not participating doesn't help that strive. However, if the guys running the show keep pouring out these bad designs how can we move forward? You guys will not accept criticism and jump on whoever gives it. For once, the Scenario community agrees that a design was bad. Not "okay", not "needs work", not "not perfect", but BAD. Straight up awful. Do something about it CM Team. Design a good scenario that is well balanced with fun, playability, and accuracy. As bad as it hurts us historians, some times we have to remember that it is a video game and we just cannot fight 2:1 odds, or fly from one hemisphere to the other. I am pulling for you Scenario CM Team. I will be there next Scenario, leading my squadron. Make it a good one.

Regarding Number 3:

Police themselves...LOLZ.


<S>

[Brooke]

Scenarios need a change. They have needed a change for 4 years now.

Which scenarios did you like prior to 4 years ago?

Malta sucked, DGS2 wasn't that bad, Winter Sky was awful

Design a good scenario that is well balanced with fun, playability, and accuracy.

That is always the goal.  Part of the issue, though, is that a scenario that one person hates can be a scenario that someone else loves.  For example, the majority of people loved DGSII (same as for DGS and BOG -- the player base loves late-war 8th AF).  Me, I like it OK, but it's not my favorite genre.  Winter Sky was one of my favorites.   Other of my favs are Coral Sea (flew TBM's and B5N's), Tunisia (flew Ju 88's), Red Storm (flew La5's), Philippine Phandango (flew Ki 67's), Enemy Coast Ahead (flew 190's), and Stalin's Fourth (in Boston III's and GV's).

[kilo2]

Tunisia was my favorite with Red Storm being a close second.

[perdue3]

My favorites: Red Storm, Tunisia, BoG respectively.

Well, I know you are correct in that some people hate what some people love. But it is pretty evident that this scenario wasnt great. With the exception of SIM. He will basically go on the opposite side of perdweeb no matter what. So, like most people take me, I take him with a grain of salt.

[swareiam]

Gentlemen,

Is there a possibility that we can help ourselves here? The CM team should bend, but not break on issues concerning every scenario.
Whether the issues are late or early.

Players, flyers, attendees, walk-ons or whatever, let's try and better understand what scenario is all about. As Guppy mentioned a few post
back. There are very few of us that want to do anything more than have the high score at the end of a frame and by the end of the scenario.

Scenario is about history and replay. Sharing the experience with others. Especially you senior guys. You want to talk about planning who
had the best and who didn't. That is not the concept in scenario. It is the responsibility of each sides command staff to provide the enriched
scenario experience for all. In the absence of that environment it is easy to loose players. I had guys that we more interested in car and gun
shows. Dang, half the guys that signed up for my group didn't show up for the forth frame.

DSG II the Allied side was a really good example of providing an experience.  A shared creativity for both sides is what gets players to the arena
4 Saturdays in a row. If the organization of each side is sound on both sides, which doesn't include planning, players would stay. I actually don't
think that if the setup is off a bit that it would matter if the organization is tight.

Guppy,

Until MM, I have never flown as a bomber pilot in a scenario. But because of the history involved and my own personal interest in the period. Flying Stukas
was a lot more appealing. Equal challenge cannot always be applied in scenario. Cowards run from a good fight. Yes, it takes a lot for a man or women
to say I am going to fly with the underdogs. It is up to the command staff and each GL to recruit and keep this interest whether the cards are stacked against you or not.
I hope that we will be able to fly together for the next one. I love the results of what you put into these events.

Ditto was not failure in planning or recruiting. It was his staff of GLs that should take responsibility for our overall success or failure. If our individual groups are full, we need to seek
out pilots to fill other seats, regardless of the circumstance, regardless of the mission. This does not guarantee success, but it allows the scenario to be played as it was designed.

Ditto,

A bit of advice for the next time. Always secure a XO for your side. This position is invaluable to the possible success and leadership of your side. Even if you have to ask the
CM that put you in your position to find you one. They have a lot of influence with players and are more likely to secure one for you.

Okay, vacating soapbox now.