Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)

[Brooke]

Here is the only way I see to make it equal.  If we don't do this, a6 remains an enormous advantage in the north, a12 remains an enormous advantage in the middle, and a8 remains a moderate advantage in the south.

Allies can rearm at only a5 and a65 (and a69 as a backup).

Axis can rearm at only a66 and a7 (and a64 as a backup).

If I do that, each side's rearms are:
-- Equal in number.
-- About the same distance from their targets that they have to defend.
    -- a66 to a12/v106 approximately equals a5 to v47/v99.
    -- a7 to v105  approximately equals a65 to v104.
-- About the same distance from their targets that they need to attack.
    -- a66 to v47/v99 approx. equals a5 to a12/v106.
    -- a7 to v104 approx. equals a65 to v105.

These rearms are a ways out, but there aren't alternatives I see.  Also, if a launch window is coming up, folks can land somewhere, exit, and launch in the next launch window.

[Devil 505]

Would it just be easier to make it so that rearms are only allowed at active airfields?

I say this because that is effectively the case for the Allies but not the Axis based on your proposal. The Axis can launch from A108 or 107 but only rearm at 107. This leads to disproportionally long flight times to rearm after an attack to A95.

[Easyscor]

Here is the only way I see to make it equal.  If we don't do this, a6 remains an enormous advantage in the north, a12 remains an enormous advantage in the middle, and a8 remains a moderate advantage in the south.

Allies can rearm at only a5 and a65 (and a69 as a backup).

Axis can rearm at only a66 and a7 (and a64 as a backup).

If I do that, each side's rearms are:
-- Equal in number.
-- About the same distance from their targets that they have to defend.
    -- a66 to a12/v106 approximately equals a5 to v47/v99.
    -- a7 to v105  approximately equals a65 to v104.
-- About the same distance from their targets that they need to attack.
    -- a66 to v47/v99 approx. equals a5 to a12/v106.
    -- a7 to v104 approx. equals a65 to v105.

These rearms are a ways out, but there aren't alternatives I see.  Also, if a launch window is coming up, folks can land somewhere, exit, and launch in the next launch window.

This suggestion probably won't be appreciated but here goes anyway.
We've anticipated this problem in the AvA. You can block the offending rearm pads with factory building #23 installed by your terrain team. It actually looks very believable but I can't post an image in here. Set the building as barrier to keep anyone from blowing it up and getting through.

When your event is over, remove them. No log based penalties or player enforced rule.

 

[Brooke]

Would it just be easier to make it so that rearms are only allowed at active airfields?

I say this because that is effectively the case for the Allies but not the Axis based on your proposal. The Axis can launch from A108 or 107 but only rearm at 107. This leads to disproportionally long flight times to rearm after an attack to A95.

You mean a7 and a8, correct?

I can't have a8 be the rearm or it is closer to Kasserine than a65.

For the Kasserine battle, I figure that it will be the allies launching from v47 and the allies launching from a8 -- both similar in distance to Kasserine.  Then, the allies can't rearm at v47 -- they have to go back to a65 to rearm.  To make it even, the axis rearm needs to be a7, not a8.  a8 for launch, a7 for rearm = v47 for launch and a65 for rearm.

[Devil 505]

You mean a7 and a8, correct?

I can't have a8 be the rearm or it is closer to Kasserine than a65.

For the Kasserine battle, I figure that it will be the allies launching from v47 and the allies launching from a8 -- both similar in distance to Kasserine.  Then, the allies can't rearm at v47 -- they have to go back to a65 to rearm.  To make it even, the axis rearm needs to be a7, not a8.  a8 for launch, a7 for rearm = v47 for launch and a65 for rearm.

Yes I means A7 and A8. I also meant A65 and not 95.   

Brooke, Kasserine is just one phase of 4 and A65 and A8 are targets for every phase. The relative travel distance discrepancy is almost 20 miles less for the Allies. No single phase exists in a vacuum. You can't set up a focus on one aspect of balance and ignore all the other imbalances it created and call it even - it's not. The only way to balance the Kasserine targets and maintain the overall balance is to ensure that the flight times/ distances are as close to even as possible. The map I made illustrates how far off the Kasserine battle is - and those distances did not change in AH3. It is clear that your choice to have 4 total Vbase targets down south will not work. You need to pick 2: V45 for the Axis to hit and either V104 or V46 for the Allies, while having A8 being available to the Axis to launch and rearm.

[Brooke]

pick 2: V45 for the Axis to hit and either V104 or V46 for the Allies, while having A8 being available to the Axis to launch and rearm.

That's a pretty good idea, and it gets me thinking.

I want to do what I can to make the Kasserine phase be attractive to fighting at Kasserine, especially for attack planes because they did a lot of sorties at Kasserine -- to make that phase fun and historical.

I think we can accomplish that by this method.  Keep the maps as they are for phases 1, 2, and 4 with axis having a8 and a66 as rearm pads (i.e., the closer rearm).  For phase 3, make the closer a8 a launch point, but the farther a7 as the rearm pad and the allied target (no longer having a8 as the allied target).  That balances everything for all phases, I think.

[LCADolby]

Why not keep it simple and allow no rearms. This would solve a balance issue and make it less complicated to control.

[swareiam]

We need rearms, but how are you going to enforce rearms at some bases and not at others?

[puller]

Re-arms at active bases yet let us tower out at any friendly field....

[LCADolby]

We need rearms

Why?

[swareiam]

Why?

Dolby,

Essentially, because there are some players that like the challenge of staying alive as long as they can in the same plane. It adds a more immersive feel to these events. You don't really want to take that away from players. We shouldn't want an event design where there is no possibility of not allowing flight in the same plane for the full event, if possible.

Towering to transition to another mission or sub-campaign is one thing, but killing the ability to rearm and reengage the enemy should persist throughout the event where we can allow .

Yes, it is certainly one of those areas that doesn't get much thought or attention by designers. But now that we are considering it, we should certainly keep this ability in play if it will not detract from the theme of the event.

What do you think?

[Beefcake]

Just to add on, IIRC some players in TFT flew the same plane 6-7 hours into the event. I remember one pilot said he flew to a rear field and taxied to a hanger and went to eat dinner just leaving his plane there.

As a bomber pilot I sometimes see this rearm thing as silly but whatever floats the boat.

[Brooke]

I'm not sure some will use rearms all that much, actually, like Dolby brings up.

But it doesn't hurt to have them in that case.  Also, bombers and attack aircraft and some fighters might welcome the ability for reasons I talk about below.

The reason I don't think some will use them is that the extra waiting for launch window and the extra time to get all the way back to a rearm will in a lot of cases be similar.  Consider if launching, climbing to alt, flying out to a combat area takes 20 minutes, patrolling 10 more, and getting in some fights for maybe 10 more minutes -- that all ads up to 40 minutes.  You can land quickly, wait a little, and relaunch with a fresh plane in 20 more minutes.  Or, you can fly farther back to a rearm pad, rearm (maybe 15 minutes to get there and rearm) and maybe be farther away from the action than one of the relaunch bases (maybe another 5 minutes out in comparison).  In that case, it's a wash.

However, there might be folks who go past the 1 hour mark -- longer bomber escorts, longer bomber missions, longer attack missions, what have you.  For those folks, getting back to anything they can land at might not be T+40 to T+60.  If it's, say, T+1 or T+20, they would likely want to rearm.

So, while I think not everyone will be using rearms, it doesn't hurt, and there might be some folks (depending on mission profile) who would welcome rearm ability.

[Brooke]

We need rearms, but how are you going to enforce rearms at some bases and not at others?

It will have to be player enforced -- I have no way to turn off rearm ability at bases.

[Devil 505]

It will require checking the logs I image to ensure any infractions are seen.