Please rate "Tunisia 1943" scenario

[Brooke]

So, how was "Tunisia 1943"?

If you played in it, please rate this scenario by giving it a number in the range of -5 (absolutely hated it), to 0 (could take it or leave it), to +5 (absolutely loved it).

[Beefcake]

Overall I would give it about a 4. There are minor things that might need to be worked on but overall I enjoyed it for the most part. I had to take 1 point off because I felt like I flew a goon into a furball for 12 hours which did get somewhat tedious around the 6 and 12 hour mark but I kept with it.

[Randy1]

+4 would have been a +5 if it started an hour earlier.

[GScholz]

+4.5 

[puller]

+5

It would have only been better if it was the 12Hr Battle of Britain...

I also hope the people that this was their first 12 hour scenario realize the validity of this format...

There was no lack of fights...the flight windows on the hour are the greatest thing since pocket on a shirt...always plenty of time to eat, drink, stretch legs before its time to strap back in...

There is just no way that I can commit for 3 or 4 Saturdays in a month anymore...even with 1 12 hour scenario I was called out by someone with no water about halfway through the thing 

I like the 4 frame scenarios but I think there is nothing better than having the whole scenario in one day...

Hey maybe we should try an 8 hour scenario with 4 2 hour frames...or maybe a 6 hour scenario with 6 targets of which one must be hit every hour...I'm just afraid it is easier for the working players to get one day off than an entire month of Saturdays

[Hajo]

0   I posted my thoughts already in other topics.  First one I felt that way.  Format of 12 hours needs work.  Launch times interrupt the scenario. Landing when launch window closed etc.

One gets penalized for being successful.  To much tower time.  Bombers in middle of their mission rtb etc.  Way to much tower time sitting for a launch window.  Up to 45 minutes in an hour.

Do the math.  Ruins immersion imho which is why I register for scenarios.  Wait!  You have to land!  Don't complete your mission.....if you do you won't be able to launch for the next one

when launch window closes.  Somehow in real life JG/11 and the 56th FG in real life wouldn't appreciate this.  I'm more then sure the 100th Bomb Group wouldn't either.

IMHO 12 hour format needs a lot of work.  It killed the scenario for me.  Please remember this is just my opinion it does in no way reflect on others.  More realistic with a two plane life

in 3 hours.  This is not sour grapes on my part, this is just my observation.  Wayyyyyyyyyy to much wasted time in a 12 hour period.  Boring and not realistic.

[KCDitto]

Problem with a two life event, no body left for the last hour

[Dantoo]

+4 would have been a +5 if it started 4 hours later.

FTFY 

[Hajo]

Problem with a two life event, no body left for the last hour

That Sir is the challenge and more realistic.  It can be made 3 lives and not relegated hourly.  Take off should be open.  When you lose a life and/or a plane either one.

If we were in the tower we would wait for others to wing with, or if close to the action upped right away.  In the 12 hour scenario we got 12 lives.   

This is more of a MA based event then an actual air battle in History.  Again just my opinion which in the scheme of things is not that important.

[KCDitto]

I have been the AXIS CO for 3 different scenarios. They were all different in lives as well.

From MY experience the launch windows works best for attendance and the 12 hour format works best for all time zones. You do not have to fly the entire day, I did, but you don't.

When you have walk-on with a limited number of lives, as a CO, you just cannot manage that. Like the Pearl Harbor event when we had a number of planes. That was impossible to manage.

I have said it many times, I like the 12 hour format and I like not having to worry about how many times a guy has died.

The one that really was tough to manage was the BOB where we could rescue guys..... HOLY SHI IET That was crazy.

[puller]

Having to manage the number of planes a player uses in an event is a huge PITA 

2 life events don't have anyone flying in the last hour...Ditto is right on both of these...

...and then you get people who lose both lives fast in the first frame and don't show up for the remaining frames and you are down pilots...

Your never gonna make everyone happy... But as I said...you want to draw people to these things...we must start making these more available and playable to more people or there will be just us few left...once we get more than 100 players in every event then you can start with more realism...more restrictions... Less availability as in having to dedicate 3 or 4 Saturdays out of a month...

Maybe someone could come up with a spin of the latest AVA war with scenario like qualities... With 2 bases to capture for each side during the event...the team the captures and holds the enemy bases at the end of a 3 or 4 hour frame wins that frame...

[Hajo]

Ditto and Puller good points.  However limiting the targets to attack and letting the enemy know the fields and ships that are to be attacked again imho is unrealistic and the timeframe in which

these targets are to be attacked is unrealistic.  I'm sure when bombers upped from their fields in Great Britain they didn't call Germany and tell them where they will be attacking and at which time

the attack would come. Targets again imho should be based on how important they were to the enemies war machine and be hit in no particular order.  These bits of information were kept secret for a reason.

 Again this is just my opinion and I'm not here to throw a wrench into the entire works I hope to be of help.  Scenarios are Aces Highs' last bastion of any chance at any virtual realism and immersion.  Scenarios are starting to become

akin to changing the rules in the NFL so receivers can have more leeway to get open down the field.  In essence flag football.  To me we are losing the Scenario format of being a historical battle.

To me it's become a historical battle in name only, flown over a well made map thanks to the map builders.  We should have multiple targets and enough of them to keep your enemy guessing.

Where will they hit?  Will they have a fighter sweep ahead of them?  Now we have limited targets, the targets are identified to both sides and the time frame in which they have to be hit.

I salute Brooke for all his hard work and also salute all those who CO a side or leaders of Bombardment Groups and Fighter Groups.  Again I'm not trying to influence anyone's' thoughts on the matter.

Scenarios unfortunately are becoming a matter of quick results in order to get people to attend.  In real air to air combat it was scouting, communicating and then white knuckled combat.

I ask again to not think of my points of view as being detrimental but of being of help to get virtual realism back into the last bastion we have to do this.  Thanks for reading and putting up with

my long winded critiques on the matter.  Of course you do not have to agree.

[GScholz]

... the launch windows works best for attendance and the 12 hour format works best for all time zones.

I agree completely. I'm in Norway and here the scenario started at 1800 hours (6 pm). I was able to put in 7+ hours. The launch windows allowed me to get out of my chair and do other stuff (like eat) periodically when I had been shot down or landed early. The whole thing worked really well for me, and I got the impression it worked well for others as well. HiTech even sang Wagner for us. What more do you want?

[LCADolby]

4

[Molsman]

4.5 I had a good time playing except last 7 hrs due to technical flying issues. But at least the 911 gods did not send me out on any 911 calls and when I was done flying I slept the rest of the night . What a night payed to play Aces 3 at work