Scenario Development Milestones

[APDrone]

To separate this topic from the voting thread..

So let me lay this out again. We should be voting for the fall scenario. Look at your timeline.

1.vote
2.writeup
3.find COs
4.COs find GLs
5.Plan the event per side.

This setup is absolutely unfair to those folks who may step up as COs. The average pilot won't see this from thier seats. Your not giving enough time to advertise the event let the COs and GLs get thier groups together and actually get their people together to plan the event. Not even speaking on the issue of discrepancies in the event write up as far as aircraft and missions are concerned.

I dont follow why you would rush these events together and continue to either force experienced folks to take the reigns or burn prospective COs on their first attempts at a scenario.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

I don't know if the upcoming scenario has dates set or not, but assuming June 2 is frame 1, and assuming that voting for the scenario concludes 3/31, and assuming the write-up is ready to be immediatly published, that gives 8 weeks to set up leadership, register, recruit and plan before frame 1. 

Is that enough time?

If not.. how much time is really needed?

If the goal is to run 3 scenarios a year, that's 4 months per.. 3 months to develop and 1 to execute. So, realistically, you have, at most, 12 weeks ( maybe 13 ) after the last frame of 1 scenario before the first frame of the next one.

Personally, I think the voting for the next scenario can be conducted while the current scenario frames are active.  As far as getting the write-ups done, I would have a tough time demanding they be ready once the current scenario is completed, because it's a good bet the person doing the write-up is heavily involved in the current scenario. That can get to be a lot of time commitment to expect from a volunteer.

So..  How much time do we really need?

  

[BFOOT1]

Whenever we ran DGSII, I remember planning and recruiting beginning in May 2011, and the first frame wasn’t till October of that year. There was so much time given for recruitment, planning, and making sure we had a set write up well before the first frame was flown. I believe that we need two standard scenarios per year (spring and fall), and maybe a solid 12 hour scenario in the summer to fill the gap.

 

[Vudu15]

The writeup is the real issue that's where your time is at. Brookes writeup aren't ready out of the box and they should be looked over hard. But who will do that? Well first you need COs and if the writeup or times don't look good or they need to see if certain people will take GL and XO positions first then get back about the CO position that's less time to plan and ready yourself for the event. I think there should be only 2 events per year not 3. I want quality over quantity.

But to answer your question 6 months or so would be what I would like to see. For planning advertising and fixing the ad hoc writeup that gets first put out.

So lets say we are voting for the event now to happen in September or October.

You have till the end of April to vote end of April you have a writeup that folks can see and dates now prospective COs can look and see if they can/will lead the event. Then lets say end of May you have COs and those COs now have GLs for thier respective groups....now your ready to test Brookes writeup and mission set and begin haveing GLs hunt for people advertising for the event and groups and begins practice and mission planning around everyone's real life times. So its June and lets say you have your core of leadership for your side of the evnet you now have 5 months to plan and draw players and more GLs and those GLs now have time to get folks on board people can ask off and plan to fly in the event. Now I would have no issue getting a core of leaders together quickly but what about a brand new CO the extra time could give them plenty of time to get their team together AND still have time to meet and plan for the event. This is supposed to be fun not only for the average pilot but also for the leaders who step up to head thier prospective sides.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

[Brooke]

Folks tend to use up as much time as given, even if it is more than needed.  That is just human nature.

We have experimented over time on how many scenarios to run in a 12-month span.

3 events in a whole year isn't a fast pace, has been done many times before, and has worked fine.

[Vudu15]

Well I guess we'll just see what you and the history channel historian come up with...sad part is not enough folks saying no to em. The reason why is they dont have to plan em.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

[Brooke]

Well I guess we'll just see what you and the history channel historian come up with...

That's the spirit! 

[TWCAxew]

I still like 3 scenario's a year for what its worth. And with a preference of a 12 hour scenario in the summer.

4 months of planning should be enough, although i like the requiting page to be openend a bit more earlier than last time. It might help to prevent the preregistration issue we had.

Cheers,
DutchVII

[asterix]

....now your ready to test Brookes writeup and mission set and begin haveing GLs hunt for people advertising for the event and groups and begins practice and mission planning around everyone's real life times.

I don`t know anything about organizing a Scenario but what is there to test and practice? Considering how long these events have been running why it takes so long to plan few missions? Considering how many people want to fly historical planeset then 6 moths planning before they can do that seems a bit too much. How is FSO run every month? I think people try to thread the needle too much with planning and achieving maximum effectiveness. I have seen those who lead a flight loose control of their aircraft and/or forget to inform their squad because of teamspeak communication etc.

[Vudu15]

In the first option for an event he has Spit14 as one of the aircraft. Trying running a spit 14 for long range escort. That's where the practice comes in. The issue I have is the difference between a good scenario and an excellent scenario. Having the wrong aircraft performing a mission they aren't supposed to or just can't perform.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

[fuzeman]

How much time did they have back then to prepare for an Operation of this size?
 

[asterix]

In the first option for an event he has Spit14 as one of the aircraft. Trying running a spit 14 for long range escort. That's where the practice comes in. The issue I have is the difference between a good scenario and an excellent scenario. Having the wrong aircraft performing a mission they aren't supposed to or just can't perform.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

Ok I thought there is a database of reviewed events and we are voting what template to take next. So this is not the case? No past events are used, no Scenarios based on This day in WW2 events etc? New event completely from scratch?

[Vudu15]

Sometimes a layout may be similar but for the most part they are from scratch. So when you get plane sets missions active fields rules again have not been put together in that style so are put together with little to no oversight.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

[Vudu15]

I think that an idea would be to put the three voting options out and having 3 to 5 well known and respected guys/gals for their knowledge of aircraft and history overlook all 3 and come back with things that should be implemented for historical accuracy and fair play across both axis and allied teams.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

[asterix]

Thank you for the answers Vudu15, it has been a real eye opener. Much respect to all who make these things happen. 

[1ijac]

I have to agree about the plane set being even across Axis and Allies.  In the last scenario, the Allies were a bit crippled with the range that their fighters could function in comparison to the Axis fighters.  We made the best of it and battled through with what we were dealt.  Historical is all good and dandy, but all participants need to feel that they have an even playing field.

one-eye