Design discussion for Fjord Fury (June 2018 Scenario)

[Brooke]

I thought some more about radar range.

I think the axis should have more.  They had a lot more in Big Week and all the other Germany-related ones (because of flying over Germany).  Also, here, because there aren't axis fields in the sea, they don't have as much opportunity to up on the bombers' return from target, to hit them on the way back, compared to Big Week and those others.

For those reasons, I'd like to give the Germans max sector range -- 64 miles.

As for numbers, I think we are OK.  The ratios of things are all adjusted to be more friendly to bombers than they were in most strategic bombing scenarios with B-17's.

Which leaves:

-- Scoring seem OK?
-- Ship hardness seem OK?

[Hajo]

Guys to explain myself.  I'm not the kind of Old Guy who says Get Off my Lawn!   I've posted in The Flying Circus Bulletin Board about events in the past.  I posted info about the first Bomber Mission we had about a month ago also in our Forum.  Asked them to participate if they would.  I know Shamus is involved with FSO so that gives him good reason to forgo other events MA or otherwise.  In his case it is time investment.  The CMs' do a great job considering what they have for player numbers we now have in events.  Brooke, Nef, et al. have to be concerned about arena size, targets, map and the number of participants plus scoring.  I've seen many ideas about how we get more to participate.  If we could get most of them in a Scenario one time I think numbers would increase in the future.  Oboe and others have great ideas.  So, consider that FSO participants have limited time, or at least half of them to play the game.  Family time and other obligations have to be considered.  So for an event many FSO participants, FSO on weekends takes up the majority of their game time, which may leave out Scenario participation by them.  I'm searching for an answer.  I wish I had one.  So, rightly or wrongly never should a CM be blamed or criticized if a participant did not have fun.  The prime cause in my humble estimation is the lack of participation.  The lack of participants determines how they design, and it is limited by numbers.  The scope of a Scenario is limited now by lower numbers playing.

In my case I'm a History Junky.  It's my fault.  But please don't hold that against me.  I like accuracy.  That's just me.  Part of my, or should I say the major reason I participate is the history.  I'm not a fan of adding aircraft that weren't there to balance.  I'd rather see an increase of the aircraft that were there.  If it were accurate I would participate on the perceived weak planeset.  That's fun for me.  With a good leading CO the perceived weak "ride" could do just as well as the better planeset. I'm not a fan of air spawns.  But I do understand it in this situation.

Get the  word out for the next Scenario.  I'll bet some of the new players would enjoy it.  The 'Gamers" won't.   It's just not their style.  Announcing an upcoming Scenario as Oboe posted would be a start.  Maybe players that have not participated will start asking questions.  Who knows.  Summer participation on my part will be zero in Scenarios.  I've things to do that I can only enjoy during the warm months.  I wish I had an answer.  I'll keep thinking.  Problem is that makes my head hurt.

[Brooke]

I, too, think the best way to boost participation is getting the word out.

Most players do not visit the message board, and most of them don't know anything about special events.

Someone has to talk to them in the melee arena and convince them to give a scenario a try for them to find out about it.

[Bruv119]

Is it right to have 109 K4's?? 

Ok just read the whole thread,  guess we will just have to bring it.   As always.

[Vudu15]

I, too, think the best way to boost participation is getting the word out.

Most players do not visit the message board, and most of them don't know anything about special events.

Someone has to talk to them in the melee arena and convince them to give a scenario a try for them to find out about it.

Maybe if you had more time...like not doing 3 per year like I said before. I'm also for the historical aspect and fairness across the sides. A blind man can see why this one wont be very entertaining to some, the regular joe won't notice the difference. but you do you you.

Should be 51Bs and Ds with F4us escorting Lancs and Mossies as stand ins for Beaufighters ditch the Temps and Spits

Axis should be in 109G14s and 190A8s maybe some 110s IF they were in the area and D9s IF they were in the area no K4s or TA152s.

You have a very simple Axis fight. lift, scout, swarm. With no low alt targets you have only this silly bash your head against the wall fight where the bombers will be shredded.

Another issue I have is as the CM for the event you should not be a CO or GL as any and all decisions you make can appear biased/not make good tactical decisions because of your knowledge of the rule set. But again you write an event then GL a plane that you wrote in then between you and Redtail you guys will have a side setup and filled out even if that wouldn't be the choices of the CO of the side. You only see numbers per side and not the actual event. The Axis might cry a bit about not getting K4s but they get to know where the bad guys are coming from and what the targets are so WTH man. Then you say yeah well its getting the word out....really? really? If you took some more time drummed up people over time and formed good crews and gave people time to ask off from work and PLAN for the event, you would have a better event. Even if it was still just 30 to a side you would have a better time you would still have folks that have a bad time and folks that had the time of their life but its so important to run 3 per year that you forget the reason you're running these event THE HISTORY!

But this will not go anywhere but I wanted to put it out there.

You will air spawn form up and proceed in with no parameters to hold the Axis until an alert has been sounded they will have you scouted and shadowed this should be followed with a piecemeal attack to draw off fighters and bleed the bomber force then as you are closing to target the main force will attack and you will have serious losses then the fighters you fought piecemeal will trickle in to strike you on the way to the safe zone...with G14s you have a better chance of making it to target due to performance to even the fight make more B ponys vs D ponys due to the gun loadouts....but again you just see things your way I see the axis complaint has been a group name...anyway yall have fun storming the castle.

[Devil 505]

Another issue I have is as the CM for the event you should not be a CO or GL as any and all decisions you make can appear biased/not make good tactical decisions because of your knowledge of the rule set. But again you write an event then GL a plane that you wrote in then between you and Redtail you guys will have a side setup and filled out even if that wouldn't be the choices of the CO of the side.

I've been saying this since the 12hr Tunisia was being set up. It's also the main reason I am not participating in this event. This has been a problem for far too long.

[Guppy35]

I've been saying this since the 12hr Tunisia was being set up. It's also the main reason I am not participating in this event. This has been a problem for far too long.

If no one else steps up, what other option is there?   

I don't have an answer, just asking. 

I think it's a no win situation overall with scenarios right now.  When I was part of the design team we designed it, put it out and flew it.  We got ripped every which way about this that and the other thing when we did it that way.  Truth be told, it wasn't worth the pain, and I'm just an old cartoon pilot now.   

Brooke is doing it a different way, and he's getting ripped for it too.  I know I've grumbled about it, as it's not accurate enough historically for me.  So be it.  I'm going to pretend as best I can in a 315 Mustang III. 

Again I don't have an answer

[Devil 505]

If no one else steps up, what other option is there?   

I don't have an answer, just asking. 

That's why I've kept more or less quiet the Bbs about this specific issue until now.

Brooke is a good guy, but I have grown very disgruntled over how he manages his events. There have been too many below board decisions that he had made during his events and I can no longer support scenarios which are not held to maintaining transparency regarding decision making and design changes.

And this is not a problem exclusive to Brooke either. There are other event designers, past and present, that I have called out over similar shenanigans.

This is all I will say in public on this subject, as I do not want it to appear like I am attacking Brooke or trying to undermine the current scenario.

[KCDitto]

As the AXIS CM, it was decided that I be CO for axis due to the complaints about the short time frame.... Can't make everyone happy around here.

I am sorry if anyone does not want to fly in my first design as a CM, and I hope you change your mind and make a frame or 2. The balance between History and play-ability is a tough one. We had all these same points during our discussions.

[Hajo]

The bad part of this Scenario is 1.)  limited targets, easy to defend if you know where the enemy is going.  2.) On top of that the radar range has been extended.  So now you have a finite amount of targets, radar and you're defending a fjord!  Not to many ways anyone can get into that fjord to put eggs on ships nestled against a fjord wall.  That route will be limited.  This is a tough scenario for the attackers.  Axis CO will easily be able to defend.  I can't see any way that the loss of Lancasters won't be catastrophic in nature.  The Lancaster is the easiest Bomber to destroy in the game.  I hope my vision is wrong.  Otherwise you may have trouble finding Lancaster Pilots for the second frame. 

[Brooke]

Maybe if you had more time...

3 events per year leaves plenty of time.  It is not a stretch, and has worked fine many times in history.

Should be

What you describe is a different battle.  You like it better, but it's not what this one is.

You have a very simple Axis fight.

It is the same as Big Week, DGS, DGS II, BOG, and BOWL and most other strategic-bombing setups.  Lots of those were popular.  Complication doesn't greatly determine fun or even on how historical an event is.

Another issue I have is as the CM for the event you should not be

CM's generally are reliable, are good players, and treat people decently.  That's why they were picked to be CM's.  Because of that, when they are GL's or CO's (which has been the case frequently in history), on average other players are well satisfied with it.

Specifically regarding GL's, CO's have complete freedom to pick whomever they want as GL's.  CO's pick GL's whom they think will do a good job for their side -- that's all.

Specifically regarding CO's, Ditto is LW CO, and I am RAF CO.  Both of us are scenario CM's.  Both of us have been good CO's multiple times in the past.  We'll be doing our best, and I think we'll be good CO's here as well.

Then you say yeah well its getting the word out....really? really?

People have to get the word out because most players don't visit the message board and don't know what a special event is.  The only way they learn of it and try it out is for other players to talk to them about it.

you forget the reason you're running these event THE HISTORY!

Scenarios are about history -- but not just history.  They have to be balanced and fun (which is why almost no scenario is fully historical), and you need to make them available to people.  1-2 scenarios per year is fewer than what many people desire.

...with G14s you have a better chance of making it to target due to performance to even the fight make more B ponys vs D ponys due to the gun loadouts....

OK -- design recommendations finally.

You are recommending that we replace one group of K-4's with G-14's with gondolas, right?  I'd rather face K-4's than G-14's with gondolas.  Ditto wanted to turn one group of K-4's into G-14's with gondolas.  He was OK with my request to keep them K-4's.

You are recommending more P-51D's be turned into P-51B's due to gun loadouts?  That's goofy, so I suspect that's not it.  Or are you recommending that we add additional P-51B's, increasing the allied side size?

I'm hesitant to add more allied planes.  I'm concerned that if we have too many, the axis will have a very hard time because I've already adjusted the ratios of planes to be more friendly to the bombers than most of the past strategic-bombing scenarios.

Regardless, I would still do it if Ditto also thinks it's best.

Ditto, what do you think?

[Brooke]

When I was part of the design team we designed it, put it out and flew it.  We got ripped every which way about this that and the other thing when we did it that way.  Truth be told, it wasn't worth the pain, and I'm just an old cartoon pilot now.   

Brooke is doing it a different way, and he's getting ripped for it too.

 

Yep.

No matter what you do.
-- "OK, so we'll make this thing red."
-- Person A:  "Red!  Red?  Are you crazy?!  Everyone knows it'll be a disaster unless it is blue!  I hate you and your red!"
-- "OK, let's change it to blue."
-- Person B:  "Blue!  Blue?  Are you crazy?!  It's got to be red!  Everyone knows it should be red!  Way to cave in to the whiners who always want blue!  You s*ck and I hate you!"

Designing a scenario involves judgement, and not everyone has the same judgement.

All scenario players are my brothers because they love a thing I love.

I would like it if we brothers got along better, though. 

[Brooke]

Brooke is a good guy,

Yay! 

but

Awwww.   

There have been too many below board decisions that he had made during his events and I can no longer support scenarios which are not held to maintaining transparency regarding decision making and design changes.

I'm baffled.  I've increased transparency by infinity percent.

It used to be that the whole process was done in private by the CM's.  The public got to see what would run next once the final, unalterable design was revealed to them, and that was that.

I changed it so that players get to decide what the next scenario is.

I changed it so that players get to participate in the design process.  (Not all CM's were in favor of this because they thought it would devolve into a mess of argument.  They weren't completely wrong.)

I go to the trouble of doing surveys after scenarios, to let all players rate the scenario.  I compile the data and keep a record of it, so we have transparency on what players actually thought of every scenario.

I just want good scenarios, that people like, and a good scenario process.

Please let me know more specifics, because right now, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Brooke]

You are recommending more P-51D's be turned into P-51B's due to gun loadouts?  That's goofy, so I suspect that's not it.  Or are you recommending that we add additional P-51B's, increasing the allied side size?

I'm hesitant to add more allied planes.  I'm concerned that if we have too many, the axis will have a very hard time because I've already adjusted the ratios of planes to be more friendly to the bombers than most of the past strategic-bombing scenarios.

Regardless, I would still do it if Ditto also thinks it's best.

Ditto, what do you think?

Ditto, can you give your opinion on this?

[Brooke]

The Lancaster is the easiest Bomber to destroy in the game. 

Here's the only thing that worries me.  I've done lots of flying in scenarios in just about every bomber *except* the Lanc, so I don't have a great feel for Lancs.

Is the Lanc really that weak?  Is it easier to shoot down than a Ju 88, for example?

I flew 109K-4's against Lancs (and against P-51's, Spit 14's, and Tempests, among others) in The Final Battle, and Lancs didn't seem all that easy to shoot down.

If folks really think the allies have too weak a setup in this one, we can add some more allied fighters -- but I wouldn't get too crazy on it.

Compared to BW, DGS, DGSII, BOG, and BOWL, I did already alter the ratios of forces more strongly in favor of the bombers.