Scenarios. *sigh* The step-child of online WWII (and WWI) dog fighting MMO play since AW and AH came to be. Scenarios in both games have been designed by player volunteers that have poured blood, sweat, tears and time into such. Every individual seems to approach them from a different aspect (somewhat), players and designers alike. Granted, each has their own preferences when envisioning how they will play out (and designers tend to participate in their own scenarios and usually with their favorite toys - though there are examples of that not being the case). Over the years there have seemed to be unwritten (or even written) rules that define how scenarios should be designed. Any event that steps outside those rules is generally met with strong disapproval even before the event (scenario) is even tried. Well, that's my opinion from years of play and I admit it has probably changed some.
To that end, let us start with the seemingly obvious:
1. Events are limited to the aircraft, vehicles and ships available for play in Aces High.
https://www.hitechcreations.com/21-flight-sim/world-war-two-planes/49-planes-of-aces-highhttps://www.hitechcreations.com/10-flight-sim/world-war-two-vehicles/195-vehicles-of-aces-high(Plus boats, ships and player and auto AAA).
Some designers will designate some on that list as not fun or practical (but I think they just never found a solution or even that they may have bias).
In some instances a model may be re-skinned to represent an aircraft or vehicle not available in game inventory.
2. Events are limited to the terrains designed by players with a talent for such and the time to work on them.
3. Events are limited by the number of player able or willing to participate.
4. Events are limited by the host's server capacity (though I've yet to see that be a problem).
Those are the physical limitations I perceive and if I've left something out then I welcome someone who is willing to mention it doing so.
Here's where I deviate to finesse of design and the assumptions made to do so.
1. Fair. What is fair? All aircraft being as equally matched in ability and numbers as possible? This appears to be many a designer's bottom line. But why? Is a scenario the same as Checkers, Chess or Parcheesi? Were all battles in history fair from the outset? Did underdogs in battle manage to win? Did those who fought against 'insurmountable odds' and were on the losing side never manage to achieve outstanding accomplishments? Some may say that they shined specifically because of.
Having said that, of course scenario designers must contend with the perception and opinion of the players who might shy away from the design if they think of it as 'unfair.' Seems, as time trickled on, there's more of that. (Or maybe it is my aged and faulty memory conjuring up players that saw more of a challenge as their brand of fun.)
Now I'm not talking Sopwith Camels versus 262s or Emils versus Mustang Ds. Anything can be taken to an extreme. So can the design element of fair/balanced. No two aircraft in AH that are historical enemies have specifications that are identical, regarding speed, firepower, ceiling, damage or maneuverability. Most experienced players know that to make the most out of dog-fighting one must familiarize themselves with their and their opponent's craft strengths and weaknesses. Some, like me, are just happy to participate and anything that qualifies as an accomplishment is a cherry on top (air to air victories, structures bombed, interceptors chased or dragged off the bomber formation and even just surviving).
Design obviously should have some give and take (and yes, I've seen some of that before and during events but I think there's a bit too much of argument based on results when, honestly, flexible results should happen and overreaction should not). I'm of the opinion that every single aircraft or vehicle in the inventory can be used in a scenario and used effectively.
2. History. How many battles in history were planned by the generals or admirals to be even and fair? Well, none of them should be. If they were then that was an accident of fate. I'm about to be a participant in TFT Dieppe. That battle went horrifically wrong for the Allies. If the design was to be representative of history then the players on the Allied side should fail in their main objective. Granted, the capture of Dieppe is not even part of the design so the Allies 'winning' the battle is not so much a matter of changing that aspect but a point-war is. That seems as useful to me as points in the MA. If a player is interested in gathering points to prove they are better than other players then, well, OK. To me it's more of an experience thing. The adrenaline high, the sweaty palms, the fast heartbeat and breathing .... the 30 seconds of fear (simulated) amongst the 30 minutes to an hour of posturing for advantage.
Having something 100% historically authentic, though, is no more a realistic goal than having everything 100% fair. Give and take. Make the most of a possible uphill battle. Take on the guise of the brave Samurai fighter pilot, prepared to die for the Emperor when the war became obviously a lost cause. Be the Spitfire pilot that, though graced with a very fine machine, was outnumbered by German 109s and 190s. Victory becomes escaping virtual death.
Now, there's also the viewpoint that scenarios are not
reenactments. If you're into that then go buy some old historical uniforms and go out to old battlefields to entertain the masses on how the first or second Battle of Manassas/Bull Run was won (or lost). If a scenario design does offer some alternate history, then fine. D-Day failed or Midway or Germany's invasion of France. As long as the element of personal accomplishment isn't eliminated, entirely.
3. Fun. Since when has fun meant winning all the time? There are players that gravitate to playing Allied pilots (me) and players that gravitate to playing Axis pilots. But no player, imo, should fall trap to judging scenarios by a we/them attitude where Allies or Axis must win at all costs (this is where events tend to become an argument fest between frames because there was 'too much' winning or losing between favorite sides). There was a bit of Allied grumbling noticed after Arados seemed to much of an advantage in one scenario. But there was no player strike, as a result. So what. It makes for a modest design reconsideration for the future. Plenty still had fun on both sides.
Basically, don't get stuck in a 'must win' attitude or walking away from events. This ain't football or baseball.
Nobody can force other players to take on a brave underdog persona. That will always force scenario designers to seek a degree of balance. I just don't think overreaction based on little pockets of bias should affect scenario design too much. Trying something and it not turning out to be a 100% success (or even 75% .... heck, 50% or less - in one's opinion) should never result in any one model in AH cast to the ash heap.
