Why Scaled Down Maps?

[funkedup]

Why not 1:1 scale maps?  256 x 256 is more than enough room for any air battle in WW2 that involved the numbers of planes we have.

Why do we always have scaled down maps with scaled down units?  8-12 planes (a squadron) pretending to be a Fighter Group, 20 LVTs representing an Army, etc.

It's like simulating the Civil War wit a Rogue Spear pistol duel between Grant and Lee.  Grant fires wildly!  Lee crouches behind the Applachians.  Grant's out of ammo, now he's running for the Rockies.  He's behind the Rockies reloading.  But HERE COMES Lee.  Grant gets the clip in BUT IT'S TOO LATE.  Lee scores a head shot, REBELS WIN!!!

What's wrong with recreating an air battle in 1:1 scale both spatially and numerically?

Just wonderin'

[Esme]

Time, numbers, and preferences, I suspect.

Taking the last first, through most of WW2 there were far more bombers than fighters in action....

With regard to numbers, the scale (number of planes involved) of the action itself comes into it.  If we were to try to refight the fiercest parts of the Battle of Britain, for example, we'd need about 2,000 pilots

Time, ah, time... :-)
- for one thing, not many folk are like myself and actually LIKE flying a bomber for three or four hours on a single raid (and some real-life raids lasted more like 10 hours; some ocean patrol planes could stay up for the better part of an entire day, and sometimes did)
- so we limit our action to what can be squeezd into 2-3 hours, say. Which means a maximum of 60-90 minutes flying time to target for bombers, or about 200-300 miles.  I can cover 100 miles just climbing to a reasonable altitude...

I like 1:1 terrains myself, but I can see why scaled terrains may be more practical to enable things like bombing raids to Berlin from East Anglia to be staged.  I personally think the happy medium lies somewhere in the range 1/2 scale to full scale terrain. I relly dislike having terrain much smaller than that. And I like extensive terrain - my only serious criticism of the new BoB terrain, for instance, is that it would IMO be better if it was bigger across and covered a physically bigger part of the world.

But then, I havent tried building a terrain yet, so bedamned if I'm goin to be too critical until I've had a go myself...

Just my two penn'orth...  :-)

Esme

[funkedup]

Numbers - No need for 2000 planes.  There are countless accounts of smaller engagements involving ~100 planes on each side, even during larger battles with thousands of planes involved.  Why not use a historical order of battle and simulate those smaller engagements, instead of using absurd unit sizes to re-enact a larger battle that we don't have enough planes for?

Time - If we want shorter missions, there are other ways to accomplish this than shrinking the map and jacking up the fuel multiplier.  

No need to simulate long hours of flying to and from target.  Let's just simulate the combat itself.  Pick the most interesting 2 hours of a typical mission and simulate that part and that part only.

If we want bombers over the Reich, just build a 1:1 map of a target area somewhere in Germany.  Add to the 1:1 map some fantasy bomber fields on the western edge, at an altitude of 20,000 feet or so.  The bomber fields would be about 1 hour (~200 miles) from the target zone.  The map is historical 1:1 map except for the bomber fields.  Make the sectors of those fields off limits to Axis pilots and make them well out of Axis radar range.  Let the bombers climb in those sectors and then move into the combat area when they are ready.  

And with this type of setup there is no need to use an unrealistic fuel multiplier.  Estimate how much fuel the bombers would have remaining in real life when they were about 1 hour from their targets, and limit their initial fuel load in the game accordingly.

We don't have to have scenarios that compromise the authenticity of the combat in order to meet a 2 hour time limit and have a clipboard map view that looks pretty.  I think it's possible to have authentic combat AND deal with our time and numbers constraints.

[Aub]

1:1 maps are viable for SOME engagements: not all. What your proposing is we cut out alot of the freedom abilities for COs.

Let's use your Germany scenario for instance. The Axis already KNOW where they're coming from, with little ability. As the Allied CO, I can only move my bombers to enter into about 5 sectors, where if the whole continent was available, id have about 50. I could enter from Normandy, Calais, Holland, or Norway.

What it does is set up an easy massacre for the bombers. True, scenarios such as that are ALWAYS massacres, but at least the CO had some freedom on where to implant them.

It's really really hard to find battles that had suitable numbers. Hell, it was rare that more than 20-30 planes would hook up at once, except for the notable battles: Midway, Kursk, BoB...

Scenarios wouldnt be scenarios: They'd be bloody re-enactments. 'Today we're going to simulate the battle that 50 Zekes met 50 F6Fs over Guadalcanal. The objective is not to get shot down. Fight'

What your suggesting is more of a TOD. What you sound like you want is EXACTLY what the TOD does.

Scenarios are meant to be a chance to defy history, change the order of battle. If Rommel sent these 100 Stukas in first and got massacred, why do I want to do the same? I'm going to rewrite his plan, and WIN!

Scenarios are not and can never be reenactments, no way-no how. No one would ever fly for the losing side. Hell, we have enough trouble finding bomber pilots, and they KNOW theyre going to die. Scenarios have on objective: WIN. Win at all cost, defy history. Try to lead the Russians into victory over the Germans in Kursk 1. Lead the Germans into the obliteration of the RAF in BoB.

1:1 is viable for some scenarios, ones contained on a small area. Most however, require that we give the other side a shot to choose a different flight path. Otherwise, scenarios become predictable, and bland.

This is of course, all IMO.

[funkedup]

Let's use your Germany scenario for instance. The Axis already KNOW where they're coming from, with little ability. As the Allied CO, I can only move my bombers to enter into about 5 sectors, where if the whole continent was available, id have about 50. I could enter from Normandy, Calais, Holland, or Norway.

Well most JGs knew bloody well where the bombers were coming from 60 minutes before they made contact.

What it does is set up an easy massacre for the bombers. True, scenarios such as that are ALWAYS massacres, but at least the CO had some freedom on where to implant them.

Well do we want to simulate milk runs or do we want to simulate air combat?  If the bombers have no chance then increase the ratio of escorts to interceptors until they have a chance.

It's really really hard to find battles that had suitable numbers. Hell, it was rare that more than 20-30 planes would hook up at once, except for the notable battles: Midway, Kursk, BoB...

There were engagements all over Europe and the Ostfront with such numbers.  Hell 30 planes was the MINIMUM size for 8th AF fighter units.

Scenarios are meant to be a chance to defy history, change the order of battle. If Rommel sent these 100 Stukas in first and got massacred, why do I want to do the same? I'm going to rewrite his plan, and WIN!

Well I guess we have to agree to disagree.  I think trying to simulate theater-wide decision-making in a 2-hour battle between ~100 pilots on each side is silly.  See my Grant vs. Lee analogy.

Why not focus on the actual decisions and tactics that fighter and bomber commanders in the field actually dealt with?  There are great opportunities for tactical creativity in that paradigm.  How do you think guys like Zemke or Galland or Bader made their names?  

But instead we have these theater level scenarios and the focus is on being Rommel or Eisenhower, and the real air tactics of WW2 are ignored.  I'm thinking particularly of Big Week, where both sides were so busy trying to be smart that they completely ignored things like creating bomber boxes or Gruppe tactics and Fighter Group tactics.

1:1 is viable for some scenarios, ones contained on a small area. Most however, require that we give the other side a shot to choose a different flight path. Otherwise, scenarios become predictable, and bland.

I don't propose to put any restrictions on flight paths.  There can always be multiple start bases and multiple targets in order to get a little bit of a "shell game" effect.  Some of the TOD CMs are artists when it comes to that sort of thing.  

And remember that I was just talking about 8th AF bomber missions because Esme brought it up.  That's probably the least suitable type of mission for 1:1 terrain.  If we are talking about a frontal type scenario with close air support, then 1:1 is even more attractive, because there were many areas in WW2 where flying times fell within our 2 hour round trip requirements.  

Cheers

Mike

[Aub]

Let me get your opinion on this:

How could we do a 1:1 with a battle such as... Midway? In truth, the fleets were so far apart at times, it may turn into a no-sight scenario.

[Aub]

Also meant to say this too

Oh, and I agree, Fighter/Bomber group decisions are VERY good assets in scenarios. I usually give my GLs when I'm a CO orders that say 'Accomplish this by end of frame.' I leave it up to them to decide how to do it.

By the third frame rolls around, usually the groups are self-dependant on one another, cutting out the CO and XO almost entirely from briefing updates.

I LOVE scenarios like that. It gives more immersion from the GL perspective, and the CO. Instead of a GL radiong back every five minutes "What do I do now?" they can reason from the things around them and they act on that.

It's possible in EVERY scenario. It just depends on rules and the command style of the CO. Some like to micromanage, some like to relax (like me).

[funkedup]

I would handle Midway by forcing an engagement to happen.  I.e. pick the most exciting 2 hours of the Midway battle, set up those initial conditions in the SEA, and see what each side can do with it.  That's what I would do if I was a CM instead of a lazy bastard who gives the CMs a hard time.  

[skernsk]

Keep in mind Funked that when you are setting up Midway you need to spread it our over 4 frames and keep some sort of objective throughout.  If we do it your way the event ends up being one frame.

The reason I like TOD's so much is that there are fewer boundaries and historical aspects that I have to follow.  I write up an event with as much research as I have time for and I try to get several different sources.

When it come to the event I start you with a terrain, planset and active fields.

Then I throw the history book away and try and find objectives that are balanced and achievable.  It is hard to do this and keep the event immersive and entertaining every Frame.

When you talk about how squads fly do you want more rules, regulations on what squads do?  Fly in Vic if you are RAF in 1940, Fly in boxes if you are a bomber?

[Nefarious]

Originally posted by Aub
Let me get your opinion on this:

How could we do a 1:1 with a battle such as... Midway? In truth, the fleets were so far apart at times, it may turn into a no-sight scenario.

Thats what happened some times though, I've been flying TOD's for a while and i've had a few instances where I saw no enemy action.

Of course I got frustrated. But then in other TOD's I've engaged 20+ enemy a/c. And then I'm wishin for a no-action sortie.

That's what makes TOD's GREAT!

[funkedup]

Skernsk I would just repeat the same great 2 hours each frame.  
After Frame 2 everybody would switch sides.

I don't want rules about formations and stuff.  Just objectives that lend themselves to using some historical unit sizes and tactics, not splitting up all over the map.  E.g. if we have 30-40 8th AF fighters they would be flying as a single FG, not forced to spread over 200 miles of airspace by multiple objectives.  I guess that might run into 32-plane limit problems though.  Doh.  

[skernsk]

Originally posted by funkedup
Skernsk I would just repeat the same great 2 hours each frame.  
After Frame 2 everybody would switch sides.

Ahh..I see.  

I don't want rules about formations and stuff.  Just objectives that lend themselves to using some historical unit sizes and tactics, not splitting up all over the map.  E.g. if we have 30-40 8th AF fighters they would be flying as a single FG, not forced to spread over 200 miles of airspace by multiple objectives.  I guess that might run into 32-plane limit problems though.  Doh.  

Exactly the problem Funked.  We have already run into problems in both the TOD's and the Big Scenario's.  How the event is flown is left up to the individial or the squad CO/XO.  I don't know how we could change that, keep thinking though and if you have any ideas let us know.

[Wotan]

I agree with funked but am unsure how it would work.

In midway I honestly dont see how you can stretch it for 4 frames.

In big week being an axis pilot i would have loved to see formations with the lw gefechtsverband's engaging b17s stacked in boxes. But the focus was placed else where.

As a necessity my squad of 10 (we only mustered 8 most of the time) were split into 4s. Because of the lack of buff formations I had a field day.

How do you order folks to fly formation? how do you enforce it?

I would leave that to the cos. But imho in would be easier to divide up the squads and place them under command of a single guy.

Take bw fer example I would have split the lw up into 3 gefechtsverband's (N center s) each with its own leader and made up of a mix of aircraft. The co would then would vector and direct the gefechtsverband's but allow the leader to direct the attacks.

For the allies I would have grouped the buffs some what the same way.

1 to 1 terrains with a "command structure" (not just a side co) may be worth attempting. But the focus of events should be combat. Not "getting over" or sneaking a point win.

But to have "squadron size flights" we need to have the SEA numbers expanded.

[Wanker]

The next scenario will be held on the 1:1 ETO terrain.  

[funkedup]

The next scenario will be held on the 1:1 ETO terrain.

Cool!
I'll still find something to whine about though!!!