Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Special Events General => Topic started by: Hajo on October 24, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
-
History....or lack therof. Some of us who thrive on special events would like to have a chance of getting
a planeset filled. I know the MA is where the money is at. But I've also noticed the numbers falling
in FSO and Scenarios. No support. We get a B29....LOL. Hey...guess that is democracy in action.
I guess I'm in the minority......I guess first person shooters prevail today, even in so called flight sims.
I am disappointed to say that we who do like historic events are in the minority.
That's why we don't get aircraft like the Beaufighter and He111. We get the B29, Yak3 or Me 410 or Meteor ferchrisakes.
Unfortunately that is why I've given up on special events. No support. Notice MA numbers down also. Could be economy
or just letting the game become another first person shooter. Not my call though, majority and popularity bring home the bucks.
One mans opinion of course.
-
i take it you have a bit of a gripe about the glaring holes in the planeset...specifically the early war. unfortunately the 10% who agree aren't enough to change the mentality of the other 90%.
-
History....or lack therof. Some of us who thrive on special events would like to have a chance of getting
a planeset filled. I know the MA is where the money is at. But I've also noticed the numbers falling
in FSO and Scenarios. No support. We get a B29....LOL. Hey...guess that is democracy in action.
I guess I'm in the minority......I guess first person shooters prevail today, even in so called flight sims.
I am disappointed to say that we who do like historic events are in the minority.
That's why we don't get aircraft like the Beaufighter and He111. We get the B29, Yak3 or Me 410 or Meteor ferchrisakes.
Unfortunately that is why I've given up on special events. No support. Notice MA numbers down also. Could be economy
or just letting the game become another first person shooter. Not my call though, majority and popularity bring home the bucks.
One mans opinion of course.
Hajo,
I agree with you to a certain degree. Knowing that Hitech must pay the bills just like the rest of us. Their resource planning and management must be a bit more targetted than just accommodating a popular whim. But, there must be away to seperate the two, one being the popular ride request and two being the historical planeset buildout. I am not pretending to have all the answers. But, I am recognizing your request has great merit.
Also, I hope that you didn't mean that special events is not getting the support from its patrons. The current scenario "ECA" has current participation set at 99% for the Allies and 93% for the Axis. That is great support and following if you ask me.
Grab one of the last seats. You won't be disappointed.
Cheers...
:salute
-
Gyrene yes I am disappointed. Not by one instance but by many. My history. I've been involved almost
20 years...maybe more...memory gone. I participated in AW in the early 90s when this was new.
The history of the airwar and the pilots drew me to flight simming then (as well as the aircraft)
If you've been around this game as long as I have you would notice a significant drop in numbers.
Why? My theory.....this is nothing now but a first person shooter using WWII aircraft and tanks
as weapons as opposed to lasers etc. There is no history involved in the MA which is nothing more
then a full melee arena to be found in quake or Doom. Scenarios are and were the last hope of having
some true immersion. Numbers down in scenarios too. Why? First person shooter fans want nothing to
do with immersion, planning and executing by plan. They want the lastest greatest that can kill and get points
as fast as they can. Sims involve and require immersion. This is not a sim. It has become a first person shooter.
When a new first person shooter comes out....they will gravitate there until they get bored with that.
First person shooter gratification is only temporary. Numbers have decreased here. Boredom?
In my case yes...and I'll bet in many other cases also.
And sweariam.....wait till you see of the registered how many actually show up.
Been there done that.
-
I haven't seen that much of a change in scenario participation except for Coral Sea 2011, but I think that was because we tried to run too many scenarios in one year (4 instead of 2-3 -- it was too many).
Historical participation in scenarios, showing both # of registered players and the # of players actually playing is as follows. The average is about 150-200 players (except for late-war 8th AF, which is typically about twice as popular as that).
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/scenarioPlayerAndRegNumbers.png)
In the upcoming scenario, Enemy Coast Ahead, the planes we want are in the scenario. We don't have anything like Ju 88's substituting for He 111's or Zeros substituting for Ki-43's.
Hajo, you need to play in it, you curmudgeon! :)
-
Brooke my friend CMS do a helluva lot of work to put these Scenarios together. The map makers are incredible.
The designers work very hard and do a thankless job. Not to mention you paint a picture with the needed
colors to complete it not available most times. You good folks are appreciated very much by me. And by
many others. It's been what 12 years now here at Aces High? the flight models are the best I've seen for
flight simming.......the artwork is great........I just wish the scenario people would get an aircraft other then
the latest greatest for events. It would make the scenarios so much more immersive specially early war and
the Med. The B25 was a great addition for events....the straffer for Island hoppingwould be fun etc. in the
Pacific campaigns. IMHO planesets filled for scenarios would make them more attractive.
-
Thank you, Hajo. We want you flying in Enemy Coast Ahead, you know. :)
My wishlist for planes:
He 111 (Important for Battle of Britain)
Yak 1 (For Eastern Front)
D4Y (Most-produced Japanese dive bomber, taking over for early-war D3A)
B6N (Most-produced Japanese torpedo bomber, taking over for the early-war B5N)
Pe-2 (Most-produced Soviet attack plane other than Il-2, for Eastern Front)
TBD (important for Battle of Coral Sea)
Ki-43 (historically important Japanese fighter)
Beaufighter (would be a very fun plane in scenarios, I think)
-
i'd like to see some early war migs and laggs...especially for eastern front setups.
-
The largest production of the earlier-war Soviet planes in order were: Yak-1, LaGG-3, then Mig 3. Of the three, the Mig 3 is at a huge disadvantage because of its underpowered guns.
Yak-1, 8720
Yak-7, 6339
LaGG-3, 6258
La-7, 5753
P-39, 5007 (from US)
Yak-3, 4848
MiG-3, 3120
-
Can you through the Curtiss P-36C Hawk in there.
- Battle of France
- North Africa
(http://www.aero-web.org/database/aircraft/showimage.php?id=7298)
Cheers...
-
For very early stuff, a Hawk and a D.520 would be nice. We could do Operation Torch as a scenario.
I run Operation Torch as a "This Day in WWII" event on its anniversary on November 8 -- so, coming up. I use P-40C as the Hawk and Bf 109E as the D.520.
-
IMO, if you would actually add some GV's, you could get some more registered. Its a lot easier to glorify a blitzkrieg across northern france, or Russia, than it is to glorify the aerial wars fought over each of the ground offensive.
-
For very early stuff, a Hawk and a D.520 would be nice. We could do Operation Torch as a scenario.
I run Operation Torch as a "This Day in WWII" event on its anniversary on November 8 -- so, coming up. I use P-40C as the Hawk and Bf 109E as the D.520.
Hey Brooke,
Check out the Macchi 202 as a replacement for the D.520. The specs are pretty close. I know... No canon on the C202, but the two 12.7 mm will make up for the single 20mm on Dewoitine. :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Macchi_C.202_at_Dayton.jpg/300px-Macchi_C.202_at_Dayton.jpg)
:salute
-
IMO, if you would actually add some GV's, you could get some more registered. Its a lot easier to glorify a blitzkrieg across northern france, or Russia, than it is to glorify the aerial wars fought over each of the ground offensive.
:huh
-
IMO, if you would actually add some GV's, you could get some more registered. Its a lot easier to glorify a blitzkrieg across northern france, or Russia, than it is to glorify the aerial wars fought over each of the ground offensive.
uhhh, yyyeeeaaaaahhh riiiiight...you weren't in the last scenario with tanks were you? it ended in a massive whinefest, seems tankers don't think they should have bombs dropped on them. and i hate to drop urine on your pipe dream but, there aren't enough people that want to participate in a single life gv event with limited choices.
-
Bombs, no. too accurate. I would be fine with strafers since you have SOME chance to kill them.
-
Hey Brooke,
Check out the Macchi 202 as a replacement for the D.520. The specs are pretty close. I know... No canon on the C202, but the two 12.7 mm will make up for the single 20mm on Demoitine. :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Macchi_C.202_at_Dayton.jpg/300px-Macchi_C.202_at_Dayton.jpg)
:salute
Interesting. Maybe I should put in both the C.202 and the 109E (since neither one is a perfect match for D.520).
-
Interesting. Maybe I should put in both the C.202 and the 109E (since neither one is a perfect match for D.520).
This is true... :cheers:
-
Bombs, no. too accurate. I would be fine with strafers since you have SOME chance to kill them.
Scenarios are kind of like fun reenactments of actual events.
Actually, real bombs that were accurately dropped were a part of the original events. So...
We tried dropping "real bombs" and the tankers cried because they died. Then...
We tried dropping water balloons, and the tankers cried because they got wet. Next...
We tried dropping confetti, and the tankers cried because their tanks bogged down in the paper. After that...
We tried dropping kisses, and the tankers cried because we wore the wrong color lipstick. Finally...
We tried dropping hints about never having a major GV event and the tankers cried because they couldn't have tanks.
We have truly tried using vehicles in battles with only straffer aircraft allowed to in on them. That was also a fiasco.
Having "been there and done that" in several scenarios, it was thought best by a large majority of the players who regularly play in scenarios to semi ignore the ground side of most battles, and that is where we stand today on the issue of adding a major ground element to any scenario currently on the drawing board.
-
Sorry, no.
Problem is not with the GV'ers. If you want to bomb GV's, you'll probably have to put up with 5 lives per tank or so. If not, then use a straffer aircraft, and accept that part of the fun is having a challenge.
GV'ers signed up to fight other GV's, not hug hills and hope the bombs miss.
IMO, for air support with bombs to work (even with 5 lives per tank, that being for the entire 2-3 hr scenario), the fighters MUST be kept unware of the location of the GV fight untill they are needed, or they are unable to lift untill they are called. One or the other, if not both.
Both would be the most realistic.
Aircraft couldn't have won the war without soldiers to hold the ground, but the inverse isn't true. The soldiers on the ground wouldn't be unable to win the war if there were no aircraft. Its not at all unfair to tailor that specific part of the event so that its playable for both sides.
-
Its not at all unfair to tailor that specific part of the event so that its playable for both sides.
the only thing you got right is that it is not unfair to tailor the ground war so that it's playable for both sides...problem is, it's not fun for the other 90% of the players. the only way the 40 tankers interested in a scenario would be happy is if they had their own little corner of the map to play on while everyone else did their thing in the sky. waste of time and effort for the cm's to monitor.
-
Not true. 9-10 of those would fit your description, but the rest would be fine with Il-2's, B-25H's/Hurricane IID's, and an Hs 129 or Ju-87G-2 if we had it. But only about 5-10 would be fine with unrestricted bombing.
Reason is they actually have a fighting chance against straffer aircraft. I've actually killed Il-2's in my M3, and I think I've even gotten one with the SdKfz.
But if you want the aircraft to be able to affect the GV fight, then you have to give them the same power in return.
If the GV's take their objectives for the frame, the front is moved up, aircraft basings must be changed, etc.
This would give the flyboys a greater incentive to shoot down the enemy straffer aircraft, and protect their own. Bombers might have a shot at 3 runs per frame if the GV's do well enough, while theirs might be pushed far enough back so that only 1 run is feasible.
-
Sorry, no.
Problem is not with the GV'ers. If you want to bomb GV's, you'll probably have to put up with 5 lives per tank or so. If not, then use a straffer aircraft, and accept that part of the fun is having a challenge.
GV'ers signed up to fight other GV's, not hug hills and hope the bombs miss.
IMO, for air support with bombs to work (even with 5 lives per tank, that being for the entire 2-3 hr scenario), the fighters MUST be kept unware of the location of the GV fight untill they are needed, or they are unable to lift untill they are called. One or the other, if not both.
Both would be the most realistic.
Aircraft couldn't have won the war without soldiers to hold the ground, but the inverse isn't true. The soldiers on the ground wouldn't be unable to win the war if there were no aircraft. Its not at all unfair to tailor that specific part of the event so that its playable for both sides.
:huh :headscratch:
Dude,
Their right... We tried it. It was a fiasco. Let that dead dog stay dead. :bhead
-
Tank-Ace, you really have no business arguing Scenario participation with these guys.
-
Tank-ace, the good news is that, based on our experience trying all of those things already is that we have some other ways to proceed that we think will satisify most people. I think it is to have scenarios with GV's where either (1) everyone gets some aircraft lives and some GV lives, and air attack of GV's is allowed or (2) people can sign up specifically for GV spots and stay in GV's, but the GV battle is completely separate from the air battle.
-
Gyrene yes I am disappointed. Not by one instance but by many. My history. I've been involved almost
20 years...maybe more...memory gone. I participated in AW in the early 90s when this was new.
The history of the airwar and the pilots drew me to flight simming then (as well as the aircraft)
If you've been around this game as long as I have you would notice a significant drop in numbers.
Why? My theory.....this is nothing now but a first person shooter using WWII aircraft and tanks
as weapons as opposed to lasers etc. There is no history involved in the MA which is nothing more
then a full melee arena to be found in quake or Doom. Scenarios are and were the last hope of having
some true immersion. Numbers down in scenarios too. Why? First person shooter fans want nothing to
do with immersion, planning and executing by plan. They want the lastest greatest that can kill and get points
as fast as they can. Sims involve and require immersion. This is not a sim. It has become a first person shooter.
When a new first person shooter comes out....they will gravitate there until they get bored with that.
First person shooter gratification is only temporary. Numbers have decreased here. Boredom?
In my case yes...and I'll bet in many other cases also.
And sweariam.....wait till you see of the registered how many actually show up.
Been there done that.
Hajo,
What is your opinion on the AvA? I'm more drawn to that more realistic environment, but for some reason there are never very many people there when I log on. Since my AH time is so limited (and my squad is more MA-oriented, than any other arena ('cept for Shuff in the MidWar) I end of flying in the MA.
I *think* if we could get a couple of squads formed that would commit to AvA, we might be able to get it going regular again. I just seem to rarely find a time when there are more than 1 or 2 players in there, and they seem to be running some interesting setups. Trying at least.
I hope you do walkon to the scenario, sir!
-
Could you not make a heavy cloud cover at ~1500 ft?
Something that would create the affect of "socking in" the area in which the ground war is to take place?
This might help to decrease the bomb accuracy, as well as areal identification of GV's.
-
If we had no icons for GV's, bombing would be a non-issue, because they would have to loiter for a bit to identify their target. Actually locating the target would be more difficult as well.
Brooke, I'm telling you, a single group of Il-2's and a single group of Ju-87 G's acting as GV-busters wouldn't kill the event. I would be fine with bombing aircraft as long as I have a chance to kill them before they kill me (the whole point of even participating in the event: ie, combat). Its when you get to the point that aircraft can kill a sizable percentage of the GV's that things get unfun.
IMO, aircraft should be able to effect the outcome of the GV battle, but shouldn't be able to win it unless the tanks they didn't kill completly drop the ball as well.
-
:rofl
Seen this very zoo before. Think I'll pack it in and head for the beach.
I'll read the final report and save my fingers. ;)
-
I want whatever tank ace is smoking. :aok
-
Tank,
You are being rather subjective on what you want, but crystal clear on the things you don't like.
I'm not very good at uncovering what someone wants from a list of what they don't want. Nor can an entire event be designed around one persons opinion of what a small fraction of the participants want to see.
So, draft your entire event as you would like to see one ran, and let's see what it looks like.
This bits and pieces approach is pointless.
-
IMO, if you would actually add some GV's, you could get some more registered. Its a lot easier to glorify a blitzkrieg across northern france, or Russia, than it is to glorify the aerial wars fought over each of the ground offensive.
No.
-
If we had no icons for GV's, bombing would be a non-issue, because they would have to loiter for a bit to identify their target. Actually locating the target would be more difficult as well.
Brooke, I'm telling you, a single group of Il-2's and a single group of Ju-87 G's acting as GV-busters wouldn't kill the event. I would be fine with bombing aircraft as long as I have a chance to kill them before they kill me (the whole point of even participating in the event: ie, combat). Its when you get to the point that aircraft can kill a sizable percentage of the GV's that things get unfun.
IMO, aircraft should be able to effect the outcome of the GV battle, but shouldn't be able to win it unless the tanks they didn't kill completly drop the ball as well.
So you want to pretend like airpower wasn't a deciding factor in ground combat? There was a reason German armor tried to move at night instead of in daytime. All those planes of 9th AF and 2 TAF were there to support the ground war. They floated over the top with ground controllers in the tanks to bring them in as needed.
Sounds like you want a tank war but not really a historical scenario.
-
I enjoy flying and GVing, I'm obviously a better flyer, but I try the GV's none the less. One possible solution would be to not count GV losses to aircraft as lost lives. Aircraft would still be extremely useful for removing front line GV's to push friendly forces closer but wouldn't take away from enemy GV lives. GV lives could only be lost to other GV's. Aircraft lives could however be lost to GV's. I think this would help in making a combined arms scenario actually work.
:salute
BigRat
-
Guppy, theres always going to be a ballance between playability and realism. We already know how the historical battles turned out, so if you want 100% realism, whats the point of flying them?
-
One possible solution would be to not count GV losses to aircraft as lost lives.
We've done this as well.
Folks, if you want to see what we have done in scenarios where GV's were a key part, you can read the rule sets here:
Stalin's Fourth: http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/rules/main.htm (http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/rules/main.htm)
Tunisia: http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/rules.html (http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/rules.html)
Red Storm/Krupp Steel: http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/rules.html (http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/rules.html)
-
ROC, to modify a setup (using the map from Red Storm to sub for a Kursk terrain), heres what I would do (assuming we have all nessecary Aircraft/GV's).
Axis
109F-4
109G-2
190A-5
110G-2
Ju-88
He-111
Ju-87 G-2
Hs 129
Panzer III L
Panzer IV H
Panther
Tiger I
Soviets
La-5FN
Yak-7B
P-40F
Yak-9T
B-25C
A-20G
Il-2
T-34/76
KV-1
M18 (to serve as stationary AT guns)
- Pilots get 2 lives eay per frame
- Bombers may not fly higher than 20,000 ft
- Bombers must level bomb their target, the exception being single B-25's, and Ju-88's, and dive-bombers (A20's inclued)
- Bombers may be based no closer than 75 miles from the front line (nearest enemy base)
- GV drivers get 5 lives per frame, with the exception of M18, Panther, and Tiger I drivers who get 3.
- only designated aircraft may attack GV's, fighter escort may be provided at the discretion of the CO
- attacks on vehicles from non-designated aircraft will result in an increase in objectives for that team
(http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/rules_files/mainmap.jpg)
Axis Orders
Bombers to lift from A63 and bomb the troop training facility by V19
Fighters are to lift from A75 and escort bombers to V19.
ground attack planes are to lift from A63 and attack enemy vehicles
Fighters ar to lift from A63 and act as reserve bomber escorts, escorts for the attack planes, or hunt enemy attack planes at the discretion of the CO
Vehicles are to launch from V77 to neutral field A27 and eliminate defenders at the base.
Vehicles are to roll from V61 to neutral field A68 and eliminate defenders
Bombers are to lift from A48 and bomb the troop training facility at V38.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Russian orders would more or less mirror the German ones, save they would be defending (Kursk setup).
Note: M18's must take up concealed possitions and fire on targets as they appear. Relocation for the purpose of maintaining engagment with a target is forbiden. M18's may not advance, or serve in any capacity save that of towed anti-tank artillery.
Vehicles are forbiden from camping, camping being defined as possitioning oneself closer than 1500yds to the enemy spawn in a location that is outside of a 90 degree arc of fire FROM THE ENEMY SPAWN.
(http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z375/DasHetzer/Untitled-1.jpg)
Progress of the ground assult will be determined by the success of the vehicles. If they secure their objectives, it will be shown by field ownership in the following frame.
Partial orders, the whole 'neutral base' (base would be owned by the country not representing Germany or Russia) would of course work better on a larger map. Just kind of shows what I'm talking about. Plane set could be altered, as could location of the GV fight.
-
Do you think an M18 driver is actually going to not move at all?
-
...
This looks like a nice initial draft for an FSO's first frame, but not for a Scenario. For either one, it has problems with player enforced rules, especially the spawn camp rule.
-
True, but at least mentioning that its against the rules will help prevent it from happening.
Some will disregard the rules, yes, but some obeying the rules is better than everyone doing it because it doesn't say not to in the rules, right?
-
I thought I would actually see if there was something there besides just a vague wish for a better tank fight, but you put nothing into that effort so I am simply going to return the favor. I had planned on taking something you presented and run a snapshot to start with to see if you could draw a crowd, but seeing how serious you took that effort has convinced me that it simply is not worth my time.
Hope you find someone to help you out.
Tank,
You are being rather subjective on what you want, but crystal clear on the things you don't like.
I'm not very good at uncovering what someone wants from a list of what they don't want. Nor can an entire event be designed around one persons opinion of what a small fraction of the participants want to see.
So, draft your entire event as you would like to see one ran, and let's see what it looks like.
This bits and pieces approach is pointless.
You are still vague on anything that does not revolve around the tanks, and quite frankly, it doesn't take any real creativity to come up with a neutral field for the tanks to drive to. I also suggested the Entire Event, not bits and pieces. I am not going to design event after event and try to see if this is what you meant, you had an opportunity to show us exactly what you wanted, and it looks like you did. Great, you want a tank battle and not get shot. We'll fit one in sometime if it fit's into the overall objectives of some event.
Other than that, you have one song, you sung it. Thanks but I think I'm done with this one.
-
Still working on it. Right now I'm compiling a list of units that saw action at Kursk, and where they were they saw combat. After that, I have to figure out where exactly the best places for active fields to be, while keeping possition of units relative to eachother within the ballpark of historicly correct. I would think that you, being involved in this stuff, would be aware of the planning that goes into these.
Figured I would post that to show I was at least making an effort, but hey, if you wanted a finished product right from the get go, well sorry I disapointed you.
Edit: Can someone tell me how to get a picture of just the map? Is there a way to do that directly, or would I have to take a screenshot and then crop off what I don't need?
Decided to use the Germany terrain, and it would be helpfull to have a printable map to work off of.
-
For those serious is such an endeavor, at least download the current version of the terrain using the custom arena tool. The version of rhinewin posted above is out of date, and that's only the first of so many things that must be verified before a designer begins. Then when you've compared the terrain to the strat map on the wiki, the easiest parts are out of the way. Come back in three months when you have an event with no more then 2 or 3 player enforceable rules and you might be on to something, if you've done your testing. btw, If it's game play won't work in a custom arena, then it won't work anywhere else either.
-
:lol battle of kursk...that would be a 70% allies - 30% axis split. not much chance very many would agree to that. too many missing pieces to really put it together.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,322768.msg4168712.html#new
An event with tanks and ground vehicles.
-
Ah, good point, HB! Thanks! <S>
-
Ah, good point, HB! Thanks! <S>
Ran into that while strolling down the beach and thought to myself, since I have this info, why not step over here and post it? :D
Heading back to the beach now.
Oh, you're welcome Brooke. Can't wait to see who flys or drives what in this event though. ;)
-
•Pilots get 2 lives eay per frame
•Bombers may not fly higher than 20,000 ft
•Bombers must level bomb their target, the exception being single B-25's, and Ju-88's, and dive-bombers (A20's inclued)
•Bombers may be based no closer than 75 miles from the front line (nearest enemy base)
•GV drivers get 5 lives per frame, with the exception of M18, Panther, and Tiger I drivers who get 3.
•only designated aircraft may attack GV's, fighter escort may be provided at the discretion of the CO
•attacks on vehicles from non-designated aircraft will result in an increase in objectives for that team
Tank,
To be very honest with you. Players have all but revolted against these types of setups. It really is one or the other in the scenario type events. Open events like SNAPSHOTs and TDI there okay.
Here are my issues with your write up. That will keep prudent scenario fans away.
1. Bomber pilots don't want any restictions in a ground war. An altitude cap in a ground war... You'd need about a solid 120 - 130 players per side to tie up the gaps in the action over the entire map.
2. Tankers HATE to be dive bombed by anything.
3. Designated aircraft to attack GVs? It's been tried in other events (Red Storm Krupp Steal, Dawn of Battle...) It wasn't even mixed results, Players hated it!
4. Penalty for out of bounds play. You're going to retask a side CO in the middle of a major three hour event. GOOD LUCK with that one.
5. How would you track whether a tanker had 3 or 5 lives until the logs came through?
6. You preplanned into your write up that a particular vehicle had to perform a very specific mission. That would be trimmed out of the write up after the first rules meeting. You have to leave that to the COs on how they will accomplish your set objectives with what ever vehicle they chose.
7. Why are you placing a distance restriction on the bombers? If you are stating that that is how it was historically. Then you don't really need to state it. Station the aircraft on the map where you'd want then to spawn initially.
Other than that sir, Nice write up... :aok
:salute
-
Well, my only concern is that the Heavy Tank drivers will die less, even concidering air attack, and so will likely be able to steam-roller secondary objectives since they will have died fewer times and could afford to be more agressive.
And we have no representation of more powerfull towed anti-tank artillery, unless we want GV's to assult base instead of trying to kill defenders that spawned in from another field. That leaves the T-34/85 or the M18 as the best choice, both of which are a little unbalancing if used in rolls other than towed AT guns.
Objective would be increased for the next frame. Was also thinking about 'automatic defeats' that would happen if the objective went so high as to require killing more bombers than we have present in the event (counting two lives) but I decided to scrap that one.
alt restriction for the bombers was to allow the slower soviet fighters, like the P-40F and Yak-T an easier time catching them. Mostly it was He-111 H4-6's IIRC, with a fewe groups of Ju-88's added in. Here we'll have to use just Ju-88's.
-
Well, my only concern is that the Heavy Tank drivers will die less, even concidering air attack, and so will likely be able to steam-roller secondary objectives since they will have died fewer times and could afford to be more agressive.
And we have no representation of more powerfull towed anti-tank artillery, unless we want GV's to assult base instead of trying to kill defenders that spawned in from another field. That leaves the T-34/85 or the M18 as the best choice, both of which are a little unbalancing if used in rolls other than towed AT guns.
Objective would be increased for the next frame. Was also thinking about 'automatic defeats' that would happen if the objective went so high as to require killing more bombers than we have present in the event (counting two lives) but I decided to scrap that one.
alt restriction for the bombers was to allow the slower soviet fighters, like the P-40F and Yak-T an easier time catching them. Mostly it was He-111 H4-6's IIRC, with a fewe groups of Ju-88's added in. Here we'll have to use just Ju-88's.
Tank,
Remember as a designer the complexity of your build is in your research to set the stage for a fun fight. Too mush history and or over compensation for the available planeset is going to over challenge the player. Most folks want instant action even if they get killed right away. They want it to be equal and fair. Not too many folks are going to give up three hours on a Saturday afternoon for an event that is "UNFAIR" and "UNBALANCED". Especially if they can read into it prior to the beginning of the first frame.
Not that my suggestions carry much weight, but try your design again with less "AIR". If you want attack aircraft, drop the High alt bombers. Give the attacking aircraft low fighter cover and call it a day there. Then center the fight more on the ground movement. Don't tell the COs how they have to manage their fight. Just give them the set of objectives and turn them loose. Try it...
Your design is good, it just needs a little refocus. :)
"Keep it grounded!" :aok
btw, make sure that ROC sees your redesign. If it is acceptable, I see that he will have it run as a SNAPSHOT. Now that ROCKS! :rock
:salute
-
I think it would be kind of cool too. I tried to join the Special Events team, but was uneligable because of age :cry.
-
I think it would be kind of cool too. I tried to join the Special Events team, but was uneligable because of age :cry.
Have you ever flown in a scenario?
Most of the scenario team has over 10 years experience each in flight sims ranging to Air Warrior.
-
I've flown in 5 so far. Flown Aces High for about 6 years.
-
Have to agree with Redtail. A scenario takes 10x more time and planning since it has to last 4-6 frames for 3 hours instead of just an hour or two. It could definitely be run as a snapshot with tweaking, but I think there would need to be more meat in the design to last as a scenario design.
-
I tried to join the Special Events team, but was uneligable because of age :cry.
that explains a lot... :rolleyes: (ineligible, not uneligible)
you know what a "bright idea" is ace? it's the one that pops into your head before the realization sets in that it isn't such a bright idea. before i participated in a scenario here, i had a bright idea that i started working on for a special event, it included tanks...then after frame 1 of the scenario i signed up for, the "flood of tears" occurred and by the end of the scenario i had the realization that my bright idea wasn't so bright after all. there was just no way to avoid the whines, so i trashed all the work i had done.
haven't had a bright idea since... :lol
-
The last scenario I played in with a ground component was Red Storm Krupp Steal. The GV whines were quite loud in this one. It was both frustrating for attack pilots and the GV'ers in the fact that only certain planes were allowed to attack GV's. I love trying to support an attack toward an objective under combined arms. I can remember flying A20's over the ground battle, no fighter cover to deal with and dropping bombs on useless stuff, rather then being a help to our tanks. After the "bomb marking" incident, they just kept us away from the GV battle all together to avoid controversy. If given free wirbles, no lives lost due to aircraft, aircraft lives can be lost to vehicles, and GV hangers can only be attacked by GV's, I can't see where the GV whines could come from (they'll still be there but :headscratch:). In other words aircraft would only be usefull for moving the lines. This would force the core of the battle right over the GV fight, and make it quiet dangerous for any low attack aircraft with free wirbles, and the fighters would have to control the air over the GV fight to make the attack aircraft at all effective in moving the lines. While getting bombed in a GV will still be frustrating, especially if you had a good spot, but you are still in the fight. All aircraft would be free to attack GV's, but at the risk of losing one of their two lives everytime they head down there. I'd GV in a setup like this, in fact I'd love to wirble in a fight like this just to eliminate planes from the battle that day, They are taking a bigger risk then the GV's in this fight. As far as I know nothing exactly like this has been tried, correct me if I'm wrong.
:salute
BigRat
-
I wouldn't want to fly anywhere near a ton of guys with free wirbs....just askin for trouble and with only 2 lives makes it stupid to try. heck I strafed a panz4 with a yak got griped at cause I could have shot off his pintle gun. :rolleyes: