Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: artik on December 01, 2003, 02:43:36 PM
-
The war is almost over - but LW is still operational. It pushed from both fronts from eastern by VVS and from Western by RAF and USAF.
LW still has technological advantage over other air forces - it uses Jets.
Three countries involved and operate following squadrons:
Bishops: USAF and RAF
- P-51D
- P-47D30
- Spitfire Mk XIV
- Tempest Mk V
- Mosquito Mk VI
- B-17 - from rear bases
- B-26 - from rear bases
- C-47
- M-3, M-8, M-16
Knights: LW
- 109G-10
- 190D-9
- 190F-8
- Ta-152
- Me 262 from one central base only.
- Me 163 from one central base only
- Ar 234 from one central base only.
- Ju-88
- Bf 110G-2
- Ju-52 (C-47)
- Panzer, Ostwind, Tiger
Rooks: VVS
- La-7
- Yak-9U
- Yak-9T
- Il-2
- C-47
- M3, M-16, T-34 (Panzer)
The map is Ruhr - when the western part is Bishops (UASF, RAF), estern is Rooks (VVS) and the central is knights when Jets are avialable only at one central field - nothing is perked.
Heavy USAF bomber are avialable from rear bases only.
Fuel burn raitio is 2.0.
What do you think about it?
-
Looks like fun! :)
I love the P-38. I know most don't like it or fly it much. It is the L which came out late in the war. Any chance of adding that? :)
-
I personally have no problem with P-38 - but this setup is only suggestion. I'm not in CT CM team and I only can bring good ideas.
So what do you think Brady, Jester, Arlo, ... all CT CMs?
AH has a lot of late war planes - so we can use it interesting:aok
-
FINALLY! Im glad that ME 262 is now enable for CT :D
-
Would have to add Panzer IV , P-38 & Typhoon for US/UK forces.
ME-109G-6 & Fw-190A8 for Axis forces. (They were still widely used till end of the war)
I would be willing to do a set-up like this if it is agreeable to all the CT players.
Lets hear it folks.
-
Not my cup o' tea.
I'm sure some will enjoy it.
Splash1
-
Originally posted by Jester
I would be willing to do a set-up like this if it is agreeable to all the CT players.
Lets hear it folks.
Well, why not. We've had the 262s before; I think most people who flew them found them to be not so effective as they thought, but they do drag in a bunch of MA people, so the numbers should be up (Spit 14 and Temp would do that, too). My only concern is that the numbers will be 2-1 v. the Axis, because there are a surprising number of people who will only fly Allied, and you've got an extra Allied side here.
Why don't we do it and see what happens?
- oldman
-
"Why don't we do it and see what happens?"
Because the world will end you fool!!! :)
-
im loving the sound of it.
-
I like the idea in general. However I'd like to offer a few thoughts.
1) Don't do it anytime soon. I want my PTO fix with the Hellcat (NOTE: PTO setups that do not include the Hellcat are in fact screwed up and not really PTO maps). I want a middle of the war setup '42 - '43. I'm sick of alternating places that suck with planes that are dominating. Can we please have some mediocre airplanes?
2) Could split such a setup into 2 parts. First few days we do USAF/RAF vs LW last half of week we do VVS vs LW. Set the unused portion of the map to Neutral country with messed up enabled AC lists on fields, etc, etc.
3) No single bases for 262s, Temps, etc. A few (2 - 5) bases spread evenly across the map.
4) No sticking the buffs in the corner. 50 to 75 miles from the front is just fine.
5) Ditto Jester's comments regarding extra planes.
-
And there's those ... ummm ... incidents where Soviet fighters fired on U.S. fighters (and visa versa) that tested the limits of the Alliance. Who's to say such a thing wouldn't happen in this setup and ignite an occasional three-way free-for-all (and have the Allied ambassadors running around in circles trying to put out fires)?
As far as 2v1 is concerned ... be it a two sided, three sided or thirteen sided setup, it's really still within the realm of the players to keep things balanced. It can't be that hard to figure out how to balance a 1+1 vs. 1 by ensuring that the German side is as large as the combined Soviet/U.S. and British forces. It is, however, just as likely to waver back and forth as it does when it's just two sided.
-
2) Could split such a setup into 2 parts. First few days we do USAF/RAF vs LW last half of week we do VVS vs LW. Set the unused portion of the map to Neutral country with messed up enabled AC lists on fields, etc, etc.
No problem with others - but the hole point is 3 sides!
This would be very interesting to see LW pushed from both sides. BTW when it has non perked Jets from central fields it will balance situation - every time that both forces will come closer more and more jets will be used - and belive me they are suprior - props has nothing in same sky with jets (that what Kadesh totaly had shown).
Secondly I don't belive that the numbers will be 2:1 against LW. Just like other times they will tell - we are low numbers come to Kinghts. And it is not MA people will move.
I think it would be fun to try it.
The rest of notes - no problem.
-
Yeah .... take an idea and extreme it to death. :rolleyes: :lol
-
Sounds like fun to me. Try not to limit the LW too much with perks or "limited to one base" stuff. Fine idea Artik:aok
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Sounds like fun to me. Try not to limit the LW too much with perks or "limited to one base" stuff. Fine idea Artik:aok
The Jets should be limited at one or two bases because otherwise you will see absolutly air supriority of LW.
If LW has Me262, Me163, Ar234 unlimited they will be almost untochable - Me163 will be like SAMs, Me262 is absolutly suprioir over props - just need some experience in gunnery, and Ar234 will be just unstopable bomber.
I do not want perks not to limit players to fly jets but putting jets at the center of the map it will make reasonable numbers of jet planes and will balance gamepay even if it is going to be 2:1 relation.
I remeber Kadesh scenario - props was not just outclassed they was out of gameplay. Most of them were down in first hour of the event - we must limit jets some way but - not to limit them too much to give LW chance versus 2 other airforces.
-
Before you guys get "TOO" wound up - the 262's, 234's, 163's (If any) and Tempests will be limited as there weren't that many flying in country at the time. You can say "HISTORICAL" can't you? I knew you could. :D But we will spread them a little thicker than last set-up to avoid any ulsers.
There is NO WAY to have 3 sides in the CT. First thing you will have some dweebs log-on in here and everything will go to HELL in a handbasket and we will have two MA's open. However, we CAN have two fronts - they will just both be the same figure on the chessboard. Sorry, try the MA if you want 3 sides. Be a pain in the kazoo to set up but can be done.
As for armor, Tigers will be available around certain key fields and pathways for the Germans. The Ruskies will also have the Tiger available in limited numbers to represent the "Guards" units with IS-2 heavy tanks & ISU special purpose guns. The US/BRITS will have to make out with the Panzer IV to represent the Sherman and depend more on their air power to take turff.
As for "Perk Points" I still believe it is the best way to regulate the rides to represent the availablility of the real models during WW2 but some out there have have this problem with "Perk Point Envy" so we may not use it this time. Still deciding on that.
-
Ok looking good - to have 3 fronts vs 2 countries.
Still I against perks in this setup because it should be different from last setup and I'd like to see changing of game ballance when both forces are getting closer to central part of the map.
Tempest - I do not know what numbers of Tempest was at the end of the war so? I think you can limit it on some rear bases - but it still can not be compared to LW jets.
-
It isn't Perk Point envy Jester. Simply put your erasing perks for each setup with perk planes causes the Law of Unintended Consequences to rear its' ugly head.
-
"As for "Perk Points" I still believe it is the best way to regulate the rides to represent the availablility of the real models during WW2 but some out there have have this problem with "Perk Point Envy" so we may not use it this time. Still deciding on that.
"
well your wrong. and dragging it up here in an inuslting way just shows how poor your judgement is in other issues.
Last days of the LW should have no bombers on LW side. A russian medium and full heavies in the west but with half strenght guns.
No base capture and ALL flack including high alt field ack at 300 % effectivness.
-
I have yet to see a good argument as to why we should leave perk points untouched other than "cuz I want it".
If you want all the planes available then dont perk them to begin with.
If you need to limit certain rides, then reset to 0 and set a value.
I DO agree that in the last setup we needed more bases for the perked rides. One North, one in the Center, and one South would be a suggestion.
-
Originally posted by Squire
If you want all the planes available then dont perk them to begin with.
Hard to quibble with that logic.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Squire
I have yet to see a good argument as to why we should leave perk points untouched other than "cuz I want it".
If you want all the planes available then dont perk them to begin with.
If you need to limit certain rides, then reset to 0 and set a value.
I DO agree that in the last setup we needed more bases for the perked rides. One North, one in the Center, and one South would be a suggestion.
Ok the more bases thing and attendant N/S/Center thing is my suggestion. Please credit your (my) ideas.
To repeat myself yet again...
Resetting perk points does not limit the number of perk planes in any appreciable way.
Within an hour on Day1 of the Drive scenario I earned enough to start flying perk planes. By the end of Day 1 I had enough perk points to fly perk planes exclusively if that is what I wanted to do. For people who flew CT rarely, either because they are MA players or just get limited stick time, the comments were the same... "Where did my perk points go?!?". Followed almost immediately by said person leaving the CT. The rare CT flyers will not have the time to earn the perks to fly the perk planes after a reset. Those of us who fly regularly in the CT will have enough by middle of Day 2. Even those who had the perks to fly perk planes consistently did not do so. Obviously the cost of the perk plane and the availability of perks was not the limiting factor. The limiting factor was player choice. So getting back to the Law of Unintended Consequences (sometimes referred to as The Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory) instead of limiting the number of perk planes the reset limited the number of pilots.
Perk vehicles and aircraft in every setup and the massive piles of perk points that everyone is worried about ceases to exist. The only reason we have this problem is because for weeks on end we have nothing to spend them on. Why is this I wonder? Well as far as I can remember Brady never has perked aircraft in his setups. Why not? Buggered if I know the answer to that. Perk points are a part of AH. Brady is doing something that goes contrary to AH setup and gameplay. Massive piles of perks accrue. Then CMs feel they have to reset them to even things out. The CMs themselves are therefore perpetuating the self-reinforcing screwup.
(Brady used as example in above paragraph)
-
Perks arent earned over a series of setups. The CT CMs used to assign ENY values to certain planes in combination with perk values.
It took pyro to come in and set those values. Instead of going through pyro every week to reset eny values its easier just to contact him when perk planes will be used. It's also fair to have all perks reset to 0 for set ups running perk planes. Not only because of the issue with the eny values but some folks simply don't fly regularly in the ct.
So during setups where there are no perked rides just consider eny values and perks to be set to 0 that way you don't feel "cheated".
You can't possibly think you "earned" those perks when there has been no adjustment to the eny values to reflect plane useage like in the main. For it to be fair the CT CMs would have evaluate each set up and assign eny values so Pyro could set them. It's too much work for to little gain.
-
I have no problems with perks - but in this setup I'd like to see the balance of the game as function of Allied forced distance to center of the map. When they will come close - LW shoud be able to drop them back and when too far Allies limited planes will give an advantege.
I see no reason to make double limiting perks and rear bases - otherwise it will be too similar to "Dive on the Rieh" setup.
We should limit jets but in one way - not double.
-
"Ok the more bases thing and attendant N/S/Center thing is my suggestion. Please credit your (my) ideas. "
Cripes I just said I agreed with it, I didnt think I had to quote the source like a book report from High School :)
The whole "people logged in, saw they had no perks and left" argument holds no water. CT setups that are popular have #s, and personally, I dont care if a few leave over it. It does not justify the vast majority of CT players with huge ammounts of perk points rendering the whole system futile to start with. If you had enough for the last setup...then be happy with that and dont worry about it.
...oh yes, one last thing, dont make the mistake of assuming these issues have not been raised before. They have. The bases, the perks, the perks being reset. Fair enough?
-
I have used perks on ocashion in the past but in General I dont care to make use of them in my set up's, in part because I rarely run set up's that would require them, I havent run any late war Europe set up's since we first had the Rhine map last year. I also dont care for their use in limiting planes for a Number of reasion's some of Which Batz points out above.
-
I took it as insulting because it was meant to be insulting.
-
Well in the last two setups that used them, things seemed to go just fine. Im not advocating their use in every setup...thats not required.
I would rather see some setups with them than the constant "we cant add plane x" because its 25mph faster arguements we always get.
-
Storch, that's the best way to approach it.
If you understand the eny values then you see that these would need to be adjusted in each set up.
This would mean every week they need to be readjusted. This of its self would start numerous arguements "How dare you give the 109 an eny value of xx you biased allied farm boi" etc...
I think requiring perk planes in the ct should only be necessary when its clear a given plane would upset the balance. Even then they should be given a low perk value.
-
So lets make some conclutions:
Western forces:
USAF and RAF
- P-51D
- P-47D30
- P-38L
- Spitfire Mk XIV
- Typhoon
- Tempest Mk V - from rear bases only
- Mosquito Mk VI
- B-17
- B-26
- C-47
- M-3, M-8, M-16, Panzer
Central Map forces
LW
- 109G-6
- 109G-10
- 190D-9
- 190F-8
- 190A-8
- Ta-152
- Me 262 *
- Me 163 *
- Ar 234 *
- Ju-88
- Bf 110G-2
- Ju-52 (C-47)
- M3, Panzer, Ostwind, Tiger
* from 3 bases on in center one at north and one at south.
Eastern Forces
VVS
- La-7
- Yak-9U
- Yak-9T
- Il-2
- C-47
- M3, M-16, T-34 (Panzer), Tiger
The map is Ruhr - when the western part is UASF and RAF, estern is VVS and the central is LW when Jets are avialable only at 3 bases - nothing is perked.
Fuel burn raitio is 2.0.
Did I miss something?
When could it be run?
-
Originally posted by artik
So lets make some conclutions:
Western forces:
USAF and RAF
- P-51D
- P-47D30
- P-38L
- Spitfire Mk XIV
- Typhoon
- Tempest Mk V - from rear bases only
- Mosquito Mk VI
- B-17
- B-26
- C-47
- M-3, M-8, M-16, Panzer
Central Map forces
LW
- 109G-6
- 109G-10
- 190D-9
- 190F-8
- 190A-8
- Ta-152
- Me 262 *
- Me 163 *
- Ar 234 *
- Ju-88
- Bf 110G-2
- Ju-52 (C-47)
- Panzer, Ostwind, Tiger
* from 3 bases on in center one at north and one at south.
Eastern Forces
VVS
- La-7
- Yak-9U
- Yak-9T
- Il-2
- C-47
- M3, M-16, T-34 (Panzer), Tiger
The map is Ruhr - when the western part is UASF and RAF, estern is VVS and the central is LW when Jets are avialable only at 3 bases - nothing is perked.
Fuel burn raitio is 2.0.
Did I miss something?
When could it be run? [/B]
WHAT No F4-U4........Just kidding Easy Folks...had to get in in before Arlo did :D
-
Originally posted by tzr
WHAT No F4-U4........Just kidding Easy Folks...had to get in in before Arlo did :D
Whathehell's a "F4-U4?" Is it anything like my beloved F4U-1? :D
-
Originally posted by Jester
There is NO WAY to have 3 sides in the CT. First thing you will have some dweebs log-on in here and everything will go to HELL in a handbasket and we will have two MA's open. However, we CAN have two fronts - they will just both be the same figure on the chessboard. Sorry, try the MA if you want 3 sides. Be a pain in the kazoo to set up but can be done.
Dweebs log on in the CT every day/night. Heh.
Here's why it wouldn't be "like the MA.":
Each of the three sides would still have a country (or countires) specific planeset and the map itself could point those sides to a common goal.
As Artik has pointed out the Soviet forces and the US/British forces would be on opposite sides of the German forces ... pushing in.
Even where Soviet force bases come closest to their Allies, there was actually somewhat of a "cold war" atmosphere already forming in the final months of the war. There are accounts of Soviet and US air units engaging each other (even with apparent knowledge of who each other were). Non-Soviet Allied planes that made emergency landings at Soviet fields were confiscated and the pilots/crews held in custody. And although the opposite wasn't true .... it could easily have been.
And yes .. the chance of seeing alliances shift is not totally out of the picture. I find it a fascinating dynamic to consider. Consider Patton's apparent desire to take on the Soviets with the aid of defeated German units after the war. I'd say the first instance of a supposed "Allied" player attacking an ally (Soviet or US or British the aggressor .... doesn't matter) then the German command should consider another attempt on Hitler and make overtures to either the West or East for armistice. Then WWIII can proceed accordingly. ;)
-
This sounds interesting but it sounds like a branch off of th MA.
But i would give it a try how many troops to capture a base would be a deciding factor:aok
-
We should limit jets but in one way - not double.
Exactly Artik. This has been brought up a few times and I think this is the main problem with the Drive on the Riech perk idea. Some feedback other than I have "perk point envy" would be nice.
-
I am thinking the 3 sided thing would work if you made the LW base non capturable or at leas the inner ones.
-
Originally posted by storch
:aok That would be a great set up artik. I would include the M-3 and the M-16 for the axis.:D
OOOOOps :D
M-3 really need to axis - edited ;)