Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Guppy35 on April 11, 2005, 03:24:12 PM
-
Just thinking out loud but thought maybe the CT gurus could explain why it couldn’t work etc. I’m sure you gents have already thought of this stuff anyway but humor me if you can :)
It seems to me that the CT wants to be something different from the MA, and uses the notion of historic plane sets as it’s selling point. Other then that, it’s really just a miniature MA with the same problems of land grab, porking for no good reason etc.
I also understand that some guys like to dogfight and some like to play ground attack/bomber pilot.
It seems to me there should be a way to please both types of pilots without sacrificing the fun for either.
So here’s my thought. Feel free to tell me why it won’t work. And please at least read it through before reacting to a sentence that might go against something you like. I’m trying to meet in the middle somewhere with this.
-Take land grab completely out of the CT. You are trying to in essence create a snapshot of a time period where certain aircraft were fighting each other. Outside of the Blitzkreig and the ground war in the ETO from late 44 on, they weren’t rolling up airfields at a lightning quick pace. Look at it as a week’s time or even a couple days. Nobody was capturing things that fast.
-Take the points out of the CT. The sooner guys quit worrying about their perks or points the better. If you are a great Jabo pilot, then hitting the target accurately should be satisfaction enough. Same for the dogfighter. Protecting the buffs and shooting down the other guy should be enough. The incentive to milk run goes right out the window then
-Create other targets for the buffers besides airfields. Radar stations, vehicle bases, strat targets of some kind where they can practice their craft within the framework of the historical setting.
With that comes a question too. Is there a way to use shipping as targets within the current AH2 world? There are a bunch of historical set ups where having capital ships or just smaller ships as targets would fit perfectly.
Some examples that came to mind:
-The raids to Norway by the RAF and later some 8th AF Mustangs. What if there was a way to put the Tirpitz and all it’s flak in a fjord with the surrounding mountains? Throw in shipping convoys as targets somehow and you’ve got Mustang IIIs and IVs along with Mossies and Lancs vs the 109s and 190s based in Norway. The dogfighters get their fight while trying to get the Mossies and Lancs to their targets. Airfields aren’t the issue. Yes you’d have to compress the map and the flight time, but that would be doable I would think. As long as the targets regenerate, the buffers stay busy and I doubt you’d have trouble finding enough 109 and 190 drivers to oppose them
-Target Rabaul-Again, if there is a way to use ships as targets, you’ve got A20s and RAAF Bostons to hit the targets, RNZAF P40s and Corsairs, along with USAAF 38Gs, P40s and any Navy birds you want to include battling Zekes, Tonies and I suppose of you add a US Carrier group to attack, Ki67s, Kates and Vals. Again the fight is somewhat compressed, and the airfields aren’t the targets outside of the US carrier. Historically there was never any intent to capture Rabaul and it’s airfields, but they had some nasty fights there.
-Channel Dash 1942-Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau make their run down the English Channel with the LW doing their best to keep the RAF away. Spits, Hurris, Tiffies, Bostons, Mossies vs the 109s and 190s etc. PTs as E-boats could be in that one and if it’s a moving fleet down the Channel, there’d be more airfields to try and CAP while the attack pilots tried to get through the fighter umbrella to hit the ships.
-Midway-4 Japanese Carrier groups vs 3 US Carrier Groups and one Island base. The TBFs, B26s and 17s from Midway could go round and round trying to sink 4 carrier groups along with the Dauntless’s from the US Carriers. The Kates and Vals could do the same and the F4F pilots and Zeke drivers could go round and round. Again, nothing captured and doubtful that either side would b without CVs at anytime so the fights would be ongoing. The guys who like to drop bombs would be constantly busy.
The list goes on and on. Bottom line is it seems like there ought to be a way to let the attack/bomber pilots and fighter drivers co-exist without hindering the fun of either group.
Oh well, killing time on a day off and thought I’d at least throw it out there to get shot down :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
yes
-
Originally posted by Redd
yes
ditto
-
Sir, we have come to ask you a few questions regarding your recent posts in the CT forum. Just look into this red light here. Thats right. Now, lets discuss these "ideas" of yours...............
-
good thoughts Corky
I and others have already mentioned taking base capture out as well as killing score/ranking
with base capture removed, smaller maps with closer bases would be possible and better fit the small numbers found in CT
-
I think taking out base capture would be great. When TK runs his missions we often attack things like you suggested, radar and the like so it wouldn't harm thursday missions in the slightest, it would only benefit the CT as a whole.
And get some sun on your day off corky! :)
-
thinking... leads to...
pain.
stop that right now before you hurt yourself.
-
I think your ideas are spot on Guppy! That is exactly how I envision the CT, although I would like to keep perk points to maintain rarity in the planeset. Here's a setup I came up with a couple weeks ago, it is rough, but kinda follows the guidelines that you mentioned. I also think a setup like this is better suited running over two weeks instead of one, with two mission nights per week. With possibly adding a third at a Euro friendly time if there was a staffer and numbers to support it.
The objectives/results need fine tuning but ya get the idea. Glad to see I'm not alone here. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Tactical Airforce Spring/Summer '44
Situation:The 2nd Tactical Air Force (2nd TAF) was formed to support the Allied invasion of, and subsequent ground operations in, Western Europe. The campaign in North Africa had proved the value of highly mobile and responsive air forces acting in direct support of the ground troops. Prior to the operations in Sicily and Italy, the air elements supporting the 1st and 8th Armies were combined to form the 1st Tactical Air Force, popularly known as the Desert Air Force. In preparation for the invasion of Western Europe, the formation of a second tactical air force began in Britain in June 1943 drawing in existing squadrons from Fighter, Bomber, and Army Co-Operation Commands.
Initially, 2nd TAF comprised three groups. There were two close support groups, consisting of fighters, fighter bombers and reconnaissance aircraft to provide intimate support to the two armies that comprised the 21st Army Group, the British Commonwealth contribution to the invasion of western Europe. 83 and 84 Groups would operate with, respectively, the 2nd British and 1st Canadian Armies. The third group was intended for more general support and to fulfil this role 2 Groups, consisting of light and medium bombers, was transferred from Bomber Command. In order to provide the flexibility required to support highly mobile ground operations the maintenance components of each squadron were separated to form independent airfield operating units, the role of which was to establish forward landing grounds from which any squadron could operate. In early 1944 85 group - a fourth - was added to 2nd TAF to provide protection for Allied base areas both in southern England, and in Europe once the invasion began.
2nd TAF, alongside its American equivalent the United States 9th Air Force, carried out its intended role throughout the operations in western Europe during 1944 and early 1945. The weight of aerial firepower that the Allied armies had at their disposal proved telling in their victory over the Germans.
Planeset:
2nd Tactical Airforce OOB
Spitfire Mk IX
Typhoon Ib
Mustang III
Boston III
Mosquito Mk VI
Lancaster III
Seafire IIc (perked 5 points)
Spitfire Mk XIV (perked 25 points)
Tempest V (perked 35 points)
Luftwaffe OOB
Bf 109G-6
Fw 190A-5
Fw 190A-8
Ju 88A-4
Ju 87D-3
Bf 110G-2(perked 15 points)
Standard vehicles for the time period will be available, with Tiger perked 25 points.
Setup:
ALL PERKS WILL BE RESET!
There will be NO Dot-DAR only Bar-DAR.
Field Capture will be OFF!!, yes I said OFF.
Fields will be captured but this will be achieved in non-convential ways, through CT administrated
"Opertaional" nights.
First night will be Friday at 9pm-12pm EST, it will cover the air ops leading up to the invasion. The Allies will
be given a set of objectives to complete within the three hours. All bases in England will be Allied all on the
Continent will be Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe objectives for the second Operational night will hinge on the Allies
success or failure.
Second night will be Sunday night 8-11pm EDT, this will be invasion night! The Vehicle bases 100-103 will
become Allied, these are the invasion beaches. Allied vehicles only will become available here. It will be
up to the Luftwaffe/Wehrmacht to slow the landing of supplies as much as possible.(The invasion can not be stopped).
The base availabilty in the next Operational night for the Allies will hinge on the Luftwaffe's success or failure.
Third night will be Tuesday night 9pm-12pm EDT, it will cover the Breakout phases(Operation Cobra). The Allies will
recieve single-engine aircraft at "forward bases". If the Luftwaffe achieves no objectives on the second night, the
Allies will control V98 through V103 and A60 as FBs. One Objective V98-v103 will be Allied, two V99-V103 and finally if all four were achieved only v100-103 will be Allied FBs. For this frame the Allies will be charged with "capturing" Cherbourg(Also Caen if not taken with invasion). If they fail in capturing both the setup will remain as is for the rest of the week.
If the Allies succeed we move to the last night, Thursday night 9pm-12pm EDT. This will cover the Falaise gap. Allies will control all the bases they have captured so far. The German bases A41,42,76,77 and 78 will be considered the Falaise Gap and the Allies will be charged with closing all these bases, as they close them they capture them automatically. Only German vehicles will be allowed to spawn from these bases. Whatever the Allies capture by 11pm will stay Allied for the remainder of the week.
-
The problem I see with perks is it gives people a reason to game the game so to speak. Take away the points and the reason for some guy to sit and vulch for those points, is taken away.
Would it not make more sense to limit the bases something like a Tempest could come up from? The penalty is the flight time or limit the amount of Tempest's available.
When 2 TAF was rolling for real the air to air guys were the Spit XIVs and the Tempests. At the same time they were having to deal with the Doras and the 262 threat which balanced it out.
The LFIX/XVI guys were really at that point doing the ground attack bit with the ability to defend themselves.
Ring the 262 fields with heavy ack and let folks attempt to "Rat Catch" with the same risks the real guys had with the ack traps. Within the limits of AH2 you can still set up the same scenario the real guys had to deal with.
If we're really talking about a more historically minded crew in the CT then folks aren't neccesarily going to grab the best ride everytime, instead taking that which best fits the time.
I suppose another idea would be to have some sort of CT website that folks can go to that takes the history a bit more in depth for each set up so those who don't know what was going on at the time in history, can get a better idea. It might let you build up an archive of info, photos etc that help folks learn that way too.
Dan/CorkyJr
Thanks btw for the responses. Glad I wasn't completely off base
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The problem I see with perks is it gives people a reason to game the game so to speak. Take away the points and the reason for some guy to sit and vulch for those points, is taken away.
Would it not make more sense to limit the bases something like a Tempest could come up from? The penalty is the flight time or limit the amount of Tempest's available.
When 2 TAF was rolling for real the air to air guys were the Spit XIVs and the Tempests. At the same time they were having to deal with the Doras and the 262 threat which balanced it out.
The LFIX/XVI guys were really at that point doing the ground attack bit with the ability to defend themselves.
Ring the 262 fields with heavy ack and let folks attempt to "Rat Catch" with the same risks the real guys had with the ack traps. Within the limits of AH2 you can still set up the same scenario the real guys had to deal with.
If we're really talking about a more historically minded crew in the CT then folks aren't neccesarily going to grab the best ride everytime, instead taking that which best fits the time.
I suppose another idea would be to have some sort of CT website that folks can go to that takes the history a bit more in depth for each set up so those who don't know what was going on at the time in history, can get a better idea. It might let you build up an archive of info, photos etc that help folks learn that way too.
Dan/CorkyJr
Thanks btw for the responses. Glad I wasn't completely off base
All of these ideas have merit and are worthy of implementation.
thank you for your imput and the expertise you bring to the table
-
I hear ya, but I'm not so sure I'd be looking to take vulching away. I can't find fault with the vulchers with a setup like this, control the airspace over your airfields would be my take on it.
So that would not be enough for me to restrict planes to rear bases. I think by resetting perks and keeping them high enough that would keep the plane rarity up and not punish those that earn them.
The CT website is another great idea, but it is also not a new one. I think the time and energy needed for it is the daunting part at the moment.
These of course are just my opinions and not meant to put down any of yours. In fact I'm liking the way you are thinking and think people with similiar mindsets are what is needed to get the CT off the ground again.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
I hear ya, but I'm not so sure I'd be looking to take vulching away. I can't find fault with the vulchers with a setup like this, control the airspace over your airfields would be my take on it.
So that would not be enough for me to restrict planes to rear bases. I think by resetting perks and keeping them high enough that would keep the plane rarity up and not punish those that earn them.
The CT website is another great idea, but it is also not a new one. I think the time and energy needed for it is the daunting part at the moment.
These of course are just my opinions and not meant to put down any of yours. In fact I'm liking the way you are thinking and think people with similiar mindsets are what is needed to get the CT off the ground again.
I wouldn't be looking to take vulching away either, but I'd hope it would be framed in the history in some way.
If I'm upping from a further back field in my Tempest, you can bet I've got drop tanks on and I know which field the 262s are at so that I might set myself up to catch them coming or going...'Rat catching". The risk I take is the flak traps and the potential for those D9s or 109G10s protecting the field. At the same time the threat of my Tempest is protecting those attack drivers who might be hitting things in closer as the 262 and D9 pilots have to deal with my Tempest first.
I get one challenge while the attack guys get another, which may be catching 109s or 190s trying to up from a closer field, or knocking out the radar that helps those 262s know where to go.
Dan/CorkyJr
Who is enjoying the give and take. I also know that you gents have been far down this road before so I appreciate the willingness to keep talking.
-
Well in essence the Tempests would most likely end up at the rear bases, since they would not move to the Forward Bases on the continent. Since my setup hinges around the 2nd TAF involvement leading up to and shortly after the Invasion of Normandy there would be no Dora's or 262's. And with the perk points set for the Tempests they would surely be a rare bird.(The exact perk point value may need tweaking since I haven't much experience, but I'm willing to try and learn)
I also enjoy the give and take, for although we have been walking long on this road we haven't gotten far.:)
-
Although I understand your reasoning behind keeping the (adjusted) perk system in place, I really dont think there's enough there to merit keeping them over doing away with them. You either need to leave them without resetting them, or disable them completely (my suggestion). Some good arguments have been put up on both sides, but let me just add one more tidbit to think over.
If you are going to bother to put the plane in service, that means there is a role for it. However limited that role might be. By resetting Perks at the start of every new map, you only ensure that at least at first, the planes are as good as disabled. No one will have any perks to use on them. Also, alot of folks (myself included) only get short periods of time during the week to play, so we are all penalized for not having time to log in and fly to earn the perks. Add into that people who might stop into the CT from the MA, or people who are new to the game, they dont have perks either. So only the pilots who spend all their time in the CT arena get to fly the perked planes. The rest of us are left out. Now lets say you get a situation where the Tempest would really be useful. But alas! None of the allied pilots online have any perk points!! So much for having the Tempest enabled. Its just a tease.
Does this really sound like a good way to get people interested in playing in the CT? They'll get used to the idea of no perks, because THE PLANES THAT ARE NORMALLY PERKED WILL BE OPEN TO EVERYONE. Thats is the only use for perks, the only reason they are a part of this game. Thats all they were ever INTENDED to be. Scores are there to give the "gaming" community some measuring stick to judge their performance by. I think the CT can strive to be a little stricter than that. If we can pare down the planeset, we can pare down the scoring system. No one needs another noodle-measurer to know who's good or not, especially when as long as there's a way to milk the system, someone will do it. Level the playing field by removing scores and perk points, and the only measure of who's good or not is in reputation and skill. Word of mouth. The good old "I fought him and he killed me 5 times out of 6." Isnt that enough?
Thanks.
P.S.: I hope I didnt offend anyone. I tend to be blunt, and sometimes I get a little argumentative when I dont mean to be.
-
Sounds good Guppy and I'm pleased to see that so far folks with very different personalities, flying styles etc. seem to agree. One week a month under your parameters would be an interesting experiment.
!
-
Dan.
Ive been thinking very much along the same lines as you. I was actually about to write a post very similar to yours last week but RL work got in the way. ;)
What I wonder is what kind of "win conditions" can be set in AH?
For example atm there can be win conditions set to number of fields left when one nation is down to X fields. Thats the way its set in MA as we all know.
Is it possible to set a "win condition" to 80% of all cities destroyed?
What I would like to see is the CT beeing different in game play. CT needs to be different in gameplay to profile it self. Now its just a limmited MA. Dont get me wrong I like the limmitations on the plane set but 99% of the players se CT as "limmited MA". Limmited is never good. Different is good.
For example say that a map could be "won" if 80% of all the cities where destroyed, or 80% of all the training facilites or what ever.
That would put focus on strategic bombing. Im not saying that CT should become a bombing arena but an arena with different gameplay.
Say that focus would be on strategic bombing (instead of base taking) then it would mean defending cities, or what ever other strat is the key to the current map. Defending it would mean bombers needing escorts which would mean alot of fighting.
Personally I dont want CT to be just a furball arena. I like to furball but when its only furballing without a goal to it it can get booring in the long run.
Another thing I would like to see is field limmitations on planes.
We have talked about moving perked planes to only certain fields but I would like to see bombers moved to certain fields as well.
This way fighters would have to fly CAP in vicinity of friendly bomber fields inorder to allow for the friendly bombers to get up. Atm CAP is only viewed as "vulch over a enemy base" but CAP is much more.
Putting focus on strategic bombing and having "bomber fields" would give a offensive target for the defending nation and would create need of true CAP sorties.
Tex
-
Great thread, great discussion. If I may add my .02 -
I'm all for disabling field capture and scoring, and favor field basing limitations over perks for the traditional perk planes for the same reason as Star - it lets infrequent visitors to the CT fly the perk planes right away - the only cost is ferrying them to the action. I enjoyed the realistic aspect of having to land and refuel carefully while ferrying a plane into the combat area when I did it with P-40s on the Guadalcanal map way back when.
I'd even be in favor of disabling GVs altogether. Nothing is worse IMO than rolling a fighter in a near empty arena only to be vultched by a spawn camping GV. Plus it makes it harder to find a fight in an arena with 12-15 ppl if 8 of them are playing in GVs.
I like the CT best when it depicts a particular time frame/theater with a variety of well matched planes. I know these can be hard to find but I enjoyed the Finnish setups and Okinawa with the Ki.84, and latewar ETO P-51 vs 109 fights (though I would've preferred a choice in P-51s rather than limiting it to the 51D).
I think certain setups suggested (Channel Dash, Midway) can be probematic in a 24/7 arena, and may be better suited to Scenarios. (The problem being, for example, the US midway CVs sunk by unopposed players during the nonpeak hours). That is not to say its impossible to do but it may require a CT staffer to check on/reset the arena at the beginning of peak hours each day.
I also enjoyed visiting the CT multiples times in a week when a modified two-stage RPS was in place - after Wednesdays the CT staffers enabled the later war planes for the theater. Just made it feel a little bit more like a campaign to me.
all
-
I'm for disabling GV's with the exception of sets where they played a major role. Tunisia, Rhine, D-Day and FinRus should have them, but BoB '40-'43, and all PAC sets should have NO GV's, none, not even M16's and Osti's. BoB should not have GV's or C47's, that battle was a struggle for air supremacy, a prelude to an invasion, an invasion which never happened.
I'm also for killing scores/ranks, its a detriment to good gameplay in the CT.
-
I agree with what you wrote Grits....
But sometimes it's nice to know you can pull out that m16 or ostwind when vulchers are about whether it's historically accurate or not.....
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Dan.
Ive been thinking very much along the same lines as you. I was actually about to write a post very similar to yours last week but RL work got in the way. ;)
What I wonder is what kind of "win conditions" can be set in AH?
For example atm there can be win conditions set to number of fields left when one nation is down to X fields. Thats the way its set in MA as we all know.
Is it possible to set a "win condition" to 80% of all cities destroyed?
What I would like to see is the CT beeing different in game play. CT needs to be different in gameplay to profile it self. Now its just a limmited MA. Dont get me wrong I like the limmitations on the plane set but 99% of the players se CT as "limmited MA". Limmited is never good. Different is good.
For example say that a map could be "won" if 80% of all the cities where destroyed, or 80% of all the training facilites or what ever.
That would put focus on strategic bombing. Im not saying that CT should become a bombing arena but an arena with different gameplay.
Tex
Personally I'd take out any kind of "Win" conditions. I think it's one of the biggest detriments to the game there is. It makes the focus too much on reseting the map.
Let's face it, when we play the game we are on the hamster wheel to some degree. Take off, find the fight, either die or RTB and do it all over again With a map reset it basically means to run to a certain point, then go back to the beginning and start over.
I'd rather aim for 'Fun" conditions that allow folks to do the things they enjoy without wrecking it for each other, so at any time someone came into the CT they could find the fight and do the things they enjoy. I know if I pop into the MA and whatever country I'm flying for that day is back up into a few fields and is being ganged by the horde, it's just not much fun to go up. And frankly with the kinds of numbers that the CT has, it's gotta start small and stay fun in hopes of drawing in new folks when the word gets around that the CT fighting is fun and different from the MA style.
Using the Rabaul idea I mentioned in my first post. It was never about taking Rabaul. It was about isolating it and keeping it's resources from having an impact. It was a constant battle of attrition there. And it was some brutal fighting and dangerous for both the fighter and bomber drivers that went in.
Say you do Channel Front, 1943. There wouldn't be any sort of win conditions as it was essentially stalemate at the time. Yet the options for both sides were many, whether it be two ship rhubarbs to shoot up ground targets, sweeps to airfields to draw up the baduns, escorts of the mediums to bomb different targets. etc. for the RAF. And the LW was sending 190s lugging bombs to hit targets on the south coast, tying up lots of RAF fighters flying patrols or intercepts. The Ju88s and 110s were out and about. THe 109s and 190s certainly had targets to intercept in bombers and fighters. Throw in shipping in the channel and there is all kinds of variety.
I guess that's just my typical longwinded way of saying I think everyone wins if there are no win conditions. :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Dan.
If there is no "win condition" or any kind of goal for the teams to commonly achive then game play will be furballing.
I dont mind furballing but we got that in MA.
Half focusing on taking bases and half furballing.
Personally I enjoy furballing but just furballing aint enough for me.
Ive got a very strong love for strategy. I love how when different type of pilots in different type of plane work together to achive a goal. Team work, tactics and strategy is something I love just as much as piloting.
When it all comes together then that is the ultimate enjoyment for me.
When I fly my fighter and I have a goal to achive (keep the bombers alive or stop an incoming raid) I focus 200 times more then when Im just furballing. It brings out the best of my abilities.
Fighting without that goal makes the fight it self much less intense.
Tex
-
Hmmm,
StarAfrica you make an excellent counter-argument. So you're approach would be(correct me if I'm wrong) to totally eliminate the "rare" planes from the setup instead of perking them?
I would be much more in tune with that then just enabling them. I don't take any offense to your comments and enjoy a good constructive argument. Just curious as to what your approach would be to filling out the 2nd TAF OOB. This is a great thread, btw.
As for GVs I am more into allowing the setup limit their use than completely eliminating them. But I do agree this is a flight sim and if I had my way it wouldn't take much arm twisting to eliminate GV's if I felt it would get more people in the air fighting.
SECOND TACTICAL AIR FORCE(AVM Arthur Coningham)
No. 83 (Composite) Group (AVM Harry Broadhurst)
No. 15 Sector
122 Wing
19 Squadron, Mustang III (Funtington, B.7 25Jun, B.12 15Jul) QV
65 Squadron (S/L Westersra) Mustang III (Funtington, B.7 25Jun, B.12 15Jul) YT
122 Squadron, Mustang III (Funtington, B.7 25Jun, B.12 16Jul) MT
125 Wing
132 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.11 25Jun, B.19 13Aug) FF
453 (Australian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.11 25Jun, B.19 13Aug) FU
602 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.11 25Jun, B.19 13Aug) LO
129 Wing
184 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.10 27Jun, B.5 16Jul) BR
No. 17 (Canadian) Sector (G/C Bill MacBrien)
126 (Canadian) Wing (W/C George Keefer)
401 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Lorne Cameron) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.4 18Jun, B.18 8Aug) YO
411 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Graham Robertson) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.4 18Jun, B.18 8Aug) DB
412 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Shepherd) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.4 18Jun, B.18 8Aug) VZ
127 (Canadian) Wing (W/C Lloyd Chadburn)
403 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Bob Buckham) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.2 16Jun) KH
416 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Fred Green) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.2 16Jun) DN
421 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Wally Conrad) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.2 16Jun) AU
144 (Canadian) Wing (W/C Johnny Johnson)
441 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Danny Browne) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.3 15Jun, B.11 15Jul) 9G
442 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Dal Russel) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.3 15Jun, B.4 15Jul) Y2
443 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Wally McLeod) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.3 15Jun, B.2 15Jul)) 2I
No. 22 Sector (G/C Paul Davoud)
121 Wing (W/C Bob Davidson)
174 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.5 17Jun, B.2 19Jun, B.5 24Jun) XP
175 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.3 20Jun, B.5 24Jun) HH
245 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.5 27Jun) MR
124 Wing (W/C Basil Carroll)
181 Squadron (S/L Frank Jensen) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.6 20 June) EL
182 Squadron (S/L Pugh) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.6 20Jun, Holmesley 22Jun, B.6 3Jul) XM
247 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.6 20Jun, Hurn 23Jun, B.6 27Jun) ZY
143 (RCAF) Wing (W/C M T Judd)
438 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Fred Grant) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.9 27Jun) F3
439 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Hugh Norsworthy) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.9 27Jun) 5V
440 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L W Pentland) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.9 27Jun) I8
39 Recce Wing (W/C Bunt Waddell)
168 Squadron, Spitfire XIV (Odiham, B.8 1Jul)
400 (Canadian) Squadron, Mosquito XVII (Odiham, B.8 1Jul, B.21 15Jul) SP
414 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Smoky Stover) Spitfire XIV (Odiham, B.21 15Jul) RU
430 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L F Chester) Spitfire XIV (Odiham) G9
Spotting Wing
652 Squadron, Auster
653 Squadron, Auster
658 Squadron, Auster
659 Squadron, Auster (East Grinstead)
662 Squadron (Maj Alec Hill) Auster
83 Group Reserve Squadrons in ADGB
64 Squadron, Spitfire V SH
234 Squadron, Spitfire V AZ
303 (Polish) Squadron, Spitfire V RF
345 (French) Squadron, Spitfire Vb (Shoreham) 2Y
350 (Belgian) Squadron, Spitfire Vb (Selsey) MN
402 (Canadian) Squadron(S/L Jeff Northcott) Spitfire V (Digby) AE
501 Squadron, Spitfire V SD
611 Squadron, Spitfire V FY
No. 84 Group (AVM L Brown)
No.18 Sector
131 (Polish) Wing
302 (Polish) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 4Aug) WX
308 (Polish) Squadron (Maj W Retinger) Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 4Aug) ZF
317 (Polish) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 4Aug) JH
132 (Norwegian) Wing (W/C Rolf Berg)
127 Squadron (S/L Bradley) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.16 22Aug) 9N
66 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.16 20Aug) LZ
331 (Norwegian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, b.16 30Aug) FN
332 (Norwegian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.16 20Aug) AH
134 (Czech) Wing (W/C Tomas Vybiril)
310 (Czech) Squadron (S/L Hrbacec) Spitfire Vc (Apuldram, B.10 28Jun) NN
312 (Czech) Squadron (S/L Liscutin) Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 28Jun) DU
No.19 Sector
222 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Coolham, B.5 26Jul) ZD
349 (Belgian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Coolham, B.17 26Aug) GE
485 (New Zealand) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Coolham, B.17 31Aug) OU
145 (French) Wing
340 (French) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Merston, B.8 19Aug) GW
341 (French) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Merston, B.8 19Aug) NL
133 (Polish) Wing
129 Squadron, Mustang III (Coolham ) DV
306 (Polish) Squadron, Mustang III (Coolham, ) UZ
315 (Polish) Squadron (S/L Harbaczewski) Mustang III (Coolham) PK
No.20 Sector
123 Wing (W/C Desmond Scott)
198 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.5 8Jul, B.10 11Jul, B.7 19Jul) TP
609 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Thorney Island, B.10 1Jul, B.5 9Jul, B.7 19Jul) PR
136 Wing (W/C Ed Reyno)
164 Squadron (S/L Ian Waddy) Typhoon Ib (Thorney, Funtington 18Jun, Hurn 21Jun, B.8 17Jul, B.7 20Jul) FJ
183 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Thorney, Funtington, 18Jun, Hurn 23Jun, Eastchurch 15Jul, B.7 25Jul) HF
263 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, Eastchurch 23Jul, B.3 6Aug) HE
146 Wing
193 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 20Jul) DP
197 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 17Jul) OV
257 Squadron (S/L Walter Ahrens) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 15Jul) FM
266 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 17Jul) ZH
35 Recce Wing
2 Squadron, Mustang I (?, B.10 29Jul, B.4 19Aug) O1
4 Squadron, Spitfire IX (?, B.10 29Jul, B.4 19Aug) TV
268 Squadron, Mustang I (?, B.10 27Jul, B.4 13Aug)
84 Group Reserve Squadrons in ADGB
149 Wing
33 Squadron, Spitfire IX (North Weald) 5R
74 Squadron, Spitfire IX (North Weald) 4D
233 Wing
80 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Hornchurch) W2
229 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Hornchurch) 9R
274 Squadron (S/L Stocky Edwards) Spitfire IX (Hornchurch) JJ
No. 85 Group (night fighter and misc.) (AVM C Hamilton)
141 Wing
264 Squadron, Mosquito XIII (A.8 ?, B.6 11Aug) PS
322 (Dutch) Squadron (S/L K Kuhlmann) Spitfire IX (Selsey) 3W
410 (Canadian) Squadron, Mosquito VI RA
142 Wing
124 Squadron, Spitfire V ON
147 Wing
488 (New Zealand) Squadron, Mosquito VI ME
604 Squadron(W/C Desmond Hughes) Mosquito XIII (A.15 24Jul, A.8 6Aug) NG
148 Wing
29 Squadron, Mosquito VI RO
91 Squadron, Spitfire V DL
409 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Wendy Reid) Mosquito XIII (B.17 25Aug) KP
150 Wing
3 Squadron, Tempest V (Newchurch) ) JF
56 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Newchurch) US
486 (New Zealand) Squadron (S/L Iremonger) Tempest V (Newchurch) SA
Reserves from ADGB
406 (Canadian) Squadron, Beaufighter (Winkleigh, Colerne) HU
418 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Russ Bannock) MosquitoXIII (Hurn) TH
No. 2 Group from Bomber Command (AVM B Embry)
137 Wing
88 Squadron (S/L Lyle) Boston III RH
226 Squadron (S/L Betts) Mitchell II MQ
342 (Lorraine) Squadron (S/L Campbell) Boston III OA
138 Wing
107 Squadron, Mosquito VI OM
305 (Polish) Squadron, Mosquito VI SM
613 Squadron, Mosquito VI SY
139 Wing
98 Squadron, Mitchell II OE
180 Squadron, Mitchell II EV
320 (Dutch) Squadron (S/L H Burgerhout) Mitchell II NO
140 Wing
21 Squadron, Mosquito VI YH
464 (Australian) Squadron, Mosquito VI UP
487 (New Zealand) Squadron, Mosquito VI SB
Headquarters Group
34 Wing
16 Squadron, Spitfire IX PR (A.12 4Aug) EG
69 Squadron, Wellington XIII WI
140 Squadron, Mosquito ZW
3 Naval Wing
808 Squadron, Seafire III
885 Squadron, Seafire III
886 Squadron, Seafire III
897 Squadron, Seafire III
Aerial Spotters
26 Squadron, Spitfire V XC
63 SQuadron, Spitfire V NE
-
Originally posted by soda72
I agree with what you wrote Grits....
But sometimes it's nice to know you can pull out that m16 or ostwind when vulchers are about whether it's historically accurate or not.....
you fix that by cranking up the deadliness of the ack (not flak, which should be removed totally) to the point where no one can survive a pass through it - vulching solved
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Hmmm,
StarAfrica you make an excellent counter-argument. So you're approach would be(correct me if I'm wrong) to totally eliminate the "rare" planes from the setup instead of perking them?
I would be much more in tune with that then just enabling them. I don't take any offense to your comments and enjoy a good constructive argument. Just curious as to what your approach would be to filling out the 2nd TAF OOB. This is a great thread, btw.
I honestly dont know. I'd like to find a way to have them enabled without upsetting the balance of the setup. People dont often get a chance to fly the perk stuff in the MA, it would be nice to have them available in the CT if the setup allows for them.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Dan.
If there is no "win condition" or any kind of goal for the teams to commonly achive then game play will be furballing.
I dont mind furballing but we got that in MA.
Half focusing on taking bases and half furballing.
Personally I enjoy furballing but just furballing aint enough for me.
Ive got a very strong love for strategy. I love how when different type of pilots in different type of plane work together to achive a goal. Team work, tactics and strategy is something I love just as much as piloting.
When it all comes together then that is the ultimate enjoyment for me.
When I fly my fighter and I have a goal to achive (keep the bombers alive or stop an incoming raid) I focus 200 times more then when Im just furballing. It brings out the best of my abilities.
Fighting without that goal makes the fight it self much less intense.
Tex
Back in my AW days when I first started, there was no map reset. Only certain fields could be captured and they were few. It created a little ebb and flow and some massive fights when one country got the little foothold airfield on the other guys turf.
We always found the missions we wanted. Whether it be trying to escort fortresses to the Spit factory or trying to run unarmed Mossies in on the deck to a distant target avoiding the flak alleys.
There has to be a way to create targets that matter without it meaning capturing all the fields to reset the map.
I understand what your saying in having to have a goal. I just wonder if there is a way to come up with other goals that fit within the historical framework of the CT
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you fix that by cranking up the deadliness of the ack (not flak, which should be removed totally) to the point where no one can survive a pass through it - vulching solved
As soon as that's done people will start complaining about someone always running to their ack for safety... heck people complain about it now and the level is set so low it doesn't even matter...
-
Originally posted by soda72
As soon as that's done people will start complaining about someone always running to their ack for safety... heck people complain about it now and the level is set so low it doesn't even matter...
Not if you made it like real ack - so that it doen't discriminate between friend and foe!
-
Originally posted by SKJohn
Not if you made it like real ack - so that it doen't discriminate between friend and foe!
that's the key, make like the ack that killed George Preddy, deadly to friend and foe. the problem is how do you handle takeoff and landing?
-
Originally posted by soda72
As soon as that's done people will start complaining about someone always running to their ack for safety... heck people complain about it now and the level is set so low it doesn't even matter...
like you said, they do that now and will always do it
with deadly ack, you will just have to stay out of its range
if the **** won't leave his ack, find another fight
historically, how many fights actually took place under 7k directly over an airfield?
turn off the land based flak, and crank up the ack to two ping death
make those that bomb out hangars, do it from above 7k
-
Dan.
I know this is a bit off topic and risks to hijack but I still think it does add to the subject.
It is dangerous to try to make something into something that ones was. (ouch bad english but I hope you understand).
AW was AW. I didnt play it but from what everyone says it was a blast. Though trying to find the same blast in another game, even though AH beeing close, is very dangerous because one risks to always be disapointed. If a game has a "magic" to it its not only due to how the game is implemented. Its just as much a factor of who played it and when it was (both in sence of technical timeline and personal timeline).
Even if the exact same gameplay was implemented in AH that was once in AW the game experience will NEVER be the same.
Im not saying you are trying to make CT into AW. Im just saying one has to be aware of that what once was great was so not only due to the implementation of the game mechanics.
Though it is always good to use past experiences and evolve these into new ideas. Important though is that its always evolved into something new.
Tex
-
One ability that isn't present, but that would be useful, would be tha ability to allow aircraft in, but deny them some ordnance packages. If the Spit XIV is denied its bombs and rockets and the Tempest is denied its bombs it would encourge the use of those high end fighters in the air-to-air roll rather than a universal roll.
That would be a change for HTC to impliment, if they thought it was worth it.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Dan.
I know this is a bit off topic and risks to hijack but I still think it does add to the subject.
It is dangerous to try to make something into something that ones was. (ouch bad english but I hope you understand).
AW was AW. I didnt play it but from what everyone says it was a blast. Though trying to find the same blast in another game, even though AH beeing close, is very dangerous because one risks to always be disapointed. If a game has a "magic" to it its not only due to how the game is implemented. Its just as much a factor of who played it and when it was (both in sence of technical timeline and personal timeline).
Even if the exact same gameplay was implemented in AH that was once in AW the game experience will NEVER be the same.
Im not saying you are trying to make CT into AW. Im just saying one has to be aware of that what once was great was so not only due to the implementation of the game mechanics.
Though it is always good to use past experiences and evolve these into new ideas. Important though is that its always evolved into something new.
Tex
Understood Tex. Definately not my intent. It was just an example of how the gameplay could be intense without the need to reset the map.
Probably my biggest beef with AH is the whole idea of "winning" the war this way as it seems to drive the horde mentality where you get a mob over one undefended or little defended base while a sector away you get a mob from the other side doing the same thing with both avoiding the fight so to speak.
I still think if the CT is to be something different, then it has to find different ways to provide goals for those flying in it. If it's just a mini MA the problems remain the same.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Karnak
One ability that isn't present, but that would be useful, would be tha ability to allow aircraft in, but deny them some ordnance packages. If the Spit XIV is denied its bombs and rockets and the Tempest is denied its bombs it would encourge the use of those high end fighters in the air-to-air roll rather than a universal roll.
That would be a change for HTC to impliment, if they thought it was worth it.
This is another good idea. Is it possible to restrict which bases have ordnance?
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I still think if the CT is to be something different, then it has to find different ways to provide goals for those flying in it. If it's just a mini MA the problems remain the same.
Dan/CorkyJr
I think in a nutshell, that says it all. Hashing out what those goals are to be would be the next mission, imo.
I see the CT as a place for players to recreate the thrill of WWII air combat in it's various historical theaters, to the extent the game will allow. I'm not saying that is what is has to be, just how I would like to see it. How do you guys see it?
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I honestly dont know. I'd like to find a way to have them enabled without upsetting the balance of the setup. People dont often get a chance to fly the perk stuff in the MA, it would be nice to have them available in the CT if the setup allows for them.
If ya think of something share it, I think a lot of great ideas can come out of this community. Splicing them together in the right combination will allow for an excellent arena.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
One ability that isn't present, but that would be useful, would be tha ability to allow aircraft in, but deny them some ordnance packages. If the Spit XIV is denied its bombs and rockets and the Tempest is denied its bombs it would encourge the use of those high end fighters in the air-to-air roll rather than a universal roll.
That would be a change for HTC to impliment, if they thought it was worth it.
I think this would be a good idea as well...
I don't know if HTC will ever have time to do something like that though...
-
I don't have any real suggestions to this one, but I can answer to Guppy.
Like Guppy said, the problem with the CT is; 1) nobody has a clear idea in what the CT should be, and also, even if someone has bold intentions and clear ideas, 2) they don't have any direct control or authority over the CT to see it through.
I was around when the CT was first created.
At first, a lot of people like me considered that the CT could provide a material alternative to what the MA was. This group of people envisioned the CT as a "Historical" arena. One with more cooperation, lot of structuring, people organized into flights, regular missions, and etc.. You could say that it might have been something like the predecessor to the official ToD idea HTC has been promoting.
However, other people saw the CT as a Axis vs Allies arena. It would be different from the MA in that it was emphasized clearly on A2A fighting, with a lot of less field captures.
The third group of people, saw the CT as a MA with smaller numbers and limited plane sets. Essentially the same gameplay as the MA in the "anything goes" line of thought.
Over the years, all of those three various views have been tested out in variations. There was a lot of experimentations. In the earlier days, the CT CMs have tried implementing 'general objectives' for certain terrains, to promote certain historical tendencies to be recreated in the setup. They've tried locking down fields so it can't be captured. They've tried the all-out MA style of play, too.
All of them had good points and bad points, but one thing was certain; the AH system was fundamentally limited, and without a certain amount of avid and voluntary participation from the players, the gameplay cannot be something different from the MA.
.............
I'm not a mechanist, who thinks a certain material environment will automatically create certain tendencies. But I also detest metaphysics, laying blame to the individual.
The metaphysical thought is not uncommon even in the MA. People blame the individual for creating hordes or loving superplanes or doing cowardly stuff. They say that the individual must become a better pilot and start seeing and doing stuff which they usually would not do, and then, one day, the MA will be all better. That's basically the same logic as saying that humanity can be saved when everybody on the planet suddenly starts acting like a saint. Yeah, right, let's hope 6 billion people will one day all become good people, maybe another million years of evolution would make that possible.
I'm a materialist. I view the environment as being the key determining factor for people's behaviors. The individual mindset is not unimportant, but when it comes to making decisions, more often than not, people will prefer what is currently best for them under certain conditions.
.............
That's what's happened to the CT. AH, is at heart, a very simple game, at least in terms of structuring. The main download offers only a certain module of compatibility between the players, and that's it. It offers a certain type of strategically rigged terrain, and whatever the gamers do in it is up to them.
However, the players actions are free only upto what is possible in the game. We have a "kill-town, capture field" system in place. We also have a very simple mission creating system in place. However, we don't have any other kind of supplementary systems to refine the gameplay to our needs.
So, when the CT was envisioned as a real historic alternative for the players, the immediate problem was that you can't have any real historic fights in the CT. For one thing, the numbers were too limited. The CT regulars hoped that if the CT became fun enough, numbers would steadily rise, which never happened. (at one time, I've seen as many as 60~70 people, but that was about it)
So, in order to create a CT that could recreate the intensity of a typical WW2 situation, all of the missing systems that were needed, would have to be filled in by the players with their voluntary sacrifice and participation.
Example:
If we wanted to a great WW2 style "8th AF vs the Luftwaffe" engagement, we would need people to man buffs, organized escort activities, organized interceptor activity, and basic synchronization between those two hostile sides, so people don't waste time trying to find another for hours.
We're missing the system to place AI buff action, we don't have any host-triggered squad creation, nor any kind of strategic calculation system. Since all of these are missing, the players have to sacrifice themselves and organize it on a voluntary basis. Some people have to fly buffs, some 'leader' type of individual must organize the escort fighters, and another 'leader' would have to organize the interceptor fighters.
The problem is, this has to be done everyday. It's like the Special Events or Tour of Duty programs where people would voluntarily organize stuff to have a great time - but it's gotta be done everyday in the CT. The CT is a regular arena, not like the SEA or (player-organized)ToD which happens only once a week or month.
Naturally, not even the CT staffers, which is also a voluntary position, can deal with that kind of workload. All of that workload, should be handled by the game system itself, but its not. Woops, there goes the first idea on what the CT should be. People cannot go further than how the system is created. At least, not over a certain duration.
Nor do the CT staffers have any kind of real authority over the players to enforce a change. They are after all, in the same ranks as us. Some changes, or ideas, need to be forcibly implemented and enforced, until it becomes the norm, and over time people finally realize that it makes sense, and find the fun in it.
However, CT staff doesn't have that power. They can't make sure of anything, they can't promise anything, and they cannot restrict anything. The only thing they can do, is meddle with the perimeters of the Arena Settings. Anything outside that, any 'gameplay decision', is out of their authority.
So, now the CT faces two problems.
The first one is that the main system of AH is so limited, that it cannot support any kind of real structuring or organizing to recreate the historical intensity. Everything must be done by the voluntary player, which cannot become a regular thing unless the voluntary player gets a job at HTC and makes it his work to organize other players.
The second one is that the CT staff are lame-ducks. (Sorry guys, but this wasn't a personal insult) The only authority they have is map/setup selection and arena settings. They can't enforce any kind of different gameplay at all.
Thus, with the above two conditions at work, it is only natural that the CT becomes a mini MA. That's how the game is made.
With the current game system in place, no matter what you do, if you throw in many people inside the arena, they will start playing as if the were in the MA. That's a fact. It's not about the individual, but it's about how the system is structured.
The terrain system is made like this. It starts out with certain setups.
And then people come in. They fly for a while, and they think its ok.. but they quickly want more planes in it. They want field captures. They want dar back. They want all of the gameplay possible in the MA.
They want all of that, not because they are dweebs or are selfish, but because nothing else is available. They might want real squad action, or huge formations of buffs. Or maybe a great big tank battle through the plains of Kursk, or a death duel in the city of Stalingrad. They might like that - if the CT can ever show them that. But the CT can't. Nobody has that kind of time, authority, or manpower to organize a great historic fight in the CT.
So, people fly for a while in the CT, but they don't have anything really different from the MA. So if the CT doesn't give them at least as much action the MA can give them, then people ignore the CT.
...............
It's a humongous LOSE-LOSE scenario.
1. If the CT staff do not give the players the MA type of gameplay, then there isn't anything else they can give. It takes a lot of time and voluntary will to make the fights in the CT great historic fun, and the players certainly don't care about that, nor do the CT staff have that much free time/authority in their hands. The AH system is too limited to make a CT a really different place. So, people start to get bored of the quiet, stagnant gameplay of the CT and stop comming.
2. However, if the CT staff allows all of that in the CT, then the CT is now nothing more than a mini-MA with limited planes. Why would anyone come to the CT when they can go to the MA and play the exact same thing in a larger scale?
Add to that fact that the recent upgrade to AH2 got rid of many of the excellent terrains we used to have, and you have your answer in why the CT is failing. In my case, I am pretty much disappointed in the CT because I can't really feel any of the historic aura the CT might have offered. The only thing that kept me coming here was the different views. I simply loved Tunisia. I loved Battle of Britain, too.
Woops, all gone. AH2. No maps yet.
...............
-
So the question is, now that the ToD is in development.. what should the CT become when ToD comes online?
As for me, I think some of the systems in the ToD should be also made available in the CT, so it becomes a lighter, minored-down version of the ToD where players get some idea or practice for ToD, in a much more lenient environment. If the ToD is everything HT says, it's gonna be a tightly packed, hard structured scenario game where people fly in squad organizations, submit to the flight leaders, abide by times and schedules, get evaluated, and then get promoted/demoted.
The CT, should be a freer environment where much of it remains the same as it was, except a few key systems in the ToD would be made available to the CT - like, the ability to place AI formations of buffs, create squad-based flight schedules, and etc.
For example, If the CT is playing the BoB terrain, AI buffs of Ju88s will be placed and hit English locations regularly.
Normally, people would up freely and fight around the Dover-Calais like they do currently. But every once in a while, maybe an hour, the system will announce AI Ju88s are gonna make their way to English locations. Then the LW people, if they want, can rtb, join the system-created squads, and wait. Only the people who joined the system-created squad will be able to take off from a certain location. The players will get off from the same field at the same time, will be directed by the system to go to X spot and join the buffs, and then fly towards England to escort.
Much simularly, the RAF people will rtb, join the system-created squad, and then launch when the system lets them. They will be directed to where the LW buffs and escorts are.
Both will meet, fight, and then the results of the flight will be announced which side met their objectives, the mission is over, and the people can resume their furballing at Dover-Calais.
It's either this, or the CT closes.
-
Wow, that was a tough post to get through my substance abused brain.
Originally posted by Kweassa
So, in order to create a CT that could recreate the intensity of a typical WW2 situation, all of the missing systems that were needed, would have to be filled in by the players with their voluntary sacrifice and participation.
In my case, I am pretty much disappointed in the CT because I can't really feel any of the historic aura the CT might have offered.
...............
I believe voluntary sacrifice and participation are the great hurdle to overcome. As you pointed out the chance of "historic aura" is possible in the CT, and no matter what programming skills they have to enhance gameplay there will never be a button to push for player participation.
I don't think the CT needs to be repaired, or patched up, or cover every possible diverse whim to keep people from leaving. I think it needs to be rebuilt on a foundation of historic gameplay and it is an opportune time to do it. It may take time, but the player base that grows from that, and as it seems now there is a large chunk already interested in a greater lean towards a historical arena, will be a player base that cares, that will be willing to participate.
Although I wouldn't be so quick to call it all a lose-lose situation, but with my past experience with the CT and change I do have to admit it is a rather daunting task. But not impossible, just need some people to step up and apply the energy, get on the CT development group, keep posts going in this forum, etc..
Just within the last week I've noticed a much greater flow of positive energy in the posts, so it's hard to argue with the results of people applying themselves. And I am certain with the staff we have in place no good ideas will be overlooked or cast off without any consideration.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It's either this, or the CT closes.
Not so sure that the outlook is so grim, although I like your idea of having AI formations periodically wandering around the map.
Seems to me that the CT never will appeal to more than a relatively small subset of the AH crowd. There are just too many people who have a favorite plane that they want to fly, or who simply don't want to fly what's available in the CT on any particular evening. Loyalty to squads enhances this, because unless everyone in the squad agrees to come to the CT, everyone will probably stay in the MA. So we're always going to have fewer people than the MA has.
Question is, what factors will increase the numbers that we can get. I agree with Kweassa's analysis that the CT will appeal to people who want an Axis v. Allied arena for historical satisfaction, or to people who want a chance for a rolling plane set so that they can utilize the pre-1945 plane set, or to people who want increased realism. I also think that it draws - or should draw - people who are more interested in air-to-air combat than they are in winning the war (although many of these won't come here because they can't fly their favorite planes). Really isn't any reason why we can't do all of these things here.
One particular comment regarding increased realism. For a very long time, the chief reason given by posters on this BBS for not flying in the CT was that the icon ranges were too short. I no longer buy that particular excuse. We've had long icon ranges, off and on, for quite a large portion of this year, it's been widely announced, and the numbers didn't increase. I'm therefore in favor of increasing the realism settings to bring in the ones that would appeal to.
- oldman the rambler
-
The largest problem IMO, Oldman, is that CT has to find something to justify its existence when ToD comes out. We need an answer to the question we've been asking for so long;
Just what is the CT supposed to be?
Is it;
1) an arena to recreate WW2 events/timeline?
2) a semi-historic, Axis vs Allied free-flight/fight arena?
3) a mini-MA with less numbers and limited plane sets
If the CT is 1), than its existence overlaps the ToD.
If the CT is 3), then there's no reason why the CT should exist in the first place
The problem is 2).
"Semi-historic" - obviously, since the CT will continue to use a certain WW2 timeline for the planesets.But, if it's gonna be semi-historic, how's it gonna be different from the ToD and the MA?
That's why I've been thinking that implementing some of the ToD game system into the CT would be a good idea. Not a real serious "role-playing" arena as the ToD, but not an all-out, do-anything-you-want, type of game such as the MA is.
-
You know maybe a semi realistic full set Axis vs Allies arena would work better.
The day we get ToD CT as a "historical set AH" will not be needed. ToD will be the limmited set historical game play.
I dont know about the rest of the player base but at least for me when I did my first trails of AH (2002 and 2003) reason I didnt sign up was that I really didnt like the "all nations have it all setup". Reason I kept trying it out was because it is a great game, finally I managed to get over the setup on my 3rd trial (fall of 2004).
If MA would have been a Axis vs Allies arean I would have signed up right away. It would have been historical enough.
I think the problem with CT and the potential problem of ToD is that they are too historical for the avg Joe player.
As said before CT, in the eyes of the avg player, takes away (planes) more then they get back from the loss (history).
Maybe if we had historical maps like BoB and finrus but with full plane set and axis vs allies we would get more players into the CT.
I personally really think we would.
Tex
-
I think a semi-realistic Axis vs Allies arena is a possiblity, I personally prefer a more historic arena, but I do agree that it can be hard getting the numbers in there.
Maybe something along the lines of Warbirds historical arena, where there is a rolling plane set. Start out with a different map each rotation, all Axis 1940 planes vs all Allied 1940 planes, then slowly add planes to each respective side as they became available historically, until we reach the full planeset. Run this over a month maybe??
One thing about this though, some of the historical maps might not be suited for this, where some of the MA map styles would be.
I honestly prefer the historical planeset correct to the map I'm flying, but if the arena TexMurphy mentioned draws in more numbers. I know I would be that arena in a heartbeat over going into the MA.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
The day we get ToD CT as a "historical set AH" will not be needed. ToD will be the limmited set historical game play.
I'm betting this won't be so. ToD, as near as I can tell, will require a longer time commitment per sitting, as it were. If you just want to log on for fifteen minutes or half an hour, I doubt that ToD will serve your needs.
But the CT will!
- oldman