Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on August 26, 2008, 01:43:15 AM
-
This is a topic for pilots who flew in Rangoon, '42 (2008) (which ran in August, 2008) to record their feedback (comments and suggestions). Please let us scenario CM's know what you liked, what you didn't like, what you'd change, and so on.
One thing to keep in mind when making your suggestions:
Scenarios are put on by player volunteers. We don't have a large team, and we do these things in our spare time for fun, not as a job. So suggestions that require a lot more manpower and resources to implement are not as helpful.
We scenario CM's love to play in scenarios, which requires a thriving player base. So we are interested in what participants have to say and in what would make scenarios ever more popular and fun for the Aces High community.
-
Brooke!
As always I enjoyed my short stay in Rangoon....or any scenario for that matter.
Here are a few points that I look for.
What makes a Scenario attractive for me is the depth of the virtual reality. Proper Aircraft with the proper Groups and Squadrons.
Of course also with the skins to match. The terrains we get for the Special Events are most times absolutely gorgeous. I wish some could be added to the Game Arenas.
As to the CM Team. I only have good words for all. The CM team does a wonderful job putting on these events. I also salute those that aren't members of the CM Staff that design and plan Scenarios.
Now, my biggest gripe is having to substitue aircraft. Realizing we don't have a complete stable of WWII aircraft for Scenarios I understand why it is done. But I am not a big fan of seeing Ju88s subbing for Japanese Bombers. Or SBDs' subbing for Buffalos. That is not the CM Staffs fault of course, but I'd rather see something made up as I said above with the proper aircraft, skins and terrain. Matching an exact date in time during the War, with the proper Aircraft and Groups as well as skins is what flips my trigger. I wish also that weather could be added for the specific dates in History that the Scenario takes place. It would ground some BGs' and FGs for a frame. Or those specific BGs and FGs would not be represented in the Scenario. I know it's complicated. But I have placed these issues on my wish list.
The more realistic the Scenario can be, the deeper immersion. With deeper immersion, more fun, and a realization of what really occured ,the more appreciation I have for those young men who unfortunately had to participate. So...gimme the real stuff! At least the cartoon planes :aok
-
Brooke!
As always I enjoyed my short stay in Rangoon....or any scenario for that matter.
Here are a few points that I look for.
What makes a Scenario attractive for me is the depth of the virtual reality. Proper Aircraft with the proper Groups and Squadrons.
Of course also with the skins to match. The terrains we get for the Special Events are most times absolutely gorgeous. I wish some could be added to the Game Arenas.
As to the CM Team. I only have good words for all. The CM team does a wonderful job putting on these events. I also salute those that aren't members of the CM Staff that design and plan Scenarios.
Now, my biggest gripe is having to substitue aircraft. Realizing we don't have a complete stable of WWII aircraft for Scenarios I understand why it is done. But I am not a big fan of seeing Ju88s subbing for Japanese Bombers. Or SBDs' subbing for Buffalos. That is not the CM Staffs fault of course, but I'd rather see something made up as I said above with the proper aircraft, skins and terrain. Matching an exact date in time during the War, with the proper Aircraft and Groups as well as skins is what flips my trigger. I wish also that weather could be added for the specific dates in History that the Scenario takes place. It would ground some BGs' and FGs for a frame. Or those specific BGs and FGs would not be represented in the Scenario. I know it's complicated. But I have placed these issues on my wish list.
The more realistic the Scenario can be, the deeper immersion. With deeper immersion, more fun, and a realization of what really occured ,the more appreciation I have for those young men who unfortunately had to participate. So...gimme the real stuff! At least the cartoon planes :aok
For intense, the DGS back in October 06-07. That was the best scenario we had because it combined pretty much of everything that hajo explained above. ( besides the weathering grounding squadrons. )
:salute i missed ragoon since i was still at military school but i won't miss BoB 08 HOPEFULLY.
-
I, too, very much like aircraft and conditions that were as close as possible to historical.
For Rangoon, the scenario CM's discussed for quite a while whether or not to try what would be the best historical match of aircraft. That would be Hurri I's, P-40B's, and F4F-4 (4 gun, as the F2A) for the allies; and D3A's (for the Ki-27), A6M2's (as the Ki-43), and Ju 88's (as the Sally) for the Japanese.
We didn't do that for a variety of reasons this time, but even for the future, my biggest concern is attendance for the IJAAF side if a lot of its fighters are D3A's.
For folks (like me) who enjoy the most-historical mix of aircraft possible, do you think we'd get enough players if the IJAAF had a lot of D3A's?
-
Another question I'm particularly interested in people's opinions on is the altitude caps.
I know the 12k unless icon or icon on icon was confusing to some, has issues with player compliance, etc.
We don't have the ability to take away pilot's GPS instruments (the clipboard map) or freeze people if their AH airplane is up too high or in cases of IJAAF take away oxygen if their airplane is too high. So, we can't have some of the things that caused airplanes to fly lower than people would fly them in AH.
We could just specify that the bombers fly at 10k, put in a downwind at 16k, and call it good. Of course, all fighters would be flying around at 16k the whole time, mashed up against the alt cap, but perhaps that's better than what we had (although it might give an even more artificial feel to things? -- I don't know).
We could put in a lot of clouds. The problem there is that, with GPS, planes have no problem flying around in clouds and not running the risk of getting lost. Still, maybe somewhat complicated assortments of clouds such that you can't see bombers at 10k if you are higher than about 13k might work. The issue is that you could have a scouting group at 13k to spot and the rest of your squadron up at 16k in the gloom and still all keep together with use of that GPS and have the advantage of still being able to spot the bombers and still be able to jump the defending fighters. Of course, some defending fighters could be up in the gloom. It would be a gloom arms race with lots of fighter spending a lot of time flying around in the soup.
Anyway, what do people think of various ways to encourage or enforce more-realistic altitudes in the presence of GPS and perfect oxygen and heaters?
-
Another question I'm particularly interested in people's opinions on is the altitude caps.
At 1st I didnt object to it. It was something to get used to. I do have my concerns though, on how this rule is/was can be enforced. But if everyone sticks to it, it should work.
However seeing that apparently the server (or frontend or whatever) can only handle 32 planes at one time, and you simply dont see the rest, this gave us Japs a huge disadvantage. We often fly in swarms, way more then 32. We often came under attack by dots popping up well above 12k altitude, and I was in the impression they were either 'cheating' this rule or had 1 lone plane following us on the deck or something. We never seen them, and they were able to see us and climb up was something I was puzzled about for a long time. Now I realise they simply spot us way sooner then we can spot them. They fly in smaller groups, and can spot dots further out. We fly in large groups, and can only spot dots when they get very close.
I prefer we ditch this rule in next scenarios and simply use 1 hard deck. It will also prevent the jojo effect.
-
I don't know what the limitations of the arenas are... I thought I heard at one point that winds can only be deployed at even thousands of altitude, for example, and that's why the downwind was set at 16k instead of 15k.
Assuming its possible, I'd suggest having the full downwind at 16k, half that amount at 14k, and half again (one quarter) at 12k. Then let people decide for themselves if its "worth" going above 12k or above 14k.
Or to make it simpler, just have the full downwind set at 14k instead of 16k, and let people fly at whatever alt they want. Most will probably fly at 13.9k, which limits their upward mobility... but so what? Its better than thinking the other side is cheating when you see someone up that high.
About aircraft selection, I definitely think it was a good idea to go away from historical planesets in order to assure that people will actually sign up for both sides. As it was, the Axis were plagued by no-shows, and we didn't have our intended ratio of aircraft. I think it was in large part because people weren't interested in flying A6M2s. Historically, I suppose the scenario designers "should" have made it into a "turkey shoot" for the Allies, with hordes of sub-par Japanese planes in the air so that every Ally pilot could become a scenario ace. But lets face it, that's only fun for the Allies.
Another problem I think started from re-opening registration a couple times. I think this really diluted the players that would take it seriously enough to show up all four frames with people that just wanted to have a spot reserved, even if they could only make it once or twice. I think it also made it so that there wouldn't be enough walk-ons to fill out the rosters. I think a scenario should have a designed of pilots for each side and not get expanded. Maybe after that make a "preferred walk-on" list if there's the demand. But a scenario that has the numbers skewed one way or the other instead of the correct ratio thanks to no-shows and not enough walk-ons has a serious problem.
That's all I got, Rangoon '08 was my first scenario and it was a lot of fun. I probably won't sign up for BoB because its football season and the dates will certainly conflict with tailgates / home games. But I hope I can at walk-on to one or two frames at least.
-
Enjoyed Rangoon immensely - aside from a couple of gripes (which were basically me whining as I'm an easy kill).
Had to do all 4 frames as a walk-on as work has a horrible tendency to interfere if I have anything planned - so wasnt willing to take a spot I wasnt sure I could fill.
Had no trouble with getting a place - flew with my squaddies for every frame - what could be better than that.
(oh, and if your putting the spit v in BOB'08- can I have one please.....lol)
<S> to all the staff who put this together, ran it and made it so much fun (and my apologies for whining)
Wurzel
-
Dantoo and I had a long discussion about this after frame 4. The icon aspect was definitely a problem that caused complaints within the rank and file. No-one can say for sure that the rule was complied with, or broken, and I have numerous films that show one or more opponents up around 14k when no other friendlies were detectable in the area, but that doesn't mean they were breaking the rule.
Although we disagreed on execution, from our discussion, we'd both recommend sever wind be used at the stated altitude cap with a solid cloud layer, and that the icon range aspect be done away with. He was for the maximum down draft while I'm for a maximum updraft with maximum horizontal element, break the rule and you're done. :t I disagree with the statement that if it's 14k, everyone will fly at 13.9k. I hope that's true, because that would require flat turns from my opponents, which would not be an advantage for most planes.
-
I think that a 14k downwind would result in everyone flying at 14k until they lose alt in combat. Even if they want some vertical, instead of flying at 13k (or 13.5k) to have room, it would be better upon seeing the enemy to dive from 14k to create the room. I think it would be just like how folks do in in the DA. If there's an alt cap set, they are at it, although they might dive just before engagement.
This is not to say that having just a downwind alt cap is not the way to go.
-
Also, folks, how would you rate Rangoon against other scenario designs on how fun it is?
And, in addition to what you didn't like about Rangoon (things you'd change to make it more fun), what did you particularly like?
For me, frame 4 was particularly exciting and fun. I liked it because it involved a very exciting fight into and out of Rangoon, where I think everyone got to participate and where it was hard fought on both sides.
The strong points of Rangoon seem to be:
-- A high probability that you will see action.
-- It has none of the less-popular roles (transport, manning ground guns or fleets, etc.).
-- For a side to do well, it usually means that the majority of pilots played an important part and executed well.
-- There are no complaints about it being an altitude arms race, with too many planes being at 40k. :)
-
I think the alt cap in this scenario (although I dont like it in principle) is essential for the balance of this scenario. That said, it could be easier (a simple hard cap; no "IF <arbitrary condition> THEN go higher") and it should be enforced by extreme downwind and cloud layer, no penalties for going over it. I hate being punished for doing a simple loop when the plane is perfectly capable of doing it.
Plane/Icon visibility was a big issue. Due to the nature of this event (only one target to attack) I don't see how clustering can be avoided. My suggestion would be to limit the number in the event to the amount in the initial writeup. It helps both with planes coming out of hyperspace and filling ranks on the axis side (e.g. if we are short we don't need to find 20 people, just 10). Maybe the bombers on the allied side could be brought back again, and a spot the axis has to defend (to spread planes). It's a further "what-if", but not completely unreasonable if a carrier like the Zuikaku makes a short guest appearance as both potential target and origin of the Navy planes.
I strongly advise not to use the Val as a fighter for Japan. As an escort fighter it would suck so bad it wouldn't be funny. The Zero has plenty of low speed maneuverability advantage over most allied planes as it is, but even with the Zeros speed advantage over the D3A it was very hard to fend the allies off. On top of that, nobody wanted to fly a Zeke.. we had empty planes in spades, and that's going to be worse if all the axis side can offer are vals.
All in all, I think it's a well balanced and fun event :)
-
On alt cap:
This particular scenario has a valid reason for an altitude cap. The current method is totally broken. I am willing to bet Leitwolf and Bearkats spent way too much of their time dealing with complaints of the order "They're always 16K; They are climbing before contact; They're doing it so I'm going to do it too".
This causes distraction and dissatisfaction. It is not a rule that a CO shouldn't enjoy an event. There shouldn't be rules that prevent a CO from enjoying an event.
My strong feeling is that where arena settings can provide a boundary then use them and forget the use of complex player monitored bounds. Put a downwind of sufficient force at 14k that it makes it extremely difficult to make any headway when climbing at max. Put an upwind of such force at 16K that it takes you to the moon without respite if you go up there. Put a cloud layer with it.
These settings would allow a small local transgression of 14k whilst afk or even fighting. It would stop someone from journeying above that level however. A total loser who goes above 16K for any reason totally loses.
Other points:
I believe the best way to make sure that players have the right plane fit out, departure field etc.. is for FLs to use missions. This is especially useful if you are taking walk ons (they usually don't even know what side they're on let alone what and how to fly). You can't post missions if the arena is in the dark. Can we avoid that please. Also there is a need to be wary of the clock so if the CM changes the time there can be repercussions if a mission is already posted.
I totally love the idea of each side having a fully empowered CM flying. This allows a CO to instantly remove a disruptive troll if it ever becomes necessary. (Some of those walk ons ........sheeeeesh).
Let's all put in and buy a stick of RAM for the server! There are lag issues that occur in the SEA that do not occur elsewhere. I'm not talking of the icon limitation. Both sides had the strange phenomenon of planes "uncloaking" around them. Now I'm used to Snibbo telling me "Hey that guy wasn't there 1 second ago, he just appeared behind me", but this time he actually had a point. I honestly don't believe it was an out of control problem that caused major upset, in fact it was sort of funny, but if we can encourage HTC to upgrade the darn server it won't hurt.
The SEA and especially scenarios bring out the very best experience that you can have in AH. At times it's almost extreme. If there was ever a bigger furball in AH history than that which occurred in frame 3 just south of Rangoon, I've certainly never heard of it.
-
just for you guy's info : We did not penalize for the alt infractions (we called those a wash) .
we will try just the wind/cloud thing at a fair alt to keep the fight below the need of O2 . The Buffs will stay/use the correct /actual Alts , and will be open for penalty when violated.
For the server/what the hell issue.
Another usable option is a weather factor ... Fog,heavy cloud groupings, rain type sky, ect .
This might help in the dot/icon/ 32 plane tracking issue . (hopefully this will get discussed at the Con )
we have some good comments here , keep em coming .
-
Wind doesn't work properly in AH. No aerodynamics involved, just straight linear motion.
I would suggest cloud layers and fog so thick you can't see through the clouds....
However, that leaves an "out" for all attackers and victims as a way to avoid a fight.
Oh, and DGS had a limit of how many cons (bombers) could be in an area because of the lag and dots issue. Rangoon had no such limitation. On the MANY occasions allies ran into a giant horde of 50+ planes we couldn't get an ID on them or even spot them until the last second. The Bomber formations flew right past me in 2 frames and I never saw them (frames 2 and 4) despite looking exactly where my wingmen were. Full graphics, FPS pegged in the high 50s.... Still the game couldn't display all the dots properly.
There may be need of some sort of limitation for planes in one area. Perhaps put friendly collisions on at the 45 minute mark? See all those japanese crash into each other and have no opposition keeping us from the bombers :lol
-
I flew with the bombers at some point in each frame. Their dots and icons disappeared from my sight in a couple of cases, although it was far from 100% of the time. Frame 4, that didn't happen for me at all, but I wasn't with them constantly.
Everyone seemed to have the problem at some point of enemy fighters suddenly appearing. For me, that happened in frame 3, for example. A squadron of Spitfires materialized 1-1.5k in front of me as I was flying forward protection for the bombers, which was quite exciting.
I think the solution here, other than forcing separate bomber groups as was done in Der Grosse Schlag, would be to limit registration to the original numbers. Someone else suggested that also as a way to get more consistent numbers, and I agree.
-
Wind set for 14k instead of 16k.
Remove the rule about being at 12k or lower unless in icon of an enemy plane. Too much energy was diverted to this rule during this scenario on the battlefield.
-
I, personally, cannot see any serious reasons for alt cap for fighters either by rules or by winds. I think it would be enough to restrict the bombers. If everyone knows that their cap is 10K, why would the fighters go all the way to 25 or 30K? If they want to climb that high, let them. Cloud layers can be used in such way that they cannot see too well from up high. E.g. a new cloud layer every 3K or so.
I am always for less rules over more rules. If something can be achieved in some other way without making a new rule, it is always the more desirable option. Also I am pretty much against rules which require constant attention (like obeying alt cap) and/or are difficult to supervise and judge afterwards.
One alternative to alt cap would be to show radar dots above the limited altitude... Yes, you can go up there, but then you will reveal your position. No additional rules or supervision needed.
-----------------------------
Then to personal observations:
I flew 2 frames as a walkon. Start-up went pretty smoothly, one just needs the right attitude of a newbie coming to a front-line squadron. "I dont know nothin, I just follow orders" :)
Most fun, personally, in these 2 frames was trying to maintain some kind of proper formation and to try moving with it properly without losing sight of the bombers.
What was not fun? Warping dots, the one or two times an enemy squadron or two zapped magically among us from nowhere (too many planes at same area? server/client? problem) and then losing sight of them pretty soon again. Meeting lone A-20:s or P-40:s and realizing after several chases that there is no way to catch them in my A6M2.
Most fun of it all (for me) was the beta frame, where there were no warping/magic zap problems and there were several engagements with various enemies. :aok
---
Maybe the DGS and Rangoon are 2 opposite ends of a bombing campaign. In DGS the units are all spread out with so many liable targets, while in Rangoon they all concentrate at the same target. What would it be like somewhere in between of DGS and Rangoon? ....BoB? What else?
---
Even though I may have flown in 2 frames in 2 slightly boring spots, a scenario is always a scenario... its like pizza or like sex. It is always pretty good ;)
Good job guys :aok
-
The more participating in the Scenario the better imho. The Allies threw 1000 Bomber raids at the LW during the end of 1944 and the LW would frequently put up 500 fighters to engage them! That's the real end of the spectrum the numbers!
As for alt limits....I'm of the opinion we don't need them. Thick cloud layers as mentioned before could be used to shield bombers that have a wide marging for cap, say 10K. Giving Bombers a cap say of 19K to 26K would suffice. There is a window of 7K the Bombers would have to fly within. Placing various cloud layers at differing alts would also boost the realism and shield the bombers somewhat. It could also hide the fighters in escort and fighters enroute to intercept. Gee....navigating with instruments? In a cloud layer? Would that be fun or what?
-
Alt monkey fights are no fun. They happen all the time in FSO and other scenarios. I actually LIKED the alt cap on this one, but even so almost half the zekes I saw were well above me any time I got into the fight.
It really puts a damper on things sometimes.
I don't think wind downdrafts are the way to go, however.
Brooke:
"I think the solution here, other than forcing separate bomber groups as was done in Der Grosse Schlag, would be to limit registration to the original numbers. Someone else suggested that also as a way to get more consistent numbers, and I agree."
Out of the original numbers, how many additional slots were added? Even in localized areas, these dot issues popped up. I had it happen with a single 110c and only 2 friendlies within a sector, and he appeared out of nowhere and his icon didn't show until 800-1000 yards.
-
I have not read all the replies so I apologize if this has already been said. Rangoon is one of my favorite scenarios to participate in for the pure fact that it has such a variety in the plane set. And with all that variety it is still a VERY well balanced scenario. One where planning, organization and discipline play a crucial role. The best plan and most well organized, disciplined group wins the day.
-
Out of the original numbers, how many additional slots were added?
I think we added 24 or so to the allied side and 30 or so to the axis side.
-
Quickly...
- Impose an alt restriction in some manner, or don't have one. Pilot nature (and diverted attention) will violate a self-regulating one, in spite of best intentions.
- Our plane options are what they are. Scenario designers have done (IMO) the best capabilities match ups they can, considering all issues. Live with it.
My biggest concern was with adhering to 'historical accuracy' too much to make this playable. We want immersion, but we have limitations. It has to be fun, fair, playable and win-able for both sides, and that feeling should persist for both sides, as much as possible, through all four Frames.
Admittedly, the final outcome was closer than anyone expected, and I think everyone had fun in at least one if not two Frames. (There's fun and then there's FUN). But due to very serendipiteous events occuring simultaneously on both sides, the Axis got very lucky in two Frames to keep it close. Imagine how hard it would have been to retain Axis players, if we'd lost the 2nd Frame like the first, which is what should have happened given the tactical situation. Barring pure chance (which does and did happen this time) and a little fortuiteous daring-do by our C.O. in the second frame, probability-wise we would have had our heads handed to us in all four frames.
The problem was that the tactical options really weren't there. Given the terrain/bases set up, time limits, and really only one set of bombers, it was come in from the South-to-West arc. Even if scouts missed us, the Allies could easily recovery and congretate (which they did twice) to cover the only target we had.
I'm curious (not being up on this theater), what made it a success for the Japanese in WWII, if this was the anywhere near the way it was? In my mind, because of the single target, limited approaches, small number of bomber assets, our scenario was like the Allies had the Japanese High Command riddled with spies. They knew when the attack was, where it would come from, what and how many planes would be involved, and exactly where it was going. All we could really do was try to bull our way through and hope for a mistake by the Allies.
My point is, some consideration for adjusting a scenario from the absolute historical setup could be made in order to put more tactical variations in the mix, if the historical reality is too narrow. This makes for a more even probability that both sides have a chance to win. Realism and historical accuracy, yes. But 'YES, YES', to fun, playabiity, and an even chance to win.
And don't get me wrong. Actually winning or losing the scenario is not really important. What is important, is having the perception throughout the scenario that both sides have a fairly even chance of winning, mostly by the merits of their choice of tactics and how they execute them.
-
Weather. I REALLY want to see more accurate or detailed weather. Perhaps it wouldn't ground groups as Hajo said, but whats wrong with finding pea-soup over your target in a bomber? That would be GREAT so long as there were multiple targets that could be bombed. It would test comand's coordination, changing the target en-route. The thing I don't like is that in all of the MAs and far too often in snapshots and scenarios, its blue skies, no clouds, 30 mile visibilty, and 12-noon. That REALLY annoys me. It would be nice to see some frames look like youre flying in a rain squall. Some frames may take place earlier in the morning, or later in the afternoon. Visibility should vary between frames... Basically, just give us less-than-perfect weather more often please.
Other than that, this scenario, like every other one ive played, was absolutely outstanding!
-
Weather is a bit of a pain to deal with.
You have to create a weather file, and it is based around making a front that travels along. You can't just create weather in a specific location that stays there. There are ways to get around that, but it's sort of a pain, in my opinion. So, there is design time.
Every weather file then needs to be tested by the CM making the file, which adds testing time.
Dux likes to test each weather file.
Every weather file needs to be uploaded by Skuzzy, not by the CM's, which takes up some of his time. And then you need to test what is on the server to see if it is correct. You have to have time available where your schedule matches up to when the Special Events Arena is available so that you can load the weather and check it out. If there is a problem, you need time to fix it. This can make it tough to work everything out within the one week you have between frames. So, there is some risk to it.
Altogether, each weather file takes an aggregate of perhaps 1-3 hours of screwing around, testing, communicating, loading, etc. and introduces some risk of things getting screwed up.
We did different weather in Der Grosse Schlag. It did result in one whole bomb group on one frame not being able to find any target that wasn't socked in, and so they flew all the way out and all the way back without dropping bombs. Yes, that happened in real life, and they were good about it, but most people are not enthusiastic about such a thing.
So, there will be scenarios where we put in the work for that (basically, scenarios with that designed into them from the start), and there will be scenarios where weather is not meant to be a major feature where it will be about the same frame to frame.
-
Weather is a bit of a pain to deal with.
You have to create a weather file, and it is based around making a front that travels along. You can't just create weather in a specific location that stays there. There are ways to get around that, but it's sort of a pain, in my opinion. So, there is design time.
Every weather file then needs to be tested by the CM making the file, which adds testing time.
Dux likes to test each weather file.
Every weather file needs to be uploaded by Skuzzy, not by the CM's, which takes up some of his time. And then you need to test what is on the server to see if it is correct. You have to have time available where your schedule matches up to when the Special Events Arena is available so that you can load the weather and check it out. If there is a problem, you need time to fix it. This can make it tough to work everything out within the one week you have between frames. So, there is some risk to it.
Altogether, each weather file takes an aggregate of perhaps 1-3 hours of screwing around, testing, communicating, loading, etc. and introduces some risk of things getting screwed up.
We did different weather in Der Grosse Schlag. It did result in one whole bomb group on one frame not being able to find any target that wasn't socked in, and so they flew all the way out and all the way back without dropping bombs. Yes, that happened in real life, and they were good about it, but most people are not enthusiastic about such a thing.
So, there will be scenarios where we put in the work for that (basically, scenarios with that designed into them from the start), and there will be scenarios where weather is not meant to be a major feature where it will be about the same frame to frame.
Very good point! I didn't realise all the work that weant in to just the weather. Would it be possible to just have it less-than-perfect for each frame? By that I don't mean completely socked in, but for example, england has a reputation for being cloudy. Is it possible to just make the clouds a bit more dense, the haze a little more prevalent, and make it just a bit darker? Its not terribly important, its just even in Hawaii the sky is almost never as clear and blue as it is in AH, lol.
-
Very good point! I didn't realise all the work that weant in to just the weather. Would it be possible to just have it less-than-perfect for each frame? By that I don't mean completely socked in, but for example, england has a reputation for being cloudy. Is it possible to just make the clouds a bit more dense, the haze a little more prevalent, and make it just a bit darker? Its not terribly important, its just even in Hawaii the sky is almost never as clear and blue as it is in AH, lol.
Yep, that is definitely possible, and is (at least to some extent) the plan for BoB 2008.
-
On the other hand, I read a couple of BOB books not long ago. Amongst the things in them, a pilot noted the clouds overhead and breathed a sigh of relief; Jerry would not come today (to paraphrase) and basically it was fair-weather-fighting. No total fog bank clouds like AH generates. If you can get the clouds small enough it's reasonable, but not so overcast that the mission would have been recalled.
-
It won't be unplayable or fogged in. It will have some clouds, though -- just not clear blue skies everywhere.
-
It won't be unplayable or fogged in. It will have some clouds, though -- just not clear blue skies everywhere.
Thanks brooke! I remember, a few weeks ago, during that "Battle of the Aces" or whatever they called it in the AvA, they REALLY brought fog in and visibility down... it was amazing how much it increases the immersion factor!
-
Anyway to break up the action a bit? It wasn't fun to be 2.0k away from the bombers and not see the enemies in the bomber groups chewing them up because there were so many planes in such a small area. Not really sure how to get around this problem.
-
the dot /con 32 player in area will be spread out in future events for now. (Ah man thats not historic) <--there I said it already. we just have to adjust for it.
-
Cool! That was my only gripe really.
-
A lot of scenarios don't have to worry about that much. BoB, for example, doesn't usually have that issue as there are multiple targets, different types of planes, etc.
-
In BOB'06 we (Axis) finished early, and we had Frame 4 free. So I wanted to do a big-raid style mission. Every Ju88 on the same target, with sweeps/escorts in front of us. No sneaking around, just a straight forward attack (for fun!). The lag was pretty bad. I was one of the first to drop on London (the HQ building) and I never got an impact... nor did any of the folks around me. Matter of fact we overwhelmed the server so bad we couldn't tell we'd even KILLED the HQ until the CM came around and told us it had been taken down despite no bomb blasts or craters displaying.
Now THAT was too many cons in one sector!!