Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: detch01 on November 23, 2008, 01:29:02 AM
-
I've flown this event on both sides of the channel now and I think it's missing two things: the goal of the LW to destroy the RAF in the air and on the ground, and a method for balancing the event so that both sides not only have the same chance to win, but the players on both sides feel like they can win all the way through the first three frames. As it is currently designed the RAF cannot win it, the LW CO must lose it to allow an RAF victory.
Two points I want to make here on the current design:
1 - The goals as the event is currently designed are not historical - in the battle the LW bombed RAF fields to do some damage to the RAF logistical facilities but those raids were also aimed at making the RAF launch its fighters so that they could be destroyed. The event as it's currently scored places far too much emphasis on the destruction of ground facilities.
2 - The RAF starts the event with a few fundamental disadvantages that the LW can turn into overwhelming event winning advantages early in frame 1. First of all, the radar-controller, C&C setup is at best awkward - I don't have a solution for that, but in conjunction with the other inherent disadvantages for the RAF in the setup this becomes a much bigger problem than it should. Second, the RAF CO's hands are tied by the limited strength he/she can launch at T+0 and third, being outnumbered in the number of fighters each side can launch each frame.
The fixes I'm proposing:
The easy one first: helping to balance the event by modifying the scoring system. This can be done fairly easily by including combat attrition in the system and making it the most significant factor in the scoring. Give each ground target a point value, add them up and the RAF starts with these points - every ground target destroyed costs the RAF points and earns the LW points. Then give each aircraft a point value that the opposition can earn, and make sure that the total points available for aircraft kills is at least twice as high as the total points for ground targets. The winner at the end of the event is the one with the highest points. You could even factor in a required kill-ratio for the RAF (and/or the LW) to earn if you wanted to make things complicated.
The second one isn't so easy: The RAF's goal in this design is entirely reactive and its C&C awkward, no real preplanning can be done to mitigate the problems the RAF faces once a frame begins and once the wheels are in the wells C&C has to put as much effort into maintaining it's own effectiveness as it does doing its actual job. Essentially, the RAF commanders go into this event with one hand tied behind their back by being forced to wait and, have a very high probability of being blinded before they can adequately defend themselves. By allowing the RAF CO to use 1/3 of his squadrons at his discretion at T+0 and, allowing the RAF to tower out at any friendly field I think the event will be a much better balanced event in the future, even with the awkwardness of the C&C. The first point gives the RAF CO has a few more options for preventing the LW from gaining an overwhelming advantage in the early stages of each frame and, the second point better simulates the ability of the RAF to recover pilots and put them back into the battle.
These aren't massive changes to the event, but I think both areas of the event design need to be revisited in light of the last four runs of it. If the proposals I've suggested are implemented, both in the scoring method and the freeing up of a few more options for the RAF, it would go a long way towards balancing the event while remaining true to the intentions of the original design. And, of the two major areas for fixing I think fixing the scoring should be first in priority.
Cheers,
asw
-
HE-111
-
I have to agree there is a slight issue with balance, it does seem to be slightly more in favour of the LW than a historical analysis of BOB would suggest to be accurate.
A couple of areas I can see that might be the casue of this are:
1) the berevity of the battles we fight compared to an ongoing attritional fight: The German Acs can destroy spits and hurris faster than the they can be destroyed with their better armament. Historically this was mitigated by the rate at which new aircraft were being built, damaged ones could easily be repaired, as they usually crashed over home soil. This gives a significant advantage over the germans, where even a small amount of damage would result in a forced landing in or on the wrong side of the channel. In our scenario this I suppose is represented by the fact that the Brits can more easily rescue their pilots, but I dont think the advantage there is big enough to actually show up during the relitivly short frames we play (2 hours as opposed to a month!)
2) We're flying blind! With plenty of eyes on the ground, even on the few occasions radar was knocked out the fighters could still effectivly be vectored to where they needed to go. In the scenario the LW has a much better idea of what radar is and what it does, which immediatly gives the raf a whole bunch of blindspots! We dont have an Observer Corps covering the whole of of the south of england, we have a handful of hurricanes.
This results in the RAF flying round in small groups hoping to run into something, and hoping that the rest of the RAF arrives at the same time. Its no good 5 or 6 planes trying to take on two squadrons of escorts by themselves whilst trying to get at the 30 bombers behind. Every time I got shot down in the 3 frames I played it was with 4 or more 109s and 110s on me. I suspect the main advantage the germans had, of being nicely grouped together for mutual support exacerbated the fact that RAF is already outnumbered and almost always flying in small groups in order to be able to cover more ground. The radar should have cancelled this advantage out, allowing fighters to be grouped and sent directly to intercept, its no good sending the raf in easily digested bite size chunks. However the Radar was easy to destory, impossible to replace (is it down for the full frame?) and there was no ground obs to fill in. This left us relying on reports from pilots.
That doesnt sound bad, but it can be very misleading. If your engaged and trying to vector friendlies to your position its very hard to check your map, get coords and directions, and keep track of the horde of 109s on you! I tried it when I was acting co of 64sqdn in frame 2 and promptly died with the voices of half a dozen sperated and isolated pilots in my ears, resquesting orders and targets! I knew I was somewhere over Dover, but thats not mentioned on the map and most non-brit players wouldnt know where to start looking. (indeed in frame 4, I mentioned on 115 that southampton was the groups rally point and a host of voices demanded to know who southampton was).
Badboy pointed it out to me as I made this mistake whilst we were heading NE to try and catch the egressing London raid. I was trying to let those planes nearby Id sighted cons to the East, and in front of me, but I did it on the groups radio channel...and the group was spread over several sectors, so to most of them it would have meant nothing, and in some case would have sent them chasing ghosts. Badboy mentioned this as he was some way beind me and couldnt see a thing, whilst I tallied several 109s and bombers. I know full well other pilots made the same mistake, giving information out thats fine for them and the guys immediatly in formation with them but totally meaningless to somone 10k higher, 2 sectors away and going in the opposite direction.
Essentially anyone seeing a contact has to tulips its hight course and a grid ref as best he can and get that info to the controller, instead of trying to second guess the enemy; give the info to the contoller to let him build up a picture of events and let him control it. I dont know how our scouts reacted when they saw a con, but I gather theyd get a rough idea of the enemy course and composition and then dive away to safety. I wander if theres any way we could keep a close watch on the enemy once sighted to make sure we know exactly where they are at all times, perhaps shadowing them from a distance with several aircraft, so we can keep a more accurate idea of course changes etc which will make intercepts a lot easier! Perhpas one pilot stays with them as long as possible, untill hes forced to break off by the escorts, at which point he vectors another scout in to accompany them as long as he can, essentially passing on the baton.
Additionaly there seems to be a lot of emphasis on hitting the LW before they reach their target, something that was never achieved in RL as far as I know, our best bet would be to track them to their target, identify their egress route and then ambush them on the way home, giving us more time to group sufficient strength and gain the neccessary hight.
I know thats all a bit long winded but I hope whoever runs BOB next time finds something useful in there!
-
First I have to declare an interest as I with banana were the co designers of the original AH BoB the rule set of which this is very much based upon.
Firstly the objectives.
Primarily the design tried to avoid at all costs any form of points based scoring system.
This means that game play has to be balanced by terrain, arena settings, objectives and resourses.
I can state with a fair degree of certainty that BoB1 2003 and Bob2 2004 were very balanced. Indeed on both these occasions the LW thought it had no chance of victory because it viewed with the same rule set as now that the odds were agin it. Actually on both occassions the RAF won but both times by a very close margin
So what has changed?
The terrain
AH1 Bob terrain was purpose built with special objects.
Radar sites were multiple pyloned affairs with radar huts under them. They were harder than present standard radar towers.
There was puffy AA across the south of England and at standard airfields
Gguns were more lethal than they are set now.
Hanger hardness may have been harder than the standard MA arena setting.
In BoB 1 fuel management was a major, major issue for LW 109 fighters.
RAF ground controllers and communication system
Training frames in BOB 1 & 2 were not to help pilots fight in spitfires and hurricanes. They were about setting a full proof method of communications between folk monitoring radar dots, scouts and squadron leaders. So good were they in Bob1 that RAF squadrons being vectored into conflict knew what they were going to meet , its altitude and its number. I noted on occasion where an RAF fighter squadron was vectored around a forward LW fighter sweep they never saw onto incoming bomber streams behind them. This with a 2 minute delay on radar!!
The objectives.
History tells us that the LW objective to shoot the RAF out of the air was flawed. What the KLW never guessed was that Britain was out producing Germany in fighter air craft by a significant margin through out the months of June 1940 thru to early 1944. This tactic was never going to work as Goering discovered after Eagle Tag when the 12 Group big wing met the LW full on over London. Until that point Goering was convinced that the RAF was near breaking point.
In fact the RAF (11 Group) in particular was very fearfull but not for lack of aircraft. It was concerned about lack of pilots but training records show that the supply of pilots was equal to the LW albeit that training was being cut worryingly in time and quality and actually fell below the attrition rate for August 1940. Dowding greatest fears were the vulnerability of his radar sites and his air fields.
The LW had already recognised the importance of the radar sites by late august 1940 yet Goering ordered that bombers would not waste time attacking them. They emerged from the battle almost unscathed. ventnor being the only Radar station to be closed for more than a few days and some other being damaged but seviceable after seemingly random attacks.
The airfields of Southern England had several almost devastating attacks.
Lympne a small strip off behind the coastal defences recieved over 400 bombs on one raid yet was operational the next day.
Manston was repeatedly attacked and put out of action for several days.
Biggen Hill was hit in a complex raid of combined NOE and medium altitude bombers thast took it totally by surprise despite the radar network monitoring some of the incoming bombers.
What we learn is that
the LW ignored the single most important asset the RAF had .........radar
the LW could never shoot down aircraft quicker than manufacturing premices in Coventry and Castle Bromwich were turning them out. (indeed even Supermarines Southampton works were only seriously hit once)
had the LW blinded the RAF then its attacks on airfields would have been more successful and only by pushing the RAF back on the ground could it take control of the air over the channel and the Kentish beach heads.
Hence this is the objective in AH Bob to date. What the AH LW benefit from is the knowledge that Radar is key to the RAF defence.
The other balancing factor is numbers........
As the number of total participants becomes less than the original design number (circa 200) then the smaller the number the greater this favours the LW.
AH BoB has always sufferred from some problems that still remain unresolved. The Ju88 is unrepresentative of the bulk of the LW bomber fleet. It was the elite bomber of its time whilst the LW bomber force would be much better represented by a 70/30 mix of He111's and ju88's (assuming a dornier would be too much to ask for)
-
Tilt,
I disagree on several comments you make about the real BOB.
First, the LW couldn't bomb radar towers. They were like power line towers, all frame no structure. Even direct hits from bombs weren't reliable. Especially dive bombing with stukas, it was not an easy target to hit. If it was ever damaged, it was back up within days. The technology was so simple that people pedaled a stationary bicycle to turn the radar one way or the other. Very analog. Very foolproof. They could probably rig one anywhere along the coast with spare parts.
There was no way to take down radar, period. What the LW failed to do was use their own as effectively, or to feint and fake out the radar operators.
Further, while the spitfire and hurricane production was just barely coming into full steam, able to produce enough replacements to keep units staffed, these took time to check and get to the front lines. Pilots were a major problem. I've read more than a few books/autobiographies about RAF squadrons in the BOB. They were losing pilots left and right. Not just shot down but killed. The Eagle Sqns for example had a very bloody loss rate. Much like the late-war LW replacement pilots, RAF replacements were green and much more likely not to survive their first sortie than the folks they were replacing.
Both sides, RAF and the LW, felt that the RAF was about to lose the war. I can't recall if it was Churchill or one of the air marshalls that found out about the accidental bombing of London and said "Thank God," because he knew they'd been saved from having all their airfields wiped out repeatedly.
The real situation was that the LW bombers had high losses, but they got the job done too. More often than not they were shot down on the way home after dropping their load.
All of that is academic, though. I don't think the past 2 BOBs were very representative of the real thing, and part of this is how the hurricane and 110c are modeled in AH and part of it is the FFT high speeds of bombers, and part of it is a mix of other problems.
As for the map, what map did they use in the first 2? I only remember hearing about it in 2004 with the BOB04 map.
-
As usual there is so much wrong in Krusty's post. I just don't have the energy to correct it all, so I will go with the one which effects my past associations and trust others to fix the rest of it.
On 19 September 1940, No. 71 was reformed at Church Fenton as the first 'Eagle' Squadron to be manned by American personnel. The Squadron received Hurricanes in November and became operational on defensive duties on 5 February 1941.
But it is completely obvious that 71 Squadron RAF the FIRST Eagle Squadron completely missed the Battle of Britain.
-
Never mind, you're just not worth it Fencer. Read a book.
-
Both my books and I agree with Fencer.
By the time the 71 came around, even the most novice historian would say the BoB was over.
-
Never mind, you're just not worth it Fencer. Read a book.
Come on Krusty, you blew your credibilty when you threw the Eagle Squadrons in there. If you are going to make an argument for something, at least keep the most visible aspects accurate.
It looks like you are taking your info from the "Battle of Britain" movie.
I'd suggest to you that Tilt has read a book or sixty about the topic as well. I'm not seeing anything wrong with what he presented, and his facts are accurate.
I would suggest however that you should practice what you preach a bit when it comes to research.
Wanna compare Battle of Britain libraries? :)
Those 350 foot, visible from France, Radar Towers that Test Group 210 of Erich Rubensdorfer went after in August with their 110s. And yes the 87s went after them too. Vettner was down for three weeks.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Radar.jpg)
-
Please don't turn this thread into a "who has the most books of ww2 and know the best" -contest.
In the previous BoB I was flying for Luftwaffe in a Ju88 and now in this one in the opposite side in a Hurricane. Based on these experiences I truly believe that the high speed of the Ju88 is the major factor which tends to spoil the BoB scenario. In Ju88 I flew about two or three frames without basically any enemy contact and couple of times even throttled back intentionally just to get some action by giving the enemy a chance to catch up. Even then the RAF was struggling to catch up. The end result was a series of loong, uneventful and quite boring milk runs.
Now with fresh experiences from the seat of Hurricane I think it was almost the same for RAF, the only "bright" side was that there was something to do by trying to fight off the 109Es. Trying to catch the bombers was hopeless.
Then there is the radar. In my opinion the RAF radar network is way too easy to disable, it was seen pretty obviously in frame 4. By the time the bombers arrive the RAF radar network is mostly or completely down. This does not reflect the historical conditions in any way and while that may not be very important to some, it also generates huge amounts of frustration among the RAF pilots and the radar controllers. I remember the same thing happening also on the previous BoB, where LW had dedicated Me110s flying NOE and disabling the radar stations.
So, what can be done? I would increase the hardness of the radar stations or decrease the time which they regenerate. The latter could also be done by CMs manually reactivating the radars after some variable time limit so that LW could not know precisely when the radar activates again and have planes above them ready to destroy them again. Another option would be to modify the map to contain much more radar stations, so that they could not be taken down so easily.
You should also remember that the control system, which the RAF had was not based just on the radar towers, but also on a large number of visual observation points. The current radar design does not take these into account at all. One easy way to fix this could perhaps be to remove the third country RAF radar operators and just activate the tower radar on all British bases.
-
I guess it will go completely "under the radar" until someone specifically raises it. Last frame - the Ju88s went in at 198-200mph. Didn't make a fig of difference. Just took a bit longer to get to the target.
The tactics that I observed used by the RAF this time could never be effective in my experience.
If they were actually forced into using those tactics, then the strategies formulated by the Axis side worked. Then credit the Axis CIC and his team, don't whine about the set-up. If those tactics were pursued by choice, then a different course is clearly required for future success. It self-suggests. Whining about the rules and set-up teaches you little that you can take home. Self critical analysis - what worked, what didn't, why didn't we see that coming, etc etc.? Only by fully debriefing after each frame have you any chance of improving your result next time.
These general post-scenario workshops do have a very valuable role in highlighting those things that add to immersion and fun. At least I think so. It may not be "fun" to be on the losing side, but winning and losing shouldn't be the focus I believe. It's hard to avoid though.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the basic set-up. It has been run four times I think? Result is 2-2? No need for a scoring change. Quality of implementation of GCI has been suggested as a decisive factor. Perhaps it is. I know there was some really good people involved this time. 2006 I have heard was a fiasco and the RAF loss was blamed largely upon that. I am sure it was better this time.
It is an area that could seriously provide tremendous immersion and great fun for players. But it is not a simple task and may need to be looked at for an increase in effectiveness. We had limited DAR in DGS but it still needed a ground element to make it effective. (Big Picture). I have made suggestions in the past in respect of bringing those skills to scenarios and FSO.
If you there was common catch-phrase on the Axis side this time round it was "where is the RAF?" I heard it in every frame. In the final frame we were flying about north of the Manston area unchallenged, taking out radars right and left. We were quite observable and our planes weren't expendable. We unluckily lost a plane to ack and landed back at base after 50 minutes without even a contact. We then took off as fast as we could for London. Honestly we thought we wouldn't get there in time to join in the "fun" We were really, really, wrong (note speed of the bombers again). We caught the bombers embarrassingly easily. We took a fairly straight course flashing fields all along the way. We were about a square out of the target before a lone Hurricane was spotted scouting under the formation. 90 minutes into the frame before we saw a single red icon. The bombers were in their sights before an attack arrived. It was driven home, but was too small and lacked the focus needed to interrupt the bombers on their run, they stayed in their sights.
Now in my opinion, I get the most fun and deepest immersion out of the the 90 minutes of boredom, 30 seconds of terror, but I understand others might not. No problem. There is plenty of opportunity with the set-up as its written to get things going a bit harder.
Fariz carelessly spoke of volunteering to CO for Allies next BoB. Make him do it. :) I'll help him and if we get thrashed I will be the first posting congratulations to the Axis. After this post how could I whine? ;)
-
Might I suggest that, in the future, no official frame results be released until after the final frame. This would help diminish the desertion rates on both sides. It would also keep both sides in a fog of war. Especially the LW.
Using this year as an example: The frame 4 changes would not be announced until frame 4. One could pretend that German national command authority, in a moment of irritation, issued new orders at the last minute. Further more it had been discovered that the current lot of LW bomb munitions had a manufacturing defect. This defect had the functional results of increasing the target hardness from 150kg to 1819kg.
At frame 4 end it could then be announced that BOB had been won by the Axis in frame 3. Or explained in the BBS.
As I recall in BOB 1, the LW ignored the dar stations in general. They would attack a dar station only if it was near a mission objective. For example, the station south of Southhampton. At any rate, leaving the dar alone cost the LW BOB 1. The LW has learned that it is all about the dar.
Might I suggest that there be an actual London to bomb? High Wycombe (the HQ) was too undersized. At least one strat city, perhaps 3 of them, two north of the Thames and one south? If using more than one then they should all be adjacent to each other. Heck, why not build a London strat city? One with the palace and House of Commons.
We must maintain the FOG of War for both sides. It must be really foggy in Berlin. The RAF, being on the defense over their on territory, will have a better gauge of how the battle is swinging. The LW should only have a good clue if their AAR's are accurate.
-
The missing element is that there was a network of ground observers. The Radar was for initial contact and raid notification. The ground observers tracked the raids once they went feet dry. So we use the radar for both and therefore loose both functions when the radars are taken down. Base warning flashes do not fill the requirement of the ground observers.
You almost need a CM to be on the Luftwaffe side relaying the main raid(s) locations, once feet dry, to the RAF controllers with an estimate on strengths and aircraft type. (Fog of war will vary of course) They could report "fighters in area of A10" for miscellaneous contacts... etc.
-
Tilt, you make some good points. Two points in particular that I hadn't considered that did have a major impact on the balance of the event: the hardness of the radar installations and the fuel burn rate.
One thing I'd like point out though, the current terrain was designed for and used in the 2004 running of the event.
As for BoB '03 2006, it was a fiasco, due in a large part to the attitude and lack of interest showed in it by the RAF CO and I think it should as a result be ignored in this discussion.
I'd like to see a setup and stats comparison between the 2004 event and this last one to see what the real differences between the two events are. Given competent leaders on both sides, no event should be able to be decided half the way through as this one was.
Cheers,
asw
-
Not sure if this will be interesting for anyone else, but here's my .02...
I've only Side CO'd one event ever, BoB '04. I'm a history buff, and a strategy and grand strategy gamer in the extreme, lots and lots of historical simulations of all kinds of battles behind my actions. I was surprised and honored to get selected for the job, and I took it very very seriously. There were people and information available to help me with the role, but because I didn't know what I didn't know, I did not make good or even proper use of any of those assets. At the end of the scenario, hindsight, I realized how much more I could have done and how much I really never did. In hindsight I'd learned that as serious as I'd tried to be, as good an effort as I'd given, and as fun as everyone had told me they'd had, I was beside myself to know how many of my pilots and squadrons I'd not used well or well enough.
Now, I've not been really paying attention to the scenario side of the house, and it might already be available, but is there a Side CO Mentorship system in place? If there is not, I think it would be an invaluable process to start. Shall I flesh out what I mean by "Side CO Mentorship"?
Regarding the use of the Ju88s; Given the number of targets that the LW must destroy, and the limited way in which the Ju88's could be used, it was the single most difficult thing to organize and employ, the KG squadrons ( <S> Nonsense and 2Slow and THX for your work in '04 !!! ). I'd love to see He-111's too, but the fact that the Ju88's are there is not the biggest reason the LW might have won. It is C&C, IMO.
Regarding the objectives and publicizing the frame by frame results: I'm on the "don't" side of the discussion. Arguably the LW lost in '04 because I couldn't confirm or disprove destruction of targets. I tried to C&C a solution that was working, but it was less than perfect. Ultimately it didn't matter, meaning that all targets but one were eventually destroyed, and it was a C&C decision (my decision, my bad) that sealed the LW's failure with less than 30 min left in the frame, but I think the non-confirmation of target destruction contributed to a better scenario.
Regarding the Radar: In '04 a downed tower was down for only one frame. I would not either lengthen or shorten that window. History proves that they were repaired somewhat easily, and it also proves that they could be destroyed with a genuine effort. In AH we run only 4 frames for the whole battle, not 30 days of day and night raids; it's still a simulation. In '04 I had whole squadrons running the coastline wiping out the towers, to excellent effect. But that effort took away from actual target destruction. Target hardness has no effect on the discussion, it just changes the way the attack is executed. It worked well in '04. If radar wasn't working well in this running, I think that it might be a Coordiantion reason, or the LW focused more resources on it, or had better coordination on it's attacks on the radar.
Regarding the loss of equipment and pilots: I argued in '04 for an alternate way to manage the loss of man and material during the battle. Maybe there might be a good way to change it for the better. But before anyone slams the way it works in this scenario, remember this: Which AH players would you tell to not show up for the next frame because they don't have a mathematical plane for them to fly, or because pilot losses prevent them from upping? The scenario experiences success when players get to play, mathematics should facilitate a successful scenario, not hamper the success. Any discussion should center on maintaining a high participation level at the outset. I've said all I care to say on it at this point.
Regarding the very first post in this thread, 'it is up to the LW to lose the battle'. Arguably (meaning I'd argue it's truthfullness), this is a historically accurate statement. The RAF must spoil the LW's attack. Bravo to the design of the scenario for achieving success in the truism of this titanic struggle, Bravo!!!
And one last mention for old times sake:
<<S>> 68KO, adversary and friend, rest easy.
<S> 68Falcon, it was a great contest <S>
<S> Jordi and Tilt, you took more flak than the arena's settings allowed. I appreciate your efforts <<S>>
And <S> to the rest of the CM team that helped me when I didn't even realize it.
-
Some very good stuff here. There is one thing I thought of that happened in the real deal and does not happen here.
Here the LW has an 8th AF attitude. The LW continues the air raid regardless of enemy contact or losses. As I recall from the movies and history accounts there were LW raids, in the real deal, that aborted when bounced by the RAF.
I seem to recall an event where there were no MA style airfields. Just a couple of hangers and a large pasture. This would make for more realistic period airfields in BOB.
-
Previous posters have covered this topic pretty well. I think I've flown in every BoB (starting in Air Warrior II) since 1998, usually alternating sides between the RAF and LW. They have all been fun. The LW won only in 2006 and now 2008. In my limited perspective the LW won in 2006 and 2008 because they learned from history and did not get distracted from the original objectives (destroying the designated targets and attacking radar as a tactical necessity). The Aces High LW also used the available fighter types more effectively (i.e. Bf110s used slashing attacks and avoided turn fights when possible, fighters communicated and coordinated escort shifting needs with the bombers, groups of fighters worked together).
I don't know if there were radar controller issues during BoB 2008. A lack of ground observers to track incoming raids has been argued but I've read that there were a number of times when partly cloudy conditions over England prevented the ground observer network from detecting and tracking raids, causing a breakdown in the ground control system and missed interceptions. Historically, even under ideal conditions, the percentage of missed interceptions was pretty high.
I miss the BoB scenery we had before Aces High II was released. If there is one change I would make it is to increase the fog of war by not showing radar and city damage on the Aces High clipboard (I don't know if it is even possible to turn those things off). Also don't release frame reports until the end of the scenario.
I'm looking forward to the next BoB scenario. It's time for me to switch sides again. <BG> Say, there's an idea. How about a switch sides BoB scenario?
-
Side switches are difficult in AH currently, as I don't think we yet can do more than about 4 frames without too much dropoff in attendance.
It can work well for some situations, though, where a couple of frames is enough to decide a battle (Coral Sea scenario worked well that way). For BoB, I'm not sure if a couple of frames is enough to give appropriate depth to it.
-
Here are some things I was thinking of a while back. These aren't all important (or even wise or desirable, perhaps), but I'd be interested to hear what people think. I have other thoughts, too, now fresh out of playing in all the frames of BoB 2008.
-- Revise rescue rules so that it is much, much less labor intensive.
-- Get rid of artificial "end hostilities"/"grace period to return to base".
-- Up hardness of radar.
-- Add some aspect to victory points so that it matters to get aircraft home by end of frame.
-- Think about tweaking lethality of puffy ack.
-- Some way to deal with radar so there is less (or no) need for dedicated radar operators (which most people consider to be a tedious, undesirable job that they are unwilling to do).
-- End restriction of RAF not allowed over France.
-- Allow RAF to set position and courses of fleets?
-- 5 mph wind at ground level?
-
Here are my fresher thoughts, which I discussed somewhere else (but forget where, so I will post them here even if it is redundant).
In the real BoB, with dirt airfields, was it even possible to close them? (Mostly, couldn't they just quickly fill in the craters?) If not, is the real reason of attacking airfields not closing the field but destroying the aircraft at the field? I don't know enough about the real BoB to know, but if the real reason was to destroy aircraft, perhaps the fields should then stay open, but there should be more things to destroy with bombs than the hangars, such as baracks, ammo, etc., and points are calculated on number of objects destroyed on the ground.
-
So what has changed?
The terrain
AH1 Bob terrain was purpose built with special objects.
Radar sites were multiple pyloned affairs with radar huts under them. They were harder than present standard radar towers.
There was puffy AA across the south of England and at standard airfields
Gguns were more lethal than they are set now.
Hanger hardness may have been harder than the standard MA arena setting.
In BoB 1 fuel management was a major, major issue for LW 109 fighters.
I have no idea on how things were in AH during BoB1, but all of these are modifiable regardelss of the terrain:
-- We can make radar towers harder (I think a good idea).
-- We can up the lethality of guns (not sure about this one).
-- We can increase hangar hardness (I think a good idea).
In BoB 2008, fuel was adjusted as per the rules, so that should be the same as BoB1. I know we in I/JG3 had less trouble with fuel in our 109E's because we flew a lot of the time at greatly reduced RPM. Maybe pilots in BoB1 didn't do as much fuel management.
-
Here are my fresher thoughts, which I discussed somewhere else (but forget where, so I will post them here even if it is redundant).
In the real BoB, with dirt airfields, was it even possible to close them? (Mostly, couldn't they just quickly fill in the craters?) If not, is the real reason of attacking airfields not closing the field but destroying the aircraft at the field? I don't know enough about the real BoB to know, but if the real reason was to destroy aircraft, perhaps the fields should then stay open, but there should be more things to destroy with bombs than the hangars, such as baracks, ammo, etc., and points are calculated on number of objects destroyed on the ground.
I always thought the destroy hanger/close field was a gimmick to simulate the overall effort to destroy aircraft and support services on the airfield. In AW the bomb craters were a terrain feature. Taxi over a crater, crash your aircraft. One could close an airfield by hemming in the spawn points with craters.
Now if closing the base through destroying hangers is simulation of destruction of aircraft and support services then it should remain. Unless one is going to put aircraft next to the pasture in earthen berms for one to strafe and bomb. Destruction of aircraft waiting to be scrambled is the closing of a base.
The RAF must scramble, seek, and destroy LW forces. When the RAF intercepts the LW they must not get into a 6 o'clock chase. They need to make their runs on the buffs from the 1,2,3,11,10, or 9 o'clock positions. Extend and then attack again in the same manner.
The current dar setup simulates the historical conditions quite well.
Increasing the hardness of dar stations is nothing more than an artificial skewing of matters in the RAF favor.
Heck, in frame 4 city buildings hardness was increased by a factor of 16. There were only two targets for the LW. Southhampton and High Wycombe. Now knowing that there were only two sectors to defend, the RAF still came up short.
The LW had many objectives that had to be met for victory. The RAF had but one. Shoot down LW aircraft. If the RAF had shot more of the LW down, then they would have won. I think it is just that simple.
Nuff said
-
I'm scratching my head. If you can agree 2006 was an anomaly, then after a long series of Allied victories we finally have an Axis victory and there is suddenly an intense campaign to stop such a terrible outcome happening again? Why?
-- We can make radar towers harder (I think a good idea).
-- We can up the lethality of guns (not sure about this one).
-- We can increase hangar hardness (I think a good idea).
I'm not sure I see much in that list that targets increasing immersion or fun factor for ALL involved - just looks like a simple attempt to ensure we get the RIGHT result next time? That's not it, surely?
- Get rid of artificial "end hostilities"/"grace period to return to base". (How is this more fun?)
-- Up hardness of radar. (Why now? Why not defend the most obvious targets of the first frame?)
-- Add some aspect to victory points so that it matters to get aircraft home by end of frame. (Has this been a major problem?)
-- Think about tweaking lethality of puffy ack. (It's far too deadly and random. It takes away from fun but is perhaps immersive.)
-- Some way to deal with radar so there is less (or no) need for dedicated radar operators (which most people consider to be a tedious, undesirable job that they are unwilling to do). (Just let me cry a little and move on by. I begged for the job in 2006. Spurned then and ever since. Might go burn my licence.)
-- End restriction of RAF not allowed over France. (Were they allowed over France in 1940? If so, then why not here.)
-- Allow RAF to set position and courses of fleets? (RN thingy? As long as they stay within the battlezone why not? If LW sink all the ships then the fleet is just removed).
-- 5 mph wind at ground level? discussion of wholesale changes to prevent this occurring again? (Why? What?)
--- Revise rescue rules so that it is much, much less labor intensive. (Sure but keeping the rules and just doing it well might work too.)
In summary, I can't believe that there is any evidence at all that this scenario is "broken" and needs changes. If any are contemplated, they surely should pass the test of increased fun and immersion. Any other reason for change seems less compelling.
-
- Get rid of artificial "end hostilities"/"grace period to return to base". (How is this more fun?)
Much more immersive since no plane is guarateed a safe passage to home after the CM running the show calls ceasefire.
-- Up hardness of radar. (Why now? Why not defend the most obvious targets of the first frame?)
Keep the radar operational longer -> allows the RAF planes to find LW planes better and thus increasing air-to-air combat, which at least I would categorize as fun in this game.
-- Add some aspect to victory points so that it matters to get aircraft home by end of frame. (Has this been a major problem?)
This one adds to the immersion hugely and it has been tried and tested in several snapshots. Basically your side gets paid if you can nurse your damaged plane back home. It might also be worthwhile to escort damaged friendly planes back to home bases as was seen in DGS scenario (Guppy35 posted some nice screen shots of this back then).
-- End restriction of RAF not allowed over France. (Were they allowed over France in 1940? If so, then why not here.)
Pretty sure recon planes were allowed over France, but then again recon has a whole different meaning in this game as in reality it was about taking photos of ground installations and not about spotting enemy formations in the air.
-- 5 mph wind at ground level? discussion of wholesale changes to prevent this occurring again? (Why? What?)
Different weather conditions add to the immersion. Wind should not be constant, but could and should be an variable, which could change even during a frame.
--- Revise rescue rules so that it is much, much less labor intensive. (Sure but keeping the rules and just doing it well might work too.)
Waiting 15 to 30 minutes of being rescued is not much fun nor does it really add to the immersion when a C-47 is coming to get a single pilot from the bushes. I'd change the rescue system so that it would be only used in the sea and bailing out or ditching over friendly territory would not need rescue.
-
We can assume that in a rerun in the future the next LW CO is going to follow Kermit's blueprints of how to take out the RAF radar.
Maybe the "scramble" rule for the RAF should be dropped in order to have a fighting chance at stopping NOE anti radar raids early in each Frame. Making the radar hardness is backwards imho, the RAF just needs a chance at actually protecting it.
-
I'm scratching my head. If you can agree 2006 was an anomaly, then after a long series of Allied victories we finally have an Axis victory and there is suddenly an intense campaign to stop such a terrible outcome happening again? Why?
The changes I wrote aren't about changing the outcome or forcing a different outcome. Here are the reasons I had in mind for each of them.
-- Get rid of artificial "end hostilities"/"grace period to return to base". (How is this more fun?) It's totally artificial for a voice to come out of the heavens to all pilots and announce "OK, everyone time to stop figting. Please disengage and start flying back to base." Less artificial (i.e., not doing that) is more fun, in my opinion.
-- Up hardness of radar. (Why now? Why not defend the most obvious targets of the first frame?) Radar currently is destroyable by strafing from 110's. I'd rather see that not be an option, as I doubt it was a good one in real life. Upping hardness of radar doesn't make it any harder for Stukas that are carrying more than enough ord to do the job.
-- Add some aspect to victory points so that it matters to get aircraft home by end of frame. (Has this been a major problem?) Not major, but some. The way it is now, you can launch a mission that has no chance of making it back to base by end frame, but can get to a target before end frame. I would like it better if there were practical reasons not to do that (such as aircraft losses count). Also, aircraft losses did count in the real BoB
-- Think about tweaking lethality of puffy ack. (It's far too deadly and random. It takes away from fun but is perhaps immersive.) That is why I recommend tweaking it -- to turn down puffy ack lethality. No one enjoys puffy ack deciding their fate in a scenario. It should be lethal enough that you don't want to hang out in it, but not lethal enough to kill you in one hit, in my opinion. We can't change the hit probability or firing rate, but we can adjust the lethality of it.
-- Some way to deal with radar so there is less (or no) need for dedicated radar operators (which most people consider to be a tedious, undesirable job that they are unwilling to do). (Just let me cry a little and move on by. I begged for the job in 2006. Spurned then and ever since. Might go burn my licence.) Heh! Well, if we have it, I know whom to ask. :) In general, though, it is hard to get people who want to do that. Maybe we keep it as long as you want to play.
-- End restriction of RAF not allowed over France. (Were they allowed over France in 1940? If so, then why not here.) I don't know enough about the real BoB to know. Just seemed that they had the range to go poke around in France some, so why not let them if they want?
-- Allow RAF to set position and courses of fleets? (RN thingy? As long as they stay within the battlezone why not? If LW sink all the ships then the fleet is just removed). Indeed.
-- 5 mph wind at ground level? discussion of wholesale changes to prevent this occurring again? (Why? What?) This is just a thing in general for me. It is much more realistic to have a small amount of wind at ground instead of always 100% perfectly calm. In this one, people are landing and replaning and going on another mission a lot. It might be interesting to add a little more realism to that part of it. Maybe not a good idea, though, as so many AH players have trouble landing even in perfect calm.
--- Revise rescue rules so that it is much, much less labor intensive. (Sure but keeping the rules and just doing it well might work too.) The current rescue rules done well still require a large staff that can't fly. As a CM, I much prefer a scenario that I can fly in. That can be done if the rules aren't written to require a lot of CM labor. You can make rules that don't require a grounded staff and still are 98% as much fun as one that requires people not to fly.
The following three were just replying to Tilt's comments about what has changed since BoB1.
-- We can make radar towers harder (I think a good idea). Discussed above.
-- We can up the lethality of guns (not sure about this one). Still -- not sure about this one.
-- We can increase hangar hardness (I think a good idea). Like with radar hardness, upping hardness so that there strafing isn't going to do anything (but not so high that bombs on target don't take it out) would be good. Unless hitting airfields is a surrogate for destroying RAF aircraft on the ground, then we should not up hardness and open up other ground targets (barracks, etc.).
-
We can assume that in a rerun in the future the next LW CO is going to follow Kermit's blueprints of how to take out the RAF radar.
Maybe the "scramble" rule for the RAF should be dropped in order to have a fighting chance at stopping NOE anti radar raids early in each Frame. Making the radar hardness is backwards imho, the RAF just needs a chance at actually protecting it.
The scramble rule is a major factor in realism. I agree with your radar thoughts.
Well said Dantoo.
-
The RAF GLs could provide War stories as entertainment for the first 10-20 minutes.
The scramble factor should remain.
We could change the "base warning" sound to the sound of a phone ringing.
Add grass fields, custom radar objects, add tiles on the terrain to help with navigation. (Maybe simply have sector numbers on the tile or simply group objects to count to figure out sector number for low altitude navigation and have large tiles to see high above. Make some white cliffs near Dover. Have rivers and bridges for London and other cities with objects that ignite. Smoke perhaps that is affected by the wind. Have ships at port, and broken or bombed cities in France near LW airfields. Have equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk. When you bail, just as you can press "o" to open your chute, perhaps add a button to open your yellow lift raft so rescue can see you better.
Allowing the RAF over France would make things very interesting and may disrupt LW operations. Vulching is frowned upon.
The above are just random thoughts lumped together. :)
-
The RAF GLs could provide War stories as entertainment for the first 10-20 minutes.
The scramble factor should remain.
We could change the "base warning" sound to the sound of a phone ringing.
Add grass fields, custom radar objects, add tiles on the terrain to help with navigation. (Maybe simply have sector numbers on the tile or simply group objects to count to figure out sector number for low altitude navigation and have large tiles to see high above. Make some white cliffs near Dover. Have rivers and bridges for London and other cities with objects that ignite. Smoke perhaps that is affected by the wind. Have ships at port, and broken or bombed cities in France near LW airfields. Have equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk. When you bail, just as you can press "o" to open your chute, perhaps add a button to open your yellow lift raft so rescue can see you better.
Allowing the RAF over France would make things very interesting and may disrupt LW operations. Vulching is frowned upon.
The above are just random thoughts lumped together. :)
IMHO the clipboard maps should remain. I treat mine as a paper map. The map shows a coastline of a certain shape, I look out the windscreen for that shape. To me, the clipboard map represents the efforts of my navigator/bombadier and his navagation aids.
White cliffs at Dover? Sounds like a "duh" to me. :)
RAF over France during BOB sounds more like a snapshot to me. Since the scenario is an attempt to reproduce an actual campaign conditon.
-
How about the next BoB we only make 2 frames long. Then imediatley after those two frames we have another two frame scenario, but we call it the allied invasion of normandy or something else that's catchy. We can link the two together in terms of player registering and groups/group leaders, etc.
This way it's essentialy the same map, just the first two frames the axis get to bomb and the allies defend, then in the last half the allies get to bomb and the axis defend. We could choose one or two plane sets for the whole thing, or a new plane set for each frame (do an earlier and later war version in each frame).
This would also give the chance for the other side to attack/defend while avoiding switching sides or countries. The downside I see to it is lets say you have Bob in the scenario, and Bob for some wierd religious reason won't fly in anything that's not a bomber. This essentialy pigeon holes Bob into doing something he doesnt want to do half the time, or drives him away and he doesn't attend the frames he won't be in a bomber.
-
There are many pilots in AH that love to be bomber pilots.
Being a good bomber pilot requires making good decisions well in advance.
Fighter pilots can make quick decisions, and if wrong, can abandon their decision quickly, while a bomber pilot must make decisions well in advance, and have to be willing to follow through, even in the face of strong adversity.
-
Yep, I like flying fighters or bombers in scenarios. They are both fun but totally different experiences with a different skill set required. We seem to get a reasonable number of bombers up in scenarios.
-
There are many pilots in AH that love to be bomber pilots.
Being a good bomber pilot requires making good decisions well in advance.
Fighter pilots can make quick decisions, and if wrong, can abandon their decision quickly, while a bomber pilot must make decisions well in advance, and have to be willing to follow through, even in the face of strong adversity.
Being a fighter pilot in a scenario requires saving bomber pilots. Talk about work :)
-
Being a fighter pilot in a scenario requires saving bomber pilots.
From what everyone tells me, we fly bombers. Isn't that enough?
-
As a dedicated bomber pilot, and a buff group leader for BoB 2006 & 2008, I'd like to throw in some suggestions.
1. Bombers should do more carpet bombing rather than pin point bombing. What I mean by this is Britain needs more targets that are huge, like the CT cities. We also need factories for targets like an "aircraft" factory or pilot training fields. The idea here is to give the Luftwaffe KG squads more targets so that they will be spending all 4 frames bombing. Also I would suggest changing airfield scoring to where airfields are closed by the number of ordnance dropped on the field itself. This is the way it was done in Africa Korps and I kinda like it, it's just we need some way to offically score it.
Why do I suggest this? The idea of raising the hardness on everything really isn't a good idea, it makes more sense to just add a tremendous amount of things to bomb rather than bombing houses that take 4k of ord to kill.
2. The event time frame needs to have time set aside for bombers to RTB. Under the current 3 hour time frame bombers do not have enough time to fly two sorties and RTB both times. The average round trip for my squadron (which upped from A33) was about 250-300 miles, and took about 140 minutes to complete. This means that if we fly 2 sorties we will most likely be counted as MIA on the return from our second sortie. This really isn't fair to the buff pilots as they have to return to home fields where as fighters can land anywhere.
How to correct it? If the buffs are over France and headed home at the end of the frame, then they should not be counted as MIA. I know that the end hostilies rule is there to prevent last minute major attacks and force people to RTB, however, the buffs really are stretched for time due to the distance they have to fly. Also lets be honest, it won't be as fun for the RAF if they only have one buff attack to deal with, true they may win easier, but who wants to fly around for hours waiting.
I'll try and post a few more ideas once I get home after work.
-
Darn good ideas in points 1 and 2.
I like the idea of carpet bombing. This was WWII. Except for dive bombers, carpet was the method used by both sides. I love to carpet in the MA's. I like the idea of one pass, one pickle, no loiter time. Very realistic.
Using a spread sheet and some observations, one can create a delay calculator for any speed and any loadout.
-
Beefcakes Ideas Continued:
3. Flak....there was none of it. We really need more flak. Now, before everyone gets upset, I know that flak absolutely destroys fighters like me going through a box of chicken nuggets. However, we really need flak to set the atmosphere ,so this is my idea or addon idea as I think someone already suggested this.
First off set the flak damage to about 25% power, this way fighters can take a hit and keep going. On the flip side we need more flak batteries. I suggest that if the map gets retooled then make a simple base with 6-8 flak guns and maybe 2-3 AA guns and call it a Gun Battery. Then take these bases and line them around important targets and maybe even out in the boonies and give them no map icon so the Axis doesn't know where they are. Now you've created a nice defense that the buffs will have to fly through and the escort will have to avoid. The idea here is that the buffs will have to fly in and through the flak for a period of time and will slowly take damage.
4. Divert some pressure off the buffs. Right now under the current setup BoB is won or lost by the buffs. Yes I know that the escorts play a very important role but lets be honest, buffs win or lose this event. Here is a random idea that you may or may not like. Why not create "air superiority" sectors? The idea is several sectors are chosen that must be defended and the side that controls the airspace at frames end gets extra credit or points or something. So why might this be a good thing? It would promote dog fights between the RAF and Luftwaffe, no bombers involved (unless they pass thru) just good furballing fun between sides. This idea would also force the RAF commander to commit some units to area defense while the Luftwaffe commander would have to pull units off escort duty to attack that airspace. These airspace sectors would have to be along the coast in "neutral ground" where no one has a real advantage. This idea really isn't realistic but I suggest it to promote furball fun, rather than the RAF always attacking bombers and the Luftwaffe doing alot of escorting.
-
Beefcakes Ideas Continued:
3. Flak....there was none of it. We really need more flak. Now, before everyone gets upset, I know that flak absolutely destroys fighters like me going through a box of chicken nuggets. However, we really need flak to set the atmosphere ,so this is my idea or addon idea as I think someone already suggested this.
First off set the flak damage to about 25% power, this way fighters can take a hit and keep going. On the flip side we need more flak batteries. I suggest that if the map gets retooled then make a simple base with 6-8 flak guns and maybe 2-3 AA guns and call it a Gun Battery. Then take these bases and line them around important targets and maybe even out in the boonies and give them no map icon so the Axis doesn't know where they are. Now you've created a nice defense that the buffs will have to fly through and the escort will have to avoid. The idea here is that the buffs will have to fly in and through the flak for a period of time and will slowly take damage.
4. Divert some pressure off the buffs. Right now under the current setup BoB is won or lost by the buffs. Yes I know that the escorts play a very important role but lets be honest, buffs win or lose this event. Here is a random idea that you may or may not like. Why not create "air superiority" sectors? The idea is several sectors are chosen that must be defended and the side that controls the airspace at frames end gets extra credit or points or something. So why might this be a good thing? It would promote dog fights between the RAF and Luftwaffe, no bombers involved (unless they pass thru) just good furballing fun between sides. This idea would also force the RAF commander to commit some units to area defense while the Luftwaffe commander would have to pull units off escort duty to attack that airspace. These airspace sectors would have to be along the coast in "neutral ground" where no one has a real advantage. This idea really isn't realistic but I suggest it to promote furball fun, rather than the RAF always attacking bombers and the Luftwaffe doing alot of escorting.
I like point 3. I do not like point #4 for the very reason you cite in your last sentance.
I do think that the current dar and scramble setup did give the RAF participants a taste of what it was really like.
Sit round, play some chess, make some small talk, and think bout the lass at the pub. No scramble and where the heck did that group come from that just bombed us? Or scramble and where the heck is the enemy?
Without a good set of dar operators and posted ground observers, the RAF is doomed. Now the question is, how do we get a good actual or simulated condition of dar and observers? With the goal of maintaining the fog of war.
-
adding wind would help promote carpet bombing (precision bombing is waaay too easy)
as for radar - surely base flashing enabled both sides (simulates ground observers less alt info), no darbar and enemy radar only enabled for allies would best simulate this without all the C&C bother?
I like the idea of 2 new "bases" - an AA battery and a radar station. both should be quite hard to spot from the air (no massive pads etc) and they were pretty standardised:
AA battery:
(http://www.historic-cornwall.org.uk/flyingpast/images/Exploring_Cornwalls_Past/Defended/ground_defence/devon_aab_1.jpg)
4x 3.7" (5"?) guns and a control building. (the stuff on the right is accomodation which could be quite a distance off)
Radar Station:
(http://ieee-virtual-museum.org/media/m1Hax0aMtft.jpg)
7 towers, couple of hardened buildings, 3x Bofors guns (37mm?)
-
thinking about it, friendly darbar should be on for both sides, enemy darbar only for allies.
-
thinking about it, friendly darbar should be on for both sides, enemy darbar only for allies.
Wow! Your pictures brought flashbacks to when I was stationed overthere in the '70's and '80's.
Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.
-
IMHO the clipboard maps should remain. I treat mine as a paper map. The map shows a coastline of a certain shape, I look out the windscreen for that shape. To me, the clipboard map represents the efforts of my navigator/bombadier and his navagation aids.
I think now that the Combat Tour is officially scrapped we can talk about the closed beta... One of the things I liked there was that how the pilosts abilities affected the way the plane on the clipboard map was displayed. If the pilot was poor at navigation it would be a randomized position near the real position etc.
If this kind of "position fuzziness" could be added as an arena setting, it would mean a lot to the realism. You could, for example, say you are within a specific numpad grid within a sector, but not the exact pinpoint location.
-
I think now that the Combat Tour is officially scrapped we can talk about the closed beta... One of the things I liked there was that how the pilosts abilities affected the way the plane on the clipboard map was displayed. If the pilot was poor at navigation it would be a randomized position near the real position etc.
If this kind of "position fuzziness" could be added as an arena setting, it would mean a lot to the realism. You could, for example, say you are within a specific numpad grid within a sector, but not the exact pinpoint location.
Perhaps only when one was at sea with no land in sight. One must remember that this is Europe. There are lots of landmarks. Let me assure you that if one has a map and binoculars (if one is at extreme altitude) you will have no problems knowing where you are. Having flown there, civil and military, I had no issues.
As I have said elsewhere, one could make this simulation so realistic that only real life pilots could take off or land, navigate, and execute their mission.
Without a good early warning system (EWS) and a corp of ground observers reporting Axis positions, the Empire and the RAF are doomed. In the BOB's where the Axis ignored the EWS, the Empire won. In the ones where the Axis took note of the EWS, the Empire lost.
If we were to do BOB with regular arena settings then who knows? Perhaps this would be a good matter for some what if snapshots. One with full dar both sides, another with only full dar for the Allies, and another with only dar bar for the Empire.
-
BOB 2004 was on a killer terrain built just for it. I want the towns, cliffs ,custom flds ,maned flaks,dar installations with more then one target to disable them. (none of this one pass and move onto the next one )
I'd really get excited to see the balloons on Cables ... but thats asking alot. (but hell we had ufo's in AH1)
Towns should be included in airfield objectives to disable them. (AE: no rearms at a disabled fld )
it's also time to finish its planeset . he111, the early ju-88,Do-17 , Beaufighter, Defiant,Bristol Blenheim,Gloster Gladiator . (also fix the spit and hurri armament,,, Somethings different in the hitsprite count or they've been weakened lethality wise)
there should be more of a time delay on how fast the LW can rearm/fuel when making that short hop from Calais to Dover (hells kitchen). or the Raf should be able to go feet dry and harrass the LW or even plant observers /full recon sorties.
now most important ...
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/gallery/waitingpilots640.jpg)
Were the hell is my Trailer !!!
So we will wait for a fresh terrain befor you see BOB again ...at least that has to be fixed.
-
deckchairs and pipes :D
wth is that dog? looks like a boxer/labrador cross :confused:
-
deckchairs and pipes :D
wth is that dog? looks like a boxer/labrador cross :confused:
That is not a dog. It is one of the other mates old lady. :lol
BOB '04 terrain? You would think one of us would have it on a CD or old HD somewhere. Now I must go search my stuff.
-
That is not a dog. It is one of the other mates old lady. :lol
BOB '04 terrain? You would think one of us would have it on a CD or old HD somewhere. Now I must go search my stuff.
http://www.roscoroo.com/AH2Maps.htm (http://www.roscoroo.com/AH2Maps.htm) right there i think . its that one or the earlier one that had the photo type cities back in AH1 days.