Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: ghostdancer on May 27, 2009, 03:35:57 PM
-
Gentlemen,
Sorry for the delay but I had a real life event this weekend that delayed me posting the write up. June's FSO is Operation Husky, the description is here.
http://ahevents.org/mediterranean-theatre/1943-operation-husky-the-invasion-of-siciliy.html
Frame 1 - Operation Barclay, the run up to Husky with attacks on Sardinia and Sicily (maybe Italy to)
Frame 2 - The Invasion (have 2 British CVs involved)
Frame 3 - The Race to Messina
-
ANOTHER ETO setup?!
:O :O :O
At least there's FM-2s, but four in a row is excessive.
-
No, no, no,
Its NOT a ETO Setup, that would be silly. :rolleyes:
Its MTO. :D
-
Doh! Now I can't crow about being gone in June.
-
Give us some NAVY will ya? :huh
We're tired of flying 109s and spits all the time!
-
Sweet, I thought I wouldn't see an ETO scenario this summer!
I know I'll pay for it eventually though.
:noid
-
I know I'll pay for it eventually though.
:noid
Nah you'll never see four straight months of USN/USMC or IJN/IJAAF.
Just won't happen.
Heck even the Norway setup would be nice, it had some Corsairs in it. :D
-
No wait, THIS IS A PTO SETUP!!!!! :O
Look at the map we are using (Straight from ahevents.org):
NOTE: We will be using the Japan terrain for this event.
......or it could be a typo :noid
-
Hmmmm. Decisions..Decisions..What will we fly.... Dont cry, just fly.... :salute
-
It has jeeps
What for? Will a squad or 2 actually be assigned to drive jeeps for 2 hour? Or they can just take a jeep after they get shot down?
-
First off let me say the attitude / snarkiness is not appreciated at all.
Next there is Navy involved and there will be FM2s (Martlets) and Seafires involved.
Right now I am working out the particulars of a possible amphibious invasion. The last time I did this in 2005 I found that the HE round of the LVT4 did no damage at all to other vehicles, including light skin vehicles such as the M3. I need to do some testing but what I thought that might be fun is to see if could find a spot with shore guns and a base nearby. Then have a fleet of DDs park off the coast and offer fire support (dueling with shore guns) while the LVTs went ashore and tried to take the base. If the LVT4 75mm HE round still does nothing against any vehicle. Then basically I need to make sure the opposition is just armed with machine guns since the LVTs will only have those to take out enemy vehicles.
So right now I am looking at the SdKfz 251 or M3 as the main German / Italian opposition vehicle plus, might throw in some jeeps (armed with 1 .50) to give the Axis a vehicle that is really mobile at the cost of no armor at all.
That is why I included the jeep even though I might not use it.
Oh, and no for any of the ground battles it will not be a 2 hour event but more of a 50 minute event and then a second life in an airplane.
-
Come on Ghost.
You make it sound like you guys actually put some thought, and work into these operations.
-
LVT4 can kill osti interestingly enough.
-
Next there is Navy involved and there will be FM2s (Martlets) and Seafires involved.
Good point. PTO guys get to fly some birds they like, even if it's not WHERE they'd like.
There hasn't been an Eastern Front FSO in 9 months and you don't see me complaining.
As long as it's FSO all's good IMO.
-
I don't think Sax's initial post was as much as a complaint as it was just a hey don't forget the blue plane guys.
Mine wasn't a complaint just an observation. True there hasn't been an Eastern Front for months. However you guys regularly get to fly your 109s and 190s.
So no I wouldn't complain either if the F6F or F4U were in the majority of setups. Even if there are F6Fs or F4Us many times they're limited and you're lucky if you get to fly them one frame. So you guys that get to regularly fly your squadron birds... Good for you, that's great and I am being serious. I think that's a great thing. You might just count your lucky stars and be glad it works out so well for you instead of knocking people who don't have the same good fortune. You know this board is made for communication. Part of communication means different points of view at times. Just because you post a point of view it doesn't make you a whiner or a crybaby. Nobody got out of line or called names. In fact the people closest to being out of line have been some of the folks knocking Sax or anybody agreeing with him. He didn't cry, he didn't get snarky, he even found a silver lining in the fact FM2s are in the setup. Remember when your buzzing around in your 190 or 109 there are a lot of guys flying on the other side that would rather be flying something else. Yet they come out and fly aircraft they may not like that much to support the FSO, and to enjoy the matchups. Which by the way adds to your enjoyment too. Unless you're just completely self centered maybe you'll remember that. Although I'm not sure of his math I think it's only three in a row. :D
-
I don't think Sax's initial post was as much as a complaint as it was just a hey don't forget the blue plane guys.
If only we could find some squadrons that were dedicated to flying Japanese, especially IJN, aircraft. :frown:
You guys act like we're doing it intentionally. Sometimes the Admin just can't make it work out. Spit squads and Luft squads are fortunate, as so many setups involve those aircraft. GD has a competitive setup planned that potentially offers a few new wrinkles with the GVs. Best to enter into the month with an open mind that you'll have fun 3 Friday nights in a row, regardless of aircraft.
-
Shifty,
1. Italy
2. Dieppe
3. High Blue
4. Sicily
Stoney,
Part of it may be the woeful under representation in the Japanese plane set.
-
Shifty,
1. Italy
2. Dieppe
3. High Blue
4. Sicily
Stoney,
Part of it may be the woeful under representation in the Japanese plane set.
Ah okay there was four straight I was thinking there was that VVS/IJ thing in the middle.
Well obviously pointing it out is a mistake and nobody wants to hear about it.
Enter the month with an open mind, close your eyes,and think of England. :D
-
Stoney,
Part of it may be the woeful under representation in the Japanese plane set.
There's no doubt that the planeset could use some work, but I think it has more to do with the overall performance disparity between the early and mid-war Japanese aircraft and USN/USMC aircraft.
Shifty, making mention of 4 ETO setups in a row is one thing, but saying "remember us Corsair/Hellcat/Wildcat squads" is another. We are not purposefully denying you the ability to fly the Hog.
-
What actually is rather limiting also is the available map set. Now before anybody goes there building a historical terrain for use in these events is much, much time consuming than building a non-historical terrain for the MA. Basically the designer is doing research to get the right elevations of the terrain, trying to match coastlines, roads, base positions (in many cases) and also then creating the textures for the terrain and Special Objects.
It is a lot of work and every time a new TE or OE comes out everything needs to be tested to make sure old designs are still working with new designs and that old ways of doing things still work with new software. This is why map production for events is slower than the MA.
So we have the maps limiting us to what areas we can do battle in and then we have plane sets as you guys point out.
As for the past 5 FSOs we have done 1 Pacific, 2 ETO, and 2 MTO. Yes, another Pacific one is do and is coming up (another Admin is planning a Pacific event) and started planning his before I did mine. I am before him in rotation but I didn't want to run an event on the same terrain he is using almost back to back.
That left me with the option of an event using the Tunisia terrain, doing Husky or the Siege of Malta (southern Med events in contrast to the later Italian event previously run), or something in Hungary. I will admit to a bias here that the Hungary Map doesn't perk my interest so I didn't go with that. I have already run a Tunisia event back in 2008 so I decided to go with a Southern Med event and decided to go with the Invasion of Sicily for a couple of reasons.
1) I could incorporate British Fleet Carriers in the event and have the FM2 stand in for the Martlet. So I thought that would be a nice change of pace to have British CV operations (Seafires and FM2s).
2) With people being able to man the guns of DDs I thought it would be interesting to do an amphibious invasion battle. Have a couple squads man DDs and LVTs and try to take a base while being resisted by shore batteries and GVs.
So of the available map options open to me Sicily I thought provided the terrain with the most possibilities for interesting twists. This is why I went with it.
-
Wonder how BoB would have faired if it was the Japs attacking from France... Or even the African theater. Sub all LW planes for same era Japs and have at it?
:noid
-
Wonder how BoB would have faired if it was the Japs attacking from France... Or even the African theater. Sub all LW planes for same era Japs and have at it?
:noid
With a range of nearly 2000 miles, the A6M2 would be an interesting substitution for a 109E. :t
-
Cough rangoon cough cough
-
Shifty, making mention of 4 ETO setups in a row is one thing, but saying "remember us Corsair/Hellcat/Wildcat squads" is another. We are not purposefully denying you the ability to fly the Hog.
I never said you were Stoney. If I thought that I'd come right out and say it. I think those planes get lost in the backwash because of the lack of some needed IJN/IJAAF aircraft and just the overall popularity of the ETO aircraft. Heck if there were all USAAF vs IJN/IJAAF scenarios I'd gladly fly Japanese in that to support any P-38/P-39/P-40 squadrons that don't get much in the way of their squads hostorical action. Also for the chance to fly in a USN/USMC vs IJN/IJAAF scenario. Like I mentioned in my first post I love the Norway sceanrio and the chance to fly the F4U against the Luftwaffe. I'm not some guy demanding to fly the F4U-4 against the A6M2 or some such nonsense. Heck I'm excited to fly Operation Husky, I flew in the scenario a couple of years back and enjoyed it. I'm not demanding and not complaining, I was just making an observation. I don't mind flying other aircraft, if I did I wouldn't even participate. I enjoy the FSO for what it is and have for years. Regardless of what you think of my post or seem to think I'm up to, I'm a huge supporter of the FSO staff. I'd just like a chance to fly the Corsair more often than one frame in a six to seven month time frame. It's not a demand, attack or accusation, it's just a wish.
<S>
-
Rangoon is tough with this number of players. I created a Rangoon event in the past and APdrone ran it again after modifying it. With so few air bases it makes it tough to have things spread out for 500 people so that we don't get areas with massive congestion of players in the same sector.
But who knows for the future.
I know the next FSO after July is a PTO design.
-
Rangoon is tough with this number of players. I created a Rangoon event in the past and APdrone ran it again after modifying it. With so few air bases it makes it tough to have things spread out for 500 people so that we don't get areas with massive congestion of players in the same sector.
Just a thought here, but have you ever considered running two sessions of the same set up for something like Rangoon? Might even be able to run one session at a time slot that is more friendly to our European players... Just throwing it out there.
-
oh no that was a reply to Anaxgoras and odee asking about an A6m2 vs Spit1 Hurri1 setup. Basically the rangoon scenario had a squadron or two of spits and hurris
-
I never said you were Stoney. If I thought that I'd come right out and say it.
Fair enough. I do appreciate feedback. We'll get it sorted out.
:salute
-
oh no that was a reply to Anaxgoras and odee asking about an A6m2 vs Spit1 Hurri1 setup. Basically the rangoon scenario had a squadron or two of spits and hurris
But without any of the strategic constraints of the BoB, and with an egregiously bungled planeset full of bizarre substitutions.
-
Either way we dont have a adequate bomber for BoB anyway. Except the JU88 Im not sure if its the correct version
-
Bouncng an idea off of that Rangoon comment: I sometimes wonder if FSO has grown too large. Back when there were 250 folks the ratios given might work properly, so that one side had "X" bombers that could just barely get the job done, if protected...
Now it seems both sides slam so many cons together in a free-for-all that it kinda resembles the MAs at times (no offense, not talking quality of pilots, just 50 reds v 50 greens). Or you get 30 pilots in heavy bombers when 10 get the job done, NOT counting the 2 extra lives for every bomber.
I dunno, I think some changes could be made here and there, some experiments run. What about rotating some units in and out of FSO so less players are in any given frame?
Or how about removing drones and putting all these 500 players to good use? Put them in as single bombers (naturally shifting more to allied side to make this happen -- the ratios have to be redone).
Just some thoughts.
-
Or how about removing drones and putting all these 500 players to good use? Put them in as single bombers (naturally shifting more to allied side to make this happen -- the ratios have to be redone).
I think that this is worth exploring. Removing drones and increasing the number of bombers would accomplish a few things, I think...
- The ratio of bombers to escorts could be brought into a more realistic line
- No drones would force bombers to fly tighter formations for mutual support. Which would also force bombers to throttle back a bit, perhaps solving the bomber altitude issue.
- Hopefully make a 500 player FSO scenario play better
As to rotating squads in and out of FSO, I don't think that that is a good idea. FSO is one of the things that keeps a lot of people playing and paying. Forcing players to sit out doesn't seem like it would be good for FSO or AH2. I would rather see a sceond session added. Maybe on a Saturday afternoon, which would be better for our Euro friends.
-
I hate the off week, bring it on!
-
I like the thought of removing drones. I find it hard to believe that 500+ players aren't enough people to man a sufficiently-sized bomber force to get the job done after a rebalancing of side assignments. As for the argument that bombers are too vulnerable without drones, FSO IS supposed to be a TEAM event, right? 500 players operating as squadrons, not gaggles? If a squad flying bombers doesn't stay together IMO that's their decision and they SHOULD face the consequences.
Another option is this:
Each squadron assigned to fly a bomber is given a maximum number of aircraft they can utilize. Say, a 7-10 squadron can field a maximum of 12 bombers, to coincide with their +2 allowance. The squadron has 6 pilots actually show up. They would be allowed to have three guys launch with formations to fill in their numbers. If 11 guys show up they can either have 11 players launch in singles or use whatever combination of drones, singles and gunners they need to match their 12 bombers allowed. Combine this with--instead of the "Credible Force" requirement based on how many times over the target can be leveled--assigning each target a "number and size of squad" requirement like some special objectives have in past setups (say, a small airfield must be attacked by 2 4-6 squadrons or 1 7-10 squadron, or something along those lines)
-
The use of drones is left up to the designer.
The issue of pig piling is basically a design issues. Designs can accommodate 500+ players and have. Basically you need to have enough targets per side and both offense and defense and spread apart enough to make it difficult to pig pile or for forces to clump up.
Lets say you have 6 offensive and 6 defensive targets. That is 12 objectives. Then you have a minimum of 11-15 that must defend or attack each target. That is 132 - 180 pilots committed out of say 250. That leaves the CiC roughly 118 - 70 pilots to deploy as they wish among 12 objectives. Basically if split equally among all objectives .. an additional 10 or 6 pilots per objective.
Now if you make sure if you can have attack objectives say 2 sectors (at least 50 miles) apart, if not more then it becomes hard to pig pile an objective since your strike forces have to diverge at some point to make the T+60 rule. They can't all fly to one target then turn and hit another target if you attack objectives properly (not next to each other and spread out).
So their isn't a need for new rules, basically things can be compensated for in the design of the event.
Now with that said some maps make this extremely hard to do now since the were originally built with the idea of having so many players. Coral Sea and Rangoon come to mind. They have very few bases so it is hard to make sure their are 6 objectives per side and even harder to find bases that are spread out for each frame. Even when you do so with the lack of bases it is hard to make frame 2 different than frame 1.
Italy, Tunisia, Luzon maps are built for large number of players and give the design a lot of options and flexibility.
FSO can accommodate the numbers it is just that are designs are dictated by appropriate maps and then the rest really is a design issue of selecting objectives, make sure their are enough objectives, etc.
Removing drones is decision based on the design and their have been FSO events with no drones and FSO events with drones.
-
Or how about removing drones and putting all these 500 players to good use? Put them in as single bombers (naturally shifting more to allied side to make this happen -- the ratios have to be redone).
Just some thoughts.
Removing drones...huh...that does require more people to fly bombers. And lets face it, that is the one assignment the vast majority of participants shoulder out of responsibility rather than desire.
Krusty, don't you think the main problem is the lethality of the linked defensive firepower vs. what individual gunners in individual buffs could probably realistically achieve, rather than the presence of the drones per se?
That said, disabling drones is something the event designer can actually do, so a good stop-gap measure IMO.
-
And lets face it, that is the one assignment the vast majority of participants shoulder out of responsibility rather than desire.
What are you basing this on? Just because you don't like to fly bombers doesn't mean everyone else doesn't, too. There are squads who actually request them, you know.
-
oh no that was a reply to Anaxgoras and odee asking about an A6m2 vs Spit1 Hurri1 setup. Basically the rangoon scenario had a squadron or two of spits and hurris
God I wish people would quote me correctly. :rolleyes:
I was talking about a "What If" scenario for BoB, Italy, and the Europe in general, replacing the LW with IJN/IJA planes.
-
Didn't I state that correctly?
-
BnZs, not talking about bomber effectiveness (that's really another issue, methinks), but overall gameplay balance. IMO it's been degrading steadily for a while.
ghost says designers can and do accomodate 500 players, but my response is "not very well, they don't." They just stick in some more of the same objectives, some more of the same planes, and scale it up, but scaling things up in steady ratios doesn't equate to "accomodating 500 players" in my opinion.
-
Didn't I state that correctly?
I ment the matchup
-
I like PFactor's idea of removing drone for bombers, and getting the bomber-escort ratio back in line with the real deal. I also believe that there could be more ground to ground or air to ground action as well. Incorperating the entire tool box into the fight would be a good time. It would thin out the "congestion" in the air, get the gv's rolling, and get the jabos diving as well.
Also... do not limit squad involvement in FSO. Like many, I seriously look forward to the FSO as it is a big breath of fresh air from the circle jerk they call the main arenas (LW).
-
Removing the drones would make a slaughter more likely since it would reduce the amount of escorts. Since it's Axis flying participants that want it, I suggest we try it out first in a BoB scenario or another one with axis flying the buffs and Allied flying defense only :rock
-
Removing the drones would make a slaughter more likely since it would reduce the amount of escorts. Since it's Axis flying participants that want it, I suggest we try it out first in a BoB scenario or another one with axis flying the buffs and Allied flying defense only :rock
BOB scenario isn't going to show the same results Hammy.
The Ju-88 takes all day to catch in a Hurri I. The British fighters are not shooting at the buffs with cannon, rather 303s.
Also a formation of JU88s doesn't throw all the 50 cal metal in the air that a formation of 17s or 24s do. Instead you get a few 303s.
So you get a different represenation on both sides of the issue.
-
Removing the drones would make a slaughter more likely since it would reduce the amount of escorts. Since it's Axis flying participants that want it, I suggest we try it out first in a BoB scenario or another one with axis flying the buffs and Allied flying defense only :rock
I disagree that it would swing the balance too far the other way. Depending on the frame on this last campaign, I don't think I saw too many more than 15-20 defending fighters in any area my squadron was operating in. Consider that of those numbers, maybe half were actually equipped for attacking the bombers (190s, 110s, or later 109s with gondolas). If anything, so long as the bomber squadrons STAY TOGETHER, and their escorts do their jobs, (rather than run off looking for a fight like has happened in the past) it should be fairly well-balanced.
-
What are you basing this on? Just because you don't like to fly bombers doesn't mean everyone else doesn't, too. There are squads who actually request them, you know.
Yeah, but those 3 guys can't fill all the needed slots for buffs :D...so the downside of not having formations remains.
-
I disagree that it would swing the balance too far the other way. Depending on the frame on this last campaign, I don't think I saw too many more than 15-20 defending fighters in any area my squadron was operating in. Consider that of those numbers, maybe half were actually equipped for attacking the bombers (190s, 110s, or later 109s with gondolas). If anything, so long as the bomber squadrons STAY TOGETHER, and their escorts do their jobs, (rather than run off looking for a fight like has happened in the past) it should be fairly well-balanced.
Maybe that's where the issue is. If there were about 220 pilots defending 7 targets the number should have been 31, which should be more than enough. In frame 1 the allies got slaughtered, in frame 2 there was an issue with the Axis turnout. I'm not sure about frame 3 but it seemed pretty even.
No matter what the setup, someone isn't going to be happy. For the most part at least half of the buff drivers would rather be flying fighters. Taking away the little extra they have would not only make it harder to complete their mission, but would also take them out earilier in the frame. I think that any experimentation on taking away drones should be done in in between missions in the AVA or even the SEA during the off week of FSO and not in the actual FSO.
Right now the FSO is in a spot where it's become so successful that people are requesting changes based on individual experiences. In the long run I think the FSO has been basically pretty balanced.
:salute
-
How would the possibility be of splitting the timing requirements for ETO scenerios.
I think it would be easy to have some of the usual stuff happen with the T60 rule applied, and let's say a large deep strike package simulating berlin or such. For this strike, take away the time restriction as even with the planners setting up for routing, it would still be a challenge to get back in before frame end. Kinda the double strike, short hops that we have been doing, and a long package for the deep penetration of the LW homeland.
I think it would be a good challenge to see how many get home, the escort planning and LW multiple hits as they come back out. Even at let's say an 27k alt restriction, would definitely be interesting. would also aid in eliviating the task of having to make sure the target zone spacing for everyone as possibly 25% to 33% would be pretty deep from the other target zones.
-
Removing the drones would make a slaughter more likely since it would reduce the amount of escorts.
Historically did they have 2 escorts for every bomber, flying 5-10k higher than the enemy could even reach?
Keep in mind in frame 2 axis ran across so many P-47Ds they blotted out the sky (50+) at alts too high for us to even nose up and fire at them in zooms, and they were HEAVY at the time! Carrying jabo ords!
No, your response is knee-jerk Ham. Think of it this way: Less overall fighters on both axis AND allies, and more bombers in single planes. So if the mission design calls for 10 bombers, instead you give them 30, no formations. So you figure out the ratios so that there's overall less swarming on both sides, but those extra players are still active.
The same way ratios work now, different units will be sent to axis or allies accordingly.
-
Guys, I think you should start another thread here.
-
I like the idea of no formations but the idea of a bomber assigned to hit 2 targets is unhistorical ( from what i read bout the 8th ) they had a primary target to level and other targets of opportunity if clouds or what ever made primary target unavailable. But anyhow we are enjoying flying whatever and will continue to do so :salute
-
Krusty:
This is not the Eastern Front.
Fighting above 30K was not uncommon.
These altitudes were not unknown even in the Battle of Britain.
Even Fw-190As can get above 30K. (I got to 32K in about 20 minutes in a clean Fw-190 A-5 in testing for the last FSO).
Performing better at alt than the 109s with superior wing-loading and low-alt power loading is basically what the long-range American fighters have got going for them, especially the P-47 and P-38.
And we killed what, all of those P-47s when after they came down and dropped didn't we?
I'm not going to say Axis doesn't have its work cut out for it in some situations, but fighter vs. fighter it is not ridiculously unbalanced.
Historically did they have 2 escorts for every bomber, flying 5-10k higher than the enemy could even reach?
Keep in mind in frame 2 axis ran across so many P-47Ds they blotted out the sky (50+) at alts too high for us to even nose up and fire at them in zooms, and they were HEAVY at the time! Carrying jabo ords!
No, your response is knee-jerk Ham. Think of it this way: Less overall fighters on both axis AND allies, and more bombers in single planes. So if the mission design calls for 10 bombers, instead you give them 30, no formations. So you figure out the ratios so that there's overall less swarming on both sides, but those extra players are still active.
The same way ratios work now, different units will be sent to axis or allies accordingly.
-
This thread is starting to bore the crap outa me. Wish I never would have posted, now I have to check it every day. : :o
-
Gentlemen this thread was started for the June FSO.
The current discussions are not in relation to this, so once again please start another thread.