Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: kilo2 on April 04, 2013, 02:14:03 PM
-
The scenario was obviously lopsided but the question is why?
Command choices and plane vs plane match ups could be part of the problem but overall I think the setup is to blame.
A few things that I think make this setup nearly impossible for the axis to win are listed below.
1. Radar. I think that radar makes it too easy for the allies to defend their two keypads worth of target area.
2. Ship hardness. The merchant ship hardness is laughable.
3. Not enough targets for the axis/targets too compact. This setup may not even be viable due to the fact that the targets are so compact it takes no thought to defend. Along with the radar it makes it extremely difficult to achieve any success.
This setup was not very fun for axis and I think numbers reflected that.
-
I concur with one and two. The radar was not what was described or I understood in the write-up. Ship hardness was entirely too high. As far as number 3 there were tons of targets available, but the ship hardness made them unattractive target so that leaves the target rich area of Malta. Seems there were not near enough Axis heavies to have a go anyway. Numbers were horribly light from initial registration and dropped on both sides from the start to the finish of the event. Your right though, it was not fun for the Axis.
-
I concur with one and two. The radar was not what was described or I understood in the write-up. Ship hardness was entirely too high. As far as number 3 there were tons of targets available, but the ship hardness made them unattractive target so that leaves the target rich area of Malta. Seems there were not near enough Axis heavies to have a go anyway. Numbers were horribly light from initial registration and dropped on both sides from the start to the finish of the event. Your right though, it was not fun for the Axis.
+1 I agree on points 1 and 2 also but it was a good scenario for the Allies! With a little tweaking on the setup, round two could have a much different outcome.
-
I agree the radar was a bit overpowered as we watched the dars building over sicily and just had to watch them come down and position are selves accordingly. Cant comment on the ships as very rarely saw them attacked as we were over malta most of the time.
To change the concentration of targets would of made the scenario far from historically correct in my opinion.
I think if the fighters on the axis side had of used the tactics they used in frame 4 with the bombers they had in frame 1/2 then the scenario could of been alot more balanced as it was.
But generally we came in on undefended buffs the 109s always seemed to be half a sector behind or totally absent, allowing us to get the buffs and get out hence the reason the buff numbers dropped in my opinion.
EatG
-
The fact that the rosters were barely half filled might have had something to do with it as well.
-
I think we need to shut down the Spitfire V factory on Malta...... What? They did not have a Spitfire V factory on Malta? Get the F out of here...... Did you see how many Spitfires took off from there?
I think to "BALANCE" this set up, and it is only my opinion, any Spitfire that is LOST must be REPLACED via the WASP. So, if a pilot bails, ditches or gets shot down, he needs to shuttle a NEW Spitfire into Malta. You could make A-170, the island in the middle of the MED active. They would have to land and rearm then could take off and fight. This would allow for a chance for the fighters to sweep over Malta and give any bomber pilots HOPE to make the target.
THIS WAS NOT DGS... So stop with that line of crap already.... <--- Preemptive strike.
-
Turnout was bad for both sides. Was from the start. Probably not a great time to run a scenario, something to consider in the future.
I hope everyone understands that we have to design a scenario around a certain expectation of turnout. This was designed around average numbers, and actually on the low side of that average.
Based on that, let's talk ship hardness.
Main Arena, 1 formation of JU88s carries enough ordinance to sink a CV. Obviously, that isn't a good idea for a scenario that rewards people for successfully attacking a target not simply getting a plane or two through. Scenarios have obstacles.
The Axis had 3 full squadrons of 8 JU-88s with the ability to launch at least twice each on the fleet. This still allows for the Axis to hit Malta with the other bomber flights. That is 3 full squadrons, a grand total of 72 planes, 9 of them have to hit one CV to sink it, 3 pilots with their formations, or up to 9 singles. 9 planes out of 72, leaving the rest to pick the fleet apart. Counting for attrition and missing, the objectives need about half of the planes to survive in order to gain ground each frame. Turnout dictated that there simply weren't enough planes to hit the targets and escort the bombers in. Nobody did anything wrong, it was simply a hard fought battle. Honestly, an event that hopes half the bombers survive to advance the frame isn't asking a lot. Time and time again, it was shown that if we had the bodies, the Axis could have done the job. Of course, it's easy to focus on what didn't happen instead of what could have happened.
We were over Malta in frame 1 long before the Spits arrived. Had we the bodies, the hangers could have been capped and the spits couldn't have launched. There were 2 fields to cover, and the Axis knew which ones they were. Not rocket science, just one of those things that could have happened. In each frame, people made it to the fleets with plenty of time to do damage had they actually been bomber groups. No cap to speak of, again, simply not enough people.
Anyone can second guess what should have happened, but the fact is, no one knows what would have happened if the rosters were full on Both Sides, only what could have happened.
We design scenarios so that things can happen, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Command on both sides did the best they could with what they had. In every frame, the Axis had to mount an attack, and simply did not have the resources to pull it off. The Allies suffered the same in numbers, however it's far easier to defend with lower numbers than invade.
I'm sure everyone has an idea about what could have been designed differently, but the reality is, it's mere speculation, numbers absolutely could have, not necessarily would have, but could have changed everything. Any design changes, again, are simply speculation as there is no way to prove how things would have turned out had we only done it differently.
Now consider some of the changes proposed, with the turnout as expected. Already, only 9 out of 72 bombers can take out a CV, so we lower the hardness? We were having debates about hardness after a frame where not one single bomber made it to the target, and THAT was the conversation we were having? Hardness could have been set to spit on the ships and they would sink and the ships would have still been floating.
Radar. We had it. And Yes DGS had it also. Changes nothing. The objective is not to hide from the enemy but come up with a plan to beat them. Radar can be used against someone who is seeing it as much as it can be used against them.
Not enough targets or targets too compact. Midway is going to suck it that logic holds true. So is Pearl Harbor. I can also absolutely assure you that had we had double or triple the targets and had the same turnout we would be arguing that there are too many and you were spread too thin. You know it would happen :)
Guys, there is no perfect scenario. There is only a game board and the ability to do the best you can with what you have, that is the real game, and both sides did the best they could with a less than stellar convergence of conditions.
I do enjoy reading your ideas, whether or not they are integrated into the next version of this event is something we'll consider if we chose to run this one again. Don't mistake what I posted above as suggesting this was a flawlessly designed event, it was not, but then again, which ones are? Of course there are some modifications to be made so by all means, keep the ideas coming, but please also try to base the ideas on possible design modifications, as there are still strategic elements that are not a design problem to solve.
-
I think we need to shut down the Spitfire V factory on Malta...... What? They did not have a Spitfire V factory on Malta? Get the F out of here...... Did you see how many Spitfires took off from there?
I think to "BALANCE" this set up, and it is only my opinion, any Spitfire that is LOST must be REPLACED via the WASP. So, if a pilot bails, ditches or gets shot down, he needs to shuttle a NEW Spitfire into Malta. You could make A-170, the island in the middle of the MED active. They would have to land and rearm then could take off and fight. This would allow for a chance for the fighters to sweep over Malta and give any bomber pilots HOPE to make the target.
THIS WAS NOT DGS... So stop with that line of crap already.... <--- Preemptive strike.
Do the 109Fs lost get magically replaced, or do they have to be shipped or flown from the factories in Germany?
-
Turnout was bad for both sides. Was from the start. Probably not a great time to run a scenario, something to consider in the future.
I hope everyone understands that we have to design a scenario around a certain expectation of turnout. This was designed around average numbers, and actually on the low side of that average.
Based on that, let's talk ship hardness.
Main Arena, 1 formation of JU88s carries enough ordinance to sink a CV. Obviously, that isn't a good idea for a scenario that rewards people for successfully attacking a target not simply getting a plane or two through. Scenarios have obstacles.
The Axis had 3 full squadrons of 8 JU-88s with the ability to launch at least twice each on the fleet. This still allows for the Axis to hit Malta with the other bomber flights. That is 3 full squadrons, a grand total of 72 planes, 9 of them have to hit one CV to sink it, 3 pilots with their formations, or up to 9 singles. 9 planes out of 72, leaving the rest to pick the fleet apart. Counting for attrition and missing, the objectives need about half of the planes to survive in order to gain ground each frame. Turnout dictated that there simply weren't enough planes to hit the targets and escort the bombers in. Nobody did anything wrong, it was simply a hard fought battle. Honestly, an event that hopes half the bombers survive to advance the frame isn't asking a lot. Time and time again, it was shown that if we had the bodies, the Axis could have done the job. Of course, it's easy to focus on what didn't happen instead of what could have happened.
We were over Malta in frame 1 long before the Spits arrived. Had we the bodies, the hangers could have been capped and the spits couldn't have launched. There were 2 fields to cover, and the Axis knew which ones they were. Not rocket science, just one of those things that could have happened. In each frame, people made it to the fleets with plenty of time to do damage had they actually been bomber groups. No cap to speak of, again, simply not enough people.
Anyone can second guess what should have happened, but the fact is, no one knows what would have happened if the rosters were full on Both Sides, only what could have happened.
We design scenarios so that things can happen, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Command on both sides did the best they could with what they had. In every frame, the Axis had to mount an attack, and simply did not have the resources to pull it off. The Allies suffered the same in numbers, however it's far easier to defend with lower numbers than invade.
I'm sure everyone has an idea about what could have been designed differently, but the reality is, it's mere speculation, numbers absolutely could have, not necessarily would have, but could have changed everything. Any design changes, again, are simply speculation as there is no way to prove how things would have turned out had we only done it differently.
Now consider some of the changes proposed, with the turnout as expected. Already, only 9 out of 72 bombers can take out a CV, so we lower the hardness? We were having debates about hardness after a frame where not one single bomber made it to the target, and THAT was the conversation we were having? Hardness could have been set to spit on the ships and they would sink and the ships would have still been floating.
Radar. We had it. And Yes DGS had it also. Changes nothing. The objective is not to hide from the enemy but come up with a plan to beat them. Radar can be used against someone who is seeing it as much as it can be used against them.
Not enough targets or targets too compact. Midway is going to suck it that logic holds true. So is Pearl Harbor. I can also absolutely assure you that had we had double or triple the targets and had the same turnout we would be arguing that there are too many and you were spread too thin. You know it would happen :)
Guys, there is no perfect scenario. There is only a game board and the ability to do the best you can with what you have, that is the real game, and both sides did the best they could with a less than stellar convergence of conditions.
I do enjoy reading your ideas, whether or not they are integrated into the next version of this event is something we'll consider if we chose to run this one again. Don't mistake what I posted above as suggesting this was a flawlessly designed event, it was not, but then again, which ones are? Of course there are some modifications to be made so by all means, keep the ideas coming, but please also try to base the ideas on possible design modifications, as there are still strategic elements that are not a design problem to solve.
You can only push the blame to numbers or players so many time before that excuse becomes overused.
Merchant ship hardness is no where near historical. This was brought up before frame 1. Radar and this setup just doesn't work. There is no perfect setup but some are better than others..
-
Do the 109Fs lost get magically replaced, or do they have to be shipped or flown from the factories in Germany?
Nope, but the STORY line of the scenario was a "Resupply of Malta" not Sicily.
-
I am not a CM, so I am not in the loop of a set up.
But, when there is an obvious set up issue, why cannot adjustments me made "During" a scenario.
I like the way in FSO that certain units have to be filled first? and minimums and maximums are met?
Why cannot scenarios be run like that?
-
Why cannot scenarios be run like that?
They can be, this one just didn't happen to be designed that way.
-
I agree with the comments on numbers, particularly the numbers of axis fighters- which were significantly lower than the number of allied fighters for the first couple of frames, maybe even the first 3 which was always going to make things tough for the axis. I think this disadvantage was exacerbated by tactics used by the axis; we often encountered bf 109s furballing. From previous experiences i expected them to keep their speed up and harass the spits to keep them away from the bombers, but all too often they got drawn off by a squadron and left the bombers undefended. However, I think the overall fighter balance for the write up was good, with the allies having a slight numbers advantage but a disadvantage in quality.
-
I'd do the following tweaks (just my opinion):
1. Increase axis/allied fighter ratio. Low axis/allied fighters was often low due to turnout, but the design at full attendance has it at 1.15:1, which is still too low in my opinion compared to other scenarios.
2. Decrease hardness of ships and remove quad 40 mm. Make it more in line with other scenarios where torpedo bombing worked out.
3. Add ships and enforce some dispersion of them, but only if it is realistic. I am assuming (but could be wrong, as I don't know about the history of this battle) that the Mediterranean had lots of shipping around almost always and not everything always gathered into a single strongly protected flotilla. If Stukas in real life flew around scouting and attacking ships that didn't always have air cover, that should be part of this scenario. If that wasn't historical, then delete item 3.
-
My group although flying axis did have a good time, and despite the odds, gave better then we got. But we were only able to pull that off by very good teamwork and trying to maintain high ground at all costs. Trying to do this and defend bombers at the same time would have been futile. I felt the 109F only got a real advantage over the spitV if we could keep them clean, with the droptank shackle on it I think we lost some of that speed edge. There are three things I would have changed to make this better next time, albeit the first one I think would take care of most issues.
1. fighter parity 1:1. The allies fighting over friendly territory and defending targets close to airfields, make up the difference in the 109F's better performance.
2. Radar. With only two main targets, very easy to mass a wall of planes in front of the buffs and overwelm the escorts. If #1 is in place this should be a non issue.
3. Ship hardness. Non factor, in this last setup since no major damage was done. but in future use it should be adjusted.
My personal oppinion is #1, would have made this event much more playable for the axis.
:salute
BigRat
-
The thing that I am not understanding is that by December 1941. The Island of Malta was the most heavily bombed target in the world. After the Italians miserable failure in their attacks on Malta. Hitler sent an entire Luftwaffe Air Fleet to Sicily. That was two thousand aircraft. The British didn't have space to park two thousand aircraft on Malta must less have them built and mustered them in one place in the world at that time. They all weren't Spitfire Vs either. How was this missed in the write up.
If we're playing this close to the history, were looking at a 3:1 advantage in aircraft for the Luftwaffe. The anti-aircraft fire was more withering than the Spitfires as well.
As a bomber pilot in this scenario, I can attest that without the advent of NOE approaches, we didn't stand a chance. Those were the very first sorties as well. Too many Allied fighters mustered in the same place is no fun for bomber pilots.
Changes to the scenario write;
1. Frames 1 and 2 Allied aircraft should be limited to half of their 1:3 force over Malta. The other half can protect the fleet. The British must sweat until the third frame. There should only be the Axis commanders really bad screw up to not get a sizable force over Malta in those two frames.
2. It only takes a single one thousand pound bomb to sink a Aircraft carrier in real life, that is after considerable burning and loss of systems. Jacking the sink weight up to 20k plus on a CV is way over kill, with that knowledge bomber pilot won't go after CVs (period). If bombers get to target they should be able to sink ships. The sink weight on cargo ship should be the standard JU87 bomb loadout with a 1100 lb AP bomb and 250 pounders on the wings.
3. Increase the number of required sorties to the island and decrease the values placed on the targets. Make the Axis work hard to achieve the victory by bombing more often.
4. If JU88s are attacking ships they MUST not fly in formations. They should be singles only. You may want to consider unlimited bomber sorties for bomber pilots, keeping in mind that this was the most bombed target in the world in 1941.
Thinking out of the box is not a bad idea for this one and it would be more fun.
:salute
-
Well put. :aok
-
Red, please explain to me how you are going to get the defenders to fly when they are down 3 planes to 1 and then can only used half of them to defend. In your thinking, 300 LW planes are fighting 100 RAF planes, with only 50 of those RAF planes available to defend the island. So in essence you are asking cartoon pilots without any sense of the history to up into a horde at 6-1 odds with little chance of survival.
Outside of myself, maybe you and a few others, who is going to want to fly that scenario? Would the LW have shown up in DGS and been ok with those odds? I kinda doubt it. There is a reason bombers didn't survive well without overwhelming escort. It's going to be an issue in scenarios unless you can find guys willing to fight against the odds that allow for that kind of escort. I can think of a few who'd love the challenge as well as the chance to see what it must have looked like as much as a computer game can allow, but I doubt it would be a big seller
I could care less about points and 'winning' in a scenario as what I'm after is a chance to step back in time as much as a computer flight sim will allow. If it connects me to the history that way, then I'm fine. So that being said, as far as I'm concerned you could set any of the targets to fall over in a strong breeze. All targets do is provide a place for cartoon bomber guys to try and hit, and for cartoon fighter guys to rally to defend.
So the question I have, is did the bombers get to the targets and drop bombs? Did the escorts drive off the defenders? Did the defenders stop the attack?
Red lets also be clear. This is May 42 to August 42. So nothing was 'missed' as you put it. It was all Spitfires and mainly Spitfire Vc with double the ammo load of the AH Vb the defenders had. over 230 Spitfires had arrived by March of 42 with more on the way. So your 1941 argument doesn't hold. Your numbers balance isn't accurate as the Germans had siphoned of a large amount of their units to support North Africa and elsewhere. During the time frame of the scenario the Italians were much bigger players.
No design is ever going to be perfect. That being said, what also needs to be looked at is how the CO's recruited, what the tone was after having a frame not go the way it was supposed to, how was the planning, did the other CO out plan me and did his guys out perform mine.
Red, you were there last scenario when we had that frame where the bombers got clobbered. There was a small contingent that immediately wanted to blame the design, the plan, or whatever they could find outside of the fact that the other guy did their job better then we did. We killed that talk fast. A lot of folks wanted to take their ball and go home cause it 'wasn't fun'.
We wouldn't let it go that way. We credited the other guys for a better job, and worked at doing ours better the next frame which we did. We also beat the bushes for pilots so that we had as many as we could to help the cause. And you know how hard we worked from long before the scenario ran to every day while it ran to keep our guys engaged and invested.
This isn't an FSO, and it shouldn't be perceived as such. These things take a lot of personal investment to make them work. And you get out of them what you put into them. FSO approaches that a different way and does it well for FSO. But FSO's aren't scenarios any more then scenarios are not FSO's.
-
Red, please explain to me how you are going to get the defenders to fly when they are down 3 planes to 1 and then can only used half of them to defend. In your thinking, 300 LW planes are fighting 100 RAF planes, with only 50 of those RAF planes available to defend the island. So in essence you are asking cartoon pilots without any sense of the history to up into a horde at 6-1 odds with little chance of survival.
Outside of myself, maybe you and a few others, who is going to want to fly that scenario? Would the LW have shown up in DGS and been ok with those odds? I kinda doubt it. There is a reason bombers didn't survive well without overwhelming escort. It's going to be an issue in scenarios unless you can find guys willing to fight against the odds that allow for that kind of escort. I can think of a few who'd love the challenge as well as the chance to see what it must have looked like as much as a computer game can allow, but I doubt it would be a big seller
I could care less about points and 'winning' in a scenario as what I'm after is a chance to step back in time as much as a computer flight sim will allow. If it connects me to the history that way, then I'm fine. So that being said, as far as I'm concerned you could set any of the targets to fall over in a strong breeze. All targets do is provide a place for cartoon bomber guys to try and hit, and for cartoon fighter guys to rally to defend.
So the question I have, is did the bombers get to the targets and drop bombs? Did the escorts drive off the defenders? Did the defenders stop the attack?
Red lets also be clear. This is May 42 to August 42. So nothing was 'missed' as you put it. It was all Spitfires and mainly Spitfire Vc with double the ammo load of the AH Vb the defenders had. over 230 Spitfires had arrived by March of 42 with more on the way. So your 1941 argument doesn't hold. Your numbers balance isn't accurate as the Germans had siphoned of a large amount of their units to support North Africa and elsewhere. During the time frame of the scenario the Italians were much bigger players.
No design is ever going to be perfect. That being said, what also needs to be looked at is how the CO's recruited, what the tone was after having a frame not go the way it was supposed to, how was the planning, did the other CO out plan me and did his guys out perform mine.
Red, you were there last scenario when we had that frame where the bombers got clobbered. There was a small contingent that immediately wanted to blame the design, the plan, or whatever they could find outside of the fact that the other guy did their job better then we did. We killed that talk fast. A lot of folks wanted to take their ball and go home cause it 'wasn't fun'.
We wouldn't let it go that way. We credited the other guys for a better job, and worked at doing ours better the next frame which we did. We also beat the bushes for pilots so that we had as many as we could to help the cause. And you know how hard we worked from long before the scenario ran to every day while it ran to keep our guys engaged and invested.
This isn't an FSO, and it shouldn't be perceived as such. These things take a lot of personal investment to make them work. And you get out of them what you put into them. FSO approaches that a different way and does it well for FSO. But FSO's aren't scenarios any more then scenarios are not FSO's.
Ah there he is. I knew it was only a matter of time. All four frames different plans and strategies by the axis, nearly the same result. I think that proves the setup is a bit off.
-
Ah there he is. I knew it was only a matter of time. All four frames different plans and strategies by the axis, nearly the same result. I think that proves the setup is a bit off.
Or it proves what your motive was behind the thread to begin with Sukov,which isn't a huge surprise :aok
Do remember the only reason I signed up Allied was at your request as you wanted me as a target. My preference was to go where the side had the tougher job, as escort and going further in a fighter always is. But of course that's a design issue. Not possible that the defenders just did a better job.
-
Or it proves what your motive was behind the thread to begin with Sukov,which isn't a huge surprise :aok
Do remember the only reason I signed up Allied was at your request as you wanted me as a target. My preference was to go where the side had the tougher job, as escort and going further in a fighter always is. But of course that's a design issue. Not possible that the defenders just did a better job.
That's just FUBAR right there.
-
Or it proves what your motive was behind the thread to begin with Sukov,which isn't a huge surprise :aok
Do remember the only reason I signed up Allied was at your request as you wanted me as a target. My preference was to go where the side had the tougher job, as escort and going further in a fighter always is. But of course that's a design issue. Not possible that the defenders just did a better job.
What? I was joking. You said you were going to fly axis then changed your own mind. The motive of the thread was to point out that this setup is off.
I knew you would show up eventually though posting the same excuses. There is a refusal by some scenario CMs to look toward any mistakes in their setups. Anytime any changes are brought up the buck is always passed to the players or lack thereof.
I never implied the defenders did a poor job they did well. If the roles were reversed I would still be posting how I thought the setup was off.
-
Nope, but the STORY line of the scenario was a "Resupply of Malta" not Sicily.
And that is the crux of the problem - the first frame was the 'resupply of Malta' and that consisted of a bunch of planes taking off from a CV and landing at Malta - the 'resupply' was never the goal for the allies. What should be the first 'resupply' frame is for a weak allied force with an alt disadvantage (since they are upping to defend and are lower then the attackers as during the war) trying to get weak (destroyer weak) merchant ships into harbor with a clear reward for each merchant ship (x number of planes per ship) and so on. . . the allies should be frantic and at a major disadvantage in terms of air power, warning and the whole lot - the only advantage the allies have is 1 CV, the destination location (Malta), and the audacity to try to run a major gauntlet where the axis have total air superiority.
What happened was a bunch of spits climbed to cap, dove down to land at Malta, and then a whole bunch of people used that now 'unlocked' base as a launching point and circle up to fight. . . after that, and the radar, and the unsinkable merchant targets, and the sailing of the CV group by the allies into Syracuse harbor and at that point any STORY went out the window.
I cannot imagine the allies had much fun either in the end and the reason is because the scenario used history as the basis to use some devices (planes, ships) while willfully ignoring considerations and when these issues were brought up, those who did were ignored (and no I am not talking just about my CO/XO but also others from both sides - there was a very 'it is this way because we have already decided it will be this way' attitude).
I hope that in the future, when anyone asks 'why is this like this' the big shots upstairs will realize that there are probably others who have the same doubts. . . and this last frame really showed me that there is little or no consideration for the rank and file like me. . . and I will say this now - I will FREAK OUT if there is a god-damned no fly zone next time. . . largest historical manipulation if I ever saw one. . .
-
It seems that everything that needs to be said has been said. I was very nice and polite throughout the whole scenario. I never said a word once it started. But....
The fact is, this design is good. Very accurate (minus the hardness of merchant ships LOLZ). However, Scenario CM's again show the lack of a good balance between accuracy and fun. I have explained this time and time again so no need to go on. Now, the idea of a Maltese event is great! Spit V's and 109F's woohoo! Great matchup. However, we have to penetrate a castle and an area that is as big as a keypad and there is no room for strategy because of radar. If this were an FSO-type setup it would have been more fun but still crap. My final analysis on this scenario: Pure, fresh, steaming dog toejam. End of discussion. If you would like to know why, refer to all of the posts in this thread (except those of Scenario CM's).
-
I want to Thank you perdue3 for being polite during this scenario. Really, I do appreciate that very much.. THANK YOU.
That being said...........
Nothing wrong with the set up... It was ALL MY FAULT. I have no idea of strategy...
I am sorry to all Luftwaffe guys that wasted their time coming out to play for 4 Saturdays. My command is over..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iEY6WoGm6A :rofl
-
I want to Thank you perdue3 for being polite during this scenario. Really, I do appreciate that very much.. THANK YOU.
That being said...........
Nothing wrong with the set up... It was ALL MY FAULT. I have no idea of strategy...
I am sorry to all Luftwaffe guys that wasted their time coming out to play for 4 Saturdays. My command is over..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iEY6WoGm6A :rofl
The radar situation made any strategic planning a moot point. You can only do so much with the cards stacked against you.
-
I want to Thank you perdue3 for being polite during this scenario. Really, I do appreciate that very much.. THANK YOU.
That being said...........
Nothing wrong with the set up... It was ALL MY FAULT. I have no idea of strategy...
I am sorry to all Luftwaffe guys that wasted their time coming out to play for 4 Saturdays. My command is over..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iEY6WoGm6A :rofl
Its good of you to try and jump on the grenade for your friends in the CM team.
-
Its good of you to try and jump on the grenade for your friends in the CM team.
:rofl
Dude............... sarcasm!!!!!
I totally think it was a CRAP SET UP!!! See previous posts :bhead
no comment on the shooting squad video? :bolt:
-
:rofl
Dude............... sarcasm!!!!!
I totally think it was a CRAP SET UP!!! See previous posts :bhead
no comment on the shooting squad video? :bolt:
:rofl
-
So lets run it again and switch sides :aok
-
So lets run it again and switch sides :aok
NO, because it is a messed up set up. :neener:
-
So lets run it again and switch sides :aok
That would not solve the problem. I won't fly this setup again until the problems have been addressed. If it stays the same I just won't fly it on either side.
You continue to view this as an axis vs allied issue when it is obvious that it's a setup issue.
-
That would not solve the problem. I won't fly this setup again until the problems have been addressed. If it stays the same I just won't fly it on either side.
You continue to view this as an axis vs allied issue when it is obvious that it's a setup issue.
I didn't say it was perfect. I didn't say it was Axis vs Allied. I said escorts and bombers are always going to have the tougher route in scenarios as we don't get to provide the bombers with enough escorts to really do the job as it makes the numbers way off and the other side doesn't want to play then. If you have the answer to that one, I'm all ears.
I'm saying I'd like to try it from the other side as the one frame I got to fly this time around was in a Spit.
-
Blah Blah Blah......................... .
I had a GREAT time in this scenario and the last one..........
So to all you with delusions of granduer...................lo sers.
-
I didn't say it was perfect. I didn't say it was Axis vs Allied. I said escorts and bombers are always going to have the tougher route in scenarios as we don't get to provide the bombers with enough escorts to really do the job as it makes the numbers way off and the other side doesn't want to play then. If you have the answer to that one, I'm all ears.
I'm saying I'd like to try it from the other side as the one frame I got to fly this time around was in a Spit.
Well go ahead you are part of the team that can make it happen. I won't be there though.
As for you SIM :rofl
-
I didn't say it was perfect. I didn't say it was Axis vs Allied. I said escorts and bombers are always going to have the tougher route in scenarios as we don't get to provide the bombers with enough escorts to really do the job as it makes the numbers way off and the other side doesn't want to play then. If you have the answer to that one, I'm all ears.
I'm saying I'd like to try it from the other side as the one frame I got to fly this time around was in a Spit.
You also did not say anything was wrong sir? By that I would assume you thought it was perfect, or at least good. We are all trying to make it better, we fly scenarios, we love scenarios, that is why we fly. I have no animosity towards you or any CM. You guys get questioned and take the defensive. I just want to improve the gaming experience. By that, we will increase the numbers and maybe get back to 300 + flying on a Saturday afternoon.
With that, I also understand that I am a rookie when it comes to some of you who have been here for over 10 years. So I am on the outside looking in, I get that, I also get that there is a dynamic about this that I do not understand. I just remember the numbers were not an issue in my first scenario. I would like to see that again and have all the talk about individual fights, not about set up.
Does that make sense?
-
I've already said the setup wasn't perfect and needed work. I also said numbers had an impact. I also said what was possible to do didn't always happen. Basically said that just about everything that could go wrong in this one, did. I hear that the ONLY thing wrong was the design, from some players, but also other players seemed to like it. There goes the "fact" that it was wrong by the way, it can't be factually wrong if others think it was fine. That, if you think about it, clearly is just an opinion. Everyone's got one.
This event won't run again exactly like it was designed this time , there are plenty of things to fix, but don't think for one minute that the ONLY thing wrong was the design. You can, however, count on this not being put forward in the foreseeable future, there are other events on the books, you won't see this one again for years. Granted, what we have coming down the pipe in terrains, planes and set up tools pretty much suggests that no matter what we "decide" on today, it'll be kind of irrelevant when it comes around again. Far too many variables, far too many unknowns. So, please forgive me if we don't personally invest a great deal of time redesigning this particular event today, but the comments and ideas are being collected and will be considered when and if this one shows up on the plate again.
Everyone has a valid opinion on how they experienced the event and what could have been done different, nothing wrong with having an opinion. At the end of the day though, we design them and sometimes they are embraced and other times they are not. See you around August for the next one.
-
Numbers? NUMBERS!!???
This is scenario. Scenarios are not fun. Scenario numbers will continue to fall. There is a fundamental problem with Scenarios that only the Scenario Team can fix.
Guppy, LOLZ.
SIM, wow.
-
The only thing fundamentally wrong with scenarios is the community... allow me to explain before jumping down my throat.
1. Very few want to fly a historically accurate ratio of friendlies versus enemies. If people were willing, design would be much easier as the design team could just crack a book and emulate the force layout. If memory serves, it was attempted many years ago in an Eastern Front scenario and having the Luftwaffe fight against overwhelming numbers made for an event that wasn't liked by many (including the Russian flyers, I might add).
2. Not many like to fly with people they don't know. This is one of the reasons that FSOs are doing so well.
3. Attendance is a major issue in scenarios but not FSO. The FSOs make the players police themselves to a large extent and it seems to work better.
4. The variety of aircraft in a FSO is one of the big factors. This isn't because FSOs are designed better, but they force players into them and they still need to attend the event. In the old days, it was a badge of honor to fly a lesser performing aircraft in a scenario but now the more capable rides fill first.
It appears to me the player base increasingly wants a fair fight, even scripted if necessary. Every scenario becomes a 'what if' event; the hardcore scenario players aren't returning as frequently and the 'scripted/fair fight' players aren't happy either because current design isn't aggressive enough.
-
A couple of things that I think are important to keep in mind.
If you didn't like a scenario, it's not because there was some secret conspiracy among scenario CM's to make it unpleasant for you. Scenario CM's always try their best to make a scenario be realistic, historical in feel, balanced, and fun. Some of those elements pull in different directions (usually realism pulls in an opposite direction of balance, for example, as Del points out in #1), and so judgment comes into play. The scenario team, being humans like everyone else, are not always going to have perfect judgment, but it's not a malicious conspiracy.
With regard to changing the rules of scenarios while they are underway, running a scenario is more like maneuvering an oil tanker than it is like maneuvering a speed boat. The scenario team's policy is not to change the rules of a scenario that is already underway unless (1) the problem is severe enough that not changing means people won't play and (2) both CO's agree to the change. This policy is not in there to cause problems but to avoid problems that we have seen from experience. Like any guideline, it is not a perfect fit in every case, but again that guideline is not because of some malicious intent.
Statements about scenario attendance being lower and lower over time is incorrect. Below is the actual attendance of scenarios back to 2004.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/scenarioPlayerNumbers2013.jpg)
To me, what this shows is that, prior to early 2011, typical was about 175 players with late-war 8th AF being about 1.5 times typical. Then the player base had a step-like decline between BOG and RtR. Now, typical is 125, steady over the past two years, with the late-war 8th AF scenario (DGS II) still being about 1.5 times that. AH overall has had a reduction in players a couple of years ago, too. I think it is because of and timed with this:
(http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1359737102)
Anyway, if this scenario were run again, there would likely be changes in it. Me, I think it would be great with three easy changes: more axis fighters, lower hardness of ships, and more ships spread out a bit (if that was historical of the Med during this time period). Oh, and I'd love it if there were Beaufighters at in the game for next time (and if the allies had bombing and/or antishipping to do, then the sides could be made 1:1).
-
Regarding number 1:
Would you enjoy flying an accurate Operation Bodenplatte as Allies in this video game? What about Marianas Trench as Axis? Although a positive outcome, Battle of Dieppe as Axis (this one is arguable because in AH it would have a much different outcome)? Or Winter War as Axis? If I misunderstood you Del, I do apologize.
Who in their right mind would willingly fly outnumbered 2:1 in this video game that we pay 15 dollars to play. Not to mention waste a Saturday on a bum scenario. Why in the hell would we sign up to fight a fight that finds us outnumbered 2:1? I am not claiming that Malta was 2:1, I am responding to number 1.
Who wants to fly a B-17 on a beautiful summer Saturday from Biggin Hill to Berlin or Dresden? AND BACK!!! The notion that we need more accurate sorties in Scenarios is idiotic and ludacris. FSO's are quick (comparatively) and fun. The setups are generally very good. If there are problems with one, the designer will know about it :). I am banned from FSO right now, and I am in denial. I shake all day long on Friday. I am addicted to the only event left in this once glorious game. FSO is the heartbeat of AH Events. It is the only thing left. I would aspire to be more like it.
We do not need another FSO on Saturdays. However, Scenarios need a change. They have needed a change for 4 years now. FSO finds the medium between accuracy and playability 95% of the time. This means that the event never has 65% of either. When that percentage of either goes above 65% it falls into the 5% that doesnt meet the medium. Scenarios RARELY get close to the medium. I understand that scenarios offer realism, accuracy, and immersion but my God man. Malta sucked, DGS2 wasn't that bad, Winter Sky was awful, Dont Go Feet Wet was the worst excuse of an event I have seen in the last 3 years. Ketsu Go FSO is a very, very close second. I am not jabbing the designer wit these events. I dont even know who designed them. Please dont take it that way.
I will keep flying scenarios for two reasons: Commitment to my squadron and support the event. In the end I want Scenarios to be the flashy, posterboy of AHEvents. I feel that not participating doesn't help that strive. However, if the guys running the show keep pouring out these bad designs how can we move forward? You guys will not accept criticism and jump on whoever gives it. For once, the Scenario community agrees that a design was bad. Not "okay", not "needs work", not "not perfect", but BAD. Straight up awful. Do something about it CM Team. Design a good scenario that is well balanced with fun, playability, and accuracy. As bad as it hurts us historians, some times we have to remember that it is a video game and we just cannot fight 2:1 odds, or fly from one hemisphere to the other. I am pulling for you Scenario CM Team. I will be there next Scenario, leading my squadron. Make it a good one.
Regarding Number 3:
Police themselves...LOLZ.
<S>
-
Scenarios need a change. They have needed a change for 4 years now.
Which scenarios did you like prior to 4 years ago?
Malta sucked, DGS2 wasn't that bad, Winter Sky was awful
Design a good scenario that is well balanced with fun, playability, and accuracy.
That is always the goal. Part of the issue, though, is that a scenario that one person hates can be a scenario that someone else loves. For example, the majority of people loved DGSII (same as for DGS and BOG -- the player base loves late-war 8th AF). Me, I like it OK, but it's not my favorite genre. Winter Sky was one of my favorites. :) Other of my favs are Coral Sea (flew TBM's and B5N's), Tunisia (flew Ju 88's), Red Storm (flew La5's), Philippine Phandango (flew Ki 67's), Enemy Coast Ahead (flew 190's), and Stalin's Fourth (in Boston III's and GV's).
-
Tunisia was my favorite with Red Storm being a close second.
-
My favorites: Red Storm, Tunisia, BoG respectively.
Well, I know you are correct in that some people hate what some people love. But it is pretty evident that this scenario wasnt great. With the exception of SIM. He will basically go on the opposite side of perdweeb no matter what. So, like most people take me, I take him with a grain of salt.
-
Gentlemen,
Is there a possibility that we can help ourselves here? The CM team should bend, but not break on issues concerning every scenario.
Whether the issues are late or early.
Players, flyers, attendees, walk-ons or whatever, let's try and better understand what scenario is all about. As Guppy mentioned a few post
back. There are very few of us that want to do anything more than have the high score at the end of a frame and by the end of the scenario.
Scenario is about history and replay. Sharing the experience with others. Especially you senior guys. You want to talk about planning who
had the best and who didn't. That is not the concept in scenario. It is the responsibility of each sides command staff to provide the enriched
scenario experience for all. In the absence of that environment it is easy to loose players. I had guys that we more interested in car and gun
shows. Dang, half the guys that signed up for my group didn't show up for the forth frame.
DSG II the Allied side was a really good example of providing an experience. A shared creativity for both sides is what gets players to the arena
4 Saturdays in a row. If the organization of each side is sound on both sides, which doesn't include planning, players would stay. I actually don't
think that if the setup is off a bit that it would matter if the organization is tight.
Guppy,
Until MM, I have never flown as a bomber pilot in a scenario. But because of the history involved and my own personal interest in the period. Flying Stukas
was a lot more appealing. Equal challenge cannot always be applied in scenario. Cowards run from a good fight. Yes, it takes a lot for a man or women
to say I am going to fly with the underdogs. It is up to the command staff and each GL to recruit and keep this interest whether the cards are stacked against you or not.
I hope that we will be able to fly together for the next one. I love the results of what you put into these events.
Ditto was not failure in planning or recruiting. It was his staff of GLs that should take responsibility for our overall success or failure. If our individual groups are full, we need to seek
out pilots to fill other seats, regardless of the circumstance, regardless of the mission. This does not guarantee success, but it allows the scenario to be played as it was designed.
Ditto,
A bit of advice for the next time. Always secure a XO for your side. This position is invaluable to the possible success and leadership of your side. Even if you have to ask the
CM that put you in your position to find you one. They have a lot of influence with players and are more likely to secure one for you.
Okay, vacating soapbox now.
:salute
-
I know the rules around our Martlets said we had to take off and land on our home CV. Especially in frames 1 and 2, this was a huge time killer making the 4-5 sector trek back to Malta from the CV, after performing a forced/damaged landing on the island.
-
This is a good discussion. I have always been impressed with this community of cartoon pilots as GUPPY calls us.
So, moving forward, how can we get the numbers of BOG as per Brooke's chart.
My favorite scenario was BOG. The Emerson was awesome, I loved the stories and even posted my own about JG 26 from a book that I have.
So lets have it like that? Lot of advance, lot of build up and discussion and Emerson into the event.
What ever the next one is going to be, lets get it out there and start building it up to all the active squads and cartoon pilots. The competitive jabbing back and forth was also awesome....
Thanks
Ditto
-
This is a good discussion. I have always been impressed with this community of cartoon pilots as GUPPY calls us.
So, moving forward, how can we get the numbers of BOG as per Brooke's chart.
My favorite scenario was BOG. The Emerson was awesome, I loved the stories and even posted my own about JG 26 from a book that I have.
So lets have it like that? Lot of advance, lot of build up and discussion and Emerson into the event.
What ever the next one is going to be, lets get it out there and start building it up to all the active squads and cartoon pilots. The competitive jabbing back and forth was also awesome....
Thanks
Ditto
It is all on the CM Team. Not much we can do except give advice/criticism and get it thrown down our throat and receive threats. Members of the CM Team have admitted that they ignore me. Yet I am one of the few that criticizes. So unless some of you "high profile" members with good standing say something, nothing will change and Scenarios will continue to be a big waste of a Saturday.
-
My feeling:
Scenarios are a type of play that has a particular level of popularity, and that popularity today is about 200 players for 8th AF and 125 for everything else.
To get BOG's number of players we would need to run late-war 8th AF and have the overall player base of AH prior to about 2010. If we run a late-war 8th AF today with today's base, we get 200 players (DGSII).
To me, scenarios are not about how many people we can get. They are about making an event that is a scenario (making as good a one as we can manage, of course, as I've said) and running it for whatever portion of the player base enjoys those events. If the goal were instead just amount of players, then there are many non-scenario events that could have bigger draw. Also, there was a lot of aviation action in WWII that was not hundreds of guys all fighting at the same time. A lot of it was smaller groups vs. smaller groups. Maybe most of it was like that. So having hundreds of people in it isn't even always more realistic.
-
I mostly agree there Brooke, although BoG was run in 2011.
The lack of variety is what I believe is hurting the scenarios lately. It seems the great success of BoG has led to the Scenario CM team trying to capture that same lightning in bottle again. Unfortunately, just because you have all the players cram into the same airspace, you won't ever come close to how awesome BoG was.
For future setups, the designers need to have attack and defensive objective for both sides, and separate these fairly evenly across the front. This will give the side CO the opportunity to have a variety of objectives from frame to frame. Also give the CO the ability to move units around the map as needed. A good example of variety in action was the rolling plane set from BoG. I'm sure that had a great effect in keeping the players interested over the 6 frames of that event. The setups lately were very ridged: Launch in THIS plane, from THIS base, complete THIS objective, rearm at THIS base, repeat. Is it any surprise that the players get bored quickly? This is compounded when the battle repeatedly goes sour the same way every time, regardless of utilizing what little changes the CO can make in tactics. It happened in Rangoon, it happened in Enemy Coast Ahead, it happened in Winter Sky, It Happened in DGS II, it happened most spectacularly in Malta. The one scenario that could have broke the monotony might have been Coral Sea 2011, but the CM leads killed that one by placing that directly after Rangoon, another early Pacific event...oops.
The designs aren't bringing anything to the table, but the same old, same old. I fear that the He 111 will prompt the CMs to make the next scenario Battle of Britain, another single sided objective event...yawn.
-
My feeling:
Scenarios are a type of play that has a particular level of popularity, and that popularity today is about 200 players for 8th AF and 125 for everything else.
To get BOG's number of players we would need to run late-war 8th AF and have the overall player base of AH prior to about 2010. If we run a late-war 8th AF today with today's base, we get 200 players (DGSII).
To me, scenarios are not about how many people we can get. They are about making an event that is a scenario (making as good a one as we can manage, of course, as I've said) and running it for whatever portion of the player base enjoys those events. If the goal were instead just amount of players, then there are many non-scenario events that could have bigger draw. Also, there was a lot of aviation action in WWII that was not hundreds of guys all fighting at the same time. A lot of it was smaller groups vs. smaller groups. Maybe most of it was like that. So having hundreds of people in it isn't even always more realistic.
OK Brooke,
Then we have to be able to "ADJUST" for the numbers. YES during the scenario. If you plan a event for 200 and 75 show up, there has to be a way of adjusting the objectives/plane sets to keep it as you said balanced.
-
First I have to say I sat out this scenario and from the sounds of it I'm glad I did.
I was considering signing up as an Allied Spit or Martlet pilot. It sounds like that would have been boring and to perdweeb's comment I'd much rather have faced outnumbered odds as an Axis pilot. Despite the fact I was killed fighting five Ponies in my A8 in frame I of DGSII it was a memorable experience and one I'd sign up for over and over again.
In terms of scenarios I'm a newbie. I flew in BOG, Winter Sky and DGSII and in Brooks abreviated version of Coral Sea. Of those all were fun except Winter Sky which was simply marginal so I don't have a lot of scenario experience to draw on. Also I've never flown FSO because I'm not in a squad.
It sounds like the elimination of radar might have made the biggest difference in this scenario followed by the lowering of ship damage but again, I wasn't there.
I'm not surprised by the CM team responses. It seems like deja vu reading them (or not reading the one's that are missing). I hope they'll consider the player's opinions on this and make appropriate changes. The premise of this scenario seems promising but it sounds like the execution needed some work.
Finally, as to several of Brook's comments, I'm not sure 8th AF is what draws players as much as the chance to fly a plane that's significant to that player. Give me a Spit, A8, F6F, F4U/FM2 or a limited number of others of my favorites (D3A, JU88... ) and I'll strongly consider participation. None of my favorites not so much.
I'm sure you don't need comments from a non-participant but just trying to provide an outside view from an interested party for what it's worth.
-
I was considering signing up as an Allied Spit or Martlet pilot. It sounds like that would have been boring and to perdweeb's comment I'd much rather have faced outnumbered odds as an Axis pilot. Despite the fact I was killed fighting five Ponies in my A8 in frame I of DGSII it was a memorable experience and one I'd sign up for over and over again.
Ok I was controlling the Sea carrier AC(SAC) for all frames of this event and here is how I saw it.
In Frame 1 The 109s where the first to reach cap over Malta. some elements of the 109s pushed west of malta into our SAC who where there to screen the spit Vs who were further to the south. The 109s stopped moving south and started to fight our F4Fs and Hurricanes. I ordered the squads to keep moving east and only fight if they were forced to. if that happen, dive away.
The 109s where pulled down to the deck in 1s to 3s. I head a few compressed and few more got shot down by the wildcats and hurricanes. But as it was the 109s who where in about = number the spit Vs and Seafires combined were stripped of numbers by the time both the SAC and Spit Vs arrived (as planned over Malta at the same time) We lost a few hurricanes and wildcats, but they where not part of the objective of that frame. The 109s did not need to follow our fighters to the ground.
In Frame 2, Surf Force was made up of 13, Sea-Hurricane mark 1s, 7 F4Fs and 12 Sea-fires. 1 Squadron of Sea-hurris where spilt up into scout units, totaling 7 scouts in groups of 2. These where set out at 15k to scout for both High alt and NOE missions. I as lead scout ran into the 4 110c who where flying towards our CV at 20k. I just happen to have the spit wing 1 keypad to the south and I called them into the attack as I made my run. the 110c dropped all their ords and then died as the spits jumped them. After the 110c died, all fighters resumed our patrol paths. The next group I ran into was the JU-88s at 19k who were escorted by 1-2 groups of 109s. I had 3 Hurricanes on the spot when we started the attack. we dived into the 88s and as we blew past almost all the 109s dived after us. we ended up on the deck fighting 3 vs about 10. The Seafires then where able to attack the Ju-88 without escorts. The 88s where finished off quick.
Really the allied forces over the CVs were quite weak for frame 2 & most of 3 (at the mid of frame 3 we moved a squad of Spit vs out to the CVs for extra cover), but the 109s failed to escort the JU-88 and 110c. They had both the speed and climb advantage on all our planes and over the Hurri and F4F there was little we could do but Dive away at High alt if the 109s keeped their E. But we found over and over again that the 109s were willing to follow fighters to the deck where the Seahurris and F4Fs could put up a good fight. Only the Seafires should have been a issue and even they could have been forced down and have been forced to climb back to the fight.
The allies biggest fear was an mass NOE torp run on our ships. we did not have the fighters to cover every direction and 13 out of the 32 fighters we had where only armed with BBs. But we could not keep our fighters closer to the boat as we needed to intercept the buffs before they reached the Ship if they were level bombing from 20k. You had 17 Ju88s in which only 5 needed to attack another target. if 3 JUs had flown in under 3 groups of fighters we would have been fooled by the Dar and moved the Seafires to intercept that threat. If then 9 Ju-88s had started flashing our boats we would have not had alot of time to counter that attack. sure we had a few full time gunners but the merchant fleet could only be covered with the 2 twin 40mms on the Destroyers. If you look at those guns they cannot be aimed towards the rear arc.
The few NOE attacks I saw arrived as some of our groups were rearming/launching, and only had a few planes in each. So with the JUs flying past the quad 40s and the few planes in the air near the CV they were able to take down the few buffs.
As part of the planning group, we thought frame 1 would be a wash as the first waves of 88s could not be stopped and the 109s would be waiting to target our Spits first, but we could get alot of kills with the numbers we had if we survived the first 109s Caps over our field. Frame 2 we expected to lose, as the fleets had so few planes. Frame 3 was going to be a tight win as we could move planes between the targets as the need arrived later in the frame. Frame 4 was ours as we knew the numbers would be in our favor again.
wow that was long and rambling but I think its understandable. :bolt:
Oh BTW most allied pilots I talked to had quite alot of fun.
-
Oh BTW most allied pilots I talked to had quite alot of fun.
Oh. Well in that case it was a great scenario and design. Nothing should be changed at all.
-
Oh. Well in that case it was a great scenario and design. Nothing should be changed at all.
I knew you'd get there eventually. Good for you.
-
There are scenarios where both sides have fighters and bombers and attack and defense to do (Coral Sea, Tunisia, Red Storm, Philippine Phandango, Enemy Coast Ahead, Winter Sky), and those are easier to balance. Easiest to balance is, of course, side switch (like Coral Sea). But some important historical ones (Battle of Britain, Malta, some of the Rangoon-type stuff) had one side bombing and the other defending -- so if we want scenarios based on those important battles, the scenario is that way, too. Although I like the bilateral stuff best, I do like a variety of historical stuff and enjoy having those other important battles represented, too, and DGS/BOG and BoB are among the most-popular scenarios overall.
-
OK Brooke,
Then we have to be able to "ADJUST" for the numbers. YES during the scenario. If you plan a event for 200 and 75 show up, there has to be a way of adjusting the objectives/plane sets to keep it as you said balanced.
In my opinion, the best way to deal with this is to have scoring that is independent of total number who show up an adjusting each frame to get the desired ratio of side1:side2 players. For example, "This Day in WWII" events have highly variable attendance and have to deal with that issue every time. That's how I do it for "This Day", and it works well. Scenarios are a lot less variable than "This Day" events, so it is less difficult. In MM, my opinion is that axis:allies was problematic, not that we had 125 players per frame.
-
Thanks guys...
issue over.
Lets get ready for the NEXT ONE!
I am READY ALREADY... I need a good flight to get rid of this bad taste. August will not be here soon enough!
-
I knew you'd get there eventually. Good for you.
:rofl :aok
-
Fight fire with fire. That is a new tactic for ROC.
-
As Shakespeare once said. much ado about nothing...and yes, there could be some improvements/adjustments/whatever made but overall it worked out pretty well for both sides. I saw some hairy furballs. I know the axis pilots had fun too, at least the ones that shot me down did :furious :D. I'm looking forward to the next one already! I'm going axis if it's ETO and allies if it's PTO. Nice job guys!
-
I know the F4F pilots had a great time, and we were outclassed by every fighter the enemy threw at us. We did quite well, in fact.
Big :salute to the coordinators and participants alike, particularly the Axis bombers that saw the whole thing through.
-
So are you going to open the forums up cms I am interested to see the allied forums?
-
I somehow managed to miss this thread :eek:
I am sure those here with more knowledge than me have already made a lot of good points with regards to the way the scenario worked out.
However from my personal point of view there are a few things I feel compelled to mention:
1) Defending Malta was a faily easy proposition for us as Allies, tactically. However it did not seem from my cockpit (and I have a lot of in game film and FRAPS footage that backs this up) that we had an significant numerical advantage, in fact many times it was the opposite.
2) The Axis fighters did not play to their strengths, imo. Only once in all the frames did we encounter a group of 109s that fought us using their speed advantage and BnZ tactics, and that was very tough and frustrating engagement. Every other time the 109s got stuck right in and turn fought with us, sometimes going all the way down to the deck*. This did not prove very effective for the LW to say the least.
On one occasion our single squadron engaged what appeared to be 3 squadrons of 109s flying just ahead of a wave of bombers. Pretty much all of these 109s engaged us (without much success) and no one stayed high to protect the bombers.
*this would have been a good move if it was used as bait to get us too low to engage a wave of incoming buffs. However as I will further describe in 3) , this didn't happen.
3) Whatever the Axis plans/tactics were, it seemed like they weren't executed very well. For example, we found flights of bombers on their own, coming in from predictable areas. We found bombers and fighters at the same time, but the fighters immediately abandoned the bombers to mix it up with us, and the bombers got killed. Personally I did not ever notice a time when a wave of fighters would come in, engage us and drag us down, to be followed by bombers to take advantage of the hole opened up.
I'm no master tactician, but it also seems like a small squadron of bombers with the main fighter push could have been used as a distraction, while another bomber force came in NoE from another side. Nothing like this ever seemed to happen, it was like the Axis weren't even trying to make it hard for us to get the bombers.
Only once in all the frames did we find bombers coming in in a very cunning and hard to predict position (blame Bruv's buff sniffing nose for finding those, sorry jerry)
This isn't meant as an attack on the Axis pilots or planners, just trying to say that I think the scenario could have been a lot more hard for us...SHOULD have been a lot more hard for us. I was predicting fighting the 109s to be a right pain in the a**...but they didn't play to their strengths. I was anticipating a tough time attacking high alt escorted buffs in a slow-ish plane with limited ammo...but it turned out to be really easy because the escorts didn't do their job very well.
I think blaming it on the setup is a bit weak. I do agree that defending a few keypads around Malta is a lot easier to co-ordinate and execute than the kind of attack the Axis had to put together, but that doesn't mean it was impossible or unwinnable. I for one would be very happy to play it again, on the Axis side this time. :salute
-
I agree with many of those points but do disagree with some. Details of which and why are in my previous posts.
-
Sorry I missed this thread :cheers: thanks Coombz you pretty much gave a good summery of why there was whine and cheese.
-
It isn't all whine and cheese in my opinion.
-
I saw a 110 crash into a ship while shooting. He killed some guns.
Did anybody else hit a ship, of any type, in any frame? I saw a bunch of Ju88s get through a bomb run on the ships from mid-level totally unmolested. I vaguely recall somebody saying nothing was hit.
I'm just trying to figure out if there was a pre-conceived notion that the ships were too hard to sink and therefore attacks weren't continued with? Was the bomb sight calibration difficult or simple? If it really is too hard to complete a mission because of settings then that can have a huge impact on morale and performance. I've seen it many times in special events.
The ship defence had holes in it and it was stressed more than once from personal observation. That nothing was sunk can't be blamed on the hardness setting if nothing was actually hit. Need to look further than that if anybody is looking to tweak the setup.
A quick look at the thread leads me to believe that much is being attributed to radar that shouldn't be. The Allies used scouts and a coordinated reporting and information system to good effect. Squadrons weren't flying out to intercept dar bars. They were directed to where scouts reported target numbers and types, kept away from enemy fighter concentrations and held back in depth for more effective use.
The radar at Malta was a generally a lot more effective than the simulation in this scenario. British radar of a number of types was in use and was able to detect Axis planes as they were getting airborne on Sicily. Sector fighter control was 2 years more mature and effective than that which is so well known from the Battle of Britain. From memory the settings in use did seem to allow darbar at extreme ranges on occasion. We can tie darbar to a range from a radar site? Suddenly I am unsure. If not, better to use dot dar and make it available from the tower only. I prefer that for scenarios in any case. Much immersion value there. If you want a demo someday of what that can be like I am more than willing to give up some time and effort.
Thanks to the teams that put so much work into planning, constructing and running the event. You are the reason I pay subs to HTC. Thanks to the guys who role up and play. You are appreciated.
-
It was all my fault and I have been sent to Russia to command a Storch unit.......
-
Could have been much worse Ditto, could have been given a slot in this unit :D
(http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Fi103A-1/fi103-1.jpg)
-
:rofl
-
Ditto, take it from a previous CO (Coral Sea 2009) - dont feel bad fella, I bolloxed it up majorly as well. Fault has nothing to do with it.
Wurz (now get flying Mr, that's an order - or something like) :D
-
Ditto, take it from a previous CO (Coral Sea 2009) - dont feel bad fella, I bolloxed it up majorly as well. Fault has nothing to do with it.
Wurz (now get flying Mr, that's an order - or something like) :D
Yeah, I was his XO. So I know how bad he Bollexed it up. :D
:salute Wuz