Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on June 28, 2016, 07:00:49 PM
-
Hello, folks.
While you have it in mind, can you please tell me how you rate "Battle of the Dnieper".
From -5 (absolutely hated it) to +5 (absolutely loved it), with zero meaning mediocre, neutral -- that you neither liked it nor disliked it.
-
+4
-
+2
-
+5
:D
-
Overall, a good event. So here's my rating.
Turnout was a concern from the start.
When the anticipated turnout is small, even a small deviation from balance can be bad. It can be overcome, as Frame 2 showed us, a -4 on the Axis side led to a +11 point win, but that was so marginal that a single pilot could have greatly increased that gap or reversed it entirely, and the -8 on each side was clearly a problem. But, turnout is the teams problem to solve. Balance is the designers. Walkons, toss em evenly, Scenarios are supposed to be about team building, using resources, overcoming obstacles, and getting players to rally to your banner. Scenarios are supposed to be difficult, supposed to have an equal chance of winning, not fair and balanced, but an even shot. Speed over Quantity, Alt over Stealth, advantages and disadvantages to both overcome and exploit. Balanced is an equal chance of winning or losing, not an absolute equal match up.
With limited lives, and a small turnout, it's simply too easy to wipe out a significant enough amount of people to dominate the event. Frame 3 had the Axis down by 8, and by the second half of the event we had absolute and total control over the airspace and literally bombed at will, wherever we wanted, when ever we wanted. The only thing slowing us down was the rebuild rate.
If those unfilled planes could have been used, it would at least kept lost players in the air to mount a credible defense in the latter half of the frame.
Same on Frame 4, we lost pilots, we had some IL2s and P39s that we would have loved to get pilots into, and the players who died early could have done that, and again, mounted a better defense against those pesky F8s at the end. So the Finns walked out, it wouldn't have mattered, we'd just stuff the lost pilots into the planes we hadn't used and kept the fight going longer. I know for a fact the Axis would have had a far different outcome Frame 3 had they been able to keep their pilots in the air instead of planes sitting untouched in the hanger. Balance, just because we've always counted lives doesn't mean we always just count lives. 150 players per side? Lives.
Plane Counts have to be factored in if we are expecting low turnouts, as I asked for before we started, at least now you understand better why I asked for it that way, and why it needs to be included in lower turnout events or as a contingency for a shortage on a side. I would have gladly accepted counting lives on my side and allowing the Axis move lives in Frame 3, balance is far more than 4=4
Scenarios are also radically different than Snapshots, This Day In WW2 or even FSO. We planned for Frame 4 contingencies as early as the Practice frame. We communicated the next frame events after a debrief that followed on the day after, or no more than a couple of days later. We drafted orders, we engaged the Group Leaders, we had no command forum, we posted and discussed everything on our open forum. To start at Frame 1 asking us to move players 10 minutes before the frame started was an incredibly bad call. You simply cannot do that. The one single way to make absolutely sure that no one spends any time working up orders in advance is to tell them at the last minute that the effort wasn't worth a crap. I know, Brooke, you were trying to balance the frames, but you just cannot disrupt the planning. Your job is to be the CM, not run a snapshot, you impacted and disrupted the briefing and planning process at an actual unacceptable level. You can't do that in a scenario, ever. CO's cannot attract and recruit planners and tacticians if they start to feel like it will be a pointless endeavor. You have to leave it to the walkons, and the teams to generate their turnout and build their teams. Do not micromanage an event like that, you will drive off the leaders and I am telling you flat out, you were close, people were not taking that well.
If you want the event balanced, then design it for turnout with additional planes and lives if needed, but never, NEVER, screw up a team when there are minutes to launch. You design the board, and the game, then back out of it. That was the most disruptive element of the entire event, you even told us at one frame NOT to brief so you could move people back and forth. Not brief? With walkons, adjusting our weeks worth of work to account for turnout, and we can't brief until 10 minutes to launch? One last time, this is not a snapshot, please don't run a scenario like one.
One other sticking point is scenarios are timed, down to minutes as you well know. When you start the clock, I start clocks. I have a series of timers going off marking 15 minute increments, half time, end frame and more. Timers on missions, dedicated computer with nothing but a stack of digital stopwatches. At frame 1 near the end of the mission, I launched our bomber group at 2 minutes instead of 3 minutes, as the timing adjusted. It was that close. You called out time to end frame, I questioned it as my clock was about 6 minutes different than yours. Your reply was the frame ended when the CM ended it. No, the frame ends in 3 hours after launch. Had you ended the frame 2 minutes early because your hot pocket was done and cost me a bombing run timed 20 minutes earlier, it wouldn't have been pretty. Again, Scenario, not This Day or Snapshot. Please keep it tight.
That was the mechanics of the event.
Simply due to the team we had, and the team we fought,
+5
-
+5 from me!
My first scenario where I lead a squadron officially. Even though it was a hodge podge of pilots, I had a blast, and as always got immersed in the event. I will hopefully have my little short fiction write up posted soon guys :salute
PS regardless of the next scenario you can sign me up as a group lead, I'll just have to pick a side.
-
2
-
+4.....there's always room for improvement somewhere. I had a good time, I guess the low numbers is a reflection of the numbers in the AH community as a whole. Not like years ago when we had massive numbers on pretty much around the clock. Some really good fights in this one made the droning around worth it. Thought this was pretty well put together.
-
+5 for the overall setup and command of Axis.
we learned throughout and numbers fluctuated but none of that reflects on the setup or the command.
-
+5 cant recall a scenario yet that had non stop action / fights. Guess im to used to seeing the luftwaffe roam around at 34k running.
only negatives were not getting full slots to achieve side balance, too many NOE runs for my liking on both sides. shame the GV battle didnt happen because that looked fun also. Maybe 3 lives for bomber / attack planes only.
-
I have a hard time separating the setup which was surprisingly good given what I was expecting (+3-4) vs my disappointment over Axis strategy/tactics/utilization of resources (-1-2) and my own personal performance (-4-5). Overall +1-2.
BTW this small battle zone would never work with past populations.
-
Malta-type scenarios had battle areas about the size of Dnieper with about 150 players.
DGS and BOG had 300 players. Battle area today has to take into account much lower number of people.
-
+3 for me. I took up the cause with IL2s, stampeding all the way to glory like a herd of turtles...
For us, the name of the game was survival - take quick one/two passes at towns/citys and make it out alive before we get run down. As such, we actively tried to avoid trouble and when trouble did find us, then our deaths were usually hard and fast.
When I signed up for IL2s, I kind of had in mind that we would play a more proactive role attacking and defending armored vehicles. I had expected the matchup to be more of a tank battle with support aircraft carrying on above.
Doesn't change a thing: I still would have signed up for the scenario and very likely as IL2s. I had plenty of fun enjoying the historical matchups and good action. Always a pleasure to fly with a group for a common purpose.
-
+5
-
I was thinking if we could somehow incorporate the GV battle into this. Using the GV bases with actual objectives for GV attack and defend?
MAP modification by adding a city complex in the center?
Spawn points to it. I am not a GV guy but I think it would add a dynamic to what I thought was a great scenario and how the GV battle was such a significant part of the eastern front war.
-
Yes, the GV Element was added to keep the players involved as long as possible, but except for 715b winning the ground war for us on his own, few people played that element.
-
That is because it was removed from the fight... If it was part of the fight, would it have been different. I know the GV element does not work in scenarios very often but I think if set up right, with this being a tactical battle, it could work.
You think?
-
add CAS, IL2s and StukaG's to the GV war and I think you might have something
-
I had a lot of fun in Battle of the Dnieper
+5
-
The latest graph of scenario ratings.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/scenarioRatings201607.png)
-
4. The only reason for the dropped point, apart from the turnout (which I don't think had anything to do with the design), is that the ground game wasn't integrated into the air game at all.
-
I give it +4 stars. I hold back one star due to a couple of middl'in issues, over which I know neither side will 'respect' the concern or position of the other no matter what. Getting beyond that, having GV's involved simply as a playschool arena for dis-enchanted pilots is silly and to my mind similar to the concept of scofflaws in that if you can't or won't enforce it, why even have it. I this case it's if it has no real purpose or objective other than a sandbox for dead pilots why have it? Gunning for buffs and covering bases with ack should keep downed pilots entertained. Further on that, I think allowing air defense GV's on the forward bases instead of just the almost never used (or attacked) rear base makes sense in the future.
In retrospect, I think some of the minor concerns were magnified by the low turnout issue, which despite Roc's differing opinion is and should be a concern of everyone on both sides, and at all times, regardless of who is getting short changed. I was much disheartened over the actual lack of concern and respect between both sides. If often propounded post-battle attitude of "well fought, valiant enemy" were sincere, then I would expect each side would at least initially show more concern for the actual quality of the game for both sides, instead of getting, "oh, what a whiner", and "they're just sour grapes" crap. I certainly want the other side to feel I'm concerned for how they perceive the event rather than being dismissive. I guess what I'm trying to say is we should all have a better attitude for the concerns of both sides in the event at all times, even if we feel it may be sour grapes or misperception or misinterpretation more than anything else. Nothing worse than to think your opponent of today, who may be your wingman the next time, doesn't respect you as a worthy opponent with possibly valid concerns (right or wrong), but sees you just as a whiner.
Finally, the setup of requiring multiple bombing missions and the close proximity battlefield was most excellent and still one of the most fun and well-fought scenarios to date. I actually enjoyed that fact that the NOE possibilities were fully exploited as well as the DAR/Dot Dar setup, which made for some real deceptive exploits. Still, I would rate the first Der Grosse Schlag as the only scenario, for me, that was better, but this was a very action-packed second.
-
Yes, the GV Element was added to keep the players involved as long as possible, but except for 715b winning the ground war for us on his own, few people played that element.
The GV element was designed as an afterthought and treated as one.
I've spent many years GVing in the MA. I had no intention to participate in GVs in this scenario as there was no point in doing so.
-
+ 3 Only reason I rated it this is because the turnout and the fact I could only make the last frame (even though it was the best frame I've ever had in scenarios or the FSO for that matter). That's the only reasons I couldn't give a +5!!! :salute :salute :salute
-
+ 3 Only reason I rated it this is because the turnout and the fact I could only make the last frame (even though it was the best frame I've ever had in scenarios or the FSO for that matter). That's the only reasons I couldn't give a +5!!! :salute :salute :salute
I think it's better for ratings to represent how much a player liked or disliked the scenario, not how much he played in it.
-
5. I would have preferred a bit more variety in bombing targets over a wider playing area, but I did enjoy the scenario. :aok
-
5