Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on October 25, 2016, 03:43:05 AM
-
So, how was "Tunisia 1943"?
If you played in it, please rate this scenario by giving it a number in the range of -5 (absolutely hated it), to 0 (could take it or leave it), to +5 (absolutely loved it).
-
Overall I would give it about a 4. There are minor things that might need to be worked on but overall I enjoyed it for the most part. I had to take 1 point off because I felt like I flew a goon into a furball for 12 hours which did get somewhat tedious around the 6 and 12 hour mark but I kept with it.
-
+4 would have been a +5 if it started an hour earlier.
-
+4.5 :aok
-
+5
It would have only been better if it was the 12Hr Battle of Britain... :noid
I also hope the people that this was their first 12 hour scenario realize the validity of this format...
There was no lack of fights...the flight windows on the hour are the greatest thing since pocket on a shirt...always plenty of time to eat, drink, stretch legs before its time to strap back in...
There is just no way that I can commit for 3 or 4 Saturdays in a month anymore...even with 1 12 hour scenario I was called out by someone with no water about halfway through the thing :bhead
I like the 4 frame scenarios but I think there is nothing better than having the whole scenario in one day...
Hey maybe we should try an 8 hour scenario with 4 2 hour frames...or maybe a 6 hour scenario with 6 targets of which one must be hit every hour...I'm just afraid it is easier for the working players to get one day off than an entire month of Saturdays
-
0 I posted my thoughts already in other topics. First one I felt that way. Format of 12 hours needs work. Launch times interrupt the scenario. Landing when launch window closed etc.
One gets penalized for being successful. To much tower time. Bombers in middle of their mission rtb etc. Way to much tower time sitting for a launch window. Up to 45 minutes in an hour.
Do the math. Ruins immersion imho which is why I register for scenarios. Wait! You have to land! Don't complete your mission.....if you do you won't be able to launch for the next one
when launch window closes. Somehow in real life JG/11 and the 56th FG in real life wouldn't appreciate this. I'm more then sure the 100th Bomb Group wouldn't either.
IMHO 12 hour format needs a lot of work. It killed the scenario for me. Please remember this is just my opinion it does in no way reflect on others. More realistic with a two plane life
in 3 hours. This is not sour grapes on my part, this is just my observation. Wayyyyyyyyyy to much wasted time in a 12 hour period. Boring and not realistic.
-
Problem with a two life event, no body left for the last hour
-
+4 would have been a +5 if it started 4 hours later.
FTFY ;)
-
Problem with a two life event, no body left for the last hour
That Sir is the challenge and more realistic. It can be made 3 lives and not relegated hourly. Take off should be open. When you lose a life and/or a plane either one.
If we were in the tower we would wait for others to wing with, or if close to the action upped right away. In the 12 hour scenario we got 12 lives.
This is more of a MA based event then an actual air battle in History. Again just my opinion which in the scheme of things is not that important.
-
I have been the AXIS CO for 3 different scenarios. They were all different in lives as well.
From MY experience the launch windows works best for attendance and the 12 hour format works best for all time zones. You do not have to fly the entire day, I did, but you don't.
When you have walk-on with a limited number of lives, as a CO, you just cannot manage that. Like the Pearl Harbor event when we had a number of planes. That was impossible to manage.
I have said it many times, I like the 12 hour format and I like not having to worry about how many times a guy has died.
The one that really was tough to manage was the BOB where we could rescue guys..... HOLY SHI IET That was crazy.
-
Having to manage the number of planes a player uses in an event is a huge PITA :noid
2 life events don't have anyone flying in the last hour...Ditto is right on both of these...
...and then you get people who lose both lives fast in the first frame and don't show up for the remaining frames and you are down pilots...
Your never gonna make everyone happy... But as I said...you want to draw people to these things...we must start making these more available and playable to more people or there will be just us few left...once we get more than 100 players in every event then you can start with more realism...more restrictions... Less availability as in having to dedicate 3 or 4 Saturdays out of a month...
Maybe someone could come up with a spin of the latest AVA war with scenario like qualities... With 2 bases to capture for each side during the event...the team the captures and holds the enemy bases at the end of a 3 or 4 hour frame wins that frame...
-
Ditto and Puller good points. However limiting the targets to attack and letting the enemy know the fields and ships that are to be attacked again imho is unrealistic and the timeframe in which
these targets are to be attacked is unrealistic. I'm sure when bombers upped from their fields in Great Britain they didn't call Germany and tell them where they will be attacking and at which time
the attack would come. Targets again imho should be based on how important they were to the enemies war machine and be hit in no particular order. These bits of information were kept secret for a reason.
Again this is just my opinion and I'm not here to throw a wrench into the entire works I hope to be of help. Scenarios are Aces Highs' last bastion of any chance at any virtual realism and immersion. Scenarios are starting to become
akin to changing the rules in the NFL so receivers can have more leeway to get open down the field. In essence flag football. To me we are losing the Scenario format of being a historical battle.
To me it's become a historical battle in name only, flown over a well made map thanks to the map builders. We should have multiple targets and enough of them to keep your enemy guessing.
Where will they hit? Will they have a fighter sweep ahead of them? Now we have limited targets, the targets are identified to both sides and the time frame in which they have to be hit.
I salute Brooke for all his hard work and also salute all those who CO a side or leaders of Bombardment Groups and Fighter Groups. Again I'm not trying to influence anyone's' thoughts on the matter.
Scenarios unfortunately are becoming a matter of quick results in order to get people to attend. In real air to air combat it was scouting, communicating and then white knuckled combat.
I ask again to not think of my points of view as being detrimental but of being of help to get virtual realism back into the last bastion we have to do this. Thanks for reading and putting up with
my long winded critiques on the matter. Of course you do not have to agree.
-
... the launch windows works best for attendance and the 12 hour format works best for all time zones.
I agree completely. I'm in Norway and here the scenario started at 1800 hours (6 pm). I was able to put in 7+ hours. The launch windows allowed me to get out of my chair and do other stuff (like eat) periodically when I had been shot down or landed early. The whole thing worked really well for me, and I got the impression it worked well for others as well. HiTech even sang Wagner for us. What more do you want?
-
4
-
4.5 I had a good time playing except last 7 hrs due to technical flying issues. But at least the 911 gods did not send me out on any 911 calls and when I was done flying I slept the rest of the night . What a night payed to play Aces 3 at work
-
+4. I enjoyed the planeset, the terrain, comaraderie of flying out together, and the action. The 12 hr format may be the best solution for including players at times convenient to them, when player locations stretch across timezones from Europe to Australia.
I did think the 5 minute launch window caused massed launches which detracted a little from the immersion for me. I remember previous scenarios when we'd spawn to the runway, and then spread out a little and hold for a bit before we rolled. The when we did roll it was a little more relaxed and controlled. With the short window it seemed like we all hit the runway and rolled immediately, which looked a little chaotic through the canopy glass. Maybe a 10-15 minute launch window and bombers rolling separate from fighters would help make it seem a little more controlled and realistic?
In all a great experience though.
-
Solid +4-4.5. I enjoyed it even the parts I didn't like at the time.
I have really enjoyed the 12 hour format both times it has been used, though I understand why some don't and I don't think all scenarios should be done like that.
Wiley.
-
First off, big fan of the 12 hour setup. I flew in 9/12 windows, had to make a few breaks for other scheduled activities.
I flew for the Axis in Ju-88 bombers. I felt like we had a good diversity of targets so as to not confine us to a set area where the Allies knew to be waiting for us. When we were caught, we tried to rely on our speed in a dive to get away rather than slugging it out with our limited defensive armament. We took a few down, but we were toast if ever caught. Can't really ask for anything differently flying Ju-88s, we tried mixing our attack altitudes between NOE and below 15k: NOE was more effective, attack runs at altitude made us more visible to intercept. The distance between fields and targets was just right as we could generally make an attack run and be back to land right at the beginning of the flight window. Love the frontline v-base emergency strips.
-
Love the frontline v-base emergency strips.
I really like the vbases in AH3 for that reason, too. Very fun to land or take off on that rough, short runway. :aok
-
4. Dar settings were abit whacky. I think I'd rather see no inflight dar, with expanded Dar in tower. Give the guys on the ground something to do, aka play GCI.
Not sure of the cap at 22k since that negates certain aircraft operational advantages in speed/climb, but was fun for sure.
Maybe a phased scoring objective (% of tgt(s) destroyed in Phase 1, number of planes shot down, number of planes lost, etc..) to give a sense of "mission" and to make the fighters realize the buffs need escort all the way in and out.
But these are minor observations, and the setup was good and execution was fun! So mission accomplished in that regard!
-
4.5 for the scenario, I had a great time flying with and against great people. :salute
I am relatively new to the community and have a few points i would recommend be addressed in future scenario's.
* Scoring should be simplified (object/plane types destroyed +/- Point)
* The scenario CM should not be in a command position for either side nor should the scenario CM engage in planning. (I have no issues with them taking part as a participant).
* All communications two either side from or to the scenario CM should take place in the shared event forum so both sides can view and further discussion
* Any ambiguity in the scenario write up that has not been clarified in discussion on the shared event forum before the scenario begins should not be penalized
* ahevents.net site should be used for scenario write ups
-
* The scenario CM should not be in a command position for either side nor should the scenario CM engage in planning. (I have no issues with them taking part as a participant).
I have the opinion that there should be at least 1 CM on each side.
-
I have the opinion that there should be at least 1 CM on each side.
There always is.
-
The Retired don't count :neener:
-
The Retired don't count :neener:
LOL Not me you goof haha heck we had plenty of CMs on Axis :aok
-
+2
-
I would give it a +5 but the rules clarity issue I have to knock it down to +3
I had fun but when you write RULES for a scenario, they have to be clear and understandable.
When CO's and CM's are arguing over PM's in the last part of the scenario, the is a problem.
I know that there were CMs on the AXIS side, but one should of been part of the planning.
-
I have to agree with Ditto on the major issues experienced.
If the scoring rules as well as the rules regarding ship targets in Phase 4 were clear and concise, I would have scored this scenario much higher.
The other issue pertains to the need for total transparency by event designers going forward. There still exists the perception of biased CM's and decisions by Brooke in this scenario only reinforced them.
1. Despite my arguments about equalizing the ord carrying ability of the A-20 to equal the 190F-8 and the 110C, Brooke saw to it that the A-20 was allowed double the capability of both Axis attack aircraft. (2000 lbs for the A-20 vs. 1100 lbs for the 190 and 110)
2. The required damage to sink ships was exactly 2000 lbs. Why was one side given the ability to sink one ship with a single plane while the other side could needed two planes to sink a ship?
Brooke's decision to lead the A-20 squadron raises questions over the refusal to equalize the attack aircraft and selection of 2000 lbs as the required damage needed to sink a ship.
-
I'm in complete agreement with Ditto and Devil here, which is why I haven't rated the scenario yet. We'll see.
Despite my arguments during the design phase, which was very public and on the open forums, I called for Brooke to count the objectives and ordinance available. He swore he did. I showed him the very detailed spreadsheet that Nef and I prepared for the last 12 hour event which counts and IDENTIFIES every object, every phase, and the available ordinance needed. He said he was good with the numbers although he didn't use a spreadsheet. I told him I Counted, and he really, really needed to count again, he said no.
The spreadsheet was handed to him, just needed to update the objects and ordinance. That would have shown a huge disparity between the amount of tonnage each side was given, would have CLEARLY shown that the guns he destroyed prior to the start of the frame that none of us knew was going to be down would be down, and we wouldn't get the anticipated points we expected and planned for, and shown the points value Per Phase on those ships that were to His Groups Specific Advantage as being up so we could have proven the gross objectives imbalance that was forced on us last minute during the event, that we were supposed to just deal with and sort out later.
We'll see how this one ends, it hasn't yet. Why he even bothered to ask to rate the event when it's not over yet is beyond me.
-
Brooke's decision to lead the A-20 squadron
Actually, the players decided where and what I would fly in the topic "Decide what Brooke should fly in October's Tunisia Scenario", which I started on August 1st.
In Scenarios, I often try to pick what I think will be the least-favored role on the least-favored side and fly that (torpedo bombers, He 111's, Il-2's, etc.).
This time, we will have a vote -- and *you* can decide what I fly. :aok
I would love to fly P-39's the most, and would secondarily love to fly P-40's or C.202's. However --
I will be bringing 5 guys with me who are not suited to fighters, and I want to fly with them and be their GL. I use Scenarios as a way to get new people in AH, and I go out and try recruiting people I know or meet to fly with me in Scenarios if I think they might enjoy it. If I get them, I then spend hours before the Scenario getting them up to speed and training them. I can get them up to speed in bombers or attack planes, so I need to restrict it to that.
We have too many people for B-26's, and B-17's (also, those are premier planes, so I stay away from those); and the B-25's will likely have Beefcake for GL. I don't want to take up the FW 190F's on the LW side, as that is too good a plane for us to use them all up. That leaves the following -- see next message.
Please vote for one of the options below:
Brooke and his 5 new guys should fly:
A. A-20's
B. Bf 110C's
C. Ju 88's
Vote now and let your voice be heard! :aok
-
Actually, the players decided where and what I would fly in the topic "Decide what Brooke should fly in October's Tunisia Scenario", which I started on August 1st.
I forgot about this thread. My apologies.
But you can't deny benefiting from the problems in the Attack set and the rules on ship hardness.
-
I enjoyed flying in the scenario. I give it a 0. Not for the scenario so much as all the folks bellyaching over a game.
Hope any of the newer folks do not think this is how the scenarios really are. If they do then it will get harder to fill the future rosters.
-
I have to agree with Ditto on the major issues experienced.
If the scoring rules as well as the rules regarding ship targets in Phase 4 were clear and concise, I would have scored this scenario much higher.
The other issue pertains to the need for total transparency by event designers going forward. There still exists the perception of biased CM's and decisions by Brooke in this scenario only reinforced them.
1. Despite my arguments about equalizing the ord carrying ability of the A-20 to equal the 190F-8 and the 110C, Brooke saw to it that the A-20 was allowed double the capability of both Axis attack aircraft. (2000 lbs for the A-20 vs. 1100 lbs for the 190 and 110)
2. The required damage to sink ships was exactly 2000 lbs. Why was one side given the ability to sink one ship with a single plane while the other side could needed two planes to sink a ship?
Brooke's decision to lead the A-20 squadron raises questions over the refusal to equalize the attack aircraft and selection of 2000 lbs as the required damage needed to sink a ship.
When one is in control of such an event, one should always avoid ANYTHING that could possibly cause the slightest 'perception of impropriety' in the players. As a rule, it is also smashingly good for 'plausible deniability' after the fact. :banana:
-
I think it was a 4+, or even a 4.5+ really trying hard to be a total kick-ass 5+, but just falling slightly short.
-
+4, just a few non important things for me that keep me from giving it a +5 :salute :salute :salute
-
+5