The Great Debate

[Dennis]

The growing trend to trash setups has me thinking ... a dangerous proposition to be sure ... but i think I'll share it with you anyway, because I don't endure nearly enough pointless abuse in my life.

Have the CT staff considered the thought of migrating away from the idea of trying to re-create setups based on actual battles?  

The gaping holes in the AH planeset make all but a few scenerios impossible, requiring the ommission of critical forces or half-assed substitutions ... or worse yet, adding/upgrading/downgrading plane models for "balance."  

Furthermore, any "historical" scenerio inevitably draws complaints/whines/pontification about this missing plane or that -- and the therefore-obvious bias of the setup's creator.
"The P-47 wasn't in Tunisia in 1942!!!"
"The Japs bombed Darwin!  Where are the bombers!!!?"
"This is the Battle of France!!!!  Why is the fight in ENGLAND!!!!!!!??"

This second point is probably the easiest to fix.

I have never been a fan of so-called "fantasy" setups or post-WWII setups or anything that smacks of MA-style play (I think I flew one sortie during "Soccer War" week) and I want to be clear that I'm still talking about an axis-vs-allied COMBAT Theater. But do we lose anything by not trying to build a setup around actual events?  

Consider this:  Regardless of the "history" behind a given setup, it generally plays out the same way each week.  The air-to-air fight gravitates to whichever bases are the closest, and there is rarely any organized strategy built around the historical context of the map.  Nothing really changes except the planeset (ergo, the tactics) and the scenery.

As an alternative idea, how about something like basing setups primarily on plane matchups.  Limit to a couple of fighters per side -- with their relative strengths/weaknesses considered -- and include other forces only as needed for whatever 'gameplay' effect the designer is going for.  
But keep it to country-specific foes -- no 109s winging with zekes, for example -- try to stick to historic adversaries.  

"This week's setup is the 109E-4 and 109F-4 vs the Hurricane II and P-40E."  The designer could choose, for example, the FinRus map or the Libya map, and get theater-specific markings, I think.  The concept needs work; this is just a hypothetical.

You'd still have complaints that one side has the better this or that than the other, but I guess my point is that calling a scenerio "Darwin 1942" or "The Battle of Britain" doesn't make it a re-enactment of history, and removing the faux-historic link to an actual campaign gives the whiners one less thing to beatch about.

Now talk amongst yourselves, I'm becoming verklept.

Splash1

[Arlo]

Originally posted by storch
why aren't all the aircraft available (from 1939-45 for all the factions involved)?

1937 .... when Hitler first started testing his strength.

[Dennis]

Originally posted by storch
Well think about it a sec.  Which are the two set ups that seemingly draw the least amount of trash talk.  There are only two.

...

Oh and the two maps I mentioned above are Finn-Rus and Okinawa.

Not so sure that's the case, but maybe you're right.  It could be relative.  They all seem to carry baggage of some sort.
 
Okinawa is fraught with much wailing and nashing of teeth over the missing F4U-C and inclusion of the N1K.  Have you forgotten that recent firestorm?  FinRus, to a lesser degree, ellicits a fair amount of angst over the uberBrewster (FM2), and much of the VVS planeset is subbed out with later models because the proper ones aren't available.

I agree that probably the best of all cures would be a truly complete planeset, but as you note, HTC has forgone AH1 for AH2.  I'm not sure a truly complete planeset will ever be seen in a sim, anyway.  Certainly not all flyable.

So barring the tools to closely replicate a historical scenerio, why not just work with the tools available, and create our own?
Just food for thought.  Not sure I'm even a complete convert to the idea, myself.

Splash1

[o0Stream140o]

Or how about this... limit the planeset to a year and feature 3 or 4 planes that we have that flew in that time period.  I for one don't want to see the MTO maps go away because people don't like flying to a fight.  I thought that was suppose to be part of the expierence. I agree on the last Libya map that the P-47 shouldn't have been there... but I am a P-40 fan myself.  Honestly guys I think if we don't start trying to do something with this CT they are going to take it away in AH2, I am probably way off on that, but you never know.  Your right Storch... we are paying customers.. maybe if we were those guys that leach in H2H then maybe  HTC wouldn't have to listen...

[Slash27]

Is it possible to create a map that would be compatible with both systems?

 I would guess yes. They are using FesterMA for the beta now. Im no map maker though.

[Kweassa]

It's a difficult situation to foresee..

 Especially when the AH2:ToD mode seems to offer everything a history buff might have ever wanted - I for one, don't think there would be any reason to stay in CT if AH2:ToD is implemented.

 I mean, I enjoy the historic aspects and feels of flying vintage aircraft - duplicating actual tactics, meeting situations close to real life and etc etc.. in that sense, the ToD might become obsolete.. I really can't see the merit of CT over ToD..

[Arlo]

Until HTC has the aircraft and terrain for a PAC version of TOD, I see every reason to stick with it.

[Toad]

If the numbers don't come up, I wouldn't expect it to last a very long time after TOD. I'm sure it'll last until TOD but you have to ask yourself if it's worth it to them for 30-40 players a night.

Bandwidth is money. I'd expect a major redistribution of bandwidth after AH2 and TOD come out.

This struck me though:

The air-to-air fight gravitates to whichever bases are the closest, and there is rarely any organized strategy built around the historical context of the map. Nothing really changes except the planeset (ergo, the tactics) and the scenery.

I agree.

Perhaps simplification of the setups might be tried. Depending on the map in the MA, there might be a lot of folks looking for action. I'd be thinking of tailoring CT offerings towards lots of action like this whenever AKD or Big Isles is up.

I suspect that's when a LOT of folks would just like to find a fight.

Just my .02.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Dennis
"This week's setup is the 109E-4 and 109F-4 vs the Hurricane II and P-40E."

Seems to me this is how it effectively ends up, anyway.  Within a day or so of a new setup, most people are flying only a couple of planes per side.  I agree that this would probably cut down on some of the "hey, this isn't historical" whining, but it would also eliminate the weird planes for those of us who fly them.

But:  one of the greatest things about the CT is that each setup only lasts for a week.  We are prime guinea pigs.  So why not try it, see what happens?

- oldman

[TheBug]

Originally posted by Oldman731
 So why not try it, see what happens?

- oldman

...And so therein lies the $10,000 dollar CT question.



Vote Bug

[Toad]

Originally posted by storch
how in the world are the numbers going to come up?  

I'll just take a shot in the dark here. Feel free to ignore it.

The CT numbers are extremely low compared to the MA, right? Usually on the order of ~ 5-10%  of what's in the MA on any given night.

Now, for CT numbers to come up, what will one have to provide?

Here's my shot-in-the-dark WAG:

Something different from what it has been offering since inception. CT numbers have never been large. Initially, the claim was "HTC is doing it all wrong. Give us a shot at showing what the players really want." That morphed into "The CT is a special place for perceptive folks who want 'more' from the game.".

Whatever.

It's undeniable that a very small percentage of the player base wants what is being offered here. Some will feel a sacred duty to protest this point and protect the glorious misson of the CT.

Want more players? Offer something more people want to play. Does anyone doubt that during Big Isles or AK Desert week there's A LOT of people that are looking for good straight-up Air Combat without flying a sector and a half to get it? Generally, these are folks that LIKE flying the "lesser" part of the planeset.

Seems the initial idea posted in this thread could easily be tried during the BI or AKD weeks.  Put a good historical matchup of some early to mid-war planes in, inhibit the porking by limiting or even forgetting the bombers.

See what happens. Who knows.... it might be more fun than chasing Peggys around in your P-40B or chasing B-26's in your A6M2.

What's it going to hurt?

[eskimo2]

Dennis,
Personally I like your idea.  
However, I think that many folks like to buy in to a particular battle and might be turned off by it.

As much as I like and need a historical match up, I seldom buy into a setting or battle.  To me, it's just me and my 109 verses a Spit, or whatever.

I think it would be fun to have an all Jug verses all 190s set-up, or an all Hog verses all Jap set-up.

I think it would be worth a try.

eskimo

[Dennis]

Some interesting comments so far.

Just to expand a little on my part, I'm not really concerned whether this sort of approach will bring more players into the CT.  My goal would be to cut down the animosity and sniping over setups in one small way.

Crafting setups that match adversaries based on their strengths/weaknesses, service dates, etc. -- but sticking with WWII -- frees the designer of the constraints of a particular moment or place, and gives compainers one less round of ammunition to fire at the designer.

Plus, maybe it would result in some intriquing, fresh setups.  I particularly like some of eskimo's suggestions.

If we have all the proper pieces for a true, historic representation of a real battle/campaign ... there would be nothing stopping a staffer from doing it.  I'm just wondering if they're not limiting themselves ... or worse yet, opening a weekly can of worms with their psuedo-this-or-that-battle.  (that's 'suto' in bradyspeak)

As far as the numbers situation goes and the ToD impact on CT ... from what I see of AH2, we've got a long time to worry about it.

Splash1