To explain myself and my feelings on Scenarios. No right or wrong.

[Hajo]

Folks, some of you may, or may not wonder why this cranky old guy feels like I do about Scenarios.

There was a point and time when a Scenario was posted and we just registered picking the side we wished to compete on.  We read the rules, looked at the map
and read the description.  At that time that was good enough for us.  Our aim was to just have fun, meet new people and fly in a historically based event.

Brooke and ROC and few others provided us with a place to get immersed and have fun at the same time.  We did not care about the minutia.

During these events, beforehand the group leaders and flight leaders would meet.  We would be given missions such as sweep ahead of the bombers, locate enemy fighters,
give their current location and alt and engage or not!  Or we would be flying with the Bombers as escorts.  The Bombers waypoints would be mapped, Bomber Pilots would be
given speed and altitudes and Bombers would be tightly formed.  Scouts would be sent out to locate the Bomber stream.  The Maps were generally larger and targets would be
more then just a few.  Meaning the enemy had to guess where the target would be.  Maps were larger, targets were many. Realism and immersion were the key.  OF course we
had many more participants then.  Why?  Because that is the way we preferred it.  Now we play in a band box and know what target is going to be hit.  BORINGGGGGGGGG.

When we flew we did not know if we got a kill or an assist.  We were not amazing hunks that had to know immediately and if/when we landed if we had 4 kills it was not up in lights.
We did not need instant gratification.  One had to wait until the logs came out.

The selection of aircraft were presented.  No say in the matter.  It was not important to us but you knew dam well they were aircraft that at that point of time in the War were available.
No arguing.  We registered, selected and played.  We knew ROC and Brooke would do a great job in the design and were anxious to recruit and practice, and plan.

Scoring was explained but never made up for discussion.  Wasn't important to us at the time.  We would not know who won until the last frame.  We didn't need to know.

And now we have come to this point.  Brooke has made many changes to involve the community.  IMHO it's a huge mistake.  Read the posts regarding the Hinterland.

Times don't change the people do.  Good or bad?  I can't say for sure.  I play for the immersion and fun.  Most of that has been taken away especially the immersion.
The smaller maps are now a necessity because of the lower number of participants.  Unfortunately now the population has become more of a gamer then a historian.
Immersion has disappeared.  I WANNA KNOW NOW IF I GOT THE KILL.  I WANT MT NAME IN LIGHTS. In real life one didn't know about kills until post flight in discussion
with the Air Operations Commander after all Pilots had been interviewed.  You may have gotten a third, half or credited with a kill.  During earlier Scenarios we did
not know if we got a kill in flight, we had to guess.

I know more then a few people who held on to their subscriptions only for Scenarios.  They are no longer subscribers unfortunately.  People change, I guess scenarios had to also.

Instant gratification now is the norm.  What needs to be decided is, what is going to become of Scenarios?  We used to have around 200 participants now we have to plan for fewer.
We knew we could get good numbers then.  It's obvious we can't now.  We had to plan and guess then.  Don't need much guessing now, it's scripted.  Smaller mapped out scenario.

Nothing that would attract old Grouches like me.  I would suggest that some reading, by more then a few, would help a great deal.  But that wouldn't bring quick gratification would it?

The Grouch on these matters has spoken!  If I had my way Brooke, whoever would design, build and present.  If you wished to register so be it.  No discussions.  Just play (without insult)
after the Scenario is over.
 

[oboe]

<S> Hajo.

I fly for the same reasons you did - immersion, a sense of history & camaraderie with my squadmates.  To fly and fight in a challenging (reduced icons, historic fuel consumption, etc) environment.   That much hasn't changed for me.  Even the scenarios where action was sparse were fun - just holding station in a flying formation for extended periods is much more than I do in the MA, and takes lots of concentration, and at the same time scanning the sky for bogeys (see immersion above).

I really don't care too much about score - I would fly the scenarios even if there were no scores kept or winning side declared.   I suppose scoring is more or less expected in a competition, though, and I do appreciate Brooke's use of stats to try to ensure the scoring is equitable and both sides have a fair shot at winning.   Not that it matters much to me - I can't recall which side won in either DGS or DGS II, my two favorite scenarios.

And I am getting old too?  I don't recall ever seeing immediate confirmation of a kill in the buffer - I think I've always had to wait for the logs - but my memory might be failing me.  I think Tunisia '43 was the first scenario I've been in were the bogeys were so evident on dot dar- previous scenarios I think I recall more effort in keeping the Mark 1 eyeballs on constant alert and lookout.

Just wanted you to know you've been heard.




 

[Hajo]

<S> Hajo.

I fly for the same reasons you did - immersion, a sense of history & camaraderie with my squadmates.  To fly and fight in a challenging (reduced icons, historic fuel consumption, etc) environment.   That much hasn't changed for me.  Even the scenarios where action was sparse were fun - just holding station in a flying formation for extended periods is much more than I do in the MA, and takes lots of concentration, and at the same time scanning the sky for bogeys (see immersion above).

I really don't care too much about score - I would fly the scenarios even if there were no scores kept or winning side declared.   I suppose scoring is more or less expected in a competition, though, and I do appreciate Brooke's use of stats to try to ensure the scoring is equitable and both sides have a fair shot at winning.   Not that it matters much to me - I can't recall which side won in either DGS or DGS II, my two favorite scenarios.

And I am getting old too?  I don't recall ever seeing immediate confirmation of a kill in the buffer - I think I've always had to wait for the logs - but my memory might be failing me.  I think Tunisia '43 was the first scenario I've been in were the bogeys were so evident on dot dar- previous scenarios I think I recall more effort in keeping the Mark 1 eyeballs on constant alert and lookout.

Just wanted you to know you've been heard.

Thanks for reading my way to long text on the subject.  And you're memory is not failing.  We had no dot dar.  We did however at times have dar bar but that was delayed, it wasn't instantaneous.

What was great including no radar was all Allied fighters and Bombers departed from England.  We all had to climb out and take enough fuel to do the job.  No air spawns.  It was a long process but the

correct one.  One had to hunt the enemy.  Boring?  Some may say so but the radio chatter exploded when action occurred even when not in your area.  You may be ordered to go there or stay with your group.

It felt real.  Also if an allied escort was shot down (2 lives)  he had to start from his home field.  With the new crowd there would be holding of breath and stomping, demanding air spawns when re-launching.

The escort had to climb out again, and hope to intercept the Bomber Group he was assigned to escort, or given orders to escort another group if he could get to it. This was a great advantage the LW had.

No one complained they just played and had fun.

Those glorious days are gone unfortunately.  We have to dumb it down now.  Instant action.  Pity.  These are the chief reasons many of us no longer participate.

[Vudu15]

We can only play what Brooke makes for us. I spent 11 hours shooting ground guns last scenario only to have them not counted due to "not being in a correct squadron" as the Axis CO. So when I bring up complaints it's because I was burned multiple time last event and I want it 100% written out and since our events have already moved to a scripted rail ride we can only play what we are given.

Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk

[shotgunneeley]

I am one of those who keeps my subscription for the scenarios - I consider the MA to be practice for them. Large scale group play is what keeps me involved and looking forward to scenarios. My gaming time is too sporadic to be a part of any MA squad (which don't ever seem to have more than a handful active at one time).

I have always been content participating in a scenarios even though I would be faced with the possibility of not having an uber ride. I never gave one care that any given side was technologically outmatched by another in terms of equipment and performance - that just added to the challenge of adapting tactics and strategy involved. My idea of a scenario was to recreate a match up given a historically accurate set of equipment while not exactly scripting the use or outcome. A lot of the mindset I see is the obsession with "equality and fairness", which have become corrupted down to more of a system of artificial balance. I'm guilty of it, too - no one likes to make excuses and play the blame game in regards to a loss more than me. The interesting aspect of a scenario is to see how a team comes together to field their limited and scarce resources most efficiently to pull off a win.

Though I have recently found myself drawn to the attack role flying old crates, I would certainly find it more enjoyable to target other players rather than objects that have really no strategic value other than building points. That is perfectly fine for deep penetration level bombers, but setups involving NOE sneaks shooting guns on frontline bases does get tedious trying to actually avoid defenders.

[Brooke]

That's the spirit, Vudu.   

[Brooke]

The goals of scenarios are history, fun, balance.

More specifically:
1.  To create an event where, when you fly in it and then read a book of first-hand accounts of the WWII battle, you think, "That's what it was like in the scenario!"
2.  For it be fun.
3.  For each side to have approximately even chance of "winning".  (The winning part isn't important to everyone, but it is important to enough people that we do need to put in a scoring system that is as balanced as we can figure.)

These things don't all pull in the same direction.  Sometimes, making it fun and balanced pulls opposite to history.  Also, all of these things are subject to some judgement, and not all people have the same judgement, so whatever is done won't be everyone's idea of perfect.

The biggest change in scenarios over time is not player satisfaction -- that has been steadily excellent, including for the most-recent scenarios.

The biggest change is not amount of history in the design.  Recent scenarios are as historical as most others and more historical than some past scenarios.

The biggest change is size of the player base.

To make scenarios these days, we have to plan on about 35-40 per side for 4-frame events, not 100 per side like we were getting 8-9 years ago.  That has impact on battle area and number of aircraft groups.

Another change is that the average player these days is not as much into immersion as was the case many years ago.

But . . .

I believe that I'm primarily responsible for what I get out of a scenario when I fly in it.  I don't feel that others must provide that for me.

I can choose to appreciate the history of it and get into it.  I can choose to appreciate the participation of other folks who are into it like I am and have positive attitudes.

Or

I can choose to focus on an aspect I don't like and let it ruin my entire attitude.  I can focus upon the negative attitudes of a minority of players (ignoring the larger number of others who are having a good time), and let that ruin my fun.

I choose the former.  I make my own fun.  I'm responsible for my fun and how I feel.  I don't give that power to others -- especially to others who have negative attitudes.  Why would I give them the power to ruin my fun?

Also, I'm under no illusion that my doing something like refusing to play would teach anyone anything.  The large majority of players don't care whether I (or you) play or not.  The only people negatively affected by a person not playing are himself and the people who enjoy his company.

So, come on in!  Join the fun!  Make your fun along with people like you! 

[BaldEagl]

...

Pfft!

The last scenario I flew in (2 ago) I was continually ordered to RTB and re-plane.  I was continually ordered to re-plane rather than re-fuel.  I flew NOE fighter escort for NOE attack missions.  One of our group was chastised for shooting ack guns because it took away from the attack plane's scoring.  I spent the majority of the scenario furballing, outmatched, on the deck in a historically mid alt bomber killer.  If we ever did get alt we always knew where the enemy and our own guys were (unless they were NOE) because there was dot dar everywhere. 

None of that was immersive.  None.  I could probably find that type of "action" in the MA but I'm not sure as I haven't been there in a couple of years now.

I didn't fly in the last scenario because I don't like the 12 hour format.  The after frame leaderboard updates, discussion about what went right and what went wrong and the planning for the next frame?  Gone.  That's part of the immersion.

I happen to agree with Hajo.  I've seen a general trend toward more MA like play over the past couple of years.  Maybe it's the result of tiny maps to accommodate a dwindling player base.  Maybe it's the design.  Maybe it's the players involved.  Maybe it's the open forums on the design.  Whatever it is scenarios aren't as fun as they used to be.

I haven't decided yet if I'll fly in the next scenario or not but, as Brooke pointed out; who cares?  It would just be one more scenario die hard gone.

Poof

[Brooke]

The last scenario I flew in (2 ago)

I want you to have fun and to play in scenarios. 

Many of the things you say you don't like are determined, though, by the sides, their commanders, and the players.  A design can put in historical planes, historical alts, reasonably historical goals, and have at least some historical missions constraints (like requiring at least a couple of bombing and a couple of attack missions), and make sides numerically balanced.

But things like who flies escort, how, whether they get outnumbered or not, are things determined by a side's choices.

I spent the majority of the scenario furballing, outmatched, on the deck in a historically mid alt bomber killer. 

If you are talking about Dnieper, the real battle was largely low-alt dogfights.  Being outmatched or not depends on how your side recruited to fill groups and how it arranged its planes, as each side was designed to have equal numbers.

If we ever did get alt we always knew where the enemy and our own guys were (unless they were NOE) because there was dot dar everywhere.

For Dnieper, there was dot radar only above 15k as a disincentive to be flying above 15k -- because the actual battle had very little of that because of weather, lack of in-cockpit GPS, not knowing precise locations of every target on the map, and so on.  Sector counters were for people above 1k -- because the actual battle had radar sites around, which is why radar was in the scenario.

Here are references I consulted in working on the design, searching them for types of fights, alt of fights, etc. for this particular battle:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Dnieper (Battle of the Dnieper)
    Gunther Rall, by Amadio
    Luftwaffe Fighter Ace, by Norbert Hanning
    German Aces Speak, by Heaton and Lewis
    Attack of the Airacobras, by Loza and Gebhardt
    Bomber Pilot on the Eastern Front, by Reshetnikov
    Red Star Against the Swastika:  the story of a Soviet pilot over the Eastern Front, by Emalianenko
    Il-2 Shturmovik, by Moore
    Over Fields of Fire:  Flying the Sturmovik in action on the Eastern Front, by Timofeeva-Egorova
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYg2cJIAQr4 (KG 3 on Eastern Front)

I haven't decided yet if I'll fly in the next scenario or not

I hope that you do.

but, as Brooke pointed out; who cares?

That's not what I pointed out.  What I said was that your absence won't teach any lessons to people whose style of play you don't like -- what you will do is harm the people who enjoy flying with you.  There are people who enjoy your company in scenarios.  Those are the ones you harm by leaving.

I hope that you do play. 

[zack1234]

Too many paragraphs

SEC are awesome

[Krusty]

Flying is great and all, but it has LONG been a point of contention that many people would brush the end score under the carpet as if it didn't matter. It did. It does. Flying, fighting, all that is good, but we're investing ourselves into the scenario on multiple levels. We, personally, want to know if we helped the greater war effort, even if we didn't get any kills and got shot down 2 times.

The old behavior patterns of taking months to release scores were loathed by many participants, and then the scenario team would sometimes seem to jump to the next scenario and totally lose interest in resolving the cliffhanger scores from the previous one.

As for immersion? The only reason we have more specific rules right now is because people tried to game-the-game and pulled something so egregious that rules needed to be created to stop people from doing that again. Many's the time in a scenario one side was fully steamrolled by 30x the number of enemy contacts because the "tactic" of one side was to fill a single sector with so many planes that a pilot in his chute could walk from wingtip to wingtip and never fall to the earth. That's happened more than once. Conversely, MANY times the "sneaky" tactic to get bombers in means boring hours of flying circles, scouting, never seeing the target, oh wait the target is bombed and gone, let's scramble to get a few of the bombers before they egress... what's that? Oh, they're diving at 350mph across 5 sectors and our fastest planes can barely get into vis range before they're "safe" ??? Yeah, that happened a lot too.

The only reason that targets were narrowed was because of the realities of this "game" -- and it is a game. The targets were narrowed and the scope of attack limited to prevent bombers from flying 15 sectors across the top of the map when the target is on the southern border. It doesn't dictate the exact engagement, but it says "this will most likely put the 2 sides in contact with each other in SOME way, and we'll let the combat unfold on its own after that."

I know you have your opinions, but I think you're looking at it through only one singular perspective and with rose colored glasses. We've improved in a number of ways. In other ways, we may not have. You have to ask yourself: Are the declining numbers because the rule changes came too late and people got tired of the rule bending? Or are the changes in reaction to the declining numbers to try and make it more fair? They didn't happen in a vacuum.