Author Topic: What is your definition of a "historical setup"? (Read 756 times)

Reschke · « **on:** October 23, 2004, 12:36:59 PM »

Just want to know for my own information purposes.

I will give you mine.

Since this game is called Aces High" I would have to say that my definition would be along the lines of a setup that matches aircraft were on opposing sides during a specific timeframe within a conflict.

So to me that doesn't include having ground vehicles take part in the setup as a necessary part of the setup. Especially since we only have 3 German tanks (counting the Ostwind), 2 US Amphibious vehicles and 2 US halftracks. This makes it very difficult to have a true representative ground forces or combined arms "historical setup".

Shane · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2004, 01:49:13 PM »

i agree, and since we can't always use "specific" time frames with the lmited planeset, i'd use "approximate" timeframe.

TexMurphy · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2004, 03:53:55 PM »

For me historical setup isnt the main thing. For me its the fact that its Axis vs Allies and not dumb rooks/knights/bish and that I dont shoot at "my sides" planes.

Im perfectly happy if setups are considered as "Pacific front era" or "Finnish front era". Meaning usage of planes from that specific era.

Discussions like, this and that plane where not actually deployed on that theatre for more then the last 2-3 months when that other plane already had been pulled from that front, is totally irrelevant to me. Sure nice if it can be historicly accurate but if a few planes didnt actually fight each other in that theater but are in the setup then so be it.

Since we have a quite limmited arsenal I think we cant afford to be historicl nit pickin...

Tex

Oldman731 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2004, 04:48:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TexMurphy
Since we have a quite limmited arsenal I think we cant afford to be historicl nit pickin...

I agree with the three of you. Not only do we not have enough variants to accurately simulate more than a very few time periods, but I think doing so would be unbalanced more often than not (as it was in the real war).

As to the trucks and boats....I'll let people with a greater interest carry the ball on that.

- oldman

Arlo · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2004, 05:52:16 PM »

I agree with the 4 of you but let me add ...

We cannot afford to be overly anal about setups by bringing up contradicting documents, differences in months and quibbling over details that, truth be told, we have little option to accurately portray.

We do have to keep in mind some degree of balance. It does not have to be perfect balance. Nor does balance have to be attained by perfectly mached planes. At the same time ... I do still do not advocate some of the measures taken in the past in the name of achieving balance.

- If fleets are to be used and certain planes are only available on said fleets (or perhaps only ONE of the said fleets) ... then going on to make those fleets paper or smaller or whatever is not a reasonable option.

- Perks are still a decent tool ... if used logically. Sorry, Reschke .. I didn't see the logic in perking then disabling perks. All that did was lock out players who didn't have the required perks from flying certain planes in the planeset and thats not a good thing imo. Perks can be used to try to limit useage (and to even represent a goal). Even though I have some friends here that don't like the idea ... I'm all for wiping perks to zero at the beginning of every new set. This isn't the MA where collecting perks is one of the motivations. A universal reset of perkpoint absolutely ensures that the perked planes will have to be earned by everyone based on their ability to do so. It's fair and it accomplishes the only reason I can see for having perks in the CT. I think this should be the standard common practice.

- Always put the faster, more uber fighters and the uber-bombers further back from the front. This encourages the folks who want to furball to use the less uber hardware and makes bombing turn-around time for those dedicated to porking the furball bases longer. If the front moves ... adjust. Or if that turns out to be too much to have to deal with due to technical issues. Just have the uber hardware available at the furtherest back bases. If players wanna ferry in these rides and rearm ... fine! They earned the right to do so by taking the effort. The only possible exception would be fleets. The whole point of a fleet is it's mobility. If fleets parking so close to bases that they cover the enemy field with ack is a concern (and it's one of mine) then I suggest reefs and shoals be designed into the terrain (buncha little islands strategically placed offshore and textured as rocks (or hell - textured as water - if the TE allows).

Anyways ... those were all beside the point.

We also need to consider alternate history as a viable option. Not just beacuse we don't have a full historical planeset to play with. But because everything is technically alernate history in AH anyhow. We can shoot for the immersive atmosphere ... but we're not "re-enactors."

yadda yadda blah blah

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2004, 05:58:33 PM »

Pretty loose as far as years go for a definition. For instance an "early war/late war" euro setup would be something like.......

The Bf109s from the Emil up to the G-2 for early, G-6 and G-10 for late. FW's I would have the A5 and A8 for early, even though the A8 didnt come till later it could stand in for an A7. Then keep the A8 in the late war as well, just add the D9 and the F8 and the Ta. Bombers the same way, the ones at the extreme end of what could be considered "early war" stay on through the "late war" setup as well. Sure you have some overlap, but it ensures the largest selection of rides for each setup.

I say give em ALL the GV's, for both early and late. Except the M3's. No M3's.

Make em fly if they want troops. lol

Squire · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2004, 07:47:54 PM »

"but we're not re-enactors." Agree.

I hate that term. It has nothing to do with CT setups or SEA events.

Its "wargaming", re-enacting is when you do something by a script where the outcome is the same every time (Re-enacting Gettysburg, with Pickets Charge done on cue...).

Wargaming is a real contest using the forces that were historically there by players, but the outcome is what *they* make it.

Oleg · « **Reply #7 on:** October 26, 2004, 12:39:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
- Perks are still a decent tool ... if used logically. Sorry, Reschke .. I didn't see the logic in perking then disabling perks. All that did was lock out players who didn't have the required perks from flying certain planes in the planeset and thats not a good thing imo. Perks can be used to try to limit useage (and to even represent a goal). Even though I have some friends here that don't like the idea ... I'm all for wiping perks to zero at the beginning of every new set. This isn't the MA where collecting perks is one of the motivations. A universal reset of perkpoint absolutely ensures that the perked planes will have to be earned by everyone based on their ability to do so. It's fair and it accomplishes the only reason I can see for having perks in the CT. I think this should be the standard common practice.

Yeah, never can to undestand why low-perk system was throw away

It works fine then was used a long time ago.

Reschke · « **Reply #8 on:** October 26, 2004, 08:35:54 AM »

For the record the perks were already in place by Skuzzy in the arena when I added those aircraft into the setup. By disabling the perk costs it allowed all players to have access to them regardless of time in the arena. In doing that it was hoped to bring in some new players and even hold on to some old ones who don't fly as much in here instead of the MA.

For me I would rather perks didn't exist at all. I hate the perk system but that my opinion. Also I don't mind spending the extra time putting in the individual base locations for what should be rare/limited aircraft in a setup.

storch · « **Reply #9 on:** October 26, 2004, 09:34:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reschke
For the record the perks were already in place by Skuzzy in the arena when I added those aircraft into the setup. By disabling the perk costs it allowed all players to have access to them regardless of time in the arena. In doing that it was hoped to bring in some new players and even hold on to some old ones who don't fly as much in here instead of the MA.

For me I would rather perks didn't exist at all. I hate the perk system but that my opinion. Also I don't mind spending the extra time putting in the individual base locations for what should be rare/limited aircraft in a setup.

Reschke,

What you did with the set up in question was brilliant. We should use those MA Hanger queens as often as we might in the CT. That would include the Me163 and the F4U-4 as well.

Leave them unperked and readily available every other month or so for both PTO and ETO/MTO scenarios.

I think that we could (at risk of becoming predictable) start the tour in the early war and progress to late war by the end of each tour allowing a last day of the week melding of the time periods, as it were, leaving no aircraft in the inventory unused.

When we start to see additional maps then perhaps the rotation will become more varied in aircraft available but the flow would remain the same.

Sadly the blaring gaps in the planeset will prevent the kind of immersion I would like to see but we could soldier on fairly well with what we have. (early model P39 P47 P38 A36 Pony P36C Fiat G50 MC 200 Re 2001 Mid model P47 P38 Re 2005) would be nice but not likely to happen given the frequency of new model introductions with HTC's limited staff.

It would be interesting to do (using MTO as an example) a set up with spit/Hurri I/P40B vs 109E/Mc 202/110C and have it flow smoothly to SpitV/HurriIID/P40E 109F/Mc205 the following week. Furthermore since it was unlikely that all these types would be based simultaneously at all bases I would like to see certain bases fielding specific fighters and bombers being based at yet other bases. I realize this is a ton of work for the CT and HTC staff but since you asked........

soda72 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 26, 2004, 10:26:59 AM »

Can perk points be reset every week?(I know people will cry about it but perks are pretty much useless anyway in the CT)

If the perks could be reset every week during the map change, it could be used to limit use of late war aircraft. This weeks setup is a good example... rarely do you see people flying 109E or p40.. It's mostly la5, 109-g2/g6...

Karnak · « **Reply #11 on:** October 26, 2004, 10:37:29 AM »

I consider historical in the CT sense to mean a setup of aircraft that did, or even could have, opposed each other within a given timeframe.

Using things like Fw190D-9s and P-38Ls for a 1943 setup is going to far though.

Essentially I envision five time periods and aircraft that are appropriate for them. Due to the limited number of aircraft that we have not all combinations are good.

Start of War:
A6M2
B5N2
Bf109E-4
Bf110G-2
C-47A
D3A1
Hurricane Mk I
Ju88A-4
M3
M8
M16
P-40B
Spitfire Mk Ia

Early War, USA and USSR Entry adds:
Boston Mk III
C.202
Bf109F-4
F4F-4
Fw190A-5 (sub for Fw190A-3 or A-4)
Hurricane Mk IIc
Hurrican Mk IId
Il-2 3M
Ju87D-3
P-40E
Panzer IV H
PT-Boat
SBD-5 (sub for SBD-2 or SBD-3)
Spitfire Mk Vb
T-34/76D
Tiger I (perked)

Mid War adds:
A6M5b (sub for A6M5 and A6M5a)
B-17G
B-24J
B-26B
Bf109G-2
Bf109G-6
Bf110G-2
Fw190A-8 (sub for Fw190A-6)
C.205
F4U-1 (perked if against Japanese)
F6F-5 (sub for F6F-3)
FM2
Ki-61-I-Tei (sub for Ki-61-I-Otsu and Ki-61-I-Hei)
Ki-67 (sub for mid war Japanese bombers)
La-5FN
Lancaster Mk III
Mosquito Mk VI
P-47D-11
P-51B
Spitfire Mk IX
TBM-3
Yak-9T

Late War adds:
Bf109G-10
F4U-1D
Fw190D-9
Fw190F-8
Ki-84-I-Ko
Me262A (perked)
P-38L
P-47D-25
P-47D-40
P-51D
Spitfire Mk XIV (perked)
Typhoon Mk Ib
Yak-9U

Very Late War adds:
Ar234B (perked)
F4U-1C (perked)
F4U-4 (perked)
Me163B (perked)
N1K2-J
Ta152H-1 (perked usually)
Tempest Mk V (perked)
La-7

Mister Fork · « **Reply #12 on:** October 26, 2004, 12:05:21 PM »

Karnak, if you were ever to visit the CT staff forum, we have that list (created by Wotan, and then edited and updated by your's truely).

Perks - I'm going to recommened that we reset them next November, then by default, have them turned off. It doesn't impact your ranking or score and should only be turned on when needed - to limit the use of aircraft and for us to set realistic perks per plane (i.e. 1-15 perks).

Oleg · « **Reply #13 on:** October 27, 2004, 01:42:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mister Fork
Perks - I'm going to recommened that we reset them next November, then by default, have them turned off. It doesn't impact your ranking or score and should only be turned on when needed - to limit the use of aircraft and for us to set realistic perks per plane (i.e. 1-15 perks).

Reschke · « **Reply #14 on:** October 27, 2004, 08:55:46 AM »

Quote

Can perk points be reset every week?(I know people will cry about it but perks are pretty much useless anyway in the CT)

Yes perks can be reset although resetting them each week may put more on Skuzzy than he wants since he is the one that has to reset them.

Author Topic: What is your definition of a "historical setup"? (Read 756 times)

storch