Thoughts for future setups - new spits

[Kev367th]

Does the CT have its own squads like scenarios?
Or are you tied to your MA squads.

Only asking because someone mentioned on the Spit remodel he'd like to setup a Spit squadron and try out the CT.

[soda72]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Does the CT have its own squads like scenarios?
Or are you tied to your MA squads.

Only asking because someone mentioned on the Spit remodel he'd like to setup a Spit squadron and try out the CT.

The CT does have it's own squads and any new squad would be welcomed......

[StarOfAfrica2]

Comments from a few folks I've heard in the MA, coupled with some of my own experience have had some thoughts running through my head lately, so I thought I'd bounce em and see what you folks who make the decisions for us think.

Alot of the bomber jocks dont fly in the CT becuase capture is off.  We've tried making it tougher with more troops needed, harder buildings, etc.; someone always ruins things by milkrunning the bases during the off hours.  So we sit with it turned off, and lose people because of it.  

I've said this part before, but I'll repeat it.  If we want a lively CT, we dont need MA overflow, we need an MA alternative.  MA is easymode, but it does offer something for squads to do besides cover each others butts in a big furball.  And right now (as much as some of us may like it that way), thats what we have, and it only attracts a small group.  TrueKill and several others have tried the Thursday night missions, but for many (me included) that one night isnt viable.  Thats a start though.  So here's my ideas.

My first one isnt really viable right now, but it could be in the future, depending on how hard it would be to implement.  I have no idea what changes would be necessary, and it may be totally impossible.  If so, no big loss as we dont have it now.  For those of you who remember the old ETO map in AW, (the little one for the later AW guys), when the map was reset the bases in the middle all went neutral.  So when the fight started, everyone was back away from the front.  It was a rush to grab the bases at the front so the furball in the middle could start.  First one to get a base and get it operational had the advantage.  Then the bomber jocks could concentrate on porking elsewhere, but there was usually a pretty fierce battle over the forward bases.  They always see-sawed back and forth.  My idea would be to re-create that idea by enabling capture only at some bases in the middle of a map.  As I said, I dont know if thats possible.  If not, is it at least possible to disable fighters at those "forward" bases?  Of course I support increasing the number of troops required to capture above the MA standard and making the buildings harder.  We dont want this to be easy.  It should be a challenge.  Challenges draw squads, not individuals.  Any variation on this might work, I'm just throwing it out there, you guys chew it up and see if something useable comes out.

My second idea is to scrap the idea of making some bases different than others, and only enabling capture during "prime time".  That would at least have the advantage of spoiling things for the milkrunners.  Someone turns on capture at one time, and it's turned off after another amount of time.  Sort of "freezing" the map, so to speak.  If at some point we start having CT activity around the clock, then this could be evaluated and discarded if necessary.

Ok guys.  Blast away.  

[soda72]

It would be nice if we had more maps that were CT friendly..

[Krusty]

You mean 2-sided maps (with 1 field and 1 HQ for the 3rd team)?

[Reschke]

Well I hope it doesn't fold. I haven't played much recently due to some health issues but hey I still keep up with whats going on in here. As someone mentioned on the squadron side. Bring in a new one and see what happens; usually new blood sticks around for a while then they filter out until only a few of the original squadron remains active in the CT.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Krusty
You mean 2-sided maps (with 1 field and 1 HQ for the 3rd team)?

I was thinking more that the 3rd side would be in the middle, several bases, and that the 3rd side would have no planes or GVs (just field ack).  Put another base and the HQ off out of the way like we do currently.  That would force the two active sides to start further back and capture bases to move their front forward.  I wasnt sure if flight could be disabled for just one country though, or if it were disabled by base or for everyone in the arena at once...........  Even if it could be disabled for one country, would it become active once someone captured it?  These are things I dont have answers to.

[Krusty]

There is a "countrycanfly" tag, and you can limit flight to any of the 3 countries.


However, what you describe would probably bore a lot of the fighter pilots, as you'd have to fly over enemy fields a long distance just to find a fight. The emphasis lately has been fighter town, and the recent CT-like setups have been stressing close air fields over realistic distances.

[bj229r]

THATS what AH needs, more Spits

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I was thinking more that the 3rd side would be in the middle, several bases, and that the 3rd side would have no planes or GVs (just field ack).  Put another base and the HQ off out of the way like we do currently.  That would force the two active sides to start further back and capture bases to move their front forward.  I wasnt sure if flight could be disabled for just one country though, or if it were disabled by base or for everyone in the arena at once...........  Even if it could be disabled for one country, would it become active once someone captured it?  These are things I dont have answers to.

I'm still just learning the setup options, so don't take the following as the final word.  But here's how I understand it:

Capture parameters - the number of troops needed to take a field, the hardness of the structures, the regeneration times and so on - can't be set for individual countries.  The settings apply to all three.  Because of this, you can't have some fields capturable and others uncapturable, nor could you even make it harder to capture, say, Knight fields than to capture Rook or Bishop fields.

You could put some of the neutral country's bases in the middle of the map, and disable flight for that country.  The other two countries could then race to capture those bases and, once they'd done so, their planes would be enabled at those fields (I think).  After that, though, there would be no functional difference between the captured neutral bases and all other bases.

I'm with you; I'd love to have the old AW-style map, with limited base capture to focus the fights.  But I think someone has to build that map first (someone online suggested building bases without towns to make them uncapturable...don't know if that would work...?), and then HT would have to approve it.  Base builders are a rare commodity these days.

As for appealing to the MA flyers....frankly, I've given up.  We've had base capture enabled for most of these setups, and it doesn't draw any more interest (oddly, I've seen more bomber formations this week than I have in months).  We've tried fightertown twice, and it hasn't drawn any more interest.  We have the equivalent of rolling plane sets, and it doesn't draw any more interest.  So I think that, as things stand now, the CT appeals only to the group of people who value dogfighting with axis v. allied plane sets, and that this group is much smaller than we had hoped.  

Our own regular group has largely melted away to the MA; possibly they could shed some light?

- oldman

[storch]

I think that the path some of the CT staff have currently taken will eventually draw back some who have left.  JG54's regular has pretty much returned.  The reason why I left the CT was the obvious favoritism shown the allied side with regard to set ups and the fact that for me the axis aircraft were displaying negative flight characteristics in CT that I didn't experience in the MA.  If the CT staff will carefully match the overall plane sets so that neither side has the advantage in both turning and speed then the set ups are successful.  This becomes most difficult with the pacific set ups where the allieds clearly hold the speed advantage. when some bright bulb thinks it's cool to try Hogs and Huricanes that it might be fun you effectively have an empty arena for seven days.  I have wondered why you guys don't do a USN/RN set up vs the LW.  though they didn't receive the press the pac navy did Hogs, kitties and wildcats saw considerable service in the MTO/ETO.  It might be fun to pit the navy guys against the axis in sicily.  the caveat would be unsinkable carriers and weakend ack to prevent our allied players from seeking safety and comfort in their own ack.  I would do the set up as two CV groups.

1943 Sicily Pre-Invasion

USAAC from N Africa
P40B
P40E
P38G
P47D-11 (subbing for the weaker B)
B26

RAF from N Africa not at same bases as USAAC
SpitIX
Mossie
Lanc

USN
F4F-4
F6F-5 subbing for the -3
F4U-1
SBD
TBN
LVTs
PT

RN
SeafireII
Martlett F4F
Corsair Mk1
SBD
TBN
LVTs
PT

Reggia Aeronautica not at same bases as LW
202
205
Ju87
Ju88
All Ms
Osty
Panzer


LW
109F4
109G2
109G6 (limited to 1 rear base)
FW A5
FWF8
110G2
Ju87
Ju88
Osty
All Ms
Panzer

I would set hardness on all bldgs and ships to the max, make base capture 200 troops and all ack at it's weakest setting.  if anyone wants to vultch then let the defenders up GV/boats to defend.  I would make the CVs undrivable as well to prevent the brown water admirals from turning them into landing craft.  I would enable two cruiser/destroyer groups from landing attempt purposes to satisfy the midnight milking brigade, allowing them to pad their scores.

[Reschke]

I wouldn't mind trying a setup like that BUT why so many aircraft? In the past we tried catering to everyone with large number of available aircraft and only two or three got flown. I and many others have tried separating aircraft by nationality and still only one or two get flown out of 15 different available aircraft. Honestly its a no win situation for those of us on the CT Staff.

Now to address something I should probably let slide but honestly can't let go. The so called "favoritism" of allied aircraft was nothing more than putting as close to historical pairings into the same space of the game map as they were to the best of our historical research.

Is that wrong to put an F4U-1D into an area with only A6M's and Niki's flying over Okinawa? Was it wrong to put in the "Second Wind" setup with jets for the Japanese and only prop planes for the USN? Oddly enough that setup had more people playing in it the entire week on both sides than any other setup we did in the last half of 2004. Something I would like to run once again but we would have to get the skins redone for the Ar-234, Me-163 and Me-262.

I stand beside my previous thoughts that we as a staff submitted to the players as equal a setup as possible. I am not saying they were right or wrong It just didn't appeal to some players and they publicly and privately voiced their opinions and either moved on to other things or stuck with it and helped out as much as possible.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Storch, I'd love a USN vs LW matchup.  I find F4U's vs 109s and FWs to be a great matchup.  I'm sure the F6F could hold its own too.

[Slash27]

The reason why I left the CT was the obvious favoritism shown the allied side with regard to set ups and the fact that for me the axis aircraft were displaying negative flight characteristics in CT that I didn't experience in the MA. If the CT staff will carefully match the overall plane sets so that neither side has the advantage in both turning and speed then the set ups are successful. This becomes most difficult with the pacific set ups where the allieds clearly hold the speed advantage. when some bright bulb thinks it's cool to try Hogs and Huricanes that it might be fun you effectively have an empty arena for seven days.

[/B]

 Well the Allied favoritism is a total crock. Its a baseless accusation or better yet just a plain whine. There is no difference in a F4U BnZing and running from a fight vs the N1K than a 190 BnZing and running from the (gasp) Spit. There is no "Axis pilot/Allied pilot" difference. Its the player. You cannot possibly agrue it any other way.( well you could but Im right) It never held water with me that the N1K wasnt a capable aircraft in Pac sets, but with the addition of the Ki-84 the Japanese set is very potent.  If you fly with half a clue you match if not out match the Allied rides. At that point its just up to the guys behind the wheel.

 As far as a USN/RN vs LW set up. I think its a great idea. If its not run before then I will do it my next time up.

[Krusty]

I had a sweet idea for a setup... Using FAA and LW planes, as y'all mentioned.

The RAF is trying to intercept a new batch of subs from being released into the north sea. We'd need a map that had a CV to simulate the subs... Just reduce the CV ack to almost nothing, and set it to loop back/forth and have a very short downtime.

So the FAA is scouting these subs out and trying to sink them using sea hurris (Hurr2c) seafires, wildcats (f4f4s), hellcats, and depending on the hypothetical year, f4us? In addition, costal Bombers from britain are being clued in to where the subs are, and b17s and lancasters (no formations) are being direct to the enemy subs.

The LW, aware that the Kriegsmarine is going to be targeted by the FAA, is using this as a chance to atrophy the Fleet Air Arm's north sea presence, and is sending out fighters (109G2s, G6s, 190a5 maybe a8?) to intercept the scouts and draw the FAA into an air battle. If there is a suitable map with 2 CVs (one each team) then the second fleet could be used by the FAA to stage attacks from, and the LW could use Ju88s (no formations) and Ju87s to try to sink the fleet.

What do you think?