Idea for next Scenario

[ramzey]

Originally posted by jordi
You see that is the thing . Some say they want FIGHTERS ONLY, others say ( Like you ) ANY PLANE will do ( Which as a CO i really appreciate ! ) , other say they are only good at Bombers . . .

The problem is you do not know how many of each type are going to show up - so how do make the plane set ?

Now one could ask people to register for a scenario and select PALNE Only or Any plane or Plane and GV or Gunner ( plane or veh or ship ) . . .

Then design the scenario around the expected attendence ?

Jordi many not show up just beucose of putting them in tanks......, many quit during frame after first dead in gv's.

And is better to give option then set people up, they sign up for fighters and land as tanks drivers.

In first frame on Stalins , i choose to fly goon insted of driving tank.

Also, we play aircraft only scenarios many years, dont tell me there is not possible to do plane vs plane scenario, cuz its not true.

[jordi]

First let me say that I agree - there were a lot of GV's to be used in the scenario and that in and of it self keep a lot of people away.

Just critique this idea alone-- Same sign-up as last scenario but an option for individuals to check a box selecting no GVs at the cost of being allowed only one life. Would it really cause anymore fuss than your imagination concocts?


Going off of the Stalins Fourth registration process where people had a 1st and 2nd choice of Fighter, Jabo, Bomber, Vehicle or No preference . . .

70+ pilots choose a Fighter as their 1st OR 2nd choice.
Of those 70 just 3 said they would also do Vehicles.
45 of of  the 70 selected Fighter as their 1st AND 2nd choice.
26 choose Bomber as thier 1st OR 2nd choice.

So I have my 20 bomber pilots and almost 70 pilots who will get 1 life in a fighter.

Overall just 14 selected Vehicle as a 1st OR 2nd choice.

So as a CO if I needed to field 40-50 pilots in vehicles in a frame then a lot of people are not going to be happy if they expected to get thier choice of just flying some type of plane.

My point is - ANY Scenario design is going to have rides ( be it GV's or Bombers or 110's or P38's or .... ) that some people may not like or want.

I am glad that in most scenarios I have been in I have been favored to have pilots who if / as needed took those rides and did their best.

The Stalin Scenario was originaly designed for 75 AXIS and 150 ALLIED. I knew from day one that we would not meet those numbers BECAUSE a lot of GV's were involved. I suggested we cut the numbers in half and up the total reg numbers as interest allowed. That worked ok. Even then we had around 70% of registered pilots make it on frame day. WE had another15+ walkons / invitees to help fill out the ranks.

[jordi]

Are we talking about Fighter vs Fighter scenario below ?

Originally posted by TheBug
Convoy sunk bringing in supplies to Tobruk--Germans able to penetrate defenses.

Jordi - Sunk how ? Torpedo planes, Dive Bombers, Jabo ? Defenders up from Carriers and have to land on them ?

Train or supply base or bridge not taken out--Panzer Divisions allowed to counterattack Normandy beachheads push troops back around Caen.

Jordi - How - MED or HVY Bombers ? Jabo ? Any ground defenders protecting those bridges ?

Or play both those back with the Allies being successful and allowing their lines to advance.

I think putting that imagination to better use would make for a much more immersive mission orientated scenario, than 25+ vehicles racing around trying to be the one to blow up a tent.

Don't ya think?

Again - all that I am saying is that in ANY Design you are going to have the following . . .

1. Some People may not register at all becuase the plane they really like is not in the plane set. That is fine - the next scenario may have the plane they like.

2. Some people who register and say they are only going to do certain things. If a frame has them doing something they do not want to do they may not show up at all for that frame. As a CO I just hope they tell me so I can plan around the reduced numbers.

3. The MAJORITY of people are more than willing to do what is needed to help out thier side. Some just want to help out where needed - others want to try new things - others do it because that is what they signed up for. As a CO each of these pilots I appreciate a lot because they are the ones that will help fill fill in the holes and make the plans work.

[jordi]

Originally posted by ramzey
Also, we play aircraft only scenarios many years, dont tell me there is not possible to do plane vs plane scenario, cuz its not true.

If you mean plane vs plane being just fighters and no bomber / jabo part to it - go for it. Almost every sceanrio I have been involved with dealt with more than just fighter vs fighter - it included somethingelse - bombers, jabo, land targets, ships, GV's, ect . . .

I am sure you can find some historical time period to base it on. Come up with some sort of scoring system to figure out who wins - most kills ? least landed ? . . .

GO FOR IT !

[ramzey]

Have you notice since gv's start take part of scenarios numbers of people inolved drop  to 50%?


Also BoB allways have good numbers, but HTC care not enough to bring som new planes to fill empty spots.

Rangoon, Malta, Big Week, Iwo Jima, Coral Sea, Midway, Ruhr
all of them had greater numbers then any of gv's involved scenarios. And where more fun.

HOw come FSO have bigger number then any of lastest scenarios?
I dont remember FSO with GV's, i remember SSO with gv's, look what's happend when you force people to drive gv's.

[Roscoroo]

come on guys .. the Finn's wanted a re-creation of there greatest battle .. They worked 1000's of hours into the map and setup ... they deserved a gv/AC battle and you guys gave a great set of frames to them.  

I think the numbers were close to what was expected  

... Pearl is coming and you guys will get all sorts of plane/gunner  action again .  

then we'll mix it up with some new and greater attempts of some great battles/ events from ww2 ..


I myself have gotten bolth the weak rides and the great ones thruout different scenario's,   sometimes i can make them work other times its just tough to stay alive .

[ROC]

No one forced anyone to drive anything.  You just said yourself that people quit because they had to drive them, that's a choice.

This event used ground elements.  Most sign for events to experience something other than routine, and this event was far from routine.

The next event will be an invasion of Japan, with an unreal amount of fleets on yet another new terrain.  I assure you, there will be players who complain about having to fly a torpedo plane.

The event after that should be a High Alt Europe Bomber campaign.  There will be cries of Alt monkies and we should limit how high the bombers can go cause it's too hard on the fighter pilots and takes too long.

After that, Pearl Harbor, and again, we may have some life limits.  Say for example you get 2 fighter,  bomber, and you can get ground vehicles for defense to keep the base alive through the frame.  There will be players who use their lives in the planes and leave.  There will always be something to complain about, and plenty of people to do the complaining.

Don't take this as I don't understand and appreciate what is being said, I do.  If everything Ramzey wanted was implemented, someone else would be complaining, if Everything TheBug wanted was implemented, someone else would complain about that also.  We do the best we can, trying to balance the event as we design it, why do you think we don't design these things publically on the open forums?  We'd never be done.

Yes your comments are noted, and I can guarantee that Each and Every one of the comments and critiques have been addressed in one event or another, but it is not possible to address them All in Every event, there are too many variables.

That's just reality.  But that doesn't mean you don't have a voice, trust me, all of these points are valid, some are based on insight, others are based from speculation and not knowing why some item or another decided the way it was.  

The Bottom Line of Karelia was to produce an event that kept players involved for the Full 3 Hours of each of the 4 Frames, that is Not an easy task, and one that doesn't lend itself to a single life event.  Most players that participated Enjoyed it, those that quit missed out, but that's their loss.  This event appealed to a particular group, other events will appeal to a different group.  That's just human nature.

Hope you enjoy the next one, that's where My attentions at now, Stalins was last week

TheBug, hit me on email, I'd like to get your thoughts on a project I'm working on.

[Schatzi]

Without having read all of this thread yet:


You cant make EVERYONE happy.

Too much GV in this Scenario? Maybe, but i gotta admit - me, the fighter only (unless im really wasted) actually enjoyed the change of pace. It roused my interest of mybe even taking up a GV in the Main and see how ill do there. For now im mostly a "toolshedder" in GV.... anything that knows what its doing and shoots back has me returned to tower before i can even say "hello".

As far as i have understood scenarios, they are supposed to recreate historical RL battles. This one was a bit more gound bound. The next one will be different. Yes, it would have been nice to know beforehand that you would probably spend at least part time in GV (no matter if you signed up for fighter/jabo only), but im hazarding that even the COs didnt know how this one would turn out strategy wise untill last minute.

My opinion: This was a fun scenario that i thouroughly enjoyed during the frames (Im not particularly fond of the decisions that had to be made between frames - IMHO the spawn limitation rules were just too complicated, impossible to get 160 people, including new players and walkons to follow them ALL). I very much liked the design and the Map. Thanks to all involved for putting that much of your freetime in!

[Skyfoxx]

Originally posted by TheBug
I think a choice not to be in a GV in a flight sim scenario isn't too much of a stretch.  Beyond that people sign up under the premise that they will be placed according to their preferences but nothing guaranteed.  

My thoughts exactly. It would be nice to have this option. Let them choose plane or GV with the understanding they could end up in ANY plane if they choose to fly.
I rather fly c-47s all day any day than be stuck in a GV. Not that I don't appreciate the fact that many like GVs and are quiet good in them. Some like myself just have no desire for them.
And no one is suggesting a fighter vs fighter scenario, or even doing away with GVs. All we are asking is for an option. If GVs are so popular this shouldn't be a problem.
I didn't start flying scenarios or events yesterday. I remember Ruhr, Midway and countless others quiet well being a huge success.

I commited to four frames of Stalins and I flew or drove in every frame, so no, not eveyone quits when assigned a GV, but was it fun? For me personally, no, most of it wasn't. Will I sign up for the next scenario? If it requires I drive a GV, then no I won't.
With a plane only option I would not hesitate to sign up.

Skyfoxx

[Jaekart]

I am new to participating within Special Events in AH.

While I have yet to register for a Scenario, I agree with some of the previous posts, in that I personally would like a Choice as to whether I was going to participate as a Pilot or as a Vehicle Commander.  Perhaps the Registration process could include the Choice between Flight only (all frames), Mixed GV and Flight in alternating Frames, or GV only (all frames), for the Scenarios that have a need for GV's.

I tend to agree with TheBug's idea, about having the choice to fly, even with reduced lives within a particular frame.  As Tex Stated in an above post, there is an Immersion Factor within a Scenario, Snapshot, FSO, or any Special Event, that make them enjoyable and give us the desire to participate.

With that said, Yes, I have attended a GV only Snapshot, as well as a few Flight Only Snapshots.  I did have fun in the GV snapshot, knowing it was only going to be a one time thing, and limited to only one or two hours at the most.  In that Snapshot, I found out early I was lousy at Tank Fighting, but found a sense of purpose using my lives in an M3 to resupply those that Could Fight in a Tank.  Without finding that sense of purpose and an immersion in accomplishing something, I am sure I would have logged off, and likely ignored any further events that put me into a GV.

As Stated Above, I am new at Scenarios.  I have recently found a Squad ( 880 FAA) that has an intense desire to participate in Special Events.  I intend to participate in any Event My Squad does, as long as Real Life permits me to.

I know that the Planners, CM's, and Frame CO's do a LOT OF WORK in order to bring us something to enjoy and participate in, and Hope you see My Opinions as Constructive, from a New Attendies, point of view.

[Bruno]

Have you notice since gv's start take part of scenarios numbers of people inolved drop to 50%?

The first Aces High Scenario had a large tank component, North Africa / Med.

After that  Norway, Big Week, BoB, Midway and Sicily, Ruhr, Guadalcanal didn't. Okinawa, Niemen and Kurland did.  Those events with the average lowest number of drop outs / players were the Eastern Front events.

These by necessity involved ground vehicles to a much larger degree. You can't build an eastern front event around aircraft alone. I hate GVs myself. In fact during Stalin's Fourth my group, FAF-5, only were in our tanks in frame 1 and only for minutes compared to our time in the air. I understand that for the average scenario player they sign up mostly to fly fighters. Bombers slots rarely fill out and the same goes for ground vehicle. Thus the concept of the the 3 slots per flight, Fighter, Bomber/Jabo, Ground Vehicle.

I brought up on the day registration opened that the registration didn't give those interested in registering enough choices, especially compared to past scenarios. Players are far more likely to participate fully if they are given the option to pick their primary ride.

However, the 3 slot concept is still crucial to most scenarios. I wouldn't have wanted to spend entire 3 hour frames in GVs either. However, the decision to keep folks in GVs all frame isn't so much a part of the scenario design as it is the strategy adopted by the COs. In Stalin's Fourth the fact the allies kept their GVs rolling all frame is what allowed them to 'win'. Without a large GV component Stalin's Fourth would have been impossible. With out the 3 slot concept there would have been very few in ground vehicles and the scenario would have been pointless.

As for multiple live events these are a necessity in order to sustain an event especially when the player numbers are relatively low. In many of the frames our 190s knocked down entire flights of fighters and bombers in the first hour or so of a frame. Combat on this map came fast due to the size of the map. In bomber scenarios multiple lives are for the most part un-doable given that most of these are on larger maps with much longer flight times. On small maps where combat in concentrated numbers would drop off so fast that the event would have petered out long before any objective could have been reached.

So with no GVs, no multiple lives you are left with nothing more then a Squad-Ops. Way back when my squad was one of the first in Squad-Ops. In fact IIRC correctly out of the first three I ended up Co'ing 2 of them. I have Co'ed many a ToD / SO and have planned, Co'ed or served on the command staff of almost half of the AH events. The planning that goes into just one frame of a scenario is far more complicated then any ToD/SO.

All that said I think the objective of those that plan and command scenarios have to think in terms of fun first, winning second. Is it fun to have guys spend entire frames or multiple frames only in GVs? I can only answer that based on my own experience and say no. I make no criticism of how either sides command planned the event. The allies had a solid plan that led them to victory. I can only hope the average allied player was able to find the same level of fun I did. If some of you who spent long periods GV'ing are unhappy I think that is valid but it is not possible to have an event like Stalin's Fourth with out GVs.

If Combat Tour is ever released, and HT still plans on a GV AI, then maybe future scenarios can afford to open up GV slots / flight only for the few that don't mind GV'ing and the rest could be filled out with AI. Same with bombers.

Wotan

[Have]

Originally posted by Bruno
I think the objective of those that plan and command scenarios have to think in terms of fun first, winning second. Is it fun to have guys spend entire frames or multiple frames only in GVs? I can only answer that based on my own experience and say no. [/B]

I couldn't agree more as I spent about 5 hrs and 30 mins of my total 6 hour (frames 1 and 3) scenario time in a GV or manned ack. The 30 mins or so i got to fly a 109 was truly fun, manned ack time just fun/ok and the majority of time in a GV total boredom. I was a part of the design team, just a sidekick really, and objected the strong emphasis of GVs in this scenario very early in the concept phase, but the majority of the design team had a strong view and positive feel about the GVs. So the result was that SF4th had lots and lots of tanks driving around (in a flight sim  ).

I hope that the event was fun for most of the players, but when 90% of frame 3 was spent without seeing a single enemy and shooting down some bridges I would have to lie to say that I was sorry when RL prevented my participation to the frame 4. The lesson that I learned from this scenario was that one should sign to fly the bombers when GVs are around, since bombers will at least see some of the action and most likely will be actually doing some flying instead of sitting in the bushes

[jordi]

To me the biggest difference between scenarios and Squad OPS is that in Squad OPS you are certain to get into a battle ( Unless the CO's really blow the set plan given to them by the CM's ). In a Scenario you never are really sure when and where the fight might take place.

To me this adds to the intensity of the scenario . . . As we head to the next base or target or ship . .. what will we find ? Will the enemy be there ? Will they be somewhere else I am not expecting them ?

The bad part is that there will be times when some people are going to sit around and not see any enemy.

We had a couple of guys sit out at V58 the last hour just to make sure the AXIS did not make a mad dash at the end to try to capture it.

[jordi]

I think what we are ALL trying to say is we need to offer VARIETY.

Be it different types of Scenarios or variety within Scenarios.

In the end each scenario will be of more interest to some and less to others.

[Bruno]

The lesson that I learned from this scenario was that one should sign to fly the bombers when GVs are around, since bombers will at least see some of the action and most likely will be actually doing some flying instead of sitting in the bushes

That's why I made sure to join Kuhlmey since we had the only Stuka / Jabos for the Axis

In Frame 4 we (FAF5) ended up with 75 kills and 47 objects destroyed and didn't sit 'in the bushes' at all... The only GV action we saw was in Frame 1 so my experience through out the event was positive and I had great fun. If I had to spend the event as a 'virtual truck driver' then I guess it would be some what different.

I wonder if the reason GVs are so universally disliked by scenario types is due to how poorly they are done in AH over all. In other games where tanking is more accurately modeled they can be some what fun. Still touring the back roads of Finland maybe appealing in real life, in the virtual world it can get old quickly.