Idea for next Scenario

[jordi]

Meanwhile - back to Future Scenario design . . .

[Roscoroo]

Originally posted by jordi
Meanwhile - back to Future Scenario design . . .

shush ... we're busy Looting "Roc's stall"

[Have]

Originally posted by Brooke
Longbow in Air Warrior was a three-part 18-frame event.  

18-frame event??

So what was the setting/description of that (too)Longbow event? I Couldn't find anything but a gazillion links to the Apache Longbow from google

[anRky]

Originally posted by Have
18-frame event??

So what was the setting/description of that (too)Longbow event? I Couldn't find anything but a gazillion links to the Apache Longbow from google

Looked for some of my longbow stuff, couldn't find too much.  I know I have some long e-mails about spits and drop tanks stored around here somewhere... : )

Here's a map I found, it gives a pretty good hint of the theme.
http://www.domogarden.com/Mark/FR4-MAP1.jpg

[Flossy]

Longbow was a brilliant scenario, not too long.... I loved every minute of it!  It was 3 phases of 6 frames each, with 2 of each set of 6 being played on weekday nights, so I could only get to 4 of each phase.  When it ended I felt like part of my life was missing.  

[BlauK]

This discussed GV-boredom was not something intended in the design of the scenario. One of the major goals was to allow action. That is why teh ride resources were increased from 4 rides to 5 rides... we just did not know how much losses would be suffered.. obviously we expected much more losses. The resources concept was also thought to help balance a possible over or under manned situation between sides.

The original concept was that capturing a V-base would require jabos (IL-2:s) to kill the acks and shore batteries and only then the tanks could roll in and fight the enemy tanks.
The first blow against this was that SBs did nto work, they were removed.
Then at some point the ack lethality was reduced so much that the tanks could pretty much just roll in.
Finally the homebase relocation rule prevented the withdrawing axis to move in proper bases on a pretty wide front so that there would be more fighting instead of capturing empty bases.

Had there been more GV losses, many players would probably have received more air time as well. Then again, maybe those GV losses would have made people feel bad... It is simply very difficult to find a proper balance.

Anyhow, the GVs were a MUST for this kind of scenario. They keep the fight at low and enable base captures. They were also required for the historical aspect. The fights and proper balance of time spent in GVs vs in air just did not get realized... partly because of setup and rule faults and partly because of leadership decisions (each unit always had at least 2 planes per player... but possibly bigger gv losses would have required rotaing units even during one frame).

I myself would have hated to see simply counting points (instead of land grabbing) e.g. for killing jabo targets in 4 predefined (strictly historical) terrain setups and fror killing enemy planes, and then announcing the results in the end like some sports season scores. In such scenarios the individual player has no idea what is going on and some trivial numbers as an end result are hardly satisfactory.

If this scenario is run again some day.. at least the the following issues have to be reconsidered:
- smaller ride resources.
- no free M3s.
- ack lethality (if 1.0 works at MA, why not in scenarios as well).
- more mobility for the defending side.. after all they have to react to attackers moves. Ability to withdraw teh homebases faster (further or even free)). Each defending unit could either have 2 GV homebases or each unit would be completely split into 2 smaller units (= same amount of units at both sides, but axis units have 1/2 strength).
- object downtimes, hardnesses, etc to suit and balance the above changes.


Still... I am glad that at least some people enjoyed the scenario.. or at least some moments of it

[Tilt]

Maybe not the place.....but

A tank will always be more suited to knocking out clustered gguns than an IL2 / Ju87. A tank can take more  hits  so what ever you set the ggun lethality to this applies.

To push the dependancy away from gv based ordinance you need to reduce it.

Hence severely limit the use of tanks (only 1 or 2per  group and only single life)and simulate infantry via M3's and jeeps and simulate fixed defensive positions by use of gguns.

Leave M3's (and now Jeeps) and LVT2's as multiple (free) lives.

Now put in 4 or 5 times the ggun stations at each field at even lower lethality (say.25) but normal arena hardness.

Make gguns recover quite quickly. 10 / 15 minutes

Double or treble the maproom hardness.

Remove town objects.

Give the pure attack aircraft multiple lives.

Give the fighter/bombers one life.

Allow gv's multiple rear bases but no front line base. (quicker spawning)

This way Attack aircraft are essential to secure base preparation as there are insufficient tanks to do this.


a field defended by 15/20/30 gguns each with an lethality of a .303 means the jabos have to work for a period  cutting a way through for the troops and so attract a conflict at that point as interceptors arrive...requiring screen fighters etc. we get a furbal low down rather than a ground war and rather than "alt warrior"

Mass troop spawns will be required to "rush" some gguns not yet killed.

[MAG1C]

I haven't seen the Axis forum yet (I thought that the forums for both sides would be opened and viewable for all by now), so my comments may be premature but I have a few suggestions for improvements if this scenario is run again (say a year or two from now):

1) Without making any other changes, I think the scenario would be a greater challenge for the Allied side, and level the playing field,  if it was reduced to 3 frames from 4.

2) As an alternative to reducing the number of frames, reduce the playing time per frame to 2 hours.  The effect of reducing the frame time would be to slow the Allied advance (balancing the game more).  Three hours (3 1/2 if you include the set up time) is also a big time commitment on the lives of many people .  We might get more interested players if we had shorter frames.  

3) Try to find some way to simplify the multiple life spawn rules.  I think some players had a hard time grasping the concept that if your airplane is badly damaged and you make a forced landing at any field but your own home field, you need to return to your home field to draw a replacement aircraft from the reserves (the same goes for vehicles).  Even if one understood the rule, MA habits made it easy to accidently spawn at the wrong field.

[Roscoroo]

I think the auto fld ack leathality is to light in the MA ... or its just that it cant hit anything anymore...  Its way weaker here in AH2  vs that deady stuff in AH1 .

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Bruno


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

It makes my skin crawl when I agree with Wotan. But that's my biggest hope. Those who WANT GVs can have them, the computer can fill out the rest. That's my pie in the sky dream for now.

-Sik

[jordi]

I think if you had COMBINED GV/ Air battles like we had at 55/73 and 57/58 no one would be bored either on the ground and in the air.

It took the allies almost an HOUR to capture 73 from 55. That was with 2 VVS units on the ground and another in the air.

It took another hour between the capture of 57 and then 58. That was with 2 1/2 VVS units on the ground and another in the air.

If this had been the types of battles everywhere over the 3 hours it would have been great.

But if it takes the ATTACKERS an hour to capture a defended Base and then the defenders could fall back and defend the next base then the victory conditions would need to be radically changed.  The attackers might advance 2 to 4 bases deep per frame. Just getting to and captureing 55 would be tuff over 4 frames !

But if the designers look at the logs and see how the battles at 73 and 57/58 they would get a good idea on what worked and the balance needed on both sides.

[BlauK]

Jordi,
I am glad to hear that such fights took place. The premise for that kind of fight is that the 2 opposing forces actually meet. The rule mistakes were in some cases preventing the action, but we just did not know better at that time. Many things were just guesses and approximate estimations.
I have no idea what you had against you in those fights... equal force or something else. In the future designs more attention (IMHO) has to be put to encourage and cause such clashes

[Brooke]

OK, everyone, I promise this is my last off-topic post on this issue, but I feel compelled to comment this one last time.

Originally posted by TheBug
Opinions can not be wrong, it's not up to you to decide that.  It is a fact of the English language.

Yes, opinions can be wrong; and, no, "an opinion can't be wrong" is not a fact of the English language.

Now, I don't expect you to take my word for it.  I'm just a person.  However, there is an accepted ultimate authority on the meaning of English words.  It is not a newspaper column or Wikipedia (which, although I admire it, is quite fallible).  It is the the Oxford English Dictionary.

From the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition:


Opinion, n.

1. As a count noun: a view held about a particular issue; a judgement formed or a conclusion reached; a belief; a religious or political conviction. Formerly (also): a plan, an intention (obs.).
2.    a. What is thought of a person by others; the (esp. good) estimation in which one stands; reputation (of being such, or of possessing some quality). Obs.
b. Report, rumour. Obs.
3. a. With specifying adjective, as common, general, public, vulgar, etc. A judgement, belief, or conviction held by the majority of or many people; what is generally thought about something. See also opinion poll, opinion survey, sense 7.
b. More generally: what or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief. Esp. in in my opinion: according to my thinking; as it seems to me. a matter of opinion: a matter about which each may have his or her own opinion; a disputable point.
c. to be of (the) opinion (that): to hold the belief or view; to think (that). Also with further syntactic variation.
d. Public or general opinion.
4. A formal statement by a judge or other competent authority of what he or she judges or advises on a matter; professional advice; as a legal (also medical) opinion, to get an opinion of counsel, etc. In a second (also another) opinion: the opinion of a second (esp. medical) expert or adviser. Also in transferred and extended uses.
 5.    a. Favourable estimate of oneself; conceit, arrogance; self-confidence. Obs. rare.
b. spec. A good or favourable estimate of someone or something; esteem. Esp. in to have no (great) opinion of: to regard as inferior or unworthy.
c. What one thinks of a person or thing; an estimate of character, quality, or value.
6. Thought of what is likely to be the case, knowledge; expectation based on knowledge or belief. Obs.


It does not say that opinions can't be wrong.  It does not use that as a defining element of all things called "opinion."

Like any other belief or judgment, it depends on the content.  An opinion can be disputable or unprovable one way or the other and thus neither right nor wrong (such as the opinion that the color green is nice), can be wrong (such as the opinion that 4 / 2 = 17), can be right, or can be indeterminate at one time but proven right or wrong at a later time when more information is known (such as the opinion that the sun revolves around the earth).

OK, that's it from me on the topic.  I don't mean to point all of this out in any mean-spirited way.  I wanted just to point out that not all opinions are, by definition, outside the bounds of being judged right or wrong.

[TheBug]

If it's shown to be wrong it's not an opinion.  You're struggling with this aren't you?  It is impossible to prove an opinion wrong.  If somebody's statement is proven to be wrong then it can't really be an opinion can it?  It is a case of somebody making a mistake, being ignorant, misspeaking.

Jeez you're really not that thick are you?

Only the claim that something is an opinion can be proven wrong.

In my opinion blue is the best color  <-- can't be proven wrong very clearly an opinion

In my opinion 4/2=17 <-- Very easily proven wrong, therefore not an opinion, but an uneducated statement or a lie.

Calling it an opinion doesn't make it an opinion, being impossible to prove false is a factor in determining whether or not something is an opinion or not.

[Brooke]

The fight from 57 to 58 was very fun for me.  We faced Panzers and a lot of FW 190's and Bf 109's.  Each time the bridge was up, a wave of attackers would go across, then the bridge would be destroyed, and the wave of attackers that got across would get eventually destroyed.  Each time, each wave took out more and more at 58 until we finally captured it.

There are maybe a couple of things I'd adjust with the rules of Stalin's Fourth:  I'd make the spawn rules not rely on player enforcement, perhaps by enabling vehicles at only certain bases as the event rolled forward; and I'd adjust ground-vehicle deployment so that only half the squads have ground vehicles available in a frame, then the other half have ground vehicles available in the next frame, and so on.

I'd also be interested in trying it as a two-stage event, where people battle it out, then they switch sides and do it again.  For this, it would probably need to be modified to be 3 frames per stage.