Feedback on Rangoon, '42 (2008)

[Brooke]

This is a topic for pilots who flew in Rangoon, '42 (2008) (which ran in August, 2008) to record their feedback (comments and suggestions).  Please let us scenario CM's know what you liked, what you didn't like, what you'd change, and so on.

One thing to keep in mind when making your suggestions:

Scenarios are put on by player volunteers.  We don't have a large team, and we do these things in our spare time for fun, not as a job.  So suggestions that require a lot more manpower and resources to implement are not as helpful.

We scenario CM's love to play in scenarios, which requires a thriving player base.  So we are interested in what participants have to say and in what would make scenarios ever more popular and fun for the Aces High community.

[Hajo]

Brooke!

As always I enjoyed my short stay in Rangoon....or any scenario for that matter.

Here are a few points that I look for.

What makes a Scenario attractive for me is the depth of the virtual reality.  Proper Aircraft with the proper Groups and Squadrons.
Of course also with the skins to match.  The terrains we get for the Special Events are most times absolutely gorgeous.  I wish some could be added to the Game Arenas.

As to the CM Team.  I only have good words for all.  The CM team does a wonderful job putting on these events.  I also salute those that  aren't members of the CM Staff that design and plan Scenarios.

Now, my biggest gripe is having to substitue aircraft.  Realizing we don't have a complete stable of WWII aircraft for Scenarios I understand why it is done.  But I am not a big fan of seeing Ju88s subbing for Japanese Bombers.  Or SBDs' subbing for Buffalos.  That is not the CM Staffs fault of course, but I'd rather see something made up as I said above with the proper aircraft, skins and terrain.  Matching an exact date in time during the War, with the proper Aircraft and Groups as well as skins is what flips my trigger.  I wish also that weather could be added for the specific dates in History that the Scenario takes place.  It would ground some BGs' and FGs for a frame.  Or those specific BGs and FGs would not be represented in the Scenario.  I know it's complicated.  But I have placed these issues on my wish list.

The more realistic the Scenario can be, the deeper immersion.  With deeper immersion, more fun, and a realization of what really occured ,the more appreciation I have for those young men who unfortunately had to participate. So...gimme the real stuff!  At least the cartoon planes

[MjTalon]

Brooke!

As always I enjoyed my short stay in Rangoon....or any scenario for that matter.

Here are a few points that I look for.

What makes a Scenario attractive for me is the depth of the virtual reality.  Proper Aircraft with the proper Groups and Squadrons.
Of course also with the skins to match.  The terrains we get for the Special Events are most times absolutely gorgeous.  I wish some could be added to the Game Arenas.

As to the CM Team.  I only have good words for all.  The CM team does a wonderful job putting on these events.  I also salute those that  aren't members of the CM Staff that design and plan Scenarios.

Now, my biggest gripe is having to substitue aircraft.  Realizing we don't have a complete stable of WWII aircraft for Scenarios I understand why it is done.  But I am not a big fan of seeing Ju88s subbing for Japanese Bombers.  Or SBDs' subbing for Buffalos.  That is not the CM Staffs fault of course, but I'd rather see something made up as I said above with the proper aircraft, skins and terrain.  Matching an exact date in time during the War, with the proper Aircraft and Groups as well as skins is what flips my trigger.  I wish also that weather could be added for the specific dates in History that the Scenario takes place.  It would ground some BGs' and FGs for a frame.  Or those specific BGs and FGs would not be represented in the Scenario.  I know it's complicated.  But I have placed these issues on my wish list.

The more realistic the Scenario can be, the deeper immersion.  With deeper immersion, more fun, and a realization of what really occured ,the more appreciation I have for those young men who unfortunately had to participate. So...gimme the real stuff!  At least the cartoon planes

For intense, the DGS back in October 06-07. That was the best scenario we had because it combined pretty much of everything that hajo explained above. ( besides the weathering grounding squadrons. )

  i missed ragoon since i was still at military school but i won't miss BoB 08 HOPEFULLY.

[Brooke]

I, too, very much like aircraft and conditions that were as close as possible to historical.

For Rangoon, the scenario CM's discussed for quite a while whether or not to try what would be the best historical match of aircraft.  That would be Hurri I's, P-40B's, and F4F-4 (4 gun, as the F2A) for the allies; and D3A's (for the Ki-27), A6M2's (as the Ki-43), and Ju 88's (as the Sally) for the Japanese.

We didn't do that for a variety of reasons this time, but even for the future, my biggest concern is attendance for the IJAAF side if a lot of its fighters are D3A's.

For folks (like me) who enjoy the most-historical mix of aircraft possible, do you think we'd get enough players if the IJAAF had a lot of D3A's?

[Brooke]

Another question I'm particularly interested in people's opinions on is the altitude caps.

I know the 12k unless icon or icon on icon was confusing to some, has issues with player compliance, etc.

We don't have the ability to take away pilot's GPS instruments (the clipboard map) or freeze people if their AH airplane is up too high or in cases of IJAAF take away oxygen if their airplane is too high.  So, we can't have some of the things that caused airplanes to fly lower than people would fly them in AH.

We could just specify that the bombers fly at 10k, put in a downwind at 16k, and call it good.  Of course, all fighters would be flying around at 16k the whole time, mashed up against the alt cap, but perhaps that's better than what we had (although it might give an even more artificial feel to things? -- I don't know).

We could put in a lot of clouds.  The problem there is that, with GPS, planes have no problem flying around in clouds and not running the risk of getting lost.  Still, maybe somewhat complicated assortments of clouds such that you can't see bombers at 10k if you are higher than about 13k might work.  The issue is that you could have a scouting group at 13k to spot and the rest of your squadron up at 16k in the gloom and still all keep together with use of that GPS and have the advantage of still being able to spot the bombers and still be able to jump the defending fighters.  Of course, some defending fighters could be up in the gloom.  It would be a gloom arms race with lots of fighter spending a lot of time flying around in the soup.

Anyway, what do people think of various ways to encourage or enforce more-realistic altitudes in the presence of GPS and perfect oxygen and heaters?

[Denber]

Another question I'm particularly interested in people's opinions on is the altitude caps.

At 1st I didnt object to it. It was something to get used to. I do have my concerns though, on how this rule is/was can be enforced. But if everyone sticks to it, it should work.

However seeing that apparently the server (or frontend or whatever) can only handle 32 planes at one time, and you simply dont see the rest, this gave us Japs a huge disadvantage. We often fly in swarms, way more then 32. We often came under attack by dots popping up well above 12k altitude, and I was in the impression they were either 'cheating' this rule or had 1 lone plane following us on the deck or something. We never seen them, and they were able to see us and climb up was something I was puzzled about for a long time. Now I realise they simply spot us way sooner then we can spot them. They fly in smaller groups, and can spot dots further out. We fly in large groups, and can only spot dots when they get very close.

I prefer we ditch this rule in next scenarios and simply use 1 hard deck. It will also prevent the jojo effect.

[BoilerDown]

I don't know what the limitations of the arenas are... I thought I heard at one point that winds can only be deployed at even thousands of altitude, for example, and that's why the downwind was set at 16k instead of 15k.

Assuming its possible, I'd suggest having the full downwind at 16k, half that amount at 14k, and half again (one quarter) at 12k.  Then let people decide for themselves if its "worth" going above 12k or above 14k.

Or to make it simpler, just have the full downwind set at 14k instead of 16k, and let people fly at whatever alt they want.  Most will probably fly at 13.9k, which limits their upward mobility... but so what?  Its better than thinking the other side is cheating when you see someone up that high.

About aircraft selection, I definitely think it was a good idea to go away from historical planesets in order to assure that people will actually sign up for both sides.  As it was, the Axis were plagued by no-shows, and we didn't have our intended ratio of aircraft.  I think it was in large part because people weren't interested in flying A6M2s.  Historically, I suppose the scenario designers "should" have made it into a "turkey shoot" for the Allies, with hordes of sub-par Japanese planes in the air so that every Ally pilot could become a scenario ace.  But lets face it, that's only fun for the Allies.

Another problem I think started from re-opening registration a couple times.  I think this really diluted the players that would take it seriously enough to show up all four frames with people that just wanted to have a spot reserved, even if they could only make it once or twice.  I think it also made it so that there wouldn't be enough walk-ons to fill out the rosters.  I think a scenario should have a designed of pilots for each side and not get expanded.  Maybe after that make a "preferred walk-on" list if there's the demand.  But a scenario that has the numbers skewed one way or the other instead of the correct ratio thanks to no-shows and not enough walk-ons has a serious problem.

That's all I got, Rangoon '08 was my first scenario and it was a lot of fun.  I probably won't sign up for BoB because its football season and the dates will certainly conflict with tailgates / home games.  But I hope I can at walk-on to one or two frames at least.

[gpwurzel]

Enjoyed Rangoon immensely - aside from a couple of gripes (which were basically me whining as I'm an easy kill).

Had to do all 4 frames as a walk-on as work has a horrible tendency to interfere if I have anything planned - so wasnt willing to take a spot I wasnt sure I could fill.

Had no trouble with getting a place - flew with my squaddies for every frame - what could be better than that.


(oh, and if your putting the spit v in BOB'08- can I have one please.....lol)


<S> to all the staff who put this together, ran it and made it so much fun (and my apologies for whining)

Wurzel

[Easyscor]

Dantoo and I had a long discussion about this after frame 4. The icon aspect was definitely a problem that caused complaints within the rank and file. No-one can say for sure that the rule was complied with, or broken, and I have numerous films that show one or more opponents up around 14k when no other friendlies were detectable in the area, but that doesn't mean they were breaking the rule.

Although we disagreed on execution, from our discussion, we'd both recommend sever wind be used at the stated altitude cap with a solid cloud layer, and that the icon range aspect be done away with. He was for the maximum down draft while I'm for a maximum updraft with maximum horizontal element, break the rule and you're done. I disagree with the statement that if it's 14k, everyone will fly at 13.9k. I hope that's true, because that would require flat turns from my opponents, which would not be an advantage for most planes.

[Brooke]

I think that a 14k downwind would result in everyone flying at 14k until they lose alt in combat.  Even if they want some vertical, instead of flying at 13k (or 13.5k) to have room, it would be better upon seeing the enemy to dive from 14k to create the room.  I think it would be just like how folks do in in the DA.  If there's an alt cap set, they are at it, although they might dive just before engagement.

This is not to say that having just a downwind alt cap is not the way to go.

[Brooke]

Also, folks, how would you rate Rangoon against other scenario designs on how fun it is?

And, in addition to what you didn't like about Rangoon (things you'd change to make it more fun), what did you particularly like?

For me, frame 4 was particularly exciting and fun.  I liked it because it involved a very exciting fight into and out of Rangoon, where I think everyone got to participate and where it was hard fought on both sides.

The strong points of Rangoon seem to be:
-- A high probability that you will see action.
-- It has none of the less-popular roles (transport, manning ground guns or fleets, etc.).
-- For a side to do well, it usually means that the majority of pilots played an important part and executed well.
-- There are no complaints about it being an altitude arms race, with too many planes being at 40k.

[leitwolf]

I think the alt cap in this scenario (although I dont like it in principle) is essential for the balance of this scenario. That said, it could be easier (a simple hard cap; no "IF <arbitrary condition> THEN go higher") and it should be enforced by extreme downwind and cloud layer, no penalties for going over it. I hate being punished for doing a simple loop when the plane is perfectly capable of doing it.

Plane/Icon visibility was a big issue. Due to the nature of this event (only one target to attack) I don't see how clustering can be avoided. My suggestion would be to limit the number in the event to the amount in the initial writeup. It helps both with planes coming out of hyperspace and filling ranks on the axis side (e.g. if we are short we don't need to find 20 people, just 10). Maybe the bombers on the allied side could be brought back again, and a spot the axis has to defend (to spread planes). It's a further "what-if", but not completely unreasonable if a carrier like the Zuikaku makes a short guest appearance as both potential target and origin of the Navy planes.

I strongly advise not to use the Val as a fighter for Japan. As an escort fighter it would suck so bad it wouldn't be funny. The Zero has plenty of low speed maneuverability advantage over most allied planes as it is, but even with the Zeros speed advantage over the D3A it was very hard to fend the allies off. On top of that, nobody wanted to fly a Zeke.. we had empty planes in spades, and that's going to be worse if all the axis side can offer are vals.

All in all, I think it's a well balanced and fun event 

[Dantoo]

On alt cap:

This particular scenario has a valid reason for an altitude cap.  The current method is totally broken.  I am willing to bet Leitwolf and Bearkats spent way too much of their time dealing with complaints of the order "They're always 16K; They are climbing before contact; They're doing it so I'm going to do it too".

This causes distraction and dissatisfaction.  It is not a rule that a CO shouldn't enjoy an event.  There shouldn't be rules that prevent a CO from enjoying an event.

My strong feeling is that where arena settings can provide a boundary then use them and forget the use of complex player monitored bounds. Put a downwind of sufficient force at 14k that it makes it extremely difficult to make any headway when climbing at max.  Put an upwind of such force at 16K that it takes you to the moon without respite if you go up there.  Put a cloud layer with it.

These settings would allow a small local transgression of 14k whilst afk or even fighting.  It would stop someone from journeying above that level however.  A total loser who goes above 16K for any reason totally loses.

Other points:
I believe the best way to make sure that players have the right plane fit out, departure field etc.. is for FLs to use missions.  This is especially useful if you are taking walk ons (they usually don't even know what side they're on let alone what and how to fly).  You can't post missions if the arena is in the dark.  Can we avoid that please.  Also there is a need to be wary of the clock so if the CM changes the time there can be repercussions if a mission is already posted.

I totally love the idea of each side having a fully empowered CM flying.  This allows a CO to instantly remove a disruptive troll if it ever becomes necessary.  (Some of those walk ons ........sheeeeesh).

Let's all put in and buy a stick of RAM for the server!  There are lag issues that occur in the SEA that do not occur elsewhere.  I'm not talking of the icon limitation.  Both sides had the strange phenomenon of planes "uncloaking" around them.  Now I'm used to Snibbo telling me "Hey that guy wasn't there 1 second ago, he just appeared behind me", but this time he actually had a point.  I honestly don't believe it was an out of control problem that caused major upset, in fact it was sort of funny, but if we can encourage HTC to upgrade the darn server it won't hurt.

The SEA and especially scenarios bring out the very best experience that you can have in AH. At times it's almost extreme.  If there was ever a bigger furball in AH history than that which occurred in frame 3 just south of Rangoon, I've certainly never heard of it.

[Roscoroo]

just for you guy's info : We did not penalize for the alt infractions (we called those a wash) .

  we will try just the wind/cloud thing at a fair alt to keep the fight below the need of O2 .  The Buffs will stay/use the correct /actual Alts , and will be open for penalty when violated.

For the server/what the hell issue.
Another usable option is a weather factor ... Fog,heavy cloud groupings, rain type sky, ect .
This might help in the dot/icon/ 32 plane tracking issue . (hopefully this will get discussed at the Con )

we have some good comments here , keep em coming .

[Krusty]

Wind doesn't work properly in AH. No aerodynamics involved, just straight linear motion.

I would suggest cloud layers and fog so thick you can't see through the clouds....

However, that leaves an "out" for all attackers and victims as a way to avoid a fight.


Oh, and DGS had a limit of how many cons (bombers) could be in an area because of the lag and dots issue. Rangoon had no such limitation. On the MANY occasions allies ran into a giant horde of 50+ planes we couldn't get an ID on them or even spot them until the last second. The Bomber formations flew right past me in 2 frames and I never saw them (frames 2 and 4) despite looking exactly where my wingmen were. Full graphics, FPS pegged in the high 50s.... Still the game couldn't display all the dots properly.

There may be need of some sort of limitation for planes in one area. Perhaps put friendly collisions on at the 45 minute mark? See all those japanese crash into each other and have no opposition keeping us from the bombers