Scenarios are not MA, so cut the crap.

[batch]

it all boils down to a few simple questions

is anybody in charge around here??
you said you asked these guys to knock it off "several times"......   then have them booted.... if someone was disrespectful to you or brooke they would be gone within 10 seconds........ yet you tell them "several" times to stop breaking rules and thats enough?   what about the greater good of the scenario?

same crap every scenario lately it seems...... and Im not saying its not on both sides... cause Im sure theres enough crap to go around

Its pretty simple really.. who is in charge...... and what are they doing?

Everytime I say this someone comes back with how much time and effort and how busy those in charge are........... well I believe they are correct..... those in charge do seem to put ALOT of time and effort into making things go well in these scenarios.... Im sure brooke works his arse off and he deserves much respect for that..........

but what good does all the work do if during the event itself nobody seems to know wtf is going on? and nobody seems to have the power to stop the antics

not pointing fingers at any direction just venting a point........ maybe if those in charge werent so busy flying around and getting caught up in their individual moments....... perhaps theyd have time to actually be in charge...... since thats the reason theyre there

[gpwurzel]

Good points Batch, wont get an argument from me there. Unfortunately tho, the CO cant be everywhere, and see everything (and yes, you are very very busy as the CO - no excuse, just the way it is)

Krusty, understand mate, was just clarifying a couple of things is all fella..


Wurzel

[Brooke]

Folks, let me explain the context of the end-of-frame ruckus.  I hope that folks on each side can see the context and find it in them not to get too wrapped up in the end of frame 4.

In terms of points and outcome of the scenario, frame 4 was decided at the 1 hour mark when the allies sank the Shoho.  At that point, both the Shoho and Shokaku were sunk, and the Port Moresby invasion was denied.  Even if the IJN sank both the Yorktown and Lexington, it would not change the outcome from being an allied strategic and full tactical victory.

Also, at this point, the IJN had not yet found any US CV's, and the destroyers (remnants of c34 or c35) were right up on the last IJN carrier.  This is not illegal -- the rules do not prohibit it at all (more on rules thoughts later).  But it was so close that planes on final approach and right on takeoff were being fired on by ack from the destroyers.  IJN pilots shot out all of the ack on all of the destroyers, but that left the indestructible puffy ack still going.

I know and you know that puffy ack is more of an annoyance in this scenario since lethality is turned down.  But it is hugely annoying when you are trying to land or take off, and IJN planes are more vulnerable to critical ack damage, even at low lethality.

Another half hour went by, the IJN still hadn't found US cv's, IJN pilots still had nothing to go attack, the frame was already long since decided on point measures, puffy ack was still pounding away at anyone around our one remaining cv, and I started seeing angry comments by players on ch 2 radio saying they were logging and not coming back because of the *%$$^&% puffy ack.

Since the IJN started with 18 fewer players than the allies (a bunch of IJN pilots clearly didn't bother to show up), I sent a PM to Oneway explaining that all ack was shot out on those DD's and only puffy was left -- could I destroy the DD's?  He graciously agreed to let me do that.  I destroyed all the DD's and then checked if that got rid of the puffy ack.  It didn't.  (In AH, a TG with all sunk ships will still send up puffy ack -- it's a game mechanics thing -- but I wasn't positive on that until I checked.)  I explained this aspect to Oneway and he further graciously agreed to back the task group off.

Meanwhile, with nothing else to go attack, some frustrated IJN pilots were taking out buildings at 63, deciding that they'd go capture it.  Like DD near CV's, this is not prohibited by the rules (and again more on rules later).  It doesn't add any points, and it does use up aircraft that otherwise could be searching, protecting the remaining CV, or being ready in case we find the enemy CV, but it's not prohibited.

Finally, at the 1.5 hour mark, we found the US cv's.   At this point, though, the IJN was very low on numbers.  We tried to get together a strike force to go hit a US cv.  While we were doing that, a US strike came in and sank the Zuikaku, last of the IJN carriers.  We had a very hard time getting a handful of pilots to join our one shot at a strike.  We spent half an hour and got 1 scout, 2 Zeros and about 5 D3A's to a group of about 8 B5N's in our daring band.  None of us expected that to get through to two US cv's, with radar up and F4F's about, but as representatives of the Emperor, we felt it our duty to try.  We, um, didn't make it.  Just as bad, I was on that strike and didn't even once yell "Banzai!" while tangling with the F4F's.

By then, the base capture folks had taken 30.

Right after I was down, I PM'ed Wurzel, asking him if we could we call it early -- that was our last shot at a strike.  He agreed.  I PM'ed Oneway and told him that the allies had the win fully in the bag and if he'd be OK calling it early.  He said OK after a final TBM strike.  I waited for them to sink the cruiser they were after, then called "end of hostilities".

In the meantime, the capture folks did take p13.  I thought it was obvious that it didn't at all count, as Shoho was long since dead and as I PM'ed Oneway and told him the allies had it all sewn up.

What I didn't realize is that some folks were very agitated, thinking that p13 capture did matter or that the other base captures mattered in points (which they absolutely do not).

I understand folks' irritation at hostilities not ending at my "end hostilities" call.  I repeated my calls.  I also made it clear that Team Alpha could take as much time as it wanted to land, and I did finally (after finishing being distracted by all the PM's I got with people swearing at me) get around to setting all coastal bases to bish ownership once I realized there were still IJN at a3.  For good measure, I gave the allies some extra points in case any of their planes were shot down after "end hostilities".

So, that's the scoop.  There were no conspiracies by me or rules violations (as far as I see) by the CO's.

[Brooke]

OK, now on to rules.

One thing to keep in mind with rules is that there might be things intended but not written, and there might be things not considered and thus not written, and in the end, it's about what the rules specifically say.  Just like in legal contracts.

DD's near CV's are not precluded.  However, what was not envisoned in the rules is that task groups would get right up into each other's face and that puffy ack stays even if all the ack is shot out and even if the ships are all sunk.  What I wish is that puffy ack would die if a ship dies and that we could set hardness of DD's to be different from hardness of cruisers -- but HTC would have to change game code for it, so that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

This is a thing we'll have to ponder on how to fix for the next set of rules if Coral Sea is run again.

IJN being able to capture bases (even after Port Moresby is denied) is not precluded.  It wasn't precluded because it didn't occur to me (and no one else pointed it out to me) that the IJN would bother to take any bases other than p13.  So, when I wrote the early cancellation part, I made it about Port Moresby not even thinking to make it about anything else.

This is easy to fix in the next rules set, though -- just change cancellation to be of any and all invasion, not just Port Moresby.

There are several other changes to the rules I would recommend if Coral Sea were to run again.  The above are a couple.  I would also think about:  using Ju 88's instead of Ki 67's (too hard to make Ki 67's like Betties), get rid of being able to land at any base at the end of the scenario (too exploitable by the allied side, which can launch a late strike from way out, then land in the PM area), have LVT deaths count not for used up lives but for points (so IJN can't use infinite LVT's without it mattering and so that calculation of score doesn't require a custom-written log parser or tedious manual crawling through logs), alter the way invasion is cancelled (as it is now, IJN could lose every ship but Shoho and still invade, maybe also make Shoho identifiable somehow such as by TG composition), and perhaps others.

[Brooke]

but what good does all the work do if during the event itself nobody seems to know wtf is going on? and nobody seems to have the power to stop the antics

People know what's going on, and people (CM's) have the following command at their disposal:  ".eject playername".

Different CM's have different styles.  This is mine.  Before I eject someone for doing something wrong, I need to be certain that the particular person is doing something wrong and that I warn the person that if he doesn't stop, he will be ejected.  In the case of someone not ending hostilities, I would need to find and ID the person doing it.  To find the person, I would need to use god's eye mode, go to the field in question, zoom around until I find the person doing it, observe to make sure I have the right guy, then eject him, and move on to the next guy.

Or, I can adjust for it after the frame with a points penalty, possibly with benefit of the log.

Usually, the 2nd way is more effective, but I consider which to use based on circumstances at the time.

not pointing fingers at any direction just venting a point........ maybe if those in charge werent so busy flying around and getting caught up in their individual moments....... perhaps theyd have time to actually be in charge...... since thats the reason theyre there

You mean that finger -- the one pointed directly at me (since I was the only one in charge of running the scenario)? Or do you mean the finger pointed at any CO that flies in the scenario?

For my part, with regard to the end of frame 4, I was already done flying.  Anyway, I concede that I did not best handle those final 15 or so minutes of the 1080 minutes in total I have spent running the four frames of Coral Sea 2009.  In fact, there are other imperfections during those 1080 minutes.  But, I did my best at the time, and that's how it turned out.

perhaps theyd have time to actually be in charge...... since thats the reason theyre there

Actually, the reason I am here is because I'm a volunteer who likes scenarios.  For me, I feel that I can CM a scenario acceptably (not perfectly, but acceptably) and play in it as well.  If I were precluded from flying in scenarios because I am helping to run them, that would be like being penalized for helping out -- I would cease to volunteer my time.

Regarding CO's flying, when I have been a CO in the past, I have always flown -- but some do fly and some don't.  It depends on the CO.  Most of them fly (more fun) and some (like me) feel it actually is better that way (as they are eyes on with some part of the action).  CO's are players who step up to do a lot of work and shoulder a lot of responsiblity and stress to help make scenarios happen.  Without them, there would be no scenarios.  It is a job that not many are willing to accept and for which even fewer are suited.  CO's need to be given some latitude to enjoy the scenario (such as by flying in it) or to participate how they see best (also such as by flying in it), even if it's not in a way considered optimal by all players.

So, could CM's (or at least I) and CO's do more-perfect jobs of policing players?  Sure.  No argument there.  But precluding CM's or CO's from flying in them would have the consequence of fewer CM's (at last by one) and fewer CO's (probably by half).

Everything has tradeoffs.

[OOZ662]

I'd like to note to you, Brooke, that the destroyed TG wasn't ABLE to back off for a very long time after you asked it to. I kid you not, it was like you guys started shadowing me, and you couldn't tell because my ships were gone.
You'll note that, at the time of destroying all the ships in C34, C35 was less than half a sector away. I went over and visually verified that those 5" guns were firing. I drove her due to Moresby to get her away.

So, if the ack actually stopped at some point, it proves a dead fleet has no ack. I seriously couldn't get here out of the way!

[Twizzty]

Thanks guys, my second life off 52 lasted...4 seconds. 

[Brooke]

Actually, I did some testing and found that puffy ack does go away when the ships sink (as seems much more fitting with expectations).  So, the sunk DD's weren't the ones doing it and whether that DD fleet could get away or not made no difference.  The puffy then was from the other, farther-away DD group, and Team Alpha apparently subsequently moved that one away, too -- which again they weren't obligated to do.

Folks, the problem here as I have explained is not with Team Alpha.  They moved surface fleets to enemy CV's -- as any command would do -- even Team Zulu, which did that in frame 2.  In fact, it is what some of the fleets are there for.  In the real battle, Crace's ships were there to see if they could do that and get into surface combat with the IJN fleets.  Furthermore, Team Alpha graciously agreed to let the close-in DD fleet be sunk.  That was nice of them, as they didn't have to agree to that.

The problem is that the game and rules mechanics need adjustment if Coral Sea runs in the future.  You can't disallow surface fleets being sent to intercept CV fleets (as that would be an unrealistic, undesirable restriction).  The problem is that DD hardness and cruiser hardness are the same in the game, and so we can't make DD's a lot easier to sink without making cruisers likewise easier to sink.  We'll have to ponder how to deal with that.  Sink DD fleets once the cruiser is down?  That's sort of harsh.  Destroy all puffy ack on DD's once cruiser is down.  That might be workable and might be the way to go.

[oneway]

MY THREE CENTS:

1)

The use of the dead CA group was not intended harass or engage the aircraft...it was meant to mark Zuikaku's location for the incoming strike groups...when Brooke PM'd me and asked to destroy the ships to stop the ack, I gave him the CA number and he killed the DD of Chicago. Australia still had boats and they continued to fire so I gave the go ahead to kill DD on 35...that didn't work so he requested we move them away. We immediately turned the boats far west ...270.

Much to our surprise, Zulu then immediately turned its boat West as well, and ironically in the context of this discussion began launching aircraft...the obvious choice for us at the time was to turn 270...figuring that Zuikaku would be turned 090 to launch and recover aircraft.

We then turned the remnants of Australia  and Chicago 215 and that was the end of that. Once we were clear but still within visual range of Zuikaku, we turned Chicago around and began matching Zuikaku tack for tack shadowing her to the South West...maintaining the use of Chicago as forward observation point.

When Zuikaku went down about 15 minutes later, we abandoned Chicago all together.

Strip you can get off your tall white horse...you were one of the Gunners on the Chicago group that when shot out upped a TBM from Yorktown and used Chicago as beacon for an attack on Zuikaku...twice.

2)

The Zulu nonsense that transpired not in the last 20 minutes, but the last 90 minutes , though repugnant was inconsequential and didn't bother me all that much, and in fact elevated the stature of Alpha in my mind in terms of player conduct.

It did anger many of Alpha Command...and down right pissed a few of them off to the point of hollering...they were furious. The loudest were the Veteran Scenario Players with many years participating.

Let me explain something very very clearly

As Commanding Officer for Team Alpha, the moment I would have been made aware of such shenanigans on the part of Alpha, I would have dispatched 1-2 pilots to hunt down who on our side were the violators, ascertained their identities and would have had all of them ejected immediately. I wouldn't even give them a warning. If 1-2 pilots wasn't enough, then more would be sent. The perpetrators would have been identified and removed from the arena...immediate court martial...sentence death.

At 15:22 Shoho went down and the invasion was canceled. At this point, the commanders of the invasion fleet should have withdrawn to the North East. I don't know who had command if anyone of those groups, but Alpha assigned command of its fleets at the beginning of the frame and those players maintained control of those groups until the frame ended. Orders should have been issued to sail North East.

40 minutes later at 16:02, 90 minutes before frame end, A63 map room fell to player Sniper30 who towered out at 63 and much to his surprise I am sure, found that vehicles were disabled.

This same player then mounted an 8 inch gun on C56 and shelled V30...when C56 was close enough he mounted an LVT and took map room V30 at 16:22 taking only 10 minutes from LVT launch to capture. C56 was a stones throw from the beach.

This same player then remounted the guns on C56 and began shelling A14 and P13...once again C56 was driven north. At 16:46 P13 fell and again to Sniper30 after only a 6 min LVT ride....and finally at 17:08 he took A14 after a 16 minute drive, and 8 minutes after a call to the end of hostilities...

We had conditionally accepted Zulu's terms of surrender at 16:55 and they were predicated on the sinking of Zuikaku's cruiser...which went to the bottom at 17:00.

The point of all this that none of this needed to occur had Zulu Command policed themselves. At the very least C56 should have been taken command of when maproom 63 fell at 16:02 and withdrawn. More correctly, C56 and C55 should both have been withdrawn to the North East at 15:22, or ordered to sail escort with Zuikaku...who remained afloat for another 60 minutes before she met her timely demise.

Incidentally, Zulu XO Redtail7 mounted an LVT at 16:22 from C56 for 1 minute...

I can assure everyone that this was easily preventable...none of this would have occurred had Zulu C&C remained intact...which brings us to my final point...

3)

Can Anyone On Team Zulu Command explain to me how VB-Z squadron stationed on Zuikaku slated to fly 17 D3A1 Val were transformed into an A6M2 squadron and transferred shore side 125 nautical miles North West to A5?

This entire group started the frame from A5 and mostly remained there...and in addition to that, 3 more players in the so called No Name Squadron also flew out of A5 in the A6M2...and to top that off...TK decided 10 wasn't enough so they took an extra pilot themselves....ALL in ALL...Zulu launched 28 different pilots from A5 in A6M2...

Who was the GL of VB-Z "Bonzai Bonaza?
Who did he report to in your command structure?
What were the mission orders assigned this group?

The bulk of the shenanigans in point 2 above were perpetrated by this group...though there are a few other well known names that also failed temptation...but lets set that aside and move on...

Along with the VB-Z, slated to fly from Zuikaku officially were VF-Z as well as VT-Z...and from the logs Shokaku's fighter and torpedo wings wer transferred to Zuikaku. Perhaps I am wrong but I am assuming Brooke was GL of VT-Z, ROC was GL of VF-Z and either TwinTail of Floatsup was GL of the transferred Shokaku fighter unit VF-S...

I have a few direct questions for Brooke, ROC, Twintail and Floatsup:

Did anyone of you at any time wonder where VB-Z was either before launch in the tower or after take off?
Were any of your individual elements partially or in totality assigned to escort/attach VB-Z as part of your mission orders?
Were any of you told that VB-Z had been disbanded as a unit?
Where any of you told that VB-S (Shokaku Vals) were transferred to Shoho and that VB-Z would in essence join that unit?

From the logs it is clear that the entire VB-S squadron had been dissolved. There is no trace or evidence they continued to exist as a unit.

CONCLUSION:

This is all extremely troubling to me at this point. I have a very analytical mind...I take a great deal of pride in my ability to look at a complex problem and formulate many possible conclusions and explanations as to what I am observing, what I should expect, what I shouldn't expect etc.... My mind is not telling me happy thoughts at this point.

How is it possible that an entire unit of Naval Air Action just up and disappear from the arena for intents and purposes?

Didn't anybody throughout the entire Zulu Command Structure at any point in time wonder where VB-Z was...

I am at a loss for words

Respectfully,

Oneway
Commanding Officer Team Zulu Coral Sea 2009

[oneway]

And the plot thickens...


Quote from: SoonerMP on Today at 11:23:02 AM

Out of the 15 origional VB-Z members, I had only four show up for the last frame. So, most of the walk on's were assigned to me and we were told to fly A6M's instead of D3A's. I didn't feel the need to change the squad name either.

[Strip]

Strip you can get off your tall white horse...you were one of the Gunners on the Chicago group that when shot out upped a TBM from Yorktown and used Chicago as beacon for an attack on Zuikaku...twice.

Oneway
Commanding Officer Team Zulu Coral Sea 2009
[/b]

    Speaking of tall white horses......where was Chicago when I was running torpedoes? At all times it was directly on top Zuikaku's location. This was even after Brooke's request to move them. In fact over a half hour later it was still within a mile or two. Clearly someone made a conscious decision to keep her there. As far as using her as a beacon, what else would have I done? Logged or fly around in circles for the rest of the frame? I was in a TBM before the cruiser group shenanigans started. After that I was committed to being in a torpedo plane. Given that the carrier was up for two of my trips it was my assigned target. I had no other valid target for two of my sorties. The third I was in a group of people headed to kill the remnant cruiser.

    You can paint me in any way you like by my conscious is clear. I even argued the placement of those cruisers in that position preframe. Most of that was for tactical reasons but some game play was involved. I even PM'ed you preframe indicating I would NOT vulch the carrier early on. True to my word I did not even fire at the carrier itself until T+50 or so. Even tho you made an order shortly after the frame started to fire on the carrier. Even in the preframe planning you called it "dirty cruiser tricks". So dont pretend you had no clue or attempted to prevent any of it. Some of your own scenario vets commented about the validity of your own actions. This whole conversation needs to turn away from what happened this frame.

We should focus on ways to prevent some of these issues.

[Strip]

posting a PM, without the users permission is a bannable offense

[Fencer51]

I am at a loss for words

And this is something which should be noted as extremely rare! 

Oneway you have done well in this scenario, careful that things do not get out of control.  I would direct your posts to Newman, Roscoroo and Brooke, let them handle any questions or concerns you have.

[Hajo]

I and many others likeminded had a great deal of fun in Coral Sea.

Let's leave it like that.

Hajo

[OOZ662]

This certainly is getting old. The reasons for everything the cruiser groups did have been given. Strip still can't stand it, whether he's actually miffed about the actions they took or are grasping at straws because you're upset your plan was turned down, or both.

It's over. What was done was done. For a reason. Which have all been clearly pointed out.