Improving a Good Thing

[hornet79]

I had a real blast in BOG. Great time!!!  As a B-24 pilot I really got an idea of what it was like to fly down the barrel of a gun. But those guys in WWII had a couple of advantages we didn't have.

1. The Germans didn't know where the Eighth was going to bomb. Consider not informing the defending side of what the target is. That forces a better use of scouts and requires effective command and control on the part of the defense. Defense get to see the attackers on radar, knows the attackers  launch locations but does not know where they are going. They have to figure that out. 

2. When the Eighth attacked Germany the German radar was very primitive. Perhaps consider combining the Attackers dar with the defenders dar. Is that even possible???? That way it better simulates the concept that the radar operator knows there are planes up there. It is up to the defender to figure out whose they are. It is really important after the battle is in its later stages when there has been a substantial mixing of units.

3. When the B-17s and B-24s of the Eighth went into Germany, they went with full crews. Consider letting bombers go the distance with gunners. This concept might be of particular value in Rangoon where there are limited bomber rides. Every player in the game knows to attack the bomber when he is in his run. Bomb squadrons could be assigned double the number of pilots that they are authorized to fly. This same concept could apply for GVs should that ever happen. Its easy to do, is more realistic and gets more players involved.

 

 

[ROC]

Those are some good observations.  Prior scenarios have taken that concept of "seek and destroy" to entirely new levels, which would cause a side to spend the entire time circumnavigating the globe to avoid engagement. 

We went for a battle this time. It was deliberate.  We put the players together so they had to spend their time learning how to defend bombers and attack a defended force.  It was deliberate to avoid plans that avoided a fight.  No one likes to spend 2 and a half hours flying around in formations and sneaking around the back end of a map.  This event required a solid effort in tactics, effort to figure out how to overcome the "fact' that you were going to engage, not minimize the impact if it occurred.  Before too much effort is put into redesigning, please understand that you guys were pitted face to face for a reason.  Both sides had objectives to overcome, the primary one being you had no choice but to go head to head and fight.  This one was never about how best to get into your target unharmed, it was how best to beat your way through a force equally as skilled as your own.  It required discipline from the allied escort so that they did not break away and allow the axis to strip the defenses away. 

There were many opportunities on both sides to change each frame, some were taken, others completely missed, but the objective was to fight, and fight you did.

As for gunners, no one ever said you couldn't take gunners.  In fact, I saw a great many undefended bombers leaving the engagement area with no bombers and the fighters who lost both lives left. That is not a design problem, thats a command and player problem.

I am glad you enjoyed it, this was a great event to host and watch unfold, and everyone really did an amazing job, this was a grueling scenario.  It was known from the onset that invading a defended nation would be difficult, we wanted to make it as difficult as possible.

 

[HB555]

Lets see what the Axis have to say, but for now, I too think the Allied side gave away a bit too much information.

1. I fully agree with your thoughts here, but I believe this event was staged to have engagement.

2. Is a bit trickier, in so far as combining radar is not possible at this time, in the sense that there would be a dar bar, or dot dar, in a color other than green or red, indicating a mixture of Allied and Axis planes. You have one side, and you have the other side.
This could be a great wish list item and might be great in a future event.

3. Not sure you would get many takers on being a gunner for three hours, but what would be the harm in allowing them, if there were people who chose to do so?
The 44th had their choice of gunners throughout, although most of us would only let other bomber pilots gun for us for many reasons.

Many of us who now fly bombers did not do so in the beginning. We rode along as gunners for many events and practiced our driving elsewhere. I remember the first AW scenario I felt I could actually drive all the way to target by myself.
Then there are the guys who want to learn and can be taught.
In BoG, the 2nd Division had at least three pilots who were completely new to bombers.
By the time we flew the first frame, Tyrannis, Popsman and thomace were confident of their skills, were expert in their ability to form up and hold position in the flight, could hit the target in a head, tail or crosswind, and were as reliable as my old Timex watch.

[Spikes]

When I first saw the write up, I thought about the dar. My first "correction" was give one of 2 things.

Targets, but no radar, or radar, but no targets.

Both have an effect. With targets, but no radar, scouting is needed immensely in order to kill before being killed. It also gives the Allies a bit more breathing room rather than being tracked right out of the starting gate.

With radar, but no targets, it gives the Allies the option of perception. The Axis don't know what they are defending, all they know is that they have intelligence to track us.

Each 'plan of action' offers it's own pros and cons, but it still keeps each side evenly fair. Frame 6 was nice, we could fly 10 feet without being tracked.

[Husky01]

There is a very fine line between scripting and ensuring action. Its a important line and I undestand why the cms wrote it the way they did. But six frames of the same structured fight can get old. One day the balance will be found and the command teams will be able to be creative while ensuring fun for all.

[gyrene81]

seemingly good ideas   ...however a couple of points you would want to consider...german radar wasn't "primitive" so to speak versus the u.s. and britain...they just didn't have the range of detection.

until june 7, 1944 there were german ground troops along the entire coast of the english channel from france to norway...all of which had field radios and binoculars...even without the radar stations, alerts would be relayed in less than an hour most of the time...there were failures to the system of course.

although i doubt it would go over very well here...what could happen is have each side commander sitting in tower watching the radar, directing traffic to the squadrons...something like the s-3s in that other place.

no announced targets could be a good idea for sure.

not sure how many people would want to be gunners for an hour or more.

[Fencer51]

When and I say it again.. When.. I rewrite DGS...

1. There will be a list of Allied Targets to choose from for each frame given to the Allies ONLY.  The Germans will have complete freedom to base their fighters at any friendly base across the whole of Germany.

2. The Allies will be restricted to sending a maximum of 2 BDs to any single "zone" of targets or the Axis will be told that the bombers for "Frame X" are attacking targets in a square of sectors from X,Y to X+5,Y+5.  I have to be careful here as the last thing I want are a bunch of the Axis flying around without action. 

3. There will always be dar bars for the Axis, they had complete coverage and could "see" the bombers staging over England over 90 minutes before they crossed the channel.  In other words they tracked them all the way.  Now, they might not KNOW where they are going, but they sure knew the route they were taking. 

4. There will not be Dar Bars visable from the cockpit.  The Germans will need controllers like the BoB scenario.  Update will be set to 1 minute.

But DGS is a different event.

BOG was written to give the players the experience of WWII in the cockpit over Germany, to feel a bit of what the people who flew felt.  These were actual missions.  Note the Banner for the scenario, there are people there not planes like normal.  It was written to get people into the fight and for people to enjoy it.

Flying around for 3 hours avoiding a fight to "WIN" the event is a loss for everyone on both sides.

[hornet79]

Thanks for the great feedback guys.

I would like to make one clarification with reference to the gunner thing. I didn't see it as a design problem. I don't see it as a player problem. In fact I didn't see it as a problem at all. I see it as an opportunity to get more participants into the game. My thought was not to pick up a downed pilot to gun for me (which I did). It was rater to allow bombers to fly in two man teams. let them train and fly together. Snoop, to your comment, maybe we would have a hard time recruiting. Maybe we switch duties back and forth between frames. I'm sure it has its problems, but two guys who know and work together, one flying evasive maneuvers and one gunning may add a new dimension that is totally different from the current practice of picking up a gunner along the way. It was just a thought.


And regarding not announcing the target, I fully support the concept that guys pay their monthly participation to simulate air combat, not fly in circles. However part of the fun of scenario is the strategy and tactics that gives one side an advantage over the other. That is what separates it from the MA. I certainly respect the decision to "force the fight" and had a great time doing it. Perhaps Husky got it best when he referred to getting the right balance.

I have one additional comment. Something that I had completely forgotton about until I was writing this thread. GREAT idea to open the SEA for side training prior to the Beta frame. It adds an outher dimension. The better trained side gains advantage. I'd keep that one for the future.

At the risk of repeating myself, I had a great time. These are just some of my thoughts. No complaints here. No attacks. On to Rangoon!!!

[4440]

Funny thing about your team concept, I actually thought about that as well, however, the design of the event being that we could only get one sortie in, and the fact that all bombers had to launch by T+20 kept me from suggesting, but it does make for an interesting future possibility.

[Babalonian]

I would like to see the bombers have more surprise working on their side, but we've given them free reign before in choosing what/where to attack, the route/direction to take in and out, and when.  Unfortunately this was abused a couple times, to the length that even with the increased fuel burn rates in scenarios and very large scale maps, one side would wait long enough into the frame for most of the enemy intercepts had rtb to refuel before even beginning their first sortie, or fly all the way from England to around the back-side of Switzerland before turning into their targets in Norway (no problem with them taking a back-road, except when it's the 3-day scenic bypass and honeymoon through the Swiss Alps).

[VonMessa]

I had a blast, therefore I won!!!

BOG delivered exactly what it promised, a battle over Germany.  Hard fighting to the target without a lopsided slaughter for either side 

I just wish I could have made the last two frames.  Top Secret Boy Scout Mission had to be the priority, though 

[Krusty]

I would like to see the bombers have more surprise working on their side, but we've given them free reign before in choosing what/where to attack, the route/direction to take in and out, and when.  Unfortunately this was abused a couple times, to the length that even with the increased fuel burn rates in scenarios and very large scale maps, one side would wait long enough into the frame for most of the enemy intercepts had rtb to refuel before even beginning their first sortie, or fly all the way from England to around the back-side of Switzerland before turning into their targets in Norway (no problem with them taking a back-road, except when it's the 3-day scenic bypass and honeymoon through the Swiss Alps).

I agree with you there.

I think if we're going to give the allied bombers the same FREEDOM of attack that they had in WW2, they should have the same PROFILE of attack as they had in WW2.

That is, max cruise in and out and over target. The real crews flew 180mph or so for almost 8-10 hours. They weren't air spawning 30K in and out under 60 minutes then diving at full speed as they RTB to land in bases on French soil.


Frankly, given the abilities bombers have in this game that they did not over Nazi Germany, I find it very annoying when somebody tries to come up with more ways of improving the bombers' experience at the expense of the Luftwaffe folks suffering in 190a8s trying to chase them down.


You give me bombers flying at 180mph TAS and I'll let you choose whatever target you want, whenever you want. Because at 180mph TAS we'll have the time to actually hit you before you're over the target -- more than once -- and be able to chase along as you make your way into our radar.

As for radar, no setup, ever, over Germany should have the axis without radar reports on the bombers. Even the recent BoG was a bit excessive with a 6-minute delay. Bombers could be (and were) over a sector away most times. "Radar operators" is one thing but it's not necessary. It adds too much pressure to the axis side and none to the allies. The clipboard itself is a representation of ground operators giving updates to those in-flight. Adding the delay to dar effectively replicates the delay in getting word to the pilots. If ANY ground operators are used, they should have instant 5-second-update radar images with dots. They should make the call what dots to hit and where and what concentrations they see. Leave it up to command decision, fog of war, poor communication, etc. Don't handicap them then handicap them again by making them repeat what's on the clipboard for all to see. That's a redundant handicap.