You wonder why Special Events are lacking here

[Brooke]

Ah, good point, HB!  Thanks! <S>

[HB555]

Ah, good point, HB!  Thanks! <S>

Ran into that while strolling down the beach and thought to myself, since I have this info, why not step over here and post it? 
Heading back to the beach now.
Oh, you're welcome Brooke. Can't wait to see who flys or drives what in this event though. 

[swareiam]

•Pilots get 2 lives eay per frame
•Bombers may not fly higher than 20,000 ft
•Bombers must level bomb their target, the exception being single B-25's, and Ju-88's, and dive-bombers (A20's inclued)
•Bombers may be based no closer than 75 miles from the front line (nearest enemy base)
•GV drivers get 5 lives per frame, with the exception of M18, Panther, and Tiger I drivers who get 3.
•only designated aircraft may attack GV's, fighter escort may be provided at the discretion of the CO
•attacks on vehicles from non-designated aircraft will result in an increase in objectives for that team

Tank,

To be very honest with you. Players have all but revolted against these types of setups. It really is one or the other in the scenario type events. Open events like SNAPSHOTs and TDI there okay.

Here are my issues with your write up. That will keep prudent scenario fans away.

1. Bomber pilots don't want any restictions in a ground war. An altitude cap in a ground war... You'd need about a solid 120 - 130 players per side to tie up the gaps in the action over the entire map.
2. Tankers HATE to be dive bombed by anything.
3. Designated aircraft to attack GVs? It's been tried in other events (Red Storm Krupp Steal, Dawn of Battle...) It wasn't even mixed results, Players hated it!
4. Penalty for out of bounds play. You're going to retask a side CO in the middle of a major three hour event. GOOD LUCK with that one.
5. How would you track whether a tanker had 3 or 5 lives until the logs came through?
6. You preplanned into your write up that a particular vehicle had to perform a very specific mission. That would be trimmed out of the write up after the first rules meeting. You have to leave that to the COs on how they will accomplish your set objectives with what ever vehicle they chose.
7. Why are you placing a distance restriction on the bombers? If you are stating that that is how it was historically. Then you don't really need to state it. Station the aircraft on the map where you'd want then to spawn initially.

Other than that sir, Nice write up... 

 

[Tank-Ace]

Well, my only concern is that the Heavy Tank drivers will die less, even concidering air attack, and so will likely be able to steam-roller secondary objectives since they will have died fewer times and could afford to be more agressive.

And we have no representation of more powerfull towed anti-tank artillery, unless we want GV's to assult base instead of trying to kill defenders that spawned in from another field. That leaves the T-34/85 or the M18 as the best choice, both of which are a little unbalancing if used in rolls other than towed AT guns.


Objective would be increased for the next frame. Was also thinking about 'automatic defeats' that would happen if the objective went so high as to require killing more bombers than we have present in the event (counting two lives) but I decided to scrap that one.

alt restriction for the bombers was to allow the slower soviet fighters, like the P-40F and Yak-T an easier time catching them. Mostly it was He-111 H4-6's IIRC, with a fewe groups of Ju-88's added in. Here we'll have to use just Ju-88's.

[swareiam]

Well, my only concern is that the Heavy Tank drivers will die less, even concidering air attack, and so will likely be able to steam-roller secondary objectives since they will have died fewer times and could afford to be more agressive.

And we have no representation of more powerfull towed anti-tank artillery, unless we want GV's to assult base instead of trying to kill defenders that spawned in from another field. That leaves the T-34/85 or the M18 as the best choice, both of which are a little unbalancing if used in rolls other than towed AT guns.


Objective would be increased for the next frame. Was also thinking about 'automatic defeats' that would happen if the objective went so high as to require killing more bombers than we have present in the event (counting two lives) but I decided to scrap that one.

alt restriction for the bombers was to allow the slower soviet fighters, like the P-40F and Yak-T an easier time catching them. Mostly it was He-111 H4-6's IIRC, with a fewe groups of Ju-88's added in. Here we'll have to use just Ju-88's.

Tank,

Remember as a designer the complexity of your build is in your research to set the stage for a fun fight. Too mush history and or over compensation for the available planeset is going to over challenge the player. Most folks want instant action even if they get killed right away. They want it to be equal and fair. Not too many folks are going to give up three hours on a Saturday afternoon for an event that is "UNFAIR" and "UNBALANCED". Especially if they can read into it prior to the beginning of the first frame.

Not that my suggestions carry much weight, but try your design again with less "AIR". If you want attack aircraft, drop the High alt bombers. Give the attacking aircraft low fighter cover and call it a day there.  Then center the fight more on the ground movement. Don't tell the COs how they have to manage their fight. Just give them the set of objectives and turn them loose. Try it...

Your design is good, it just needs a little refocus. 

"Keep it grounded!" 

btw, make sure that ROC sees your redesign. If it is acceptable, I see that he will have it run as a SNAPSHOT. Now that ROCKS! 

 

[Tank-Ace]

I think it would be kind of cool too. I tried to join the Special Events team, but was uneligable because of age  .

[fudgums]

I think it would be kind of cool too. I tried to join the Special Events team, but was uneligable because of age  .

Have you ever flown in a scenario?

Most of the scenario team has over 10 years experience each in flight sims ranging to Air Warrior.

[Tank-Ace]

I've flown in 5 so far. Flown Aces High for about 6 years.

[Spikes]

Have to agree with Redtail. A scenario takes 10x more time and planning since it has to last 4-6 frames for 3 hours instead of just an hour or two. It could definitely be run as a snapshot with tweaking, but I think there would need to be more meat in the design to last as a scenario design.

[gyrene81]

I tried to join the Special Events team, but was uneligable because of age  .

that explains a lot...  (ineligible, not uneligible)

you know what a "bright idea" is ace? it's the one that pops into your head before the realization sets in that it isn't such a bright idea. before i participated in a scenario here, i had a bright idea that i started working on for a special event, it included tanks...then after frame 1 of the scenario i signed up for, the "flood of tears" occurred and by the end of the scenario i had the realization that my bright idea wasn't so bright after all. there was just no way to avoid the whines, so i trashed all the work i had done.

haven't had a bright idea since... 

[Big Rat]

The last scenario I played in with a ground component was Red Storm Krupp Steal.  The GV whines were quite loud in this one.  It was both frustrating for attack pilots and the GV'ers in the fact that only certain planes were allowed to attack GV's.  I love trying to support an attack toward an objective under combined arms.  I can remember flying A20's over the ground battle, no fighter cover to deal with and dropping bombs on useless stuff, rather then being a help to our tanks.  After the "bomb marking" incident, they just kept us away from the GV battle all together to avoid controversy.  If given free wirbles, no lives lost due to aircraft, aircraft lives can be lost to vehicles, and GV hangers can only be attacked by GV's, I can't see where the GV whines could come from (they'll still be there but ). In other words aircraft would only be usefull for moving the lines.  This would force the core of the battle right over the GV fight, and make it quiet dangerous for any low attack aircraft with free wirbles, and the fighters would have to control the air over the GV fight to make the attack aircraft at all effective in moving the lines.  While getting bombed in a GV will still be frustrating, especially if you had a good spot, but you are still in the fight.  All aircraft would be free to attack GV's, but at the risk of losing one of their two lives everytime they head down there.  I'd GV in a setup like this, in fact I'd love to wirble in a fight like this just to eliminate planes from the battle that day, They are taking a bigger risk then the GV's in this fight.  As far as I know nothing exactly like this has been tried, correct me if I'm wrong.

 
BigRat

[Vudu15]

I wouldn't want to fly anywhere near a ton of guys with free wirbs....just askin for trouble and with only 2 lives makes it stupid to try. heck I strafed a panz4 with a yak got griped at cause I could have shot off his pintle gun.