Author Topic: Mediterranean Maelstrom  (Read 6103 times)

Offline Pand

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
      • Pand's Fighter Wing
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2013, 05:51:04 PM »
I know the rules around our Martlets said we had to take off and land on our home CV.   Especially in frames 1 and 2, this was a huge time killer making the 4-5 sector trek back to Malta from the CV, after performing a forced/damaged landing on the island.  

Regards,

Pandemonium
"HORDE not HOARD. Unless someone has a dragon sitting on top of a bunch of La7s somewhere." -80hd

Offline KCDitto

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3233
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2013, 06:24:16 PM »
This is a good discussion. I have always been impressed with this community of cartoon pilots as GUPPY calls us.

So, moving forward, how can we get the numbers of BOG as per Brooke's chart.

My favorite scenario was BOG. The Emerson was awesome, I loved the stories and even posted my own about JG 26 from a book that I have.

So lets have it like that? Lot of advance, lot of build up and discussion and Emerson into the event.

What ever the next one is going to be, lets get it out there and start building it up to all the active squads and cartoon pilots. The competitive jabbing back and forth was also awesome....

Thanks

Ditto

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2013, 07:27:31 PM »
This is a good discussion. I have always been impressed with this community of cartoon pilots as GUPPY calls us.

So, moving forward, how can we get the numbers of BOG as per Brooke's chart.

My favorite scenario was BOG. The Emerson was awesome, I loved the stories and even posted my own about JG 26 from a book that I have.

So lets have it like that? Lot of advance, lot of build up and discussion and Emerson into the event.

What ever the next one is going to be, lets get it out there and start building it up to all the active squads and cartoon pilots. The competitive jabbing back and forth was also awesome....

Thanks

Ditto

It is all on the CM Team. Not much we can do except give advice/criticism and get it thrown down our throat and receive threats. Members of the CM Team have admitted that they ignore me. Yet I am one of the few that criticizes. So unless some of you "high profile" members with good standing say something, nothing will change and Scenarios will continue to be a big waste of a Saturday.
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com

 

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15570
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2013, 07:43:51 PM »
My feeling:

Scenarios are a type of play that has a particular level of popularity, and that popularity today is about 200 players for 8th AF and 125 for everything else.

To get BOG's number of players we would need to run late-war 8th AF and have the overall player base of AH prior to about 2010.  If we run a late-war 8th AF today with today's base, we get 200 players (DGSII).

To me, scenarios are not about how many people we can get.  They are about making an event that is a scenario (making as good a one as we can manage, of course, as I've said) and running it for whatever portion of the player base enjoys those events.  If the goal were instead just amount of players, then there are many non-scenario events that could have bigger draw.  Also, there was a lot of aviation action in WWII that was not hundreds of guys all fighting at the same time.  A lot of it was smaller groups vs. smaller groups.  Maybe most of it was like that.  So having hundreds of people in it isn't even always more realistic.

Offline Devil 505

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9011
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #49 on: April 09, 2013, 08:56:18 PM »
I mostly agree there Brooke, although BoG was run in 2011.
The lack of variety is what I believe is hurting the scenarios lately. It seems the great success of BoG has led to the Scenario CM team trying to capture that same lightning in bottle again. Unfortunately, just because you have all the players cram into the same airspace, you won't ever come close to how awesome BoG was.
For future setups, the designers need to have attack and defensive objective for both sides, and separate these fairly evenly across the front. This will give the side CO the opportunity to have a variety of objectives from frame to frame. Also give the CO the ability to move units around the map as needed. A good example of variety in action was the rolling plane set from BoG. I'm sure that had a great effect in keeping the players interested over the 6 frames of that event. The setups lately were very ridged: Launch in THIS plane, from THIS base, complete THIS objective, rearm at THIS base, repeat. Is it any surprise that the players get bored quickly? This is compounded when the battle repeatedly goes sour the same way every time, regardless of utilizing what little changes the CO can make in tactics. It happened in Rangoon, it happened in Enemy Coast Ahead, it happened in Winter Sky, It Happened in DGS II, it happened most spectacularly in Malta. The one scenario that could have broke the monotony might have been Coral Sea 2011, but the CM leads killed that one by placing that directly after Rangoon, another early Pacific event...oops.
The designs aren't bringing anything to the table, but the same old, same old. I fear that the He 111 will prompt the CMs to make the next scenario Battle of Britain, another single sided objective event...yawn.
Kommando Nowotny

FlyKommando.com

Offline KCDitto

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3233
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #50 on: April 09, 2013, 11:21:24 PM »
My feeling:

Scenarios are a type of play that has a particular level of popularity, and that popularity today is about 200 players for 8th AF and 125 for everything else.

To get BOG's number of players we would need to run late-war 8th AF and have the overall player base of AH prior to about 2010.  If we run a late-war 8th AF today with today's base, we get 200 players (DGSII).

To me, scenarios are not about how many people we can get.  They are about making an event that is a scenario (making as good a one as we can manage, of course, as I've said) and running it for whatever portion of the player base enjoys those events.  If the goal were instead just amount of players, then there are many non-scenario events that could have bigger draw.  Also, there was a lot of aviation action in WWII that was not hundreds of guys all fighting at the same time.  A lot of it was smaller groups vs. smaller groups.  Maybe most of it was like that.  So having hundreds of people in it isn't even always more realistic.




OK Brooke,

Then we have to be able to "ADJUST" for the numbers. YES during the scenario. If you plan a event for 200 and 75 show up, there has to be a way of adjusting the objectives/plane sets to keep it as you said balanced.

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2013, 01:41:01 AM »
First I have to say I sat out this scenario and from the sounds of it I'm glad I did.

I was considering signing up as an Allied Spit or Martlet pilot.  It sounds like that would have been boring and to perdweeb's comment I'd much rather have faced outnumbered odds as an Axis pilot.  Despite the fact I was killed fighting five Ponies in my A8 in frame I of DGSII it was a memorable experience and one I'd sign up for over and over again.

In terms of scenarios I'm a newbie.  I flew in BOG, Winter Sky and DGSII and in Brooks abreviated version of Coral Sea.  Of those all were fun except Winter Sky which was simply marginal so I don't have a lot of scenario experience to draw on.  Also I've never flown FSO because I'm not in a squad.

It sounds like the elimination of radar might have made the biggest difference in this scenario followed by the lowering of ship damage but again, I wasn't there.

I'm not surprised by the CM team responses.  It seems like deja vu reading them (or not reading the one's that are missing).  I hope they'll consider the player's opinions on this and make appropriate changes.  The premise of this scenario seems promising but it sounds like the execution needed some work.

Finally, as to several of Brook's comments, I'm not sure 8th AF is what draws players as much as the chance to fly a plane that's significant to that player.  Give me a Spit, A8, F6F, F4U/FM2 or a limited number of others of my favorites (D3A, JU88... ) and I'll strongly consider participation.  None of my favorites not so much.

I'm sure you don't need comments from a non-participant but just trying to provide an outside view from an interested party for what it's worth.
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline Fish42

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2013, 07:01:11 AM »
I was considering signing up as an Allied Spit or Martlet pilot.  It sounds like that would have been boring and to perdweeb's comment I'd much rather have faced outnumbered odds as an Axis pilot.  Despite the fact I was killed fighting five Ponies in my A8 in frame I of DGSII it was a memorable experience and one I'd sign up for over and over again.

Ok I was controlling the Sea carrier AC(SAC) for all frames of this event and here is how I saw it.

In Frame 1 The 109s  where the first to reach cap over Malta. some elements of the 109s pushed west of malta into our SAC who where there to screen the spit Vs who were further to the south. The 109s stopped moving south and started to fight our F4Fs and Hurricanes. I ordered the squads to keep moving east and only fight if they were forced to. if that happen, dive away.
The 109s where pulled down to the deck in 1s to 3s. I head a few compressed and few more got shot down by the wildcats and hurricanes. But as it was the 109s who where in about = number the spit Vs and Seafires combined were stripped of numbers by the time both the SAC and Spit Vs arrived (as planned over Malta at the same time) We lost a few  hurricanes and wildcats, but they where not part of the objective of that frame. The 109s did not need to follow our fighters to the ground.



In Frame 2, Surf Force was  made up of 13, Sea-Hurricane mark 1s, 7 F4Fs and 12 Sea-fires. 1 Squadron of Sea-hurris where spilt up into scout units, totaling 7 scouts in groups of 2. These where set out at 15k to scout for both High alt and NOE missions. I as lead scout ran into the 4 110c who where flying towards our CV at 20k. I just happen to have the spit wing 1 keypad to the south and I called them into the attack as I made my run. the 110c dropped all their ords and then died as the spits jumped them. After the 110c died, all fighters resumed our patrol paths. The next group I ran into was the JU-88s at 19k who were escorted by 1-2 groups of 109s. I had 3 Hurricanes on the spot when we started the attack. we dived into the 88s and as we blew past almost all the 109s dived after us. we ended up on the deck fighting 3 vs about 10. The Seafires then where able to attack the Ju-88 without escorts. The 88s where finished off quick.

Really the allied forces over the CVs were quite weak for frame 2 & most of 3 (at the mid of frame 3 we moved a squad of Spit vs out to the CVs for extra cover), but the 109s failed to escort the JU-88 and 110c. They had both the speed and climb advantage on all our planes and over the Hurri and F4F there was little we could do but Dive away at High alt if the 109s keeped their E. But we found over and over again that the 109s were willing to follow fighters to the deck where the Seahurris and F4Fs could put up a good fight. Only the Seafires should have been a issue and even they could have been forced down and have been forced to climb back to the fight.


The allies biggest fear was an mass NOE torp run on our ships. we did not have the fighters to cover every direction and 13 out of the 32 fighters we had where only armed with BBs. But we could not keep our fighters closer to the boat as we needed to intercept the buffs before they reached the Ship if they were level bombing from 20k. You had 17 Ju88s in which only 5 needed to attack another target. if 3 JUs had flown in under 3 groups of fighters we would have been fooled by the Dar and moved the Seafires to intercept that threat. If then 9 Ju-88s had started flashing our boats we would have not had alot of time to counter that attack. sure we had a few full time gunners but the merchant fleet could only be covered with the 2 twin 40mms on the Destroyers. If you look at those guns they cannot be aimed towards the rear arc.
The few NOE attacks I saw arrived as some of our groups were rearming/launching, and only had a few planes in each. So with the JUs flying past the quad 40s and the few planes in the air near the CV they were able to take down the few buffs.

As part of the planning group, we thought frame 1 would be a wash as the first waves of 88s could not be stopped and the 109s would be waiting to target our Spits first, but we could get alot of kills with the numbers we had if we survived the first 109s Caps over our field. Frame 2 we expected to lose, as the fleets had so few planes. Frame 3 was going to be a tight win as we could move planes between the targets as the need arrived later in the frame. Frame 4 was ours as we knew the numbers would be in our favor again.

wow that was long and rambling but I think its understandable.  :bolt:

Oh BTW most allied pilots I talked to had quite alot of fun.


Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2013, 10:08:02 AM »

Oh BTW most allied pilots I talked to had quite alot of fun.



Oh. Well in that case it was a great scenario and design. Nothing should be changed at all.
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com

 

Offline ROC

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7700
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2013, 01:01:30 PM »
Quote
Oh. Well in that case it was a great scenario and design. Nothing should be changed at all.
I knew you'd get there eventually.  Good for you.
ROC
Nothing clever here.  Please, move along.

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15570
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2013, 07:50:10 PM »
There are scenarios where both sides have fighters and bombers and attack and defense to do (Coral Sea, Tunisia, Red Storm, Philippine Phandango, Enemy Coast Ahead, Winter Sky), and those are easier to balance.  Easiest to balance is, of course, side switch (like Coral Sea).  But some important historical ones (Battle of Britain, Malta, some of the Rangoon-type stuff) had one side bombing and the other defending -- so if we want scenarios based on those important battles, the scenario is that way, too.  Although I like the bilateral stuff best, I do like a variety of historical stuff and enjoy having those other important battles represented, too, and DGS/BOG and BoB are among the most-popular scenarios overall.

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15570
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2013, 08:12:26 PM »
OK Brooke,

Then we have to be able to "ADJUST" for the numbers. YES during the scenario. If you plan a event for 200 and 75 show up, there has to be a way of adjusting the objectives/plane sets to keep it as you said balanced.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with this is to have scoring that is independent of total number who show up an adjusting each frame to get the desired ratio of side1:side2 players.  For example, "This Day in WWII" events have highly variable attendance and have to deal with that issue every time.  That's how I do it for "This Day", and it works well.  Scenarios are a lot less variable than "This Day" events, so it is less difficult.  In MM, my opinion is that axis:allies was problematic, not that we had 125 players per frame.

Offline KCDitto

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3233
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2013, 08:25:39 PM »
Thanks guys...

issue over.

Lets get ready for the NEXT ONE!

I am READY ALREADY... I need a good flight to get rid of this bad taste. August will not be here soon enough!

Offline tunnelrat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #58 on: April 11, 2013, 03:43:40 PM »
I knew you'd get there eventually.  Good for you.

 :rofl :aok
In-Game: 80hd
The Spartans do not enquire how many the enemy are but where they are.

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: Mediterranean Maelstrom
« Reply #59 on: April 11, 2013, 05:59:08 PM »
Fight fire with fire. That is a new tactic for ROC.
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com