Considering something...

[ROC]

As a possible "next scenario", the team is currently discussing the option of introducing a new twist.  It's not a done deal, it's one concept that is being considered.

We are looking at a 4 perhaps 6 frame event that essentially gives a tour through a period of the war, instead of one element of the war.  The idea is to offset the fact that except for a few situations, one side really did dominate a battle, and perhaps we phase the frames through the war, each frame introducing a new and improved planes, the dominant side moving from one side to the other from start to finish, each frame introducing a new challenge, different objective. 
The goal would be to have a large attack in frame 1 on the weaker element, move to a couple of dogfight and perhaps one capture element, then eventually move to the weaker side ending up with the dominant planes. I'd like to add some variety, as BoB was fun, I can see that long bomber campaigns can easily get routine.  We've had several in a row, launch, escort, bomb and try again.
The scenario, along with adding more and more modern planes as the war progressed, moved across different terrains as well.
This would require a very solid leadership team, one that could adapt to a completely different war virtually each frame.

Just an idea being tossed around, I'd like to see what kind of ideas this spurs from you all, where you think it could lead.

[kano]

I personally really like the sound of this idea.

I think this idea would work really well with an eastern front setup this is a very basic idea of how i would do it.

Frame 1

Operation barborossa, the german invasion of Russia.  

Heavy advantage to axis.

Destroy as many airfields as possible.(Germans)

Planes: German :ju88,he111,ju87, 109E(fighter bomber role) 109F  Russian : i16 and hopefull some mig and lagg3,s

Frame 2

Stalingrad late 1942 (winter)

Slight advantage to axis

Destroy gun emplacements, headquarters and bases around stalingrad area(Both sides)

Planes: Germans: Ju87,ju88,he111,109f(possibly a handful of G2,s) and 190a5(in limited numbers due to it being a 43 aircraft) Russian : il2,yak7b and those mig and lagg3s Lend lease to russian: Boston,p40E and p39d all in limited numbers.

Frame 3

Kursk 1943

50/50

capture objectives and giant furball possibly a gv element.(Both sides)

Planes: Germans: ju87D and G2,ju88,109G6,190a5 and c47   Russian: IL2,yak9t,yak9m(20mm T),LA5(small numbers) Lend lease : P39Q,Spit9,B25c and c47.

Frame4

Somewere 1944

slight advantage Russians

Destroy German strongholds to advance. (Russians)

Planes: Germans: 109G6,190A5,190A8 and small number of 109G14,s Russians : Il2,yak9t,yak9m,LA5  Lend lease :39Q,Spit9,B25 and Bostons.

Frame 5

Berlin 1945

Advantage Russians

Capture Berlin destroy gun emplacements and buildings and capture maybe some gv element

Planes: Germans: 190D9,109K4,190F8,Ta152(small numbers like 6) and Me262(also in small numbers of 6 to 8)  Russians: IL2,Yak3,Yak9u,La7 Lendlease: Bostons,B25cs and C47.

Just my idea. How to implement it is not my forte but i think it would be fun and mostly only bomber pilots would have to switch sides to give the numbers difference.


  EatG

[Delirium]

I don't think having a single frame representing each year of the war would help the attendants feel immersed. If anything, I'd like to see a 'Longbow' style event with many frames over a 2 year historical period of time so the transition was more gradual. That was the first scenario I had to actually use a 'piddle-pack' in the form of a Gatorade bottle.

[Stampf]

I don't think having a single frame representing each year of the war would help the attendants feel immersed. If anything, I'd like to see a 'Longbow' style event with many frames over a 2 year historical period of time so the transition was more gradual. That was the first scenario I had to actually use a 'piddle-pack' in the form of a Gatorade bottle.

Plus 1.

[VonMessa]

I don't think having a single frame representing each year of the war would help the attendants feel immersed. If anything, I'd like to see a 'Longbow' style event with many frames over a 2 year historical period of time so the transition was more gradual. That was the first scenario I had to actually use a 'piddle-pack' in the form of a Gatorade bottle.

Agreed.

Except I'm gonna need a mason jar. 

[ROC]

I'd love to do a Longbow style event, just have a minor concern about turnout and energy to sustain one that long.  That's ultimately what I'd like to see happen again, a massive, major epic event on that scale.

I'm thinking more along the lines of events that would tie together but would normally be a 2 frame side switch event anyway.  For example, letting a cat out of the bag so to speak,
Pearl, Coral Sea, Midway, Okinawa type of progression.   Allies on the defensive, major dogfight and torpedo attacks, island invasion and bomb the tar out of a continent. 

[Bruv119]

as long as there are shiny medals I'm In! 

[Brooke]

Longbow (an 18-frame event!), for those who weren't there:

http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/longbow/longbow.html

[Wildcat1]

ROC, I like the idea, but the scope of time you are giving is much, much too broad in my opinion.

You could do the same style event, 6 or 7 frames, covering one or two years, on the same campaign. For example:

Solomon Islands Campaign covering 1942 to early 1944 planeset. Start with the invasion of Guadalcanal, progress to the Japanese attacks on Guadalcanal, progress to New Georgia and Bougainville, finish with attacks on Rabaul.

A setup like this would be much more immersive for players, allowing for gradual upgrades throughout the event instead of a new ride every frame.

[waystin2]

I like it.  Five frames max would be my suggestion as attendance always seems to drop as a scenario progresses.

[BaldEagl]

I'm not too excited by side switches but I do agree that Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea and Midway would be great run back to back as a single scenario.

[HB555]

     The nice thing about side switch is that if one side seems to dominate, the switch brings into play the reason...Was the plane set a bit too much on that side, or was the command staff better and got more players involved in running the missions per the excellent guidance of command and did everyone do what they were assigned to do.
     The one I remember most from that angle was years ago in Air Warrior, Pearl Harbor.
     ROC was the CO and as allies, we put the axis side away fairly easily each frame.
Of course we all heard about the unfairness of the plane set blah, blah, blah, but when the sides were switched, with the exact same planes and everything else exactly the same, it was the axis side who dominated each frame, and it was not even close. As I recall, most of the original axis came back for revenge and to "show us", and most of the original allied players came back to enjoy what they knew would be another blow out. Yes, we did have walk on players, but they were given all the information we had to share, so even they performed well.
     Why did this happen? Great leadership from the CO down through the Flight Leaders and the time spent getting everyone to know their mission and what was expected of them, so to lose a Flight Leader or Group Leader was not a big deal as everyone was in on the plan. In a sense, everyone in each group was a FL, and fully capable of sliding into the vacant spot. We all had lots of practice and knew each planes strengths and weakness' and each player was flying accordingly. Instructions were followed to the letter, although we did have the ability to deviate as circumstances required, but it was the constant communication that kept everyone in the loop as to the progression of the mission, the team spirit, and the shared information that made us successful.
     I have flown a couple of Aces High Scenarios that were run about the same, with nearly identical results, but that Pearl Harbor run was THE BEST!

[Arlo]

As a possible "next scenario", the team is currently discussing the option of introducing a new twist.  It's not a done deal, it's one concept that is being considered.

We are looking at a 4 perhaps 6 frame event that essentially gives a tour through a period of the war, instead of one element of the war.  The idea is to offset the fact that except for a few situations, one side really did dominate a battle, and perhaps we phase the frames through the war, each frame introducing a new and improved planes, the dominant side moving from one side to the other from start to finish, each frame introducing a new challenge, different objective.  
The goal would be to have a large attack in frame 1 on the weaker element, move to a couple of dogfight and perhaps one capture element, then eventually move to the weaker side ending up with the dominant planes. I'd like to add some variety, as BoB was fun, I can see that long bomber campaigns can easily get routine.  We've had several in a row, launch, escort, bomb and try again.
The scenario, along with adding more and more modern planes as the war progressed, moved across different terrains as well.
This would require a very solid leadership team, one that could adapt to a completely different war virtually each frame.

Just an idea being tossed around, I'd like to see what kind of ideas this spurs from you all, where you think it could lead.

Something like this has been a daydream of mine for years .... only .... with even more of a twist. A veritable 'Axis & Allies' theme. CiCs not only process orders but make R & D and logistical decisions. They choose what to spend resources on and develop (or just keep building in order to overwhelm with numbers). They anticipate what the other side is spending resources on and attempt to deny. Resources come from strategic targets such as Ports, Cities, HQs, Ammo Factories, Fuel Refineries, Radar Factories, AAA Factories, and Grunt Training Centers. Each one of those strategic targets represents point pools that can be used for either developing better weapons or building weapon stockpiles. Ports for building Task Forces, Cities as a general point pool that can be used for anything, HQs for point multipliers, Ammo Factories for developing fighter planes that have harder hitting weapons (cannons), developing bombers with a larger bomb capacity or to just build a larger capacity of what already exists, Fuel refineries for aircraft that fly faster or farther or to again increase capacity of what already exists, Radar Factories to rebuild destroyed radar, AAA factories to rebuild shore based AAA, Grunt Training Centers as a ground force multiplier (determining the number of drunks each side has to capture resources).

I envisioned frames equaling a season (90 days) of war (per theater). If we limit it to European and Pacific theaters from 1941 to 1945 then that would be 40 weekly frames. That's 10 months (more or less) to complete the entire war in both theaters. Early wins or protracted engagements are possible. This could be an idea for a constant setup in the AvA or a scheduled setup dedicated to one of the SEAs. Obviously there would be no commitments and there would be player rotation in key roles. Perhaps even some side switching over time.

[artik]

We are looking at a 4 perhaps 6 frame event that essentially gives a tour through a period of the war, instead of one element of the war

To be honest. I see this kind of stuff in IL-2 campaigns... and I'm not fond of them, for several reasons:

1. Most of planes we fly in SEA are not MA planes. So once you take Hurricane it takes some time to get adjusted to this type of aircraft - each has its own quirks.  AFAIK most of players do not like switch the aircraft. Once in Kadesh we had "altering" plane set in terms each squadron could get different planes in different frames - most of players didn't like it.
2. Altering plane set would limit  "strategic" factor to a single frame. As in each new frames there would be new goals etc.

However it may be interesting to try and get feedback.

[ROC]

Something like this has been a daydream of mine for years .... only .... with even more of a twist. A veritable 'Axis & Allies' theme. CiCs not only process orders but make R & D and logistical decisions. They choose what to spend resources on and develop (or just keep building in order to overwhelm with numbers). They anticipate what the other side is spending resources on and attempt to deny. Resources come from strategic targets such as Ports, Cities, HQs, Ammo Factories, Fuel Refineries, Radar Factories, AAA Factories, and Grunt Training Centers. Each one of those strategic targets represents point pools that can be used for either developing better weapons or building weapon stockpiles. Ports for building Task Forces, Cities as a general point pool that can be used for anything, HQs for point multipliers, Ammo Factories for developing fighter planes that have harder hitting weapons (cannons), developing bombers with a larger bomb capacity or to just build a larger capacity of what already exists, Fuel refineries for aircraft that fly faster or farther or to again increase capacity of what already exists, Radar Factories to rebuild destroyed radar, AAA factories to rebuild shore based AAA, Grunt Training Centers as a ground force multiplier (determining the number of drunks each side has to capture resources).

I envisioned frames equaling a season (90 days) of war (per theater). If we limit it to European and Pacific theaters from 1941 to 1945 then that would be 40 weekly frames. That's 10 months (more or less) to complete the entire war in both theaters. Early wins or protracted engagements are possible. This could be an idea for a constant setup in the AvA or a scheduled setup dedicated to one of the SEAs. Obviously there would be no commitments and there would be player rotation in key roles. Perhaps even some side switching over time.

Arlo, ASW just came back to the CM team, specifically the SEC event.  Interesting daydream you have here.  Sounds very familiar to something that ASW and I have been discussing as a progressive element in the SEC.....I'll point ASW to you, I think you guys should talk.