Help with design of upcoming Eastern Front scenario

[Brooke]

My idea of a perfect scenario results in a draw. 

[ROC]

My idea of a perfect scenario results in a draw.

Hippie 

[ROC]

[Easyscor]

ROFL @ Brooke's post, the sock. 

I agree Brooke, the best event starts out with a neutral design for a draw.

I disagree however with the statement that COs only step up at the last minute. A good design or interesting segment of the war will draw your COs. That won't happen with a replay of an old and tired rehashed event imho. Jazz is nice but I (I don't dare say "we" in here.) like a constant flow of NEW music.

@ ROC - Hippie?

Okay, but by that I qualify as a hippie too. so 

Secondly

When was the last time the designers here did that? This is an observation, not a criticism of any one individual unless you want to spread it around among the past and present Scenario team members.

I think I said what I meant. Outside review is always welcome to me. No, it may not change anything I do, but both supportive and negative comments have value. Someone may reveal a terrible understanding of the game's dynamic and the limits of our tools, but they might also stumble upon something I haven't considered or make me think along a new tangent.

I always expect criticism and don't usually ask for opinions because I know they'll be coming if I mess up a design. That's no problem for me. As I recall, the guy who handled my "training" stressed such composure over and over again. 

 

[Brooke]

I disagree however with the statement that COs only step up at the last minute.

Assistance at getting good CO's early will be great.

A good design or interesting segment of the war will draw your COs. That won't happen with a replay of an old and tired rehashed event imho. Jazz is nice but I (I don't dare say "we" in here.) like a constant flow of NEW music.

The majority of scenarios are new designs.  When they get rerun, it is usually because of popular demand (like Battle of Britain and DGS, and its various reruns).

At any rate, this scenario was both a new design and the winner of a popular vote on what the theater should be.

Next scenario will have that, too:  people will get a list of possibilities and get to vote on which one they want.

[Brooke]

The IL2 is better than I have read claimed here, I can't believe how played down Russia's most famous and formidable foe Sturmovik is being marginalised to fit the notion its monumentally worse than a 190F8 and that fixes everything. The job they are to do is object killing, and if I wanted the path of least resistance I'd choose an IL2 over the 190F8 for the job, especially in squadron strength.

I've flown lots of scenario missions in Il-2's and scenario missions in jabo 190A's (quite similar to 190F's) and have been a GL of groups of both types.  The 190 is vastly superior to the Il-2.  In fact, in this scenario, you can see that by actual testing and results.

In this scenario, the 190F compared to the Il-2:
-- can kill as many or more objects (you can test this offline)
-- can kill more objects in the presence of enemy fighters before dying
-- is more than 100 mph faster
-- has a vastly better roll rate
-- climbs more than 1000 fpm faster
-- has 67% more cannon rounds

The Il-2 in AH is a little sturdier than the 190F, but not enormously so.  It is quite readily shot down by the likes of 109G's, let alone 190's, as you can see from my films of getting shot down.

If you were my CO and had the choice of the two types, as an experienced ground-attack group leader who has lead groups of both types, I would strongly advise you to take the jabo 190's. 

[ROC]

I disagree however with the statement that COs only step up at the last minute.

Well, as one who has been on the side trying to recruit CO's early for years, you are disagreeing with reality, I am not talking about subjective guessing, COs have NOT come to the table early for years.  This has nothing to do with why they haven't, it's simply a fact that they haven't.

[Zoney]

Well, as one who has been on the side trying to recruit CO's early for years, you are disagreeing with reality, I am not talking about subjective guessing, COs have NOT come to the table early for years.  This has nothing to do with why they haven't, it's simply a fact that they haven't.

Individual squad CO's or the CO of the side?

[ROC]

Individual squad CO's or the CO of the side?

Side CO's, Group Leaders are plentiful, and we generally have far more capable leaders than we have slots for, it's an amazing thing, getting a side CO is not an easy task.
We've got so many great group leaders that when one can't make it, we have several on stand by to fill in. 

[Easyscor]

Side CO's, Group Leaders are plentiful, and we generally have far more capable leaders than we have slots for, it's an amazing thing, getting a side CO is not an easy task.
We've got so many great group leaders that when one can't make it, we have several on stand by to fill in.

I think you might have an answer in that statement. Fill the GL slots first making it less intimidating for a CO to step up?

Mind if I use that? 

[ROC]

In a Snapshot or something, Yes, that's one approach, but to prefill a teams leadership? Why have a CO?  Nono, I wouldn't bother taking on a team that I wasn't able to build.  The GLs post early and often that they want it, there were GLs offering to lead long before I even considered coming back and taking the role.
It's a good idea for a prebuilt event where the orders are built into the design perhaps. 
On the other hand, it might actually attract a CO, having all of the hard work done for him,and taking a less intimidating role, but then if he goes up against a solid CO he's dog meat.  You don't design a role like CO so leadership is not intimidating, obstacles should (used to) bring out the leaders.

[Guppy35]

That would be about the last time we got a CO to step up long before the last minute. 
It's wrong to hold Brooke or anyone else accountable because Fencer was biased in his designs.  He's not here.  Brooke is about a biased as a sock.

The only bias I've ever seen is trying to slant it in the direction of those most apt to whine in hopes of avoiding it.  Having fallen prey to that and watching what had been my dream scenario go south by trying to appease that crowd, it became a confirmation to me that you will never please everyone

ROC having worked with Fencer on those designs and watched him try and please those most likely to whine, I think it unfair to call his designs biased unless you mean in trying to keep the whining contingent quiet

[puller]

I volunteer to C.O the Luftwaffe side of the upcoming 12hr BOB scenario....

There....does that help expedite the process...I will also help with setup so there is no problems of unfair advantage over the Allies

Well it will actually be unfair for the Allies because I would be your opposing C.O.

I'll put together 109 squadrons of the likes not seen before in a scenario... 109 squads that a squadron of 10 Bruvs couldn't handle...

The Epic 12hr BOB....An Aces High Scenario
 

[Brooke]

I volunteer to C.O the Luftwaffe side of the upcoming 12hr BOB scenario....

There....does that help expedite the process...I will also help with setup so there is no problems of unfair advantage over the Allies

Well it will actually be unfair for the Allies because I would be your opposing C.O.

I'll put together 109 squadrons of the likes not seen before in a scenario... 109 squads that a squadron of 10 Bruvs couldn't handle...

The Epic 12hr BOB....An Aces High Scenario
 

 

The only thing is that we will put up what is the next scenario and format to a vote -- but it could very well be 12-hour BoB.  That choice is quite popular.

[LCADolby]

I volunteer to C.O the Luftwaffe side of the upcoming 12hr BOB scenario....

You just took my job!