Author Topic: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)  (Read 19854 times)

Offline Zoney

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6503
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #255 on: August 05, 2016, 02:57:30 PM »
A few hours in, I took a bad one, got shot down about 2 minutes into a window.  It perturbed me, but I took a break, stretched my legs, and came back ready to keep going.

The way things ebbed and flowed, that was about the only time I think I was heavily engaged right after a window closed.  It might be a good idea to try to time it so major clashes happen not long before the window, but that's a pretty tall order.

I know I always felt busy during TFT, but I really don't remember what climbout times were actually like.  It all kind of blurred together.  I just remember every time I upped, there was someplace I had to be urgently.  Not a lot of dead time I can recall.

Wiley.

That's pretty much my experience too, we must have been wingin when we both got killed just past the takeoff window.  I wasn't discouraged and futzed around a bit, got a cold brew, had a snack, visited the garage and was ready to go when the next time arrived for takeoff.  That downtime also allowed me time to really focus on the war and try to anticipate what was coming next.
Wag more, bark less.

Offline Nefarious

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15858
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #256 on: August 06, 2016, 05:18:42 PM »
Do you think there is possibly too many objectives per phase?

Right now there is plenty of discussion in FSO about too many objectives, perhaps reducing the number of objectives to three per phase might direct the fight more and keep the action more steady in those areas.

Thoughts?
There must also be a flyable computer available for Nefarious to do FSO. So he doesn't keep talking about it for eight and a half hours on Friday night!

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #257 on: August 06, 2016, 05:50:22 PM »
Here is a link to a starting point for the October North Africa Scenario:

http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html

People can post suggestions and questions in this topic.

Best regards. <S>!


First suggestion - don't put me in charge of ANYTHING!
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline puller

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #258 on: August 06, 2016, 06:49:08 PM »

First suggestion - don't put me in charge of ANYTHING!

I now nominate ammo for axis CO    :bolt:
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
CO   Anti-Horde

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #259 on: August 06, 2016, 06:50:58 PM »
I now nominate ammo for axis CO    :bolt:


I nominate you for recruiting officer.  If you do a good job, you get the position of Operations Officer.
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline puller

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #260 on: August 06, 2016, 07:02:51 PM »

I nominate you for recruiting officer.  If you do a good job, you get the position of Operations Officer.

Lol...no one listens to me...and the only operations I'm good at are getting people killed
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
CO   Anti-Horde

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #261 on: August 06, 2016, 09:25:35 PM »
Do you think there is possibly too many objectives per phase?

Right now there is plenty of discussion in FSO about too many objectives, perhaps reducing the number of objectives to three per phase might direct the fight more and keep the action more steady in those areas.

Thoughts?
I would say currently yes. We need to have just enough targets for all buffs to drop.

Currently if you tried to cover all the objectives you would have about 5 fighters per area, and then not much more for your attack that is taking place at the same time..

5 per objective and 15 to cover buff (if everyone showed up to the allies) seems pretty thin...
« Last Edit: August 06, 2016, 09:27:27 PM by USCH »

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15521
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #262 on: August 06, 2016, 11:27:22 PM »
For bombers, I think it is fine, but for attack planes, I'm 50/50 on it, as I'll explain below.

------------- Thoughts about areas and number of targets -------------

The general playing area (the area that bounds all of the targets) in this one is 18-20 sectors.  I am assuming we will get twice as many as Dnieper (our previous scenario).  Dnieper had a general playing area of about 9 sectors.  So, this one has similar players per playing area as Dnieper.  (See caveat on this below.)

In terms of target area, where target area is the minimum number of sector squares it takes to cover all targets, in this one it is about 8, and in Dnieper, it is about 4.  So, if we have 2x the players as Dnieper, players/target area is about the same.

In terms of number of targets, level bombers have 3 best land targets (the towns) and 1 task group.  In Dnieper, for level bombers, there were 3 good targets (towns and cities).  So, we are less in players/(best target) for level bombers.  For attack planes, we have 5-6 good land targets (the bases) and 1 task group.  In Dnieper, for attack bombers, there were 6 acceptable land targets (bases, towns, city).   So, we are less in players/(best target) for attack planes.

In addition, there are sector counters above 1000 ft and radar above 15k.  For any attacks that are escorted with fighters higher than 1000 ft., it will show a presence on sector counters and/or radar.

Thing to keep in mind.  Even though there are 5-6 good land targets for attackers, some of those 5-6 are quite near each other and so are not equivalent to 5-6 all spaced far apart and are equivalent to more like 4 attack locations instead of 5-6.  Also, base warning is about 3 times larger than in Dnieper and thus 3 times longer warning.  It is about 1/3 of a sector.

------------ Caveat -----------

So, I think it will work fine as long as number of players in the air is greater than for Dnieper.

However, at participation rates of Dnieper or lower -- if that occurs during some of the 12 hours (here I don't have experience what participation rates were like during the whole course of Target For Today) -- then while folks will still find fighters and will still probably be getting into fights around level bombers, the attack planes might start being able to sneak around a lot more easily.

A possible modification there is to chop out a target from the attack list.

------------ Summary ------------

For fighters and level bombers, I think it will be fine.  They will encounter each other plenty, I believe.

For attackers, when the participation is above Dnieper levels, I think it will be fine.  Below Dnieper levels, attackers will be harder to get.  I could reduce that some by eliminating some of the attack targets.

Thoughts?

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15521
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #263 on: August 06, 2016, 11:30:50 PM »
With regard to the previous post, I guess it largely boils down to how many players folks think we will have on average.

If we register 2x Dnieper, how many will be up on average?

In Target for Today, out of N people who registered, do folks have estimates or feelings for waht was the max, what was the min, and what was the average of number of pilots in the air?

Offline Devil 505

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8945
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #264 on: August 07, 2016, 12:01:37 AM »
Brooke, when you are comparing your hypothetical player base for this scenario to Dnieper, are you using the registered player number or actual attendance of Dnieper. Based on the actual players that showed up for Dnieper, I'd say that even for that small area there were not enough pilots.
Kommando Nowotny

FlyKommando.com

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15521
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #265 on: August 07, 2016, 12:10:43 AM »
I'm going by number that played in the event.

I disagree that Dnieper had too large an area.  It had plenty of action.  Fights and action were frequent enough that significant numbers of people were out of lives before frame end.

Offline Devil 505

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8945
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #266 on: August 07, 2016, 12:22:59 AM »
Brooke, guys found themselves quickly out of lives because they were frequently in lopsided engagements because they were stretched too thin.
Kommando Nowotny

FlyKommando.com

Offline BFOOT1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #267 on: August 07, 2016, 10:47:44 AM »
I'm going by number that played in the event.

I disagree that Dnieper had too large an area.  It had plenty of action.  Fights and action were frequent enough that significant numbers of people were out of lives before frame end.
I'm going to agree with Brooke on this one, there was plenty of action in the area. Seems like we were always finding Russian fighters or attack aircraft and as soon as we'd rearm the attack was on again. I had a blast.

I recall a few engagements where my 109 Gruppe was outnumbered, but we managed to fight a way out of it. Hopefully the North Africa scenario will encompass some of the aspects of the Dniepper of keeping some if not a big part of the fighting in a small area.
Member of G3MF
III Gruppe, 8 Staffel, JG52, flying Black 12 (Kuban Scenario)

Offline Nefarious

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15858
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #268 on: August 07, 2016, 01:07:30 PM »
In Target for today Phase 1 consisted of 3 airfield targets, Phase 2 was Amsterdam City Complex and Phase 3 was Paris City Complex. Phase 1 targets were allowed to be hit the entirety of the event while Phase 2 and 3 could only be hit during their respective phases.

Target for Today had Three 4 hour phases, Tunisia has 4 Three hour phases.

Tunisia does not have City Complex targets, which are very big but relatively easy to drop structures (with heavy bombers).

Some other things to think about, the first 3-4 hours had the lowest population of the event and it built up as the day went on, perhaps phase 1 should have a few targets less?
There must also be a flyable computer available for Nefarious to do FSO. So he doesn't keep talking about it for eight and a half hours on Friday night!

Offline Nefarious

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15858
Re: Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)
« Reply #269 on: August 07, 2016, 01:34:50 PM »
More TFT info...

1,541 sorties of all types were launched that day.

Here is a list of sorties per hour... It includes gunners/observers, I had trouble deciphering who actually launched during a window, So I just decided to count the entire hour. It includes multiple launches so It doesn't give and exact count, more of a rough estimate.

HOUR 1: 170
HOUR 2: 161
HOUR 3: 150
HOUR 4: 85
HOUR 5: 184
HOUR 6: 185
HOUR 7: 150
HOUR 8: 73
HOUR 9: 133
HOUR 10: 93
HOUR 11: 100
HOUR 12: 56

I didn't count any Gunners past Hour 12.

In those 12 hours, 70 Gunner/Observers were launched and 173 Field Guns were launched. So 243 Non-Aircraft sorties were launched - 1,541 = 1,298 Aircraft Sorties, of course that includes re-towers and such (wrong fuel or ammo load).
« Last Edit: August 07, 2016, 02:51:02 PM by Nefarious »
There must also be a flyable computer available for Nefarious to do FSO. So he doesn't keep talking about it for eight and a half hours on Friday night!