Your overall opinion on Squad Operations.

[icemaw]

Cant say I have a single complaint about squad ops. As for plane asignments when I am CO I try to give squad the planes they want. But its first come first serve. Some times numbers issues wont allow certain squads in certain aircraft. If we only have 15 xxx plane I cant put the nightmares in them. Also when I CO I tend to give my own squad the worst assignment. Just so there is no complaining about giving my own squad the best rides. If nothing else I always try and be fair.

[daddog]

Air starts are built into some maps. You either hate them or love them. Yes, they are gamey. But at the same time trying to get a fully loaded Lanc or B17s up to 26K alt takes considerable time. Plus, the frame length is only 2 hours. So also have to deal with some time constraints. But I believe only the German map has air starts.

Hungary (the next terrain I will use) now has 4 air starts per my request from the terrain team.   They are used for the exact reasons you stated ghostdancer. If not for the time consraints I would not use them bizket.

[Ripsnort]

Never a complaint that I'm aware of from within the ranks of MAG33 during the Tour of Duty. (Squad operations)  Well, except that Vulcan used to steal all of our kills

[TracerX]

I agree Ghost Dancer, your points are realistic, and very logical.  Live long and prosper Spock.  

As for the suggestions on #2, "the death penalty,"  I think there will need to be some flexibility.  Here are two suggestions.

1.  In late war IJN scenarios, it is increadibly difficult to accomplish any objectives and survive, especially if your assigned a Kate or Val for an IJN event.  But generally, if every plane that survives and lands is worth some landing bonus, say, three times as much as a single air combat victory, then there might be more caution, or fear of engagment.  Whatever the penalty, it should be sufficient to cause a pilot to return to base when dammaged, or consider more carefully engaging in massive furballs.  However, it can't be too high since the whole point of the event is to engage the enemy.  We can't have people flying around for 15 minutes, landing, then saying Nya Nya Nya from the tower as the enemy circles in anticipation of a fight.  That is why I think that a flexible 2-3 point survival bonus should be a good measure, depending on the event.

2.  Another alternative is to have expected loss rates.  On a bombing mission for example, the objective is worth half the points possible, the other half is how well they do in beating their expected loss rate.  If a loss rate of 20% is expected (High in real life, but not in TOD), then up to half the points could be awarded based on how well the loss rate is achieved.  

Example: I envision a loss rate score being assigned and a loss rate percentage in this way.  "Tonights loss rate for the Allies is expected to be 23%, and the casualty score is 30."  Then the ratio of expected losses to actuall losses would be applied to the score of 30 to find the total score.  Here is the formula:

Expected Loss Rate
-------------------------    X  Casualty Score = Loss Rate Score
Actual Loss Rate

If the Allies loose only 15%, then the Loss Rate Score would be 45.9 (46 rounded).  If the Allies loose 50%, then the Loss Rate Score would be 13.8 (14 rounded).  

I am not sure how complicated the scoring is now, but something along these lines might be what your looking for.

[ghostdancer]

Interesting ideas. Thanks Tracerx.

[Marco50]

Hey flossy did u get my application?     (so i can be a CM?)

[daddog]

A new squad?! Excellent! Welcome to Squad Operations!

[Marco50]

Daddog yes daddog i hope to to make it as a  CM like u    

[Flossy]

Originally posted by Marco50
Hey flossy did u get my application?     (so i can be a CM?)

Yes I got your application and will be putting it to the rest of the team for consideration.  There are several aspects we need to take into account before a decision can be made.  Thanks.  

[Marco50]

Originally posted by Flossy
Yes I got your application and will be putting it to the rest of the team for consideration.  Thanks.  

Thanx Flossy i hope i am good enough for the job!!!  


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Marco50
-AH DemoTeam-

[Midnight]

I like the idea of a single CO for all three frames.

Something that I would like to see is some sort of meaning to the whole thing after it's over. Right now, aisde from the logs, there is really nothing for either side to look at and see who really won. There's no "bragging rights" because after it's over, it's just over.

I said this before, but personally, I would like to see a setup where each side has X resources to be used and an overall objective that needs to be accomplished by the end of frame 3.

For example, a country gets 50 of plane type X and 60 of an older plane type y. Only x% of plane type x will be replenished for the following frame, so if too many losses are suffered, then that side has to use more of plane y in the next frame.

For objectives, perhaps something like a certain factory needs to be destroyed. In oder to destory it, the total damage done by the end of frame 3 needs to be 210% (i.e. it could be 75% destroyed in frame 1, followed by 60% in frame 2, followed by 82% in frame 3, for a total of 217%, or totally destroyed) This way, even if 100% damage was done in one frame, the objective is still not met because another 110% has to be done in the next frames combined.

To go with the above, airfields could be destroyed in a frame and made unusable for the next frame. This way, airfields closest to the main objective could be taken out, making it harder for the enemy to defend the objective because they will now be based further away.

I also like the idea of death penalty or some sort of scoring bonus as has been discussed by others in this thread.

Overall, I like Squad Ops, but as it is now, it is difficult to get the immersed feeling and really get into what we are doing.

[ramzey]

Originally posted by daddog
I am looking for what you guys think about Squad Operations. Good and bad, Friday and Sunday. Not that I want to change anything, I think I run them perfectly , but I would like to see an open, honest, yet “considerate” discussion on the strengths and weakness of this popular weekly event.

If you can’t be civil then don’t post.

thats mean Ramzey dont reply? ;-)

if not sorry for late reply ;-)

im sorry for all this quote's below

Originally posted by Squire

*Frame COs. I think that Squad Op COs should command all three frames, not just one. There is a "disjointed feeling" to having a different CO every frame. A CO may just get the hang of it, get to know his squads, the objectives, ect, and then "thats it" he's done, and a new CO gets the next frame. Consistancy will bring a higher caliber of command. In the end, you wont CO any more frames in a given year, its just you will do your "stint" in one S.O., rather than 3 or 4 seperate ones.

Idea is not bad, but i see troubles here. Hard to fing s much time 3 weeks in row to take care about frame command. In result we can have worse CIC performance.
From secound side if somone have enough time to spend for comunity and skills in command, we can try. Im worry only about how many will be able to do this.

*Possibly, a "corps of COs" that are both willing, able, and dependable to do the above.

well, as above. Command corps works not briliant in CAP event ( thats not mean bad), but allways that better then nothing.

*Aircraft use. Again, this is a consistancy point. Rather than have a different ride, I would propose that squads are either assigned a "light" or "heavy" role in the event, and where at all possible, fly the same a/c for the 3 frames. Each squad say does a "heavy" stint" about 1/3 of the time, in bombers or jabo. This allows some skills to be developed, and again, improves play over all. The other 2/3 are "light" assignments.

imo its up from design (special in SSO), but unwrited rule of SO said "CiC allways assign his own squadron to havy duty or fly crap plane". All that to be sure main objectives will be reach in correct way. Cuz SL who is Cic know what his own squadron can do and to avoid missunderstandings in action.

Designs mostly (last months? ;-) )  "jump" between years of ww2
Frame one 1940, frame 2 1941, frame 3 1944, or something like that. So i can say its all up from design.

I agree!

*Radar in events where it makes sense to have it?

yes its sense, but with correct and resonable delay. Just to make sure both forces have chance to see each others in flight. Somtimes is no need. 5-7 min delay and short range are good enough for any event

*Attacker-Defender ratios improved. If we do a S.O. that has one side all in fighters defending, the ratios should reflect that, 50-50 will not work.

Agree, are you read my post with proposal of design SSO? TY

*Possibly, a loosening up of objectives that allow more leeway to the COs to prosecute the campaign. Objectives are given, fields assigned, the rest is left up to the COs. For the Sunday Op, the lower #s would need to ensure a tighter grp of targets than the Friday Op.

I agree,
Allmost cry when reminde som time agoo i was kicked in prettythang$ for walking that way ;-)

*Set down guidelines for the Friday and Sunday S.O. that are the same. Max # of squads per base, whatever other rules need standardization?

yes!!! more real flying and webpage for SO


thx great imput

Originally posted by AndyH
There should also be some way of the CM "evening up" numbers imbalance", for example removing some targets that needed to be hit by the side with lower numbers. This would have to be coupled with stricter enforcement of the "you must attack/defend all targets on the list" (to prevent the massing of forces on one base

 

thats mean you like to do missions more like in RL, in place of usual lemming missions from MA?

if yes,  i agree. But we need to remember 2 hours of flying and not meet enemy can be bore people.

Originally posted by AndyH

One thing I have noticed recently is that almost all COs seem to mass 90% of their resources in one area, we end up with either a mass furrball or a one sided fight. This could be prevented by forcing n% attack and n% defence in the orders to the side COs. However we need to do this without completely restricting the side CO's tactics. Another way would be to enforce all or certain bases to be attacked within the first hour.

Souce of behavior like this base on tactic "establish air superioriy in target area , then hit when you bombers are safe"

For me better will be work set targets couple sectors away one from secound, or just avoid design  like " 2 sides hit and defend same time". Design like that is good when you have 200 planes on arena, for SSO its just sloughterhaus.

Originally posted by Holder3
An interesting point that Squire (Warloc) has made. As a SquadOp Admin CM I have been putting in many hours between Frames (Saturday so I can get orders out Sunday) updating maps and putting out new orders for the next Frame CO. As is my style, I try to allow lots of leaway for their own imagination in tactics. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. I think this is largely due to the changeover of Frame COs. Some are really into it with lots of experience, and some are new at it. Some have the time, but many don't. Anyway, from my perspective:

PROS:
Reduces Admin CM involvement in the SquadOp after the design is implemented.
Will allow for an enthusiastic Frame CO to run with a design.
May help the immersion aspect for the players.
Reduces the chance that the next Frame CO is out of touch (work, RL, apathy, drunkeness...)

CONS:
It may be a bit too much to ask a Frame CO to do three in a row. If we get an enthusiastic Frame CO who is totally out of touch with the Squad COs, it could put a real damper on the experience.

;-)

Originally posted by Holder3
Other thoughts on SquadOps.

I rarely fly Sunday due to fatherly duties. Fridays are pretty much my goof-off night so I fly and design them (halloween excepted)(and what is that Guy Fawkes day about? ) . If there was one event that could be dropped it would be the Sunday SquadOp (slams helmet on head and drops into fox hole)

and as somone say it will be Ramzey's foult ;-)

Originally posted by Holder3

The old arguement about alt caps should be carefully considered by the SquadOp Admin CM. They should be implemented only  if there is some overwhelming reason for them (none come to mind).

is up only form design, as i think
let them fly 40k when all action is on 5 k ;-)

I think is question of score system, must depends from "target is hit" vs "target was defended". SO when somone cap at 30 k  just have no chances to defend against low jabo attack. That can enforce "layers" of fighters in air. But frankly speeking i have no clear idea how to score it. Maybe somone have?

Originally posted by Holder3

I try to even out the numbers, although there are times where one side should have more than the other. For example, in the last frame of Bomber Wars I added another late joining squad to the American side as they were fielding a lot of bombers and fighters at that time, and I felt that it would be reasonable to do so while not hindering the German abilities to hit the buffs.

imho its depends form design and "good press". When people  start like design, numbers will be more stable and easy to predict (in consequence better balance of sides)

Originally posted by Holder3

There are HUGE gaps in our abilities to stage fights for the early years of the European war, in Russia, and in South-East Asia due to lack of appropriate aircraft. It's a pity, but I can understand the reluctance of HTC to design aircraft that will be little used in the MA. The point is, with these limitations, we need more experimental or imaginative ways to use what we have available. We could take a look at some of the Snap Shots for ideas that we can expand on for Squad Op designs.

som Snap Shots are not good enough, so be careful when you spell your wish ;-)
and about planeset , its shame for HTC ;-) and reason to work on this

Originally posted by Holder3

We might want to try a SquadOp Team/Terrain Team discussion on a forum about what additional things could be done with terrains that would improve overall game play. In particular, the addition of more ground items in ALL terrains would be welcome for me as a designer, as then there are more targets to hit, different variables to play with. After all, much of the war in aircraft was about hitting things on the ground and preventing the other side from interdicting your ground forces. We really could use more:

maybe in AH2, but i agre with you, except small thing. NO gvs or boats ;-)

here i must stop and go to bed
will "quote" others tommorow ;-)

regards
ramzey

[ramzey]

well part 2

I like tracerx idea about scoring, maybe with som modifications
But i think more importand will be correct visualisation of score system. Just not penalized squadrons but give them awards for performance during frame and  during whole tour. An overall establish whole rank system. Better squadron better scoring.
Where most importand part will be lavel of survival ;-)

Here is place for Gremlon to modifi score page a bit and rank squads 1,2,3.....place , not only short message "ih this frame best pilot was ...... from ......." etc, etc.

sorry for this likn but as i think is best score system i ever saw, where you can compare squadrons performance couted  by many diferent parsters
http://scores.wbfree.net/cgi-bin/wbstat.cgi?showlist=19&type=f&istop=on&tod=current

plus we need something what was done for CAP event,
list of aces, streak........... and som other small things. Whichine can give you somethingexciting to read saturday morning or monday mornig, when you chk all boards.

Its complicated and not easy to do. Not easy to update (need couple peooples or good parster whichone catch everything from logs.

About design i was writing in other post when i  trow som ideas about next (current allready) SSO.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98521.

But as i saw most of peoples writing here have same ideas.
Separate design to one side hit secound defend, maximise fighters use in place of bombers (or if we have some bomberd dedicated squadrons use them correct, if they like to fly bombers)

Minor use of better planes is good idea, but spanking squadrons for performance  and put them to crappy ride just wont work.
Allways somone can put squadron to worse plane by personal dislike, or give for his own squadron best ride. We try it and results was not  good.

As somone state above , frames should not jump between years but concentrate  in one  battle. All that due lack of correct planeset, special for UJN and Russia battles.

And pls no more experiments with alt and som other ideas, just simply desighn. FLy to target, hit him, take som fight and head home. I think best funn peopl have when saw som battle and safe return home, thats give best satisfaction


regards
ramzey

[Squirrel]

Hey daddog,
As a lowly participant (and usually cannon-fodder) Friday squads-ops are great fun  Its one of the few evening scenario-like events that will fit with my family schedule (kids sports etc).

Suggestions:  
#1 No more night scenarios please until hitech and co discover the instrument panel light bulb and possibly navigation lights

#2  Lots of great input already but it would be great to see more points for surviving the frame (to discourage suicide missions and other gamey behaviour).  Since numbers can be an issue I'd hate to see folks excluded from subsequent frames as a death penalty though.

#3  Although I'm not a buff driver I have no problem with swapping planes each frame so that no one group has to bear flying the "less-fun" planes for all frames.

#4  We should catalog desired map changes and submit requests to the cm terrain team.  After all, scenarios, squad-ops, and the like are what the team is here for

Good day,
Sqrl

[EsmeNhaMaire]

I hope folks don;t mind me putting in my two penn'orth, even though I am not currently involved with Squadops games...

I'm a veteran of the S3 games in Warbirds, and a bit of a "realism" nut.  I like flying no-GPS (I'm a bomber specialist, specifically LW/Axis bombers), I do not like having any kind of radar when airborne, and I like to be given the chance to do proper flight-planning (essential if flying no-GPS).

That means I like to be told asap (pref a few days before, if pos, at a pich the day before. Tell me half a hour before and I'll grit my teeth at you but get the job done anyway) what my target is, and any considerations HQ would like taken into account, then I get back to HQ asap with suggested flight plan, including time at target and various points along the way, etc. This worked very well in the S3's. What I don;t like is being handed a flight plan by someone who simply doesnt understand or have a "feel" for the finer (and more interesting) points of buffing... generaly such plans have us flying full throttle  more or less directly at the foe with close escort.  Generally those plans result in many buff casualties.

In short, I'm attempting to make a case for allowing non-dayfighter specialists do what they do and enjoy best.  I'm also in favour of continuity of command, where possible.  Over time, in the S3's one became aware of who was good at CO'ing, and who was not, and occasionally one might make (cough) "slight adjustments" to ones orders in order to achieve the effect desired by the CO.  This was widely understood to happen, although outright disobedience was, of course, very much frowned on. But then, good CO's tended to know what they could rely on from each unit.  At the point I last flew in S3s, IIRC, we still had a new side CO per frame, generally, but there was some trend away from that.

I and the rest of KG2 very much want to take part in organised, realistic unit-based games, with chain of command, proper orders, etc.  Our numbers in AH are slowly picking up.  If Squad ops can offer us what we are looking for, we might well be happy to sign up (if timing allows), as a full-time Axis bomber unit (don't mind flying fighters in "defence of the Reich" type scenarios. They tended to stuff buff pilots into fighters towards the end in RL)., although if there's no place for such in a particular game, we don't mind flying other stuff for whatever side occasionally.  Flying fighters is not EVERYbody's idea of the best way to have fun in AH.

As an aside, it's the fact that AH, in common with most games of this  type, has in the past been too skewed in favour of fighters  (especially late-war ones) and clear blue skies and getting lots of kills that buffing isnt as much fun as it could and should be, generally. It's only within the confines of organised games with tolerably realistic conditions that buffers have a chance to shine and actually have fun, instead of just being fighter-fodder.  

As for numbers, etc. - ultimately what counts is what the scenario needs in order to be fun.  Sometimes having even numbers ruins a game (like BoB, or "defence of the Reich". The defenders SHOULD have lesser numbers in those; and there SHOULD be rather more buffs than fighters in both).  For most of my online WW2 flightsim career, I've been flying against the odds, sometimes heavily so, and I can honestly say that some of the dullest games I've been in have been ones on which I was on the side with the largest numbers.

I have to be frank, though.. the lure of the S3's in WB is still very strong, and with WBIII starting to look like it might be something I'd be happy to fly again, I personally may just stay with the odd general event over here and get back into the S3's over there.

Feel free to try to persuade me I'd be happier signing up here... :-)

Esme
Geschwader CO, Kampfgeschwader 2 "Holzhammer"
(Douwe is our Gruppe CO in AH).