Campaign Command Style

[5./JG27.Farber]

Well the patch draws nearer that will kill the CTD bug andthankfully we have wildwillies stats via ClodCommander, so we are getting another campaign drawn up.

2nd Mutisquad Campaign comming soon!



So the way I see it and from the input given last time, we have two options:

Option 1 - Scripted

Sides will be given preset historical type missions for bombing of targets/escort duties. The benefits are, less work load for organising and its not reliant on a commander to plot all the missions, draw up tactical maps etc...

Option 2 - C in C

Each side votes a Commander in Chief for that side (1 vote per squadron to avoid large squadrons taking over). Each Squadron leader would form one of his council and may make suggestions and objections but the C in C's word is final. This is more reliant on people completing their air missions in the FMB to a deadline... The missions would then be loaded in the mission via script upon the start of the mission with out having been opened. Strict rules for mission making would have to be in place, ie bombers can't spawn over target and must be at least X km's from front line. This would give it a very diverse out come and would make things more exciting and fun.



So with out writing an essay and keeping calm could you please place your votes and or ask questions...

[bw_wolverine]

I guess maybe I'd like a hybrid of the two ideas:

A command structure from the squadrons but the main missions are pre-structured according to historical sorties. The player commander maybe has some extra ai units to allocate where he/she and the war council sees fit (aaa, ai bombers, etc.).

[JG52Krupi]

Whooo!

[Osprey]

The Air Combat Group are in for this! Been waiting a while I'm excited already! We should be able to put No.501, No.64 and No.401 into the air, around 20 pilots.

Like Wolverine I would like to see historical missions, as accurate as possible to real events starting chronologically. For example by having a large bomber force of AI head to a target with the LW briefed on the target and the escort job they have to do. The LW would be given rendezvous positions and the target but no details on the populated RAF bases. The RAF given no information, just ordered to be on standby. The bombers can set off triggers which post HUD messages to particular RAF crews to get to readiness, then scramble, and are given a position of interception as the RDF ground controller would. The fight happens when it happens. As long as the patch is out we should be able to support large numbers. Bombers can be supported by AI fighters in order to balance numbers.

I'm not fussed about stats personally though some chaps may be, perhaps success can be judged on % of target destroyed - then the mission can be added up RAF 1, LW - 0 (or whatever points mechanism) and this can be tallied through the campaign. I would like to see a refuel/rearm mechanism in place for undamaged aircraft if at all possible.

Although the 2nd option is fine in principle, in practice it won't work because mapmaking, and in particular TESTING it, is a serious pile of work.


PS, I just noticed that Krupi has quoted me for his sig lol A fine compliment bud!

[5./JG27.Farber]

Weve just played a short campaign against 56 RAF using the scripted method for two and the command style (with 56 RAF making the flight mission) for one mission.

First off I have to say 56RAF fly very well and were fine opponants. S!

The radar aided them somewhat but the lack of radar for germans was a total detriment. Clearly some kind of air observer corps is need for bothsides. Just how this would be implented I do know know. As for any pop up text on the screen (its distracting and hiddous orange) I am against it. Its distracting and a little too good for directing onto targets. Also it would not give altitude whereas the radar system does.

As for declaring a winner, Ive found that taking part in campaigns in the past -both running them and taking part in others campaigns, its best to let the stats tell the tale. You might have had an excellant sortie but your team may not, your squadron might have had an awesome sortie but your side was flattened... In war there are only losers... The stats are useful for Squadrons that run career modes for their pilots. How do you equate a win or loss? The target was destroyed but you lost all your bombers, is that a draw? It gets quite complex and I would rather have it revole around objective complete...

I think C in C style is out of the window...

Look forward to seeing 501, 64 and 401 in the campaign aswell as many others!

S!

[bw_wolverine]

I don't think there needs to be symmetry in the radar/observer capabilities in the campaign because the goals of each side are completely different (depending on the stage of the Battle you're looking to model with the campaign).

If the campaign goal of the Luftwaffe is to destroy a ground target, there's no need for them to identify the location of RAF planes. Their job is to bomb targets and to escort those bombers to their targets.

The RAF's job is harder. They have to identify the raids coming in, they have to get to the right altitude in the right place to attack the raids before they drop their bombs. It's hard enough to get stuck in over the target when you know what the target is. It's even harder to vector an intercept to where you can attack with enough time to get the job done before the bombs fall. The CH radar makes the job possible, not easy.

So objectives based campaign. Yep, absolutely. If all the RAF planes get shot down by Luftwaffe 109s, except not before the RAF planes forced the bombers to drop their bombs in the sea and the target wasn't destroyed, I'd call that a RAF victory for the day.

Also, with regard to the crashing and the re-spawning limitation:

I suggest instead of the 'one life and you're out' idea, simply run the mission for a set amount of time (say 3 hours) and let people respawn. Password the server. There are things that we just have to run by the honour system sometimes (like, if you run out of ammo, don't just bail out and respawn to get more - fly home, land and respawn). Squadrons should be responsible for policing their own people.

Until the crashes are resolved and refuel/rearm are in place, I think this will help make a campaign playable. For a lot of people, the previous campaign was basically a great formation take-off and a leisurely flight before the game crashed.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I don't think there needs to be symmetry in the radar/observer capabilities in the campaign because the goals of each side are completely different (depending on the stage of the Battle you're looking to model with the campaign).

Red will have attacking missions also...

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

If the campaign goal of the Luftwaffe is to destroy a ground target, there's no need for them to identify the location of RAF planes. Their job is to bomb targets and to escort those bombers to their targets.

Reds will also have escort missions, they attacked airfields in France during BoB.

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

The RAF's job is harder. They have to identify the raids coming in, they have to get to the right altitude in the right place to attack the raids before they drop their bombs. It's hard enough to get stuck in over the target when you know what the target is. It's even harder to vector an intercept to where you can attack with enough time to get the job done before the bombs fall. The CH radar makes the job possible, not easy.

Just like real life... Also see the first two answers...

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

So objectives based campaign. Yep, absolutely. If all the RAF planes get shot down by Luftwaffe 109s, except not before the RAF planes forced the bombers to drop their bombs in the sea and the target wasn't destroyed, I'd call that a RAF victory for the day.

Obviously if its as clear cut as that its a victory but I think the stats would tell a better overall picture at the end...

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Also, with regard to the crashing and the re-spawning limitation:

I suggest instead of the 'one life and you're out' idea, simply run the mission for a set amount of time (say 3 hours) and let people respawn. Password the server. There are things that we just have to run by the honour system sometimes (like, if you run out of ammo, don't just bail out and respawn to get more - fly home, land and respawn). Squadrons should be responsible for policing their own people.

This is not possible with out a constant stream of bombers that continusly attack the same target - in the case its not destroyed. With scripted missions this becomes harder to script. It also means people will not fight to live, just fight to respawn...

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Until the crashes are resolved and refuel/rearm are in place, I think this will help make a campaign playable. For a lot of people, the previous campaign was basically a great formation take-off and a leisurely flight before the game crashed.

Agreed but RRR is not something we will be using, would you really wait 9 mins for your Hurri to be rearmed or 20 mins for your spit to be rearmed before proceading to refuel. Repairs? 30 mins, 2 hours?

We will not be running our next campign untill the patch is out that fixes the frame rate and CTD as mentioned in the OP.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

We will not be running our next campign untill the patch is out that fixes the frame rate and CTD as mentioned in the OP.

Ah, gotcha. Wasn't sure if that was what you were saying in the OP.

With regards the waiting for refuel/rearm: I think the idea is that they RAF/Luftwaffe had other pilots and planes waiting to take off. So you're not really trying to simulate actually refueling and rearming, but rather the ability to send more planes into the air. Unless you're actually trying to replicate a ratio of all possible planes in the air (in which case you have to place signup number restrictions).

But I do agree with the assessment of people not flying to survive, so one life and out is a good solution to that.

Whatever you settle on, I'm sure it'll be fun. Looking forward to it!

[Osprey]

Hi Farber,

I am in agreement with Wolverine on the objectives, if you are looking to balance it up then the historical accuracy goes out of the window somewhat. The RAF did bomb in the BoB but it was always unescorted and often at night. I guess it really depends on what sort of campaign you are after, from our perspective I am not so bothered about winning or losing but rather the accuracy and the taking part, the 'being there' and the learning about the history. Thus the RDF (and I don't know what form this is in, perhaps you can provide an explanation?) seems to be an important part from the RAF point of view. After all, the LW were frequently surprised by the positioning of the RAF in relation to their raids - it didn't make it a turkey shoot though. I'm keen to understand the RDF ground control though because really it should be as simply as an altitude and heading, roughly, and then we see each other. In my view only the squad leads should have access to the ground controller anyway - this would encourage grouping up properly.

Not sure what to do about the HUD, I thought you could send to the chat window only but perhaps it sends to both consoles.

Regarding the respawn, I understand what you mean, but you may be able to control this with having squadrons only, and lonewolfs have to fly with a squadron? Wolverine joined up with us and formed 401 from your last campaign :p Squadrons have discipline, we do and I know 56 do too.

I'm all ears
~S~

[5./JG27.Farber]

I was about to ask if anyone had any RAF bombing data for te RAF Where there no daylight bombings of coastal airfields by the RAF? I thought there were.


Some radar reading: - see page 39 in particular.
http://www.radarpages.co.uk/download...C0609F97-3.pdf



As for radar, there will be some active Home Chain Stations, around 4 on any given map for the British. 0 for the german. However for both sides surely there should also be some kind of observer corps...

Last week end we flew against 56 RAF as part of a once a fortnght campaign composed of three missions and put some of these things into practice... The British radar works, albeit it not comprehensively. Although it also gives too much information for example aircraft type... It also never picks up false contacts... Like a large flight of large birds nor is it interfered with by atmospheric conditions. I let the 56 RAF make the air mission and loaded it onto our map with scripting without even looking at it, they were on the attack escorting 4 wellingtons. They had flown virtually around the map in a big circle and we didnt get a message via the game as to the position for over 50 mins! So the fact the vote seems to be for scripted rather than a C in C at this point is good.

One way to simulate this would be to use the bf108 and the anson for inland spotting... I dislike the use of triggers as they are a bit too automatic... Not to mention allot more scripting in a script that is complicated enough.

If anything the RAF have an advantage. They will have radar however both sides still need an artificial AOC... Home Chain stations could only look out, not in to England.


We are also hoping to have whether in the next campaign depending on the fps issues and ctd. This also adds new elements to spotting aircraft!


Its interesting that we are looking at scoring it. Ive just finished reading Mike Spicks book, Luftwaffe fighter Aces. At the end its very interesting, he asks who was the greatest LW fighter ace? Now allot of people will say Hartmann, some will say Marseille, Woerner Molders, Adolf Galland, Barkhorn...etc etc But what is the true measure? Is it just total victories? Victories per sortie? Who got the most fighters/bombers? It is impossible to declare one the greatest.

So for example blue are going to bomb england and red goes soley for the objective, red shoot down every bomber but get mauled in the process. Who is the victor? Air wars are wars of attrition. We could total up the stats at the end and say red shot down more aircraft but blue compleated all their objectives. Who was the victor? You could then further complicate it by asking further - which team took the most material losses? Tanks cost more than fighter aircraft, ships cost a LOT more... I say we let the stats do the talking, see if it comes out clear but I doubt it will.


Would be nice to hear from some LW squadrons about now, its 3 against 1!