Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Marianas 1944 Campaign » Marianas Briefing Room




 Page 4 of 4 [ 53 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4



Author Message
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:40 am
Posts: 828
102nd-YU-devill wrote:
@All,

You want realism, yet you are talking about "control points" and "victory points". If you want to introduce these two terms it means you are talking about "wargaming" and that implies contest in the sense of strategic planning. So, those of you who feel that the ground engine and ground planning is not sufficiently realistic in IL2, should not talk about precise victory or loss conditions and their criteria, such as control point possession and which unit in which quantity is able to capture stuff...

102nd-YU-Uross had a very good idea about this: do not use CPs. Why do we need CPs? If someone is defending an island and the other side invades it, the island is in the hands of the one who can use its resources. If the invading force cleans the area around an aerodrome on the island, sufficiently so that nobody is shooting at it, then effectively it should posses it since it can safely operate from it. Who cares if there is a squad of infantry hiding somewhere nearby in a hole? If that squad doesn't move it can't do anything to damage the airfield. Even if it moves and kills an airplane on take off or in a hangar, that is the risk the invading forces planner took. It doesn't mean he lost possession of the airfield.

If we say we will have 20 missions in a campaign and nobody wants to stop the campaign sooner than that, then what is the use of victory conditions? Just so that you can proclaim a victor and a looser at the end? What do we gain by that at all?

I say, erase CPs. Say in the campaign brief what are the strategic objectives for both sides. At the end of the campaign each side can evaluate their situation and they will know if they won or lost. No need to "proclaim" it everywhere. At least in this way there will be no more need to accuse people of using tricks or abusing the engine.

Now since you didn't answer my question I will ask it again:

Do you want a contest or not, in the campaign?

Cheers.



I have to answer to my Friend Devil.
Sorry for late, but I need a bit to evaluate your points.

Your position is singular but interesting.

A Real War, no Control Point but only Strategic Positions like in Reality.

The only target is to destroy the Enemy.

Could be interesting... to evaluate with care...:roll:



Regarding the Contest, it's difficult to think to something different.
In case, what is your suggestion, a sort of reenactment?


Regards

Cip

_________________
ITALIAN WINGS. L'UNIONE FA LA FORZA! www.italianwing.it
Image


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:19 am
Posts: 567
Here is another thought. Why do the same squads always fly on the same side (Axis/Allied) time after time? Why not mix up squads? Some of the GCT could be on the same side as some of the 102nd etc, etc. I know that there is a language barrier and that squads like to fly together but what I see is an "us versus them' dynamic that has crept into things. Mixing things up could create some appreciation of each others perspective and who knows, maybe even some new friends.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:52 am
Posts: 2315
Tanker wrote:
Here is another thought. Why do the same squads always fly on the same side (Axis/Allied) time after time? Why not mix up squads? Some of the GCT could be on the same side as some of the 102nd etc, etc. I know that there is a language barrier and that squads like to fly together but what I see is an "us versus them' dynamic that has crept into things. Mixing things up could create some appreciation of each others perspective and who knows, maybe even some new friends.


+1

I totally agree with this statement and feel that it is THE way forward.


Going back to additional rules for future campaigns I think another matter for discussion should be units in forests, and units in large towns/cities. I know some campaigns have a blanket rule against any units in forests but I feel that is going to far as it denies the planner a tactical option, particularly if one side enjoys air superiority.

Whilst I think it is a very valid tactic to camouflage or hide units in forests I think we should rule out placing artillery (howitzers) and anti-aircraft artillery in forests. I will agree that artillery and AAA certainly did use small clearings in forests but the key to those positions was they had a very limited field of fire (as dictated by the trees surrounding the clearing). This is particularly true for small calibre AAA weapons which would most likely be engaging low-level a/c and therefore the guns would not be elevated to fire high. But in IL2 the forests do not block the line of fire and all artillery and AAA fire out of the forests in all directions. This creates a poor situation where a/c are left to try and fire blindly into forests at the source of the AAA. I would suggest that all units apart from artillery are allowed anywhere in a forest. Artillery and AAA must never be deployed in a forest, they can of course hide in a forest but to do that they must be carried by a cargo unit, such as a supply column.

Another option that perhaps a campaign designer may like to consider is using factory plates over a forest, if a commander hides a lot of units in a forest naturally his enemy may attempt to carpet bomb that forest (if a/c available of course) if this is the case then the carpet bombing is unlikely to achieve anything spectacular in game but with the use of factory plates a proportional value of losses vs factory plate damage could be applied to the units in that forest.


Another idea I had was something that would only really apply to the pacific theatre. In every SEOW scenario where US forces are to take islands we see cruisers and battleships move upto the islands and bombard them destroying everything in sight. This to me creates a situation which is too easy for the attacker. As we all know the surface bombardment during the war was never that effective because most of the japanese forces would be underground in bunkers and caves and only really come out to fight when the marines were on the beaches. So I propose that each island should have a number of supply points (number of depends on the size of the island) these supply points represent caves and bunker complexes and therefore the defending commander can withdraw most of his forces to the safety of the supply points. Once marines are ashore he can deploy forces out of those supply points and start a fierce combat with the invaders. Of course these supply points would need some rules about them such as;

1) the invaders cannot capture them until they are empty or reduced to a small group of infantry which would be flushed out by grenades or flamethrower

2) Only infantry, light artillery and perhaps a couple of AA weapons would be allowed into the supply point (unless we can prove that the IJA hid tanks in caves as well)

I think the above would create a much more authentic island hopping campaign in the pacific as we would get the bitter close combat fighting experienced by the marines.

EDIT: forgot to write about large towns/cities

Due to the poor AI handling of grd units such as tanks coupled with the very low framerates that most players will experience over heavily built up areas such as large cities I think that grd units inside towns and cities should be limited to infantry which can be easily destroyed by high/med level bombing. Placing tanks and bunkers in towns is very difficult for players to deal with as we cannot rely on grd units to do the fighting and we cannot rely on jabos as most players will suffer poor frame rates when trying to make an attack. Also when hard targets supported by AAA are placed in large cities frequently because of the poor frame rates the attacking players cannot see that small calibre AAA is firing at them.

Whilst I realise street to street fighting took place it is not something that we can accurately represent in game so we should look to bypass the problem. A possibly viable alternative is driveable tanks with which a player could take command of on a mission before it enters the town.

_________________
Molti nemici molto onore!

Image


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:09 am
Posts: 365
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia
Classic EAF19 wrote:
Tanker wrote:
Here is another thought. Why do the same squads always fly on the same side (Axis/Allied) time after time? Why not mix up squads? Some of the GCT could be on the same side as some of the 102nd etc, etc. I know that there is a language barrier and that squads like to fly together but what I see is an "us versus them' dynamic that has crept into things. Mixing things up could create some appreciation of each others perspective and who knows, maybe even some new friends.


+1

I totally agree with this statement and feel that it is THE way forward.


Going back to additional rules for future campaigns I think another matter for discussion should be units in forests, and units in large towns/cities. I know some campaigns have a blanket rule against any units in forests but I feel that is going to far as it denies the planner a tactical option, particularly if one side enjoys air superiority.

Whilst I think it is a very valid tactic to camouflage or hide units in forests I think we should rule out placing artillery (howitzers) and anti-aircraft artillery in forests. I will agree that artillery and AAA certainly did use small clearings in forests but the key to those positions was they had a very limited field of fire (as dictated by the trees surrounding the clearing). This is particularly true for small calibre AAA weapons which would most likely be engaging low-level a/c and therefore the guns would not be elevated to fire high. But in IL2 the forests do not block the line of fire and all artillery and AAA fire out of the forests in all directions. This creates a poor situation where a/c are left to try and fire blindly into forests at the source of the AAA. I would suggest that all units apart from artillery are allowed anywhere in a forest. Artillery and AAA must never be deployed in a forest, they can of course hide in a forest but to do that they must be carried by a cargo unit, such as a supply column.

Another option that perhaps a campaign designer may like to consider is using factory plates over a forest, if a commander hides a lot of units in a forest naturally his enemy may attempt to carpet bomb that forest (if a/c available of course) if this is the case then the carpet bombing is unlikely to achieve anything spectacular in game but with the use of factory plates a proportional value of losses vs factory plate damage could be applied to the units in that forest.


Another idea I had was something that would only really apply to the pacific theatre. In every SEOW scenario where US forces are to take islands we see cruisers and battleships move upto the islands and bombard them destroying everything in sight. This to me creates a situation which is too easy for the attacker. As we all know the surface bombardment during the war was never that effective because most of the japanese forces would be underground in bunkers and caves and only really come out to fight when the marines were on the beaches. So I propose that each island should have a number of supply points (number of depends on the size of the island) these supply points represent caves and bunker complexes and therefore the defending commander can withdraw most of his forces to the safety of the supply points. Once marines are ashore he can deploy forces out of those supply points and start a fierce combat with the invaders. Of course these supply points would need some rules about them such as;

1) the invaders cannot capture them until they are empty or reduced to a small group of infantry which would be flushed out by grenades or flamethrower

2) Only infantry, light artillery and perhaps a couple of AA weapons would be allowed into the supply point (unless we can prove that the IJA hid tanks in caves as well)

I think the above would create a much more authentic island hopping campaign in the pacific as we would get the bitter close combat fighting experienced by the marines.

EDIT: forgot to write about large towns/cities

Due to the poor AI handling of grd units such as tanks coupled with the very low framerates that most players will experience over heavily built up areas such as large cities I think that grd units inside towns and cities should be limited to infantry which can be easily destroyed by high/med level bombing. Placing tanks and bunkers in towns is very difficult for players to deal with as we cannot rely on grd units to do the fighting and we cannot rely on jabos as most players will suffer poor frame rates when trying to make an attack. Also when hard targets supported by AAA are placed in large cities frequently because of the poor frame rates the attacking players cannot see that small calibre AAA is firing at them.

Whilst I realise street to street fighting took place it is not something that we can accurately represent in game so we should look to bypass the problem. A possibly viable alternative is driveable tanks with which a player could take command of on a mission before it enters the town.


As usuall, great ideas...I agree with every single one of them. Now we talk constructively, and I think if we keep up this way, we will find out some standard rules for every theatre which campaign designers should apply.

Another solution for CPs - we shouldn`t place them anywhere where units could hide, or where they can`t fight (like villages, cities and such). They could be in forests, with addition of "plates" like Classic explained.

Cheers!

_________________
Image


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:41 am
Posts: 459
Tanker wrote:
Here is another thought. Why do the same squads always fly on the same side (Axis/Allied) time after time? Why not mix up squads? Some of the GCT could be on the same side as some of the 102nd etc, etc. I know that there is a language barrier and that squads like to fly together but what I see is an "us versus them' dynamic that has crept into things. Mixing things up could create some appreciation of each others perspective and who knows, maybe even some new friends.


Lentolaivue 34 have flown on both sides in the campaigns. Most in the blue side, but also as now on red. We of course prefer the blue side for we are more familiar with the planes, but it is no problem to fly on red.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 1208
Location: Italy
Dear friends,

As italian community we are available to any historical and realistic campaign.
I dont feel we need to establish some kind of standards so much as you are representing, but we can easily live with it.
We are basically interested of any campaign well oriented to actions and we consider very important the way we are able to fly as a coordinated whole group rather than be many little flights playing many different coop missions at the same time.
Template and map are very important so far we want to ensure to concentrate the actions around some main targets and guarantee that any task we give to the pilots makes sense.
This approach comes from the objective we want to achieve by flying massive missions, because on the contrary we would not need to fly together in such a big number of players.
So it's good to mix, but as the coordination needs training, we should ask our partners to be trained as well to accept an overall commander in the mission. At the same time, all italians mixed up under your command are expecting to find such a kind of organization.

We are not so experienced in the ground war as you, so we are happy if you like to think about the seow settings and rules.

_________________
22GCT_Gross
www.22GCT.it


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 931
Location: Israel
102nd-YU-devill wrote:
IAF.ViFF wrote:
EAF331_Starfire wrote:
as In write I have just lat e friend slep on y couth and I am drunk as a skunk. I won't comment on anything since I an unable to stand on my feet and seriously think I love you all

God I love the music of the 80's :wink:


I nominate this post as the best post of the forum ever!!!!! 8)

I love you too Starfire!!!! 8)

S!


You two realize that you have entered into your middle age and that the misguided love for the music of the eighties is just nostalgia for childhood/teens when everything was much less complicated and hard?

If that is not the reason, then anyone who likes the eighties for their artistic value or aesthetics should be summarily executed by a Beaufighter strafing run.

:twisted:

P.S. Yeah, ok, ok, I love you too... :( :D


How dare you insult the music of of the 80's!!!

A fantastic time of unbridled hair arrangements and sexual identity confusion, all laced in raw beginnings of synthesized sounds that would eventually bring us to techno...

As punishment you will suffer the following.... and oh yes, I can do much worse!! :twisted:

http://youtu.be/ZUatnbaNfEo


Cheers,

_________________
IAF.ViFF

http://www.preflight.us
Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community Center


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:49 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: France
Now, that is a cruel and unusual punishment... :D

Btw check your goddamn mail bro! :P

_________________
Image


Top 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
 Page 4 of 4 [ 53 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4




Board index » Marianas 1944 Campaign » Marianas Briefing Room


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron