Some thoughts about SEOW

[242Sqn_Chap]

Hello and Happy New year everyone.

Thank you 4Shades for your tremendous ongoing development with SEOW. Over the recent couple of years I have had increasingly more to do with this system and it is really in a league of its own !

Here are some observations resulting from this time. (and none are actually intrinsic to SEOW although it is effected by them)

Thoughts about Playability (generally Lag):-

Ground unit limitation.
We have found on the 102nd server (and it is no slouch in terms of connection speed) that it is necessary for both sides to agree a limit for the number of moving ground units per side or the mission can become unplayable (about 60 total on 102nd although this obviously depends upon a number of variables, the server, aircraft numbers ,AAA rof etc etc.)

Aircraft in mission limitations:-
Again if this is unlimited (although the 32 player co-op limit is a factor anyhow) the mission generated can become unplayable.

WHY NOT ADD A 'PLAYABILITY' TAB whereby these numbers can actually be set and monitored for each side by the SE control program itself and transferred into the planner so that players cannot exceed them ?.

If they could be set separately and different for each side it would solve the problem , relieve bookkeeping and the need for 'inhouse rules'....and it could even be a feature (eg..if there was a 60 ground unit movement limitation, perhaps the Axis could be set to move 35 max, the Russians 25 to reflect communication and command and control differences.) Likewise sides could have differant maximum numbers of player flyable's and AI aircraft set depending upon what is being represented .

The problem with fighting a whole theatre war:-
SEOW can become quite competitive, both sides usually have many aircraft more available to fight with than those available to fly during a mission.

The consequence of this is inevitably that both sides fly all of their best aircraft until there are none left, then fly the next best etc etc.... This is not at all realistic and detracts from the simulation. I have experimented with two different solutions to this:-

i) The most elegant solution may be to increase the rearming and refuelling time (depending upon aircraft available to planes in each mission ratio). Perhaps a 'Playability' tab could have rearming 'multiplier' (X2 X3 X4 etc ) available so that it is not necessary to change the DB manualy. This has an effect of cycling planes used much more (alhtough its not a complete solution),even pilots have to sleep and damaged aircraft be repaired !.

ii) Perhaps the most 'realistic' solution would be to introduce some kind of 'proportionality' feature. We had some very involved discussions about this as a result of a Provkharovka campaign...I proposed an enforced 'proportionality' of force types ratio ...eg if a force has 60% Level bombers they have to use that proportion during the course of a time period (not necessarily a single mission).
(I went into this in tremendous detail in some discussions we had on 242Sqn forum, I can forward it if anyone is interested.)

I would be surprised if people had not experienced, some or all of the above and I was advised that it may be a good idea to raise this for discussion here.

As SEOW becomes increasingly popular in some circles, I think it will be the above (and how they are addressed, or worse not addressed... currently by 'in-house' rules) that will colour most peoples perception of the system far more than all of the features and the actual power of SEOW.

Add it in and people don't have to use it however its inclusion will make people consider these absolutely vital aspects at the beginning, rather than when it becomes a dissapointing 'problem'.

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

Hi Chap, and welcome,

Marvellous post! Please post your "involved discussion" regarding proportionality.

The original SE team from years back talked about enforcing rules for playability, and we decided that we didn't have enough information (then) to assess what kinds of missions were playable and what weren't. That was before we had a reliable beta release of any kind!

Now, after several years of experience, I have found that most campaigns settle on 32-40 aircraft and around 30-60 surface movements per mission. It would be pretty straightforward to add settings sliders for these numbers (per side) and use the values inside the MP to prevent commanders exceeding them. Of course, that doesn't address the proportionality issue, so I'd like to continue the discussion here on how to make sure that both sides use representative mixes of materiel in their missions. Anybody have any comments?

Cheers,
4Shades

[242Sqn_Chap]

Ok here was the post:-

This is not about details, strategy or those kind of thoughts that we have gone into tremendous detail about but the way this has played out so far.

In some ways I think it has been tremendous , the turnout, the close action, the enthusiasm, the thought that has gone into things, the new people that we have met and now the great ground battle that is building up...

However I have to say that it really is not like I thought it would be.
We picked the theatre and time period because of the variety of the plane sets and the many mission options that we thought that this would present.

However...

With only 16 planes usable aside and 200 aircraft available, it has become an almost purely fighter battle. (and this does make sense for both sides currently and whilst one side adopts such an approach the other is almost forced to do similar.)

How would it continue? with both sides using only fighters until one side runs out at which point it becomes a 'duck shoot' because one side has only bombers ? (will that side even turn up at this point ?)

What is happening is not historical at all and really not how I believe any of us envisioned it.
(and is certain to become (or perhaps already is ?) of little interest for any players wishing to fly bombers or ground attack in any way despite the suitability in every way of the theatre for these things.)

I really like the idea of the night mission that we have agreed upon....Can we go further ?

Could we think about some kind of 'plane composition parameters' for the 2nd day.

eg the commanders actually have to decide the flights for the entire day (at the beginning of the day) and that those compositions MUST contain certain percentages of fighters, fighter bombers, bombers....

(eg 40%fighter 20% jabo (dedicated not fighters with bombs) 40% bombers in composition throughout the day .
...or it could be the percentage of each type in the OOB at the beginning of each day...so if you have 65% bombers at the start of a day, then during that day your flight plans have to include that percentage of bombers ...)

If fighter numbers are limited in such a way, bombers and ground attack becomes feasible again and and we will actually see the variety of plane types present in the OOB's being utilized in historical proportions.

What do people think, is this a valid point ?
Would there be a simple and workable way of doing it ?

In my view it would be more accurate and would create what we had intended from the beginning, and most importantly would force the creation of bomber missions and ground attack .

Thinking about this a little more and here is a completely mathmatical way to work this and I am absolutely certain it would be much better:-

Each Day we have 4 day missions and 1 Night:-

thats 16 planes flyable per mission x5 = 80 plane slots per day.


i) list total planes available at the beginning of the day:-
(I used the starting OOB)

ii) find percentage of each plane type of total
iii) multiply the percentage found X 80 plane slots to find number of each type available for day (this requires a little rounding out so total is 80)


Total number /percentage / (%x80)available for day

Spitfire Vb------------- 4 2% 1.52
Lagg-s--------------- 12 5.7% 4.6
La-5----------------- 12 5.7 % 4.6
La-5F---------------- 18 8.5% 6.8
P-39 D-2-------------- 6 2.8% 2.2
P-39 N-1------------- 12 5.7% 4.6
Yak-1B---------------- 18 8.5% 6.8
Yak-7B 1942------------18 8.5% 6.8
Yak-9D------------------10 4.7% 3.8
IL-2 s--------------------48 22.8% 18.2
A-20C VVS-----------------12 5.7 % 4.6
B-25 VVS-------------------6 2.8% 2.2
Pe-2 Series 110------------16 7.6% 6
U2VS----------------6 2.8% 2.2
transports 12 (?) 5.7% 4.6

iv) Assign the planes 'available for day' to missions 1-4 and the night mission before any kind of mission planning....so that all 80 plane slots in the 4 day missions and night mission have plane types and numbers assigned to fill all 16 slots.

This is less flexible but both sides are subject to identical parameters.

v) send the above calculations and plane assignment for the days five missions to campaign admin so that if disputed this can be checked later at the end of each day if required.

vi) Both sides now have pre assigned aircraft types for each mission during the day and night ahead and must make the best of what they have as each mission arises...this is actually far more challenging !


notes)
This forces a direct proportionate use of all the plane types available upon both sides.

More planning is required in advance and deciding what may be ideal in 4 missions time is not easy, it is the same for both sides however.

The historic proportionality of bombers and a lot lower fighter density will allow bombers and ground attack aircraft of both sides far more ability of operating with chance of success and would return the campaign to a ground attack footing after the initial 'air superiority day'.

The night mission will take up a lot of bombers if desired...so the bomber numbers are not so problematic as may first appear by this method..

As such commanders can commit any number of fighter or bomber types to a particular mission but they will not then have them for other missions during that day.

(Note:-
i) The 'Strategic plane assignment' segment (for want of a better name) need not specify specific aircraft & formations, these would be selected during mission planning, just numbers of particular type assigned to a mission.
ii) If for any reason the plane type assigned had become unavailable during the proceeding missions, a simple default to the most numerous of that category (fighter, fightr bomber etc) would work.

This was tailored to a very specific situation but I think the principle would work and a 'routine' could be incorporated to do just the above...

In reality the forces available dictated what was flown and the best aircraft were not flown again and again whilst slightly older aircraft sat idle.

This system gives a side with a larger number of inferior planes a proper chance against a side with a few very good ones .

I reality Ground controllers and forward air controllers had to make the best use of what they had actually got (rather than what they would like). (mission planning)

I think this would actually make mission planning far more challenging and the mission plane composition decisions at the beginning of the day (or time period adopted) would add a whole new 'Wing' or 'Luftflotte' Level command challenge. (Strategic plane assignment phase ?)

When is the optimum time for a 'fighter sweep' a ' large bomber raid' ? etc etc.

There would be no need to use the rearming rules at all if such a system was used. Nor display all the aircraft available in the Mission planner, just those types selected beginning of the time period for each mission.
(So all types not selected should appear as unavailable)

The early part was a bit of a ramble, its the calculation and proposed methodology that may be of interest (or spark better solutions/ideas.)
I feel I have made what is quite a simple idea seem very complex...I hope you have the patience to wade through it.

[102nd-HR-cmirko]

<cut>

Thoughts about Playability (generally Lag):-

Ground unit limitation.
We have found on the 102nd server (and it is no slouch in terms of connection speed) that it is necessary for both sides to agree a limit for the number of moving ground units per side or the mission can become unplayable (about 60 total on 102nd although this obviously depends upon a number of variables, the server, aircraft numbers ,AAA rof etc etc.)

yes - ground limitation is in our experience (102nd_COOP_ded) mainly users machines and limitations in users connection.... - in a few years (as everybody upgrades their machine for BoB) i think we will have the option to play unlimited ground movements in il2

Aircraft in mission limitations:-
Again if this is unlimited (although the 32 player co-op limit is a factor anyhow) the mission generated can become unplayable.

WHY NOT ADD A 'PLAYABILITY' TAB whereby these numbers can actually be set and monitored for each side by the SE control program itself and transferred into the planner so that players cannot exceed them ?.

If they could be set separately and different for each side it would solve the problem , relieve bookkeeping and the need for 'inhouse rules'....and it could even be a feature (eg..if there was a 60 ground unit movement limitation, perhaps the Axis could be set to move 35 max, the Russians 25 to reflect communication and command and control differences.) Likewise sides could have differant maximum numbers of player flyable's and AI aircraft set depending upon what is being represented .

great idea - its cumbersome to constantly count number of units in various taskforces during planning

i) The most elegant solution may be to increase the rearming and refuelling time (depending upon aircraft available to planes in each mission ratio). Perhaps a 'Playability' tab could have rearming 'multiplier' (X2 X3 X4 etc ) available so that it is not necessary to change the DB manualy. This has an effect of cycling planes used much more (alhtough its not a complete solution),even pilots have to sleep and damaged aircraft be repaired !.

this would be a great solution actually - only addition i would add is that there is an option to change "refuel/rearm/maintenance" period for each aircraft in DB for that particular campaign

ii) Perhaps the most 'realistic' solution would be to introduce some kind of 'proportionality' feature. We had some very involved discussions about this as a result of a Provkharovka campaign...I proposed an enforced 'proportionality' of force types ratio ...eg if a force has 60% Level bombers they have to use that proportion during the course of a time period (not necessarily a single mission).

this idea could also be used with upper suggestion for refuel/rearm for various planes - we will then have the option to really "limit" various options for our campaigns



just my 2 (soon to be hopefully) eurocents

[22GCT_Gross]

Hi to all,
this is our experience.
By our server (2GBRAM - ATI1950GT512Mb - 2DUO 2,40Ghz - 1GB/s bandwith - real uplink 12Mb/s download 6Mb/s) we flied well with a larger amount of planes and ground object.

This is a report of Crimea Campaign
22GCTCrimeaReport

About systems offered by Chap, I do not have enough experience yet to make my comment.
However I think we need to do much before to find the right combination of campaign settings currently available (a good starting planeset, production capacity factories commensurate with the campaign, a good template) so that the campaign can be playable and realistic.
Some of these settings do affect the game so if you activate them or not your campaign will be totally different.

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

One of the purposes of the Supply Tracking feature in SEOW was to force commanders on both sides to use transport aircraft continually to resupply ground and air forces. I am not aware of any major campaigns that have used Supply yet, so I don't know whether it has worked the way I thought it would. Any comments?

On Chaps's idea of enforcing a mix of aircraft types: Brandle typically uses historically low proportions of fighters in his templates and loads the campaign objectives with ground objectives (control point capture, industrial suppression etc). THis forces plane mixes into historical proportions, but has the side effect of alienating some pilots who refuse to fly anything other than their favourite fighters. That doesn't bother Brandle, of course, but is it an issue for other people?

Cheers,
4Shades

[102nd-HR-cmirko]

Hi to all,
this is our experience.
By our server (2GBRAM - ATI1950GT512Mb - 2DUO 2,40Ghz - 1GB/s bandwith - real uplink 12Mb/s download 6Mb/s) we flied well with a larger amount of planes and ground object.

This is a report of Crimea Campaign
22GCTCrimeaReport

About systems offered by Chap, I do not have enough experience yet to make my comment.
However I think we need to do much before to find the right combination of campaign settings currently available (a good starting planeset, production capacity factories commensurate with the campaign, a good template) so that the campaign can be playable and realistic.
Some of these settings do affect the game so if you activate them or not your campaign will be totally different.

in that campaign you had some big ground movements - Zoltan, Charlie and me did some tests with one Prokhorovka mission which was lagfest for all included players prior to restarting it - we found that most of the problems in that mission were actually players computers - mission ran fine for all players with "moderately" fast computers and it was a lagfest for all involved the first time. we checked server cpu usage and ram usage and found out that server used about 700Mb or ram and it had just a few instances (at the beginning of mission) of cpu time overflow....
its a 2.4 Ghz P4, 1gb ram - 20mbit up down speed

Zoltans DSC in its newest version has some nice features for benchmarking server performance and link speed variations (http://102nd.greatnuke.com/modules.php? ... =4881#4881)
so we will see if it helps a bit more

[102nd-HR-cmirko]

One of the purposes of the Supply Tracking feature in SEOW was to force commanders on both sides to use transport aircraft continually to resupply ground and air forces. I am not aware of any major campaigns that have used Supply yet, so I don't know whether it has worked the way I thought it would. Any comments?

On Chaps's idea of enforcing a mix of aircraft types: Brandle typically uses historically low proportions of fighters in his templates and loads the campaign objectives with ground objectives (control point capture, industrial suppression etc). THis forces plane mixes into historical proportions, but has the side effect of alienating some pilots who refuse to fly anything other than their favourite fighters. That doesn't bother Brandle, of course, but is it an issue for other people?

Cheers,
4Shades

supply has worked wonders for Prokhorovka campaign - I will brag a bit (was the axis commander which team won the campaign objectives) and say that BIG part of our victory was very good interdiction of supply columns and probably not that good supply planning of allied commander - the concept of supply is really well done and works as it should - one part of campaign featured axis tanks (full of fuel) which danced around superior number of VVS forces (empty )

the campaign is finished now, but if you look at the mission results you will notice that VVS forces lost fairly big number of tanks and other units through desertion (http://161.53.204.25/MP4/Statistics/MP- ... rokhorovka)

as far as Charlie idea - i think it would be a great addition to actually have it in DCS - of course it can be done with some DB editing (refuel time) and with multi layered campaign design, but it will be much simpler thing if it could be done directly from DCS and would require much less time in template design

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

Thanks Cmirko, I didn't know about your Prokhorovka campaign outcomes. Nice to hear!

Adding some options and code for Chap's Playability tab and to provide feedback through the MP on maximum allowed numbers of flights and surface movements is easy. It is on the list.

Enforcing proportionality over a group of several missions is harder. Not sure how to proceed on this.

Cheers,
4Shades

[242Sqn_Chap]

Thanks Shades you know how it is with ideas....

Once an idea formulates itself it is like a virulent virus and those that are afflicted with it can do little more than facilitate its spread !

(I think Chomsky refers to this as the 'gamut' theory and he formulated that ideas should be thought of as separate and independent entities.)