Page 1 of 2

New Scorched Earth Multisector campaign

Posted: Tue 08 Nov 2011 4:29 pm
by 22GCT_Gross
After the fantastic experience of the June 1942 multisector campaign by 242nd_Chap, I'm pleased to introduce you to a new multisector designed by =GrIj=Petr. The game is going on.

Based on 1940 Britain and Mediterranean scenarios, this new campaign will start on the 2nd week of january 2012 and will last until May.

As you know, designing and managing this kind of gaming is a hard challenge. All the SE features Shades implemented by the last multisector experience will be used; HSFX 501 with Expert mod will support the proper objects for the best simulation; modified technics settings will improve the playability of the missions we'll host on the server to let up to 80 humans play togheter.

These are squadron prefix used by the 500 players during the J42. You are all invited. Soon we'll open the discussion on the seowhq forum.

Code: Select all

*{64s}
1./JG77
102nd
15/JG52
150GCT
167MAV
22GCT
242Sqn
357th
6S
72sq
:FI:
=69.GIAP=
=AVG=
=gRiJ=
=JSAWG=
=RV=
Ala13
AMVI
CIA
CN
CSS
DD
EAF19
EAF331
EAF51
EAF602
EAF92
ECV
FA
HH
HK
I/KG26
IAF
II/JG3
II/JG77
IV/AG51
IV/JG51
IV/JG7
JG26
LLv16
LLv34
LW/JG10
LW/KG10
LW/MG10
LW/StG10
LW/WSP10
NNG
No457
No5
OBT
PA
PE
SUP
SYN
V.4
WTE
[SAF]
[URU]
_1SMV
_VVG

Posted: Wed 09 Nov 2011 6:16 pm
by Hitcher
I like this. :)

Interested

Posted: Thu 10 Nov 2011 3:07 pm
by VF-51_Cobraj
Hi all,

My squad Air Group 51 may be interested in this multisector. What USA times are available in the PM? 2200EST is our normal time for squad events to accommodate our west coast members.

Our in game tags are AG-51_Name

Thank you.

Email: Cobraj@airgroup51.net

Posted: Sat 12 Nov 2011 8:49 pm
by =gRiJ=Petr
Hitcher, Cobra, thanks for the positive responses thusfar. You are certainly one of the few. :-)
Perhaps a few notes on what the campaign is about would be useful. The campaign is based on the battle of Britain using 2 sectors to simulate this epic struggle in the summer and fall of 1940. UK_Cannon's Channel 1940 and The Bay of Biscay. Every effort has been done to simulate the historical situation, in the air, at sea and on the ground should it come to it. I think that is the main difference between previous BOB's, in this campaign the Axis, as an option, can launch Operation Sealion. It's going to be risky as hell, but, given a coherent strategy from the start, it might just pay of, who knows? That's what I would like to find out.

Apart from this center piece, there is the option to have 2 additional Mediterranean sectors. The Libya map and the Mediterranean map. These maps would simulate the effort to supply Malta and the Italian desert offensive, followed perhaps, with the British counter offenive which prompted German intervention early in 1941. Both sides will have the naval, air and army forces available to simulate this series of combats and obviously can give there own interpretation to it but within the possibilities of historical capabilities. Beyond that, it is up to the players to reinforce the Med. with what they think is needed to prevail, but especially for the British, keeping in mind the more important struggle in the Channel.

Some key features of the BOB part of the campaign:
1. use of factory plates to simulate the infrastructure of airfields. These can be bombed and reduce the capacity of an airbase or shut it down all together. Damage sustained will also reduce the fuel supplies of an airfield procentually to the damage done.
2. use of factory plates for sector HQ's. As above these can be bombed and damage or destruction will increase the time it takes the SEOW radar screen to refresh. The refresh button has been disabled. Above and beyond destroying radar stations, this will make radar less effective, simulating the historical problems due to damage to the sector HQ's.
3. Factory plates in city centers simulating terror bombing.
4. Historical correct loadouts for the available planes.
5. Historical correct plane set where possible.
6. Some 1500+ factories have been added, 90% of them smaller building to allow smaller bombs to be used and still have effect. IT will be possible for the Axis to bomb aircraft factories and other armaments to reduce output.
7. Ports will have a maximum capacity assigned and can be damaged or destroyed reducing or preventing unloading all together.
8. There will be night missions and the use of beacons will be possible.
9. The historical amount of ships, on both sides, will be present allowing for bombing of ships in port. Although the ships will be heavily protected by flak and, obviously by enemy air units. IT's players choice to keep them where they start or withdraw them to a safer location.
10. Loss of pilots can have an effect on seat distribution.
11. Apart from historical correct plane sets, both sides will be forced to field different plane types per historical percentages. This means that if the Axis bomber force is 30% Ju-88 and 70% He-111, the Axis will need to respect these percentages in their planing. The same obviously goes for fighters. Some execptions will be available.

I think the above allows for the Axis player all the possibilities that were actually pursued during the historical campaign. It is certainly possible that either side breaks during the campaign if the loss ratio is sufficiently disproportional, however, if this would not be the case, the campaign will be won or lost on points. Points can be earned in a variaty of ways, through losses but also through achieve victory conditions. The exact victory conditions will be briefed to the commanders before the campaign starts but the opposing conditions will not be known.

As mentioned, Operation Sealion will be possible and I am fully aware it didn't happen historically. But it was an option and the British took it very seriously at the time. A debate whether Hitler ever seriously intended to execute Sealion would, no doubt, be entertaining but in the final analisys those at the the tip of the spear, expected to execute the invasion, and die if necessary trying, took their task at hand very seriously and with typical German Army toroughness. For a VERY interesting read on how far the Germans progressed with their preparations find a copy of Peter Schenk's, Invasion of England 1940, The planning of Operation Sealion. It comes wholehaertedly recommended!

I expect planning to be reasonably light but the strategic element, within a sector and overall, to be very high. An overall plan WILL be needed. Certain sectors will be more important than others and will see more combat then others, but overall victory will be determined by the result of ALL sectors combined.

As much as I would have liked to keep it completely historical, obviously some abstractions will be needed and some rules as well to keep this within the bounds of realism. These will be available before the start of the campaign.

As mentioned, the maximum potential is 4 sectors. 2 sectors are taken by the Spanish community, and 2 by the Italian. That leaves 4 sector commands open if the campaign sees it's full potential. Every body is welcome to participate, first come first served.

Cobra, to answer your question. If the Med is included, there will certainly be the option to have one sector for US based pilots. It does, however, depends on interest and numbers.

Cheers,

Petr

Posted: Sun 13 Nov 2011 9:11 am
by ViFF
Hi Petr, Hi Gross

First of all I wanted to thank you for the time you are investing to design, produce, and ultimately host this multisector campaign for the SEOW Community.

I can confirm that the IAF Squad is interested to participate on the Allied side.
We will have pilots able to plan and/or command if needed.

We are especially interested in the Mediterranean Sectors and will be honored to once again face our friends, the Italian community (and others of course) in virtual battle.

I think one of the greatest enjoyments in these multi sector campaigns is the "gathering together" of like minded pilots who enjoy flying within a context that is heavily flavored in both the tactical and strategic depth, where we can together cooperate not only in the flying, but also in the planning and decision making.


Cheers,

Posted: Sun 13 Nov 2011 2:15 pm
by [URU]BlackFox
Great news!!!

If there's a sector that comes right for our timezone, we'll surely be there.

Posted: Sun 13 Nov 2011 7:24 pm
by Loon
Perhaps I'm mistaken but the tests I did regarding the factory plates show they are not placed right on the ground but they cut the last third of a standard factory chimney.

Anything you place right under the plate will be protected. Soft targets will blow up (mostly) but strafing is not possible. Everything will explode on the plate. Tanks will resist a heavy bomb run without damage.
If you try to strafe and fly too low, you'll collide against the plate and will blow up without reason as you'll not be hit.

If you place flak under the plate, it will not fire on any flying enemy plane either.
If plates are on the airfields, taking off and landing will almost be impossible as the planes will crash against the red plate (wich is also visible at some angles).


Here is a small video regarding this matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoUYzzMtikU


I hope I'm wrong and this thing has been fixed, the campaign looks very promising and probably our squadron will join.

Luny

Posted: Mon 14 Nov 2011 7:36 am
by =gRiJ=Petr
@ Blackfox, from google it seems [URU] is a Spanish squad? If so, there will no problem. Please PM your email address and we'll get in touch with you.

@ Viff, great to have you onboard!

@ Loon, good remarks and quite right!. The tests I have performed confirm your findings. However, the factory plates would not be positioned on the runways :wink:
And when putting flak I've taken care to position them outside the arc of the plates to avoid the problems you mentioned.

The plates are used to cover the area's of the airfields which represent the maintenace and control facilities. Bombing of the runways was not really efficient. They were rarely put out of action for more than a few hours as they were easily patched up. Serious damage to the infrastructure (maintence hangars, electricity, phone lines, sleeping quarters, etc...) were much more damaging to the airfields regular operations and often resulted in less planes being serviced and ready for operations or a total shutdown of the airfield until the necessary repairs had been done. This is what the factory plates will simulate.

The same goes for the Sector HQ's which were vital to scramble and direct their squadrons to the point of intercept depending on reports from radar and the observer corps. They were highly dependant on good telephone lines and when these were cut through bombing they could move but became less efficient overall. This will be simulated with a reduction of the refresh rate of radar.

Here's a picture of Kenley and Biggin hill airfields which should clarify things a bit.
Image

Please note that the factory plate itself is the "factory". No other factories are below it and it can be bombed and detroyed by itself. A template with all the factory locations will be provided to both sides so briefings can be made for the pilots.

For some reason clicking on the file doesn't work and it's marked as public so here's the direct link: http://www.mediafire.com/i/?0vezwrd0f0vpv0w

Kenley Airfield - 100% means that if this factory plate is completely destroyed the airfield will be closed completely as it accounts for 100% of the bombable infrastructure. Several airfields have mulitple plates which would then each contribute a percentage towards closing down the airfield.

Obviously, the Allied planners will need to take care not to place flak or other units below the arc of the plates. And strafing should be handled with care. Unfortunately there is no way around these limitations, but the extra possibilities, I think, are certainly worth it.

Hope you guys join in.

Cheers,
Petr

Posted: Mon 14 Nov 2011 9:07 am
by Loon
Instead of using the plates, wich are a little "dangerous" IMO, why not use the invisible runways provided by the game? I believe SEOW can track damage on them by bombing and arty shelling. Test runway 4 and especially 5 and 6 simulates a square area that probably will fit much better to an industrial area and runway 4 can fit the harbor's dock pretty much than the plates.
And they can not be spotted at certain angles, they stick to the flat ground and dissapear under hills and ground elevation, any ground unit placed above can be strafed and doesn't represent an obstacle to any firing unit placed on it....
The use of one or more than one of these runways will cover any area you like to.

Luny

Posted: Mon 14 Nov 2011 9:43 am
by =gRiJ=Petr
Loon wrote:Instead of using the plates, wich are a little "dangerous" IMO, why not use the invisible runways provided by the game? I believe SEOW can track damage on them by bombing and arty shelling. Test runway 4 and especially 5 and 6 simulates a square area that probably will fit much better to an industrial area and runway 4 can fit the harbor's dock pretty much than the plates.
And they can not be spotted at certain angles, they stick to the flat ground and dissapear under hills and ground elevation, any ground unit placed above can be strafed and doesn't represent an obstacle to any firing unit placed on it....
The use of one or more than one of these runways will cover any area you like to.

Luny
Interesting. Some questions though:
1. are they visiable and targetable in the planner?
2. if so, are they activated as "normal" factories by targeting?
3. How is the damage level reported? By percentages? all or nothing?

I understand and share your concerns for factory plates. However, airbases are by default flat surfaces and as such the plates are not *stuck* in mountain terrain and don't *standout*. As mentioned, the plates cover the buildings at the edge of the fields. This works great for the airfields of recent maps as they have extensive area's with hangars etc, away from the landing/take-off area's and without interference of the parking spaces. If you haven't already done so, check out the Channel map to get a good idea of what I mean. There's really little point of strafing those area's.

That's beside the fact that apart from a few airbases at the coast which were rather weakly protected, no real strafing of airfields was done. And I doubt that you'll have the opportunity to do much strafing in the campaign. If I'm a Brit and I see you low and slow, I'm thinking jummie :P
Besides, there's going to be plenty of other work for the fighters to do! And don't forget fuel considerations!

Cheers,
Petr

Posted: Mon 14 Nov 2011 1:25 pm
by Loon
1. Probably they show up as airfields or runways. Anyway, I don't think it's a major problem for SEOW to fix that and show in a different way. If you ask if they are visible on the ground, they are not.
2. AFAIK, they do not need to be targeted in the planner. I'm not 100% sure but I've seen damage tracked on a runway done by heavy artillery, so probably you do not need to "activate" it when planning.
3. Damage is reported (again AFAIK) in the statistic report after the mission eventlog is analyzed. Many hits were reported (I believe more than 100) on the runway.

I'm not against or for the use of fatory plates at all, just pointing out factors that can cause some type of "discussion" among teams when weird things happens. As this campaign seems more orientated to air battle and few or none ground action, I do not see too much problem in the use of the plates (pilots should know where the plates are near the bases and how to land without passing through any nearby one).

The use of them in extended SEOW campaigns must be studied and tested carefully though, IMHO.

Posted: Mon 14 Nov 2011 1:39 pm
by =gRiJ=Petr
Loon wrote:1. Probably they show up as airfields or runways. Anyway, I don't think it's a major problem for SEOW to fix that and show in a different way. If you ask if they are visible on the ground, they are not.
2. AFAIK, they do not need to be targeted in the planner. I'm not 100% sure but I've seen damage tracked on a runway done by heavy artillery, so probably you do not need to "activate" it when planning.
3. Damage is reported (again AFAIK) in the statistic report after the mission eventlog is analyzed. Many hits were reported (I believe more than 100) on the runway.

I'm not against or for the use of fatory plates at all, just pointing out factors that can cause some type of "discussion" among teams when weird things happens. As this campaign seems more orientated to air battle and few or none ground action, I do not see too much problem in the use of the plates (pilots should know where the plates are near the bases and how to land without passing through any nearby one).

The use of them in extended SEOW campaigns must be studied and tested carefully though, IMHO.
I understand the spirit in which these suggestions are made :wink:
I'm certainly interested in these possibilities. The one problem I see (for which there might already be a solution) is that if it is not tracked in the planner, then there is no automatic repair. IF that is so, it's just too much of a good thing. As mentioned before, in the actual battle, airfields themselves (landing/take-off area's) were VERY difficult to put out of commission for more than a few hours. Which would be negligable in the overall BOB campaign period. But it might be interesting for other parts of the campaign. I'll check it out.

Cheers,
Petr

Posted: Mon 14 Nov 2011 5:58 pm
by IV/JG7_4Shades
Gentlemen,

HSFX5 has extended partial damage tracking to all ship objects, including temporary runway objects which are governed by the ship class code. This has caused the appearnce of runway damage events in the eventlog, e.g. in Badger's Fall Gelb campaign where Brussels airbase was under heavy artillery barrage.

For cosmetic purposes SEOW now reports the damage events under the name of the affected airbase, but these events currently have no other implications. Why?

1. The damage is recorded only for temporary runway objects. Standard airbases do not record runway damage events. I prefer features to be uniformly applicable.

2. It take a little more work to track total runway damage at a temporary airbase, basically because any airbase layout can contain more than one temporary runway object, so the total damage must be summed for all objects. This code has not been written at this stage.

3. As Petr says, runway damage was usually easily and rapidly repaired.

Cheers,
4Shades

Posted: Thu 17 Nov 2011 9:05 am
by EAF92_Meako
EAF is interested in joining, what sectors are still free for us to join, we are interested in commanding a sector and planning if possible.

Posted: Thu 17 Nov 2011 3:48 pm
by =gRiJ=Petr
EAF92_Meako wrote:EAF is interested in joining, what sectors are still free for us to join, we are interested in commanding a sector and planning if possible.
Welcome aboard!
If you send me a PM with your email address we'll discuss the details.

Cheers,
Petr