seowhq.net

You don't get the points:

1) For remake you don't have to ask to me but to the Italian Team of which I am only part and not the Leader.
If the Team decides to remake I will play, if not, I am afraid you have to find other opponents, for the specific.

2) Ground warfare and Naval warfare, are very poor with these engines (IL-2 & SEOW), therefore we should have to reduce to the minimal necessary the related actions, moreover finding some system to limit the effects of irrealistic actions (Cruisers sunk by rockets, Carriers by one Megabomb, Islands conquered by one platoon etc etc )

3) We are trying here to give evidence to all things which, at least a part of Players doesn't like, in order to avoid, next time, further discussions for this silly things.
Therefore this effort should be made now and not during the Game.

4) We wish to play the best Air War Simulation possible.
Considering, anyway, the great limitation of the IL-2 engine, Players have to do an effort of "Play Style", for avoiding to "Force" an imperfect engine which, notwithstanding any rule you could think, some "Smart Guy" can find easily the way to by-pass, in anycase.

Therefore, this is the reason for which, in my opinion, the presence of a Game Master, Super Partes, will be always necessary, but this is only my personal impression.


Cheers

Cip

Really nice pics, Cip...but, these are all combat entranched sites.

This is coastal watcher site:



Could be very easyly captured or destroyed by Marines or Navy.

Hi Cipson,

I just wanted to say that I have been reading your posts and you have mentioned some very good ideas that I will definitely consider to include in campaigns that I have now begun to get involved in design and admin.

Regarding the complaints about air starts, this is easily solved for future campaigns as it is an SEOW setting that can be turned off. However, you should be aware (as Classic explained) there will still be air starts from carriers that have some flights planned over and above the amount of "spawn points" that are physically available on the deck of each CV. Some have less, some have more, etc.

I think we have all learned a great deal more about SEOW engine in this campaign, and I thank all of the participants and the admins (especially Gross) for having the time to keep this running smoothly.

Maybe a good rule to have for future campaigns is to limit the distance an aircraft carrier is allowed to come near the shore of enemy held territory. As we have seen not too long ago, there are some serious consequences for the bad decision of a Captain to bring his ship too close to the shore (F. Schettino). When the CV needs to stay at leat 20 km off shore this will allow the land based airplanes more time to take off and get organised. Anyways, this is just one idea and I am sure there are many more good ideas to avoid a repeat of the incident where we attacked you while you were on the ground, while there was low fps, where everybody (excepts pilots in air start) are all waiting for the server to "settle down".

Always enjoy reading your posts and real world commentary / news reports during the campaign, hope to see more soon

Salute!
ViFF

I guess an effective rule for future campaigns would be that non-comat units cannot hold CP's, airfields or industrial objects.

I think non-combat units could be defined as

Coastal Watchers
Observers
Truck or cargo only Units (not a supply column as that is capable of self-defence)
Any other non-combat unit

Excuse me but... is there some motivation that pushes us to choose 3000, 4000, 5000, meters as spawn height? Why dont we put 500-750 (safetywise)? If spawned from a carrier, it's more realistic, if spawned from a spawn point, you start away from the action, and you have time and space to reach whatever altitude you want.
Is it a bad idea? Just my two cents...

Spawn heights are set in the template for supply points. I think automatic air starts when CV's are full are hard coded into IL2.

Thanks to all for answers.

I am glad to see that now the discussion is on a more purposeful way.

I add my "cents"


@Perru:
this is a good way, together with the Carrier Mode, which allows until to 24 aircraft on a Carrier Deck (if I remember well).

@Classic:
For sure Non combat Unit should be used only for management reasons and not for combat.
But anyway you have to foresee a sort of "Garrison" holding an Island or a StrongHold.

We will think to how prepare the Garrison (real or Virtual) and how a CP will be conquered.

A. e., Pa-Dore, in his Leyte Campaign, doesn’t consider CP controlled if there is only infantry, but only if are present Mechanized Units, simulating the conquering of a Stronghold only by an organized Army and not by only Commandos.

This could be a way, but is not the only, using a.e. “Virtual Garrisons” defeated only if the enemy can carry a defined number of points (100, 200, etc. points of occupation) depending from situation.
At this point Coastal Watchers, Short Distance Radar, could be indestructible, giving no contribution for holding a CP, but used only to simulate for the Garrison the "Normal" visibility on sea and on air which any Garrison has, also using Human eyes and radios and not sophisticated electronic.
If the Enemy get the Islands, all this “eyes and ears”, became enemies.
The visibility range can be that given by human eye. (20 km?).

This approach avoids the unreal situation which notwithstanding controlling an airfield or an harbor area with troops, if the Main Long Range Radar is lost, you became fully blind also in your home.

Also it avoids discussions as "you have 3 soldier, I have 4 soldiers, who has got the CP?"

The solution, as in reality, is simple: carry a sufficient number of troops on a Cp and you get all Garrison, defenses, "eyes & ears", simulating better the reorganization of a Stronghold made by the new Holder.

For the moment, this is only a proposal, to be defined , also depending from possibility of SEOW engine.



@Viff
Thank you very much for understanding the sense of my discussions, of which the only aim is not to carry advantage to one side (by the way, due to the fact I don't know what will be my next side, my objectivity is evident) but only to give a contribution for creating a Game Environment of mutual satisfaction for all Players.

To this aim you will have, Viff, all my support.

Regards to everybody

@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 was thinking about this questions, and I have a suggestion about capturing control points (and fields, garrisons, and airfields and such) wich could nearly simulate realistic situation.

I`ve already said that in tactics if you want to capture some point you need 3-5 stronger force, right? Ratio 3:1 is MINIMUM for even think about capturing something. That`s the theory.

We could implement this in SEOW this way:

- Every combat unit on both sides (infantry, armor, AAA, artillery etc) has its point value depending of their power.
- Let say that Blue side fully control CP, Field, factory etc...
- Units in range of CP, airfield, factory, garrison etc...could be concidered that they are prepared for defence, which means that they are entranched, they put some countertank obstacles, minefields, booby traps etc. If we say that we need 3 times stronger force to capture that CP, I say - those units in defence should have their point value times 3. So total point value of units in defence is sum of units value times 3.
- So if Red side wants to capture that "point of interest" they have to achieve force on "point of interest" that total point value is grater than total point value of Blue side units in defence. (whether by destroying them or simply wipe them out with their number)
- If Red side achieve this then Red side fully control that "point of interest", and Blue side units - half of them should surrender, and half of them should scatter around out of bonds of that "point of interest" with low moral. (This would be ideal if it could be coded and performed automatically)
- If Red side dont have enough force for capture, then Blue side still control that "point of interest" as long as capture condition is achieved. (Red side destroy enough blue units, or bring more troops).
- When Red side capture that point, then Red side units should concider that they are in defence.

This way we achieve multiple goals:
1. Respect the value of defending position of one side (very important in tactics)
2. Respect the power of some units. This way infantry or light armoured tanks could not possibly hold CP, against the attack of, lat say, enogh number of Tiger tanks. Or capture it with few tanks or infanteries.
3. Avoid "gaming the game" of hiding some units amoung buildings in towns, and make them undestructable, and to avoid that one ore two well placed tanks or infantries hold CP and enemy has bunch of units overthere.
4. This way we will force planners to plan their defence, and grd war in general, more carefully, and if he see that his troops in defence will be outnumbered, then the most natural thing would be that he should withdraw his units and prepare counterattack. Save your units to fight later.

And many other benefits which I couldn`t remember right now.


Another thing, I very much liked the Starfire`s idea. We should have historical templates, and if result is historical then it is a TIE. If one side achieve more, then that side win.

Cheers!

One more thing aboy CPs. But, this question and proposition is more for SEOW developers

I think it would be great if it could be possible to simulate "siege effect". By that I mean that those units which hold some point (CP, field or such) should have "moral and resources drop" if they are constantly bombed from the air (level bombing or JABO), sea (ship shelling), or ground (artillery fire)...something like propaganda effect. Which could ultimately results with surrender.

Maybe to put those "industrial plates" on CPs and fields which can cummulate and sum enemy shelling.

6S.Cipson wrote:
A. e., Pa-Dore, in his Leyte Campaign, doesn’t consider CP controlled if there is only infantry, but only if are present Mechanized Units, simulating the conquering of a Stronghold only by an organized Army and not by only Commandos.

You seem to get it wrong all the way.
The word "Mechanized" implies vehicles, not armour.
Vehicles cannot hold ground. Only soldiers can do that.
There are not enought jeeps, trucks, APC, and tanks to go around and there are not enough transport capacity for what you need anyway.
The soldier in our campaign was organised Army/Marine/Airforce/Navy, except for the Coast watchers. Ill make a note about it in the SEOW forum.

6S.Cipson wrote: This could be a way, but is not the only, using a.e. “Virtual Garrisons” defeated only if the enemy can carry a defined number of points (100, 200, etc. points of occupation) depending from situation.
At this point Coastal Watchers, Short Distance Radar, could be indestructible, giving no contribution for holding a CP, but used only to simulate for the Garrison the "Normal" visibility on sea and on air which any Garrison has, also using Human eyes and radios and not sophisticated electronic.

I every wargame every object are supposed to represent a consept.
A vehicles (of any kind) does also represent soldier. They cannot operate by them selfs and every operator can use a gun.

The game a specefic equation on how each object are counted. If non of your guys don't like that equation (they way it is calculated) you should report it to the SEOW team in the other forum.

In this thread we are discussing the rules which we can do something about. Not game mechanics. So lets stick to thant

6S.Cipson wrote:You don't get the points:

1) For remake you don't have to ask to me but to the Italian Team of which I am only part and not the Leader.
If the Team decides to remake I will play, if not, I am afraid you have to find other opponents, for the specific.

I have always assumed that you spoke of your own personal opponion, but as part of a team and your affiliation you have influence.
What I wanted was to affect you and get your personal oppinion.

6S.Cipson wrote: 2) Ground warfare and Naval warfare, are very poor with these engines (IL-2 & SEOW), therefore we should have to reduce to the minimal necessary the related actions, moreover finding some system to limit the effects of irrealistic actions (Cruisers sunk by rockets, Carriers by one Megabomb, Islands conquered by one platoon etc etc )

If you don't like the engines you should either refreain from using them or learn to work with their limitations. Stop blaming others.

6S.Cipson wrote: 3) We are trying here to give evidence to all things which, at least a part of Players doesn't like, in order to avoid, next time, further discussions for this silly things.
Therefore this effort should be made now and not during the Game.

I agree.

6S.Cipson wrote: 4) We wish to play the best Air War Simulation possible.

Then stop playing campaigns with non-air units!

6S.Cipson wrote: Considering, anyway, the great limitation of the IL-2 engine, Players have to do an effort of "Play Style", for avoiding to "Force" an imperfect engine which, notwithstanding any rule you could think, some "Smart Guy" can find easily the way to by-pass, in anycase.

I repeat myself; If you don't like the engines you should either refreain from using them or learn to work with their limitations. Stop blaming others.
Or change to dogfight Moving Dogfight Servers in IL-2. Perru seems to be good at making them.

6S.Cipson wrote: Therefore, this is the reason for which, in my opinion, the presence of a Game Master, Super Partes, will be always necessary, but this is only my personal impression.

So you won't mind if we play this on EAF server with me a Gamemaster

EAF331_Starfire wrote:
I have always assumed that you spoke of your own personal opponion, but as part of a team and your affiliation you have influence.
What I wanted was to affect you and get your personal oppinion.

My opinion is written: "Reheated Soup", but it's only my opinion, if all, Red & Blu players, agree to regame, I will be present.

If you don't like the engines you should either refreain from using them or learn to work with their limitations. Stop blaming others.

You are talking about blaming, not I.
I only point on the fact that, notwithstanding te excellent work made with IL-2 & SEOW, unfortunately some aspect are not still optimised, not for someone fault but for the simple reason that any further adjustement in Ground and Naval warfare, needs an enormous quantity of time, which the few "volunteers" still operating in this product developing, don't have the necessary resources to do also this.
By the way, a Great Thanks to 4Shades Group for this great Reality represented by SEOW and Daedalos Guys for the great contribution to IL-2 further developing.

Anyway, being the situation of Naval and Ground warfare not still optimised, we need some intelligent rule to avoid problems using the related components.

6S.Cipson wrote: 4) We wish to play the best Air War Simulation possible.

Then stop playing campaigns with non-air units!

As you remember, recently, we have organised the Big Week Campign only airborne.
Could I define it a success?

6S.Cipson wrote: Therefore, this is the reason for which, in my opinion, the presence of a Game Master, Super Partes, will be always necessary, but this is only my personal impression.

So you won't mind if we play this on EAF server with me a Gamemaster

Well, if you will be not so drunk, like last time....

(I am jocking )

Best regards

Cip

6S.Cipson wrote: As you remember, recently, we have organised the Big Week Campign only airborne.
Could I define it a success?

I don't know, but I did

6S.Cipson wrote: Well, if you will be not so drunk, like last time....

(I am jocking )

Best regards

Cip

I deserved that

I went through this topic with haste so I might take someones words,but how I see it is that the SEOW campaign dont need to be realistic,if the sides dont want it to be like that.

the second part of the sentence is important,because like Mornar said in the first post,when the campaign starts there should be no changes.
Now you will say: Oh but it is bugged/unrealistic or unbalanced.Excuse me but if both sides agreed on the rules and the campaign started then its over.
It is nice when the campaigns are balanced and both sides are very good,but didnt you never ask yourself,maybe its not the balance in ground units/planes,maybe its your enemy that is flying better and therefore the whole thing "seams" unbalanced and in need for changing.