seowhq.net

let's open the discussion.

The first and the most important rule: stick to the established rules thru the whole campaign.

I agree with Mornar, the specific rules themselves are not so important because different campaigns will need rules tailored to them to create the correct feel for the campaign.

What is important is that rules are agreed by representatives of both sides and then published as a sticky on the forums for all to see. Also admin intervention should be minimised where possible.

Also once the campaign is underway if something needs changing or altering planners should be encouraged to talk through differences themselves rather than burdening the admin with one sided arguments. This is stressful for all parties especially the admin who is frequently stuck in the middle of friends and fairplay and has to make tough decisions, this is not necesary. From my experience when you allow the opposing commanders to talk freely amongst themselves an agreement is usually possible, perhaps future campaigns should have 4 forum rooms... general HQ, allied HQ, axis HQ and Commanders/Admins HQ In this last room only the planners/commanders of both sides and the admin have access. If at any time an agreement cannot be reached between commanders then we must revert back to the admin making the decision.

102nd-YU-Mornar wrote:The first and the most important rule: stick to the established rules thru the whole campaign.

I like to play the devils advocate (no pun intended Devil ) and I darer say the if the rule book is emty when the campaign starts, then everything goes!

Or does it?

Classic EAF19 wrote: Also admin intervention should be minimised where possible.

I would say that Admins should not be allowed to do any changes that have not been agreed by both sides. one side is not enough!
The Admins role should be purely technical and only to ensure that the technical side runs smoothly.


If the rule doc does not cover the issue in question and the commanders on both sides are unable to come to a decision regarding an issue then nothing should come of it. Admin is still only there as a maintenance worker.


There should be an undestanding in writing that the campaign can be ended before the planned date due to one side running out of equipment.

I suggest 2 hours per mission, historically accurate setplane, spawnpoints/airstart not so close of fight zone.

Was great to fly PTO; I wish the next one should be in CBI.

s!

Hi all,


Let's simplify our discussion by asking ourselves these questions:

1. Is a campaign a historical reenactment or a sport contest of balanced teams? Or do we want a mix of the two?
2. Do we want to compete only in the air (dogfighting) or also strategically on the ground and sea (via MP)?
3. What is the preferred duration of the campaign: duration fixed by the rules, or duration strictly dependent on the victory conditions?

Another simple question: sort these three terms, from 1st to 3rd according to their importance

accuracy (historical) - balance (playability) - contest ()

An example: a historical reenactment completely disables balance, but doesn't exclude spirit of contest. A direct contest needs perfect balance which means accuracy suffers. A balanced gameplay needs compromises in historical accuracy and limitations of the idea of contest.

My personal preference would be:
1. Historical accuracy - because I like realistic aerial warfare
2. Contest - because I need to be motivated to give my best effort
3. Balance - because I don't care about the odds against me as long as it feels real and I am motivated


Think about these things a bit and give your feedback here.

It would be especially fantastic if ITALIAN PILOTS would give their thoughts on this here, since for me and most of my allied colleagues the Italian community is as obscure to us as the Romulan Empire is to the Federation (google Star Trek)... meaning: completely obscure.

I think it is high time we start TALKING to each other... hell, we've been fighting for 5-6 years...

Gentlemen,

Taking into great consideration your notes, on the other side, we all have to consider that the main problem is that Il-2 engine and Seow code are not perfect, therefore, in folds of their use could hide escamotages, not foreseen at the beginning of the game, that players could use, may be without being noticed, which, if not identified and quickly corrected, can give to the Game a derive, carrying excessive advantages to one side and ruining the first rule of a Game of success: the unpredictability of the outcome until the end!

Other problems could be due to errors in evaluation of planeset and payload: For example this campaign has allowed the Fighters would use bombs for attacking also big ships.
Besides being a rare event, this easy possibility has alienated the use of series of planes such as Val for Jap and Dauntless for U.S. at the expense, at the end, of playability of simulation as well as reenactment of history.
This misjudgment should have been corrected after the first few missions.

Better to spoil two missions than a whole Campaign ...

This is the Main Role of Game Master: "keep the Game on his right route".
Without this important presence of Arbiter SuperPartes the risk to loop in infinite discussions between Players is very, very high!

Regards Cipson

102nd-YU-devill wrote:Hi all,

Let's simplify our discussion by asking ourselves these questions:

1. Is a campaign a historical reenactment or a sport contest of balanced teams?

Historical reinactment.
Winning conditions should reflect that. If one side only achive what was done historical, it would result in a tie. If they achive more it is a win.. If less, it is a lose.

102nd-YU-devill wrote: Or do we want a mix of the two?

No

102nd-YU-devill wrote: 2. Do we want to compete only in the air (dogfighting) or also strategically on the ground and sea (via MP)?

Strategic
If you want a dogfight you set up a dogfightserver (Like 22GCT_Perru did).
If you like strafing a but, but dont want the strategic element of moving the groundunits by humans that I suggest joining Ghost Skies (http://www.ghostskies.com/index.php).
Ground units are moved automatically by the computer.
I did and it was actually quite fun, but not immersive.

102nd-YU-devill wrote: 3. What is the preferred duration of the campaign: duration fixed by the rules, or duration strictly dependent on the victory conditions?

Duration strictly dependent on victory conditions.

102nd-YU-devill wrote: Another simple question: sort these three terms, from 1st to 3rd according to their importance

accuracy (historical) - balance (playability) - contest ()

My personal preference would be:
1. Historical accuracy - because I like the immersion of the odds.
2. NoBalance - because I don't care about the odds. I like to be able to correct historic deficiansies by apply my resources in a strategic way.
It also give me immersion and motivation to my best both on the MP and in IL2.

3. Contest - Because trying to achive more strategically than they did in WWII motivates me. For me it all comes together in SEOW: Strategy, Tactics, Operations and Skills.
I am a lousy DF pilot, but good at navigation, placing boms on targets and economic flying. I prefer taking away an oppositions ability to fly those aircraft effectively by destroying supplies and killing radar and when the a/c sit nice and pretty in the parking lot I will toss in a bomb for good measure. To me SEOW is war. It is without mercy. It is crul. Every mistake I make as a commander/planner will effect the outcome and might haunt me later. Using my fellow pilots as pawns in a chessgame are hard. Knowing that bringing home my crippled aicraft might make the difference between winning and loosing in the end brings me an enourmos pressure and immersion.

102nd-YU-devill wrote: It would be especially fantastic if ITALIAN PILOTS would give their thoughts on this here, since for me and most of my allied colleagues the Italian community is as obscure to us as the Romulan Empire is to the Federation (google Star Trek)... meaning: completely obscure.

Sad but true when it comes to you playing axis.
I often fly with my fellow EAF51 (Italiens as well ) and don't seem to have a problem undestanding them. I guess it comes down to what our attitude toward SEOW.

I disagree of you point and I think it clearly validates Devils questions.

Your aguments is the same that we seen in almost every campaign since the start, whenever 22GCT, 150GCT and 6S been pressed due to bad strategic decisions.
I have played the bordgame "World in Flames" (WIF) and it takes almost a year to complete a whole WWII campaign. The game is far from perfect, but players have learned to work with the limitations.

Planners in these games have done their outmost to overcome the deficiancies of the game and the SEMP (planning tool for SEOW).

If we should talke about history, how would you counter the unbalance of the human skills.
Almost every italien pilot I have fought in these campaigns are individually very good and have plenty of combat training.

At this time of the war the jap pilots had about 50 hours of flightime, no nav training, no radios (most of the time), very little tactical training and very little combat training. Bad maintenace and poor quality airplanes which resultet in many loses. They where also out numbered 2:1

The US pilots had 300 hours of flight training. Lots of tactical training and a maintenace standard that allowed for an 80% caombat readynes.


What I am saying is that the game is the game.
"Improvise adapt and overcome"!
Work to overcome it and dont blame the game for bad decisions.
Think it through before a campaign is launced.

I suggest we rerun the campaign with switched sides to counter your argument

Cheers

6S.Cipson wrote:Gentlemen,

Taking into great consideration your notes, on the other side, we all have to consider that the main problem is that Il-2 engine and Seow code are not perfect, therefore, in folds of their use could hide escamotages, not foreseen at the beginning of the game, that players could use, may be without being noticed, which, if not identified and quickly corrected, can give to the Game a derive, carrying excessive advantages to one side and ruining the first rule of a Game of success: the unpredictability of the outcome until the end!

Other problems could be due to errors in evaluation of planeset and payload: For example this campaign has allowed the Fighters would use bombs for attacking also big ships.
Besides being a rare event, this easy possibility has alienated the use of series of planes such as Val for Jap and Dauntless for U.S. at the expense, at the end, of playability of simulation as well as reenactment of history.
This misjudgment should have been corrected after the first few missions.

Better to spoil two missions than a whole Campaign ...

This is the Main Role of Game Master: "keep the Game on his right route".
Without this important presence of Arbiter SuperPartes the risk to loop in infinite discussions between Players is very, very high!

Regards Cipson

EAF331_Starfire wrote:I disagree of you point and I think it clearly validates Devils questions.

I suggest we rerun the campaign with switched sides to counter your argument

I am afraid that without the necessary corrections neither this Campaign nor the Next will works properly.

I note your preference for an Historical Accuracy, and I agree with your opinion, but this is in contradiction with some use of IL-2 codes :

What about:

-Air Starts with Jabo full of heavy Bombs and Tanks like a Turkey
(Starting from a Carrier bridge in these condition were not so easy)

-Air Starts over enemies Bases without giving the possibility to spot the incursors with Radar (or Cap or Watchers)

The same use of certain aircraft is out of reality:

Avenger used in dive attack. Due to the weight in reality, there was not any possibility to exit from the dive without lose the wings. (Never happened)

Corsair used against Carriers. (Never happened)
Corsair was great for tactical support on ground, eventually used with rockets against small ships, but never for naval warfare.

Zero with bombs in dive. No technically possible, due to lack of releasing system the bombs would have damaged the propeller.

Avenger used in Dogfigth like a Fighter (Never happened, consideration as before) and so on...

Therefore notwithstanding the great job of the Mod Developing Team (Thanks Guys!), which rendered Il-2 the best WWII simulator on market, there are a lot of aspects not still optimised.
Naval warfare for sure is still at original stage and would need a lot of attention.

Just for give you an example I tested the dive attack to a Lex class Carrier and are necessary 8 "well placed" 500 kg bombs on bridge for sinking it, this means 4000 kg of explosives at least.

No way to sink it with a "lucky Hit" in some part of the ship, as in reality happened, also if, considering all events, it was for really few unlucky cases, in anycase for complementary reasons (fire, fuel etc) not for a single explosion shot, the effects of which were frequently quickly repaired.

Last but not least the AA Fire at the current ROF is really unrealistic.
In reality it was very difficult for a single aircraft to arrive near a Carrier without be damaged.
When I made the test, I flyed for ten time over the Carrier and I ended the job with only few holes on my wings, therefore any refer to the Hystory is purely indicative.

But, on the other side, if we put R.O.F. to 0, more realistic, the simulator is not in condition to work properly due to excessive poligons to manage!

Therefore we have to find other ways to balance the excessive power of Heavy Bombs and the low defense capacity of Ships (may be using only 250kg bombs) etc. etc.

Still a lot of work to have what we search...

6S.Cipson wrote:

EAF331_Starfire wrote:I disagree of you point and I think it clearly validates Devils questions.

I suggest we rerun the campaign with switched sides to counter your argument

I am afraid that without the necessary corrections neither this Campaign nor the Next will works properly.

If we rerun the campaign without these correction you side will have the same odds as we had and we would be able to tell if there really was such a big difference in odds.

In the EAF training for this campaign we have flown the Japanse a/c to find the limitations and even though they are different. Those flying japs did achieve very good results.


I dare you Give os a rematch


Can I persuade you to answer Devils questions?

Just a quick note, but I do not think the Avengers were ever used in a dive bombing capacity by allied pilots. We used shallow bombing attacks and skip bombing, both produced satisfactory results.

Airstarts... give it up mate, give it up!

You object to Avengers defending themselves? should we fly straight and level waving a white flag of surrender?

As has been said the game has its limitations, countless limitations but BOTH sides benefit and lose simultaneously from those limitations.... you did use Zeros to bomb with, you did use P1Y1's to dive bomb our ships with, you did sacrifice your top fighters in kamikaze attacks, you never used the IJN's primary dive bomber, you did use airstarts etc etc. On the USN side, we never used Avengers with torpedos, we did arm our fighters with bombs, we did have airstarts, we did use the Corsair to attack carriers with (that was because of the time and place, perhaps you already know but you sailed the CV right under our supply point)

There are plenty of reasons for the above and of course the primary reason for having to use fighters with bombs is because we are playing a game with a/c limits. In an ideal world when we come to attack your CV's we will send 24xSBD, 12xTBF and 48xfighters but that is not possible, therefore we have to have multi-purposed a/c. In a game with only 42 a/c per side we must use multi-purpose a/c.

With all of the above said, lets have a rematch and put these theorys to the test!

A rematch is simple

1) Take the original template
2) Add to it all of the units that have been added as reinforcements
3) Allow the commanders to choose (with limits) the exact locations of their supply points

Make two rules
1) No more units to be given to either side
2) The axis radar is indestructible and will always be reset by the admin

Other than those two lets play the campaign again exactly as we have already done and see the result.

for me only "fair play" and dont use game bugs ad limit!

usually (excpet setting rules) rules are maded to avoid player (and planner) bugs use.
if we dont use, no rules are needed.....

Gentlemen,

Due to the fact that the majority of our Pilots were contrary, as principle, to the use made of this unrealistic possibility of IL-2, I don't think that our Pilots will accept to reintroduce them in the next Campaign, moreover if they have to use these bugs.

On the Contrary we are thinking to put limitation in carring Bombs on fighters, (also for Zero) use only max size 250kg Bombs (as Val can do), use Avengers only for torpedos, giving to Bombers his max payload but only in small Bombs, set special definited Team for Kamikaze, increase the ROF for ships... etc etc

Moreover, regarding Marianas, due to the fact that this Campaign was mainly strategic, based on the possibility to imagine what the enemy had to do for taking the opponent by surprise, regaming the same Campaign risks to lose the main factor of Game, just the surprise, resulting afterall to a sort of reheated Soup, the best idea is probably to play the new Campaign The Battle of Leyte Gulf just quite ready.

Regards

Cip

Classic EAF19 wrote:Just a quick note, but I do not think the Avengers were ever used in a dive bombing capacity by allied pilots. We used shallow bombing attacks and skip bombing, both produced satisfactory results.

An ordenary dive bomb would rip of its wings. It is simply not do-able in HSFX5. Very short dive bombs can be done but then you loose accuracy and increease the risk of loosing a wing. We actually lost a few guys even in shallow dives due to overstressing the airframe. Even a ½ loaded Avenger will lose a wing if the pullout is to steep.
When Apollo played around as fighter in the Avenger he only had fuel abord. I tried to follow him, but my Avenger was fully loaded which resulted in a snaproll flying inverted into the ground. Was it a bad lead on his part? Maybe. Probably. We will evaluate this later. But what was he to do. With no fighter cover and already engaged we where unable to outrun the opposition. The only option and desperate choice was to play for time. Time to get in some fighter cover.
Would you rather we fly into the ground like I did. No human ever got a kill out of me for that.