Meeting 04/08 & 01/09 - Meeting minutes
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:34 am
Hi all,
Good constructive meeting yesterday with some important decisions taken which allow us to move forward.
Regretfully, attendance was minimal and no representative of the ITA community was present. I understand it is the holiday season, but still...
To avoid misunderstandings, if you do not attend, you implicitly agree with all the decisions taken during the meetings.
For the open topics I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.
Next meeting will be held early September. I'd propose Monday 02/09 & 21h30 GMT+1
Meeting minutes: 04/08
Present: 102nd-HR-Cmirko, CC_Tofolo, LLv34_jequ, LLv34_Untamo, =gRiJ=Ruso, Ala13_Apam, Petr
Accepted but not present: Viff, Enkas.
Unavailable: EAF19_Classic, II/JG77_ Jack, 150GCT_Pag, 22GCT_Hollywood, 22GCT_Gross, 102nd-YU-Devill, 102nd-YU-Uross, 6S.Cipson, 22GCT_Aquila, Lg965, Ala13_Florete.
CLOSED TOPICS:
1. Substitutions:
a. Planes 1 through 4 are accepted as listed on the forum.
b. DB3-M: carries the day with 5 votes to 0 for Ki-21.
2. The Mark 12 torpedo is apparently very fragile and as such, pretty useless.
a. Waiting for feedback.
b. Closing this topic as I received no feedback for several weeks.
3. CR-25 was used during this time period but only 8 planes in operation.
a. All present agree that since the plane is not available in the game, such limited numbers do not deserve a substitute.
4. All bombers for both sides will all be set to veteran skill.
5. Rule change: 1/4th of Axis planes will not be set to refueling.
a. With the change of 109's to E7's it is agreed this is no longer necessary for balancing.
6. In principle, rockets will be allowed as load out although this will be checked per phase.
MINUTES 01/09:
102nd-HR-Mirko, 102nd-YU-Uross, 150GCT_Pag, 22GCT_Aquila, _ITAF_LG965, AMVI_RugerOne, CC_Tofolo, Ala13_Florete, Ala13_Apam, II/JG77_Jack, EAF19_Classic, EAF51_Jimmy, LLv34_Untamo, =gRiJ=Ruso, =gRiJ=Nacovich, AMVI_RugerOne, AMVI_Enkas, SUP_Astore, IAF_Viff, VARP_Thor
Thanks for everyone who participated in the highly productive and constructive meeting with a very large attendance. I did not include everyone who attended but I think I have the leaders of the community listed. If I forgot you, pls let me know.
I just want to say that discussion, even negotiation, before a campaign is to be welcomed, indeed encouraged, because it is the exact moment that these things should be done! All too often this step is skipped and it is assumed that the designer should know everything and make all the decision himself and, obviously, bare all the responsibility for failure. This clearly will not do and I am certain that this mentality scares away many talented designers and could in the end become a serious issue for new campaigns, especially when they involve so many different Nationalities and cultures.
That being said, the time for discussion is now over. The decisions have been made and you all have had the plenty of opportunity to weigh on the various topics discussed over a several month period. IF we overlooked something we overlooked it together! It is a collective responsibility and any issue that pops-up will need to be discussed in this light. Do not pretend you will be able to blame someone else even if you have not attended the meetings. You had the opportunity to attend and if you did not take it you implicitly agreed with whatever was decided by those who did.
I realize that many people have been here before and that they have established their own way of doing things. That's fine, who am I to tell you to do things differently? But that cuts both ways; who are you to tell me how to do my own campaigns? In the end the only thing I'm asking is that you work with me constructively, as I have done in each campaign I have been involved in, in the past. I don't think that is a lot to ask in exchange for the many months I have spent on giving you the best possible SEOW experience I can.
And now, let the games begin and let lose the dogs of WAR!
RESOLVED TOPICS:
1. G50 is reported to overheat very quickly to the point that it cannot be used to escort bombers.
a. This could be caused by the ambient temperature of the map? How does this feature work?
b. Tofolo/Apam will test further and provide a feedback and list of planes affected.
c. Should this prove to be a serious issue we could ask Aaken to
verify.
CONCLUSION:
1.Testing revealed that overheat is manageable if managing power/pitch.
2.Hurricanes have the same issue.
-----------------------------------
2. Proposal is to enforce Radio silence => no heading from tower and heading to target.
a. On the condition this can be automated.
CONCLUSION:
Not possible to automate so will not be implemented.
----------------------------------
3. Proposal to limit wind to 5m/s and low or no turbulence. This can apparently be set in the DB and should then be automatic.
CONCLUSION:
A strong case is made that wind will make taking off from carriers very difficult due to the difficulty of getting the carrier in the wind during a mission for take-off and landing.
Another strong case is made that having wind of maximum 5m/s will make it more difficult to hit factory plates and is more realistic.
The solution accepted is:
NE Africa (has no carriers): Wind max 5m/s and low or NO turbulence.
NW Africa (has carriers): No wind and low or NO turbulence.
----------------------------------
4. Limits on plane types:
a. Re2000: 8 maximum both sectors (can be transferred to NE Africa) per mission.
b. Mc202: 8 maximum both sectors per mission.
c. Night fighters need to human flown.
d. NE_Africa: The Axis player needs to plan approximately 60/40 German/Italian fighters and 50/50 bombers per mission for as long as he has enough planes of both nationalities.
e. NE_Africa: The Allied players need to plan at least 40% hurricanes of total single engined fighters planned.
f. The Allied side seats in NW_Africa are increased to 34 (+4 seats) under the condition these cannot be fighters.
CONCLUSION: ALL ABOVE ARE ACCEPTED
-----------------------------------
g. Open question: Do we want an enforced minimum of 2 recon flights per mission per side?
CONCLUSION: NOT ACCEPTED.
-------------------------------------
5. Ships are considered too fragile. Ala13_Florete has proposed some ships.ini changes that makes ships stronger. If all agree, we can test his modifications and if deemed ok, we can use this in the campaign.
a. ES community will test and provide a ships.ini for the other squadrons to test.
b. There are several things in the design that try to make ships less vulnerable indirectly:
i. Faster ship speed to limit exposure to air attack.
ii. Night missions that allow ships cross the most dangerous sections on the map if timed correctly.
iii. High recon degradation for ships.
iv. Limit on size of bombs to 500kg or 1000lbs.
CONCLUSION: NOT ACCEPTED we will not change the ships.ini for hull strength
-----------------------------------
6. Skip bombing without the bomb touching the water is an open issue.
a. Various ways of preventing this have been discussed but all options leave room for interpretation and discussion which is something that we feel must be avoided.
b. We agree to discuss this again at a later time.
CONCLUSION:
NO Fighters or fighterbombers are allowed to skip bomb or attack ships in any way. We can see in the stats if this rule is violated.
Flak will be set to 33% of historical.
All ship on both sides will be set to Veteran.
All bombers or ground attack planes for both sides are free to use any technique they want.
-------------------------------------------
7. The campaign will have a dedicated skin pack.
a. Mirko is going to post and will collect the skins.
b. Skins for DB3-M & IL4 are necessary.
c. Tofolo & Mirko will look for skinners in their communities.
CONCLUSION: ES community is almost done with the MOD pack which will include the skins.
-----------------------------------------
8. AA guns in Malta. We have a total of 31x 3.7 inch (85mm), 12x 40mm Bofors.
a. I think this is more than enough, however we can change the proportion of 3.7 inch versus 40mm bofors (historically there were about even numbers of these, 122HvAA and 144LAA to be precise).
b. All present agree that this should be enough but we will test and decide then.
CONCLUSION, we all agree this should be enough although 12x 7.6mm will be added on Malta.
----------------------------------------
9. Airbase spanwpoints. Only 8 planes are reported to be able to take-off from the landing gronds. Do we need to take action for this or will we accept this as a campaign restriction?
CONCLUSION: We will accept the situation as is on the map. No changes will be made.
---------------------------------------
10. For NW Africa, 32 planes can be "requested" for the cost of 5VP's. This needs to be discussed. Other options are possible.
CONCLUSION: This is accepted. VP's per 32 planes. These can be all fighters, bombers, or a combination there off.
However, you can only request 16 of the same exact type per 5VP's.
In addition, Mc202's cannot be requested in this way.
This is to avoid, for example, 32 Beaufighters or Ju88C6's being requested in one go.
Regarding Hurricanes, you can request 32, but they must be 16 of one Mark, and 16 of another.
-------------------------------------
11. Which Naval RoF should we set?
CONCLUSION: ROF will be set at 33%.
UPDATE:
Something forgot in the minutes was that we agreed during the meeting that all singe engined British fighters would have no refueling delay during missions. I think this is justied considering the special historical circumstances.
One other change to NE Africa has been the default temperature on this map from configured 28C° to 23C°.
If you check wikipedia on this for average temperatures of Tubruk I actually think this is on the high side and 20C° would probably be a good average for a mid November campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobruk
Good constructive meeting yesterday with some important decisions taken which allow us to move forward.
Regretfully, attendance was minimal and no representative of the ITA community was present. I understand it is the holiday season, but still...
To avoid misunderstandings, if you do not attend, you implicitly agree with all the decisions taken during the meetings.
For the open topics I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.
Next meeting will be held early September. I'd propose Monday 02/09 & 21h30 GMT+1
Meeting minutes: 04/08
Present: 102nd-HR-Cmirko, CC_Tofolo, LLv34_jequ, LLv34_Untamo, =gRiJ=Ruso, Ala13_Apam, Petr
Accepted but not present: Viff, Enkas.
Unavailable: EAF19_Classic, II/JG77_ Jack, 150GCT_Pag, 22GCT_Hollywood, 22GCT_Gross, 102nd-YU-Devill, 102nd-YU-Uross, 6S.Cipson, 22GCT_Aquila, Lg965, Ala13_Florete.
CLOSED TOPICS:
1. Substitutions:
a. Planes 1 through 4 are accepted as listed on the forum.
b. DB3-M: carries the day with 5 votes to 0 for Ki-21.
2. The Mark 12 torpedo is apparently very fragile and as such, pretty useless.
a. Waiting for feedback.
b. Closing this topic as I received no feedback for several weeks.
3. CR-25 was used during this time period but only 8 planes in operation.
a. All present agree that since the plane is not available in the game, such limited numbers do not deserve a substitute.
4. All bombers for both sides will all be set to veteran skill.
5. Rule change: 1/4th of Axis planes will not be set to refueling.
a. With the change of 109's to E7's it is agreed this is no longer necessary for balancing.
6. In principle, rockets will be allowed as load out although this will be checked per phase.
MINUTES 01/09:
102nd-HR-Mirko, 102nd-YU-Uross, 150GCT_Pag, 22GCT_Aquila, _ITAF_LG965, AMVI_RugerOne, CC_Tofolo, Ala13_Florete, Ala13_Apam, II/JG77_Jack, EAF19_Classic, EAF51_Jimmy, LLv34_Untamo, =gRiJ=Ruso, =gRiJ=Nacovich, AMVI_RugerOne, AMVI_Enkas, SUP_Astore, IAF_Viff, VARP_Thor
Thanks for everyone who participated in the highly productive and constructive meeting with a very large attendance. I did not include everyone who attended but I think I have the leaders of the community listed. If I forgot you, pls let me know.
I just want to say that discussion, even negotiation, before a campaign is to be welcomed, indeed encouraged, because it is the exact moment that these things should be done! All too often this step is skipped and it is assumed that the designer should know everything and make all the decision himself and, obviously, bare all the responsibility for failure. This clearly will not do and I am certain that this mentality scares away many talented designers and could in the end become a serious issue for new campaigns, especially when they involve so many different Nationalities and cultures.
That being said, the time for discussion is now over. The decisions have been made and you all have had the plenty of opportunity to weigh on the various topics discussed over a several month period. IF we overlooked something we overlooked it together! It is a collective responsibility and any issue that pops-up will need to be discussed in this light. Do not pretend you will be able to blame someone else even if you have not attended the meetings. You had the opportunity to attend and if you did not take it you implicitly agreed with whatever was decided by those who did.
I realize that many people have been here before and that they have established their own way of doing things. That's fine, who am I to tell you to do things differently? But that cuts both ways; who are you to tell me how to do my own campaigns? In the end the only thing I'm asking is that you work with me constructively, as I have done in each campaign I have been involved in, in the past. I don't think that is a lot to ask in exchange for the many months I have spent on giving you the best possible SEOW experience I can.
And now, let the games begin and let lose the dogs of WAR!
RESOLVED TOPICS:
1. G50 is reported to overheat very quickly to the point that it cannot be used to escort bombers.
a. This could be caused by the ambient temperature of the map? How does this feature work?
b. Tofolo/Apam will test further and provide a feedback and list of planes affected.
c. Should this prove to be a serious issue we could ask Aaken to
verify.
CONCLUSION:
1.Testing revealed that overheat is manageable if managing power/pitch.
2.Hurricanes have the same issue.
-----------------------------------
2. Proposal is to enforce Radio silence => no heading from tower and heading to target.
a. On the condition this can be automated.
CONCLUSION:
Not possible to automate so will not be implemented.
----------------------------------
3. Proposal to limit wind to 5m/s and low or no turbulence. This can apparently be set in the DB and should then be automatic.
CONCLUSION:
A strong case is made that wind will make taking off from carriers very difficult due to the difficulty of getting the carrier in the wind during a mission for take-off and landing.
Another strong case is made that having wind of maximum 5m/s will make it more difficult to hit factory plates and is more realistic.
The solution accepted is:
NE Africa (has no carriers): Wind max 5m/s and low or NO turbulence.
NW Africa (has carriers): No wind and low or NO turbulence.
----------------------------------
4. Limits on plane types:
a. Re2000: 8 maximum both sectors (can be transferred to NE Africa) per mission.
b. Mc202: 8 maximum both sectors per mission.
c. Night fighters need to human flown.
d. NE_Africa: The Axis player needs to plan approximately 60/40 German/Italian fighters and 50/50 bombers per mission for as long as he has enough planes of both nationalities.
e. NE_Africa: The Allied players need to plan at least 40% hurricanes of total single engined fighters planned.
f. The Allied side seats in NW_Africa are increased to 34 (+4 seats) under the condition these cannot be fighters.
CONCLUSION: ALL ABOVE ARE ACCEPTED
-----------------------------------
g. Open question: Do we want an enforced minimum of 2 recon flights per mission per side?
CONCLUSION: NOT ACCEPTED.
-------------------------------------
5. Ships are considered too fragile. Ala13_Florete has proposed some ships.ini changes that makes ships stronger. If all agree, we can test his modifications and if deemed ok, we can use this in the campaign.
a. ES community will test and provide a ships.ini for the other squadrons to test.
b. There are several things in the design that try to make ships less vulnerable indirectly:
i. Faster ship speed to limit exposure to air attack.
ii. Night missions that allow ships cross the most dangerous sections on the map if timed correctly.
iii. High recon degradation for ships.
iv. Limit on size of bombs to 500kg or 1000lbs.
CONCLUSION: NOT ACCEPTED we will not change the ships.ini for hull strength
-----------------------------------
6. Skip bombing without the bomb touching the water is an open issue.
a. Various ways of preventing this have been discussed but all options leave room for interpretation and discussion which is something that we feel must be avoided.
b. We agree to discuss this again at a later time.
CONCLUSION:
NO Fighters or fighterbombers are allowed to skip bomb or attack ships in any way. We can see in the stats if this rule is violated.
Flak will be set to 33% of historical.
All ship on both sides will be set to Veteran.
All bombers or ground attack planes for both sides are free to use any technique they want.
-------------------------------------------
7. The campaign will have a dedicated skin pack.
a. Mirko is going to post and will collect the skins.
b. Skins for DB3-M & IL4 are necessary.
c. Tofolo & Mirko will look for skinners in their communities.
CONCLUSION: ES community is almost done with the MOD pack which will include the skins.
-----------------------------------------
8. AA guns in Malta. We have a total of 31x 3.7 inch (85mm), 12x 40mm Bofors.
a. I think this is more than enough, however we can change the proportion of 3.7 inch versus 40mm bofors (historically there were about even numbers of these, 122HvAA and 144LAA to be precise).
b. All present agree that this should be enough but we will test and decide then.
CONCLUSION, we all agree this should be enough although 12x 7.6mm will be added on Malta.
----------------------------------------
9. Airbase spanwpoints. Only 8 planes are reported to be able to take-off from the landing gronds. Do we need to take action for this or will we accept this as a campaign restriction?
CONCLUSION: We will accept the situation as is on the map. No changes will be made.
---------------------------------------
10. For NW Africa, 32 planes can be "requested" for the cost of 5VP's. This needs to be discussed. Other options are possible.
CONCLUSION: This is accepted. VP's per 32 planes. These can be all fighters, bombers, or a combination there off.
However, you can only request 16 of the same exact type per 5VP's.
In addition, Mc202's cannot be requested in this way.
This is to avoid, for example, 32 Beaufighters or Ju88C6's being requested in one go.
Regarding Hurricanes, you can request 32, but they must be 16 of one Mark, and 16 of another.
-------------------------------------
11. Which Naval RoF should we set?
CONCLUSION: ROF will be set at 33%.
UPDATE:
Something forgot in the minutes was that we agreed during the meeting that all singe engined British fighters would have no refueling delay during missions. I think this is justied considering the special historical circumstances.
One other change to NE Africa has been the default temperature on this map from configured 28C° to 23C°.
If you check wikipedia on this for average temperatures of Tubruk I actually think this is on the high side and 20C° would probably be a good average for a mid November campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobruk
