SLOT CAMPAIGN OPERATIONS

[_AH_Toccs]

Thanks sir.  I see why u make the big bucks in AH. You know damn near everything! :happy-112:

[_AH_taldrg]

~S~  Ya Toccs, the Boss is for real, that's for sure.

[_AH_Duff4r]

FWIW,

I came here around the 4.06 and was regularly getting tossed!  Then came 4.07 and it seemed to ease up for me a bit.  It happened to me only once in 4.08 and hasn't happened since!  That's a good thing.

I think dodging HyperLobby is a good thing to try.  When I was FA we almost always started IP.  I have some 'buds' in the 352nd and that's all they do.

Ring and I were looking at XFire but I'll be a darned if I can figure out how to start a server in XFire.

Let's go IP.  I gave Spardog a proggie for remembering IP's.  I'll look for that if we think we need it.

S~
Duff

[_AH_Moggy]

***WARNING ORDER***

Mission Date:  Tues Dec 9 2008
Mission Start Time:  9:30 p.m. EST
Mission length:  80 minutes

FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS:

--JAPANESE--
"A*" + "B" Flights
IJN Flyables:  12x A6M3   
Mission:  C.A.P.

*  Mission Commander from this Flight.  NOTE: Blue M/C role for this mission is minimal:  No waypoints / assigned flight paths may be altered.   

       --U.S.--
"C" + "D*" + HQ Flights
US Flyables:  8x F4U-1 (Corsair Mk. I)         4x P-38J        8x B-24J
Mission:  Ground Strike / Escort

*  Mission Commander from this flight.  NOTE:  Red M/C role for this mission is minimal:  Two separate flights inbound.  M/C may later direct each escort Flight Leader to stick with his bombers through the return flight, or leave them freedom of action (as briefed) after "bombs away."

Mission briefs to be sent out Friday, 5 December, according to current distribution list

MISSION HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:  This day saw a fairly massive air battle over the central Solomons. U.S. 13th Air Force B-24's, escorted by XIII Fighter Command P-38's & P-40's, and VMF-124 F4U's, attacked Kolombangara/Vila and New Georgia/Munda airdromes.
   During an interception by 50 A6M's, two B-24's, all four P-38's, two F4U's and two P-40's were lost.

[_AH_Moggy]

~S~ all:
In thinking about last night's 1st Slot Campaign mission, I'm having some doubts whether the current "head-to-head" format will work.  First, I didn't like the way the mission turned out last night at all.  Here's what I'm thinking:

1.  Mission Survival Rate:  Excluding the two pilots that were booted due to technical glitches, we had 20 pilots start the mission.  Only 25% RTB'd safely.  65% were KIA/POW.  That's simply way too high a loss rate for a viable campaign.  And, I'm pretty confident that the head-to-head nature of the campaign will see similar #'s in the following missions. 
   A high loss rate in each mission will make the scoring much less useful.  I could re-tool the "bonus" point formula, but that seems like a band-aid fix.
   From a builder's standpoint, I have to script the engagement, trying to keep it as balanced as possible.  Since most of the pilots will be "breathers" in that engagement, the loss rates will be high on both sides.  There is simply no way to avoid that other than reducing the chances FOR an engagement.  I doubt whether guys would find that fun, no matter how more realistic it might be.

2.  There will be little point in continuing these rather long missions with only a few pilots winging their way home.  If most of the guys are on the sidelines watching, interest will quickly fade.

3.  Since the builder has to "script" the engagements, it's difficult to fly them without waypoints.  It's simply too much to expect each pilot to keep his eyes glued to his ADF needle to stick to a flight plan;  you wouldn't see much outside the cockpit.
   That eliminates the ability to make navigation challenging. 

4.  Using HQ Flight as "plug-ins" where needed, because no one will know beforehand how many pilots will show up from each flight, is a lousy system.  It's not fair to them.

I think re-tooling the campaign to our usual "all of us vs. AI" would work better.  Here's why:

A.  It would solve all four problems above.

B.  It would again allow us to fly these missions as a squadron, with full squadron briefs (including ATC target photos for the bombers) beforehand, instead of "winging it" after breaking into two sides.

c.  We could pre-assign flights to specific mission elements, rotating them between roles (bombers, escort, CAP, etc.).  This would save considerable time and the concept seemed to work well during the last VMF-223 campaign.  As an option, we could allow flights to volunteer for flights beforehand. 

D.  There would be a much more manageable and predictable survival rate if the opposition were AI-only.  I'm not advocating that every mission be "easy."  Some will be more difficult than others, and some flights may encounter more opposition than others.  But, I'm confident that the survival rate would be much more realistic, and thus would "feel" more like a legitimate campaign than the current "head-to-head" format likely will.

E.  We could pre-assign mission commanders in advance, a la the "Euro" Campaign.  I thought that worked out very well.  Using the current format, it's impossible for me, as the builder/coordinator, to assign or predict a M/C for both sides.

Disadvantages:

The only disadvantage that I can forsee in advance is that some AH pilots hate flying vs. all-AI opposition.  In this case, though, I think the advantages of revamping the campaign far outweigh this disadvantage.  And, in any case I doubt whether any pilot will want to forego the campaign simply because it is now vs. AI-only. 

Re-tooling the campaign will take me some time -- probably a month or so, as I will have to revise & re-test each mission.  But, I'll use the basic mission templates I already have for each.  I'd probably need a month or so to be ready. 

I realize that I may be wrong here.  If you guys like the current format, and think I'm way off-base, please let me know and we'll continue to march with the current campaign.  But, I suspect most will agree with me.  I feel strongly that the campaign will be much more fun for all if we switch to an "enemy AI" format.

We need comments here, guys.  What do you think? 

[_AH_BBQhead]

S~. All good points, Moggy.

   i would be a bit disappointed to go away from the head to head format, but having always been a proponent of supporting the builder's point of view.. if that's what it takes then that's the way we should go.

as for HQ being plug ins... we're used to it.. and speaking for myself.. i really don't mind.

the high casualty rate is the big problem.. having too many guys on the sidelines after only half the mission will, i agree, cause interest to fall off.   

points and scoring..  maybe revamping the points so that objective completion and RTB'ing are where the big points come from would probably go a long way in reducing the KIA rate. 
i've never been one to pay much attention to points anyway though.  successfully completing the mission objectives and surviving are what i try for.. whether it gets me points or not.  a few extra air kill points should be a great point risk.  the Allied side, having  most of the faster planes can almost always dictate whether or not there will be an engagement.

   

[_AH_Stiffy]

well, i dont have any answers here but i was blessed with an opinion so here it is...

i feel that the builder has the best perspective on the matter. peronally i dont mind either way, seem i die from breather or AI just as easily.

but i do have one thing to add, March Madness isnt far off and as i recall the head to head action was excellent.

long story short, my vote is for builders choice

[_AH_Toccs]

Moggy has a point, the attrition rate put most of the guys on the sidelines, mostly because the pilots were very aggressive. Going against breathers makes us all better pilots, and makes the sim seem more real to me.

That said, builders choice with lotsa variety works for me.

[_AH_Gonzo]

I didn't get the chance to take part in yesterday's mission but...

i feel that the builder has the best perspective on the matter. peronally i dont mind either way, seem i die from breather or AI just as easily.

:i-m-with-stupid-0101:

and...

Going against breathers makes us all better pilots, and makes the sim seem more real to me.

That said, builders choice with lotsa variety works for me.

:i-m-with-stupid-0101:

That about somes it up from my end.

[_AH_Stiffy]

yanno, I'm gettin to where I really dislike this emoticon >> :i-m-with-stupid-0101:<<

[Foxbat]

S! First of all I understand and fully support your views on how this thing went so far Moggy. No one would know more about how you wanted it to work than you would after having built it. I'll fly what ever is provided because i respect the effort you guys put in to put these together. Its a privilidge to fly these.
But I guess being honest, I would be dissapointed if it were changed to us VS the AI. At the early discussion I kinda hoped we would fly with no way points and very limited icons to make a break from the usual way we do these. But I could see that those settings were not gonna be popular so just accepted that we would keep those the same. We would still have the added dimension of the head to head factor and I really looked forward to that. It turned out pretty much how I thought it would for the first couple of runs. Its gonna take awhile for guys to get used to the tactics of flying against a human opponent VS an AI. It went the same way in the begining when we flew against the WW guys.
But it improved along the way in that campaign and I think its a great way to really get better at what we do. We fly alot of our regular missions during the week against AI and it does get kinda predictable at times. If we do go over to AI in this one I hope we maybe could add a little more head to head in our regular stuff. Possibly get more active looking for another squad to have a go at some kind of organized event would be cool. I know its hard to find another group our size to make that work though.
If you already have a few of these head to heads built Moggy, why not let her roll a few more weeks and see if it gets better. Speaking for only the Red side, some of our deaths were self inflicted along with a couple PC glitches. We could have had a few things go better and been much more succesful.
I really enjoyed the battles we had with the WW's and this has the potential to be even better than those.

[_AH_Moggy]

~S~ guys:
Thanks for the opinions so far.  I'd like to leave this unresolved for a day or two to get some more thoughts here before I comment further.

So, for now we'll plan on continuing with mission # 2 for next Tuesday as scheduled. 

[_AH_Col._Hogan]

What can I say?, I'm an allied kind of guy.

I like the Head to Head, just hate flying blue.

My vote is for what ever makes the most pilots the hapiest.

S!

[DealnDave]

Hello All S~,

My two cents is that this campaign type is a good one.  I understand the mission builders point of view as I'm one myself, on the losses suffered over the first mission.  The thing I find when doing a head to head is that you are going to have a high loss rate due to a couple of different factors.

• pilot skill and determination
• unit tactics and cohesion

There are more factors sure, but in the end pilot losses will be high as we are an aggresive bunch :)  As far as the missions, Moggy you have done a great job.  We have only flown one thus far, but based on that mission I'm sure the others will be just as fun.

And knowing that most guys like to fly red....I'll fly blue if that's cool, or red what ever is needed.

S~

[_AH_Moggy]

CURRENT MISSION BRIEFING DISTRIBUTION LIST

"A" Flight:
AH_Gonzo
AH_Duff4r   
AH_Hogan
AH_Doc
AH_Hornet
AH_Taildrg

"B" Flight:
AH_Viper
AH_Foxbat
AH_Zipzag
AH_Gator
AH_Nimble
AH_Twenty

"C" Flight:
AH_Johnny
AH_Ring   
AH_Moby 
AH_Boosher 
AH_Bong
AH_Crash
AH_Dealin' Dave   

"D" Flight:
AH_Rgaa
AH_Olds
AH_Toccs
AH_Slikk
AH_Shrtaprch   

HQ Flight:
AH_BBQHead
AH_SkatTrash
AH_Jack