Team Balancing Discussion

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Yes Klem, for thos of us who usually fly with our squad mates 2-6 at a time its not a problem but what about the little guys?

They are probably toast no matter which direction the server is stacked.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Yes Klem, for thos of us who usually fly with our squad mates 2-6 at a time its not a problem but what about the little guys?

Yeah, I try to to join up with others in TS since I am the only JG52 guy flying CoD atm ... but I seem to have started going Lone Wolf/Death Wish style.

I have come a cropper when meeting you 56RAF and JG27 guys in your group flights... so much so that when I see a group of 3-4 Hurris or a few 109s with 110s I pee myself... WELL NEXT TIME I AM GOING TO SEND YOU THE DRY CLEANING BILL

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Yeah, I try to to join up with others in TS since I am the only JG52 guy flying CoD atm ... but I seem to have started going Lone Wolf/Death Wish style.

I have come a cropper when meeting you 56RAF and JG27 guys in your group flights... so much so that when I see a group of 3-4 Hurris or a few 109s with 110s I pee myself... WELL NEXT TIME I AM GOING TO SEND YOU THE DRY CLEANING BILL

Nice to see we are doing it right


Note to all: Would people mind adding those extra key strokes 5./ or even 5 before the JG27. Seems all we get refered to is JG27 which is actually a different unit or several units, depends which way you look at it. Not just you Krupi, allot of people do it. Thanks

[klem]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Yes Klem, for thos of us who usually fly with our squad mates 2-6 at a time its not a problem but what about the little guys?

Well that's what I was saying before. Try to tie up with other guys on TS. Usually the reds on TS are fairly supportive of eachother, at least they will come to your aid if you ask and they can work out where you are. Its a short step to saying "ther's four of us little guys, lets work together and decide what we'll do before we take off" which actually some of them kind of do. Truth is, some guys just take off to look for a fight and then complain when their shortsighted approach leaves them dead halfway down the runway. Some just want an immediate dogfight and a kill. I don't think that's what ATAG are trying to do.

You know, if guys fly on their own then first of all they're not going to get anywhere near being 'historical' and they probably aren't going to survive too long (I know some will). But if this discussion is going to be about trying to make things 'historical' or even 'sensible' (as in "I don't like vulchers") then flying alone from vulched fields isn't the way to do it. If someone wants to do that then thats up to them but its then a bit of a stretch to come here and complain that things 'aren't right' or are 'unfair'.

You can kill off the vulching argument by not giving them a target. You can improve your chances by working with others and thinking tactically.

As for krupi's dry cleaning bill, 56 aren't gods, we just work together. And you can clean your own trousers

[jayrc]

I think vulchers days are numbered, if we get control of AA guns the first thing we will do is get on a gun, clear the airfield, maybe stay and get some target practice in

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by klem

As for krupi's dry cleaning bill, 56 aren't gods, we just work together. And you can clean your own trousers

If he's flying red you cant send us the bill, they dont accept Reichsmarks in England!

[csThor]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

I think you have completely missed my point mate, I am all for historical accuracy but I can't abide people that will always join the side they want regardless of how many ppl are on it, you have to admit 24 v 10 is not great but I still flew anyway.

It's nothing to do with historical accuracy.

Okay, then let me state thefollowing: You will not find "balance" on an open DF server. The audience is far too diverse for that. Other people in other sims have tried to solve that issue and failed.

Based on what BlackDog said I think it's (ATM at least) a question of mission design and scripting, or rather the lack of sufficiently advanced designs and scripts, since right now incorporating the level bombers is a technical problem (with the AI), a gameplay problem (Ju 88 compass bug, Blenheim handling issues etc) and last but not least a scoring problem (no way to assess damage to a static area target, yet). I have been an advocate of mission designs which adhere to basic historical facts (planeset, numbers, target categories etc) while balancing imbalances (planeset and numbers) via target selection and number of goals to achieve. This way an imbalance in planeset (i.e. one side has a considerable technological advantage) and/or numbers can be circumvented by making the side with the advantages go for more targets than the disadvantaged side. This forces players to cooperate more, and by giving aerial victories very little impact in the grand scheme of things the designer can attribute far more importance to bombers and Stukas than common on DF servers, the steady gangbang will, while not being totally removed, be pushed back into a niche. SNAFU made missions and a concept which goes this way, it's just the engine which ain't up to it, yet, and we as a community do not have the tools to really work with the potential of this sim, yet. That'll take time ...

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by csThor

Okay, then let me state thefollowing: You will not find "balance" on an open DF server. The audience is far too diverse for that. Other people in other sims have tried to solve that issue and failed.

Based on what BlackDog said I think it's (ATM at least) a question of mission design and scripting, or rather the lack of sufficiently advanced designs and scripts, since right now incorporating the level bombers is a technical problem (with the AI), a gameplay problem (Ju 88 compass bug, Blenheim handling issues etc) and last but not least a scoring problem (no way to assess damage to a static area target, yet). I have been an advocate of mission designs which adhere to basic historical facts (planeset, numbers, target categories etc) while balancing imbalances (planeset and numbers) via target selection and number of goals to achieve. This way an imbalance in planeset (i.e. one side has a considerable technological advantage) and/or numbers can be circumvented by making the side with the advantages go for more targets than the disadvantaged side. This forces players to cooperate more, and by giving aerial victories very little impact in the grand scheme of things the designer can attribute far more importance to bombers and Stukas than common on DF servers, the steady gangbang will, while not being totally removed, be pushed back into a niche. SNAFU made missions and a concept which goes this way, it's just the engine which ain't up to it, yet, and we as a community do not have the tools to really work with the potential of this sim, yet. That'll take time ...

Agreed but I don't see ATAG as a dogfight server and I am sure Bliss, Boris and Watchman do either!

[GF_Mastiff]

Well, I'll chime in now. Why don't we see some historical fuel cost for the Sim?

I thought the FM was such that they fly over to England and only had 15 to 20 minutes of Fuel left? I know that's enough time to do what ever but it would sure make for Aircraft management?

[robtek]

You wont find the often quoted 15 to 20 min. fighting time for the 109 because that number was created at a time were the 109 had to fly to a meeting point, wait there for the bombers, then escort the bombers, which didn't fly the direct way, to London and then back.