1st Multisquad Campaign Battle of Britain

[Sven]

I can already answer that with a no Doggles. We like to play a scenario that happened in the past, not what could have happened or what people like to do. That's one thing we've always tried to achieve in our missions and previous campaigns and we get most satisfaction and enjoyment out of it. 100 % realism is of course not achievable but when we can, we implement it.


That does not mean we're not interested in pseudo-histocial campaigns but they will not be made by us.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Sven

I can already answer that with a no Doggles. We like to play a scenario that happened in the past, not what could have happened or what people like to do. That's one thing we've always tried to achieve in our missions and previous campaigns and we get most satisfaction and enjoyment out of it. 100 % realism is of course not achievable but when we can, we implement it.


That does not mean we're not interested in pseudo-histocial campaigns but they will not be made by us.

Interesting perspective. What happens when you run a historical campaign and the outcome isn't historical? e.g. the Dieppe raid is actually successful, or the Allies don't actually get away from Dunkerque?

Do you declare the campaign to be a failure?

Do you set up the initial conditions so that the outcome is a foregone conclusion?

Understand I am not advocating a "secret weapons of the luftwaffe" campaign.

[Sven]

We give you an historical start and objectives which were targeted historically, you are to achieve the goals the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe has ordered your JG to do.

The next mission does not take your failure/success into account, it bases itself on what happened historically.

Then there are people who say, but what's the use of achieving the goal then?
Well, maybe you want to experience what the RAF/Luftwaffe did that day?

Our goal is to achieve fun, realism and teamplay. I don't really care who actually wins the campaign. You can merely draw conclusions on how close you performed to the real deal.

Obviously we can't know everything to the detail what happened back then, but we try to get a close as possible, feedback is of course more then welcome, especially when it comes to RAF activities.

--

I know ATAG got stats running so a campaign where mission results matter for the next mission isn't too far away I guess.

Understand I am not advocating a "secret weapons of the luftwaffe" campaign.

Yes I know what you mean.

[CaptainDoggles]

Then there are people who say, but what's the use of achieving the goal then?

I just think campaigns like this are more engaging; pilots get a chance to feel like their individual actions actually have an impact (or more of an impact) on the outcome of the mission.

My opinion is that if it doesn't matter what we do during the mission it might as well be a regular dogfight furball, that's all.

[SEE]

Would it be possible for future missions to tally the losses incurred?

I really enjoyed the last mission but as players drop out of the server (for various reasons) I found myself the sole remaining Spit from the flight. In those instances should a player try and join another flight and jump into their TS channel?

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by SEE

Would it be possible for future missions to tally the losses incurred?

I really enjoyed the last mission but as players drop out of the server (for various reasons) I found myself the sole remaining Spit from the flight. In those instances should a player try and join another flight and jump into their TS channel?

Same thing happened to me 3 times... Due to CTD's.

I tried forming with other Schwarm in my Staffel. Thats one of the disadvantages of not being in your own teamspeak, you really need whispers as more than 4 in a channel, (I find) is overcrowded.




Doggles the way I see it is, you can start with a historical setup iniatially and see how you could do better with what youve got which has a knock on effect.

OR

You can start each mission the same way but plan it differently

OR

You can do it pretty much as it was done.


Each one has good points and bad points. Option 1 quickley moves away from a historical footing and is more complicated to run and keep track of because it doesnt let you have as much in place for the long run. Option two allows participation to a greater degree and keeps more historical factors, (order of battle etc). Option 3 allows you to have the entire thing mapped out from the start and is easist to run but by comparison to the others is probley the least exciting and pretty much scripted. So as you can see it really depends on a few things first

[klem]

Historical setups are good for two reasons. One is, we'd all like to 'be there' and the other is it may not work out in line with the historical outcome so you have a chance to 'make a difference'. In Aces High we once (only once!) lost the Battle of Britain! That prospect gives the LW guys hope for a victory.

I takes time to set these up and with say a four or six frame campaign, thats about four weeks planning/registration plus up to six weeks running, then a break for the organisers, you are soon through a three month window. (And putting together three or four of these campaigns a year is hard going for the guys doing most of the work.) So there are enough historical missions to see you through a couple of years, after which you'll be happy to re-run them.

Of course a theoretical campaign can be thrown in and with the limited era of 1939-1941 which would exhaust the CoD planeset it may become necessary but don't forget there were several notable days in the BoB that could be re-created instead of, say, a generic "channel convoy attacks" mission and there was also the aspect of the RAF attacking the LW not to mention the Battle for France.

It should also be possible to work out who 'won'. Say a percentage of RAF fields/Radars put out of action, Ships sunk or the extent of pilot losses indicating theoretical inability to continue (once the game is stable!) which is where the ground rules come in.

[Osprey]

Having done all the seasons of USL since it started (champs in Open Pit 2007, champs in Closed Pit in 2011 ) I can feel well placed on commenting that the whole 're-enactment' is the best way to do it. If you want competitive measurement over a season, squad on squad, then enter the USL because you will get that. You will plan and get to win one of the days of the BOB, or have the Japs win at Truk etc. BUT, it is not the same, it's a battle and not a war.

Given that we all have hindsight and don't have the numbers/scaling then it's not really possible to have a competitive campaign, not one that could be considered fair anyway, and if it were then by default it would be unrealistic. I think we could have a bunch of stats produced though, per player/per squadron/per side which would give us some nice talking points as we move through, and I believe that this is coming. Otherwise you are looking at limiting resources such as planes and pilots, bombing factories and supplies in a big war scenario with forces moving on the ground - it's all too much work, and not really possible with the game the way it is presently designed. Maybe one day there will be a MMO war style with Tanks and FPS on the ground whilst we fly above - but that's a bit of a dream

Forgive my rambling, I'm in bed on a laptop with a stinking cold incapable of rational thought or coherence and without any stamina either That's why I missed Sunday's flight.

[Untamo]

S!

Sorry for not attending the last mission. I was really hangovery after my friends birthday party

Thanks for the campaign, when shall we have more?

[klem]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Same thing happened to me 3 times... Due to CTD's.

I tried forming with other Schwarm in my Staffel. Thats one of the disadvantages of not being in your own teamspeak, you really need whispers as more than 4 in a channel, (I find) is overcrowded.

With respect, its important to have everyone (at least on one side) on the same TS server. Everyone from both sides also enables the Commanders of the opposing sides to talk to eachother on a special whisper if they need to co-ordinate the 'start' or sort out some problem.

The way to get the best out of TS is, predictably, discipline. There's a priority that needs to be observed.

You need to have one channel per Flight. These are easy to add.

Then, say you have a flight of 8 or 12 pilots....

Pairs must be established and have a 1 to 1 whisper setup. You can stretch this to a section of four but it can get noisy in a fight.
Pairs have priority over all comms if engaged in combat. Their chatter is confined to their whisper and does not affect others (who may also be doing the same on their whisper) but anyone transmitting on "Channel" can walk all over the pairs battle comms and mess up their fight so, one of the pair should call '[klem]: clear channel' if necessary. Everyone will understand why. A follow up with '[klem]: channel clear' is helpful. These are brief enough not to destroy another pair's comms.

Next comes the Channel comms which is the Flight commander's territory although during patrols anyone is likely to use it for lookout, reporting contacts, asking questions etc. until the commander calls for quiet. No 'chit-chat'

Lastly, Leaders' whisper. A way to exchange info with all the other Flight leaders for co-ordinating the battle. Again you may need to call 'clear channel' to prevent your guys walking all over your Leader comms.

And finally, if you do find yourself the only one of your Flight left you have the chance to join another Flight and jump into their channel which you could not do if they were on a different server.