"Warbirds: Battles" Arena Concept

[Target]

From the Furball post:

I've been working on an idea that trends away from a strict RPS to what I call the "Battles" arena. Rather than having one terrain for a tour, the Battles concept jumps from terrain to terrain and utilizes VERY small groups of planes that were available in specific locals for short (2 day max) battles. For instance the battle of Midway would have F4F4s TBDs and SBDs vs. Zeros Vals and Kates with no other aircraft available. A "tour" would incompass 5 to 10 battles and last between one and a half and 2 and a half weeks, depending on the time frame of the battles chosen for that tour. If you have any ideas you think would suit this idea, shoot me an email or join the discussion on the Furball Warbirds board.

I see this as a NON field taking arena where the "winner" of each "frame" is decided at the end of the battle based on attrition and ground losses. Unless the battle in question (like the Bulge) is CENTERED around land capture.

[Keller]

This is very much in line with the concept of the "Terrain Tree" bandied about for several years, where the outcome in one terrain defines which terrain (and set of scripts) is loaded for the next segment.

[Target]

Yes but I don't see the scripting for one terrain "surviving" the switch to the next. Each battle is won or lost individually. You could tally the allied axis win/loss record at the end of the tour based on pure numeric result. 5 to 4 Axis, kinda thing. But this is more in keeping with current systems and doesn't depend on generals to run an ongoing score.

[Target]

PS, forgive my typing, I've got a new keyboard and I'm not used to it yet.

[Crumpp]

I think that is an excellent idea. Are we going to replace the WWII arena with it?

My only concern is dilution of the player base by the addition of another arena. Between the WWII arena as it is now and this idea, I would rather have the "battle arena".

All the best,

Crumpp

[wilz]

I like the concept TARGET.

However I would suggest (again and again) to change the icon distance out a little bit. I fly mostly in the WWII arena and the main complaint is the short icons. We have S3's for limited icons. What would it hurt to change the icons in the WWII arena to 15 so more folks could enjoy a more historic matchup.

Unfortunately I can hear the howls already from the die hard squads that won't be able to fly thier favorite bird every night. I don't get to fly blue birds very often as it is, so giving me a dedicated day or two would be great.

As for diluting the player base, maybe you could rotate this idea with what is used in the WWII arena now.

[crutch]

I have talked about this concept several times with other players, I just didnt think WB have the maps available to do this.

I suppose that you could close non-battle-specific bases and make them 'uncapturable' for the duration of the battle.

I would also suggest using off-map spawn points.
an example of this would be german bombers coming into battle at altitude for a BoB battle.
the map could be fixed for the over britton format without needing a euro map section for the buffs and their escorts.
this would force the main battle to be about intercepting the raids by RAF forces.

the same technique could be used for the battle of berlin (USAAF&RAF bombing of germany).

sounds very promising <S>

[finn]

I LIKE it. Could be a huge breath of fresh air.

finn

[Target]

I know there's not enough arenas currently, but arenas built SPECIFICALLY to suit this format wouldn't have to be very big, would have a very limited number of fields and would be easy to create.

I don't like the offmap launch of bombers. Half the fun I have in a bomber is takeoff and landing. Something to think about though.

[Keller]

You are correct; the scripts would not survive the reload of terrain. (sadly the current parser is heavily dependent on having a terrain loaded. Loading a new terrain means unloading the previous one...as well as the parser attached to it)

There are 3 possibilities here however:

1) Always make certain that any new terrain has a standalone scripted campaign associated with it, meaning that all scripting is fresh.

2) Since in theory, we would be running the new terrain in the same environment as the old one, a varsave would preserve the variables from the first campaign, allowing the 2nd one to do a varread to regain. The downside of this approach is that we'd have to agree on the transfer interface.

3) Thinking about number 2, I came up with a 3rd idea. If we can agree on which variables we would want to transfer, the 1st campaign would create a transfer script to assign values to the variables in the 2nd campaign. All the 2nd campaign would have to do would be to run the transfer script to set all the appropriate variables.

Obviously #2 and #3 only work if the terrains are run on the same host, as the file system (and paths therein) are the same. The only question I would have is how do we trigger a terrain reload. I wasn't aware we could do that yet with scripts. (IOW, I've tried it in the past, only to have things blow up on me)

Hope This Helps,

[crutch]

the off map SP does put pressure on the defenders in a 'scramble' situation :)

eventually, I would like to see multiple 'next' options based on how badly the losing side 'lost' the battle.

sort of a marginal, moderate, decisive catagories.

naturally provision should be made for the 'what ifs' that happen when the historical 'loser' actually wins - what IS the next map if the germans win the BoB? battle of scottland?

[Keller]

In all the many demo campaigns I've written to experiment with different concepts, I've always written in the idea of "victory level" (typically Draw, then Marginal, Tactical, and Decisive for each side). These can be represented by a victory level number (in the above case from -3 to 3) which can now be passed to the next terrain (using the mechanism I outlined in an earlier post). This number then could be used to define initial supply and AC/GV availability. (or anything else you'd like as well)

Victory levels are easily definable as well. Simply put a numeric value on the achievement of various items. Enemy Factory(s) destroyed = +25 pts, Current Supply less than a critical value = -15pts, etc. It's not any different from the manner in which most board games calculate victory levels.

I've looked for this kind of stuff for a long time. Sadly, many players over the years have come out against it. (apparently they like the binary win/lose concept)

[crutch]

could be something as simple as;

marginal win - just a toehold on the next map, real easy to get kicked off of it and go backwards.

moderate win - you own half the next map

decisive win - you own most of the next map with the enemy only retaining a toehold on it.

the nice thing about this is you can run theater level arenas; ETO, MTO, East front, CBI, N-PTO and SW-PTO.

naturally all wouldnt be opened at the same time BUT you could schedule openings based on map rollovers in other theaters.

say a BoB map rollover might switch the 'active' theater to the MTO or the SW-PAC.

hell - once a more capable GUI comes up, let the players vote on the next map (yeah, we might have to 'force' the issue from time to time. no biggie)

[Webs]

It's a fun idea in theory, but I think you have to look at the history of this game to suspect that this may not be worth the effort.

I'm tired of the "arena should be this/that" wars in the various forums, so I don't usually post about this. But WarBirds at its most popular had two foci of play. The Main Arena with an RPS had fun for all, without necessarily historical match-ups. It's a general, fun arena, where you can test yourself in odd match-ups like FW vs. Zero or 109F vs. 109F.

The other arena of play were the regularly scheduled and company-supported scenarios and events. Now, you have the S3s and EMC, which are fine, I suppose. But in the past, we had smaller, more regular events, and the attraction of them was just what Target's Battles arena represents.

The current all-planes-all-time Main Arena is lacking the RPS, which means that 90% of the aircraft are operating at a disadvantage. And the WWII Arena has sort of sucked the air out of the smaller historical events. How many folks show up for EMCs these days?

I don't know if this post is pro or anti the Battles arena, but I think it requires a look at more fundamental issues before you devote much work to it.

[Keller]

I see the Battle concept as mostly a substitute for the WW2A, which has lost all its steam. (heck, I never really enjoyed the thing in the first place, as the setup put too much emphasis on numbers and brute force)

Personally, I'd love to keep the MA around. I too like occasionally to just get in someplace and goof off for a bit. I would however like to see some system (call it RPS, mini-campaigns, whatever) to allow the use of all AC/GV over the course of a tour. I do get a little tired of the "All 1945, all the time" selection. (which is the case as if you don't fly or drive the latest version of any AC/GV, you really don't stand a chance)

At the same time, however, I've come to realize that WB's greatest undeveloped area is its ability to simulate actual events. We just need to develop an environment in which this sort of thing can happen on a regular basis. The reason I like the Battles concept is that players DO have some control over the flow of the game. Once we get a strategic engine built in (hopefully the LBSS someday if I can get enough time to get the IDE finished), we'll be able to create arenas that represent a series of player influenced mini-campaigns. The ability to switch terrain would then represent a form of grand strategic play, especially if we rig the variable transfer scripts to keep a high level score.

[-term-]

The current all-planes-all-time Main Arena is lacking the RPS, which means that 90% of the aircraft are operating at a disadvantage. And the WWII Arena has sort of sucked the air out of the smaller historical events. How many folks show up for EMCs these days?


Hi,

http://www.iceqbe.de/wbparser4/results/index.html

Here you can see the numbers of pilots who show up for EMC.

<S>

[Crumpp]

I would say there are two types of players in WB's.

Those that want the furball type action with no regard to historical matchups. These players are the base for the MA.

Then we have the players who are looking for historical match ups and immersion. These players used to have the WWII arena. However the current set up leaves the historical match ups and immersion factor lacking due to the plane selection. It's still Axis vs Allies but does not quite "scratch the itch" for immersive play.

I think the idea of a battles arena to replace the current WWII arena would be spot on. These players would have a regular arena to log on and fly.

Keeping the scope of the arena focused on specific scenarios and limited in scale is the best solution IMHO. A quick rotation of a week or less would add variety along with reducing the wait time in a rotation "the favourite plane" is not available.

Smaller maps, Limited planesets, and clear objectives will be the key. I think we would see many of the EMC and S3 players residing in it.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Webs]

Then we have the players who are looking for historical match ups and immersion. These players used to have the WWII arena. However the current set up leaves the historical match ups and immersion factor lacking due to the plane selection. It's still Axis vs Allies but does not quite "scratch the itch" for immersive play.

If you ask me, the itch has nothing to do with planesets. The itch has to do with historical missions.

Folks want to log in and be assigned an historical task: your squadron run a CAP between coordinates A and B and wait for a call to action or fly a deep patrol to spot enemy forces but don't get caught.

That's what's missing. That's what will scratch the itch for historical action. That's why the WW2A is a relative flop.

It's not something that will become popular in a 24/7 arena because while exciting, too much waiting and patrolling is dull. A player can't sustain the adrenaline of anticipation esceptin short, scenario-type doses.

[eretrc]

yea battle arena sounds cool but can u make an arena w the same settings as the main but with a plane set like ww2 arena?

[olddog]

I like the concept, I had hoped the three week war with theater specific AC was going to be like this. Maybe part of the problem is the lack of AC, using subs sort of messes with the concept. Balence issues real and perceived.

What I lke about this is that it reflects an average sortie in a theater, you didn't usually have to fight off 5 or 6 AC types at a time. Maybe at the end of the war, but I think that it was still rare.

Be a good experiment, maybe try a few as special events, with a thread to comment on them on the uBB.

[skiddr]

The "Battles" concept is an idea whose time has come. I fly almost exclusively in the WWIIA and believe a Battles type arena would be just as popular, if not more so, than WWII currently is. A 2–3 week TOD could be created with the terrains and plane sets we already have. With continued terrain development a library of battle scenarios could be created to choose from. That would be cool. Why not consider taking it a step further with mandatory 100% fuel load outs, no Linda Blair view, scores that reset to zero if your killed, etc. If iEN wants to commit to historical arena that’s really at the other end of the spectrum from the Main, this is the way to go.

[Crumpp]

Why not consider taking it a step further with mandatory 100% fuel load outs, no Linda Blair view, scores that reset to zero if your killed, etc. If iEN wants to commit to historical arena that’s really at the other end of the spectrum from the Main, this is the way to go.


I think that is an excellent idea!

[crutch]

A 2–3 week TOD could be created with the terrains and plane sets we already have.

thats what we have to get past.

a BATTLE will last exactly as long as the players want it to.

as little as 2 hours or as long as 3 weeks.

thats the beauty of a campaign, the 'flow' is not time based but effort based.

[skiddr]

Originally posted by crutch
a BATTLE will last exactly as long as the players want it to.

as little as 2 hours or as long as 3 weeks.

thats the beauty of a campaign, the 'flow' is not time based but effort based.

Could you explain how this works in more detail? The point I was trying to make with the 2-3 week TOD is that a quick way for Battles to become a reality is by working with what’s available to us now.

[olddog]

Be interested to hear that myself...

[crutch]

sure, sit fer a spell :)

'battle' opens with specific victory conditions for both sides.

most will involve capturing territory, but a PAC battle may center around a fleet cargo/militay/mixed

as soon as the victory condition is met, the 'battle' moves on.

it could stay on the same map with new VCs or move to an entirely new map.

the key is the results of the battle are logical in the overall campaign.

EX: (a simple one)
battle 1 - coastal bombardment by a fleet.
defending airfields destroyed - go on to battle 3
defending airfields destroyed, CVs sunk - go to battle 2
defending airfields not destroyed, CVs sunk - stay on battle 1

battle 2 - invasion proceeds with no local aircover for either side.

battle 3 - invasion proceeds with CVs giving local aircover.

if battle 1 is repeated, then use alternative force structure.

takes some effort to script a good battle/campaign flow, but the speed of the flow is up to the players.

also gives some incentive to keep some forces in the 'arena' at all times to avoid walkovers by odd hours :)

[skiddr]

Okay crutch I’m with ya now. One of the other sims I fly uses that same campaign style of game play. It’s cool for sure, but I’ve noticed that with players constantly logging in and out and everyone spending varying amounts of time in the arena it’s difficult to maintain the continuity needed for the campaign to really flow well. It seems to work best in an event setting where you know you’ll have a substantial number of players in the arena for a solid 2–3 hours with the goal of achieving a specific victory condition by the end of the frame. So.....how about this: Start by running a 2–3 week TOD featuring individual but unrelated battles. While this is running ya’ll would have time to develop a campaign that could be run for the next TOD. We could alternate back and forth and see how it goes.

[mooooo]

love the idea target i would fly there all the time :D

[Black wolf]

I think that is an excellent idea!
Me too!! But doing away with the WW2? Ehhh..I dont like the "zeros over england" and would love to see that change,but I do fly in WW2 arena(cant stand the main)I love the Battle idea 100% fuel ,no lindablair...and so on.Id fly it all the time!

[Randon]

I like the idea. Its a TOD as a series of historic events. Easy to set up and run if thought of like this. As long as we can agree a CM roster to manage the results of battles and managed the arena changes.

However its a LOT of work to design something like this, and keep it going.

I ran "Red Sun Rising " as a 24 hour event a couple of years ago. This used the WB 2.77 SPAC arena to run the air battles of the first 6 months of the pacific war. I also ran "OP Crossbow" as an 8 hour WB3 event.

However the battles might need to be very short - e.g. a carrier battle might last 4 hours if and when, say, the USN has sunk the IJN fleet at Midway. OR its a rather unhistoric set of 4 reruns of the Battle of Midway which would be OK as long as the scoring system could remember how ,many kagas were sunk and how many CV6s.

An ETO might look like...

1 day of 1940 Blitzkreig (ETO) (Germans paratroop attacks on the Netherlands & Eban Emal, support for the panzers crossign the Muese etc.) endoing with Dunkirk

2 days Battle of Britian Kanal=lampf (Blitz) Germans try to bring RAF to battle over channel followed by battle of the airfields followed by raids on L:ondon by day and night

2 days "leaning ointo France" (Blitz) Allied raids across the channel -including the "Channel dash" and allied commando raids + dieppe

2 days Point blanik (ETO) Strategic bombing of Germany

1 Day "Invasion of Normandy" (Europe)

2 days (ETO) late war Germany v Allies

Vicotry conditions need to be set to match the unbalanced historic plane sets. Maybe the side with the advantage has to get a better kill rate than historic. So during 1941-42the FW190 armed Luftwaffe might need to achieve better than the historicv 2:1 kill ratio against spit V.

Maybe this need to take account of known WB FM weaknesses. Historically the A6M" killed F4F at 1.5:1 whereas in WB the F4F is more powerful.

[kidcan]

target I think it's a great Idea, sorry chaps I just registered so alot of these threads that are old are now new again!

I mostly fly WW2 the MenacingFerrets have squad nights at 8:30 EST( North America) and recently JG 51 got involved, actually one night people could not get in becuase the room was set to 50...so now the WW2 is not quiet...

The one thing I hate and there as been a continous gripe from most WW2 arena fliers....german planes in the Phillipines maps and Zeros in Tunisia....got to kick that like a bad habit

Also I would love to see more "toys" and things you can do with them like setting up extra ack emplacements or artillery positions....and make it more team work oriented....

one thing people don't undersatnd is that combat flying is no different tehn normal flying, most of it is boring, there's a routine to follow pre flight checks, comunications with GCI and other fun thinsg like waiting to take off, unless you base is under attack..plus usually you circle your field to get a base altitude and form up then climb tp your area of operations and if you're super lucky some bad guys show up...if WB's went totally imersed..and being a huge plane buff, having to do an actual take off, checking Mags, letting the engine runup, and getting into the takeoff would bore most people...but Iwant to change my prop pitch and fuel mixtures...

sorry for the random thought..but yes I think it's a good idea....