Home of the No.42_Squadron WW I Flight SIM, 'Rise of Flight'
 
PortalPortal  HomeHome  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
*** The No.42_Squadron's Aerodrome ***
Fly with us! Squad nights: Monday, Wednesday and Saturday - 8pm EDT
FiF XXI is in 3rd week. Fly tonight at 8:45pm EST.

Share | 
 

 Mission design discussion.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
NavyJake

avatar

Posts : 521
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : Smyrna, Tennessee

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:12 am

SS,

I would say you are "Nuts" but then you would think it is a compliment. ROFL!
Back to top Go down
WWGeezer



Posts : 104
Join date : 2012-11-27
Location : Sacramento, CA

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:21 pm

hmmm....I would laugh except it might be closer to the truth than you would expect!!

Thanks for keeping it light!
Back to top Go down
Shnoze_Shmon

avatar

Posts : 553
Join date : 2012-09-28
Age : 47
Location : Texas - 'Aint no place better'

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:36 am

WWGeezer wrote:
hmmm....I would laugh except it might be closer to the truth than you would expect!!

Thanks for keeping it light!

Good humor requires an element of truth. Where do you think I got these ideas? Wink I posted the humor because I understood your comment.


NavyJake I appreciate the complement. Smile Why wouldn't a squirrel like that? Big Grin
Back to top Go down
WWGeezer



Posts : 104
Join date : 2012-11-27
Location : Sacramento, CA

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:01 am

Copy that SS.....I could tell you a few stories from my experiences in competitive events....I approach them with mixed feelings. They can bring out the very best and very worse in your squadmates and the ROF community

The classic I experienced was an event where one of the primary mission goals was to stop a train from reaching its final waypoint and destroy it. The opposing side made the rather shrewd decision that they would simply drop a single bomb on a bridge along the trains route, the game logic being what it was the train got to the bridge and drove of the end into the river. Our side was irrate that this option had not been spelled out in the rules and argued ad nauseum that any self respecting engineer would have stopped the train. Some guys pulled out of the campaign, very upset..

Maybe our heat was justified but it sure killed the immersion factor for me!

That being said, some of the most intense serious flying I have had has been in competitive events, so the pursuit of a solid campaign format is great for the ROF community...

so have at it gents, just approach it with caution!!

Back to top Go down
JG1_Klaiber



Posts : 31
Join date : 2012-10-11

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:45 am

S! Geezer,

While the 42 and JG1 have been working towards a possible tournament in the New Year, right now we're just taking things slow and enjoying each others company.

As I've mentioned on the WW boards, we're having fun just flying, hanging out, and getting some good practice in against large scale formations of pilots. Wednesdays are something that both of our groups really look forward to.

When our squadrons do start making steps towards a more formal event, it will be a joint project built on the trust and friendship we're trying to create now.

So, while I definitely appreciate what you're saying, and the lesson behind it, I think it's best for us all to accept the clean slate that's being built here and try to move forward from this new point.

Looking forward to flying with you guys soon.

~Salut!~

-Klaiber
Back to top Go down
Shnoze_Shmon

avatar

Posts : 553
Join date : 2012-09-28
Age : 47
Location : Texas - 'Aint no place better'

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:06 am

S!

Geezer I have to admire the ingenuity of that team. As was pointed out earlier, the hardest thing in designing a map is, designing for the players that don't do what you expect them to do.

Actually this creates a problem for all scenarios involving moving trains or even convoys. Take out the bridges you know they have to cross and don't worry about finding the targets themselves.


I can't help but laugh at the thought of all these defenders huddled around this train prepared for the fight of their lives. Meanwhile the attackers nonchalantly fly over to a bridge, bomb it, and head home to popcorn and a DVD. "Hay bud, mission accomplished, what a milk run." "yup"
Back to top Go down
No.42_Flatspin

avatar

Posts : 1359
Join date : 2012-08-04
Age : 49
Location : Grand Rapids, MI

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:06 pm

WNINTEL. See me in my office...


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Train the way you'll fight and fight the way you've trained; and above all -- remember the mission!
Back to top Go down
WWGeezer



Posts : 104
Join date : 2012-11-27
Location : Sacramento, CA

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:16 pm

No worries, you are taking the right approach. Hope we can contribute as well.
Back to top Go down
JG1_Butzzell



Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:04 pm

S! All

Please remember we have 2 things going on here, Mission design and Tournament design. You can have a solid mission and it plays out diferently depending on the rules. There is no one way to do any specific mission and there is no one set of perfect rules. That is what discussion is all about.

Variety is what makes it all interesting.


S!
Back to top Go down
JG1_Butzzell



Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:20 am

S! All

For those that took part in 'tea and toilet paper", I say a hearty thank you.

We had about 12 players per side and plenty of vehicles and AAA. Server ran smooth even though we were at about 80% of limit for objects and entities. Basically it was a clasic style open server mission. It showed what a small group of players can do in that size area. There were several intense fights. There were also many successfull 2 seater missions. Overall it felt about the right size for 20 to 30 players.

Obviously for a tournament we would have a few diferent misisons.

Some of the things discussed on TS

1 things we like: one life persession. You get shot down , you are out for the session.

2. Things we don't like: counting planes. Working on trying to have a system NOT dependant on points or points for planes.

SO far so good.

I hope folks had fun and again , thanks.

S!
Back to top Go down
No.42_Flatspin

avatar

Posts : 1359
Join date : 2012-08-04
Age : 49
Location : Grand Rapids, MI

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:40 pm

Tea and Toilet paper was awesome fun! Thanks for that.

#1 - sounds good
#2 - I don't understand what you mean


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Train the way you'll fight and fight the way you've trained; and above all -- remember the mission!
Back to top Go down
JG1_Butzzell



Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:23 pm

S!

Number 2 refers to a system for determining victory conditions or tracking planes

Traditional systems use so many points for a factory, so many for a train and so many for shooting down a plane. One with the most points win. Likewise next week you get 4 camels to replace 4 of your N-17s. You started with 12 N_17s but six were shot down, so you have 6 N-17s and 4 Camels next week. Oh, dang your factory was bombed so you only get half of your replacement planes so you only get 2 camels. It is a lot of bookeeping for the guys at HQ. Most people just want to fly and shoot some poor bstrd in the back before being spotted.


We were trying to find an alternative system. Posibly one based on mission success. Basically did you get your job done? The concept is one learned from "Bloody April". The Allies lost a terible amount of planes and crews but enough got through to reduce the German guns so that ensuing Allied attack was successfull. If the war was based on points for planes, the Germans would have won.

S!
Back to top Go down
JG1_Butzzell



Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:06 pm

S! All

In an earlier post we discussed a dynamic campaign. I posted a link to some of the older rules used by JG1 for that style of tournament.

This post is about doing a tournament based on a snapshot of the war, something like a 5 week period. A mission based tournament where the affects of mission completion aid the team in preparing for a final battle. While these rules are for a large 40 to 50 player tournament the specifics can be modify for a smaller group.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


S!
Back to top Go down
JG1_Butzzell



Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:46 pm

S! All

Back on mission design. Monday night we had some problems with lag. on No.42 server. Is it the server or is it the mission? Only time will tell but.... I thought we could look at the mission. Not the mission logic. The logic is very good and works well. I thought we would look at mission resources or Items.


The mission is very heavy on buildings and vehicles. These items are "Linked entities" . That means they havve a damage model and are tracked by the computer. It puts load on the cpu. Many of these items are mere eye candy and are not linked to scoring and have no offensive or defensive capabilities. Some are just trucks others are tents. I went through and UN linked as many as possible. I also UN linked the German seaplanes. These actually fire machine guns at attackers. I left the plnes in as eye candy and added an extra AAA gun to help with the defense. The AAA gun uses less resources than a plane. I also reduced the number of translator Icons so that the kill zones appear square instead of round. Not sure if that makes any diference. I also Unlinked the windsocks and just stated in the mission description that the wind is from the west at 3 m/sec.

Here is a comparison of the resourses used

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


It gets it down to 66 entities instead of 133. If it says max is 80, why not leave the seaplanes and windsocks as linked entities? Well, less is better. It is a matter of trying to determine what is more important and what can you do without for the sake of getting a smooth running game.

We can try the "lite" version this Wen. on the JG1 server if you like. Also I can give you a copy to try or look through to see the diferences.
Back to top Go down
NavyJake

avatar

Posts : 521
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : Smyrna, Tennessee

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:07 pm

JG1_Butzzell

S!

I really like the comparison chart.

Is that hand made or done via some utility to gather the info?

S!
Back to top Go down
JG1_Butzzell



Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:12 pm

S!

The chart is the bottom right hand corner of the mission editor. It lets you know what you are doing. I just did a screen shot of both missions and then combined the two charts.

So why would it let you overdo a certain catagory? Why not make it post a message "You have too many of these objects." Well because some servers may be able to run it.

Then there is "random spawn". I use that term to describe what the observer sees. In RoF mission editor you can spawn objects but they can not be directed by waypoints or other comands. I populate the mission with multiple objects, say 4 trains connected to waypoints and a destination. When the mission starts, it randomly deletes 3 trains. That makes the train that is not deleted look like a random spawn. Same thing for other "random" objects. The mission starts out with over 130 linked entities but there are less than 60 when the deletes are done. This is probably not what the designers had in mind but have you ever used a brick for a door stop? As long as it works, go with it.


S!
Back to top Go down
NavyJake

avatar

Posts : 521
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : Smyrna, Tennessee

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:27 am

S!

Thanks

S!
Back to top Go down
JG1_Butzzell



Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:31 pm

S! All

Gonna use my facorite phrase "Back in the days of RB3D". Back then everything on the map was a target. Now in RoF nothing is a target unless you make it one. The limitations of the mission editor are 80 Live targets. I try and keep it 50 or under. You can destroy non live targets but they do not register on the logs.

RoF also has another 'New Toy'- the complicated trigger. I have been useing it like others for counting and verification.

I realized after last weeks discussion that if the verification aspect was removed there was a posibility of expanding the target list. Unfortunately this becomes a bomber fest but it is posible to designate about 10 targets per side. That means every factory, every bridge, every supply dump, every every, is a target. Only one of each kind would be active.

We already have:
Supply collum
Train
Barge
Military camp/depot

Add:
Bridge
factory
HQ complex
?

The problem is that you would have to generate a map with a number on each target location so that you would know the active target. Because the targets are not live and do register on the logs, a picture of the dead target would be required for confirmation.

You use a vehicle to designate the active target so that something will show up in the logs as well as provide vissual verification of the proper target. Just in case 2 bridges are close together or a city has 2 factories.

Scenario is that of fighter pilot or 2 seater pilot.

HQ has info from recons done 2 days ago. They give orders to 2 seaters to attack A, B, C or how many targets you want. Commander must decide how to use resources.

just a thought.
Back to top Go down
Shnoze_Shmon

avatar

Posts : 553
Join date : 2012-09-28
Age : 47
Location : Texas - 'Aint no place better'

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:39 pm

S!

For a second there I thought we were going to be able to bring back Red Barron World League. Oh well, I'm just over nostalgic.
Back to top Go down
JG1_Butzzell



Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:17 am

S!

Actually getting more like RB Cold War every day.

If we got rid of the moving convoys, you could add 4 more static types of targets per side. My problem is that I am running out of types.

On a larger scale we could do multiple targets of the same type. Make 2 or 3 sectors per side and each sector gets a bridge, rr, supply depot, barge etc.

S!

( supply depots have cashews )
Back to top Go down
No.42_Space

avatar

Posts : 671
Join date : 2012-08-08
Age : 56
Location : Oregon

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:39 am

You are still lacking the progressive plane set of both War Forces and Cold War.

Not bad scenarios if there are realistic limitations (unlike RBWL) like number of bombers available per day or something similar.


The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to
safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
--Sun Tzu
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Back to top Go down
Shnoze_Shmon

avatar

Posts : 553
Join date : 2012-09-28
Age : 47
Location : Texas - 'Aint no place better'

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:49 pm

No.42_Space wrote:

Not bad scenarios if there are realistic limitations (unlike RBWL) like number of bombers available per day or something similar.

Not sure I understand this comment. War Forces did not have any limits either. And I don't think either event would have made sense with limits imposed.



In an unrelated joke,(yeah right) lets limit everybody to 3% gas and sidearms. Razz


In a totally unrelated thought, just thinking out loud here, I don't know how well all the new ships that came with the channel map are at fighting each other, but a mission with two closing enemy fleets and objectives of damaging the other fleet while protecting your own prior to the fleets engaging sounds interesting. I suppose it could be assumed the least damaged fleet will win.
Back to top Go down
No.42_Space

avatar

Posts : 671
Join date : 2012-08-08
Age : 56
Location : Oregon

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:43 pm

I know, which is what made into a bomber-fest to some extent. My team was able to switch around on the assumption that a well-placed and -played fighters can severely limit bombers' activities. Still, that the assumption was major destruction led many to profess that the War Forces (and subsequently, Cold War as well) was a 'bomber-centric' tourney.

The unrealistic limitation I speak of in regards RBWL is the 8x random targets. I like that somewhat as an excitement scenario, but hate that a random selection of targets can (and often did) decide the match with no regards to a team's skill. If you got 8 targets in the right places, or with high values, where the other team did not, winning was not based on overall skill.


The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to
safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
--Sun Tzu
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Back to top Go down
JG1_Butzzell



Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:52 pm



S!

Would like to discuss progressive plane sets and non bomber centric war.

Looking for definitions or expectations.
Back to top Go down
No.42_Flatspin

avatar

Posts : 1359
Join date : 2012-08-04
Age : 49
Location : Grand Rapids, MI

PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:56 am

Not sure what that means but I have some thoughts on this subject.

First: strategic bombing didn't really exist until nearly the end of WWI, so any scenario prior to 1918, IMO, should not include strategic targets (the only one that really comes to mind right now is factories), so they can be scrubbed. {The level-bomber in me just died a little}

Two-seaters' historic primary roles seemed to be recon, close troop support, harassment of LOC and an occasional aerodrome attack: LOC being bridges, truck columns and trains, Army HQ's and balloon attacks; close troop support being bombing/straffing enemy troops (read tanks and artillery). If these elements are included in a tournament, I would be very happy!

What I'd really like, but seems impossible when talking to mission builders, is to have these targets on the map and available all the time. Fighters fly CAP/BARCAP (patrol the front) to look for and shoot down enemy planes either looking for assets or attacking them. All phases merged and happening at the same time.

Planeset: let's shoot for mid-1917.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Train the way you'll fight and fight the way you've trained; and above all -- remember the mission!
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Mission design discussion.   

Back to top Go down
 
Mission design discussion.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Apocalypse Discussion
» Secret Mission: The Forgotten Island
» Impossible Mission November 25th - December 21st
» Help Hello Kitty Design a Costume Contest
» Skyrim Discussion

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
42 Squadron :: General Discussion-
Jump to: