Mission design discussion.

S! All

I started this not as a comment on specific missions but more as a place to feel out concepts and options with regards to missions and how they play out and possibly fit into a tournament. Will try and write a longer sentance in a few minutes. Obviously this also means a discussion of options for tournament style as well.

Mission design first. There are many concepts to go through. The first is the reality level. How close to a real life mission should it be? How close to real life can it be. Either case is achevievable or limited by the game itself and the goal of the intended design. If you look at the standard bombing mission, they are all straight forward. There is an icon on the map, go bomb it. How big the target is and how many bombs will destroy it will determine the average number of bombers. Altitude is determined by the number of AAA units. The more units used the higher the altitude. We see this in action on many of the Syndicate maps. Large factorys with 4 or 5 AAA units. Realatively imposible for bombers to do a low level attack but acheivable when done from about 3k meters so that the bombers are above the AAA. So the mission design forces the players into a more real world scenario.

The mision that is harder to adjust to real life is the Recon mission. Multiplayer has limitations that single player does not. There have been many attempts to try and overcome these. The most common scenario is to have a plane fly repeatedly between to points on a map. This basic concept is then modified by either actually taking pictures/ clicking a mouse button several times and or the requirement to land back at a friendly base. The question now goes back to the diference between open server and tournament server and how much reality do you want. In RL the enemy would not have icons on there maps showing where the enemy will recon. Actually they would have very little on a map. Just a map and a few notes of where to go.

I have a recon mission designed for tournament play, where the is map empty of all standard icons. Each side has a large white square in it's teritory. There are 4 bases somewhere in the square. The bases look like an airrfield hangar group but has no actual field. There are 3 tanks or trucks moving in the area around an active base. An inactive base has no vehicles. The mission is to find the active base. A recon plane must pass over the base between certain altitude limits , 1.5 to 2.5 kmeters. The recon plane must land in friendly teritory and be stationary to complete the recon. It takes about 5 seconds after being stationaty for the game to recognize it and then a subtitle will appear. Subtitles spoil the fog of war but aid people in knowing they have been successfull. Once the recone is done bombers are available. The bomber task is to kill the 3 vehicles at the active base. First team to kill all 3 wins. The main feature is that the active base is random. You get the same Allied and same German base about 1 out of 16 times. Each team gets a subtitle as to which base is active in the first 10 minutes after the mission starts. Allied bases are listed as A B C D clockwise from the upper left hand corner of their white square. German basses are listed as 1 2 3 4 clockwie from the upper left hand corner of the whife swuare. This way the defender knows the general area of hteir active base.

This mission was actually pulled out of a much larger mission in which each side has 2 recon areas as well as a random spawn train and convoy. There is stilla train and convoy on each side but because the area is smaller they are not random. They are anounced by subtitle in the first 10 minutes as well as the time they leave their station. Yes the time they leave the station is random. That way the enemy never knows what is active or where it will be. It makes traines and convoys a real target of oportunity. I left these in just to demonstrate what the announcements look like.

We can try this on a closed server if you would like to see how it goes.

So the mission concept here is an unknown location that must be discovered.
The game design concept is the 2 phase mission. You must gather inteligence befor you can act on it. Find the target then bomb it.

S!

S!

Some interesting things here.

Tournaments are about each side balancing both offense, and defense. Setting up AAA so a team can fall back on it as their defensive strategy reduces the ability for clever tactics by either side. I'm not saying remove all the AAA, just keep the targets very vulnerable without air defense. I was not enthused about recon missions in tournaments until you described the random one. However, making it a lynchpin ensures a forced early meat-grinder. This also destroys any ability for cleaver tactics. Using it as a prerequisite to attack one target would work but there needs to be other targets available elsewhere with enough value not to be ignored defensively.


Random targets! I'm so excited to hear we can have random targets. Tournaments should make large use of this.

S!

yes , I agree about limited AAA. What I see on syndicate used either as an open server or a tournament, is overpowering. Ou rlittle joke is that the top scorrer in the game is that good old Mr. Groundfire. AAA should not be a dominant or determining factor in a mission.

With regards to tournament design, there is a fine balanceing act on missions. It depends on what your goals are. You want balance in rewards for completing missions. If you have too few missions, a team can just stay as one super large group and parade around the map while they complete them. This is sequencial mission completion. The oposite of this is concurent mission completion. This is accomplished by having more missions than can be completed sequentially. If you want to do as many missions as posible , you will have to do several at one time. That will break up your forces. It means smaller flight and with a good map design they will be in diferent parts of the map. The other problem is time versus mission completion. Do you want enough time that if a mission is not completed that you can make a second attempt? Is that realistic? In RL people would not know if a mission was completed unless the plane came back. If it did not , it would be a day or so to retask another flight.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the recon mission was just half of the the actual recon mission design and taken from a larger program that includes trains, convoys and artillary spotting.

The trick is to balance offence with defense. As I described the random spawn of trains and convoys I am not sure that it is cleare that each team knows their own trains and convoy routes but the enemy does not. With a large map the question becomes, do you defend these assets? Do you dedicate a cap? Do you rely on size to hide them and that it would be very dificult for the enemy to find them?


S!

Well! Somebody likes to make an impact with his first post!

I really like what I'm reading here and would be very interested in flying the mission you mention above. My idea of a fun campaign would be double-blind: it starts with a general knowledge of enemy strength and hardware, but zero intelligence beyond that. The map would be empty -- no icons and troop movements, HQ locations, factories, active bases would all need to be discovered by active units on the ground or in the air. The map which dictates missions each side plans would be the stock game map of the sector, and command would write their own notes on it...and this would be the map used for mission planning. Talk about immersion! First mission: recon and report back what you see while preventing the other side from doing the same.

The big problem I see in this sim is the objects that are already on the map. There seem to be factories and bases and train stations that are there but are not active in the game sense. In real life, any factory or base hit would have value to the war effort. I like the idea of denoting live targets by placing vehicles at them. Another limitation is the "when" you can strike the target. I've always been aggressive in my play, so when I see a target, I want to bomb it -- even if I'm on a recon mission. In previous campaigns, if we reconnoitered an enemy location, we had to run back and report it. Then (this is the part the really irks me), we had to notify the enemy that we discovered it so that they could put a trigger there so that it was a valued target the NEXT mission. Of course, then, the next mission would be a bombing mission with all the enemy and their uncles and their dogs defending it. On comms, one of JG1 gave the best logic for some of this that I've heard: if you see enemy recon flying over your head at 10am, you can bet that in the next few hours there will be bombers overhead. That's where having enough targets out there to hit comes into play. If there's only one, well, you fight the entire enemy, but if there is the possibility that they have to cover other assets that may yet be discovered and attacked this same mission -- they have to split their defenses up.

One of the reasons we don't spend a lot of time on the Syndicate anymore is the AAA. You're spot on with more AAA=forced to a higher altitude. Unfortunately, on SYN they put that AAA near targets that require more surgical strikes like vehicles and trains. The reality of WWI is that Archie just wasn't very effective beyond scare tactics. For this sim it needs to be a little more effective than just unnerving, but we're still trying to find that sweet spot on our server's missions.

S!

The problem with the "Basic" map is that it is static. You pick bridges, factories and other targets and it becomes a bomber war. Air power in the first WW was about seeing what the enemy has. RR stations were known and bombed but not trains. Those were targets of oportunity. Please remember most planes were flying over 3k meters by 1816. They might see a train and wonder if it was worth shooting at. Going low enough to shoot at a train was very dangerous. There were some strategic bombing raids. For the most part air power was for control of observation. Unfortunately we are more likely to think of WWII where we destroy resources and capture ground. Most folks want to say "we won this teritory and now the front moves." Well , it did not really work like that in WWI. There were advances and retreats. The front moved a few miles here and there.

So, we are back to game design theory. Clasical game theory for WWI is to count planes lost and targets destroyed and assign a variety of point values to each item. At the end of a certain time, the one with the most points win. The real life model is mission success. The most well know example of this is April 1917, "Bloody April". The Germans shot down a huge number of enemy planes, many outdated. Unfortunately it was not enough. The Brittish were able to "spot" the German guns and either destroy them or get them to pull back. The Brittish Spring offensive was a success. Although badly bloodied the RAF had accomplished their mission. Mission success influences the battle. This would be an example of a 2 phase game design. The first phase you build up supplies for a final battle and you try and destroy enemy supplies. After several of these type of events you have a final battle where the supplies you were able to save contribute to your goal and the supplies of the enemy that you destroyed detract from thier accomplishing their goal. You do not count planes , vehicles or buildings. You count missions as successfull. Pilot moral is also a fator. No one likes to loose. If you are beeten repeetedly every week your moral suffers. Well , you have good reason. You have been beaten every week!. The 2 phase game design holds out a ray of hope. You may be out numbered , you may be demoralized, you may be hungry and cold but if you can pull it together and perform well in the final battle you just might win !! Naww , not a chance.

Double blind refers to the concept of the "Fog of war". There are several things that affect this. One is the map. Well duh. Sometimes I just have to make fun of myself, sorry. Back on topic.The four things that affect the fog of war are the map icons, subtitles, voice coms and the notifications in the game. Low fog of war allows all these. High fog of war gets rid of these. The amount of fog of war will be determined by what type of game and what imersion level you are trying to acheive. map icons and server game notifications are easy to control. Subtitles can be adjusted for diferent game levels and or eliminated for most types of games or at least for actual game play. A "10 minutes left" subtitle may destroy the imersion but you can also think of it as an alarm clock saying that you have been up so long that you will run out of fuel very shortly. Yup, knew I had another long sentance just waiting to get out. Several squads are actually running without coms. That is a little drastic but obviously very imersive.Beyond imersion there is a secondary goal of keeping people from acting as Air trafic Control. "hey guys we just saw something south in 12 A heading towards Our lines." Jasta 5 ran their tournment with limited coms. Basicall people in the same flight could be on coms if they were at the same altitude. In other words you could not have a flight of 4 on coms if 2 of them were at 1.5 k and the other 2 were at 2 k. They were trying to allow voice coms in what would be considered a wingman hand signal sittuation. On the other hand you have no control over voice coms and there are people that will do whatever to win. THat brings of the philosophy of not trying to regulate what you can not control. It is up to the provider of the venue to determine what he is trying to acheive and how much trust he has in the participants.

Sweet spot for AAA eludes me as well. I put 2 at each balloon along the front to make it look good. Generally one at static targets. It affects how you fly and I see some ground fire deaths but ussually the mission is accomplished with no casualties. I have missgivings about going higher than 2 AAA at any target. I have flown on Syndicate and not really gotten a frame hit. I am just woried that so much AI and animation is not really a good thing for frames or lag. I would rather have people be successfull than have a laggy server or people complaning about AAA.

S!

S!

Also we need to be sure not to lose the contest of the tournament in the reach for historical or submersive value.

You can have a great tournament without any historical reality to it if it's still a good contest.

Red Barron World League was a great example of this. I wish we could duplicate that campaign in RoF.



A reconnaissance emphasized contest with random targets and one game effecting the next has appeal to it.

I'm at work so will have more to say later, but I for one am not interested in 'no comms' nor setting other requirements that can't be moderated by the game itself.

I flew a no comms campaign in 69.GIAP and it was simply not fun. So I guess that's the line for me in fun vs historical reality!

While I loved the RB tourneys, I did not like the random targets in RBWL. Your score was limited by the values of the targets that popped up, not necessarily your team's skill.

I preferred the all-out destruction of War Forces, and the Cold War variant thereof. Although WF was often poopoo-ed as a bomber-fest, the AA/GA/GT team showed many times that strategic defense could just as easily win the day.

It is important to remember that in any match that it is not important to score tons of points; just 1 more point than your opponent will secure the victory. With that in mind, I have found that formulating a strategy for any particular match becomes much simpler.

S!

Now I am going into what is for me a personal opinion and not game theory or mission design theory.


I do not believe you can recreate history. There , I said it. No disrespect to Vanderstock and the historical misions he has done. Those represent a lot of work and good effort.

The perfect example was stated earlier , "Bloody April". Who wants to fly Airco DH2 and BE2c against Alb D.III ? Exactly !!! The planes we have are a computer replica of something from the past. The computer does not recreate the real flying of any of these planes. If the Bristol and SPADs flew in RL the way they do in ROF, the war would have been over by the end of 1917.

I agree that a contest needs to be carefully set up so that the planes are a "fair" match. The problem is that there are a lot of opinions on what is "fair".


JG1 has done dynamic campaigns in the past. If your HQ is destroyed any recons you did this session are nulified. If your factory is destroyed you get fewer planes resuplied next session. If your supply dump is bombed you get fewer artillary shells and can do only one arty spot next session. If your train is destroyed you get fewer bombs next session and can only do so many bomber missions. If your supply convoy is destroyed you do not get planes upgraded. SPAD 7 does not become SPAD XIIIc. The theory of a dynamic campaign is that you affect scoring this session or game play next session. The question becomes do you award points as well or merely the consequenses? Most Dynamic campaigns result in bomber wars. Dynamic campaigns are fun but very complicated for score keeping.

Score keeping or point also affect game play. Say I can bomb a target and know I will loose only 2 planes max. The target is worth 10 points and planes are only worth 2 each. The target is dead. Another situation is that my team has an uber plane added to inventory next week. I am going to protect whatever resource provides that plane because the enemy is sure to try and bomb it. There is a lot of information here that is known by each side that violates the fog of war. The problem is that no matter what you do, it is still a game and there will always be compomises.

The other consideration is the victory conditions. Is winning by one point after 6 or 8 sessions really winning? Victory conditions could be: Less than 5 is a tie, 5 to 9 is a marginal victory, 10 + is a thurough victory. Mission success could be a factor in Victory conditions. You have more points points and you must have performed at least 3 recons, destroyed 3 factories and performed 3 artillary spotting missions over the 5 sessions. Victory conditions could be as simple as protecting tanks across the front. If 50% or more make it, you win. Victory conditions will be dependant on what type of mission design and scoring is used.


Thanks for the input on the 69.GIAP tournament. I had seen that and wondered how it was going to work out. Back in the RB3D days JG1 flew with no coms and allowed what was called Viz chat. You could chat with anyone within 500 m. It worked well. mho , if you can type you can use voice coms.

Please remember what I discuss here is my opinion and not JG1 policy. Only through an open exchange of ideas can a broad consensus be arived at.

S!

S!

Quote :

I did not like the random targets in RBWL. Your score was limited by the values of the targets that popped up, not necessarily your team's skill.

Interesting, I don't remember the outcome of matches being effected so much by target point value as much as by "Where" the targets popped up. However, if RoF can be controlled better and random selection kept between similar targets like 2 of 10 bridges, 1 of 5 trains, 2 of 6 factories, and 1 of 4 aerodromes being chosen then that should work good. But that depends on if RoF can do THAT kind of random selection. But random selection does add a beneficial element to a match.

Quote :

The problem is that there are a lot of opinions on what is "fair".

Making the other guy fight to their advantage unfortunately is the definition of fair for many. Hence complaints about B&Z, fast planes, and the real reason some people gripe about FMs.

Quote :

Is winning by one point after 6 or 8 sessions really winning?

There is no one size fits all answer to that. A Pyrrhic victory may be the only option between well matched combatants. This reminds me of 2 contest between RAC and RAF209. In "Oh What a Lovely War" RAC won 5 of 8 games but lost on points. In our last game for the cup in RBWL II there was unusually high bombing success by both sides but the RAF successfully defended the only 2 targets that survived the game. They suffered heaver air to air loses, but still won by a few points.


Oh and yadda yadda (my version of Butzzells disclaimer) yadda yadda.

I'd like to talk about these things on TS. From what I can see, I like a lot of what you are talking about, your opinions, the way JG1 have done things before are about 90% how I've done things and/or envision doing them.

Some key points: there should be a "draw" option as well as a marginal win and total win. I don't mind a bomber-centric campaign, but I'm a realist...I know not everyone is for that kind of battle. Realistically, the air war didn't affect the outcomes in WWI much — other than by spotting. Points are a major PITA, but as long as a plane is worth less than the factory that builds them, it makes sense to me. Pilot's virtual lives should be worth something more than a plane too.

I don't follow the loss of intel so much. If you've accrued intel and you've briefed it, it's on your master map...it's hard to wipe it from your memory just because your HQ is gone. I think that's one of those "hard to regulate so why bother" things.

I really like the loss of assets with the destruction of facilities.

Like I said, we should talk (have your people call my people)! I'm sure Klaiber told you that I mentioned we're working on the skeleton of a campaign that we intend for at least a squad v squad event, but it would be even better if it was multiple squads. The skeleton will have few of the above issues, I consider these to be the "flesh" of the campaign. When we get to the fleshing out part, I want a total partnership with JG1's mission-planners. I hope this is something that sounds good to you guys. By the looks of your posts, I think we're on the same playing field.

S!

Tournament design is fluid. Everytime you run one you learn something new. That means rules and concepts get changed a lot.

This link will take you to an example of both an overview of what we were trying to accomplish in Flanders in Flames, and the rules used to try and fulfill those goals.



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





S!

S!

If you guys want to meet on TS, just post a few times that are good for you and I am sure we can make some accomodation.

hmmm, interesting discussion here. If I get more time will post my 2 cents. What I plan on doing is building a three mission test campaign to try out a little different approach to see if it works, here are the initial concepts

Click the pic below for more info
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The creative muses are at work!....was hunting thru the ROF maps for a good location for the campaign. The campaign culminates with a land battle, was looking for a place where the front is narrow and with a possible "bulge" or "salient"

St. Mihiel jumped out at me since there was a city right in the middle of the bulge, lots of potential.....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Than a random search on google "St Mihiel ww1" lead to this
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Battle of Saint-Mihiel was a World War I battle fought between September 12–15, 1918, involving the American Expeditionary Force and 48,000 French troops under the command of U.S. general John J. Pershing against German positions. The United States Army Air Service (which later became the United States Air Force) played a significant role in this action.
This battle marked the first use of the terms 'D-Day' and 'H-Hour' by the Americans.
The attack at the St. Mihiel Salient was part of a plan by Pershing in which he hoped that the United States would break through the German lines and capture the fortified city of Metz. It was one of the first U.S. solo offensives in World War I and the attack caught the Germans in the process of retreating. This meant that their artillery were out of place and the American attack proved more successful than expected. Their strong blow increased their stature in the eyes of the French and British forces, but again demonstrated the critical role of artillery during World War I and the difficulty of supplying the massive World War I armies while they were on the move. The U.S. attack faltered as artillery and food supplies were left behind on the muddy roads.The attack on Metz was not realized, as the Germans refortified their positions and the Americans then turned their efforts to the Meuse-Argonne offensive.

And some more detailed descriptions

Reconnaissance missions to determine the disposition and makeup of enemy forces were critical and were usually carried out by aircraft flying east at low altitude until shot at. Allied ground troops, for example, needed to know about German activity at the Valleroy railroad yard during the battle of St. Mihiel or, best of all, that the "convoy of enemy horse-drawn vehicles [was] in retreat along the road to Thiaucourt."

The pilots of each side, attempting to prevent their counterparts from conducting tactical reconnaissance, encountered fierce air-to-air combat in aerial "dogfights" that evoked images of medieval warfare and its code of chivalry. The men in the trenches welcomed these solitary knights of the skies who were willing to take on the heavily-defended German observation balloons and their artillery fire aimed at everything that moved. More often than not, life was short in World War I and American aviators lived it valiantly. Frank Luke spent only seventeen days in combat and claimed four aircraft and fourteen balloons, the most dangerous of all aerial targets. Shot down at age 21, he died resisting capture behind German lines. The United States awarded him a Medal of Honor and named an air base after him. Raoul Lufbery claimed seventeen victories before jumping from his own burning aircraft without a parachute. But more died in crashes brought on by malfunctioning aircraft than in combat.

Low-level flight in close support of the infantry was exceedingly dangerous as it involved strafing and bombing over enemy positions. The 96th Aero Squadron flew twelve day bombardment aircraft in three missions against ground targets the first day of the St. Mihiel offensive on September 12, 1918. The next day it mustered only four aircraft ready for duty. Casualty rates of 50 percent or higher were not unusual. When Brigadier General Billy Mitchell had his way, targets were farther to the rear and included rail centers and bridges. One of his officers, Lieutenant Colonel Edgar Gorrell, developed a plan to bomb Germany's "manufacturing centers, commercial centers, and lines of communication." General Pershing approved the plan, but opposition from other ground commanders and insufficient aircraft thwarted America's nascent testing of strategic bombing.
As an American air force, the First Air Brigade (strengthened by French units) in June 1918 fought superior German forces during the battle of Château-Thierry, a bloody initiation to full-scale combat for most American pilots. Mitchell, however, learned the lessons of massing air power in the battle area and of seizing the offensive.

This experience served him well at St. Mihiel in September. With nearly 100 squadrons amounting to 1,500 aircraft under his control, Mitchell organized two forces, one to provide escorted reconnaissance and the other to serve as an independent striking force. With superior numbers, mostly French, Mitchell's airmen seized the initiative, gained air superiority, attacked enemy ground forces, and interdicted supplies flowing to the German front lines. In the final action of the war, during the Meuse-Argonne offensive in September and October, Mitchell concentrated a largely American force to establish air superiority in support of American ground operations.

Wow!! Couldn't ask for more and fits right into the three mission campaign of Recon, Attack of Resources and Land Battle!!
Now the campaign has a name and a story line to research

WWGeezer,



I read over your last two posts and I think this sounds very interesting!

Isn't this the campaign that was featured in the "Lost Battalion" movie with Rick Schroeder? Just curious.

Interesting developments a'coming. WW's working on this, which sounds very interesting, and we are working on The Battle of the Lys in April, 1918. I would be willing to put Lys on the back burner though since it would be our first RoF campaign and therefore, logistically, could be problematic. If we participated in a St Mihel campaign first, maybe we'd get the know-how to get Lys off the ground.

Also, somewhere in the future we need an early war fight to keep my "crap-plane" core centered!

S!

Yeah I like the idea of a 1500 aircraft assault.


But here is another idea for effects across missions in a campaign.
Have truck convoys bringing more aircraft to the front bases.
__Each convoy carries a specific aircraft type.
__Each convoy takes a separate route.
__Random routs probably need to be employed if possible.
__Convoys can be attacked upon discovery.
__Each truck represents one, two, or three aircraft so the entire convoy does not have to be destroyed to incur losses. The aircraft lost in transit are subtracted from available number in the next mission. Of course this requires a limited availability, and the more limited the more the subtraction will be felt in the next game.
__A convoy reaching it's destination no longer can effect aircraft count if it's attacked. (I guess it could be made to despawn.)
__The convoys supplement the aircraft factories at the front so the loss of both could really hurt, but on the other hand saving one could also be a strategic relief. Also it could be that convoy losses effect 1 mission and factories effect 2.

Give each convoy an AAA truck just to give the potential attacker a reason to think about it. Nobody would know what convoy represented which aircraft during the game so any convoy would have to be considered highly important.

Of course any other assets that might want to be limited can have another convoy.

My fertile mind got to dwelling on those repair ships.

Suppose a barge spawned 2 enemy tanks when it docked at the island. And the tanks headed to and attacked the aerodrome. Lets say there are 10 barges at staggered intervals, maybe from multiple directions. Perhaps 3 from each base around the lake making it 12 barges. The barges keep traveling between their base and the landing point until sunk. The defenders have to wipe out the barges plus any spawned tanks and the attackers have to defend the barges so the tanks destroy the aerodrome.

S! Geezer

We had some discussion earlier of multipart game design. The multiphase mission of recon, then bomb, and all leading to a final battle.

What we have done over at JG1 is actually vwet similar. Instead of a long campaign spanning months or years, a short campaign representing a few weeks before a major battle. Not necessarily a historical scenario but posibly a little more real world. A short time period becomes less dynamic. Our objective is to remove the strategic planning from the game. Our scenario is a general one. One team is building supplies for a tank assault. The other team is building supplies for cannon defenses. The supplies add up over several sessions. The final session is a land battle whith tanks crossing the front. The number that crosses the front determins success or failure of the assault. The number of tanks and cannons available is dependant upon the ammount of supplies accumulated in the previous sessions. The team with tanks must protect them crossing the front and or try and destroy enemy cannons. The team with cannons must protect them and or try and destroy the enemy tanks.

Like your campaign, it is multiphase. You have to recon this session and find the supplies. Next session you can bomb the target. Supplies count towards material for the final battle. No counting planes, no points, just success or not. You can think of supplies as points. So many supplies = 1 tank or cannon. Both teams start with a minimum number of tanks or cannons that can not be diminished. Each team has a train and convoy rushing suppies to the front or to a base. There are severl train and convoy routes. These resources are a random spawn. The active routes are announced by subtitle during the first 10 min of the session to the defenders only. The enemy never knows what routes are active. The times they leave their starting points are also random. That makes these truely targets of oportunity. The result is that some supplies will get through.

Each team has 2 military camps for the assembly of tanks or cannons. Intel suspect these to be in some general location. Those are marked on a published pre game map. If a team wants to destroy a base, it must recon it first. The bases are random spawn with the general location announced to the defenders when the session starts. Recon is the standard check zone and must land safe in friendly teritory. In the bomber session there are no icons on the map. The bomber team has to know where the recon was located from info returned by the recon. He needs to "mark it" on his map. Pictures might help.

In addition, friendly baloons have identified a suspicious are accross the front. A 2 seater is needed to spot for artillary. The enemy does not know where these sites are. The mission is similar to the one used by Jasta 5 in their last "Bloody April". A 2 seater must pass over the artillary then proceede to the target and return to the artillary position. This is merely consecutive check zones. It takes 3 or 4 trips or 12 to 20 minutes. The mission can be stopped and restarted. The enemy damage is cumulative. If restarted, the original damage is still there. You are not restarting from the begining. The mission ends when 3 out of 6 buildings are down. When the mission is complete, the artillary is removed from the game to lighten the linked entity server load. There is also a modifier to the mission. If the Friendly balloon next to the artillary is killed, it is noticed by the artillary. They realize enemy is near and take a crew off of one of the artillary guns and man 2 AAA units. This slows down the shoot so that the mission takes longer but the 2 seater now has more AAA defending him.

2 scout bases, one 2 seater base.

The basic scenario does not change for a few sessions. Supplies accumulated are added to the tank or cannon supply and we have a final battle. There is no change in planes from session to session. Replacement planes are merely flown up from a rear air park.

" Well chaps the weather is not the best but HQ has asked us to help out best we can. We have a some information regarding a build up of Jerry guns. C flight will escort planes from No. 64 squadron. Lets hope the weather clears a bit and they find those positions. We have a report of suspicious activity on the front from Balloon section 87. Planes from NO.44 squadron will be spotting for artillary in that area. B flight should patrol in that area in case Jerry gets miffed. For A flight we have special mission. Our south military camp at point D had a plane fly over yesterday. They did not get a good look at it and are unsure if it was one of ours. None of our squadronss report having any units in the air in that sector. Just in case it was an EA, A flight will patroll that to prevent them from getting a better look.

We also have word that the train from Bethune will be leaving the station at 15 minutes past the hour and the convoy from North Arques will be on their way at 5 past the hour.

That is about all. Good luck."


The ingame maps have no icons accept the friendly artillary position and active airfields. Unfortunately a rather large area is needed to try in get in some roads and railways. I have a link for maps done on the Lille Bethune Sector. I have done the same thing at Verdun but the trains and convoys are reduced to 2 per side. This is an example of the printable maps for Lille / Bethune. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

S!

S!

Ok, what the prvious few posts show is that there are diferent ways to do similar events. They offer different chalenges. Besides the goal of having a local little scirmish is the larger picture of several groups offering diferent types of events to the community. Hopefully we will see a diverse set of missions and tournament design that inspire and grow the community.

Eventually we might even have a callandar on the RoF site of when these events will take place so that there is little conflict.

S!

Flat spin, I would not derail what your doing based on our effort!

I am the only mission builder at the Wingwalkers for ROF and my three mission concept will be my first effort at a campaign. Most of my collaboration on Mission building is with the Old Fokkers who have some very talented mission builders

I am very interested in sharing ideas and mission building tips with you guys

I will say that my approach may be a bit different than some of the ideas in this thread. I really hope to come up with something that is a simple structure, where
The mission is a framework but not overwhelming. If the event becomes more of a discussion about rules than flying than the mission structure overwhelms the game

With only three missions I'm hoping I can develop an approach, test it, fine tune it and try it again

Not sure if I can achieve it or not, but that's my goal!

WWGeezer wrote:

If the event becomes more of a discussion about rules than flying than the mission structure overwhelms the game

What! Well that ruins the after game arguments!

Where is the fun in it if we cant say something like -

"Well sir that would be a valid point except for the condition set down in chapter 53, paragraph 182, sub-paragraph 12, sentence 4, where it clearly states 'Where in such an instance as the player shall be...' so it is evident sir that you are a poo poo pants* and wrong about the outcome of said situation."

*see chapter 80 Acceptable Insults and Flames on the Event Forums

"Poo Poo Pants! Why how dare you! You are nothing more than a teachers pet!"**

** See chapter 80 part II Acceptable Responses to Acceptable Insults and Flames on the Event Forums

See I started using roman numerals for chapter divisions so it gets really cool looking by the time part XXVIII is written.