Question for Captain Kurt...(Other opinions welcome)

[Rami]

Captain Kurt,

Designing the Battle of France, I've tried to follow your continuity philosophy with at least two of the campaigns, but after 11 Group begins operating out of Southeast England on 21 May, Spitfire squadrons get thrown into the mix. This means that for the primary RAF fighter campaign, there will be a portion of the missions that have you flying a Spitfire, rather than a Hurricane.

Since I am designing the .cmg in a way (because there are several sorties flown per day) that will have you fly one of the sorties flown that day with a random selection, beginning on 21 May there is the off-chance you will fly a Spitfire rather than a Hurricane on one day, then a Hurricane the next.

Do you have any suggestions as to how to get around this? Would it be possible to do an "if/then" scenario in the .cmg file for Spitfire ops? (In order words, if you get chosen to fly the one Spitfire mission on 21 May, your choice is then limited to the Spitfire missions only from then on, and conversely, if you do not, your missions are confined only to Hurricanes from then on?)

If the above model works, I could do the same thing with the BoF Jagdgeschwader campaign to avoid flopping singles and twins.

Also, for the timeline RAF fighter campaign, (separate from the one above) you transition from a Hurricane to a Spitfire on 21 May after sixteen missions. On 23 May, you break continuity for one mission to fly a rescue ops mission, specifically piloting a Miles Master and rescue a 74 Sqn pilot (Spitfire) that force-landed at Calais-Marck, and get him home, then continue with Spitfires for the rest of the campaign.

Does that break it up too much?

And of course, there is the Stuka campaign. which is completely continuous.

The others, I'm afraid, do a bit of flopping. I am trying to deliberately avoid covering any missions Skylane did with his Hawk 75 campaign.

[skylane]

Rami,

Unfortunately I don't know much about cmg files, so the only idea I have is, why don't you make one campaign using the Hurricane missions and another for the Spitfire?

I don't think that the rescue mission with the Miles breaks the continuity of the campaign, I can well imagine a pilot flying such a mission and then returning to fly fighters the next day!

And, I see no reason why you should avoid covering missions that I did in my campaign! If they fit in your timeline, go ahead and do them as you imagine things could have happened!

[Rami]

Skylane,

A separate Spitfire campaign would be too short, since you're only flying them for four days at the most, for a maximum of four missions, but that is a good suggestion.

[Ravenna]

Forgive my ignorance here Andrew, but is it the case that you will be swapping between squadrons in the campaign? If there is a random selection of missions on a given day might those missions be flown by different elements of the same squadron? It seems to me that changing aircraft types and situations gives a better historical overview of the battle, whereas staying in the one squadron with a dynamic progression through the missions feels more immersive. Am I missing something?

[Rami]

Ravenna,

For the main RAF fighter campaign, there are fifty-four missions between 10 May and 21 May, all of which have you flying Hurricanes for different squadrons along different sections of the front. You fly only eleven of these missions in a random selection. Beginning on 22 May, Spitfire missions are mixed in, but they only are included from 22 May to 25 May, when the campaign ends.

To really answer your question, there is a mixture of both types.

[Shadow Wolf 07]

Hi Rami:

Use a "splitter" node as shown below to designate the switch from Hurricane to Spitfire and give it the random percentage you want. I used 50% in my example. Then have the pilot stay with one plane or the other to the end of the campaign, using splitters Yo assign alternate missions for each type of plane. Insert the Spitfire missions for each date in date sequence, Using splitter nodes as desired for each alternate mission on each date.

Example:

[node.36] (May21)
true_branch=37 (Hurricane)
false_branch=38 (Spitfire)
percent_true=50
filler=1

[node.37] (May 21)
mission_name=Hurricane_12
true_branch=39
percent_true=100
filler=1

[node.38] May 21)
mission_name=Spitfire_1
true_branch=40
percent_true=100
filler=1

[node.39] May22
mission_name=Hurricane_13
true_branch=41
percent_true=100
filler=1

[node.40] May22
mission_name=Spitfire_2
true_branch=41
percent_true=100
filler=1

[node.41] (May 23)
mission_name=Miles_Master_Hurricane_14
true_branch=43
percent_true=100
filler=1

[node.42] (May 24)
mission_name=Miles_Master_Spitfire_3
true_branch=44
percent_true=100
filler=1

[node.43] (May 25)
mission_name=Hurricane_15
true_branch=45
percent_true=100
filler=1

[node.44] (May 25)
mission_name=Spitfire_4
true_branch=46
percent_true=100
filler=1

etc....

I wrote in dates after the node numbers just to give you a reference. The mission names would be yours. Is this clear? Does it help?

Greg

[_486_Col_Wolf]

Andrew, I have to agree with Ravenna. I prefer a single squadron, more immersive campaign with generic, semi historical elements. If you recall reworking my 486th FS campaign, you flew 28 missions with the same squadron. The only exception was the transition from the P-51B to the P-51D. All my missions had situations that a pilot in such a squadron might see without having to conform to historical fact. Some historical elements such as date and targets were included but were not confined by what actually did happen. I believe this gives you the better sense of "being there" when you can somewhat change or create your own history. As for my BOB RAF campaign, you do change squadrons after nine missions with the explanation that more experienced pilots are needed in Spit squadrons, hence the transfer and change from Hurri's to Spits. All those reasons are why my campaigns are a bit simplified but generally go 22-25 missions. After all, total immersion is why I built my climb in sit down, close the canopy simpit to begin with. Anyway just my opinion and preferences, for whatever they're worth.

[Rami]

Greg,

Yeup, that's precisely what I was fixing to do as far as the campaign file goes.

486_Col_Wolf,

I have some campaigns that will be modeled that way, others will not be. Right now there are 257 missions in total. The way that I organized the missions have you beginning on 10 May, and continuing through 25 May. There are a couple of campaigns that will have you flying the same aircraft (Stuka, Lysander) throughout.

For the others, I have the missions done, but I have not organized them into campaigns yet. Hewman100 and UncleTgt sent me a log of events that I've been using to build these missions. It would be possible to isolate each squadron's activities, but that would take some of the randomness out of it. I'm more interested in doing an immersion approach on a day-to-day basis rather than a squadron-squadron basis, with RAF 4 Squadron (Lysander) being the lone exception.

I began the missions (with one exception that uses your pseudo-historical approach) on 10 May. Attached are the documents I am using. Right now I am on 22 May. You can use the comparison lists that say (edited) to get the scope of what has been accomplished in Mission Builder. What has been deleted has been created or incorporated into other "consolidation" missions.

[Ravenna]

Very interesting attached notes. Although too late to be of use for your campaigns in the BoF the websites below are interesting in that they provide overviews for the RAF and Armee de la Air orders of battle (see the 3rd site) and the diverse operational experiences of a single squadron (73 sqn). The 3rd website is an old one, but it has a good overview woven with dispositions, losses and activities of individual French and British squadrons.



http://translate.google.com/translat....php&sandbox=1


http://www.epibreren.com/ww2/raf/73_squadron.html


http://france1940.free.fr/en_index.html#AdA

Obviously the progression of this campaign is up to you and the priorities you set. Whatever you decide the final campaign will, on past performance, be outstanding.
One last observation: 486_Col_Wolf's point about immersion can still apply when the missions are historically based, rather than generic with a historical "flavour". Looking at squadron op reports does show that within the experiences of a single squadron there is room for a dynamic campaign where different outcomes point you in different directions. That would be far from "pseudo historical" within the context of a simulation.

[Rami]

Ravenna,

Absolutely....familiar with all three. The French link was vital for me in the opening stages of mission building, to find out where everyone was. The other two sites I have used at varying points.

More and more, I've found myself using this site for AdA information: https://www.passionair1940.fr/Armee%...-1/GC_II-1.htm

[Rami]

Very interesting attached notes. Although too late to be of use for your campaigns in the BoF the websites below are interesting in that they provide overviews for the RAF and Armee de la Air orders of battle (see the 3rd site) and the diverse operational experiences of a single squadron (73 sqn). The 3rd website is an old one, but it has a good overview woven with dispositions, losses and activities of individual French and British squadrons.

Obviously the progression of this campaign is up to you and the priorities you set. Whatever you decide the final campaign will, on past performance, be outstanding.
One last observation: 486_Col_Wolf's point about immersion can still apply when the missions are historically based, rather than generic with a historical "flavour". Looking at squadron op reports does show that within the experiences of a single squadron there is room for a dynamic campaign where different outcomes point you in different directions. That would be far from "pseudo historical" within the context of a simulation.

Michael,

Interesting. Reading between the lines on this, are you suggesting that success could equal a transfer to more "hot" sectors of the front, while mediocrity would place you in slow-action areas?

[Rami]

Michael,

Oh, and to your other point. Especially as the campaign progresses, you find yourself doing numerous things over the front. Air intercepts, convoy protection, guarding lorries, strafing lorries, attacks on tanks, bombing missions, escorts, fighter sweeps, etc.

As the missions progress, the priorities shift. I'm actually having to learn some things I did not know how to do before.

[Ravenna]

Andrew,

That's one of the possibilities I had in mind, with the caveat that there is a random chance of either a hot or slower mission at certain points in the campaign. From a historical perspective it depends on the extent to which the squadron or unit had such a range of experiences.

[Captain Kurt]

Fascinating thread guys. As Rami knows I try for historical accuracy combined with immersion. To me jumping around to different aircraft types and mission profiles is not realistic and spoils the fun for me. Pilots trained for a specific aircraft, and for specific mission profiles/tactics and did not convert to a different aircraft unless it was a wholesale unit conversion.

To that point Rami, I like your idea to have a random trigger on the date of the first Spitfire mission and if the Spit is chosen, then all remaining missions would be flown in the Spitfire and conversely would stay in Hurricanes if the Hurricane was chosen in the random trigger. That could indicate the pilot had transferred to a Spitfire squadron.

That would be especially relevant in the Jagdgeschwader campaign as switching between single and twin engine fighters would be even less plausible from an immersion point of view. I am aware that some single engine units converted to the Bf110 prior to hostilities but I don't think that happened after the war started or that the reverse ever happened. Can someone correct me on that if needed?

[UncleTgt]

Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed, I have to admire the Campaign narrative approach.

A single squadron narrative will not adequately describe the RAF experience in France, May 1940, nor the struggle of the French, Belgian of French Air Arms. The "Attack in the West" is a huge undertaking, & no single aircraft type can hope to convey it's breath or scope.

For instance, knowing what we know now, who would actually choose to fly the Lysander campaign, or a Belgian AF campaign? Really!

If we're to gain any oversight of the "shock & awe" (LOL) of those days we must jump between aircraft types, otherwise no-one will ever fly those desperate missions, with almost no hope of success...

...sorry, but I've just watched "Darkest Hour" ...

[Ravenna]

Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed, I have to admire the Campaign narrative approach.

A single squadron narrative will not adequately describe the RAF experience in France, May 1940, nor the struggle of the French, Belgian of French Air Arms. The "Attack in the West" is a huge undertaking, & no single aircraft type can hope to convey it's breath or scope.

For instance, knowing what we know now, who would actually choose to fly the Lysander campaign, or a Belgian AF campaign? Really!

If we're to gain any oversight of the "shock & awe" (LOL) of those days we must jump between aircraft types, otherwise no-one will ever fly those desperate missions, with almost no hope of success...

...sorry, but I've just watched "Darkest Hour" ...

Within the bounds of the sim to get a sense of the RAF experience in France would probably require a set of campaigns. In a single campaign the question is whether you want to describe the RAF experience in France, 1940 or the experience of an RAF pilot in France 1940.

I think Captain Kurt's suggestion regarding random triggers applies if you want that pilot's experience.

[Rami]

Gentlemen,

Writing campaign files is very easy compared to mission writing. I like having all of these different opinions and perspectives, I will try to incorporate many of them.

The nice part of writing 257 missions is that you have most of the Royal Air Force/Advanced Air Strike Force/Armee de l'air experience from 10-25 May to choose from, so I can always write multiple .cmg files.

I had already committed to writing eleven .cmg files, I can always do more.

And UncleTgt - I've gotten quite good at flying the Lysander - In fact I've bagged a couple of Bf-110s, and made a few more smash into the ground chasing me. If you aim carefully, you can bag some Heinkels as well. The trick is to remember where the machine guns are, and that the trajectory of the bullets trends upward.

[UncleTgt]

Within the bounds of the sim to get a sense of the RAF experience in France would probably require a set of campaigns. In a single campaign the question is whether you want to describe the RAF experience in France, 1940 or the experience of an RAF pilot in France 1940.

I think Captain Kurt's suggestion regarding random triggers applies if you want that pilot's experience.

Michael

Valid point, except I can't see anyone wanting to fly the Battle, Blenheim or Lysander pilot's campaign, so why make them in the first place? I think it depends on what the author's aim is, which really brings it all back to Andrew's motivation for BoF after all - What story is he trying to tell? What experience is he trying to simulate? What insight will we glean from flying those missions?

To generalise

Allied Bombers - hopeless missions against advancing german columns, against a foe that (seemingly) controls the air

Allied fighters - a bit more varied, valiant efforts with (transient) glimmers of hope against a macro-campaign narrative that results in withdrawal to the UK & preparation for the BoB

Axis bombers - milk run - your escorts control the air, you pick your targets & timing (until Dunkirk at least)

Axis fighters - lots of opportunities to rack up significant kills against lower quality opposition, the deck is stacked in your favour

- of course the reverse is also true of later war campaigns - so who would fly a late war German or Japanese bomber campaign?

So, in that case, what campaign structure, other than a macro-historical narrative, exposes the Player to this experience?

I think this conundrum is why Wolfgang (Skylane) advised his SE Asia 1941-42 Malaya/Singapore/NEI packs should be flown as mission sequences & not as campaigns - the Sim campaign hard-coding makes it unlikely that a (losing side) pilot would experience the whole campaign narrative, & thereby the creator's efforts would be somewhat wasted?

[Rami]

UncleTgt,

I guess I wrote them from the perspective of a married man...I've got a wife and four kids, so I'm used to losing and embarking on fruitless efforts and lost causes, but you soldier on anyway.

[Ravenna]

Michael

Valid point, except I can't see anyone wanting to fly the Battle, Blenheim or Lysander pilot's campaign, so why make them in the first place? I think it depends on what the author's aim is, which really brings it all back to Andrew's motivation for BoF after all - What story is he trying to tell? What experience is he trying to simulate? What insight will we glean from flying those missions?

To generalise

Allied Bombers - hopeless missions against advancing german columns, against a foe that (seemingly) controls the air

Allied fighters - a bit more varied, valiant efforts with (transient) glimmers of hope against a macro-campaign narrative that results in withdrawal to the UK & preparation for the BoB

Axis bombers - milk run - your escorts control the air, you pick your targets & timing (until Dunkirk at least)

Axis fighters - lots of opportunities to rack up significant kills against lower quality opposition, the deck is stacked in your favour

- of course the reverse is also true of later war campaigns - so who would fly a late war German or Japanese bomber campaign?

So, in that case, what campaign structure, other than a macro-historical narrative, exposes the Player to this experience?

I think this conundrum is why Wolfgang (Skylane) advised his SE Asia 1941-42 Malaya/Singapore/NEI packs should be flown as mission sequences & not as campaigns - the Sim campaign hard-coding makes it unlikely that a (losing side) pilot would experience the whole campaign narrative, & thereby the creator's efforts would be somewhat wasted?

all good points Uncle. I suppose I was thinking of the 1940 France campaign as that of a fighter pilot, with bombers at times being escorted. Since reading your post I have thought that the highly unlikely success of success or even survival would bring its own insights; insights which never got to be related by the pilots who flew Battles and Blenheims on one way missions during the Battle for France. It may be that insights gained ( within the limitations of a sim) are a form of success in themself, whereas I have always thought of success as achievement of the campaign/ mission goals.