Force on Force Planning

Red Flag Planning Room
Dirk98
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:29 pm

Postby Dirk98 » Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:52 am

Couby wrote: If yes there would be possibilities using this server mode, just for planning phases with imposed slots, and then let people flying what is planned in dedicated server mode.

That would uncouple planning and flying phases but that's not a so bad idea.

We could have something like : 30 minutes for planning, 1h30 for flying, 30 minutes for planning, 1h30 for flying and so on...

Would it be feasable that way ?


Yes, but only in F4AF yet. With OF we'll have all kinds of practical problems, starting from differences in the the participants will have. Whereas in F4AF we can all agree on the same version. I repeat OF is not as stable and flexible for this type of MP operation as AF is.

centermass
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:38 am
Contact:

Postby centermass » Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:57 am

I say try all version under the same rules.

Then use the version that is most stable.
Image

Nap
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia (GMT +10)
Contact:

Postby Nap » Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:56 pm

Another factor that needs to be take into account when choosing the install is the question of availability.

Many of the wings/squadrons out there have their own 'official' installs. Therefore we will need to negotiate a compromise.

In this context, Allied Force might be most practical.

Cheers,
Nap

Dirk98
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:29 pm

Postby Dirk98 » Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:50 pm

Dirk98 wrote: Yes, but only in F4AF yet. With OF we'll have all kinds of practical problems, starting from differences in the the participants will have.


...starting from the differences in the versions the participants will have.

Sorry, didn't complete the sentence on the first pass. :D

Dirk98
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:29 pm

Postby Dirk98 » Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:56 pm

centermass wrote:I say try all version under the same rules.

Then use the version that is most stable.


There's no such an OF version for FoF yet. Whereas F4AF can support it quite decently (ask Soprano, lol).

User avatar
Couby
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Mont-de-Marsan, France
Contact:

Postby Couby » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:14 pm

Some choices about a competition standard for OF players is clearly mandatory.

And the OF Rapace Launcher is checking MP critical settings and datas so that it prevents any problems due to standard tweaking.

That's the price for wings interested in that type of meeting. They have to agree in using a standard.
Personnaly I think a lot of wings are smart enough to complain into that mandatory point.
Plus tools like the Launcher giving some security about all this.


Think about OF Wings interested in that type of game.
You can't ask them to do with AF...
And considering it is technicaly feasable, what we have to do is to define the rules and SOP's to play (for these wings), which are adapted to the game constraint.
And as mentionned, I fully agree considering that compared to AF, the standard definition is a critical point for wings interested in flying such FoF game with OF.


We need a specific administrator for that FoF OF departement. If there's nobody to closely manage all this, we're flying directly in a wall.
I don't have the time, but I'm ready to help when I'll have if you find someone.
Image

Dirk98
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:29 pm

Postby Dirk98 » Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:09 pm

Couby wrote:Some choices about a competition standard for OF players is clearly mandatory.

And the OF Rapace Launcher is checking MP critical settings and datas so that it prevents any problems due to standard tweaking.

That's the price for wings interested in that type of meeting. They have to agree in using a standard.
Personnaly I think a lot of wings are smart enough to complain into that mandatory point.
Plus tools like the Launcher giving some security about all this.


Think about OF Wings interested in that type of game.
You can't ask them to do with AF...
And considering it is technicaly feasable, what we have to do is to define the rules and SOP's to play (for these wings), which are adapted to the game constraint.
And as mentionned, I fully agree considering that compared to AF, the standard definition is a critical point for wings interested in flying such FoF game with OF.


We need a specific administrator for that FoF OF departement. If there's nobody to closely manage all this, we're flying directly in a wall.
I don't have the time, but I'm ready to help when I'll have if you find someone.


Ok, I've flown OF too long (unlike most of those who used the leak) and keep flying it almost daily these days. I had messed a lot with different MP experiments and I know that overall AF gives the most stable and flexible MP platform for competition types of engagements including FoF. OF is somewhat about different at this stage, it is the best and the most REALISTIC cockpit experience one can get playing F4. But its current code works best for coop misions while some of the stabitlity issues and gameplay functionality are falling behind what AF can offer.

I also know that I won't be willing or able to modify my OF package which I know is different. Don't want to spoil your fun though, will be intetested in merely watching your efforts.

User avatar
Couby
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Mont-de-Marsan, France
Contact:

Postby Couby » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:06 am

This is not a competition between OF and AF. Again I rekon AF advantages in the standard field.

I don't think the goal is to know which Falcon (AF, OF, RV) is the best for that type of game.
I think the interest in these comments is to know how to allow such engagements on each "Falcon", if there are people interested in each "Falcon" departement.

Before wasting energy in knowing how to do, maybe the best thing is to know who is interested in what.

VEAF represents 40 pilots interested in FoF engagements with OF only. Let's see if there are other OF wings interested.
If not, end of the game on that place :).
Image

Nap
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia (GMT +10)
Contact:

Postby Nap » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:39 am

Guys,

I have setup a seperate area where we can discuss this issue and not be limited to one thread.

Force on Force Planning

It's great to see the interest building. Perhaps we could meet in TS at some point?

Cheers,
Nap

Nap
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia (GMT +10)
Contact:

Postby Nap » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:50 pm

Hi guys,

I sense a slowdown in the pace of the discussion. The IDFL would really like to make this happen, so lets continue until we find some common ground and a format that works.

Cheers,
Nap

User avatar
Bender
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:42 am
Location: Bloomington, IN, USA

Postby Bender » Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:01 am

I'd like to hear some people's ideas on what the OOBs should look like.

Right now, the factors I'm considering are the size, the composition of land-based AI, and the composition of the air wings.

SIZE. To me, the ideal OOB is large instead of small, but as a practical matter has to be limited by the amount of players participating on each side. I would prefer a combat environment where as many of the sorties as possible are being flown by human beings, as opposed to a typical campaign environment where humans jump into combat here and there. I want the participating wings to win or lose the war, not merely influence it. But on the other hand, I want there to be enough going on that it's not over after a quick skirmish and that a large variety of missions can be flown. Obviously, the more players we get the easier it will be to find a "good" size, but if we end up with relatively small teams we'll have a hard choice to make. I'd probably tolerate having a few muppets as wingmen to make sure that full packages are going up.

AIR WINGS. I'd definitely want support AI: AWACS, JSTARS, and tankers at a minimum. As for combat aircraft, I'd prefer to stick to mostly playables (F-16s and possibly MiG-29s if that's the direction we go) to keep with the philosophy that it should be humans winning or losing the war. The numbers should be relatively large, to make sure the battle isn't lost at the first BVR missile exchange, and there should be enough to base them at multiple airfields, to prevent one OCA strike from ending it all.

GROUND FORCES: This is key IMO. A key to getting support from more wings can be assuring that there is more to the FoF than air-to-air. There are strike, CAS and SEAD specialists out there too, and we want them to have a chance to shine. So, it's critical to make sure there are plenty of air defense threads that need to be worked over, and plenty of land targets that need to be hit. I would love the idea of the FoF being long enough in duration or otherwise set up so that CAS was an important mission. That might be hoping for too much, but at a minimum I would want plenty of high altitude SAMs blocking access to airspace until they get worked over by the Ironhands, and HQ and flak battalions defending key targets to give the strike pilots a chance to show everyone what they're made of.

In any case, I really hope we can pull off some flavor of this. A competition that involves strategy and operational planning as well as combat tactics is going to be much more rewarding than simple knifefighting, and it will be more relevant as a simulation.
Kill all humans, kill all humans, must kill all hu---

I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!

Cyborg
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:18 am
Location: United States, Louisiana (-6GMT)
Contact:

Postby Cyborg » Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:10 am

The 16th can put a team together.

I would also prefer a large OOB similular to what Bender is suggesting. It would be nice to do this on a weekend and have it last somewhere around 3-6hours. If both squads have a lot of people interested, as soon as one member gets tired another could take his place.
Image

Apollo
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:12 am

Postby Apollo » Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:57 pm

I should bealbe to get a small FreeBirds team together.
Image

Nap
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia (GMT +10)
Contact:

Postby Nap » Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:54 pm

I have posted a new thread to discuss some specific things relating to the development and merger of TE's. This discussion will also determine Team sizes and OOB to be used.

This is only one aspect of the planning for the competition but at least we're making progress on the most interesting aspect of it (also most difficult technical challenge).

Cheers,
Nap

User avatar
LoVeN
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:08 am
Location: north of israel
Contact:

Postby LoVeN » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:38 pm

had some thoghts on this and here is what i think about his format.

when a player or a team wants to play even if the best thing is to create thier own wish of where to place what it will tkae lot of time and it will cause a big efort for only 1 game!
if we are talking on a contest then we need to find the minimal efort to bring out a battle.

now if we go out from this way of thoght those are some ideas i have :

--- have several maps with difrent placments and every team will be able to choose the one they want so thats makes it quicker,
--- the timing problem is very hard cause its difrent timezones and alot of players involved so there should be a quicker way to pick up a day and i think that if it will be static day and time for every game that will be it will make it more easy to say ok iam in .
--- lendth 2-3 hours i think its shouldent be so long and with it long enogh to complete something.
Image
"fear not for iam the LoVeN"


Return to “Force on Force Planning”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests