On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please?

[Dan Caviness]

Hello Fellow Blitzers:

Recently it came to my attention that one of my scenarios which had been played twice was not reported. The players didn't report the games because of the ON MAP aircraft in the scenario, which they don't like. I mean they really don't like them. They consider it a fatal flaw that ruins a scenario.

I get it, they have issues.

Our goal/My goal is to design scenarios that:

1. We want to research.
2. We want to see modeled.
3. We want to have played.

We/I find out how well we're doing along these lines when:

1. Games are reported.
2. AAR's are filed.
3. Someone emails us to tell us what sucks and what doesn't.

I don't try to please everyone, can't be done, but I do try to create scenarios that are fun to play and generate some traction with those who enjoy the big fights.
PLEEEAASE contact me to help further my efforts along these lines.

I put my email in every READ ME file, and every scenario introduction dialog.

Just trying to feel out the Blitz majority consensus here.
Is the consensus to "ixnay axnay" and put the kibosh on the ON MAP aircraft?
I can understand it if that's where we are.
I won't miss 'em.
Just need to know.

Issues include the "unshootable" American "bullet proof" bomber, players mis-using attack planes as spotters, etc., etc...

Unless I hear different I'm going to avoid adding them to any future scenarios.

Not trying to generate debate, as I don't have a vested interest either way. It's just that it really hurts when you find out that players have played something you worked on and decided to not report it due to this ON MAP feature, or any other reason for that matter and you never even knew.

Thanks for any input/feedback on this issue you wish to provide.


Regards,

Dan

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I personally do not like onboard aircraft.
I just don't think it works well.

What I would like to see is an off board airstrike that I can control.
I mention this because airstrikes don't work all that well either.

What I would propose is airstrikes that are plotted and resolved during your turn with no delay. So you see a target that could use an airstrike you click it and the airplane flies across the board attacks the target (heck I would still be ok with the airstrike having the possibility of attacking the wrong target) and then exits the map. It would still be subject to AA fire as it is now.

You have more control (like onboard aircraft) without the problems of onboard aircraft.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Dan Caviness]

How are you doing Erik?

Still killing everything in sight?

Nice to hear from you.

Not sure what they plan to do with them (both on and off map) in the long run but you're right, the off board attacks are very chaotic and random as well.

My addiction to late war scenarios often results in my trying to model fights that include lots of air support...so I'd like to get it right.

I'm counting your vote as a "no" for ON MAP aircraft.

Regards,

Dan

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I dislike the on map aircraft. For all the reasons that Dan stated. They simply do not work and add "cheesiness" to the game.
Nor do I like the bomber base attack units.

I just feel that someone decided to put chrome in with little thought to what it could do to PBEM.

Always seemed to be poorly vetted, or tested.

The old way works. Yes, even if a bunch of enemy wagons were hit, or, a stray attack on a friendly occurred, or even an attack was recalled. It was a random I could live with.

Had fun once when a player said that their plane could stick around and spot. I surrounded it with trucks and then attacked it with an engineer. Then assaulted it with a half track. Well my units could do it too?



HSL

[Otto von Blotto]

I dislike the on-board aircraft in CS games.

I quite like that there is a disconnect between calling a normal air strike and it happening and also the player has no effect on it once it is called either in time or location.

[Crossroads]

I have not used on-board aircraft on my designs. I have not played a scenario using them either, apart from the EF bootcamp. I am quite happy how the air strikes have been impelemented currently, although I liked the idea Hawk shared here.

It would be a nice option especially for scenarios, where either side had total air superiority and the ground attack aircraft buzzed the skies, looking for anything that moves?

I would hazard a guess they (on-board aircraft) are more of a turn-off than anything else, at least as they currently are implemented.

[PawelM]

I think CS engine design did not anticipate on map aircraft. As a result on map air units come with some features which lead to a very unreasonable for an air unit. Probably puts me a bit of the scenes with them featuring. That said I do not think to be missing much even of they were improved. I would rather see some work on of map air units as proposed in some of the thread here.

[Warhorse]

Not promising anything, but devel team is kicking around the need to boot the onboard planes and bathtub navy, don't belong at all...

[Huib Versloot]

I like the piper cup artillery spotters in some larger maps, provided they function bugfree that is.
Having these in the air was a big advantage for the western Allies in the last year of the war. A representation of this in the game is a good thing imo. [/align]

On map bombers, no.

[Scud]

I've only played one scenario that had a spotter plane. I gleefully sent it north to establish targets for my artillery when it was promptly shot down. So much for that. Not sure what hit it, but I'm thinking now, maybe one of Ed's wagons?

Dave