ACG Draft

[Guido]

Onebad, the figures come from Hardesty & Grinberg's 'Red Phoenix Rising: the Soviet air Force in WWII' and are for titled 'A Comparison of the Soviet and German Air Forces during the defense of Moscow September 1941'. The actual ac types are not mentioned except where shown. I can trawl through the text for other pointers if you want more.

(Slightly handicapped here because I can't can't get the table function to work)

Bombers
Frontal Aviation: 210
Long Range Aviation: 368
Soviet Total: 578
Luftwaffe Total: 720 (including 250 Ju 87s)

Fighters
Frontal Aviation: 285
PVO: 423
Soviet Total: 708
Luftwaffe Total: 370 (originally 420, but all the 110s (50) were withdrawn prior to Typhoon)

IL2
Frontal Aviation: 36
Luftwaffe: 40 (I assume the comparison here is with the Hs 123s)

Recce
Frontal Aviation: 37
PVO: 9
Luftwaffe: 140 (including recce ac of army aviation)

Total Aircraft
Soviet: 1368
Luftwaffe: 1320

Following up on Luft's point, it need not be just the experienced pilots or 'Aces' that might consider (or be considered for) changing sides. The current ACG Luftwaffe advantage in that respect can be considered a plus point as it reflects the very real advantage the Luftwaffe enjoyed and more than offset their inferior numbers. As Von Hardesty states later in the book in his (fascinating) coverage of the Kuban:

"During the the first years of the war, VVS fighter pilots, with a few exceptions, displayed little aggressiveness toward the Luftwaffe. The appalling VVS losses during the summer of 1941 conditioned Soviet fighter pilots to feel a profound sense of inferiority, a reflex reinforced by the objective circumstances of poor training, the confusion associated with outmoded tactics, deficiencies in command and control and transition to a new generation of aircraft".

This neatly sums up how I feel, stepping from a Hurricane into a Mig 3, facing guys with loads of hard won experience in their 109s It could be argued that the current frustrations of the ACG Soviet pilots are actually an essential part of the immersive experience

Guido

[Jammy]

Few are interested in Soviet planes, fewer yet are interested in flying planes half (or even less) as good as Germans. This will be a fact through Moscow, Stalingrad and finally cap off at the battle of Kursk (Kuban) when both sides will have evenly matched aircraft. Until then we must expect the Germans to dominate us every week.

There is too little the ACG BoX team can do to balance the gameplay until then, considering the limitations of the sim. BoF and BoB were consistently evenly matched so you could be a good pilot or bad and still feel confident that you could improve given enough practice. Not so especially in Moscow.

So we have few truly invested in Soviet planes + planes that have little hope of competing even with veterans piloting them which = people quitting flying or joining the Germans who are obviously having way more fun than they are. Its OK to get wrecked from time to time, but its not OK to get ultra-wrecked when you're expected to get wrecked on a weekly basis.

My analysis - We need to get to a theatre with an aircraft roster similar to the BoB sooner rather than later. Moscow was built for the VVS to get wrecked, Stalingrad was built for the VVS to get (slightly less) wrecked, and Kuban where both sides were fairly even. Bodenplatte will be a whole different kettle of fish as it seems the core intrests of our current ACG members lie in the Western, African and Pacific theartes.

My recommendation: Do a few more missions in Moscow, then either skip Stalingrad or gamble on it so that Kuban has a chance to go on sale for the peasant pilots among us (stop looking at me). That ought to rekindle an interest for people to even the numbers and fly for the Soviets again. Glad you brought it up Shade, but I do not support your idea for the reasons above.

[Thaine]

What about ACG first? Just asking...

[Woop]

Of course ACG is first, we're all ACG (and we should be tagged as such teehee ) and I don't really care if 615 is called 34 IAP or whatever comes next. But I do care about flying with those chaps in the squadron. I care about getting better as a squadron. Mixing the squadrons would do away with squadron skill, and only make all the other issues more evident.

[BlackDog]

What about ACG first? Just asking...

Mate... I think a LOT of pilots flying this campaign have put ACG first already... just saying..

I would also like to add... I think the VVS folks need to appreciate what it has been like for 109 pilots to continually fly over the Channel, know that if you bail you are likely to die or be captured and to often face those 'magic bullets' that instantly pop a rad (three minutes later your engine can be gone) or worse still... suddenly erupt into flames for a fairly light hit... and yet they stepped up and played 'bad cop' every week.....

When I joined ACG I had zero interest in flying the 109 and as many Brits, wanted the chance to replicate what it was like to fly in that Battle Of Britain period campaign as an RAF pilot. As it was I was asked if I would mind flying the Me109 and I agreed to give it go to help out and the chance to learn an aircraft I have never really known much about and subsequently came to love flying my E4.

The friends I have in 5th Staffel will be long term friends, but even they know that when we get chance to fly P51D's in an ACG campaign...heaven and earth is not going to stop me from flying them.

So I do believe there are many pilots that 'could' wear the underdog shirt for a bit longer.. but equally as voiced elsewhere, I think the campaign concept needs to change to suit our needs, which means we have to accept that if we were to be true to our 'ACG core' the ACG campaign would die on its arse within weeks due to constant slaughter of this historical campaign, as it is simply no fun to fly in that much carnage....

That said...
If pilots have felt they have flown for a good length of time, the death part is still an issue, but at least they have had some good seat time. As example, we flew a practice NAV yesterday in thick cloud and had almost zero contact, but we enjoyed the challenge of the flight conditions in Snow and thick cloud.

but to the core point of this thread....

I believe the idea of the draft should be voluntary and as this weekend is the last of this first six period? Maybe it should be tabled that the numbers be re-addressed for the start of the next wave/campaign? With volunteers asked to switch sides then?


BD

[Rich]

Lots of feedback and quite a few ideas over the last week. I am sure many would agree we have to give the mission designers a chance to try things for a bit. They need the chance to try things and succeed and fail to find what works.

The balance of numbers are a problem for mission design but not the route cause of any discontent.

It's not the aircraft either as getting shot down every week in a spitfire wouldn't be much more fun.

The mission design is the key. How to make a rewarding and realistic experience that is also varied. With BOB we had ai bombers and a longer route to the target. With BoM we have limited ai and currently extremely limited flak. It makes a very sterile environment where the only satisfaction to be gained is from direct combat with the enemy.

The designers initially had the idea of splitting squads into fours. Retrospectively this was a really smart move which doubles the amount of possible patrols and mission going on concurrently, it increases the chances of haphazardly bumping into another patrol. (I do agree that flying in an eight or 12 is more satisfying).

The source of my frustration in 9th is that it feels like the mission design is for us to patrol the target (cap) and if we don't make any contact we assumed that the other side was delayed or lost or cowardly.. in an at least one case we were wrong we misunderstood the mission plan but we only found that out by complaining.

Let's give the mission planners whatever they request and see what they can come up with. and maybe give our feedback privately (or via staffel captain) and hopefully get some feedback from the planners about how what went well or didn't go well.

[Smokejumper]

I'm with Thaine - how would this work? Is it a draft as in "You are now flying for LW/VVS until you hear otherwise"? I could kind of see this working at a unit level if each ACG unit has a native LW unit, a native VVS unit and a preferred faction. That way, given the numbers of units required for the mission, they get swapped between the two on a per-mission basis. i.e. If we need to reflect a (and I am making numbers up here) 30:70 LW advantage at some point we round that to 10LW units in game to 5VVS units for that mission, and then later it shifts in the other direction (i.e. 10VVS anf 5 LW). We could do that with some form of weighted random number generator deciding who gets to play what (i.e. let's say you have a preferred faction of VVS, for the first lottery/draft you have the same probability of being chosen to swap to LW as any other "preferred" VVS unit - but next time around your chance is reduced if you were previously chosen, making it more likely you would be VVS). Is that the kind of thing you are after? Or are you suggesting something on a more individual level?

My thought was pretty simple. Round Robin pick of individual players by squadron leads. The order would be an internet version of drawing straws.

Imagine a school baseball draft. I want that guy and so on. I would expect top players skimmed off first balancing talent.

Player skill balance is an issue. Ive always been of the opinion that for the good of ACG you fly your assigned plane to help balance the game. It is still a game after all. Perhaps i am incorrect but that was my introduction with Dickie. I liked and respected what he said so i now fly 109s. If i was drafted into. Mig3 or I16 squadron id be thrilled.

I do think we should try to think about time zones language and multi engine. Divide the pool into three time zone preferences and multi engine.

My idea is pretty basic as is. I feel it would spread the talent pool to make the fight more even mixing aces and guys who could use a hand. The other bonus would be mixing ACG units up binding us as a group over individual squadrons. As a historical group assigning guys over giving a choice i feel is in line with the ACG Dickie pitched to me almost 3 years ago.

Ideas are welcome. Could be stupid could be great. To put my money where my mouth is ive been saying id fly an I16 in campaign happily.

[Smokejumper]

If individual pilots want to transfer across to help out with the numbers, that is fantastic, but I vehemently oppose sending them against their will. The only time I'd consider strong-arming someone into a transfer, is if it were an entire unit. At least in that case, they can remain with their mates.

If someone came to me and said "Right, you're too good, you have to fly VVS now." I'd tell them to get fucked, and if they forced the issue, I'd simply quit. If it was my entire unit, I'd have a much easier time putting up with it because at least then I'm still with the boys.

So to summarise: Volunteers, yes. Shotgun transfers, no.

Are we not all ACG? I seem to have a laugh with new people every time i swap a channel. I disagree with your shotgun assesment and almost see it as a way to cut chaff. If a guy quits because the group needs him in a specific spot and said pilot just screams and is unwilling to help..... My opinion is the person is replaceable. BoX is exploding in player numbers. 3 or more full servers all weekend.


Are we squadrons or ACG?

I'll fly anything with anyone even though my preference is to stay with Shade. We are supposed to be a military reenactment group. All this choice over orders is a spanner in the plan....

[Smokejumper]

What about ACG first? Just asking...

You get it, I get it, hence cutt the chaff comment. The remainers will be dedicated. With the screamers gone i expect mission planners to enjoy themselves again.

Perhaps maybe as i was accused yeara ago that i dont understand what we are about. Its not kills or individual glory. It's about the group and aviation history. Was i wrong?

We are so fractured.

[Toast]

Perhaps an idea for the distant future, (when hopefully numbers become balanced again), is that no-one can transfer from one side to another until there is someone wishing to do the opposite swap; keeping numbers balanced forever. If one side becomes short due to leavers, this would need to be refilled before a further transfer from that side would be granted. New recruits could be asked to join any side with a shortfall.

A sort of ACG BREXIT; a stricter control of the boarders...