Actual combat time is a limitation of range and fuel consumption.
Quality combat means the intensity of the fight once its on. Its not dependent on overall combat time.
Unit v Unit combat is a different thing the 1 on 1 or groups of individuals in a fur ball. A unit maybe effective even though the individual skill levels with in the unit are some what low.
When folks flying as a unit understanding their role and are given proper direction they can become an effective fighting force.
f escorts are tasked to escort then should they really be rewarded for leaving their post to chase interceptors into a furball.
The escorts primary role should be to see to it that the bombers make it to and from target.
Then to ensure they minimize their own losses.
The escorts should have a greater freedom of action then interceptors. I would hope they weren't forced into close escort all the time.
If their success is dependent upon the bombers survival it only stands to reason that they would do what ever it takes to protect them. If the bombers don't make it to target or lose a large % then the escorts have failed their mission and should get no credit at all. If they defend the bombers and get a few kills they they should get points for the mission and a multiplier applied for their kills.
If interceptors are tasked to strike at bombers then should they really be rewarded for engaging escorts to practice their ACM.
If you are tasked with bomber interception you must either kill xx % of the bombers or ensure xx% of the bombers target remains intact. On top of that you must minimize your own losses.
If don't kill or stop the bombers from destroying the target then you should not get credit for the mission.
If you complete the mission you should get the mission points and a multiplier applied for any kills you got.
If you just run off to furball and ignore the mission then you should get nothing.
if ground attackers are tasked to hit a certain ground target, should they drop ord and engage the first LW they see and be rewarded?
Ground attackers should be required to kill XX% of their target to get credit for the mission. Any kills they get on the ground or in the air would be part of a multiplier.
Where you end up with lots a of timidity is when by just completing the mission alone, regardless if you killed anything, you earn the same as the guy who killed multiple ground targets then shot down 2 enemy. The guys that do that ought to earn more and be rewarded more then the guy who did little except take-off.
If not you will run into those who just hang back and avoid risk. As I said the greater the risk the greater the reward.
All sorts of missions can be run if the victory conditions are set in a fashion that rewards mission success first but then rewards performance. Folks would be more encouraged to fight rather then hang back and hide.
You can have historic mission profiles and encourage combat at the same time.
mission success = low minimum points
kills = high multiplier
If not you get guys who will hang back and earn a living off of what others are doing
no mission success = no points at all
This will discourage those who would run off and ignore the mission
bail or ditch = you get mission points + whatever multiplier for the kills you got - points for the lost aircraft
This will encourage folks to try and make it home in their aircraft. If not they might just bail in the face of trouble.
death or capture = - points (hopefully in a high enough amount to make death painfully)
This will encourage folks to avoid suicide.
With out a high death penalty there's less encouragement to survive. If its too high and not offset by a high kill multiplier then you encourage folks to avoid risk.
