JUNE FSO: Crimean Catastrophe - Operation 60,000

[ImADot]

Speaking as a player reading the new scoring system, these are my answers:

1. If a pilot that is not the Ace kills 5 enemy aircraft how many points does his side receive (all fighter kills, no bombers)?
His side only gets the points from his landing/ditching/bailing. The enemy is denied the landing/ditching points for each plane that got shot down, but could get the bailing points if the pilot bailed in his own territory.

2. If 3 of those 5 enemy pilots (that were shot down in Question 1) bail and 2 of them explode how many points does the enemy receive?
Bailed pilots, if they bail in friendly territory, get the points based on the plane they were flying. Dead pilots get no points. The guy who shot them all down gets only the points for his aircraft type if he himself lands/ditches/bails.

3. Pilot A is Allied, is not the Ace pilot, shoots down 4 enemy aircraft, and lands. Pilot B is Axis, is not the Ace pilot, shoots down 0 enemy aircraft, and lands. Who receives more points and how many points does each pilot receive?
They both get the points based on the plane they were flying; shooting down planes is not a factor other than for bragging rights.

There are no points for shooting down bad guys, other than denying the bad guys from gaining points for their side for returning from the fight. So the more bad guys you shoot down, the fewer points the bad guys get for that frame. Simply taking off, circling for a few minutes and landing without fighting, would not yield many points for your side.

[Arlo]

Speaking as a player reading the new scoring system, these are my answers:

There are no points for shooting down bad guys, other than denying the bad guys from gaining points for their side for returning from the fight. So the more bad guys you shoot down, the fewer points the bad guys get for that frame. Simply taking off, circling for a few minutes and landing without fighting, would not yield many points for your side.

If every pilot on one side or the other does it, it would yield whatever points each pilot gets for a safe RTB.
However, if there's a penalty assessed for dereliction of duty (logs would reflect such) then I may suggest
that those pilots were court-marshaled and no points were received as a result of such dereliction. Just
sayin' 

[perdue3]

So essentially (considering the amount of points for landing, etc.) it is all about bombing points. Normally a bomber is worth 15 pts, in this case if you land 2 successfully you are awarded 14 or 16 pts and give no points away to the enemy for dying. Rather than a 10 pt swing from bomber to fighter, there is only a 4 and 5 pt swing. So killing enemy aircraft is not as important as it always has been. This has nothing to do with the new system, only the points tied into it. It is all about getting those non-moving, no skill required points on the ground.

On paper, this looks like it could be very bad for the event. The Allies could and will get slaughtered and still only lose by 100 points or, God forbid, WIN! We will all know more after the month of June. Thank you ImaDot for your clear answer.

[Arlo]

Upon reflection, while I applaud looking into a scoring system that takes into account
pilot and airframe attrition, the system being suggested doesn't seem balanced. It
appears to reward elimination of all risk taking (and may even promote both sides
maintaining a defensive posture - after all, it's easier to RTB if you stay in your own
territory).

Might I respectfully suggest that instead of turning the scoring system completely on
it's head we consider making an RTB a multiple of one, whereas ditching, being captured
or dying reduces the points earned for kills and objects by a multiple
of .5, .25 and .1, respectively. Or .75, .5, .25 if that seems too steep.

 From the school of helpful suggestions and not mere criticism -

[perdue3]

Make ditch worth 3 points and bail worth 1. Problem solved.

[Arlo]

Make ditch worth 3 points and bail worth 1. Problem solved.

Multiplying by .5, .25 and .1 too difficult? 

[Nefarious]

1. If a pilot that is not the Ace kills 5 enemy aircraft how many points does his side receive (all fighter kills, no bombers)?

2. If 3 of those 5 enemy pilots (that were shot down in Question 1) bail and 2 of them explode how many points does the enemy receive?

3. Pilot A is Allied, is not the Ace pilot, shoots down 4 enemy aircraft, and lands. Pilot B is Axis, is not the Ace pilot, shoots down 0 enemy aircraft, and lands. Who receives more points and how many points does each pilot receive

1. None. Only the Ace pilot as used in my setups can score points for shooting down aircraft.

2. If they bail in friendly territory that would be three points (1 point for each bail) and the deaths would be zero points. If you bail or ditch in enemy territory and are captured, that would be zero points.

3. Pilot A and Pilot B would be rewarded 3 points each (or whatever the score sheet says) for returning to base successfully.

As far as pilots go, it's a war of attrition. Granted, there may still be object destruction score, I don't yet know if that's attrition modeled or not.  

As of now, Objects destroyed will still be scored the same way no matter how your night ends, although I am working on something in regards to that.

[Nefarious]

Upon reflection, while I applaud looking into a scoring system that takes into account
pilot and airframe attrition, the system being suggested doesn't seem balanced. It
appears to reward elimination of all risk taking (and may even promote both sides
maintaining a defensive posture - after all, it's easier to RTB if you stay in your own
territory).

Might I respectfully suggest that instead of turning the scoring system completely on
it's head we consider making an RTB a multiple of one, whereas ditching, being captured
or dying reduces the points earned for kills and objects by a multiple
of .5, .25 and .1, respectively.

 From the school of helpful suggestions and not mere criticism -

Interesting idea and it's one I will consider possibly implementing should it need revision.

In the end, targets must be attacked by T+60. So maintaining a complete defensive posture will not win the frame and will be against the rules. I'm hoping it will bring some balance to defense and offensive operations instead of light defenses and horde like heavy strikes or vice versa.

The CICs this month of June will have some new things to consider when planning these frames.

[68Raptor]

If the 68th are up for or even close to CiC duty then we will take it!

[Devil 505]

Upon reflection, while I applaud looking into a scoring system that takes into account
pilot and airframe attrition, the system being suggested doesn't seem balanced. It
appears to reward elimination of all risk taking (and may even promote both sides
maintaining a defensive posture - after all, it's easier to RTB if you stay in your own
territory).

Might I respectfully suggest that instead of turning the scoring system completely on
it's head we consider making an RTB a multiple of one, whereas ditching, being captured
or dying reduces the points earned for kills and objects by a multiple
of .5, .25 and .1, respectively. Or .75, .5, .25 if that seems too steep.

 From the school of helpful suggestions and not mere criticism -

Now this I like. 

Multiplying by .5, .25 and .1 too difficult? 

Yes. 

[Arlo]

Now this I like. 
Yes. 

 

[branch37]

Basically the way I understand it is this.  Say each side starts with 100 fighter aircraft and fighters are worth 1 point each.  The side already has 100 points at launch and can only lose points from then on.  Lets say 75 of the original 100 aircraft survive.  Therefore the side scores 75 points. 

The points are yours to lose basically.

Anyways thats the way I understood it.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

[HighTone]

Looks good, lets give it a shot. Couldn't hurt to try 

[FBLazy1]

FB$ Updated. Is it June yet?? 

[snakeplissken]

Thanks Boss!  Launch at Dawn in Frame 1, Land at Dusk in Frame 3!  It's the little things that make me happy!