Historic numbers vs. Setup numbers

[perdue3]

I have a question for designers and participants. What single FSO setup simulated a battle in which one side was heavily outnumbered historically? Rephrase: Which battles have we simulated in FSO where one side was heavily outnumbered in the actual battle?

Thank you.

[HighTone]

All PTO events from 1944 onwards.

[Squire]

We just finished one in March. RAF vs Luftwaffe 1945 "Operation Clarion". The FSO side split was 50-50. Historically of course it was not an even split in the Spring of 1945 in the ETO. I don't have an exhaustive list of other designs. There are others I am sure. Playability of course is usually the #1 reason we might not follow the real life strength differences. 

[captain1ma]

i can remember a few that were 60%-40% allies.

[perdue3]

We just finished one in March. RAF vs Luftwaffe 1945 "Operation Clarion". The FSO side split was 50-50. Historically of course it was not an even split in the Spring of 1945 in the ETO. I don't have an exhaustive list of other designs. There are others I am sure. Playability of course is usually the #1 reason we might not follow the real life strength differences. 

I have seen 60:40 before, is it okay to do this considering the right format is implemented?

[Squire]

Not sure I understand what you are asking re

is it okay to do this

Ok in what way?

For the record 60-40 is likely the most one sided we would in FSO but there is no actual limit. Designers call.

[perdue3]

Okay meaning would this idea be shot down immediately? I know 60:40 is the max for trouble begins at 2:1. However, if the format allowed for the outnumbered factor and it fit historically, could it be accepted?

[ImADot]

I've seen many players (and on occasion seemingly whole squads) not show up because they either didn't get the side, ride, or the mission they wanted or expected. I don't see these types showing up if they were on the historically-accurate 40% side.

But, the designer gets to play the game of balancing accuracy and gameplay to make a hopefully fun event that people want to participate in. If they can come up with a fun event that pits a superior force against an overwhelmed force, then I see no reason to not let them try.

Ultimately it's player turnout that determines how historically accurate a designer can be. If an event only gets half the normal crowd, then that is in my opinion a failure no matter how accurate it is.

[Squire]

This is just for FSO...no, a 60-40 split would not be shot down immediately (who's doing the shooting btw?) as an idea. I think there are many ways that a setup can be done. Just as a reminder on what a designer can do:

* Alter the side split (50-50, 60-40 ect)
* Put a min-max # on a particular plane.
* Disable certain ordnance types and gun packages on certain planes.
* Assign a higher or lower point value to a plane in the victory conditions.
* Assign one side as just a defender.
* Adjust the points for objects destroyed by one or both sides.
* Alt CAPs for bombers and or fighters.

...and others. This ensures that we can make a setup playable and fair although its not as easy as it sounds especially if its an original design as most FSOs are. I have likened it to hitting a moving target.

What we can't do is control as an absolute the side #s per frame. We can only do that to a degree. That's too bad too because nothing unhinges a setup like one side being over strength and the other side being under strength because of attendance issues.  SEA events are not mandated by law though   so we just have to make do.  

[perdue3]

All inputs were very helpful. I greatly appreciate them.