Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)

[Brooke]

There were few He 111's in 1943 in Tunisia compared to Ju 88's.  Since the US level bombers are already better somewhat than the Ju 88 as an average set, it doesn't work to put in He 111's.

B-17's, B-26's, P-39's were not insignificant in early 1943.  For January-March, 1943, from the daily chronology by the USAAF (which is a day-by-day summary of the action of the day), here are the number of mentions of each US aircraft:
p-38 -- 40
p-39 -- 29
p-40 -- 79
spitfire -- 21
a-20 -- 47
b-17 -- 64
b-25 -- 90
b-26 -- 53

Mentions is not the same as number that were there, but it is at least indicative of how much it was in the daily action.

So, B-17's, B-26's, and P-39's should be in it.

[ROC]

Devil, this is the hard part of "balance".  Short of an exact match up of speed and payload each side has to have the objectives aligned with their abilities.  It is not unreasonable to put the bomb damage and survival expectations different for each side.

Perhaps having an object quota per attack squad set to reflect the relative ability to attack and survive is a solution?

Yet, as hard as it is, you are already ahead of it.

For example.  Let's start by balancing just one side.  Let's count how many B25s (or whatever) need to achieve the objectives for Allies.  You then plug in expected loss ratios, determine how many should survive, and such.  Once the "facts" are established, you plug in the amount of the JU88s that will deliver the same amount of ordinance, with the same chance of success, and the same time to target.  Might be 45 bomber formations for Allies per quarter, and 54 Axis, it won't matter, it's the tonnage that you count and balance.  That's one way to possibly attack this balance issue.  There are others, but it really depends on how Brooke defines the objectives, how close, how long to get to each target (3 hours per segment, need to get 3 flights to target per segment) but the format here is we don't count planes, we count ordinance and ability to deliver.  We even have to plug in the formula to define speed so that targets are spread out by each sides ability to get their, not both "25 miles apart", make sure that each side gets to their objectives at the same time regardless of speed. 
Then, of course, we need to anticipate the ability to defend the targets, so each thing we solve ads another thing to solve 
But, the Start Point is Target Cluster. That defines everything.  Identify the objective.  Adjust the sides to meet the objectives. Adjust the Objectives if it proves to be something unable to achieve.  Great events aren't designed, they evolve.
 
The ability to shoot down bombers has to be equal.  If the JU88s are more in number than the B25s, and half the B25s and half the JU88s have to be shot down, there needs to be enough fighters on both sides to shoot down the bombers, self defense must be counted, all bullets, ordinance and speed need to be identified and accounted for.  It's all about the spreadsheet that works in the game itself, not the historical balance, those facts and figures fall apart in game. 
It can be done, it's a butt ton of work, and not easy but sure as hell worth it!  I think the only downside is, like Nef, Brooke has to deal with ME!   

As I wrote this, I saw your latest post Devil.  The loadout on attack planes can be controlled. You can enable and disable the guns, bombs, rockets per plane.  The objective should be simple, take down the "stuff".  Achieve the objective or not.  Now, you have to decide, should the event be a level bombing/dive bombing JU88 event and escort the bombers in, and win or lose on the sides ability to escort the bombers in and out, or is it point based where the fast fighters can stealth in and pick off objects.  Personally, and I will work to balance the design no matter what, but personally, a massive mission like this should hinge on an orchestrated effort to keep the bombers alive and get them to target, not let the swift fighters in to pick off the buildings.  It was a factor in the last event, the attack planes were the deciding element, a major event like this shouldn't come down to who got the fighters in, but who can get the bombers in. IMHO, I haven't talked to Brooke at all about this design, just tossing in options to consider.  This event should hinge on getting a coordinated effort across 4 battles, 3 hours each, and get the bombers to target.  It's too easy to get the attack planes in from the sidelines, it's incredibly difficult to coordinate a successful escorted bomber campaign.  If someone is going to invest 12 hours or a fraction of that for an event of this caliber, it should be worth the effort.  Again, My Humble Opinion.  (Ok I know, I see you guys out there laughing at Humble)   

[Devil 505]

There were few He 111's in 1943 in Tunisia compared to Ju 88's.  Since the US level bombers are already better somewhat than the Ju 88 as an average set, it doesn't work to put in He 111's.

B-17's, B-26's, P-39's were not insignificant in early 1943.  For January-March, 1943, from the daily chronology by the USAAF (which is a day-by-day summary of the action of the day), here are the number of mentions of each US aircraft:
p-38 -- 40
p-39 -- 29
p-40 -- 79
spitfire -- 21
a-20 -- 47
b-17 -- 64
b-25 -- 90
b-26 -- 53

Mentions is not the same as number that were there, but it is at least indicative of how much it was in the daily action.

So, B-17's, B-26's, and P-39's should be in it.

HAHA! I did the same thing an hour ago! 

Also add 5 to the P-39 because there are mentions of the P-400

[Devil 505]

As I wrote this, I saw your latest post Devil.  The loadout on attack planes can be controlled. You can enable and disable the guns, bombs, rockets per plane.  The objective should be simple, take down the "stuff".

This won't work when you use the same plane (190A-5) for both a fighter squad (II/Jg2) and an attack squad (Skg 10).

Brooke's solution is to have Skg 10 in F-8's and not A-5's, but why make a substitution when we have the correct plane to begin with?

And I skinned the very plane being depicted here on the A-5.

[ROC]

There were few He 111's in 1943 in Tunisia compared to Ju 88's.  Since the US level bombers are already better somewhat than the Ju 88 as an average set, it doesn't work to put in He 111's.

B-17's, B-26's, P-39's were not insignificant in early 1943.  For January-March, 1943, from the daily chronology by the USAAF (which is a day-by-day summary of the action of the day), here are the number of mentions of each US aircraft:
p-38 -- 40
p-39 -- 29
p-40 -- 79
spitfire -- 21
a-20 -- 47
b-17 -- 64
b-25 -- 90
b-26 -- 53

Mentions is not the same as number that were there, but it is at least indicative of how much it was in the daily action.

So, B-17's, B-26's, and P-39's should be in it.

The reality is, we know who won and lost the war.  This Game, Today, the event in October, this has nothing to do with what was.  Each side must have an Equal Chance of winning and losing. So the cannons, speed, ordinance need to be equal.  Then, regardless of historical accuracy, the strongest team will win.  This is the difference between taking the field and REENACTING a battle and taking the field and going to war today.  If you balance the event based on historical accuracy, it's inevitable that you are going to sway the results towards the inevitable conclusion.  At the end of the war, the Axis were pummeled.  Their fuel was gone, their infrastructure was gone.  There was never a balanced and even battle. That is the way of war.  This is a Scenario.  Both sides must be equal in ABILITY, the result will be based on the people who play it and whether or not they can assemble a team. 
Again, In My Humble Opinion.

[ROC]

This won't work when you use the same plane (190A-5) for both a fighter squad (II/Jg2) and an attack squad (Skg 10).

Brooke's solution is to have Skg 10 in F-8's and not A-5's, but why make a substitution when we have the correct plane to begin with?

And I skinned the very plane being depicted here on the A-5.

I don't know why the planes were substituted.

Question for you though Devil, do you see a role for attack planes or do you see this as a bomber campaign?  I don't actually care if the JU88s dive bomb even, I just think there is a long rang bomber campaign which is different than short range attacks.  This has the "feel" of a bomber campaign with elements of attack planes added because, well, just because.

[Brooke]

Given the previous post, what we should discuss is relative numbers that are a compromise between history and balance.

Bombers are, in my opinion, balanced OK.  Axis bomber load is better, but it's planes are a less survivable than the allied average but not as bad as people think.

Currently:

190's are, as Devil says, over represented.  They were there, though, and an important deployment for the 190A, so the question is what should that number be?  Thoughts on that?

For the US set, I don't have the totals that were participating in battle in early 1943.  I know what planes were actually seeing action there in early 1943 (see above post).  At that point, it probably is more down to selecting numbers for balance than even using time to debate the historical numbers.

The way I was thinking of the fighter balance.  P-38G's, Spit V's, 109G's, and 190A's are all in the same very general ballpark.  I feel quite comfortable in P-39's fighting 109's and 190's as long as the fight gets down to about 15k or less after a short bit, so I wasn't hugely worried about P-39's.  They did OK when they had enough dedicated people in them in Dnieper against 109G's and 190A-5's.  In a Scenario setting, I think of P-40's and C.202's as offsetting.  The C.202 is a nice plane with low-lethality guns.  The P-40F has great guns, sturdiness, and dive capabilities, but crappy climb.  If a many-on-many fight developed in a Scenario between C.202's and P-40F's, I think it would be about even.  A bunch of P-40's vs. a bunch of 109G's would not go well for P-40's, but P-40's could do OK if there are some P-38's or Spits with them, and they are (I think) a little better than Spit V's at attacking bombers and a huge amount better than C.202's at attacking bombers.

That was my reasoning in thinking that the fighter set isn't too bad, with an edge, but not a huge edge to the axis.

If I'm wrong about that, the way to fix it is relatively fewer P-40's and P-39's and more P-38's and Spits.

Those of you who think the current ratios of fighters are wrong for balance, please post some suggested numbers for folks to consider.

[Brooke]

The reality is, we know who won and lost the war.  ...  Each side must have an Equal Chance of winning and losing....
Again, In My Humble Opinion.

I completely agree and don't dispute any of that.

My only thought is that, with the US fighter set listed, by adjusting the numbers, given that the US bomber set is a little bit better than the axis bomber set (not by a lot, though), I think it is balanced.

If folks think it isn't balanced even with adjusting numbers of P-38G's, Spit V's, P-39D's, and P-40F's vs. 109G's, C.202's, and a small number of 190A-5's -- then we need to get what I would consider pretty ahistorical, but I would still do it if it were the only way to have acceptable balance.

It's like Dnieper.  The LW had Stukas, not 190 jabos; but Stukas are quite grim (I know as I've flown them several times in Scenarios), so we changed it to 190 jabos.

Here, the main weakness, I think, are P-40's.  P-39's are not that bad, I don't think; and when they were manned with dedicated pilots (not just a few unknown walkons), they gave as good as they got vs. 190G's and 190A's.

I think of the C.202's as the balance to the P-40's, sort of this way:

In the same ballpark: P-38G's, Spit V's, 109G's, 190A's.
Also in the same ballpark:  P-40F's, C.202's.
P-39D's -- less, but can still fight 109G's and 109A's in my opinion.  (25% of the fighter force at a bit of disadvantage)

I was thinking that only 25% of the US fighter forces therefore generate a bit of disadvantage and that 3/4's are in the same ballpark.  I think of that being balanced by the US bombers being a bit better (but not hugely better).

But -- those are my thoughts.  If I'm wrong about that, and the US fighters need some boosting, then we can do that by more 38's and Spits and fewer P-39's and P-40's.  I would still keep some in, though, as well as C.202's.  I think that still can be balanced -- just might need numbers adjustments.

[Brooke]

Also, keep in mind that, while P-39's are less capable in fighter combat vs. 109G's and 190A's (although again not as bad as folks think) and P-40's are significantly worse vs. 109G's and 190A's, P-39's and P-40's are sort of on par with C.202's in many on many, and P-39's and P-40's are quite good vs. bombers and attack aircraft, which the C.202 isn't.

What I'm saying to folks out there who are thinking about how the fighters stack up against each other is to keep in mind that there are complications or a matrix of things to consider.

First is that the fighting is typically many on many, not one on one, and so some aircraft characteristics become more important.  Also, the fights are often mixed -- not all one type of aircraft -- where each type of aircraft can bring its strengths to bear.  There are bombers and attack planes to kill, and some planes that might not be the best in fighter-vs.-fighter alone might be better than their opponents at shooting down bombers and attack aircraft.  A P-40 or P-39 is a lot better at taking down a Ju 88 than a 109 is at taking down a B-17, B-26, and even a B-25; and *enormously* better than a C.202 at that.

So, it's a complicated business.

My feeling is that this one will be fine with it's current mix and adjustment of numbers to have less 190's, P-40's and/or P-39's.

Let's see what folks think should be the particular numbers of the various fighters, using (for now) 50 fighters on each side.

[ROC]

I think it is balanced.

Prove it.

You think it's balanced.  As a friend, I want you to answer each of these questions.

Did you count the individual objects on the field?

Did you add up the hardness of the individual objects on the field?

Did you count the tonnage each bomber option can carry?

Do you know how many bombers are needed to achieve the objective?

Do you know what the average attrition is throughout scenarios for bombers?

Did you anticipate average attrition when you chose the targets?

Is it possible for the bombers to achieve the objective if the average attrition rate proves true and the average amount of bombers are destroyed?

Do you know how many cannon rounds are needed to take down each bomber?

Are there enough cannon rounds available to take down enough bombers at just enough of the ratio to blunt their attack?  Not too many, just enough.

Does each side have an even amount of ordinance to take down the other sides bombers while defending themselves?

The check list I have is 4 times as long, if you can't answer these, the rest don't matter.

Now, answer these if you can.  Then, let's talk if you still think it's balanced.  Say Yes to these, I'm good to go.  If you think it's balanced after counting these items, we're on the same page.  If you haven't counted these, we are not.

I'm not giving you crap here, I'm trying to make sure you count the stuff that absolutely needs to be counted long before you even begin to consider whether or not you have the right mix of fighters or bombers. Nothing matters until you define the objectives and back it up with facts.

Brooke, if you can't answer YES to each of these, you are guessing.  So far, you "think", you "feel", your "thoughts are" but none of that matters.  Now, you also have the option as the scenario CM to tell me to pound sand   I will.  But, if you want my help, these questions need answered.

[Brooke]

Prove it.

 

Even if you can answer "yes" to all of those, there is still some guesswork involved (like judging attrition).

Yes to all of those except the following (which I believe are fine based on results of past Scenarios but do not consider being proof):

Do you know how many cannon rounds are needed to take down each bomber?  There is enormous variability based on shot placement.

Are there enough cannon rounds available to take down enough bombers at just enough of the ratio to blunt their attack?  Not too many, just enough.  -- Likewise, large variability.

[Brooke]

This won't work when you use the same plane (190A-5) for both a fighter squad (II/Jg2) and an attack squad (Skg 10).

Brooke's solution is to have Skg 10 in F-8's and not A-5's, but why make a substitution when we have the correct plane to begin with?

And I skinned the very plane being depicted here on the A-5.

The why is already in what you said:  so I can control loadout.  That way, I don't have to police it.  If the F-8 weren't close to the same performance as the A-5, I would probably not do it.  But it is so close that I don't think people would much notice other than icon text saying "F8" instead of "A5".

I don't think we'll be able to get custom skins into an AH3 terrain.  I'll ask, but my recollection is that it isn't possible in AH3.

[Brooke]

This has the "feel" of a bomber campaign with elements of attack planes added because, well, just because.

It's because ground attack was a significant portion of the air action in Tunisia.

[Brooke]

Folks, just to summarize, for people who think the version 1 fighter numbers aren't balanced well enough, if you can, please give your suggested numbers for the various fighters (50 fighters on each side) with a description of why you think this is balanced better.

This will let us see more specifically what folks are thinking.

[Brooke]

Also, like with other Scenarios, I would like to have a test frame.

How long a test frame would folks participate in?  3 hours?  6?  A full 12 (just to make sure everything works over that time span)?