Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)

[Bruv119]

22k wind downdraft anyone?   

Personally I would like that lifted to whatever the pilots deem appropriate.   

[Brooke]

22k wind downdraft anyone?   

Personally I would like that lifted to whatever the pilots deem appropriate.   

What I try to accomplish in a Scenario design is that a person who flies in it would, if he read a book on first-hand accounts of flying in the actual battle, feel that his flying experience in the Scenario is very similar to the type of action he read about.

For most battles, I read books of 1st-hand accounts of the action to get an idea of what things are like, then I work on a design where I'm trying to make the action be like that.

With respect to altitude in North Africa, I got the books listed in the references section of the writeup and searched (for the Kindle books) every single mention of altitude.  There were no references to anything above 20k.  Like Dnieper, the vast majority of the action (including fighter sweeps, bomber alts, etc.) was much lower than that.

When a Scenario has no downwind, fighter action gets way up there.  That is true of 8th-AF style events (where that's how it should be), but it is also true of other things (Malta, for example) where it shouldn't.  It's because we have things like visibility bonuses that real WWII pilots didn't, perfect maps, no mobile concentrations of troops and vehicles, and in-cockpit GPS.  In North Africa, it is wildly non-historical and not at all a realistic combat experience to by flying around way above 20k.

[Devil 505]

Brooke, do you think an updraft would be more effective in limiting action to historical alts. Dnieper had guys gaming the downdraft to gain a speed boost.

[Guppy35]

Brooke, do you think an updraft would be more effective in limiting action to historical alts. Dnieper had guys gaming the downdraft to gain a speed boost.

Seriously?  LOL that's just sad😀

[Devil 505]

Pretty sure it was just in the practice frame, but yes there were some pilots doing that.

[LCADolby]

Seriously?  LOL that's just sad😀

Those Dirty Russians

[USCH]

Well if we are trying to be historically accurate. Let the Allies win and don't let the Germans fly.
Having an alt cap doesn't represent what is possible for both sides. Forcing people to fly low because of the conditions that were in place at the that moment is silly.

We don't have concentrations of troops or tanks. But if we did the alt would fall naturally. Taking an aircraft's performance advantage away for what you deem to be a better for `` realistic `` dogfighting is a weak position to have.

I was under the impression that we would try to recreate a battle but with our own battle plan.
If we are recreating a historical event then we should look at flight logs and die like we are recreating the battle if Gettysburg. You die, Jim dies and then I die on take off.... Sounds great, I'll dress up and we can have people watch from god mode.

We can dance in a well choreographed play. Sounds great!

[Brooke]

The way I do it now is, I believe, ideal.

You can't fly for a prolonged period above the alt cap, but you won't otherwise greatly notice it with regard to brief vertical maneuvers, and it doesn't give any benefit.

I invite anyone who wants to experiment to set a downwind at 22k at -45 mph offline and then try it out.

[Brooke]

Well if we are trying

Here's what I'm trying:

What I try to accomplish in a Scenario design is that a person who flies in it would, if he read a book on first-hand accounts of flying in the actual battle, feel that his flying experience in the Scenario is very similar to the type of action he read about.

For most battles, I read books of 1st-hand accounts of the action to get an idea of what things are like, then I work on a design where I'm trying to make the action be like that.

What I also do is balance it so that, given equal talent on each side, it would be near a draw.

So, nothing is choreographed.

[Brooke]

Would you be interested in shooting me the spreadsheet

I have put my formulas (assuming I didn't botch getting them in there) into the spreadsheet here called "ahStuffCalculator".  It is a LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet.  LibreOffice is free to get.

http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/201610Tunisia/

Also, anyone else who wants to play around with things in the spreadsheet to see what various numbers look like, please feel free.

[USCH]

So, nothing is choreographed.

Might as well be.

[Brooke]

Might as well be.

Not at all.

In both the real battle and this Scenario, there were constraints.  Within those constraints, there is freedom to operate for both sides, and the goal is for each side to have an equal chance at victory, with victory depending on which side has better plans and/or executes better.

This is analogous to how we limit B-17's over Germany to realistic alts (such as 24k) instead of letting them go up to 35k.  Can B-17's in AH fly at 35k?  Sure, but they didn't fly up there in real life for real-life constraints that aren't part of AH.  So -- we put in an alt cap for bombers so that pilots are flying in an event that is like the historical action and not unrealistically silly.

No one complains about that.

In the real Tunisia, there were constraints that aren't present in AH.  It is less realistic to completely ignore those constraints than it is to put in a different constraint that gives a similar effect.

[USCH]

you let me know how that works out for you..

[Brooke]

USCH, I hope that you will still fly in it -- at least to try it out and see if you do or don't like it.

you let me know how that works out for you..

I can already let you know how it worked, as we did it in the previous Scenario.  It worked fine.

There have been fighter alt caps in the following:

Dnieper (downwind)
Med. Maelstrom (rules alt cap)
DGS II (rules alt cap)
Winter Sky (rules alt cap)
Enemy Coast (downwind)
BOG (rules alt cap)
Rangoon 2008 (rules alt cap)
DGS (rules alt cap)
Downfall (downwind)
Rangoon '42 (rules alt cap)

Some alt-capped scenarios are rated highly and some non-alt-capped scenarios are rated highly.  As far as complaints go, the most complaints I remember were in scenarios with no alt cap, and people complaining about too much alt warrioring (although there weren't huge complaints there).

[ROC]

If you look at each phase as a frame, identify and count each object, add the number of bombers you want to reach the target, you can then figure out how many escort and attack planes you want.  There is a great deal riding on a long event, it is worth taking the time to count everything and be sure.  I am not saying this way is "the" way, but it's not a bad way.  There is no downside at all knowing the absolute facts about the objectives and ordinance you expect to have in the air.

https://southernconquest.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/copy-of-target-for-today-object-list-v6.xlsx

This spreadsheet counts every object on a field, then shows how many bombers are expected.  In this version, we set it up so that 8 or 9 formations an hour getting to target could get the objects down.  This was a one sided bombing mission, not a two sided one.  Your 4k hardness is higher, we used 3.5, but that is the number we came up with after excruciating detail and testing, we didn't just end up there.
I strongly believe you need to come at this from a factual count of the objects first, then make your adjustments from there.  I don't see this in your spreadsheet.  Then again, this isn't my event, it's yours, and you do it how you want.  I'm sure it will be fine.  There is a lot that can go wrong if you don't look at this completely different than a regular event though.  Nef could very well tell you, where we ended up in the setup was quite a bit different than what it was originally envisioned as, which started out as much the same approach you are doing here.  Trust me Brooke, you need to count these objects and design out from there.  I know it's hard work, I did it.  You need to do it.