Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)

[Hajo]

Balance.  Can we discuss this?  If we are manufacturing "balance" we are fudging with History.  If there was a historical imbalance why are we trying to fix it?

Aren't these supposed to be historic reenactments of what really occurred?  I know I know to make it fun!  Many of us can have fun fighting on the supposed under dogs' side.

For instance.  In game during scenarios such as 8th air Corps missions to Europe even though the Allies eventually won, the Allied fighters and Bombers had a big disability.

Consider allied escorts.  If they went down, or bailed and were captured they were out.  Even with two lives it is hit and miss you could re up and be of service to the bombers.

However with two lives, or landing the LW had a distinct advantage being able to up, over their territory and engage what was left of the allied bomber streams with fewer escorts.

Playing DGS taught the allied pilots this very important fact.  That is what I appreciate most.  I learned what it was like to be an escort.  Losing a plane made me useless

as an escort to the Bombers and escorts that were left.  Maybe there was a chance to get up and rendezvous with what was left on their way home.  One chance in 10 maybe.

From a historical point of view at least for a few of us leave it real.  Numbers, types of aircrafts, targets etc.  Screw the numbers, forget the balance in aircraft and targets.  Use what was really there.

Probably said to much.  My last word on the matter.

[LCADolby]

Balance.  Can we discuss this?  If we are manufacturing "balance" we are fudging with History.  If there was a historical imbalance why are we trying to fix it?

Aren't these supposed to be historic reenactments of what really occurred?  I know I know to make it fun!  Many of us can have fun fighting on the supposed under dogs' side.

No, these are not reenactments. If they were, there would be no alteration from that of the outcome history gave us. These are supposed to be balanced fights centred around a great battle from history, in which either side has the equal opportunity of victory.
If you think about it carefully, you may realise that reenacting history in the absolute would in turn cause a forgone conclusion situation in which it would be very difficult to put pilots in the "underdog" side. Luftwaffe had a very difficult time at the Dneiper. It was only pure passion that kept pilots in it with many many slots filled up by walk ons.

[ROC]

Hajo, every event I've ever designed or oversaw since the mid 90s has been given a major amount of time to insure balance.  It isn't about recreating a battle, it's always been about giving each side a chance to win with as close to historical terrain and aircraft as possible. 
My focus on balance this time is seen simply because I'm not behind the CM door having this exact same discussion with the CM team when designs are proposed, each time one is proposed.  These conversations occur, it's just that most of you have never seen them.

[swareiam]

Brooke,

Version 10 of the write up encourages the high altitude fights that we were seeking to avoid. Launching fighters first with more time to climb to the more advantageous altitude for attacking other fighters. 

In addition the Luftwaffe has much less time to recover in defense of it targets than the Allies do. That is not closer to balance that is farther away.

This is easily seen as US bases are spread between two sections of latitude lines where the Axis bases are set between one set of latitude lines. There should be some kind of adjustment for the base spread. I understand that you have activated some fighters and V47, but that doesn't get it. There is no rearm pad there.

[Devil 505]

Brooke,

Version 10 of the write up encourages the high altitude fights that we were seeking to avoid. Launching fighters first with more time to climb to the more advantageous altitude for attacking other fighters. 

In addition the Luftwaffe has much less time to recover in defense of it targets than the Allies do. That is not closer to balance that is farther away.

This is easily seen as US bases are spread between two sections of latitude lines where the Axis bases are set between one set of latitude lines. There should be some kind of adjustment for the base spread. I understand that you have activated some fighters and V47, but that doesn't get it. There is no rearm pad there.

I'm not sure about your first point, he have a 22K downdraft and a bomber cap of 15K (although wasn't the downdraft set for 20K in earlier drafts? If so, I recommend changing it back)

I see what you mean about V47 being isolated, but the Allies have A6 to rearm at from their offensive ops, which gives them a huge advantage in a quick turn-around with attackers. Axis attackers have to go all the way back to their starting areas to rearm. Maybe outlawing rearms from A-6 and A-12 can bring a better balance?

Also, the distances in the southern V-base targets in Phase 3 is problematic for the Allies. V105 is much closer to A8 for the Axis to defend and V104 is also much closer to A8 for the Axis target than the V104 defense and V105 attack is to A65 for the Allies.

Here's a map with colored rings scales with a A65 center and distances out to V45 (blue), V104 (yellow), and V105 (red). These same distances are also shown with a center point of A8 to illustrate the disparity.



I propose changing V104 to an Axis held base and make it the attack target target for the Allies and change the Axis target to V45. The distances involved would be much more balanced here.

[Brooke]

Guys, you have points, but because of a larger issue that requires changes, the things you mention will be different as well.

I have the AH3 version of Tunisia, and while it is nearly the same as the AH2 version (although even more beautiful!  Woohoooo!  ), a6 is too close to the axis positions to use the way it was planned before.  It is closer to axis launch positions than allied launch positions.  If I kept it the way it was, it would be impossible to defend; and I can't make it a launch base for the allies or the whole fight would become a battle in a teacup, which is totally ahistorical for North Africa.

So, I am altering things and will post a new version soon.

[ROC]

Swareiam, Devil505, it's good to see others looking at the balance concerns on more than simply the plane match up.  12 hours is a long time, 5 to 10 minutes farther away from targets, over the course of hours, can mean the difference between an additional sortie occurring for one side.  This is the balance I've been asking to be looked at, these things matter, greatly.  Swareiam, these are the things I was trying to point you to when I was being so hard on you about your designs, I am so glad you noticed the distances as a factor. 
Not for nothing, Nef did measure, with incredible detail, field locations, and factored speed of the planes into the balance of the distance to targets.  Brooke, it's a great deal of work, trust me, I know, and I think you are starting to see the implications of choices.  Keep it up, you got this.  Make sure the same amount of sorties can be achieved by both sides in the same time frame.  If one side has faster planes, the targets are farther.  You're on the right course in my opinion, but that's simply my opinion of course.

[Brooke]

Version 11 is now up.  Please make sure to hit refresh in your browser to see it:

http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html

This is an important change.  It is now (in rough terms) three clusters of target locations on each side.  All of this stems from a seemingly small change that set off a chain of needed modifications.  (See below if you are interested in what that was.)

Anyway, after a lot of looking at different arrangements, thinking about the balance of it, and calculation of different choices, I picked what is in v11.

Please take a look, folks. 

---- for those interested in what the chain of events was ----

In the AH3 terrain, airfield (a6) became closer to axis launch points than to allied launch points, and there was no way for me to give allies a closer launch point without putting it right on top of the axis positions (which is not how North Africa generally was).  That meant removing a6 as a target.  But a6 was only one of 3 town locations for the allies, leaving 2.  Only 2 land targets for level bombers for 12 hours would be boring, so I had to add non-town targets for level bombers (hangars and bunkers).  That then required a new balancing of target numbers and availability side to side, which entailed some target location changes.  This is all complicated by the fact that the terrain does not provide the same numbers and distribution of bases on each side.  For example, the allied side has only two airfields (large and med) and lots of vbases.  The axis side has no large or med airfields, lots of small airfields, one port, and many fewer vbases.  All of these have different numbers of hangars and bunkers.  And they aren't arranged symmetrically one side to the other either, as this is a real-world map, not a made-up arena.  You have to then pick what you think is the most-balance mix from what's available.

[swareiam]

Version 11 is now up.  Please make sure to hit refresh in your browser to see it:

http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html

This is an important change.  It is now (in rough terms) three clusters of target locations on each side.  All of this stems from a seemingly small change that set off a chain of needed modifications.  (See below if you are interested in what that was.)

Anyway, after a lot of looking at different arrangements, thinking about the balance of it, and calculation of different choices, I picked what is in v11.

Please take a look, folks. 

---- for those interested in what the chain of events was ----

In the AH3 terrain, airfield (a6) became closer to axis launch points than to allied launch points, and there was no way for me to give allies a closer launch point without putting it right on top of the axis positions (which is not how North Africa generally was).  That meant removing a6 as a target.  But a6 was only one of 3 town locations for the allies, leaving 2.  Only 2 land targets for level bombers for 12 hours would be boring, so I had to add non-town targets for level bombers (hangars and bunkers).  That then required a new balancing of target numbers and availability side to side, which entailed some target location changes.  This is all complicated by the fact that the terrain does not provide the same numbers and distribution of bases on each side.  For example, the allied side has only two airfields (large and med) and lots of vbases.  The axis side has no large or med airfields, lots of small airfields, one port, and many fewer vbases.  All of these have different numbers of hangars and bunkers.  And they aren't arranged symmetrically one side to the other either, as this is a real-world map, not a made-up arena.  You have to then pick what you think is the most-balance mix from what's available.

Brooke,

Why V47 and not V95? The Allies can up from V47 but then must leave the airspace to rearm. Can we do V95 which aligns with the latitude of the other bases and is adjacent to quicker rearm potential?

[Brooke]

Having v95 instead of v47 would be a significant disadvantage to the allies.  You would lose a useful forward launch position (especially with regard to Kasserine) to gain a rear position that is not the closest field to anything.  I think that v95 would be used only if a5 were capped, and in that event, v95 is a little close to the cap for comfort -- I would think v47 or a13 would be a better choice to launch from if a5 were capped.

Rearm potential only matters relative to where you are fighting, not your launch position.  If you were fighting over a12, say, then it only matters where the closest open rearm pad is, not whether you launched from v47 or v95.

[Brooke]

By the way, folks, rearm distribution is significantly different side to side.

Unfortunately, I can't disable rearm as a way to make it more equal.

I could put in rules allowing rearm at only certain locations.  I've been tempted to do that.  My hesitancy is that player-enforced rules like this one have significant risk of generating a lot of acrimony.

Still, I'm considering it.

[swareiam]

All true, but V47 is target in three phases without the Allies having close rearm capability. To continuously defend it, you would need to die and relaunch from V47 after it is already being attacked.

If a pilot is putting up a good kill streak but also wants to keep the defense up at the Vbase, he needs to fly 15-20 miles NW or SW to rearm and of course the trip back to V47. A clear disadvantage for the Allies.

[Devil 505]

By the way, folks, rearm distribution is significantly different side to side.

Unfortunately, I can't disable rearm as a way to make it more equal.

I could put in rules allowing rearm at only certain locations.  I've been tempted to do that.  My hesitancy is that player-enforced rules like this one have significant risk of generating a lot of acrimony.

Still, I'm considering it.

Brooke, the biggest problem with unrestricted rearms is the proximity of A6 to the Axis fields - it's way too close. It frees up Allied assets to cap Axis fields for a longer duration when the Axis has no potential of matching this ability. All take-offs and rearms must take place in the rear areas for overall balance.

All true, but V47 is target in three phases without the Allies having close rearm capability. To continuously defend it, you would need to die and relaunch from V47 after it is already being attacked.

If a pilot is putting up a good kill streak but also wants to keep the defense up at the Vbase, he needs to fly 15-20 miles NW or SW to rearm and of course the trip back to V47. A clear disadvantage for the Allies.

I agree. V47 is utilized too often as an Axis target. Maintaining an adequate defense of a forward base so often is unreasonable to ask from the Allies considering the general proximity of the Axis fields to their defensive objectives.

[Brooke]

All true, but V47 is target in three phases without the Allies having close rearm capability. To continuously defend it, you would need to die and relaunch from V47 after it is already being attacked.

If a pilot is putting up a good kill streak but also wants to keep the defense up at the Vbase, he needs to fly 15-20 miles NW or SW to rearm and of course the trip back to V47. A clear disadvantage for the Allies.

If v47 is under attack, you don't want to be launching from it while it is under attack.  v47 is closer to allied launch points and allied rearm points than it is from axis launch points and axis rearm points.  So, that is OK -- but . . .

I do think it will be best to specify rearm points to even this up.

Details coming soon.

[Brooke]

Brooke, the biggest problem with unrestricted rearms is the proximity of A6 to the Axis fields

That's one of them, too.

I am going to specify rearm fields to make it more alike side to side.

Details coming soon.