Evaluating the use of designs with 45/55 side splits

[Devil 505]

I mentioned this back in August.

I think event designers need to rethink the merits of side splits that aren't 50/50. With the low player base, is it really wise to give any side a 15-20 man advantage by design?

This past month the manpower advantage had by the allies was more than 25 pilots every frame, +34 in Frame 3!

The conventional wisdom has been that the attacking side in a single-side attack event needs the extra pilots in order to protect the bombers, but when the attacking side can match the defenders fighter for fighter, then the attackers merely steamroll the defenders.

In frame 3 of this month's FSO. The attacking side manpower advantage was 34 and the total number of bomber pilots was 20, meaning that when just factoring total fighters per side, the attackers had a sizable advantage.

This disparity has played out every single frame of the last three single-side attack FSO's - each one using the 45/55 side split. It has become clear to me that the 55/45 split only results in the defending side getting slaughtered. And here is some data to back it up.

Battle Of Britain - July 2016

Frame 1: Total Attackers=112; Bomber Pilots=43; Defenders=91; Actual split=55/45; Attack Kills=67; Objects Destroyed=184; Defend Kills=48; Attackers landed=72; Defenders landed=30

Frame 2: Total Attackers=102; Bomber Pilots=26; Defenders=86; Actual split=54/46; Attack Kills=71; Objects Destroyed=17; Defend Kills=46; Attackers landed=76; Defenders landed=20

Frame 3: Total Attackers=116; Bomber Pilots=35; Defenders=92; Actual split=56/44; Attack Kills=81; Objects Destroyed=324; Defend Kills=38; Attackers landed=106; Defenders landed=31


Rabaul '43 - August 2016

Frame 1: Total Attackers=136; Bomber Pilots(includes P-39 straffers)=47; Defenders=88; Actual split=61/39; Attack Kills=63; Objects Destroyed=85 ;Defend Kills=72; Attackers landed=61; Defenders landed=33

Frame 2: Total Attackers=118; Bomber Pilots (P-39's did not strafe)=27; Defenders=89;Actual split=57/43; Attack Kills=58; Objects Destroyed=115; Defend Kills=73; Attackers landed=54; Defenders landed=35

Frame 3: Total Attackers=120; Bomber Pilots(including P-39 straffers)=47; Defenders=88; Actual split=58/42; Attack Kills=62; Objects Destroyed=84; Defend Kills=72; Attackers landed=78; Defenders landed=33


Maximum Effort - Italy 1944 - November 2016

Frame 1: Total Attackers=121; Bomber Pilots=20; Defenders=92; Actual split=57/43; Attack Kills=55; Objects Destroyed=133;Defend Kills=89; Attackers landed=66; Defenders landed=32

Frame 2: Total Attackers=112; Bomber Pilots=19; Defenders=87; Actual split=56/44; Attack Kills=55; Objects Destroyed=111;Defend Kills=76; Attackers landed=71; Defenders landed=35

Frame 3: Total Attackers=122; Bomber Pilots=20; Defenders=88; Actual split=58/42; Attack Kills=68; Objects Destroyed=127;Defend Kills=55; Attackers landed=91; Defenders landed=25


Averages: Total Attackers=117.67; Bomber Pilots=31.55; Defenders=89.00; Actual split=57/43; Attack Kills=64.44; Objects Destroyed=114.33;Defend Kills=64.11; Attackers landed=75; Defenders landed=30.44; Average Attacker Landing Rate=64%; Average Defender Landing Rate=34%


I chose to measure kills and objects destroyed against pilots landed because I believe that it best shows an individual pilots ability to score a kill or drop bombs and ability to survive a mission. These are the ways that most players measure their individual experience in FSO.

Let's address the idea that an unbalanced side split somehow serves bomber success and survival. The numbers do not indicate that side split numbers had an effect on the success of the bombers or the ability for defenders to attack them at least once. Bomber success and survivability seem more a result of plane selections, strategy, and individual skill. The ability for defenders to kill seem to be directly a result of available firepower and the advantage in firepower vs. the attacker's firepower - Spit1's and Hurri1's struggle to kill while cannon armed defenders can score kills quickly with few passes before being overwhelmed by escorts. What also must be considered is the fact that many of these safe landings are being made by defenders in crippled aircraft - they were knocked out without being knocked down.

As it stands, in any single-side attack FSO with a 45/55 side split, an attack pilot is almost twice as likely to survive than a defending pilot - and the cause has nothing to do with planes, plans, skills, or luck. It is because the attackers can match the defense fighter for fighter in numbers.

[Nefarious]

Interesting stats and information,  good job on compiling that info.

I think we all know why the 45/55 or any other split not 50/50 would be implemented in assault style setups where one side attacks and the other defends. A 50/50 split in an assault style setup would mean the attackers would have less fighters escorting than the defenders would have defending their ground targets.

Of course,  as an objective, the bombers are very different than a ground target which should probably be factored into the solution. Is using a 50/50 split fairer than adjusting the side split to a tighter difference? Or perhaps something else needs adjusted like the requirements for the number of bombers?

Interesting discussion,  perhaps I could try to incorporate a solution into my next setup.

[waystin2]

Good information Devil.  I have a question: How much impact does individual squadrons turnout have on these numbers?  I ask because my own squad varies widely depending on time of month.  Take November turnout: Frame 1 we had 17 pilots, Frame 2 12 pilots, then Frame 3 we had 19 pilots (fed two extra Pigs to the Jolly Rogers-Thanks Branch!)  If those low points of several squadrons coincide on either Axis or Allied side and you have a big skew in fighting numbers then one side is gonna get thrashed.   I think the amount, proximity of targets to eachother and type of targets also affects these numbers.

[AKKuya]

One factor that is very relevant is the individual Frame squad roster for flight duty.

Each individual squad that has low numbers reflect real time sick call.
Each individual squad that has max pilots reflect excellent ground crew keeping all birds in squadron flight ready.
Each individual squad that has abundance of pilots to loan out to another unit reflects making new friends at the O'club.

As always, turnout makes the difference between victory or defeat. Not aircraft order of battle.

[JunkyII]

Good information Devil.  I have a question: How much impact does individual squadrons turnout have on these numbers?  I ask because my own squad varies widely depending on time of month.  Take November turnout: Frame 1 we had 17 pilots, Frame 2 12 pilots, then Frame 3 we had 19 pilots (fed two extra Pigs to the Jolly Rogers-Thanks Branch!)  If those low points of several squadrons coincide on either Axis or Allied side and you have a big skew in fighting numbers then one side is gonna get thrashed.   I think the amount, proximity of targets to eachother and type of targets also affects these numbers.

I would also argue that the randomness of where the top pilots fall in the game also has an effect but you can't account for that in the set up. Just look at the 12 hour scenario....Axis was stacked.

[Devil 505]

Waystin, what I see in the data is that fluctuations based on individual squad population has little effect on the end result. By looking at the numbers, the frames that had the closest side splits did not necessarily correlate with better defender success or survival.

What I hope be comes evident is the correlation of the numerical advantage inherent to the 55/45 split and the defenders suffering 66% losses.

I think we all know why the 45/55 or any other split not 50/50 would be implemented in assault style setups where one side attacks and the other defends. A 50/50 split in an assault style setup would mean the attackers would have less fighters escorting than the defenders would have defending their ground targets.

Matching fighter strength is precisely the problem, Nef. With even fighter strength, an escort is given the luxury of chasing any defender all the way to the deck without sacrificing the overall defense of the bombers. This is especially important when it comes to encountering scouts.

With the assault style event, bomber formations are larger and better able to defend themselves. It is too easy for the attackers to mass their forces and steamroll all the way to the target.

[Dawger]

I think the bigger issue is the requirement to defend 2 targets and the lack of radar.

Maximum Effort with only one, unpublished target and 100 mile radar range (tower only) would be an interesting event.

Let the Allies select the target from a list and give the Axis tower based radar so they can direct fighters against the bomber formation well out from the target as well as avoid sweeps.

Under those conditions the 55/45 split makes sense.

I think the Axis had it pretty easy in Maximum Effort since the targets were forced and constrained by time.

Every frame everyone knew action would start at T+50 and be confined to within 20 miles of the target. Allies had no need to have a heavy force with the bombers until they flashed the field.

[Nefarious]

I'd be willing to try a 50/50 split on an assault setup, perhaps in January...  We'll see.

[swareiam]

Something you forgot to add to your commentary regarding the side split.

Battle of Britain

Frame 1: ALLIED Tactical Victory
Frame 2: DRAW
Frame 3: AXIS Tactical Victory


Rabaul 1943

Frame 1: Axis Victory
Frame 2: Allied Victory
Frame 3: Axis Victory

Although the score is not posted, pretty much the same same in Maximum Effort.

What you are not stating is that these events are scoring rather even with a lean to the defenders. The players are having fun.

I am not seeing this seam rolling you are speaking of, the frames are looking primarily like their supposed to, vigorous attacks with stonewall defenses.

The appropriate strategies applied are resulting in the defenders victories or a draw in most cases.

That's all the fun you can expect.

[Devil 505]

Something you forgot to add to your commentary regarding the side split.

Battle of Britain

Frame 1: ALLIED Tactical Victory
Frame 2: DRAW
Frame 3: AXIS Tactical Victory


Rabaul 1943

Frame 1: Axis Victory
Frame 2: Allied Victory
Frame 3: Axis Victory

Although the score is not posted, pretty much the same same in Maximum Effort.

What you are not stating is that these events are scoring rather even with a lean to the defenders. The players are having fun.

I am not seeing this seam rolling you are speaking of, the frames are looking primarily like their supposed to, vigorous attacks with stonewall defenses.

The appropriate strategies applied are resulting in the defenders victories or a draw in most cases.

That's all the fun you can expect.

Sorry, but the points mean squat when one side is determined to be wiped out before the event begins.

[swareiam]

Sorry, but the points mean squat when one side is determined to be wiped out before the event begins.

Thought that's what you'd say. Points mean nothing.

Thanks...

[Devil 505]

Thought that's what you'd say. Points mean nothing.

Thanks...

Did you not look at the data? Nine consecutive frames where the defending side had 35 or fewer players land successfully. Who in their right mind would worry about the score when the game itself is rigged? You need to make the event balanced before you devise a scoring system for it.

[Squire]

I have seen 50-50 setups with attacker-defender fail as well. It's not a magic pill. It can be a tricky deal to get it all balanced sometimes...there are a lot of factors involved. I will say that 50-50 splits are probably the best default most times.

[swareiam]

Did you not look at the data? Nine consecutive frames where the defending side had 35 or fewer players land successfully. Who in their right mind would worry about the score when the game itself is rigged? You need to make the event balanced before you devise a scoring system for it.

Well I will say this about that. The low end of the assignment numbers for this past frame Allies 98 / Axis 77. That was a difference of 21+- pilots. This is spread out over two planned targets and is quite dependent on who shows up for the frame. Keeping in mind in this particular event the Axis only had two objectives and performed very well; destroying bombers and attempting to survive. I believe that is a fair enough challenge for defending.

Not even actual battle was fully balanced a lot of the time. But pilots and men did their duty and performed, even unto death.

The only requirement for design is fairness. If CICs are preparing their teams strategically and tactically they are winning the frames. That includes reaching out to squad GLs to ensure the largest number of players are showing up for Friday night.

I'll state that there is greater challenge in each 45/55 split that has been presented. I believe that from time to time some players like and receive the challenge as written into the event.

So for at least four events per year. I see these type of events being presented to stir the pot and give everyone something a little different.

I hope that you will find a way to enjoy these events and the comradery.