Hell Over the Hinterland design (Feb/March 2017 scenario)

[Brooke]

If we go on previous two 4-frame scenarios, we get about 40 per side.

If you have 40 per side, you can't have 8 different types of aircraft because then the relative proportion of aircraft is completely wrong, or you have 2 guys per group in some aircraft types.

So, you have to go for the most-representative aircraft.

[Phast12]

I don't agree with your issue of having only a couple planes of each type and your predetermined restrictions on numbers. I would let recruiting take a shot first with the original plane set then go from there.   

You are also reducing the fighters but keeping the JABO's as two sets? Do we as a community have that many people that want to fly JABO compared to fighter role? I haven't seen that in the couple i have been part of. I would recommend requiring each fighter type that is capable to be required to do 1 run of JABO per frame. I think you will get better seat numbers going that route, instead of setting one whole group to the task.


So your baking in the reduced numbers from the last scenarios now after you already knew these numbers, why even bother putting them up.   

[Kanth]

the relative proportion of aircraft is completely wrong, or you have 2 guys per group in some aircraft types.

But at least it was interesting. 

Now, we've taken the time to vote on a nice deeply varied late war plane set and you've single handedly taken that away because you think it's best.

I'd like to see more flexibility and more decisions going FROM YOU and to the side CO's. as far as plane set and roles of those planes.

I'm sincerely not interested in spits and P51d's versus 109's and FW's , with an emphasis on ground attack and possibly overly complicated scoring.

[Brooke]

Is there a reason

There are two main reasons.

One is that there were particular groups (9th AF P-47's, 2nd TAF Typhoons, various 190 groups) dedicated to attack and that specialized in it.  So we do that here.

The other is a design aspect.  If you leave things unspecified, players don't have the opportunity to sign up for the type of aircraft and action that they prefer.  They can sign up hoping for one thing and then find themselves flying mission types that aren't their preference.  It's best -- when you can, especially if it is actually more historical to do it that way -- to specialize the roles of different groups.

[BaldEagl]

If you have 40 per side, you can't have 8 different types of aircraft because then the relative proportion of aircraft is completely wrong, or you have 2 guys per group in some aircraft types.

No disrespect but it does feel like a bait and switch to get the vote to turn out a specific way.

I don't remember what scenario it was but there were only two of us flying Spit XVI's.  It didn't seem to hurt anything whatsoever.

[Brooke]

Hello, Kanth.  I'm sorry the design isn't what you would pick.  I hope that you still fly in it, but I understand if it isn't what you want and so you forgo it.

The main goal of scenarios is to have a battle where, when you play in it, the type of action you experience is similar to what you'd read about in the history of the battle, but with concessions made for balance and playability.

There are some things that don't further that goal in scenarios.  Groups with 1-2 people in them; setups where historically a particular plane type made up 1% or less of the planes present but in the scenario ends up being 10-50x as prevalent; non-historical missions -- all of those things work against the above goal.

Other events have different goals.  If the goal is maximum number of people playing, FSO's nail that.  If the goal is maximum flexibilty for a CO, "This Day in WWII" does that -- you can have one side all in Spit 14's if you want, any fighter pilot being able to bomb or not, etc.  If the goal were favorite planes and favorite style of action, a furball-island-type event with Tempests, F4U-4's, Yak-7's, etc. would be most popular.

This particular scenario is about the air battles in the Battle of the Bulge.  Ground attack was intrinsic to that.  Just like Coral Sea was all about sinking carriers, and so a Coral Sea scenario does emphasize sinking carriers, here ground attack is an important aspect.  With regard to scoring complexity, it is among the simplest scoring of all scenarios going back to 2004.

If the player base were what it was in 2009, then we'd have 100 players on a side, and we could go for a larger number of different aircraft.  But we have to design for the size we think we will get.

[Brooke]

I would let recruiting take a shot first with the original plane set then go from there.   

You can't open up registration with a 100-spot design and then cut things down when you find out that you get only 40 registering.  You can go the other way:  open it up with a design that is correct for 40 and expand it if you by some miracle find that it fills up in 1 week and has the legs to get to 100.  However, the odds of the latter is very low.

Do we as a community have that many people that want to fly JABO compared to fighter role? I haven't seen that in the couple i have been part of.

We did for Tunisia, Dnieper, Coral Sea, the Pacific War, and Red Storm.

So your baking in the reduced numbers from the last scenarios now after you already knew these numbers, why even bother putting them up.

I'm not sure what your question is.  The only thing that I needed to do in this design is not have 9 different plane types.  Then this design can handle 40-ish per side (what I think we'll get) or any number higher than that (in which case we will scale up).

[Vudu15]

Trying too hard to force the game into what they want instead of allowing some freedom of movement to allow for diversity.....

[Kanth]

Brooke, I mistakenly thought the planes listed to be voted on, that I was interested in would be used and would be used for combat.
I do feel like there has been a bait and switch.


 I'm just not interested in shooting at the ground.  I'll have to pass.

[Phast12]

Brooke, I mistakenly thought the planes listed to be voted on, that I was interested in would be used and would be used for combat.
I do feel like there has been a bait and switch.


 I'm just not interested in shooting at the ground.  I'll have to pass.

I agree, you already had all the info you used to reduce the plane set from before this started and chose to wait until after voting was complete. It was basically a waste of time.

[Brooke]

Brooke, I mistakenly thought the planes listed to be voted on, that I was interested in would be used and would be used for combat.
I do feel like there has been a bait and switch.


 I'm just not interested in shooting at the ground.  I'll have to pass.

I understand.

However, if you are in a P-51D, P-47D-25, Spit IX, Bf 109G-14, Bf 109K-4, FW 190A-8, or FW 190D-9, you won't be shooting at the ground.  You'll be shooting at enemy fighters, bombers, and jabos the whole time just like how it was for fighters in Tunisia, Dnieper, Coral Sea, Red Storm, the Pacific War, and every other scenario where the fighters' job is shooting down the enemy aircraft.

Even the jabo groups are undoubtedly destined to get into some air combat (as I did flying Il-2's in Dnieper and A-20's in Tunisia).

[Vudu15]

I would like to see a pair of Tempests and a pair of 152s added to the rosters to allow a good wingman pair to prowl which would be going on during these times anyhow. and I think that would more or less maintain your balance.

[Brooke]

I would like to see a pair of Tempests and a pair of 152s added to the rosters to allow a good wingman pair to prowl which would be going on during these times anyhow. and I think that would more or less maintain your balance.

That seems a decent suggestion.

I'm looking up info to put it into the writeup.

There you go, Kanth and Phast!

[Brooke]

OK, added two Tempests and two Ta 152's.  Ta 152's likely weren't in the battle, and there were only like 50 of them in all of WWII as far as I can tell.  Even at just a couple of aircraft, they are there in larger proportion than history, but it does I hope satisfy desires for a larger number of different aircraft.

[Brooke]

Writeup:  (Make sure to refresh browser after you click on it to make sure you have latest version.)

http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201702_HellOverHinterland/rules.html