March FSO - Green Hearts and Red Stars - Final Scores

[waystin2]

And Pigs...

[Devil 505]

Look I just want to put it up as food for thought for planners.  We want these things to be interesting and as historic as we can make them.  What we don't want is to be just "re-enactors" where it "happened this way in the war so it has to be done like this". 
Yeah it would help if HTC put some more Axis and Soviet types in the game, but til then we are stuck making subs like we had to do here.  Can we just consider that aircraft type matters more to the enjoyment and balance of the game and acknowledge that numbers and substitutes are a pita that although we have fall back to, just aren't what we'd like them to be?

You know Perd, Spikes, and myself well enough to know that we are not aiming to have re-enactments in our events. If each side does not have a reasonable chance to win, then the event is fundamentally broken.

You may think that this month's FSO was stacked too heavily against the Allies, but as Spikes pointed out, the difference in frames 1 and 2 comes down to planning, execution, and luck. Frame 3 is the outlier to me. I have no idea why there was such a disparity given the manpower advantage held by the Allies in that frame. I especially expected the Allies to score many more kills of Ju 88's since the both the P-40 and Yak7b have more potent gun packs then the 109's with single 20mm cannon. 

As for subs, do you really think that having an actual MiG-3 or LaGG-3 would have made a positive difference for the Allies? I do not. The LaGG would be worse than the Yak7 in every way and the MiG would perform very similar to the C.205, but would suffer in climb rate and acceleration.

In this setup the Yak-7 was not a sub for a LaGG  as there were 2 regiments with Yak7's and another 2 with Yak1's operating in the Leningrad area during the Sinyavino offensive. Had we decided to use the Yak as a sub, there would barely be room for any other fighters as there were 5 regiments of LaGGs in the same area at the time.

Furthermore, I made two other major considerations with this design to maintain balance at the expense of the "happened this way in the war so it has to be done like this" way of designing events.

First, the 20mm gondolas were disabled on the G-2's. Historically these were available from the moment the G-2's were delivered to units in August 1942.

Second, The Fw 190 made it's Eastern Front debut at this battle on September 10, when I/Jg 51 deployed to the base at Ljuban to counter the offensive. That's 3 full squadrons of 190's to compliment the 12 squadrons in 109G-2's and 3 with 109F's at this battle.

In a more traditionally designed FSO, the number spread may have looked like what we saw in Frame 3, but the Allies would have been fielding Il-2's and B-25's every frame and Axis would have 190's and gondie laden G-2's. Now that would have been insurmountable for the Allies.

[j500ss]

I will add much more to this in the coming days, but I would like to point out one thing. I do not want this to sound condescending or patronizing in any way, so please keep that in mind when you read what follows. Some, not all, of the reason for the lopsided kill numbers is not only because the 109G-2 is strong as is the 109F, but because of who were in them. This is not a pro-Axis dig, so please don't think of it like that. What I mean is, we have guys like KN, JG 11, JG 54, Anti-Horde, and LCA who generally fly Axis and fly a lot of 109's. Meanwhile, the Allied guys do not get a lot of stick time in Yak-7's and especially C.205's. I am not saying that the Axis pilots are better man for man, but the Axis pilots have more experience, in general, in their fighters than the Allies do. This is not necessarily the case in every setup, but in Eastern Front setups, it is. So we have two things working against us, the fighter matchup is in favor of the Axis most of the time and the pilots flying those rides have more experience in them than the Allies do in Soviet rides.

It is a difficult thing for designers and is something that cannot be balanced, but can be considered. The point is, the numbers are not all because of the fighter matchup from a machine standpoint, but also an experience one. The next Eastern Front setup is in June, so these types of conversations are great and will hopefully result in a better balanced setup in June.

I have to say I think you nailed it Perd.   Years ago when there were several hundred plus flying FSO it was not a big deal.   However now that we are down to the 150ish per frame flying, the Axis do have an advantage in every setup not involving Jap planes due to the " dedicated Axis only squads" , hence I fear that like it or not you must now take it into account for balancing purposes to some degree.

Squads that like to rotate, or even the " Allied only squads"  simply have way more air frames to adjust to on a monthly basis, quite a few probably never fly air frames in the MA that they have to in FSO.   Our squad is very partial to Hellcats, we have had what?  2 setups in the last 3 years with hellcats?   Some guys like Jugs, some Hogs, some 51's, and then there are the Spit guys.

I recall last year, maybe even 2 years ago where we had like 4 setups in a row with P-40's  .   Kinda sucked!   FSO seems stuck in 1942 and 1943.   Allied guys are trying I have no doubt, but like it or not.   It may be time to admit that the 109 and 190 fly guys do hold some advantage in FSO, problem is.....  I fear there is little that can be done to change it.  It's to the point for me where I REALLY wanted AXIS this last month, cause I HATE VVS planes, but I knew we had no chance of getting Axis, hence my frame plane selections last month. It's not hard to sit down, and work the numbers, look at the set up, and figure out if we can go with what we really want to do, or just take what I am pretty sure we are gonna get so as to not make it tough on the CM.

 

JDOG

G3-MF

[Vulcan]

I especially expected the Allies to score many more kills of Ju 88's since the both the P-40 and Yak7b have more potent gun packs then the 109's with single 20mm cannon. 

Ahhh how many cannons do you think a Yak 7b has? The 7b does not pack a punch.

Also the G2 has tremendous horsepower over the 7b, on the deck it's has a 1200fpm climb rate advantage. I fly the yaks a lot in the MA, and the 7b is not noted for acceleration or climb. I would say the C205, P40E, and 109F4 are all better than the 7b.

Maybe you are confusing the 9T with the 7b?

[Devil 505]

Ahhh how many cannons do you think a Yak 7b has? The 7b does not pack a punch.

Also the G2 has tremendous horsepower over the 7b, on the deck it's has a 1200fpm climb rate advantage. I fly the yaks a lot in the MA, and the 7b is not noted for acceleration or climb. I would say the C205, P40E, and 109F4 are all better than the 7b.

Maybe you are confusing the 9T with the 7b?

Maybe you missed the part of the post where I explained that the 109G-2 did not have gondolas. Therefore the 109's and Yak have the same number 20mm cannons - one. Now if you want to make the case for the 109's having more 20mm ammo, then you would be correct. The 109's having 200 rounds vs the 120 in the Yak. But let's look at the secondary machine guns, this is where that "punch" comes in. The 109 has two 7.9mm machine guns with 500 rounds each whereas the yak has two 12.7 Mg's with an unbalanced load of 140 and 250 rounds. Believe it or not, but the larger rounds of the Yak make a big difference in the total lethality of these planes. Also, in case you did not know, the 109F has the same gun pack as the G-2, so in this aspect they are the same.

These graphs are taken from Gonzo's old AH fighter comparison page. http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/ Since the page predated the Yak7, I used the Yak9U as the guns are the same (1 ShVAK 20mm and 2 UBS 12.7mm, although the 12.7 rounds are balanced in the 9U at 170 per gun). So the firing time numbers for the Yak are off for the secondary weapons.



Since the fine print is difficult to read, I'll summerize: the Hammer RtKH graph is based on total rounds needed to kill a hangar with a baseline of one M2 .50 cal = a value of 10, therefore the P-40E = 60. The Hammer Calc graph is the total damage inflicted in one second. Again the baseline is one M2 .50 cal = a value of 10. As you can see, the Yak has a much more potent gun package than the 109, at the cost of duration of fire. The P-40E has the most potent package of all fighters in this setup.

Obviously the G-2 is superior to all the allied planes in speed and climb, even the F-4 is slightly better than the Yak in these regards, but the price paid for these advantages is firepower only greater than the C.205.

Another way of looking at it from the perspective of a Yak7: You are trading speed and climb against the 109's for better handling, turning, and firepower advantages over the 109's.


I hope you can now see that the fighters are more balanced than you thought.

[Vulcan]

Yeah nah, firepower alone does not make the plane better. The 109G2 clearly has the ability to control the fight, as does the F4. Even then you can easily balance your firewpower with firing time. I fly all the yaks (except the -3) in the MA. I'd argue against the better turning and handling you claim in the 7b as well.

I'd also note the secondary guns are harder to use, the ballistics on the 20mm are so bad it means if you want to use the Yak gun package properly you need to learn to shoot them independently, most players don't know how to do this.

[Devil 505]

I never claimed the Yak7 is better, but I do maintain that it is competitive against 109's.

Look at it like a matchup of Spit9's against 190A-5's. The Spit is easily the better fighter as far as speed, climb, and handling goes. The 190 has two advantages, roll rate and (most importantly) firepower. In a many vs. many environment the 190 is a match for the Spits given that they are better able so score knock-out blows against the spits without having to engage in 1v1's - which is where the spits would dominate.

The same reasoning applies to the Yak7's. It will struggle in a 1v1, but can win a many vs. many engagement.

Also, your point about cannon ballistics is true, but also applies to the 109's. The 7.9mm mg's shoot much straighter than the 20mm's. It is very easy to hit with only the 7.9's and inflict little to no damage on an opponent. At least the 12.7's in the Yak have a reasonable level of lethality by themselves.

[FBDragon]

Yeah nah, firepower alone does not make the plane better. The 109G2 clearly has the ability to control the fight, as does the F4. Even then you can easily balance your firewpower with firing time. I fly all the yaks (except the -3) in the MA. I'd argue against the better turning and handling you claim in the 7b as well.

I'd also note the secondary guns are harder to use, the ballistics on the 20mm are so bad it means if you want to use the Yak gun package properly you need to learn to shoot them independently, most players don't know how to do this.

  sir but I have to chime in on this one. From the deck to around 10k the yak's and the la's do out turn the G2 and F4. From around 10k to 15k it fairly even. Above 15k the G2 and F4 have the advantage. That being said it really depends on the pilot and his skills on who wins cause while either plane my have a advantage at it's respective altitudes it's not such an advantage that would cause it to be a mute point for the pilot!!!! I hope this helps some.

[captain1ma]

I will add much more to this in the coming days, but I would like to point out one thing. I do not want this to sound condescending or patronizing in any way, so please keep that in mind when you read what follows. Some, not all, of the reason for the lopsided kill numbers is not only because the 109G-2 is strong as is the 109F, but because of who were in them. This is not a pro-Axis dig, so please don't think of it like that. What I mean is, we have guys like KN, JG 11, JG 54, Anti-Horde, and LCA who generally fly Axis and fly a lot of 109's. Meanwhile, the Allied guys do not get a lot of stick time in Yak-7's and especially C.205's. I am not saying that the Axis pilots are better man for man, but the Axis pilots have more experience, in general, in their fighters than the Allies do. This is not necessarily the case in every setup, but in Eastern Front setups, it is. So we have two things working against us, the fighter matchup is in favor of the Axis most of the time and the pilots flying those rides have more experience in them than the Allies do in Soviet rides.

I'm officially Triggered!!!

I have to tend to agree with perd, while the allies are a really nice bunch of guys, their lack of "experience" in those types of planes shows. I personally think they had the advantage cause I suck in EVERYTHING I fly, but that's another story.
many of us have our strengths and weaknesses. sometimes its just not your day.

the CM team does a great job trying to keep the playing field level. they cannot count on numbers and experience, and that's just the way it goes. the numbers is our job, not theirs. if you cant get guys to fly because they don't like a particular plane or a particular setup, that doesn't help the frame outcome.

being consistent is the name of the game. my squad has this problem too sometimes, but for all of us life happens. we just do the best we can.

I <S> all who play, all who work hard making it fun and all who not only build and design the setups, but put up with the flack(AAA) when things don't go the way some people like it to go.

Do the best you can with what you have, and no one can ask anymore then that!

My 2 cents.

<S> Jaeger1
CO JG54
AVA Staff Teamlead

[FBDragon]

I'm officially Triggered!!!

I have to tend to agree with perd, while the allies are a really nice bunch of guys, their lack of "experience" in those types of planes shows. I personally think they had the advantage cause I suck in EVERYTHING I fly, but that's another story.
many of us have our strengths and weaknesses. sometimes its just not your day.

the CM team does a great job trying to keep the playing field level. they cannot count on numbers and experience, and that's just the way it goes. the numbers is our job, not theirs. if you cant get guys to fly because they don't like a particular plane or a particular setup, that doesn't help the frame outcome.

being consistent is the name of the game. my squad has this problem too sometimes, but for all of us life happens. we just do the best we can.

I <S> all who play, all who work hard making it fun and all who not only build and design the setups, but put up with the flack(AAA) when things don't go the way some people like it to go.

Do the best you can with what you have, and no one can ask anymore then that!

My 2 cents.

<S> Jaeger1
CO JG54
AVA Staff Teamlead

So so true, people complain no matter what, that's just human nature in this day and age sadly. Now if things would have gone the allies way we would have had hardly any complaints. Again, sd but true.

[Vulcan]

So so true, people complain no matter what, that's just human nature in this day and age sadly. Now if things would have gone the allies way we would have had hardly any complaints. Again, sd but true.

tbh it's more you lot complaining about a perceived complaint. Re-read my original post and stop being so precious and defensive

[Devil 505]

tbh it's more you lot complaining about a perceived complaint. Re-read my original post and stop being so precious and defensive

Your first post was fine. It was the second which came off as an nonconstructive complaint given how you opened and closed that post.

That said, I do value the raising of perceived issues with the design. I also feel that they deserved in-depth feedback. All too often, things get brushed aside, outright ignored, or given a false justification by selective screenshots of a chance happenstance while claiming that the result was to be expected.

Criticism, debate, and transparency are good.

[Dantoo]

I wasn't trying to start a war here!  I was asking for the planners to review this one, learn something, and apply that lesson going forward.  Clearly I have failed.  So be it.

Last comments from me:

Comparing the Yak7 to the 109 is interesting but fundamentally pointless in this setup.  This FSO cannot be written off as "Allies don't fly Russian planes" because a large portion of the Allies were forced to fly planes that weren't Russian.  There were minimums on P40s, C205s and actually for each and every plane type for the Allies in every single frame.  Not so for Axis.

If those minimums had not been in place then you could argue the merits of 109 vs yak.  There might have been reason to.

The comment that has appeared yet again that the success of Axis was down to planning and execution (and the implications of that statement) is ignorant, insulting and inaccurate.  There were squads and individuals (as always) that performed well on both sides. Both sides put in.  Possibly there were squads, also on both sides, that didn't read the orders until they showed up on the day (I hope not but I see evidence of such too often). 



The consistent difference in results each frame is plainly obvious and the worrying self congratulatory talk demeans all players, no matter which hat their name came out of in the last draw.

Out.