I love philosophical discussions. I am currently reading Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism, which may not qualify as philosophy in many circles, but it should for this crowd. I have found in the past this is not the optimal forum for such discussions. However, because of the subject matter in this particular case, it fits.
Designing an event is not an easy task. I have had opinions of designs since my first involvement in Special Events (Operation Downfall). I now wear the designer cap and there is a very specific recipe for designing a perfect event which has never been done. I have found certain ingredients which must be included in said recipe, but maybe not the perfect amount. My first FSO design as lead designer was met with criticism before Frame 1 from Dantoo. It was a nice christening and I respect Dantoo's opinions on designs more than anyone else's in the game. Dantoo plays the game a specific way and his perception is different from mine, Brooke's, Spikes's, Nef's, and anyone else's. I weigh equally his compliments and his complaints.
I have been the obnoxious, whiny participant and I have been the designer. I have occupied the terrain in between as well. What I can tell you is that every designer makes mistakes and guesses incorrectly. What I believe to be my best design to this point, some hated. Others agreed that it was the best design of my portfolio. Point being, there will always be aspects that players did not like. As a CM, I am privileged to get sneak peaks at future events and influence them before they are published. When this was not the case, I often wondered how the design got past the entire CM Team without someone advising against certain aspects. I am not sure of how it was done before me, but it seems that most events are either designed by committee or are placed in front of a review board prior to publishing, as they should. So, I can tell you that most event designs you see for the first time have been scrutinized by a team of knowledgeable and capable people. The result is the amalgamation of critics plus the lead designer's thoughts.
On perdweeb's design philosophy:
A Scenario, FSO, and Fortress Europe (to a point) event is designed as a trihorn scale of balance, accuracy, and fun. The goal of every designer is to find the perfect middle road between these three. It is nigh impossible to find said middle road, but we continue striving toward it. An event needs to be close to history, but balanced and fun at the same time. You are asking the question, "Why must it be fair?" The answer is, because fair usually equates to fun, which is why we all play the game in the first place. If something is unfair (like that Van Zant fight last night), it is not fun for most. There are those who enjoy walloping Bf 109E's with Spit V's or maybe flying nothing but Yak-3's in the MA and believing they are living gods. What they may not realize is that they are having fun at the expense of other people not having fun because of a lack of fairness. Thus, it is imperative that every design is balanced, so that we may achieve fairness thus making the event fun.
That is easy to do, if you do not take accuracy into account. Once accuracy is thrown into this mix, it gets spicy. Take Dieppe for example, 48 squadrons of Spitfires versus a whopping 2 Jagdgeschwaders of FW 190A's (A-1,A-2, and A-3 to be specific). That is Spitfires only, that is not including the Typhoons, bombers, Hurricanes, Mustang I (recon), etc. Roughly, we are talking about 5:1 odds in favor of the RAF. Of those 48 Spitfire squadrons, a grand total of 4 were equipped with Spitfire Mk. IX's, according to my research (64, 611, 401, and 402). That means that a mere 1 of 12 Spitfires over Dieppe on the day were Mark IX's. Yet, here we have 4 of 5 Spitfires being Mark IX's. That is not accurate. Likewise, Spits should outnumber the Luftwaffe by about 5:1, that also is not the case here. Here is why:
5:1 in Aces High is not fun or fair. Having a vastly inferior aircraft than most of your opponents is also not fun or fair. Maybe there are a few guys willing to take on the challenge, but not the majority. Imagine if the Dieppe TFT was reversed and the Spit 9's only numbered 6 and the Spit 5's numbered 24, it would be accurate for two reasons: the Spits are split accurately and the Allies will get massacred accurately. We can't have that. We also can't stray too far from history, meaning we can't limit the FW 190's else it is no longer Dieppe. Not being Dieppe is fine. I think Nuisance Raids is a good planeset for 100 people, but not for 50. Dieppe, to me, is 190's versus loads of Spitfire's. That is what we have here. But, because it is AH, we must make this playable, therefore we cannot have Spit 5's against 190A-5's. Just like we cannot have F4U-1A versus Ki-43 or A6M3.
Keeping things accurate, playable, fair, and fun is a very difficult task. I am an Early War fanatic. I love out of the box designs with weird matchups. My design folder is filled with crazy plane sets that I think would be fun to see. The problem is, no one wants to fly P-40's, I-16's, Ki-43's, and Hurricane Mk. I's. I understand why, I really do, but it saddens me. I loathe flying at 25K and higher, especially when I am tasked with killing things with rear guns. I want to be in the soup on the deck flirting with stall speed at all times.
I'll now apply your thoughts on fair and fun with Dieppe TFT, because it is a good example:
5:1 is accurate, but let's take that down to 3:1. Now, 8% Spit 9, the rest Spit 5. Finally, a few Typhoons, Hurris, and Bostons for accuracy's sake. For the Luftwaffe, FW 190A-5, a handful of Bf 109G-2 (12 total out of roughly 100), and some bombers. That plane set would look like this (for 60 people):
Allies (45):
3 Typhoon
3 Hurricane II
3 Spit 9
36 Spit 5
Axis (15)
2 Bf 109G-2
13 FW 190A-5
This is not quite accurate, but it is very close at 3:1. This is not fun for anyone, nor is it playable. But it is more accurate than what we have put forth. Even if we made it 40v20 it would not be fun for anyone. At 35v25, it gets much better. At that point, we can add more Spit 5's (thus saving some accuracy) and throw in Hurricanes if we wished (I find them unnecessary).
Allies (35)
4 Typhoon
21 Spit 5
10 Spit 9
Axis (25)
22 FW 190A-5
3 Bf 109G-2
This is better, but I still argue that the numbers are bad. Sure, it is more accurate, but people fly pixel planes differently than real planes. A disadvantage is more pronounced in a video game than it is real life. Although the 190 is the best airplane, I think even 22 would struggle against 31. But, the fact that it is Spit 5 helps. Maybe this would fly with the community. As a Luftwaffe guy, I would be willing to try it in a 190. But, I am guessing many would find too many things wrong with it on paper. The disadvantages are offset by other disadvantages, so maybe it would work. But, the event has to be screened by the other members of the design team which find fault in a design such as this (for reasons aforementioned). We do not know if it will be 35v25 as many may not show up. Or, the walk ons may go to the Spitfires instead of the Axis making it 40v20 and therefore quite unbalanced. So it is difficult with so few players to take such high stakes risks with balance issues. It is best to throw out some accuracy, no matter how badly it hurts, to acquire balance.
