July 2021 FSO frame 1

[RufusLeaking]

<S> AKWarhwk on the design. 

Took me a while to figure out the rules. 

Turned out to be a closely run affair, with a lot of suspense.   

If the last of six hangars at the secondary target being gunned down by a fighter is not part of the "first pass" concept, then Axis won by a hangar. Very close.   

A nice change up in design.   

[Vulcan]

That was fun, and well scaled for the current numbers.

[Devil 505]

That was fun, and well scaled for the current numbers.

No it wasn't.

There are a lot of problems with this event, but the side balance is probably the most egregious.

Having the defending side down by 15 players by design is just stupid. They simply do not have the numbers to make an adequate dent into the bomber force when also having to deal with escort force that can match them plane for plane. I've explained this several times before, but most people just never seem to grasp the problem. The defending force needs a substantial surplus of fighters (about 50% of the total number of players in bombers) over the number of escorts in order to make the necessary number of bomber kills to win an objective.

The way last night played out, the frame was not decided by anything the Axis did do or could have done but simply on the bombers pilots not choking when bombing an essentially uncontested secondary objective.

That's not fun, fair, or interesting. It's stupid.

[SNO]

I think next Friday we fly the exact same setup only axis flies allied and the allied fly axis, and then see if it is still so much fun.

[swareiam]

Well... If bombers didn't take out those hangars, then the Axis did win the frame.

I haven't had an opportunity to query the logs yet.

[SIK1]

Personally I don't care for set-ups where one side defends and the other attacks. I do understand that with low numbers it may be more of the way things are going to have to be. That being said I had fun, but I don't worry about the fairness of the set-up. I fly the mission to the best of my abilities, and enjoy the company of the people I'm flying with. My experience with FSO has shown that if a set-up is really unbalanced the CM's will make an adjustment.

Now I'll laugh my butt off if the axis does end up winning the frame with all the pissing and moaning that has been taking place.

 
Sik

[Devil 505]

Now I'll laugh my butt off if the axis does end up winning the frame with all the pissing and moaning that has been taking place.

If the Axis somehow "wins" Frame one, that only proves my point that this rule set is bad. The Axis had no chance to win based on any aspect of their own performance.

That's an incredibly hollow victory if a side wins because their opponent misses an open-net goal.

[Bannor]

All that aside, at least the Unforgiven showed up! 

[RufusLeaking]

That's not fun, fair, or interesting. It's stupid.

I have to disagree.
 
Despite dying after one pass, I had fun.

On whether it was interesting, now that I understand the setup (I'm in the slow learning group,) I keep thinking of how to better coordinate the interceptors. Should there be two waves, one to scatter the escort and one to hit bombers a la the movie Red Tails? Or just a brute force dog pile? Or the Battle of Britain series of small attacks?

Should more than the minimum bomber numbers be used? Should there be multiple axes of attack at different altitudes? Should minimum ord be dropped on primary and go for 100% on secondary for the win?

It is thought provoking.

On fairness, when I figured out the rules, it became apparent that the bomber stream had to fly from primary to secondary. Perhaps a little predictable.

It is an unusual design. Maybe not every month, but it shakes up the routine.

I'll fly either side of this scenario. 

[Nefarious]

The defending force needs a substantial surplus of fighters (about 50% of the total number of players in bombers) over the number of escorts in order to make the necessary number of bomber kills to win an objective.

Unless I misunderstand you, Using this method the Axis were only 5.5 players short of this number in frame 1.

Breakdown of Frame 1 -

Allied Fighters = 50
Allied Bombers = 19 x 3 = 57
Axis Fighters = 54

If you're not including every bomber - (just the pilots) - then the proper breakdown according to your math should have been -

Allied Fighters = 50
Allied Bombers = 19 x 3 = 57
Axis Fighters = 59 or 60

Now if you're including every bomber ship the number was way off, but something tells me that isn't a desirable side split either...

Allied Fighters = 50
Allied Bombers = 57 (19 humans)
Axis Fighters = 82 or 83

Of course, This isn't really an accurate representation of the current FSO side split, because you can't add players to the Axis without taking players from the Allies.

Taking that into consideration the numbers would look something like this:

Allied Fighters = 40
Allied Bombers = 57 (19 pilots)
Axis Fighters = 60

In the end, that's basically a 50/50 split.

---

To me personally, in an assault style setup (where one side is attacking with bombers and the other is defending) the traditional objectives of Bases, Strats, and Ships become player controlled bombers. It seems to me, when players (bombers) become the objective of the opposing force, then the defenders/escort of the bombers needs to at least have equal numbers of the attackers because there is no other objective. Despite the differences between 57 heavy bombers and say a large airfield or Carrier Task Force, we wouldn't intentionally limit one side to have less defenders or attackers in the case of a meeting engagement style setup.

Personally - My biggest take-away or issue with this setup is the lag warping from 19 bomber formations packed together, Which I have offered a solution for several times over the past year or more.

[Devil 505]

Unless I misunderstand you, Using this method the Axis were only 5.5 players short of this number in frame 1...

Yes, but that number is what I consider the minimum threshold for what is needed. But the maximum threshold is not much higher. I was/am referring to the players in bombers, not the total bomber aircraft number.

Basically, my theory for side balance with these assault designs is avoiding these situations.

1. Attacking escorts equal or outnumber defending fighters. Simply put, if an escort pilot has the luxury to latch onto the first defending fighter it encounters, eventually all defenders will all be neutralized without the escorts actually needing to provide an effective escort plan. So rewarding the instinct to get the kill over protecting the bombers is a bad idea. Remember, an escort does not need to kill anything to be effective at his job, he just needs to push the defenders out of a position to attack the bombers. The idea with the defender surplus is to ensure that there will likely more defenders inbound to the bombers that needs countering and that chasing the first defender leaves the bombers open to an attack they can't defend themselves against. As it is currently, the defenders run out of fighters too quickly and the bombers attack unopposed.

2. Defending force equal or outnumber the attacking force (bomber pilots and escort pilots combined). Too great a defender surplus is also a problem. A fairly competent pilot can kill an entire set of bombers in 4-5 passes on average - provided there are no escorts and the bomber formation is fairly loose. The more bombers or escorts you have, the fewer chances a defender has to attack bombers before being neutralized and the inverse is also true. If the defenders can put up so many planes that they can match the attackers in equal numbers, this would leave too many defenders in surplus for the bombers to neutralize by themselves - since the escorts were all paired off with other defenders. They would not likely be able to achieve enough damage through bombing, if they bomb at all.

Mind you, the actual ideal surplus depends on the types of escorts, bombers, and bomber killer in a design. The more match-up favors the bomber killer, the more escorts are needed and vice versa. In this case I think the ideal defender surplus is 10-15 planes given the planes involved. A higher number may be the ideal in this event when considering the rules.

To me personally, in an assault style setup (where one side is attacking with bombers and the other is defending) the traditional objectives of Bases, Strats, and Ships become player controlled bombers. It seems to me, when players (bombers) become the objective of the opposing force, then the defenders/escort of the bombers needs to at least have equal numbers of the attackers because there is no other objective.

Except the bombers are not the objective in this design - they have no point value for killing. You might think that the rules make them the de facto objective, but the scoring system does not support this idea. You have a relatively easy objective for the attackers to meet via bombing, which means the defenders need to reduces the numbers of bombers by a significant number to gain a victory - way too many for a 4 plane surplus to handle.

[AKDogg]

The objective was to prevent your fields from being completely destroyed, not necessarily kill all the bombers.  You guys accomplished that by distracting the bombs enough to miss there target.  Bombers had to hit the target in ONLY 1 pass.  So all you guys had to do was disrupt the bombing run, which you guys succeeded to do.  Its not always about killing like some people think.