Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Arlo on July 12, 2020, 04:08:22 PM
-
Scenarios. *sigh* The step-child of online WWII (and WWI) dog fighting MMO play since AW and AH came to be. Scenarios in both games have been designed by player volunteers that have poured blood, sweat, tears and time into such. Every individual seems to approach them from a different aspect (somewhat), players and designers alike. Granted, each has their own preferences when envisioning how they will play out (and designers tend to participate in their own scenarios and usually with their favorite toys - though there are examples of that not being the case). Over the years there have seemed to be unwritten (or even written) rules that define how scenarios should be designed. Any event that steps outside those rules is generally met with strong disapproval even before the event (scenario) is even tried. Well, that's my opinion from years of play and I admit it has probably changed some.
To that end, let us start with the seemingly obvious:
1. Events are limited to the aircraft, vehicles and ships available for play in Aces High.
https://www.hitechcreations.com/21-flight-sim/world-war-two-planes/49-planes-of-aces-high
https://www.hitechcreations.com/10-flight-sim/world-war-two-vehicles/195-vehicles-of-aces-high
(Plus boats, ships and player and auto AAA).
Some designers will designate some on that list as not fun or practical (but I think they just never found a solution or even that they may have bias).
In some instances a model may be re-skinned to represent an aircraft or vehicle not available in game inventory.
2. Events are limited to the terrains designed by players with a talent for such and the time to work on them.
3. Events are limited by the number of player able or willing to participate.
4. Events are limited by the host's server capacity (though I've yet to see that be a problem).
Those are the physical limitations I perceive and if I've left something out then I welcome someone who is willing to mention it doing so.
Here's where I deviate to finesse of design and the assumptions made to do so.
1. Fair. What is fair? All aircraft being as equally matched in ability and numbers as possible? This appears to be many a designer's bottom line. But why? Is a scenario the same as Checkers, Chess or Parcheesi? Were all battles in history fair from the outset? Did underdogs in battle manage to win? Did those who fought against 'insurmountable odds' and were on the losing side never manage to achieve outstanding accomplishments? Some may say that they shined specifically because of.
Having said that, of course scenario designers must contend with the perception and opinion of the players who might shy away from the design if they think of it as 'unfair.' Seems, as time trickled on, there's more of that. (Or maybe it is my aged and faulty memory conjuring up players that saw more of a challenge as their brand of fun.)
Now I'm not talking Sopwith Camels versus 262s or Emils versus Mustang Ds. Anything can be taken to an extreme. So can the design element of fair/balanced. No two aircraft in AH that are historical enemies have specifications that are identical, regarding speed, firepower, ceiling, damage or maneuverability. Most experienced players know that to make the most out of dog-fighting one must familiarize themselves with their and their opponent's craft strengths and weaknesses. Some, like me, are just happy to participate and anything that qualifies as an accomplishment is a cherry on top (air to air victories, structures bombed, interceptors chased or dragged off the bomber formation and even just surviving).
Design obviously should have some give and take (and yes, I've seen some of that before and during events but I think there's a bit too much of argument based on results when, honestly, flexible results should happen and overreaction should not). I'm of the opinion that every single aircraft or vehicle in the inventory can be used in a scenario and used effectively.
2. History. How many battles in history were planned by the generals or admirals to be even and fair? Well, none of them should be. If they were then that was an accident of fate. I'm about to be a participant in TFT Dieppe. That battle went horrifically wrong for the Allies. If the design was to be representative of history then the players on the Allied side should fail in their main objective. Granted, the capture of Dieppe is not even part of the design so the Allies 'winning' the battle is not so much a matter of changing that aspect but a point-war is. That seems as useful to me as points in the MA. If a player is interested in gathering points to prove they are better than other players then, well, OK. To me it's more of an experience thing. The adrenaline high, the sweaty palms, the fast heartbeat and breathing .... the 30 seconds of fear (simulated) amongst the 30 minutes to an hour of posturing for advantage.
Having something 100% historically authentic, though, is no more a realistic goal than having everything 100% fair. Give and take. Make the most of a possible uphill battle. Take on the guise of the brave Samurai fighter pilot, prepared to die for the Emperor when the war became obviously a lost cause. Be the Spitfire pilot that, though graced with a very fine machine, was outnumbered by German 109s and 190s. Victory becomes escaping virtual death.
Now, there's also the viewpoint that scenarios are not reenactments. If you're into that then go buy some old historical uniforms and go out to old battlefields to entertain the masses on how the first or second Battle of Manassas/Bull Run was won (or lost). If a scenario design does offer some alternate history, then fine. D-Day failed or Midway or Germany's invasion of France. As long as the element of personal accomplishment isn't eliminated, entirely.
3. Fun. Since when has fun meant winning all the time? There are players that gravitate to playing Allied pilots (me) and players that gravitate to playing Axis pilots. But no player, imo, should fall trap to judging scenarios by a we/them attitude where Allies or Axis must win at all costs (this is where events tend to become an argument fest between frames because there was 'too much' winning or losing between favorite sides). There was a bit of Allied grumbling noticed after Arados seemed to much of an advantage in one scenario. But there was no player strike, as a result. So what. It makes for a modest design reconsideration for the future. Plenty still had fun on both sides.
Basically, don't get stuck in a 'must win' attitude or walking away from events. This ain't football or baseball.
Nobody can force other players to take on a brave underdog persona. That will always force scenario designers to seek a degree of balance. I just don't think overreaction based on little pockets of bias should affect scenario design too much. Trying something and it not turning out to be a 100% success (or even 75% .... heck, 50% or less - in one's opinion) should never result in any one model in AH cast to the ash heap.
-
Before I comment on some points, I guess I am just a little confused as I don't see a point, respectfully. Are you requesting we change something?
-
Before I comment on some points, I guess I am just a little confused as I don't see a point, respectfully. Are you requesting we change something?
This is what's known as a philosophical discussion over the design of scenarios. It's an attempt to get players and designers alike to take time to introspect what is or is not actual 'deal breakers' when it comes to design. Seeing the 'B-29 breaks scenarios' attitude seems to reflect an unwillingness or inability to fix the 'problem.' And opinions that there is nothing in the Japanese inventory that can oppose the B-29 in any way, taking into account the design restrictions often imposed on other scenarios, seems rather odd.
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=7&p2=114&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=7&p2=114&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=78&p2=114&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=78&p2=114&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=25&p2=114&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=25&p2=114&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
While the scenarios are based on real events. The folks who put them on attempt to balance them so that they can go either way and both sides can have fun. They are not setup exactly like the actual battle was in real life.
At least that is my experience in the scenarios I have participated in.
-
While the scenarios are based on real events. The folks who put them on attempt to balance them so that they can go either way and both sides can have fun. They are not setup exactly like the actual battle was in real life.
At least that is my experience in the scenarios I have participated in.
All that was part of my post. What I was willing to add was 'why?' Why do designers have to balance everything to the sixth decimal for it to be fun? An unbalanced scenario (though not terribly so) should be able to offer all the elements of fun as one that's been massaged to the point of 'air checkers.' Give more air victory points (or ground for that matter) to the side with a perceived disadvantage (if players want an ability to outscore the other side in points, thereby 'winning' when the battle is lost). It's no more complicated than a golf handicap. Or shift numbers to give one side or the other a numbers advantage that makes up for the perceived disadvantages (this has been done) and if it turns out (at the end of the scenario) that the perception was flawed then adjust the next time the event is run.
But the claim that any one aircraft or vehicle in AH overbalances any chance of scenario design is what's really a 'broken' idea. The same was claimed about Corsairs of any model. To me, that's just bias entering the design element.
-
It's a no win for Scenario Team crews. The most miserable part of that time when I was part of the Scenario team is there were individuals who went out of their way to complain and whine about everything to the point of making it their only goal. It ended up making the process miserable as there was nothing you could do to please that vocal and obnoxious minority of players who seemed to get more fun out of trying to wreck the scenario than make it better.
As just a player now, I avoid getting into the discussion much as it's pointless. I look for those that might let me dive into the history part of it that I enjoy and hope for the best.
-
It's a no win for Scenario Team crews. The most miserable part of that time when I was part of the Scenario team is there were individuals who went out of their way to complain and whine about everything to the point of making it their only goal. It ended up making the process miserable as there was nothing you could do to please that vocal and obnoxious minority of players who seemed to get more fun out of trying to wreck the scenario than make it better.
As just a player now, I avoid getting into the discussion much as it's pointless. I look for those that might let me dive into the history part of it that I enjoy and hope for the best.
Ran into much the same as a 'Combat Theater' CM. But I'm not trying to make this a fight to the death argument. I'll be just as happy if someone could reasonably prove to me that the B-29 should never again see the light of a scenario day as I would if any of the current design team would shift to 'but wait a minute, we never actually tried _____.' But I still have a lot of why and why not left in me, regarding.
Banning the Superfortress is more of a slippery slope than I think many of the designers realize. I could take that same argument and use it to ban 262s, 163s, Arados, Tiger IIs, T-34s, Tempests, F4U-4s, Yak-3s, Mosquito XVIs, TA-152s and that list can just keep growing. I'd much rather work on a way to make them all work, either by finesse or by blunt adjustment.
-
Banning the Superfortress is more of a slippery slope than I think many of the designers realize. I could take that same argument and use it to ban 262s, 163s, Arados, Tiger IIs, T-34s, Tempests, F4U-4s, Yak-3s, Mosquito XVIs, TA-152s and that list can just keep growing. I'd much rather work on a way to make them all work, either by finesse or by blunt adjustment.
The B-29 is not banned. However, the B-25C is in Scenarios.
-
AI could be the great equalizer with the B-29 when set to a reasonable speed and altitude. :bolt:
-
AI could be the great equalizer with the B-29 when set to a reasonable speed and altitude. :bolt:
Good point. I'm very impressed with what you and CptTrips have accomplished. :salute :cheers:
-
Good point. I'm very impressed with what you and CptTrips have accomplished. :salute :cheers:
It could also mark the triumphant return of the B-25 off the ban list. :D :cheers:
-
Wait, is that really a thing?
Catch-22, baybee!
(https://musicart.xboxlive.com/7/5c621100-0000-0000-0000-000000000002/504/image.jpg?w=1920&h=1080)
(https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/C22_101-_PS8375-00431RT_f.jpg?w=780)
-
The B-29 is not banned. However, the B-25C is in Scenarios.
Why banned? RAF was flying them in the ETO, USAAF in the MTO, both places without more guns added to them. That's the point of escorts. Talk about removing the history from an event. We have a player, Toad, whose Dad's B25C strafer has been skinned in the game. No chance Quitch will ever get to fly?
-
Some thoughts on the fun factor.
"Fun" is relative. All the other criteria can usually be argued over objectively with opinions backed up with some sort of data.
Some guys have the most fun dogfighting with historically matched-up planes.
Some guys have the most fun shooting down as many enemies as they can.
Some guys have the most fun planning and executing an elaborate mission.
Some guys have the most fun winning a battle by the skin of their teeth.
Some guys have the most fun reliving history just by participating in the event.
Some guys have the most fun playing to win.
Some guys have the most fun just flying with their squaddies.
Most guys get some fun from each of these aspects. The idea is to balance those wants so that the most players can say they had fun when it's over.
I designed an Eastern Front FSO last year. The moment I had the most fun in FSO last year was watching 18 dots close in on the He 111's I was escorting and seeing all the red icons pop up 'I-16" and then watching all those Ratas dive in on the Heinkels. When I designed that event, that was the exact image I had in my head and seeing it unfold before my eyes had me grinning like a Cheshire cat.
But was it fun for the I-16 pilots? I hope is was for most of them.
But was it fun for the He 111 pilots? I hope it was for most of them.
But was it fun for the escorting 109's? I hope it was for most of them.
And if any pilots were not having fun at that moment, I hope that the next week provided them the fun they were looking for.
-
I designed an Eastern Front FSO last year. The moment I had the most fun in FSO last year was watching 18 dots close in on the He 111's I was escorting and seeing all the red icons pop up 'I-16" and then watching all those Ratas dive in on the Heinkels. When I designed that event, that was the exact image I had in my head and seeing it unfold before my eyes had me grinning like a Cheshire cat.
This.
This is why we do it. Not sure why you're not a CM designing FSO's under the official title. It's unfortunate.
-
At the end of August, a hand full of us will be in the slower Spit V for the history of it. We will do our best, just as the young men did back in the day. We will have fun because of the history. That and because of the good folks who took the time to put the event together. :salute
-
This.
This is why we do it. Not sure why you're not a CM designing FSO's under the official title. It's unfortunate.
There's enough CM's from my squad, already.
-
This is what's known as a philosophical discussion over the design of scenarios. It's an attempt to get players and designers alike to take time to introspect what is or is not actual 'deal breakers' when it comes to design. Seeing the 'B-29 breaks scenarios' attitude seems to reflect an unwillingness or inability to fix the 'problem.' And opinions that there is nothing in the Japanese inventory that can oppose the B-29 in any way, taking into account the design restrictions often imposed on other scenarios, seems rather odd.
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=7&p2=114&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=7&p2=114&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=78&p2=114&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=78&p2=114&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=25&p2=114&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(https://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=25&p2=114&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Thanks for the charts. Unfortunately there are more factors that go into event design than speed and climb charts.
All that was part of my post. What I was willing to add was 'why?' Why do designers have to balance everything to the sixth decimal for it to be fun? An unbalanced scenario (though not terribly so) should be able to offer all the elements of fun as one that's been massaged to the point of 'air checkers.' Give more air victory points (or ground for that matter) to the side with a perceived disadvantage (if players want an ability to outscore the other side in points, thereby 'winning' when the battle is lost). It's no more complicated than a golf handicap. Or shift numbers to give one side or the other a numbers advantage that makes up for the perceived disadvantages (this has been done) and if it turns out (at the end of the scenario) that the perception was flawed then adjust the next time the event is run.
But the claim that any one aircraft or vehicle in AH overbalances any chance of scenario design is what's really a 'broken' idea. The same was claimed about Corsairs of any model. To me, that's just bias entering the design element.
Designers balance things for it to be fun so people come back. I'm not sure why this question is being asked. But you fail to realize that everyone has a different idea of 'fun'. Some have fun by winning by score, some have fun by winning by domination, some have fun by engaging in a balanced dogfight, some have fun by pulling the trigger, some have fun by getting shot down. The dilemma for a person designing an event is trying to encompass all of these varying ideas so 60-160 people can all enjoy. Sometimes they hit the mark, sometimes they don't. Simply adding points for the disadvantaged side won't make any difference in the world if that side gets waxed within 10 minutes of combat.
Ran into much the same as a 'Combat Theater' CM. But I'm not trying to make this a fight to the death argument. I'll be just as happy if someone could reasonably prove to me that the B-29 should never again see the light of a scenario day as I would if any of the current design team would shift to 'but wait a minute, we never actually tried _____.' But I still have a lot of why and why not left in me, regarding.
Banning the Superfortress is more of a slippery slope than I think many of the designers realize. I could take that same argument and use it to ban 262s, 163s, Arados, Tiger IIs, T-34s, Tempests, F4U-4s, Yak-3s, Mosquito XVIs, TA-152s and that list can just keep growing. I'd much rather work on a way to make them all work, either by finesse or by blunt adjustment.
B-29s can see the light of day. Join the Aces High CM team and feel free to design an event with B-29s to your heart's desire. With that said, there are a small amount of people who enjoy Pacific events, and I don't think I've ever recorded a complaint about a lack of the B-29.
It is difficult enough to attack large formations of B-17s and B-24s with P-51 and P-47 escorts with aircraft designed to intercept (these being the Fw 190 and Bf 109). Now sub out B-17s and B-24s for the greatest bomber of WWII, the B-29 and the same escort package versus planes not exactly designed to intercept high altitude bomber missions over Japan. At this point, we are going to have to limit the number of B-29s or max altitude to make it feasible for the Japanese fighters to intercept them and have a decent change to shoot them down. Now that we have an alt cap on the B-29 (of less than ~30K) you've thrown away their historical value simply to shoehorn the plane into the event, so we are back at square one.
I personally don't enjoy late war Pacific stuff as the plane matchups become quite unbalanced after ~1943, so when tasked, I try to avoid the 1945 stuff. For the majority of pilots, unbalanced = not fun.
In FSO, most of the aircraft you listed are not used for a variety of reasons which include but are not limited to: availability, role, history, balance.
In what event would you include a Mosquito XVI where it would fit a typical design?
In what event would you include an F4U-4 (the single best piston aircraft in the game, mind you) where it would balance well against the opponents (those being the Ki 84 or N1K2J)?
I would be content including F4U-1C's so long as they are relegated to ground attack duty during night time.
The Ar 234 is a great example because it highlights the gap between the Ju 88 and Ar 234. The Ju 88 is more or less fodder past 1942 and the Ar 234 is uber as soon as it is introduced. The obvious thought is: well, just make the 234 worth a lot! This is a great idea, but the fact of the matter is it is still ridiculously fast and good at the task it is being assigned to do and has a lot probability of being killed. Therefore, you can't reasonably balance a jet bomber (or any jet for that matter) in a world of piston planes.
The 163 is unreasonable in an FSO environment as it has 5 minutes of fuel. We've toyed with various ways to allow them in other aircraft, but it is too much work for too little satisfaction.
The 262 is used once in a while in limited numbers due to complaints, even though most events where it is used are high alt 8th AF style missions where it is more or less useless. It is better to just avoid it entirely.
We use Ta 152s where possible in events because it isn't very game breaking, but the fact that they only served from April 1945 onward does not help its cause. P-47M is in the same boat.
The 262 and 234 are my favorite aircraft in the game and I'd love to include them in every setup possible, but sometimes you have to take a step back and realize that it is just not feasible to put it in the design.
-
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.
-
I'm not seeing anything close to what anyone in the current design team would do to make using the whole plane set practical. Guess its been perfected to perfection. :D
-
Well, I thought we were going to have a decent discussion. I did not realize you were just being a troll.
Sigh.
-
I'm not seeing anything close to what anyone in the current design team would do to make using the whole plane set practical. Guess its been perfected to perfection. :D
Sorry, Arlo. I misread your OP as a philosophical discussion about designing events. When you say "whole plane set" do you mean Aces High inventory or Dieppe OOB?
-
There's enough CM's from my squad, already.
Not a condition or requirement for CM application review.
-
The B-29 is not banned. However, the B-25C is in Scenarios.
Philosophically, all fighters and bombers are lethal in their own way. Reality in WW2, all were lethal in their own way but some were outmatched by others when they clashed in the sky.
Aces High, Da Game:
B-25C with formation just like Bostons in Special Events are flying coffins. LW fighters can send them to the ground very easy due to lack of defensive capability. Why? Mission planning may not be able to use them in a proper fashion due to limitations of terrain, objectives, and player turnout.
Insane philosophical thinking that would never be used in WW2 but perfectly fine in a virtual world. A single B-25C with glass nose option giving the 10 50. cals in the front. A only in the insaneness of some bomber players, who shall not be named, a Scenario/FSO/TFT with a squadron of single B-25Cs with bombs and front .50 cals would be a fun event.
Fly to a target with escort, drop bombs on target with dive bombing (no bombsight), and dogfight the enemy fighters with the escort fighters in the weeds. It's not a question about the enemy shooting down the B-25Cs. The question is how LONG it will take them? Plus, how many enemy fighters will be shot down in the process?
Fair? Probably not for either side.
Balanced ? same as above.
Fun? I'll let the community answer that. You know what my answer would be.
-
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.
Must be nice not having to endure all the crap the design team I was on had to put up with.
-
I can't speak for scenarios but from my observations, the recent FSO's I have partaken in are the most balanced I have ever seen. The recent designs especially have to be commended. Years ago it was simply "this axis aircraft does this 1 thing better at altitude X, therefore it's better.. aaaand handicapped." Nowadays there appears to be a lot more professionalism and thought into plane comparison balance and the tasks they've been assigned.
I imagine the main concern for FSO design philosophy are the players. The human factor of the flyers I have observed include (not comprehensive);
Unread/unheard/ignored orders. Intoxication. Poor Planning. Poor preparation. General incompetence. Poor Fuel management. Skill gap. Squad/player withdrawal.
A great example of the issues of the unpredictable human factor are of a particularly conceited squad commander, that took his allied bombers off the set orders of the CiC, leading them into a slaughter without the fighter escort it should have had. Then taking an entirely unallocated aircraft from the CiC in another frame.
It would have been acceptable to hear that particular leader be philosophical afterwards, but instead disappointingly chastised the design/set up, despite of the former issue being entirely self inflicted, and the latter in planning.
I believe no amount of Design Philosophising will ever predict or be able counter such brazen roguery or lack of judgement, especially as such actions have such a clear effect on the outcome on not 1 but 2 entire squad's experience.
The recent FSO's are greatly improved over previous years, I'm sure if the players policed themselves the experience would improve even further. I'm rarely positive about anything, but the current CM team are doing a grand job in FSO.
-
Must be nice not having to endure all the crap the design team I was on had to put up with.
It is nice, admittedly. They are far from perfect and at times may seem even poor, but we are striving for that perfect middle road. I think there aren't enough critics, actually. It seems that every scenario gets an average of +4 in Brooke's rating system. That means the team feels that we did well and continue doing the same thing. The truth may be much different, but we can only work with what is given to us. If no one critiques, how can it improve?
Discussions such as these are necessary for events to continue and to improve. I think every designer on the CM Team is open to criticism, which is another nicety that has not always been present.
-
I personally don't enjoy late war Pacific stuff as the plane matchups become quite unbalanced after ~1943, so when tasked, I try to avoid the 1945 stuff. For the majority of pilots, unbalanced = not fun.
Sometimes one has to set aside their personal dislikes which are couched under the guise of 'unbalanced.' The fear of F4Us in a scenario has always used such an overinflated excuse. It casts the F4U fans in the game completely aside with no effort being made to balance things otherwise. Yes, that includes an abundance of N1Ks, Ki-84s (not all that different from Perdue's description of how Dieppe was made playable). The CM team would then be tasked with trying to address player perception that late Japanese warplanes could not possibly survive the onslaught of any model of F4U. I suspect that such a task is so unsavory to the personal joys of a number of CM's biases that the effort would seem insurmountable.
Well, I thought we were going to have a decent discussion. I did not realize you were just being a troll.
Sigh.
Well, that was both a defensive and weak response to my charge of not even trying to explore options in applying the entire AH inventory, if possible. I never claimed it would be easy but, apparently, layering excuses to not make the attempt was easier. Addition by subtraction? Does asking something harder of you really equate to 'trolling' in your mind? ;)
-
This 'philosophical discussion' seems to have just outed itself for being a guise for "CMs don't include my favourite plane so I'm going on a lengthy gripe/troll". Jolly Good Show Arlo :bhead
-
This 'philosophical discussion' seems to have just outed itself for being a guise for "CMs don't include my favourite plane so I'm going on a lengthy gripe/troll". Jolly Good Show Arlo :bhead
So, my example of what is 'fair' or 'fun' for the community in scenarios was not supposed to be expressed in response to the same from a CM? Oh, Dolby, Dolby, Dolby. Did you intend to offer a post where you either wanted to offer a way to be more inclusive, regarding the the inventory or wanted to back up a reasonable excuse not to be? Yes? No? Maybe? :D
-
Sometimes one has to set aside their personal dislikes which are couched under the guise of 'unbalanced.' The fear of F4Us in a scenario has always used such an overinflated excuse. It casts the F4U fans in the game completely aside with no effort being made to balance things otherwise. Yes, that includes an abundance of N1Ks, Ki-84s (not all that different from Perdue's description of how Dieppe was made playable). The CM team would then be tasked with trying to address player perception that late Japanese warplanes could not possibly survive the onslaught of any model of F4U. I suspect that such a task is so unsavory to the personal joys of a number of CM's biases that the effort would seem insurmountable.
We put F4Us into events where the F4U fits. I even ran an event in November that pitted F4Us against a reasonable Luftwaffe defense. Most Axis players (these days) dislike Pacific theater events to begin with, so it is nice to give them something decent or competitive (which is difficult to start with in Pacific unless you are talking 1942 and prior with even matchups like the A6M2 and F4F).
A6Ms, N1Ks, and Ki 84s were no match for an F4U-4 in real life and they are not in Aces High either.
Well, that was both a defensive and weak response to my charge of not even trying to explore options in applying the entire AH inventory, if possible. I never claimed it would be easy but, apparently, layering excuses to not make the attempt was easier. Addition by subtraction? Does asking something harder of you really equate to 'trolling' in your mind? ;)
We apply the 'AH inventory' as best that we can. I don't understand how any person can say that we don't explore options when we've used the Lancaster as a Short Stirling, a Yak-7b as a D.520, a C.205 as a MiG-3 and in most cases those experiments have worked pretty well.
I do not understand what you are asking us to do. Your original post was to start a discussion on event design and multiple CMs that design events have opened up on the subject to shed some light on their thinking. After these posts you reply with some snarky comment about how we aren't doing anything to include more aircraft. I don't appreciate being berated when I dedicate a good amount of time to all of these events.
How about you contribute in a meaningful way rather than mocking my team which puts a lot of time and effort into putting events on month after month for everyone to enjoy?
-
It is nice, admittedly. They are far from perfect and at times may seem even poor, but we are striving for that perfect middle road. I think there aren't enough critics, actually. It seems that every scenario gets an average of +4 in Brooke's rating system. That means the team feels that we did well and continue doing the same thing. The truth may be much different, but we can only work with what is given to us. If no one critiques, how can it improve?
Discussions such as these are necessary for events to continue and to improve. I think every designer on the CM Team is open to criticism, which is another nicety that has not always been present.
Would you recommend the same tactics that were used against the design team I was on, as the best way of“offering criticism” to the team you are on?
-
Would you recommend the same tactics that were used against the design team I was on, as the best way of“offering criticism” to the team you are on?
No. My behavior as an adolescent was not commendable and I do not condone it.
-
A6Ms, N1Ks, and Ki 84s were no match for an F4U-4 in real life and they are not in Aces High either.
Reasserted opinion noted. I believe you are wrong.
I do not understand what you are asking us to do.
Again, consider reconsidering your stance based on the idea that all AH toys in inventory are potentially practical in scenarios if enough effort is applied to do so. Just consider it. You can even just pretend you are.
How about you contribute in a meaningful way rather than mocking my team which puts a lot of time and effort into putting events on month after month for everyone to enjoy?
Invitation to join the CM team accepted. I've contributed time and effort as an AH volunteer before. I'll do it without being comped.
-
No. My behavior as an adolescent was not commendable and I do not condone it.
Good to know. About as close as we will get to an apology. I’ll step back from this discussion. Good luck going forward. I’ll be in a Spit V over Dieppe for the 190s to look for
-
Reasserted opinion noted. I believe you are wrong.
The F4U had a K:D ratio of 12:1 against the A6M and 6:1 against the N1K and Ki 84. Super competitive.
Perhaps my wording was skewed, I am of the firm belief that any aircraft in the game is 'practical' in a design. Whether we choose to utilize them in a design due to fun, balance, or historical purposes is a different story. Planes that are 'too good' are often left out of events for the same reason planes that are 'too bad' are left out. Very few people want to fly an obsolete aircraft against newer, faster, better ones.
-
Invitation to join the CM team accepted. I've contributed time and effort as an AH volunteer before. I'll do it without being comped.
-
So, my example of what is 'fair' or 'fun' for the community in scenarios was not supposed to be expressed in response to the same from a CM? Oh, Dolby, Dolby, Dolby. Did you intend to offer a post where you either wanted to offer a way to be more inclusive, regarding the the inventory or wanted to back up a reasonable excuse not to be? Yes? No? Maybe? :D
I was merely making an informed and accurate observation.
-
I was merely making an informed and accurate observation.
Actually, you were just making up an observation while not understanding the discussion. There's a difference. :old:
-
Good to know. About as close as we will get to an apology. I’ll step back from this discussion. Good luck going forward. I’ll be in a Spit V over Dieppe for the 190s to look for
I am sorry Guppy.
:salute
-
I am not sure if you ever responded to my philosophy post or to my directed question, Arlo. I assume you mean Aces High's plane list. I think every plane in Aces High has a place in Special Events. However, for some planes, that place is very, very specific. Limitations must be placed on certain aircraft for, what should be, obvious reasons. Let's get hypothetical:
F4U-4 and F4U-1C. I am not sure of the last time these were used in an FSO or Scenario. I can tell you that I do not remember. They do not make their way into events for two reasons: they are extremely good aircraft, better than nearly all others and their role in WWII limits their use in an accurate event. I agree, that every plane can be balanced. 6 Hurris versus 1 K-4 is somewhat balanced, albeit a poor choice of matchup. If I were tasked with fitting these two late beasts into a setup, I would do it. But I would go about it in a very specific way. Let's build an event, perdweeb style.
First, I start with an operation, an event, a mission, a battle, etc. I choose the battle then the planeset, not the other way around. Many designers do it differently, and that is fine. I choose a battle and research all the aircraft used and how many. I then place that in a matchup, or order of battle. I then start whittling that historical OOB into a playable AH event. Once I have the plane set (with or without subs), I can start to build the event. From here, I determine what the aircraft should be doing. Are they defending, attacking, bombing, escorting, scouting, killing tanks, etc.? Once I have figured out what each aircraft will do, it is time to balance it with numbers. I first figure out what the side balance will be (50/50, 53/47, etc.). Then, I determine which planes should be limited based on both the historical OOB as well as that plane's capability compared to its opposition. So, I start with real, actual data and transform it into an event. Rather than building a planeset that is accurate first, then adding history, I start with history and make it balanced. Just a tad different than many designers.
Let's do Okinawa together:
Here is a quick list I compiled of the Allied forces at Okinawa (FAA, USN, USMC):
279 FM-2
325 TBM/TBF
151 SB2C
701 F6F (96 Jabo, 30 to be on island)
565 F4U (192 likely U-4+1C+1D, 96 Jabo)
40 Seafire
9 Firefly
2 Walrus
36 Mariner
Because this is hypothetical, I will forgo the research figuring out the exact number of each type of F4U present. If I really was designing an Okinawa event, I would definitely continue the research to get exact numbers. The same can be said for the Japanese although that information is extremely difficult to find. For simplicity's sake, I would probably do even numbers of Ki-84's and N1K's at minimums of 20 a piece. But, we are here to discuss the Allies. Now, let's whittle that list of stuff down to something we can actually work with.
2108 Total aircraft. 38 of which are seaplanes, so we are down to 2070. Convert that to percentages:
FM-2: 13.5%
TBM: 15.7%
SB2C: 8%
F6F: 33%
F4U: 28%
Seafire: 2%
(Got a little lazy with the decimals, forgive me)
For an FSO, we expect around 130 for an event. Generally speaking, PTO is less popular and yields lower numbers, so to be safe I would shoot for 120. Because the Allies are the only side attacking, usually I would give them the numbers advantage. Maybe that is unnecessary here, but let's do it anyway. Let's say 52/48 on the split. That is 62 pilots that we can expect and therefore 62 airplanes. The Seafire and dive bombers are too low a percentage to include, I think. So, we take them out. Some designers like to leave them in there as an option, but I do not see the point often times. We can't have 6 types for only 6 squadrons. That becomes a logistical Gordian Knot, so we need to keep the type count down to around 4 if we can help it. That leaves us with F6F, F4U, TBM, and FM-2. If we apply the same percentages we are looking at:
FM-2: 8
TBM: 10
F6F: 20
F4U: 17
This is not 62, so we can add some to which ever type we think needs it. If it were me, I'd go with less TBM's and more FM-2's or F4U's. So let's make that change and get to 62:
FM-2: 12
TBM: 8
F6F: 20
F4U: 22
These are the numbers we will work with in hopes of achieving. The issue is the F4U. Without the facts, it is difficult to place a number on them. Let's keep it hypothetical and claim that there were equal numbers of F4U-4 and F4U-1C. Let's go one step further and claim they numbered half the F4U's total, which seems too large a number to me. But, my research would eventually lead me to the answer, but I don't want to spend more than the 90 minutes I have already spent on this single post.
FM-2:12
TBM: 8
F6F: 20
F4U-1D: 12
F4U-1C: 6
F4U-4: 6
This is what I finish with. These are the ideal numbers as history and balance would have them (sort of). There is more to do. Of the 20 F6F's, at least 4 of them should be bombing. The 1C and -4 should also be bombing. For this situation, I think I would allow the F6F's to be all fighters so that the F4U's can carry the bombs. Another issue is the number of plane types. 6 is too many, so I would weigh removing one of the two late beasts or removing the 1D. Let's do that:
FM-2: 16
TBM: 8
F6F: 26
F4U-1C: 6
F4U-4: 6
I removed the 1D's and distributed those people to the FM-2 and F6F. Now that I have a decent looking set, I can balance. Some may say that the set is not quite good enough and others will say it is way too good. I think, so long as the -4 and 1C are required to bomb as they were doing in 1945, it is fine. They would be Jabo only and each maxed at 6. This way they are included, they are accurate in their inclusion, and there are not enough of them to make it an unplayable arena. But, these limitations must be placed because they will not be facing Spit 16's, Yak-3's, K-4's, Dora's, and Tempests. They will be facing Ki-84's and N1K's. This is how I would use them in an event if I had to and I think it would be fine. My final product would look like this:
Allies (52%) Axis (48%)
FM-2 (min 12) Ki-84 (min 20)
TBM (min 8) N1K (min 20)
F6F
F4U-1C (max 6)
F4U-4 (max 6)
F4U's must carry ordnance and make attacks on objectives by T+60.
That is basically how I attack a design. I run ideas past people along the way and even ask for help researching quite often. Every airplane has a place, but some airplanes are included incorrectly which then saps some fun out of people's experiences. But, with logic, understanding, and cleverness, any airplane can play a historically accurate role in an event.
-
No argument. Well done.
What a dedicated VF-17er might prefer would be F4U-1As in the Battle of the Solomons Sea. ;)
"In the Battle of the Solomon Sea on November 11, 1943 Fighting 17 took off from a land base and landed on the carriers U.S.S Bunker Hill and U.S.S. Essex. They refueled and then flew cover over the task force and shot down 18.5 Japanese aircraft. They proved in this action that the F4U could be successfully operated in combat from a carrier."
https://www.vought.org/special/html/sfight17.html
-
No argument. Well done.
What a dedicated VF-17er might prefer would be F4U-1As in the Battle of the Solomons Sea. ;)
"In the Battle of the Solomon Sea on November 11, 1943 Fighting 17 took off from a land base and landed on the carriers U.S.S Bunker Hill and U.S.S. Essex. They refueled and then flew cover over the task force and shot down 18.5 Japanese aircraft. They proved in this action that the F4U could be successfully operated in combat from a carrier."
https://www.vought.org/special/html/sfight17.html
1A's are not as difficult to get in an event like the -4 or 1C. When we talk about ALL that AH has to offer, it is difficult to get the likes of the U-4, 163, 152, 234, Tempest, and Spit 16 into events fairly and accurately. 1A's are easy, as are -1's. Your Solomon Sea idea is beside the issue which also happens to be sub-topic of this topic.
-
Granted. Proving that any and all AH models can be possibly included in scenario design goes past just F4U-1As in the scenario I described. Though there seems to be a consensus among a few that even my scaled back example is oppressive to the current group of Axis players, I believe that it wouldn't be as all encompassing as that. I'd be willing to prove my original claim using this as a baby step, however.
-
Granted. Proving that any and all AH models can be possibly included in scenario design goes past just F4U-1As in the scenario I described. Though there seems to be a consensus among a few that even my scaled back example is oppressive to the current group of Axis players, I believe that it wouldn't be as all encompassing as that. I'd be willing to prove my original claim using this as a baby step, however.
We have done multiple events in the past two years with Corsairs. What I spelled out for you above can be done with B-29's, Me 163's, Me 262's, Ar 234's, Tempests, Spit 14/16's, etc. Point being, every plane has a role and a place in events. However, the designer must be careful about how they are implemented to ensure balance, fun, and accuracy.
-
Point being, every plane has a role and a place in events. However, the designer must be careful about how they are implemented to ensure balance, fun, and accuracy.
I appreciate that viewpoint. :salute :cheers:
-
Scenarios have these goals, not all of which are possible to 100% achieve:
1. Themed on a historical battle or occasionally a "what if" setup.
2. Player reading 1st-hand accounts of real battle feeling "that's what it was like flying in the scenario."
3. Popular enough to gather enough players to run the event.
4. Fun for all players in all plane types.
1 and 2 pull in the direction of history and realism (except for the occasional "what if" design). 3 and 4 usually pull away from history and realism.
A scenario will not fill if players in general feel one side is too dominant. There are some plane types and match ups that are very hard (or impossible) to fill.
What-if scenarios include Fjord Fury, The Final Battle, Operation Downfall.
Some scenarios with one side significantly outnumbering the other: Stalin's Fourth, Battle of Britain.
A recent scenario with more changes from history than usual because of items 3 and 4 above: Rabaul.
Some scenarios with F4U's: Rabaul (F4U-1A), The Final Battle (F4U-1D), Operation Downfall (F4U-4, F4U-1C, F4U-1D), Philippine Phandango (F4U-1D, F4U-1A).
Scenario with B-29's: The Pacific War. It was fun, even for me flying Ki-61's against B-29's.
Some less-favored planes that I can still get at least 5 people to fly the whole scenario in: Il-2's, He 111's, P-40 fighterbombers, Bf 110C fighterbombers, B5N's, Hurribombers, B-25H's, A-20's. Planes that are very hard to fill: Stukas, B-25C's, C-47's.
Some scenarios I'd love to see run one day if I thought we could fill it: Cactus Air Force and other stuff from the Guadalcanal Campaign, stuff based around B-29's like frame 4 of The Pacific War, a what-if US vs. Soviet late-war, Milne Bay, Tali-Ihantala, Stalingrad, Midway.
-
Sometimes Scenarios and FSOs become too far from accuracy for my liking and likewise, sometimes the events are not balanced as well as they could be because of the designer's desire to keep a close proximity to accuracy. It is a give and take and findign the right recipe is the goal. Sometimes we get really close and other times we do not.
Regarding airplanes not being used often, I think we have covered that. I think it is difficult to work certain aircraft in, such as the Ju 87D and the B-29. If this topic needs to be continued, I am more than willing to comment further or theorize how best to utilize certain aircraft in an event.
-
Sometimes Scenarios and FSOs become too far from accuracy for my liking and likewise, sometimes the events are not balanced as well as they could be because of the designer's desire to keep a close proximity to accuracy. It is a give and take and findign the right recipe is the goal. Sometimes we get really close and other times we do not.
Regarding airplanes not being used often, I think we have covered that. I think it is difficult to work certain aircraft in, such as the Ju 87D and the B-29. If this topic needs to be continued, I am more than willing to comment further or theorize how best to utilize certain aircraft in an event.
By all means, please. I would appreciate more insight. :)
-
There are also intangibles that must be considered when designing an event. Too many designers look at plane matchups as an A vs. B fight. Instead, we must consider the type of fights that will be happening. I have multiple events in my portfolio that have not been ran because I have so many questions about little things. These answers can be sought, but in a test format. I do not remember ever having I-16's versus Ki-43. How would that play out? I know that a Ki-43 should win 1v1, but what about a group? Things need to be considered more than climb rates, speeds, and turn radii. You must also consider the difficulty of flying certain aircraft. I think everyone would agree that a Spitfire is easier to fly than a Bf 109. This must be taken into account. Look at the difficulties of flying a Yak-7 and Bf 109F. Or even, the Ki-61 and P-38G (this one bit us last year). When these things are not considered, we get a lackluster event that could have been better with subtle changes. Or in extreme cases, an event that never should have been ran.
Another difference in design philosophy I often see is bomber matchups. Designers like to look at bombloads and speed comparisons, but none of that matters, in my opinion. What matters is how it stacks up against enemy fighters. If they both are equally in danger (or easily killed), they are balanced. Some bombers have natural advantages over others and that is just the way it is. I think a Ju 88 and Boston are very evenly matched for two reasons: the Ju 88 has a bombload advantage thus making it easier to bomb with and the Boston is faster making it more difficult to kill. This is a nice balance and no changes are necessary. The real question is, can the Axis plane set (usually Bf 109F, G, and 190A-5) kill Bostons? The answer is yes. Next, can the Allied plane set (Yak-7, Spitfires, P-40s, P-39s, et al.) kill Ju 88s? The answer is yes. Therefore these two bombers are balanced. No need to limit the bomb load of the Ju 88 because then that balance swings the other way. Now, we have two bombers that carry the same payload but one is faster than the other. We balance the disadvantages, as you aforementioned, thus achieving something resembling balance.
An interesting situation is the Tu-2S and Ju 88. This is a perfect example of how it is balanced. This hypothetical plane set would be late-ish Luftwaffe versus late VVS. So, we are thinking A-8, G-14, G-6, Ju 88 vs. Yak-9T, Yak-9U, La-5/7, Tu-2S. At first glance yo uwill think, "Wow, the Ju 88 is outmatched by the Tu-2S and is in no way comparable." But, nevermind the capabilities of the bombers themselves and instead look at how difficult it would be for each side to kill the other bomber. Can Bf 109G's and 190A-8s reasonably kill Tu-2's effectively? I think, yes. Can La's and Yak's kill Ju 88's reasonably effectively. I think, yes. Although, I think the VVS would have MORE difficulty killing Ju 88s because their fighters are not designed to do that. So, because of these reasons, I think Ju 88 v Tu-2 is fine so long as there are late-ish Luftwaffe fighters around (not Bf 109F and Bf 110C). This, however, opens up another can of worms, which is why are VVS fighters escorting medium altitude bombers which are bombing strategically? :headscratch: Still working on that one...