Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Viper61 on May 10, 2014, 01:33:31 AM
-
I'm on the ALLIED side this scenario and it looks to me like the ALLIES got soundly trashed. Of course no points to back this statement up but just looking at the logs and kill ratio's. And the fact that by H+60 the AXIS had a 50 plane advantage in the air. When you see that and your primary mission is accomplished you tend to look quickly for a good air field to land and tower before its to late.
The scenario needs a tweak before Frame 2. Doesn't mean its not fun, just means it needs a good kick in the side to make it more better :D.
-
Axis started the frame +38 in numbers FYI.
-
The spread would have been greater if axis escort for the V154 attack participated.
-
One of the biggest effects on any FSO setup is squad turnout. We've seen this time after time.
The numbers for this month, based on the currently registered squad numbers, are:
Allies Total Commitments Min: 138 Max: 192
Axis Total Commitments Min: 140 Max: 193
In Frame 1, the number who attended: Alies 128 / Axis 160
-
I think us Allies where too focused on building T-34s in preparation for dominance in Frame 3, and are now a little embarrassed to find that there are no tanks in this setup. If we can move those people from the production line back to the front line, we will be in good shape for frames 2 and 3. Other than that, I don't see what tweaks need to be made. :D
-
Can't really make a judgement on frame balance, when participation is lopsided. Lets see what happens in frame 2 if the sides are closer in numbers. I did notice as I expected, the Tu-2s did hold their own fairly well as fighters :aok
:salute
BigRat
-
I think us Allies where too focused on building T-34s in preparation for dominance in Frame 3, and are now a little embarrassed to find that there are no tanks in this setup. If we can move those people from the production line back to the front line, we will be in good shape for frames 2 and 3. Other than that, I don't see what tweaks need to be made. :D
This I like! :aok We need more of this attitude around here!
:salute
-
The biggest problem for me is the strange, bordering on ridiculous, attempt to equate distance and fuel burn for no playable benefit. They are not tradeable variables. FSO's rules are framed around meeting goals in respect of time not distance. You have to attack a target or indeed defend a target until H+60. Distance flown has nothing to do with it.
If you fully tank up a Soviet fighter like the Yak you take off with about 37 minutes of fuel with these settings. WTF? How are you supposed to escort a bomber to a target when you can't even get there with enough fuel to fight? You can't pull the power back because the bombers are as fast as the fighters and they aren't going to wait for an escort because speed is just about all the defence they have. Borders on a joke. How can you defend a field if you have keep landing aircraft for fuel all the time?
If the strange concept of limiting flight time to half the real endurance of the aircraft because of a peculiar notion of defining flight time by map scale can't be done away with; then do away with the Soviet aircraft altogether, use lend-lease, and set this up in North Africa or somewhere else with a really big map.
Rant over. (Well the public one anyway).
Best regards.
-
Have to agree with you, Dantoo. This problem persists from event to event when this theatre is used. It's not rocket science and needs to be tweaked. I seem to recall making a similar post a couple of years back when I had CIC duty in one of these where the only bird I had capable of covering any distance was the p-39 and I only had a few of those. If we can't tweak the time, as that's apparently etched in stone, then tweak the fuel burn so that the short legged fighters on both sides can be used effectively in order to carry out the missions prescribed in the objectives. It is what it is. I recall the rebuttal to my question before was that the intent was to simulate the RL problems of the theatre. Get it. But if this problem is impacting the ability to complete a mission, AND THAT IS HAPPENING EVERY TIME WE DO THESE EASTERN FRONT EVENTS, let's erase the rubber stamp setup and tweak the fuel. This doesn't need a ham handed approach as it can be bumped incrementally. How about just enough to get the fighters in sync with the bombers? If you need to escort bombers you need to be able to do it. That so much to ask?
-
I agree with the fuel burn should be adjusted some. The Yak7 which should be a major player in this setup is severly handicapped. Possibly a 1.25 for next frame, should put them closer to being able to defend a base till T+60 even if they have to loiter at low fuel burn for quite a bit to be effective. This should help the balance as well.
:salute
BigRat
-
Thanks for the thoughful support guys.
A couple of previous examples that happened to me:
I was given a task of sweeping with La5s a couple of Eastern Front FSO's back. We never made it to the target area. Because we had to divert from track to avoid an entanglement with opposition traffic we no longer had the fuel to get to the target and back. I had to divert, re-arm at a frontline flashing base and race to the target area to be met with the "we're all down" message. It's a gut-wrench.
Same FSO, different frame, I was defending against Ju88s and they were defended by my friend 'dweebs bunch. We caught the Ju88s just in time to have to rtb for fuel.
KN did the right thing and shot the crap out of us as were forced to refuel right in front of them. <S>
Last time I was CIC we were supposed to concentrate on hitting the Stalingrad pocket. Because of the fuel issue and the requirement for coordinated moves I had to ask lots of people to sit aimlessly on the ground and do nothing at all. Not the height of fun in an FSO. Once they got to the pocket they had to fight for the few minutes they had left and then try to rearm at the only nearby base which become Vulch Wunder Land. Not much fun for those with 30 minute max flight time also up against equal or better performing opposing aircraft. They just had to wait a couple minutes and the VVS were out of it. Lots just towered.
This last frame I was frustrated about not being able to do my job, keep my people engaged, get to a fight and stay there. In the end, I just threw us into a ridiculous melee. By all miracles I survived and then ran like a scared kitten with cannon and mg streaming past to encourage me to remember the skills involved with flying fast amongst the branches. Of course I ran out of fuel within minutes and had to land at vbase where Biggamer mercifully put me out of my misery as I rolled to a stop <S>.
Now my main point. If one side can't stay in the air and/or do their job, then the other side also loses. They have nobody to fight with if everybody gives up and goes home or doesn't bother to show up in the first place. Give me some fuel and time in the air and I'll roll up and fight.
There is absolutely no positive playability reason to have fuel burn at 1.5 or even higher as it has been in the past.
-
I agree with Dantoo. The 1.5 fuel burn has a negative effect on the events on this map. Also a problem with this specific setup is having to land at your takeoff base to receive a landing bonus. It's no fun having 45 minutes left in the event, wanting to re arm and go hunting but there being only 20 enemy still flying. I had my guys tower out after the first sortie to bank the points. These restrictions are essentially making this a single mission event. It's real hard telling my guys that they can't get their 2 hours worth of fun, which is a real shame.
If one side can't stay in the air and/or do their job, then the other side also loses.
You hit the nail right on the head there, Bud. :salute
-
Thanks for the thoughful support guys.
A couple of previous examples that happened to me:
I was given a task of sweeping with La5s a couple of Eastern Front FSO's back. We never made it to the target area. Because we had to divert from track to avoid an entanglement with opposition traffic we no longer had the fuel to get to the target and back. I had to divert, re-arm at a frontline flashing base and race to the target area to be met with the "we're all down" message. It's a gut-wrench.
Same FSO, different frame, I was defending against Ju88s and they were defended by my friend 'dweebs bunch. We caught the Ju88s just in time to have to rtb for fuel.
KN did the right thing and shot the crap out of us as were forced to refuel right in front of them. <S>
Last time I was CIC we were supposed to concentrate on hitting the Stalingrad pocket. Because of the fuel issue and the requirement for coordinated moves I had to ask lots of people to sit aimlessly on the ground and do nothing at all. Not the height of fun in an FSO. Once they got to the pocket they had to fight for the few minutes they had left and then try to rearm at the only nearby base which become Vulch Wunder Land. Not much fun for those with 30 minute max flight time also up against equal or better performing opposing aircraft. They just had to wait a couple minutes and the VVS were out of it. Lots just towered.
This last frame I was frustrated about not being able to do my job, keep my people engaged, get to a fight and stay there. In the end, I just threw us into a ridiculous melee. By all miracles I survived and then ran like a scared kitten with cannon and mg streaming past to encourage me to remember the skills involved with flying fast amongst the branches. Of course I ran out of fuel within minutes and had to land at vbase where Biggamer mercifully put me out of my misery as I rolled to a stop <S>.
Now my main point. If one side can't stay in the air and/or do their job, then the other side also loses. They have nobody to fight with if everybody gives up and goes home or doesn't bother to show up in the first place. Give me some fuel and time in the air and I'll roll up and fight.
There is absolutely no positive playability reason to have fuel burn at 1.5 or even higher as it has been in the past.
I remember that event and I also remember strategically planning for short leg Soviet birds. Making sure that we can go 1 hr 10 mins knowing that they can not go longer than 50 mins. Oh the memories, I miss it. Maybe Ill be allowed back one day. Few people have the passion that I have for this event.
-
:D Actually we kind of fooled you that day. We had a quick comparison of fuel levels around the squad. 2 guys had less than 2 mins and the max was 5 with the prop wound way back.
The 2 outta fuel guys counter-attacked at the field you were at and tried to hold on til their engines quit. The rest struggled to the next field (which was almost within sight) and we landed. One guy landed short but the others got down "safe". Pyrrhic victory but we are claiming it. :) Would've been a good battle if we'd been able to stay in the sky.
-
Last time I was CIC we were supposed to concentrate on hitting the Stalingrad pocket. Because of the fuel issue and the requirement for coordinated moves I had to ask lots of people to sit aimlessly on the ground and do nothing at all. Not the height of fun in an FSO.
The Fuel Burn in the Stalingrad event was 1.0 and I have never used a higher Fuel Burn than 1.0 in any FSO I have EVER designed. FYI.
Sometimes base placement effects the nature of the event, perhaps that is an issue with the Black Sea Terrain, combined with FB higher than 1.0 it can have a negative effect.
-
I should have added that I agree with the fuel burn rate comments and discussion, perhaps Bino will consider editing it for frames 2 and 3.
-
I agree with the fuel burn should be adjusted some. The Yak7 which should be a major player in this setup is severly handicapped. Possibly a 1.25 for next frame, should put them closer to being able to defend a base till T+60 even if they have to loiter at low fuel burn for quite a bit to be effective. This should help the balance as well.
:salute
BigRat
shouldn't that be lower? like 0.75? i always thought the higher the number, the more fuel burned?
-
What if you ran the same frame next week, with the pilots switching sides/rides?
Just to see what the outcome would be..
-
What if you ran the same frame next week, with the pilots switching sides/rides?
Just to see what the outcome would be..
Would be the same...turnout dependant.
Not enough fuel for second strike/rearm - action.
-
shouldn't that be lower? like 0.75? i always thought the higher the number, the more fuel burned?
That would be correct. The lower the number, the less fuel burned.
A 1.25 burn rate would be lower that what it is currently at, which is 1.5. The MA has a 2.0 burn rate.
-
i always thought burn rate was at 1.0?
-
i always thought burn rate was at 1.0?
It's at whatever the designer of the event decides. Sometimes it's good to have to manage your fuel and not run MA-style full throttle 100% of the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work so well.
-
i stand corrected, ill have to pay more attention to that. thanks!
-
A solid impute from Dantoo on the fuel burn setting at 1.5. I'm beginning to plan the ALLIED Frame 3 orders and the fuel burn setting really has a weakening effect on the ALLIED side especially defending the bases. By the current set up I'm required to man the YAK7B a min of 20 and I-16 with a min of 10. And to be clear because of the set up the YAK7B is the "filler" AC meaning that it has no Max number so there could be 40-50 pilots in the YAK's or I-16's. But at least a min 30 pilots get effected (2-3 squads) by the following limitation:
YAK7B 100% fuel = 39 min - FYI The YAK is one of 3 ALLIED fast enough to catch a AXIS bomber.
I-16 100% fuel plus DT's = 34 min
NOTE the setup also only provides 3 ALLIED AC types that are fast enough to keep up with the ALLIED bombers - P-39 / P-40 and YAK - A good AXIS planner can do his homework and see the critical short coming the ALLIED planner has. And then take advantage of that.
So a smart AXIS CIC plans to hit my targets this way. And I'm not giving away state secrets here either any AXIS planner can see this as its clearly in the setup:
Hit the Target at H+40 to 50. Send in a High Altitude Fighter Sweep starting at H+30 to do nothing more than disrupt refueling at the target base or the nearest base where refueling can happen. All this Fighter Sweep needs to do is "disrupt" the refueling. Cause the squad to take more time by only sending down a portion of their force at a time. The AXIS squad doesn't even have to dive on the rearm pad. They can now see the squad, size, type of AC. Wait for them to lift off and then start B and Z profile to hold the squad or slow its return to the real fighting area. A squad with 4 - 6 X 109's with their DT's and 56min of flight time can do this and tie up a much larger ALLIED squad low and slow after lift off.
So let me counter the arguments now:
Have the guys lift late H+05 to 10 - Can be done but why? Its a dam game why would we intentionally have to have a guy sit on a runway and wait because we didn't give him enough fuel to fly with? On the tactical side of this and because this is a Eastern Front set up and the front line bases are close waiting 5 to 10 min's is 1 to 2 grid squares (25 to 50 miles). The AXIS could potentially have a "rush" set up in which a AXIS squad lifts at H+0 and rush low level to the base before the ALLIED AC leave the ground forcing a early fight. The ALLIED AC full of fuel and the AXIS fighters with 50%. The AXIS Engage, disrupt, damage or destroy AC, RTB and lift again on a primary mission of defense or escort. The old "Double Duty" mission profile.
Stagger the refueling - Can do this and no matter how you plan that a portion of the defensive CAP is on the ground, descending or climbing when the attack happens. An AXIS advantage.
Or perhaps better yet - I as the CIC can call on ALL of my defenders to RTB for fuel on my command and leave all of the bases undefended to make a point on this.
I know why the CM Planners use the fuel burn. I disagree with using a fuel burn adjuster at all. The FSO should be set to 1.0. The other rules and special rules force the fight by H+60 anyway. All the increased fuel burn rating does is hamper one side or the other and there's no need to. Its not fair to the game play. And to be clear I'm not a historical cartoon reenactor out to exactly fly what happened 70 odd years ago. Its my Friday night fun and it needs to be fun for me and as even and fair as the planners can make given the plane sets and terrain and host of other issues.
Now there's also the FSO rule that all targets requiring defense are required to defend the target space until H+60? Cant be done with a I-16 or a YAK without refueling. Is leaving a base undefended or so weakly defended it not fun for the attacker or defender fine?
Being required to refuel any AC prior to H+60 should be removed from the game play by adjusting the fuel burn rate unless both sides have the same issue.
Change the Fuel Burn rate to 1.0 and leave it alone.
Thanks to all that posted ideas and comments on this issue. Its long over due to be resolved.
-
Viper I clearly remember your first scenario playing out in a frame with this setup not long ago. The 412th had La5's and the plan was--had to be in fact- that we'd boogie on the deck to the field we were to defend so we could maybe refuel and be on station in time for an attack. We split some guys off to climb a bit and cap the field at reduced throttle. Lo and behold the LW came in while we were half up and half down with a low attack and followed that up with a high attack about 10 minutes later. We had no chance at making a credible defense mostly due to having to manage an impossible fuel situation. You have set variables of time and distance. You can vary the fuel. Vary the fuel.
I don't know if the right number for fuel burn is 1.0 either. I get the spirit of the thing. Somebody should have done their homwork to find the proper setting. If 1.25 works--go with that. If it's 1.1, so be it. Like I said before--no need to be ham handed with the settings. But it needs to be right. As far as I know the Japanese were the only ones that knowingly sent pilots on one way missions.