Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on January 12, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
-
Hello, all.
Here is the design so far:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201702_HellOverHinterland/rules.html
We are planning it for a number of players that are slightly (but not greatly) larger than number of players in the two previous 4-frame scenarios, which dictates some elements of the design.
Note, there were *a lot* of allied tactical bomber sorties in the Battle of the Bulge (going after bridges, troops, trains, rail lines, ammo dumps, road crossings, etc.). So it is quite realistic to have some 9th AF B-26's in there. In fact, it would be unrealistic not to have some of those.
-
You also need to place that being in correctly named groups goes for COs as well. Just for clarity.
Also how do you intend to enforce your rules for each side CO to your specifications? Are you going to have yourself as overseer or are you going to be on one team and hide an inside man on the other? Will you just ban said person or will you give them direct orders even though you will be playing for a side?
-
Minor quibbles in the write-up.
1. Our Spit IX is the 1943 type and underpowered for the time period of the scenario. Better to use the Mk.VIII or Mk.XVI.
2. Jg 6 was moved to Poland when it traded it's 190A's for Doras in January, 1945. Are you planing on this scenario being set before or after January 1st? This will help determine the best Luftwaffe units to use. Remember that the Bodenplatte mission resulted in some units being almost entirely wiped out.
-
You also need to place that being in correctly named groups goes for COs as well. Just for clarity.
Will do.
Also how do you intend to enforce your rules for each side CO
Swareiam is now a Scenario CM. He will be on one side, and I will be on the other, and we would each work with our sides if needed. However, this scenario doesn't have any setup that CO's have to do, so I don't anticipate there needing to be any instructions from CM's to CO's.
-
Minor quibbles in the write-up.
1. Our Spit IX is the 1943 type and underpowered for the time period of the scenario. Better to use the Mk.VIII or Mk.XVI.
2. Jg 6 was moved to Poland when it traded it's 190A's for Doras in January, 1945. Are you planing on this scenario being set before or after January 1st? This will help determine the best Luftwaffe units to use. Remember that the Bodenplatte mission resulted in some units being almost entirely wiped out.
Redtail is the one who chose the groups -- I'll leave it for him to talk to you about that. Time period is probably just prior to Jan 1st.
There were lots of Spit IX's there, but I'm not an expert on how our version is vs. what was around late 1944. Our Spit IX is a little faster than the VIII non-WEP and a little slower with WEP, so maybe about a wash. The Spit 16 is about same non-WEP and faster on WEP, so that would be OK if it is a better fit for the Spit IX that was historically there than what we have in the game.
I'll let others weigh in on this aspect of Spit IX vs. Spit 16.
-
Everyone:
The germanyw terrain is available, but as it doesn't have custom textures for winter, it is a flat, white terrain (i.e., no trees at all) and -- while wintery -- looks a little funny.
The germany terrain looks much nicer, but of course no snow at all.
Please take a look at each terrain and lets hear what people think about which terrain we should use.
-
Sign me up for the 352nd!
-
Redtail is the one who chose the groups -- I'll leave it for him to talk to you about that. Time period is probably just prior to Jan 1st.
There were lots of Spit IX's there, but I'm not an expert on how our version is vs. what was around late 1944. Our Spit IX is a little faster than the VIII non-WEP and a little slower with WEP, so maybe about a wash. The Spit 16 is about same non-WEP and faster on WEP, so that would be OK if it is a better fit for the Spit IX that was historically there than what we have in the game.
I'll let others weigh in on this aspect of Spit IX vs. Spit 16.
Well initially there were more aircraft to consider. The Spitfire XIV and XVI were in service for most of that year. I think we can accommodate the change. But as Brooke eluded to, there were still many Spitfire IXs and VIIIs in operation in the area.
Which would everyone like to see the XIV or XVI?
-
Comical...............simply comical.
-
I would think have options for all fighters available to both side during this time set squadrons and numbers of aircraft and let the Cos decide what planes will make up their fighting force.
Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
-
I think it's best to have the types that were most prevalent. That seems to be the Spit IX.
-
I'm thinking that the rule set is gelled enough to open registration next week and set frame-1 date of Feb 25.
That would give us plenty of time for any final adjustments and more than 5 weeks for registration.
-
What happened to the plane set that we voted on for 40? I can understand some adjustment, but this list is vastly different from the write up.
Hell Over the Hinterland. The Battle of the Bulge is about to see its first day of clear weather in two weeks. P-51D, P-38L, P-47D-40, Spitfire XVI, Spitfire VIII, Typhoon Mk IB, Tempest V, Mosquito VI, BF109G-14, ME109K-4, FW190A-8, FW190F-8, FW190D-9, TA-152, ME410, BF110G-2.
-
Not only were the planes I was interested in flying for Allied, removed. But what's left that I would have fought in is relegated to attack roles.
:noid
-
Is there a reason all of the roles for each plane is mapped out and forced into that role, instead of giving that control to the CIC to fully plan with all of his tools? You can still set the requirements for a certain number of Attack runs.
-
If we go on previous two 4-frame scenarios, we get about 40 per side.
If you have 40 per side, you can't have 8 different types of aircraft because then the relative proportion of aircraft is completely wrong, or you have 2 guys per group in some aircraft types.
So, you have to go for the most-representative aircraft.
-
I don't agree with your issue of having only a couple planes of each type and your predetermined restrictions on numbers. I would let recruiting take a shot first with the original plane set then go from there.
You are also reducing the fighters but keeping the JABO's as two sets? Do we as a community have that many people that want to fly JABO compared to fighter role? I haven't seen that in the couple i have been part of. I would recommend requiring each fighter type that is capable to be required to do 1 run of JABO per frame. I think you will get better seat numbers going that route, instead of setting one whole group to the task.
So your baking in the reduced numbers from the last scenarios now after you already knew these numbers, why even bother putting them up.
-
the relative proportion of aircraft is completely wrong, or you have 2 guys per group in some aircraft types.
But at least it was interesting.
Now, we've taken the time to vote on a nice deeply varied late war plane set and you've single handedly taken that away because you think it's best.
I'd like to see more flexibility and more decisions going FROM YOU and to the side CO's. as far as plane set and roles of those planes.
I'm sincerely not interested in spits and P51d's versus 109's and FW's , with an emphasis on ground attack and possibly overly complicated scoring.
-
Is there a reason
There are two main reasons.
One is that there were particular groups (9th AF P-47's, 2nd TAF Typhoons, various 190 groups) dedicated to attack and that specialized in it. So we do that here.
The other is a design aspect. If you leave things unspecified, players don't have the opportunity to sign up for the type of aircraft and action that they prefer. They can sign up hoping for one thing and then find themselves flying mission types that aren't their preference. It's best -- when you can, especially if it is actually more historical to do it that way -- to specialize the roles of different groups.
-
If you have 40 per side, you can't have 8 different types of aircraft because then the relative proportion of aircraft is completely wrong, or you have 2 guys per group in some aircraft types.
No disrespect but it does feel like a bait and switch to get the vote to turn out a specific way.
I don't remember what scenario it was but there were only two of us flying Spit XVI's. It didn't seem to hurt anything whatsoever.
-
Hello, Kanth. I'm sorry the design isn't what you would pick. I hope that you still fly in it, but I understand if it isn't what you want and so you forgo it.
The main goal of scenarios is to have a battle where, when you play in it, the type of action you experience is similar to what you'd read about in the history of the battle, but with concessions made for balance and playability.
There are some things that don't further that goal in scenarios. Groups with 1-2 people in them; setups where historically a particular plane type made up 1% or less of the planes present but in the scenario ends up being 10-50x as prevalent; non-historical missions -- all of those things work against the above goal.
Other events have different goals. If the goal is maximum number of people playing, FSO's nail that. If the goal is maximum flexibilty for a CO, "This Day in WWII" does that -- you can have one side all in Spit 14's if you want, any fighter pilot being able to bomb or not, etc. If the goal were favorite planes and favorite style of action, a furball-island-type event with Tempests, F4U-4's, Yak-7's, etc. would be most popular.
This particular scenario is about the air battles in the Battle of the Bulge. Ground attack was intrinsic to that. Just like Coral Sea was all about sinking carriers, and so a Coral Sea scenario does emphasize sinking carriers, here ground attack is an important aspect. With regard to scoring complexity, it is among the simplest scoring of all scenarios going back to 2004.
If the player base were what it was in 2009, then we'd have 100 players on a side, and we could go for a larger number of different aircraft. But we have to design for the size we think we will get.
-
I would let recruiting take a shot first with the original plane set then go from there.
You can't open up registration with a 100-spot design and then cut things down when you find out that you get only 40 registering. You can go the other way: open it up with a design that is correct for 40 and expand it if you by some miracle find that it fills up in 1 week and has the legs to get to 100. However, the odds of the latter is very low.
Do we as a community have that many people that want to fly JABO compared to fighter role? I haven't seen that in the couple i have been part of.
We did for Tunisia, Dnieper, Coral Sea, the Pacific War, and Red Storm.
So your baking in the reduced numbers from the last scenarios now after you already knew these numbers, why even bother putting them up.
I'm not sure what your question is. The only thing that I needed to do in this design is not have 9 different plane types. Then this design can handle 40-ish per side (what I think we'll get) or any number higher than that (in which case we will scale up).
-
Trying too hard to force the game into what they want instead of allowing some freedom of movement to allow for diversity.....
-
Brooke, I mistakenly thought the planes listed to be voted on, that I was interested in would be used and would be used for combat.
I do feel like there has been a bait and switch.
I'm just not interested in shooting at the ground. I'll have to pass.
-
Brooke, I mistakenly thought the planes listed to be voted on, that I was interested in would be used and would be used for combat.
I do feel like there has been a bait and switch.
I'm just not interested in shooting at the ground. I'll have to pass.
I agree, you already had all the info you used to reduce the plane set from before this started and chose to wait until after voting was complete. It was basically a waste of time.
-
Brooke, I mistakenly thought the planes listed to be voted on, that I was interested in would be used and would be used for combat.
I do feel like there has been a bait and switch.
I'm just not interested in shooting at the ground. I'll have to pass.
I understand.
However, if you are in a P-51D, P-47D-25, Spit IX, Bf 109G-14, Bf 109K-4, FW 190A-8, or FW 190D-9, you won't be shooting at the ground. You'll be shooting at enemy fighters, bombers, and jabos the whole time just like how it was for fighters in Tunisia, Dnieper, Coral Sea, Red Storm, the Pacific War, and every other scenario where the fighters' job is shooting down the enemy aircraft.
Even the jabo groups are undoubtedly destined to get into some air combat (as I did flying Il-2's in Dnieper and A-20's in Tunisia).
-
I would like to see a pair of Tempests and a pair of 152s added to the rosters to allow a good wingman pair to prowl which would be going on during these times anyhow. and I think that would more or less maintain your balance.
-
I would like to see a pair of Tempests and a pair of 152s added to the rosters to allow a good wingman pair to prowl which would be going on during these times anyhow. and I think that would more or less maintain your balance.
That seems a decent suggestion.
I'm looking up info to put it into the writeup.
There you go, Kanth and Phast!
-
OK, added two Tempests and two Ta 152's. Ta 152's likely weren't in the battle, and there were only like 50 of them in all of WWII as far as I can tell. Even at just a couple of aircraft, they are there in larger proportion than history, but it does I hope satisfy desires for a larger number of different aircraft.
-
Writeup: (Make sure to refresh browser after you click on it to make sure you have latest version.)
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201702_HellOverHinterland/rules.html
-
By the way, I do think it's fine to have a couple of Tempests and Ta 152's. Just a couple on each side isn't going to be unbalancing or too out of whack. Tempests were in the battle. And it sets up the possibility of the famous fight between Tempests and Ta 152's on the deck.
-
By the way, to make sure there are no feelings of being misled in future votes, I'll make make sure to clarify the tentative nature of things until the design process, that the short descriptions give the theme of battle but not necessarily exact details.
-
You need to dump the voting and just design a scenario.
-
Things are going along decently, and it will be a fun battle.
TheBug, what are you going to fly in it?
-
I have it on the authority of the intelligent part of the AH community that it was the Russians who hacked the vote.
As to the bulge maybe we could just build a wall to keep them out.
-
I have it on the authority of the intelligent part of the AH community that it was the Russians who hacked the vote.
As to the bulge maybe we could just build a wall to keep them out.
Those darned Russians!
They also hacked US fighter design with the P-47!
-
So I have a request, I'm thinking of joining in with Sir HitlerVudu but I need bombers. Can the Axis get some bombers like some B25s? I mean there should've been enough parts from Tunisia to rebuild a few.
-
Use Spit XVI's. They and the LF IXes were essentially the same and outfitted for ground attack. The XVI is the closest to what was flying at the time. The XIV's were much smaller in number and were for the air to air role.
-
So I have a request, I'm thinking of joining in with Sir HitlerVudu but I need bombers. Can the Axis get some bombers like some B25s? I mean there should've been enough parts from Tunisia to rebuild a few.
Howdy, Beefcake.
There are a few reasons why there aren't any bombers on the German side. As far as I can tell, they didn't have many Ju 88's flying around (compared to number of fighters and US bombers). Also, Ju 88's would get massacred in this environment. It will be tough enough on B-26's. Third is that it would be hard to fill all the bombers if we double the amount of them.
There are plenty of B-26's awaiting you, though.
-
Use Spit XVI's. They and the LF IXes were essentially the same and outfitted for ground attack. The XVI is the closest to what was flying at the time. The XIV's were much smaller in number and were for the air to air role.
I think that is a good call. Production of the Spit IX changed to LF version in the 2nd half of 1943. As you say, the LF IX and the XVI were nearly the same plane (just US built Merlin 66, called the Merlin 266, in the XVI vs. the UK built Merlin 66 in the LF IX).
-
A couple of changes to the Luftwaffe group names (based on info in one of the references). Put in dates and times. Going to use germany terrain instead of germanyw terrain because of weirdness with the winter tiles in germanyw that will take HTC involvement to fix and so are a future item.
Resulting writeup posted here:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201702_HellOverHinterland/rules.html
Please hit refresh on your browser to get latest version.
-
You know, I wasn't going to say a thing but this is it, I've had it.
I rejected a design similar to this before, it's ridiculous.
Allies
8 B26 bombers, with formations, 24 Planes. 4k ordinance per plane, 12k per formation. Hangers require 7k ord. Hangers 6 points.
10 Attack planes hitting ground targets 3 points each.
28 Fighters attacking Axis and defending Self Gunned Bombers
Axis
28 Fighters who get 1 point Per Plane shot down.
10 Attack planes who get 3 points Per Object destroyed.
If 28 Fighters do nothing but shoot down 100% of the B26s they gain 24 points. If they go for fighters, they get a point but missed bombers get 6.
If each bomber drops a full load and takes down one hanger, 48 points. If they salvo correctly they can potentially get over 70 points. IF the Axis kill 50% of the Allied bombers and the other successfully 50% drop, it's a TIE. So the Axis can drain their planes and take down half the bombers and the bombers can still equal them. Now, add in that the bombers can shoot back. Now also add in that 100% of the Axis fighter planes are draining their ammo taking down the bombers, and the Allies STILL have 100% of their fighters.
You then even took out the OPTION of putting the Attack planes up in the air to take down bombers instead of ground objects. Doing everything you can to script a win.
I am sick to death of trying to explain this BASIC concept to you guys. I'm going Axis. This is sad.
http://www.gcflearnfree.org/topics/math/ (http://www.gcflearnfree.org/topics/math/)
-
You know, I wasn't going to say a thing but this is it, I've had it.
I rejected a design similar to this before, it's ridiculous.
Allies
8 B26 bombers, with formations, 24 Planes. 4k ordinance per plane, 12k per formation. Hangers require 7k ord. Hangers 6 points.
10 Attack planes hitting ground targets 3 points each.
28 Fighters attacking Axis and defending Self Gunned Bombers
Axis
28 Fighters who get 1 point Per Plane shot down.
10 Attack planes who get 3 points Per Object destroyed.
If 28 Fighters do nothing but shoot down 100% of the B26s they gain 24 points. If they go for fighters, they get a point but missed bombers get 6.
If each bomber drops a full load and takes down one hanger, 48 points. If they salvo correctly they can potentially get over 70 points. IF the Axis kill 50% of the Allied bombers and the other successfully 50% drop, it's a TIE. So the Axis can drain their planes and take down half the bombers and the bombers can still equal them. Now, add in that the bombers can shoot back. Now also add in that 100% of the Axis fighter planes are draining their ammo taking down the bombers, and the Allies STILL have 100% of their fighters.
You then even took out the OPTION of putting the Attack planes up in the air to take down bombers instead of ground objects. Doing everything you can to script a win.
I am sick to death of trying to explain this BASIC concept to you guys. I'm going Axis. This is sad.
http://www.gcflearnfree.org/topics/math/ (http://www.gcflearnfree.org/topics/math/)
Reminds me of how bad "Battle Over the Winter Line" was. No surprise as to why either. Can't fix stupid, I guess.
-
Just an idea from a player on the outside looking in. (since I may not get to participate) Given what I perceive as an advantage in ordnance the Allies have, why not allow the Axis attack aircraft to be unshackled from being forced into the attack role.
Here's my logic:
-The Allies have 3 attack groups compared to the Axis two.
-The Allies attack aircraft, IMO, have better bomb and ammo loadouts for attacking compared to the F8s with the current hardness of objects.
-If the Axis CO uses his Attackers for Air defense then he's not attacking (IE Scoring Points).
-IMO it will be much easier for the Allies to score points than the Axis and the only chance the Axis have of stopping the farming of points is to kill the Allied aircraft and the CO needs all the fighters he can get.
Another idea maybe to allow one attack group to have a swap aircraft like Ju88s or 110s or maybe a 109 they can use in place of the F8 should the need arise.
-
I, too, find that giving suggestions marinated in a sea of insults works great with co-workers, associates, and people I interact with. It's such a great tactic that I run my businesses and personal life that way. :aok
Anyway, here is the reason for the scoring. Everything is equal except for bombers, which are asymmetric. For that to work, you have to estimate likelihoods and what is typical, and make that your zero point in scoring, so that if you do typical, it's a wash. If you do better than typical, you gain points, and if you do worse than typical you lose points. You have to look at probabilities of things, not just endpoints.
Based on past scenarios, my estimate is that mediocre or middle-of-the-road performance (not great and not the worst) is about half the bombers making it to target and bombing, and then getting shot down on the way back out. That then gives a delta of zero points. If you do poorly, you lose all your bombers short of target, and the points delta is negative. If you do better than mediocre, you get more of them back home or more of them to target and the points delta is positive.
The delta for N formations in the middle-of-the-road case is -3N points from loss of bombers and +6*0.5*N points for hitting targets, for a delta of zero. Do worse than that and get negative delta; do better and get positive delta.
ROC's point is that if you look at the endpoints, you get -3N if you lose all bombers short of target, and you get +6N if you get all bombers to target and they all make it back. However, in setups like this, it is more likely that all bombers get shot down than all bombers make it to target and back. I think it's about half as likely to get all bombers to target and back than it is to loose all the bombers. If so, then you need points for all bombers to target and back to be worth twice the points of losing all bombers for the probability distribution to work out evenly.
It's like with roulette. You bet $10 on a number. If you lose, you lose your $10. If you win, you get $350. Does that mean its unfair to the house that they pay $350 if your number comes up but only get $10 if it doesn't? No, because the odds of your number coming up isn't 50/50.
So, we can talk about how bomber scoring should go, but we should skip the insulting tone -- no need for that -- and add in liklihoods, which is needed, not just endpoints, which is an incomplete analysis.
As for attackers not being able to attack bombers, that isn't the case. They just can't fly at 20k when they are carrying bombs or rockets. Why? (1) Because they weren't able to do that in the actual battles and still discover their ground targets and (2) because if we have some sort of overall alt cap and attackers can fly at it, they can just blow through fighter defenses (which also is totally unrealistic). Bombers can't fly higher than attackers with rockets and bombs, bombers might not always be at the alt cap (so attackers even with rockets and bombs could sometimes be higher), and attackers can fly at whatever alt they want if they aren't carrying rockets or bombs.
Doing everything you can to script a win.
That is completely false.
Brooke is about a biased as a sock.
That is true.
-
http://www.gcflearnfree.org/topics/math/ (http://www.gcflearnfree.org/topics/math/)
Thanks, ROC. That fills in what was lacking in my math education as a result of my BS in nuclear engineering from the University of Michigan, my MS in applied physics from Caltech, and my Ph.D. also from Caltech. :aok
-
Brooke, with so few available bombers being flown by dedicated bomber pilots you have to assume that whatever planes get through to target will score points. This is not FSO where fighter jocks might be stuck in bombers for a week and screw up the drop. The bombers pilots here know how to do their thing well.
The real imbalance here is that the Allies do not have to play much defense because of the limited points to be gained by F-8's compared to the Allies having both fighter bombers and B-26's. The Axis needs a reasonable way to score points to counter the points gained by the B-26's and this does not exist as the setup is written.
If you are going to insist on having Allied only bombers - more accurate than giving the axis bombers - the bomber points should be awarded on the total target value being dived between objects destroyed as scored for the Allies and all objects not destroyed as scored to the Axis.
-
Brooke, with so few available bombers being flown by dedicated bomber pilots you have to assume that whatever planes get through to target will score points.
I agree with you, and that's what I did assume. (However, it's not a perfect assumption. Not all scenario bomber pilots are experts and some will miss hangars, as I know from being a bomber GL in about 1/3 of the scenarios.)
The real imbalance here is that the Allies do not have to play much defense because of the limited points to be gained by F-8's compared to the Allies having both fighter bombers and B-26's. The Axis needs a reasonable way to score points to counter the points gained by the B-26's and this does not exist as the setup is written.
Everything is even side to side except for the bombers. Since the axis has no bombers, you have to work out scoring for the bombers so that, if the allied and axis sides do a "typical" or "middle of the road" job, the bombers give a net zero in points; if the allies do a better job than the axis, the bombers give a net positive to allies; and if the axis does a better job than the allies, the bombers give a net negative to the allies.
To do this, you have to work in the realm of probabilities, figure out what you think will be a typical result, figure out what you think the likelihood of a better or worse result than typical is, and build your points system on that.
That's what I did.
Now, I'm not perfect, and my estimates of those probabilities might not be correct. That's where discussion and giving some stats or evidence to the contrary comes in.
But you can't just wing it, or calculate some simple edge cases without probabilities of those edge cases happening.
You guys are looking at it being an advantage to the allies to have bombers and a burden to you. I just had this conversation with Redtail who was thinking exactly the opposite -- that it is a burden to the allies to have them, because then they need to be protected, which soaks up your resources and typically starts having things like fighters flying along with the bombers (which means they are at bomber speed and not top fighter speed), etc.
The way I look at it is just probabilities of various outcomes (as judged from past scenarios) and building a scoring model using that.
My estimates:
1. "typical" or a mediocre job is half the bombers make it to target, all of those that make it hit their targets, and then they die on their way home.
2. All bombers making it to target and making it back home happens about half as often as all bombers dying short of target.
If those two things are decent estimates, then my scoring system is a simple one but in the ballpark.
-
I, too, find that giving suggestions marinated in a sea of insults works great with co-workers, associates, and people I interact with. It's such a great tactic that I run my businesses and personal life that way. (http://I, too, find that giving suggestions marinated in a sea of insults works great with co-workers, associates, and people I interact with. It's such a great tactic that I run my businesses and personal life that way.)
Sometimes even I have to smack someone on the head to get their attention. Your math is wrong, coddle it in your degrees all you want, you are not the only educated person around here.
I've already had this conversation with you about scoring and balance, over and over, time and time again. However, just to be clear, I made no suggestion, I told you I AM flying Axis, didn't say a thing about you changing it. I pointed out that it was unbalanced, don't care if you change it or not, but alas You don't even realize your explanation did nothing but justify my position.
Based on past scenarios, my estimate is that mediocre or middle-of-the-road performance (not great and not the worst) is about half the bombers making it to target and bombing, and then getting shot down on the way back out. That then gives a delta of zero points. If you do poorly, you lose all your bombers short of target, and the points delta is negative. If you do better than mediocre, you get more of them back home or more of them to target and the points delta is positive. (http://Based on past scenarios, my estimate is that mediocre or middle-of-the-road performance (not great and not the worst) is about half the bombers making it to target and bombing, and then getting shot down on the way back out. That then gives a delta of zero points. If you do poorly, you lose all your bombers short of target, and the points delta is negative. If you do better than mediocre, you get more of them back home or more of them to target and the points delta is positive.)
Your math works, we aren't taking a math test. It also only works with the conditions you applied to it, but it's missing some valuable information. Theory vs Practicality, age old battle of the intellects. How do you propose 28 Axis fighters take down 24 Allied Bombers that can shoot back, and also have 28 Allied Fighters also attacking them? You have a 28 to 28 fighter to fighter match up with one side having to then also shoot down 24 Gunned Bombers taking half of them down just to break even, and you can't see this.
Do you know how many bullets are needed to take down the bombers? Do you know how much ordinance is physically in the air at one time for both sides to utilize? Do you know that your calculations against the bombers can actually, physically, be met? Do you know, for a fact, that there is even enough ordinance on the Axis side to accomplish breaking even much less securing a victory? Are you honestly suggesting that there is enough ordinance being carried for the Axis to defend themselves against an equal number of Allied fighters and Also take down half of the B26s which also carry defensive ordinance, just to break even? I know for an absolute fact you didn't count the bullets, and you also know by now that I did. You know I count, you know I wouldn't come out here and make this stand without already knowing the answer. You do realize that you are throwing out your past experience in scenarios to justify your point, to me, right? Like I said, I made no suggestions, I simply said this was sad, never said a word about you changing it. The cavalier way you simply added planes to appease some people complaining shows no thought went into this beyond hey what a nifty match up.
It's like with roulette. You bet $10 on a number. If you lose, you lose your $10. If you win, you get $350. Does that mean its unfair to the house that they pay $320 if your number comes up but only get $10 if it doesn't? No, because the odds of your number coming up isn't 50/50. (http://It's like with roulette. You bet $10 on a number. If you lose, you lose your $10. If you win, you get $350. Does that mean its unfair to the house that they pay $320 if your number comes up but only get $10 if it doesn't? No, because the odds of your number coming up isn't 50/50.) Wait, what? Where did $320 come from? I hope you counted the ordinance better than your math here ;)
But again, Devil is being more generous offering up an alternative. I won't, I've tried before, fix it or not, no longer matters to me. I pointed, do something about it or don't. I said all I'm going to say.
Except this
Brooke is about a biased as a sock. (http://Brooke is about a biased as a sock.) I don't know what the point of this is. I never said you were being biased in this setup, I said you were wrong. It's common to be absolutely pure of heart and clean as the driven snow, yet still be wrong.
-
I feel sorry for the folks who will be forced to shoot ground guns for 12 hours. Like I did in the last event.
I wonder why if we know about when and where we are going to have these why there isn't a larger discussion amongst the more experienced in the scenario group.
Instead you and the one other guy that's made FSO a living hell decide on this in less than a week. (After a vote from the 20 or so folks on the boards who decide on a fighter only event that for some reason was even a choice.)
We had six months to hammer out a good solid match based on low numbers and instead we get this negating a large part of our bomber community and a good section of our fighters due to the current planes vs a possibility of planes. And to throw something out there like oh well if you want to fly bombers then you can fly allies is a pretty crappy deal...another part of the this game is the people you decide and want to fly with not just the planes you're in. I believe you and the other maze maker have lost sight of that.
Numbers can represent people but they aren't people. and this is a very small community to abuse with silliness like this.
-
I feel sorry for the folks who will be forced to shoot ground guns for 12 hours. Like I did in the last event.
You don't need to feel sorry.
Some people like flying level bombers, some think it is horribly tedious. Some like flying torpedo bombers, some hate it. Some like flying only air to air combat, some don't like that. Guys who flew with me in Dnieper and Tunisia -- where we did ground attack -- had fun, and they are happy to fly it again in this one. None of them want to fly air to air fighters. You don't like it, but not everyone is you.
Also, this particular battle had a *huge* amount of ground attack. Not having it would be like not having dive and torpedo bombers in Coral Sea.
I wonder why if we know about when and where we are going to have these why there isn't a larger discussion amongst the more experienced in the scenario group.
That is precisely *supposed* to be the purpose of this topic for this scenario, and the one for Tunisia, and the one for Dnieper. It is there for them to participate or not as they see fit.
It sure would be nice, though, to skip all of the counterproductive hostility, mean-spirited complaining, and insults.
That is precisely why opening up design discussions was never done before and would be the reason if we stop doing it in the future.
(After a vote from the 20 or so folks on the boards who decide on a fighter only event that for some reason was even a choice.)
You missed this:
By the way. For choices here that list no bombers, we will need during design phase to think about whether or not a bomber component is put in for the bomber pilots who play scenarios.
I think they will need something there.
And this? (which is typed by you):
why would it be an option to vote on without a preexisting bomber role? We've always had bombers doesn't make much sense to have a scenario that would cut out a part of the flight community.
And this:
I agree which is reason for earlier above comment. I think there do need to be bomber roles like you do.
We had six months to hammer out a good solid match based on low numbers and instead we get this negating a large part of our bomber community and a good section of our fighters due to the current planes vs a possibility of planes.
I think that you are completely wrong. We do have bombers specifically for bomber folks, and of course fighters for fighter folks, and the scenario will have a huge amount of action.
And to throw something out there like oh well if you want to fly bombers then you can fly allies is a pretty crappy deal...
You mean like in 17 of the past 29 scenarios, where only one side in the battle has bombers (because that's how the battle was in real life)? Namely:
Battle of Britain 2004
Rangoon, '42
Fire Over Malta
Stalin's Fourth
Battle of Britain 2006
DGS
Rangoon 2008
BoB 2008
BOG
Road to Rangoon
DGSII
MM
BoB 2013
Pacific War, frame 4
BOWL
TFT
SC, frame 4
Were you lobbying for Battle of Britain to have some bombers on the British side, and for some Ju 88's to go up against the B-17's and B-24's during the 8th Air Force strategic bombing scenarios, and so on? No, you weren't. So, no, I don't believe you want all scenarios to have bombers on both sides.
I think the reason you are complaining about it only for this scenario -- and not all those others -- is because Beefcake is flying with you in this one, he prefers to fly bombers, and you want bombers on the German side for him. I like Beefcake a lot -- he's a great guy. I love flying with him. My Dad (who flies in scenarios, but only bombers and attack planes) and my friend/co-worker (likewise) also love flying with Beefcake and have the highest regard for him. If there were people who would tempt me most into doing something in a scenario that is preferred by a person but not good for the scenario overall, Beefcake would be among them. But Ju 88's on the German side in this one is wrong because (1) they weren't in the battle and (2) they would be totally outclassed in this late-war environment.
.another part of the this game is the people you decide and want to fly with not just the planes you're in. I believe you and the other maze maker have lost sight of that.
No, I haven't. And thanks for keeping it classy with more insults.
Numbers can represent people but they aren't people. and this is a very small community to abuse with silliness like this.
You are the one being abusive. You complain about everything, all the time, and accuse me and others of bad motives when we have none.
-
Sometimes even I have to smack someone on the head
I don't treat you that way. I (as most people would) resent such treatment. Insults and derision are only good in my case if your goal is to drive me into disliking you or ceasing to discuss things with you, neither of which is my goal.
Is that your goal?
Your math works, we aren't taking a math test. It also only works with the conditions you applied to it, but it's missing some valuable information. Theory vs Practicality, age old battle of the intellects. How do you propose 28 Axis fighters take down 24 Allied Bombers
The same way 84 allied fighters took on 105 axis bombers in BoB, 80 axis fighters took on 108 allied bombers in BOWL, and 176 axis fighters took on 171 allied bombers in BOG. In the case of BOWL and BOG, those were high-alt heavy bombers, where it is harder to intercept them and easier to defend them.
Also, in the real air battle in the Battle of the Bulge, the LW was hugely outnumbered. They aren't hugely outnumbered here -- just a little, and by the bombers where the scoring is meant to take that into account.
Wait, what? Where did $320 come from? I hope you counted the ordinance better than your math here ;)
Yeah, I figured you would pull such a comment. So when I noticed my typo, I edited the post to correct it to $350 about 50 minutes before your post.
I don't know what the point of this is. I never said you were being biased in this setup
My comment came from the fact that
Doing everything you can to script a win.
requires and is equivalent to bias.
I'm glad to know that you do not, however, think I'm biased. I think I am obviously not (given that I'm on the winning and losing sides about equally), and I work hard to strike good mixtures of history, balance, and fun as best I can manage.
-
Folks, if people can't keep it civilized in here -- if there continue to be insults, mean-spirited sniping, etc. -- I will move the design discussions into a private forum where, initially, everyone who wants in will get access, but folks who persist in such behavior will get access revoked.
I would rather not do that. I like everyone having access for discussion and debate -- obviously -- since I'm the one who opened up design discussion to everyone in the first place.
But uncivil posting in the design topic is offputting and counterproductive.
So, please, keep it civil. Everyone here shares your passion for the game. We are really on each others' side -- comrades in a hobby we all enjoy. Please keep that in mind.
-
By the way, Swareiam is a Scenario CM now.
The two of us will fly on opposite sides so that each side is represented at the CM level with regard to design, game-day decisions, organization, etc.
-
You claim to build scenarios for the participants. I have no doubt that somewhere along the way you actually believe that comment. But it sure does seem that you build events that fit into "your" idea of balance and fun.
The last scenario saw you pulling strings to change the event as it was about to start. You wanted to move participants from one side to the other after plans had been discussed. Then you seemingly changed the objectives for reasons that no one understood. But that is ok, YOU formed some sort of "panel" that supposedly cleared YOU of any sort of wrong doing by not counting any points in the final frame. Argue all you want, but that sure is the way it seemed to a lot of the participants.
Ive seen few times where an event designer was really praised for a good event. But time and again crappy/thrown together/poorly designed event designers are named.............
You're famous now aren't you?
-
You claim to build scenarios for the participants. I have no doubt that somewhere along the way you actually believe that comment. But it sure does seem that you build events that fit into "your" idea of balance and fun.
It has to be 'someone's" idea of fair and balanced, and he is being quite flexible IMO.
You're famous now aren't you?
What's the point of that? How is that of value to this discussion?
-
It has to be someones idea of fair and balanced? Being quite flexible? Really?
He flip flops like a fish out of water at best.
I can admire someone that builds an event and does their best to get it right, even if there are mistakes made along the way. But so far brookes events feel cheap, thrown together and not events that are remembered for anything good. That's the prize for every event designer..........an event that is talked about on and on..... The last couple of events were discussed right up until they ended..........
If the community is willing to accept events such as the current crop, well, close the forums completely. There is no use in any sort of discussion.
So feel free to castigate me on this forum zoney............How is that of value to this discussion?
-
I think the reason you are complaining about it only for this scenario -- and not all those others -- is because Beefcake is flying with you in this one, he prefers to fly bombers, and you want bombers on the German side for him. I like Beefcake a lot -- he's a great guy. I love flying with him. My Dad (who flies in scenarios, but only bombers and attack planes) and my friend/co-worker (likewise) also love flying with Beefcake and have the highest regard for him. If there were people who would tempt me most into doing something in a scenario that is preferred by a person but not good for the scenario overall, Beefcake would be among them. But Ju 88's on the German side in this one is wrong because (1) they weren't in the battle and (2) they would be totally outclassed in this late-war environment.
I'll take some Ar234's please. :D
I appreciate the thought Brooke. :) To be honest I didn't know the Ju88s weren't in this battle, I just thought they were around at the time and so the might be available. If I get to fly it'll be different as I'll be in a fighter (which I think is a first to be honest after almost 16 years of scenarios) and I won't be GLing so I won't have to engage what's left of my mentally handicapped brain.
I don't like getting into the discussions as they tend to turn south and I don't like to perpetrate it, however, what I worry about is a runaway points scenario like "The Final Battle". That has got to be the most frustrating event I've ever flown in and in the end the scores completely ran away. IIRC it was supposed to be scored on a median like -500<->+500 with -500 being an Axis total victory and vise versa for the Allies, but when it was over the score was like +6000 for the Allies. By the end of frame two we knew it was over with no hope of being able to reign in the Allies scoring. I'm not saying that's going to happen here but that's what I worry about.
I have flown these events since I was 16 years old and I'm now in my mid 30's, I am long past the point of caring about who wins or loses. I mainly fly for the challenge of the event and getting to work with people you may not too on a regular basis.
-
You claim to build scenarios for the participants. I have no doubt that somewhere along the way you actually believe that comment. But it sure does seem that you build events that fit into "your" idea of balance and fun.
The last scenario saw you pulling strings to change the event as it was about to start. You wanted to move participants from one side to the other after plans had been discussed. Then you seemingly changed the objectives for reasons that no one understood. But that is ok, YOU formed some sort of "panel" that supposedly cleared YOU of any sort of wrong doing by not counting any points in the final frame. Argue all you want, but that sure is the way it seemed to a lot of the participants.
Ive seen few times where an event designer was really praised for a good event. But time and again crappy/thrown together/poorly designed event designers are named.............
You're famous now aren't you?
Wow SIM! who pee'd in your Corn Flakes? :)
-
Well I guess since it just seems to be me and a handful of others with issues Im curious to see what others think so far? If folks think this is good I'm willing to just be quiet and roll on but let's hear it from others. Something said he thinks it's fine, so that's one.
Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
-
Bombers...no Bombers...doesn't matter to me tactically(if anything it makes planning easier)
I will say for participation purposes...having buffs might help.
:salute
-
1.) Brooke is awesome
2.)Scenarios don't have to be balanced. Life isn't fair, that is why we root for the underdog!
3.) ar234?
4.) see #1
-
You claim to build scenarios for the participants. I have no doubt that somewhere along the way you actually believe that comment.
Thank you -- yes, I do try my best at that.
But it sure does seem that you build events that fit into "your" idea of balance and fun.
Of course I build things that I think are balanced and fun. I certainly wouldn't build things I think are unbalanced and not fun.
The last scenario saw you ...
What are you talking about? I think your perceptions are mistaken.
Ive seen few times where an event designer was really praised for a good event. But time and again crappy/thrown together/poorly designed event designers are named.............
What the public thinks of past events:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/scenarioRatings201607.png)
I haven't added in Tunisia yet, but it's median is about 4 or 4.5, I think.
You're famous now aren't you?
I am?
-
Folks, here is what we have discussed so far:
1. Desire for a lot more aircraft. (Couldn't really do that with the numbers we have.)
2. Specific suggestion for adding a couple of Tempests and Ta's. (Did that -- fine suggestion.)
3. Suggestion that there are no dedicated attack aircraft. (There were huge numbers of dedicated fighterbombers in this fight, just like lots of dedicated torpedo and dive bombers in Pacific carrier battles.)
4. Request for bombers on axis side. (Axis didn't have bomber forces in this one, and Ju 88's are totally outclassed in this setup.)
5. Complaints about the bombers. No specific suggestions on what to change.
1-4 are resolved.
With regard to 5, if you don't like it, OK, so what do you propose?
Do you suggest we have 6 bombers on allied side instead of 8?
Do you suggest axis gets a few more fighters to offset allied bombers?
Do you suggest that allies get 4 points per hangar instead of 6?
These are the specifics that would be adjusted. They are very simple parameters. They are easy to think about. They aren't huge changes. If you are thinking huge changes (like 4 allied bombers instead of 8, or axis needs 8 more fighters, or hangars should be worth 3 points, that is being absurd, because that is way outside what will be balanced based on past scenarios).
But . . . if you want a change, give some analysis based on a few past scenarios that show your recommendation is a good one. I did a pass at that already -- gave some reasons from past scenarios and how that fits with the math of balance.
If I have the time, I will write software to run the scoring system on past scenarios (including points per bomber drop and kills on each side) and figure out what points per bomber drop gives a mean delta in points side to side of zero. That would be a very thorough analysis, backed up by solid stats. Then we'd see if my first-pass analysis that lead to 6 points per hangar is in the ballpark or not very good.
Also, if you want to give suggestions, larding them up with insults and sneering is just shooting yourself in the foot. Human nature can't help but be motivated in the opposite direction of what you want when you get abrasive.
-
Human nature can't help but be motivated in the opposite direction of what you want when you get abrasive.
Not necessarily.
-
I feel quite a lot of this angst towards brooke has spilt over from the last scenario, may I ask that as gentleman we put a line under it and go forth with peace and love.
Save it for the battle because you will need it. :D
-
With regard to 5, if you don't like it, OK, so what do you propose?
Do you suggest we have 6 bombers on allied side instead of 8?
Do you suggest axis gets a few more fighters to offset allied bombers?
Do you suggest that allies get 4 points per hangar instead of 6?
I would say that at least one of these needs to be implemented, here are my thoughts.
Do you suggest we have 6 bombers on allied side instead of 8?
-IMO leave it at 8 as this gives a good room for bomber pilots to join, also it's not uncommon where you might only have 6 bombers show up on game day(s) so it could be a moot point as well.
Do you suggest axis gets a few more fighters to offset allied bombers?
-I like this option as it would give a little leeway for the Axis to have more defense. My suggestion would be either allowing 1 or both F8 squads to have alternate planes (They could still have 3 lives but only 2 in the fighters.) or add another fighter squadron in there.
Do you suggest that allies get 4 points per hangar instead of 6?
-This is a simple good alternative as well, but should only be done if another option is not used.
-
What the public thinks of past events:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/scenarioRatings201607.png)
Interesting, i really enjoyed Med Maelstrom.
-
I think the negative bar just represents the Axis tears. :devil
-
I think the negative bar just represents the Axis tears. :devil
They can discuss the rules all they want, doesn't stop me from starting my recruitment campaign for some P51 and spit pilots :)
-
They can discuss the rules all they want, doesn't stop me from starting my recruitment campaign for some P51 and spit pilots :)
Fly with the Blue Nosed Bastards! Join the 352nd FG today!
-
Thanks, Beefcake. You are a true gentleman! :aok
I don't like getting into the discussions as they tend to turn south
Yes, indeed.
what I worry about is a runaway points scenario like "The Final Battle".
The Final Battle wasn't a fond one for me, either. Part of it was that the axis side didn't execute well. As a GL on the axis side, part of that responsibility was mine.
However, it is just as you say with the scoring. It had a scoring system that summed up all frames. So, if a side got hugely stomped one frame, it might not be able to make it up even with slightly winning all three other frames.
To get around that aspect, this scenario scores individual frames to see the winner of the frame, but the winner of the scenario is the side that wins the most frames -- like in sports tournaments where a game is judged on points, but the winner of the tournament is the team that wins the most games, regardless of by how much.
I have flown these events since I was 16 years old and I'm now in my mid 30's, I am long past the point of caring about who wins or loses. I mainly fly for the challenge of the event and getting to work with people you may not too on a regular basis.
A big <S> to you, Beefcake. That's how I feel, too, but I do try my best to have balanced scoring.
-
Interesting, i really enjoyed Med Maelstrom.
I think the negative bar just represents the Axis tears. :devil
You are both right. :aok
I was the bomber GL in Med. Maelstrom. The allies had a marvelous time and rated the scenario highly, but the axis was stomped at every turn, and so the axis folks weren't fond of it and rated it poorly.
MM had a fighter:fighter ratio of 1.1 (axis fighters:allied fighters) and a bomber:fighter ratio of 0.28 (bomber pilots:fighter pilots). Looking at these stats for past scenarios, MM would probably work fine with a little lower fighter:fighter and a little higher bomber:fighter. Working to discriminate between scenarios where bombers do OK (BOWL, BoB, BOG, DGS, DGSII), ones where bombers get totally stomped (MM, Rangoon '42), and one in between where bombers sort of get stomped but not completely (Road to Rangoon), I've found that for heavy bombers at high alt, you can tolerate fighters:fighters as high as 1.2 if you have bombers:fighters in the 0.33 to 0.49 range. For scenarios with medium bombers or bombers lower than about 20k, you need to drop the fighter:fighter ratio down towards 1.0 (it is 0.87 for BoB 2008, for example), and you still need bombers:fighters to be about 0.3 or so.
That's why for this scenario, I started with fighters:fighters of 1.0 and bombers:fighters of 0.28 (close to 0.3, but backed off just a little). That fits in with past scenario stats for what ratios worked vs. what ratios didn't.
-
go forth with peace and love.
Save it for the battle because you will need it. :D
That's the spirit! :aok
-
...
Thank you, bangsbox! :aok
-
Brooke, you should stop lumping BOWL with the other scenarios where the the scoring and performance was at least close to balanced. BOWL was so imbalanced it was mathematically impossible for the Axis to win without achieving nearly perfect performance. If the allied bombers dropped on target, they won. It was that simple.
This is what worries me about the scoring of this event. The basic math presented by ROC shows a great potential for runaway scoring by bombing.
-
Brooke, you should stop lumping BOWL with the other scenarios where the the scoring and performance was at least close to balanced. BOWL was so imbalanced it was mathematically impossible for the Axis to win without achieving nearly perfect performance. If the allied bombers dropped on target, they won. It was that simple.
This is what worries me about the scoring of this event. The basic math presented by ROC shows a great potential for runaway scoring by bombing.
I hear you, Devil -- and thank you for communicating in a nice way. It certainly isn't my goal to have things unbalanced. BOWL has a bombers:fighters ratio of 0.49 -- way above the 0.28 of this scenario -- and they were heavy bombers at higher altitude than what we have here (which makes them harder to intercept and easier to defend). Also, the scoring system here isn't at all similar to BOWL or The Final Battle, but completely different.
As for scoring vs. setup, you can pick the scoring to take into account the setup and what you think will be typical outcome.
For example, you could set up a scenario where bombers always get stomped. Then you have a scoring system where, if they manage even a few drops on target, they get a lot of points. Even though bombers always get stomped, that scoring system could still provide a balanced scoring. You could set up where bombers always get to target, and then you'd make the points per drop of bomber very, very low.
Here, I'm picking 1:1 fighters:fighters and 0.28 bombers:fighters to be in line with past scenarios in general -- not BOWL specifically (which again is 0.49, not 0.28) -- to provide an environment where bombers will typically get in fights on the way to and/or from target and sometimes get to target but not always. This is what I think of as being OK for bombers -- not too easy, not a wipeout every time. Then I'm picking a scoring system so that what I think will be typical results in a delta of zero points. It's not a number picked out of thin air.
Now, the best way to do it is for me to run scoring on lots and lots of past frames and multiple past scenarios and adjust points per drop so that the average is zero and see what the probability distributions look like. That is about the most-solid way you can set this parameter. However, it entails writing computer code to do that. I will give it a try to see if I can pull it off over the next several days.
-
Fly with the Blue Nosed Bastards! Join the 352nd FG today!
:aok
-
The insults thrown around in this post is the exact reason I will no longer participate in scenarios. One chooses a favorite side (axis or allied) and gets angered because they aren't in his favor. So it seems to them.
Brooke has done this for years. I've never in all my years have heard the whining and insults that I've heard in the last 4 or so Scenarios.
Brooke you've always done a great job taking care as best you can to balance the competition. Even though in real life during the war it wasn't balanced.
I know many who feel the same way I do. The bickering and the jousting for an advantage in here has finally got to the point of childishness.
The insults don't help either. Brooke, I know you love to do this. I wouldn't do it with this crowd. Let the Air Marshalls and LW Generals design it themselves.
Maybe 12 people will then play. Attendance for scenarios is at the lowest point in my almost 18 years in Aces High. I wonder why.
-
The insults thrown around in this post is the exact reason I will no longer participate in scenarios. One chooses a favorite side (axis or allied) and gets angered because they aren't in his favor. So it seems to them.
Brooke has done this for years. I've never in all my years have heard the whining and insults that I've heard in the last 4 or so Scenarios.
Brooke you've always done a great job taking care as best you can to balance the competition. Even though in real life during the war it wasn't balanced.
I know many who feel the same way I do. The bickering and the jousting for an advantage in here has finally got to the point of childishness.
The insults don't help either. Brooke, I know you love to do this. I wouldn't do it with this crowd. Let the Air Marshalls and LW Generals design it themselves.
Maybe 12 people will then play. Attendance for scenarios is at the lowest point in my almost 18 years in Aces High. I wonder why.
You won't hear any whining if you come fly a Jug or P51 for the allies :aok
-
The insults thrown around in this post is the exact reason I will no longer participate in scenarios. One chooses a favorite side (axis or allied) and gets angered because they aren't in his favor. So it seems to them.
Brooke has done this for years. I've never in all my years have heard the whining and insults that I've heard in the last 4 or so Scenarios.
Brooke you've always done a great job taking care as best you can to balance the competition. Even though in real life during the war it wasn't balanced.
I know many who feel the same way I do. The bickering and the jousting for an advantage in here has finally got to the point of childishness.
The insults don't help either. Brooke, I know you love to do this. I wouldn't do it with this crowd. Let the Air Marshalls and LW Generals design it themselves.
Maybe 12 people will then play. Attendance for scenarios is at the lowest point in my almost 18 years in Aces High. I wonder why.
Completely agree, it's unbelievable how so many people can't figure this out. Every time I think about coming back, I read this stuff and I already have enough drama in my life.
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/dd/ddf6463a6af0c67a10ab7b8ae8ae8b7ecaba7a141c4b3b2d4f4e3c8261075b8a.jpg)
See you all Friday! I am terrible in chosen ride, but who cares it's FSO! :rock
-
The insults thrown around in this post is the exact reason I will no longer participate in scenarios. One chooses a favorite side (axis or allied) and gets angered because they aren't in his favor. So it seems to them.
Brooke has done this for years. I've never in all my years have heard the whining and insults that I've heard in the last 4 or so Scenarios.
Brooke you've always done a great job taking care as best you can to balance the competition. Even though in real life during the war it wasn't balanced.
I know many who feel the same way I do. The bickering and the jousting for an advantage in here has finally got to the point of childishness.
The insults don't help either. Brooke, I know you love to do this. I wouldn't do it with this crowd. Let the Air Marshalls and LW Generals design it themselves.
Maybe 12 people will then play. Attendance for scenarios is at the lowest point in my almost 18 years in Aces High. I wonder why.
I completely agree. It seems many people put in a maximum effort to remove the fun. I'm only here for the fun, aren't we all? Shouldn't we all? I'm going to have fun playing this game, period. Nothing you do can take that away from me.
YOU are responsible for your own happiness. It is a choice.
-
I'm bitterly disappointed that this won't have a squadron of Meteor mk III's vs Me 262-s. :furious
-
.
-
I'm bitterly disappointed that this won't have a squadron of Meteor mk III's vs Me 262-s. :furious
We'll make up for it with "The Final Countdown" scenario. We don't have F-14's, but we'll sub Me 262's off the CV's.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/F-14A_Tomcats_of_VF-84_during_The_Final_Countdown_filming_1979.jpg)
-
Thank you, guys.
Hajo and Fudgums, please don't let a few negative posts throw you off -- there are lots of guys in the community, me included, who would love to fly with you guys.
Even guys who post a negative post, they are still our brothers in arms who love flying in Aces High. Their hearts are in the right place even if emotions sometimes run high.
Come on in, guys! Newer generations of Aces High pilots will benefit from the atmosphere you guys bring, and you will love the action! :aok
-
Brooke is right.
Herr Hajo and Fudgums,
I/SG4 has two hot seats waiting for you.
It is the best of both worlds. We'll be ripping up the RAF concrete in places like Heesch, Evere and Einhoven as well as watching the plumes of flame trailing from their Flugzeuge.
Hell Over the Hinterland (http://ahevents.net/index.php/events/scenarios/current-or-next-scenario)
Click on link above.
I created this convenient link for you to the registration page. Com'n let's have some fun. :aok
:salute
-
Thank you, guys.
Hajo and Fudgums, please don't let a few negative posts throw you off -- there are lots of guys in the community, me included, who would love to fly with you guys.
Even guys who post a negative post, they are still our brothers in arms who love flying in Aces High. Their hearts are in the right place even if emotions sometimes run high.
Come on in, guys! Newer generations of Aces High pilots will benefit from the atmosphere you guys bring, and you will love the action! :aok
Brooke I hope these folks know that scenarios wouldn't have occurred if we hadn't dragged the format over from Air Warrior. As in Air Warrior you were the one in Aces High
that brought this format back. Started it in Aces High. There would be no scenarios without you in Aces High and YOU were the driving force in Air Warrior. You are due way
more respect then you are given. I would never post on these boards the derogatory responses focused on your gamesmanship. These folks that participate in these scenarios
owe you much. You put up with their crap, whining and now insults and you don't have to. Brooke I can't participate, or say I won't participate with so many ingrates and children.
To me it's the respect or should I say lack thereof of some of these children who have no idea from whence this format came, and who started it in Aces High, and you take all the
abuse for spending your personal time when I know you have a family to tend to. I remember also the complaining and whimpering about Fencer and Guppy for DGSII. OH! and the
insults they also received about DGSII. I, at my age do not suffer children well........supposedly grown-up children. I apologize Brooke, you know I've participated in Scenarios in
AW and most of them in Aces High. Brooke you are owed much......and receive poo instead. Let them find some one else to waste hours of personal time to design Scenarios and receive nothing but grief for doing so.
You Sir deserve a break and nothing but good will from this community. Instead you get this. By participating imho I would be condoning their behavior. And I don't.
-
We don't have F-14's
Says who? :noid
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/ralphmunnich/finalcountdown-1.jpg) (http://s205.photobucket.com/user/ralphmunnich/media/finalcountdown-1.jpg.html)
-
Says who? :noid
Sweet!
-
Everyone:
The germanyw terrain is available, but as it doesn't have custom textures for winter, it is a flat, white terrain (i.e., no trees at all) and -- while wintery -- looks a little funny.
The germany terrain looks much nicer, but of course no snow at all.
Please take a look at each terrain and lets hear what people think about which terrain we should use.
Hi,
These terrains aren't in my terrain selection list in game, and if I try to download the Germany terrain from HTC's webpage, it doesn't work - it just bounces me to the homepage without downloading anything. The last change date the terrain files list on the terrain download page is anywhere from 2009 to 2012, so I assume none have been updated to AH3.
Where can I get the terrain?
Thanks help
-
Oboe,
Germany Terrain is being used in Special Events 1 arena right now so you can just hop in there and you should get it OR you can create a custom arena and select Germany Terrain and get it that way.
-
Thank you, Kanth. Got it now.
<S>
-
:salute
-
Well it's a good thing I'm leading the Germans. Guess I'll be type cast as the bad guy. Hans Gruber ain't got anything on me.
Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
-
I wrote the code for number crunching past scenarios, extracted data from past logs, and analyzed lots of past scenarios and frames.
Based on that, I have updated the writeup (now version 8) with the following changes:
-- Gave the axis two more 109G-14's.
-- Reduced points/hangar from 6 to 4.
In addition, I adjusted some aspects to even up the radar coverage side to side. See change log for details.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201702_HellOverHinterland/rules.html
I feel that the calculations done are about as fair as you can get by letting the data tell us what points/hangar should be to give balanced probability distributions of outcome.
-
Hiya Brooke,
Thanks for all you are doing to ensure this scenario has a solid design, for listening to people and being flexible, and for looking at actual data to help guide your decisions. Its a tough job but you handle it with aplomb. <S>
I have no axe to grind or preconceived notions here, but ask out of genuine interest in your method. You've reduced hangar scoring by 33%. This is a significant change, what data were you looking at the supported this change - can you summarize please?
I'm certainly not challenging your scoring change - I wouldn't know whether a hangar should be with 2 or 20 points in any given situation. I'm just interesting in seeing the data you were looking at and how it drove you to your conclusion.
-
I am challenging Brooke to allow the Axis to have at least 1 190F-25H. :D
-
Thanks, Oboe.
Sure thing.
If I have the ability to do things in a more scientific way (which isn't always possible), my feeling is that the best way is to formulate the scenario design and scoring system as a model with adjustable parameters and use past data to indicate how those parameters should be set.
The goal of picking parameters is to achieve equal probability of each side winning, where the random variable in the distribution is execution (which varies from frame to frame and scenario to scenario). For example, if a scenario design is balanced, if you ran that same setup N times selecting participants at random each time, you'd get one side winning about N/2 of the time.
The easiest to balance are symmetric scenarios -- where each side is about the same with the same scoring. That would be like each side having the same number of each type of aircraft, and the aircraft are about equal in capability. That's never exactly the case (as aircraft side to side are different), but some scenarios come close to it.
The hardest to judge are asymmetric scenarios, where each side does not have the same aircraft and does not have the same scoring, like this one, BOG, BoB, Road to Rangoon, DGS, etc., where one side has bombers and the other does not.
The best way to pick these adjustable parameters is to run the scenario a bunch of times and tweak it over time until you see the outcome being balanced (i.e., each side wins about half the times you run it).
For a new design, you can't do that, but you can look at past scenarios that have similarities, and pull indications from those.
One thing you can often do in working to analyze things is to figure out some measures that have some indicative power. For example, in a setup where both sides have fighters but only one side has bombers, it is reasonable to assume that ratios could be used. For example, 10 fighters and 5 bombers vs. 10 fighters is probably similar to 15 fighters and 7 bombers vs. 15 fighters, where all numbers in the later case are 1.5 times the former case. I look at side1_fighters:side2_fighters and side1_bombers:side1_fighters as dimensionless ratios that encapsulate this.
Looking at past scenarios, I see that things worked decently (i.e., people tended to have fun on both sides, and bombers got to target and back sometimes but not always) when fighters:fighters were 1.0-1.2 and bombers:fighters were 0.33-0.36. If you go outside those ratios, you find the scenarios where bombers died nearly all the time and weren't fun to fly, or where bombers seemed too hard to stop, and the defenders didn't have as much fun.
So, that's why I started near those ratios in this Scenario.
Once you have a setup that seems like people will have fun, you have to figure out a scoring system that is balanced. I like very simple scoring systems that are still reasonable, based on how much stuff a side loses (aircraft and ground targets, i.e., kills, number of hangars destroyed, and number of bunkers destroyed in this case). Now the adjustable parameters are how much are things worth. If the design were symmetric, it wouldn't matter what you pick for those parameters as long as they are the same for each side. In this one, they are the same side to side except for points per hangar, because one side has bombers that hit hangars and the other does not -- so that's the tricky parameter to figure out, the one that affects the sides differently. Make points per hangar gigantic, and even if the allies do a bad job and don't protect their bombers well, they win because they got a few hangars here and there. Make points per hangar miniscule, and having bombers is nothing but a drag on the allies, as they are going to lose some bombers, and points per hangar isn't enough to make it worth even having them around.
So, the goal is to figure out what pts/hangar should be so that, if execution varied randomly across its distribution from one side having better execution to the other side having better execution, one side would win half the time over that distribution. Or, saying it another way, whichever side had the better execution would win. That's balanced.
One way to do that is, if you know the mean case of how it goes for bombers, you can figure out what pts/hangar needs to be so that the points differential in that mean case is zero. I did such a rough "back of the envelope" type estimate using my recollection of past bomber sorties to come up 6 pts/hangar. That's not as good as a computer analysis, but it's better than just totally winging it.
A more-accurate way (but a lot more work) is to simulate it on past data and see what the past data says. I can't always pull that off that level of analysis, but here I was able to get it done in the time I had available. What I did is look at past asymmetric scenario frames, find the number of kills on each side (easy) and estimate how many hangars would be killed if it took about a full loadout to kill a hangar (harder). That harder part, what I did was to go through each frame, look at when a bomber pilot's mission started and ended (counted as one mission) and see if he destroyed any ground objects during that mission. If any ground objects were destroyed during that mission, I count that as a drop that would potentially kill a hangar. I put in a conversion of how likely a drop is to result in a dead hangar. 1.0 would mean every drop (even the ones where a guy hit only one building at a factory complex) would kill a hangar. 0.9 would mean that 90% of the drops result in a hangar destroyed. I used 90% for my conversion. Then I go through and see, calculating a points differential d = (side 1 kills) - (side 2 kills) + (side 1 drops) * conversion * (pts/hangar), what pts/hangar needs to be for d = 0 (i.e., for the frame to end in a draw) -- call this "zeroDiffPtsPerHangar". Then I look at, for the whole scenario, what zeroDiffPtsPerHangar was for each frame and what the median, over all frames, was of zeroDiffPtsPerHangar. That median is where half the frames would have been won by one side and half by the other side if pts/hangar were set to that same value for all frames. So, if we were to go back in time, make that scenario have a scoring system of (kills1) - (kills2) + (hangars destroyed) * median, that scenario would have had one side win half the frames, the other side win half the frames, and the scenario would have been overall a draw.
Now I can do that for a bunch of scenarios and see what all their median zeroDiffPtsPerHangar look like. Some scenarios have low medians, where the side with the bombers did well all the time (BOWL, for example, has a median of 1.4 pts/hangar -- you'd need to set pts/hangar to be 1.4 for the allies to win half the frames of BOWL and the axis to win the other half), some scenario have high medians, where the bombers got stomped all the time (MM, for example, has a median of 60 pts/hangar in order for each side to win half the frames, and Rangoon 2008 has a median of infinity because too often no bombers killed anything at target). BoB isn't a particularly good fit because it has significantly fewer defending fighters than attacking fighters (unlike the other asymmetric scenarios), and so the side with bombers doesn't need any bombing points to win based just on K1 - K2 -- it is a setup that needs a different scoring system. Several scenarios are a good fit for the (kills1 - kills2 + hangars * pts/hangar) style of scoring system, like DGS, BOG, and RTR, which have medians in the range of 3.4 to 4.6. Since the middle of that range is 4, I picked 4 for us as the best estimate of what would result in a draw if execution is equal side to side or if execution is half time higher for one side than the other in the scenario.
-
I am challenging Brooke to allow the Axis to have at least 1 190F-25H. :D
We had one, but Indiana Jones wrecked it.
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/3/38/Indiana_Jones_Epic_Stunt_Spectacular_Nazi_Plane_fight.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120131112714)
-
It belongs in a museum!
-
Very interesting Brooke - thank you for that response..
What programming language to you use to parse the logs? Just curious
-
Very interesting Brooke - thank you for that response..
What programming language to you use to parse the logs? Just curious
You are most welcome, Oboe.
These days, I program mostly in Java. Java isn't the most-efficient language to use for this project -- you could get the code up and going in less lines of code and probably more quickly in Python. But I use Java for other tasks, and doing projects here and there in Java, even if Java isn't the most parsimonious choice, helps keep up at least some proficiency. Having programmed in my life a lot in Java, C/C++, Pascal, and BASIC, and some in Fortran, assembly, Python, Perl, and Lisp, Java is my favorite general-purpose language, including for larger-scale number crunching.
-
Brooke, thank you.
One way to do that is, if you know the mean case of how it goes for bombers, you can figure out what pts/hangar needs to be so that the points differential in that mean case is zero. I did such a rough "back of the envelope" type estimate using my recollection of past bomber sorties to come up 6 pts/hangar. That's not as good as a computer analysis, but it's better than just totally winging it.
A more-accurate way (but a lot more work) is to simulate it on past data and see what the past data says. I can't always pull that off that level of analysis, but here I was able to get it done in the time I had available. What I did is look at past asymmetric scenario frames, find the number of kills on each side (easy) and estimate how many hangars would be killed if it took about a full loadout to kill a hangar (harder). That harder part, what I did was to go through each frame, look at when a bomber pilot's mission started and ended (counted as one mission) and see if he destroyed any ground objects during that mission. If any ground objects were destroyed during that mission, I count that as a drop that would potentially kill a hangar. I put in a conversion of how likely a drop is to result in a dead hangar.
I know, this is how I have always approached scoring scenarios. And it's what I've always asked the team to do when they presented a design to me and was clear when they didn't, and the designs were sent back for confirmation. I know I was irritated when I posted, and you were correct in saying that was a bad way to start the conversation, however, from my point of view, it wasn't the first time I started this conversation, I've had it for years, so while you thought it a bad way to start, I was going on the mindset that it was simply the last time I was going to say it. Things need to be counted at a level of detail the scenario deserves.
Ask Nefari, we dont use Java codes and script, but we do manually enter each plane, each bomb count, each target, to a massive excel spreadsheet and make adjustments to the hanger hardness and bomber numbers and fighters to develop a hard and fact based reality check on if there is even enough ordinance in the air to achieve the objectives.
My point is, and has always been, scenarios aren't created on the back of an envelope, they have to be done the hard way. The scenario participants will only put in the effort if there is logic and credible effort behind the design. If you don't put as much effort into counting and making sure they both have the tools to do the job and the ability to even scrape out a win, they will do little more than show up on game day and scenarios become snapshots and attendance becomes nothing more than "if I have time".
Thank you for looking at the counts again. Honestly, wouldn't have made a difference if you didn't change a thing so long as you did invest the time an event deserves into making sure the numbers worked. My apologies for coming at you rudely.
-
why not just drop the scoring? The individual stats could be kept but does it really matter if side A destroys 4 Buildings more or have their way with more sheeps than side B?
-
The individual stats could be kept but does it really matter if side A destroys 4 Buildings more or have their way with more sheeps than side B?
Now that's just crazy talk man, don't mess with the sheep scores!!
-
...
ROC, you are welcome, and I completely understand. You are a good man (I know this -- independent of AH factors -- because how you have described your daughter makes me know you are a good dad, which is the most-admirable thing a man can be, in my book). You love scenarios. You love the game. All of that is admirable, you know! :aok
Now, I just have to figure out how to keep you, Vudu, Redtail, Ditto, Devil, and the rest of you Luftwaffe cutthroats from killing me as much as in Tunisia! :aok
-
why not just drop the scoring?
I hear you.
Like you, I (for my own enjoyment) don't care about score. I care whether or not flying in the event is like reading actual accounts from the battle and about how well (or poorly) I think I did given my own level of skill. Some folks are like that, and for us, we could do without a score and be happy.
A substantial portion of other folks, though, do want a score and to know in the end who won according to the score. They want to play it like a sports tournament. For them, we have a score, and so I do my best to have a score that is balanced.
-
That's easy, just fly Luftwaffle :aok
Now, I just have to figure out how to keep you, Vudu, Redtail, Ditto, Devil, and the rest of you Luftwaffe cutthroats from killing me as much as in Tunisia! :aok
-
That's easy, just fly Luftwaffle :aok
:rofl :aok
I do like flying axis about half the time. I even have very fond memories of flying in scenarios in the same group as Herr Ditto, where we had a blast tearing it up in FW's. In this one, though, there are guys I recruited into the game who want to fly bombers and so went allied.
-
Now, I just have to figure out how to keep you, Vudu, Redtail, Ditto, Devil, and the rest of you Luftwaffe cutthroats from killing me as much as in Tunisia! :aok
May I recommend a Saturday of Netflix? :D
-
May I recommend a Saturday of Netflix? :D
That would do it -- but I have an evil plan. I have modified our Typhoons, which now look like this:
(http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/mole.jpg?itok=4EAxv-VO)
We are going to your bases by tunneling under the surface of the earth, where your Luftwaffe aircraft are no good to you.
Then, of course, all your base are belong to us!
-
Oh that's alright. We have so many spare parts from the Allied junk littering the terrain that we are equipping our F8s with B17 upper, lower and tail guns. The bomb bay doors were tough, but a twin engine loaded F8 is a monster.
-
The F-8s are just starting to come out of the paint shop :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Luftwaffe%20birs/190F8Red_zps3cqoilqu.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/Luftwaffe%20birs/190F8Red_zps3cqoilqu.jpg.html)
-
awww shucks... gotta miss the first march date... stupid work, retch-fretcha.... :mad: