"Normandy Breakout" Frame 3 results

[daddog]

Gents,

Squire is pretty sick at the moment. He asked me to score the frame. I am swamped with work and some online classes and honestly don't know when I will get to this.

Just looking at the logs I would say the Allies held the day, but since I was flying for the LW I will give it to them.

If anyone really wants me to tally the numbers I can, but it will be a while before I can get to it.

[Virage]

Are all the 'objects destroyed' by the allies valid targets?  Just curious.  Still looks like a solid Allied win.

[daddog]

Virage,

No, only the targets that were assigned will count. For example if Fields 1, 2, and 3 were assigned to be destroyed and a squad or squads attack fields 3, 4, and 5 then they would only get points for fields 3. We do this so squads stick to their assigned targets which help insure contacts between enemy. If squads don't hit their proper target then they might not have any enemy contact which can be quite boring after 2 hours of flying.


Targets:
 
Field P78 62% destroyed  124 pts Axis 76 pts Allied   36/58 objects detroyed
 
Field A69  77% destroyed 154 pts Axis  46 pts Allied  31/40 objects destroyed
 
Field A81  90% destroyed  180 pts Allied  20 pts Axis  18/20 objects destroyed
 
Field A87  55% destroyed  110 pts Allied 90 pts Axis   22/40 objects destroyed
 
Target totals:  388 pts Axis   412 pts Allies
 
Planes Lost:
 
P47D-11 ( 10 pts each )   11  = 110 pts Axis
P51B ( 10 pts each )    25   =  250 pts Axis
Spit IX ( 10 pts each )  17  =  170 pts Axis
Typhoon ( 10 pts each ) 13 = 130 pts Axis
P38  ( 15 pts each ) 16  = 240 pts Axis
 
109G-6 ( 10 pts each ) 11  = 110 pts Allies
JU88 ( 15 pts each ) 48  = 720 pts Allies
FW190 ( 10 pts each ) 26 = 260 pts Allies
 
Planes lost totals:
 
110+250+170+130+240 = 900 pts Axis
           
110 + 720 + 260 = 1090 pts Allies
 
Totals:  
 
Allies: 412 + 1090 = 1502
Axis:  388 + 900 = 1288
 
One allied craft reported to be lost due to 'friendly' ack at A70. Plane not counted.

Thanks APDrone and or Squire for doing this. All I did was post them.

[dfl8rms]

DD or other CMs,

Does number of target objects play into the equation at all?  I notice that the Axis' port target had 58 objects to destory compared to 60 total objects to be destroyed by the allies.

Just wondering, cause I can see the merits of taking that into account and the merits of going on pure percentiles.

To briefly summarize both sides:

Pro not counting them differently:
The more targets/objects usually require less bomb poundage to destroy (port's targets less hard, so less bombs required to down).  Therefore a bombers bombs go farther and could destroy more objects.  So don't weigh in the number of objects.

Pro counting them differently:
More targets means more bombers on target and/or greater time on target for the bombers (multiple passes to ensure complete destruction of the base) increases the likelihood of interception and loss of airplanes.  Also most bomb runs I've seen in a Squad Ops have been single pass salvo all runs which work great against few targets, but don't work so great when you have to pickle individual bombs on specific targets.

Note: I am not disputing the results, as personally I had a fun this last tour.  I just wanted some clarification and do not mean to cause rancor, discord, etc. in existing processes.

[APDrone]

ForHIM,

The total number of objects really had no impact on the scoring, since each field was worth 200 points with percentage destroyed ( objects destroyed/ total objects for said target ) of those points awarded to the attacker and remaining to the defender.

That was the most managable way I could figure on accurately tallying the damage.. especially since the number of large value targets ( hangars ) were destroyed by each side equally. For example, since Axis target  A69 had all 4 FH and BH destroyed and so did the Allied target A87, those were a 'wash' as far as objects went, so I could just count them as objects without a nagging feeling I should weigh in ordinance value.

I suppose you could put a weighted value on targets based on ordinance required for its destruction. i.e. a FH that takes 2500lbs to destroy is worth 10x ammo bunkers that take 250 lbs to destroy.  This, of course, would have to be cross checked for each map to ensure the hardness is correct for the formula.

So taking that a step farther, one could base a target on total tonnage necessary for it's destruction, then adding up tonnages of targets destroyed ( I don't think we know what partial damage is done, do we? ) and factoring the percentiles that way.  This way would take an extra step to reference the hardness of each object type, but it is managable.. as long as we don't try to assign too many targets during a frame.

Thanks for the thoughts.. I hope this answers some of your questions.

[dfl8rms]

Drone,

Thanks for the response.  Figured it was simplest to just assign points per target and work off percentages.  You guys (setup and admin CMs) do enough as it is.  Thanks again.

[daddog]

APDrone pretty much spelled it out. I generally make each target worth 200 points. If it is destroyed by the attacking side they get 200 points. If not the defenders will get the 200 points. If it is 50% destroyed they split it 50/50. Just depends on what % of the target is destroyed.

Some targets are fields and all within it. Other targets might just be a lone vehicle hanger but all are worth the same points. Also some targets might be a train or truck convoy. I then count the number of trucks/cars destroyed to figure out what percent each side gets of the 200 points. Two hundred points may seem like a lot, but it is not uncommon for a side to lose 60 fighters in a frame. At 10 points a fighter that is 600 points right there. Which has the same value of 3 completely destroyed targets. It really puts the pressure on the squads to land their AC or all their efforts are for naught.

It is not the most scientific method and has lots of holes, but generally it works. I should also add not all Admin CM’s score the way I do. Some don’t even like to use or look at “points”. Anyway… my two cents. Thanks for asking forHIM. I am sure others had the same question.