Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)

[Guppy35]

Call BS all you want, but the historical number of Spit9's operated by the 12th Air force in February 1943 is zero. It would stay at zero for another two months. That's a fact and you know this.

Also, Brooke reduced the number of 190A-5's in Jg2 for the exact reason you specified. There was 12 originally. I also recommended swapping out the F-8 for the A-5, also for the sake of accuracy. Brooke has his reasons for not wanting to do so.

If this was to be a truly proportional representation of fighters, then half the Allies would be in P-40's with half the Axis in 109G-2's, and the event will be crap. And there will still be zero Spit9's.

The issue for me is that the 12th didn't operate in a vacuum. They were part of the MAAF that included the RAF and commonwealth units.  I'm reading a book right now called "Desert Eagles" and time and time again they note RAF and USAAF units working together.  So to eliminate the 9 because the 12th didn't get their own for another month denies that the 9 was there.  Again, I'm not flying Spits, but I did have a Spit V squadron the last time we had a similar LW plane set and no matter how we flew them the LW birds performance was such that they could dictate the fight.  How is that different now?  How does that give guys an incentive to take a 39 or 40 or even a Spit V up?  I'm asking for four Spit IX that are at least similar in performance to match up against the A5s and be around to provide high cover for the fighter bombers

[Zoney]

B

C

Please, refrain from bashing each other over the head with each others opinion.  It isn't good for anyone, it isn't good for the scenario, it isn't good for the game. 
It isn't "inviting", nor is it inclusive. 

Every action you take either adds to the game or subtracts from it.  Make the game better with your conduct and others will follow and pull it up.  Make it worse and others will follow and we will all sooner or later be wallowing in a cesspool.

Become the person the people you respect would be proud to associate with.

[Brooke]

I was going to participate when I saw the original writeup.

Excellent!  I want you to fly in it!   

If you look at the original writeup, you will see that the allied side has been substantially strengthened since then, thanks to feedback from this board.
original:  http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules-v1.html
current:  http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html

Joker, please read the following.  I hope to convince you to fly in this, and I hope to show my point of view more clearly.

Brooke, I did not say anything about fans of the game or side prefs for events. I said 'on this board" . . .

I only have two options, though.  I can either decide unilaterally or I open it up to all equally (but I can't force people to participate -- so if they choose not to, I can't help that). When I am highly confident of something, I don't open it up to vote.  When I'm uncertain, I open it up to vote because I want more input.  I'm just doing the best I can, but I realize whatever is decided, there will be some group that thinks it's the wrong way to go.

Then I start reading on this board "B24's are too tough we need them out"

There were never B-24's in this.  Some folks did complain about B-17's, but B-17's are still here.

, "109g6 wasn't used that much", etc ,

There likely weren't as many G-6's as G-2's -- so he might be completely correct about that -- but honestly, I don't see that it matters significantly because the G-2 and G-6 are (in the spectrum of planes used here) about the same in effect.

etc ad nauseam all from the same guy .... and he actually gets things changed in his favor.

He asked so far for these things:
-- Many fewer 190A-5's than I had originally.
-- All B-25's and no B-17's or B-26's.
-- More G-2's than G-6's.
-- Smaller active area on terrain.
-- Seafire II's and Spit V's for allies instead of all Spit V's.
-- A-20's having reduced bomb load.
-- Many fewer P-38's.
-- Replacing C.202's with Bf 109F's.
-- Using 190A-5 jabos instead of 190F's.

Of those things, I implemented one (reduction of the 190A's) and put one up to a vote (the G-2/G-6 thing).  The other seven were not implemented.  The one that I implemented was a change to the disadvantage of the Luftwaffe -- so you have to give him credit there for arguing for it -- and he was right about it.

Does anyone on this board really think that a side with P40's, P39's, SpitV's, and P38G's are going to be at anything other than a huge disadvantage against groups of Bf-109G2's?

The US planes aren't up against just Bf 109G's.  There are as many C.202's as there are P-40's and P-39's put together.  Also, there is the attack and bomber contingent to consider, bomb load, defensive capabilities of those, and lethality of axis fighters vs. those planes.

Like with many things, various people have different opinions on it.  I think it's balanced.  You think the US is at a significant disadvantage.  ROC thinks the Axis is at a significant disadvantage (which is why he's going axis, he said).

[Devil 505]

Joker, what you seem to not understand is that an event often balances accuracy against playability. There are often elements which skew the event off that balance and I will argue which ever position better achieves that balance. Brooke and I share the fundamental belief that an ideal event will wind up as a draw. Strategy, decision making, and the ability of the players should be the difference between winning and losing. The counter to a balance issue based on historical accuracy will naturally be a concession based on playability - and vice versa. If you cared to see the individual issues being argued over, you would realize that I am not being hypocritical, but attempting to better balance that individual issue. And not every "fix" I propose favors the Axis either. Hence the fewer 190A-5's for Jg 2. A large amount of 190's was both unbalancing and inaccurate based on proportion. Earlier in this thread I was arguing for more P-40's based on that same idea of proportion, but realized that it tipped the scales too much to favor the Axis, and would leave a sizable player gap for the Allies because of planes not being filled. And if I were inclined to fly Allied, I'd choose the SpitV or P-39 because they best fit my flying style and would do so knowing the inherent disadvantages doing so. 

The issue for me is that the 12th didn't operate in a vacuum. They were part of the MAAF that included the RAF and commonwealth units.  I'm reading a book right now called "Desert Eagles" and time and time again they note RAF and USAAF units working together.  So to eliminate the 9 because the 12th didn't get their own for another month denies that the 9 was there.  Again, I'm not flying Spits, but I did have a Spit V squadron the last time we had a similar LW plane set and no matter how we flew them the LW birds performance was such that they could dictate the fight.  How is that different now?  How does that give guys an incentive to take a 39 or 40 or even a Spit V up?  I'm asking for four Spit IX that are at least similar in performance to match up against the A5s and be around to provide high cover for the fighter bombers

Guppy, of course the 12th AF did not operate in a vacuum, but it was chosen by Brooke to maintain a consistent theme. He is not trying to have a proportional planeset. He is picking a selection of fighter groups from the 12th that best balances against the Axis - which has been tuned to help dial in that balance better.

But the real issue here is overall playability, and I think the scale as of now is just as Brooke says it is - A small bomber advantage for the Allies and a small fighter advantage for the Axis. I'll restate my issue with the Spit9 in the context of the fighter set balance. As it stands now, every fighter has an element of strength and at least one of weakness. Every plane requires strong pilot skill and discipline to be effective. The Spit9 has no serious drawbacks and an average pilot in one has a far greater chance of success than if he were in any other plane - especially if he were against a Spit9. And let's face it, those few Spit9's will not be filled with just average pilots. As it stands, the fighter set is balanced because each plane's strength plays off another's weakness. It's like boxing, where differences in styles make for better fights  -  but the Spit9 is like Muhammad Ali - the balance is lost when a fighter can do everything great and with ease.

Furthermore, the slight Axis fighter advantage is needed to balance the total event against the Allied advantage with bombers.

[Brooke]

they will win the vote

Joker, you didn't vote yet.

[BaldEagl]

None of the above.

This:

A. 12th af has 6 spit v and 6 spit ix.
C. Lw has 109 groups that use g2 or g6 as they see fit.

... But with Spit IX's and 109G-2's in pre-determined numbers/percentages to balance gameplay with Spit V's and 109G-6's as the more numerous base models.

[Randy1]

A/D

[LCADolby]

Lets have another Dneiper or Malta;

A / D 

[Guppy35]

Joker, what you seem to not understand is that an event often balances accuracy against playability. There are often elements which skew the event off that balance and I will argue which ever position better achieves that balance. Brooke and I share the fundamental belief that an ideal event will wind up as a draw. Strategy, decision making, and the ability of the players should be the difference between winning and losing. The counter to a balance issue based on historical accuracy will naturally be a concession based on playability - and vice versa. If you cared to see the individual issues being argued over, you would realize that I am not being hypocritical, but attempting to better balance that individual issue. And not every "fix" I propose favors the Axis either. Hence the fewer 190A-5's for Jg 2. A large amount of 190's was both unbalancing and inaccurate based on proportion. Earlier in this thread I was arguing for more P-40's based on that same idea of proportion, but realized that it tipped the scales too much to favor the Axis, and would leave a sizable player gap for the Allies because of planes not being filled. And if I were inclined to fly Allied, I'd choose the SpitV or P-39 because they best fit my flying style and would do so knowing the inherent disadvantages doing so. 


Guppy, of course the 12th AF did not operate in a vacuum, but it was chosen by Brooke to maintain a consistent theme. He is not trying to have a proportional planeset. He is picking a selection of fighter groups from the 12th that best balances against the Axis - which has been tuned to help dial in that balance better.

But the real issue here is overall playability, and I think the scale as of now is just as Brooke says it is - A small bomber advantage for the Allies and a small fighter advantage for the Axis. I'll restate my issue with the Spit9 in the context of the fighter set balance. As it stands now, every fighter has an element of strength and at least one of weakness. Every plane requires strong pilot skill and discipline to be effective. The Spit9 has no serious drawbacks and an average pilot in one has a far greater chance of success than if he were in any other plane - especially if he were against a Spit9. And let's face it, those few Spit9's will not be filled with just average pilots. As it stands, the fighter set is balanced because each plane's strength plays off another's weakness. It's like boxing, where differences in styles make for better fights  -  but the Spit9 is like Muhammad Ali - the balance is lost when a fighter can do everything great and with ease.

Furthermore, the slight Axis fighter advantage is needed to balance the total event against the Allied advantage with bombers.

You going to come fly Spit Vs or P40s?

[branch37]

4 spit 9s won't make that much of a difference. Maybe they will be a nuisance for a few minutes or so maybe 2 or 3 times in the frame but the majority of the time they will be re fueling or out of position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crash Orange]

A/D.

[puller]

Lets have another Dneiper or Malta;

 

[USCH]

I can't see joker showing up no matter what anyway, so just let him take his ball and go home.

Clearly reading up on things is too tough for him to do due to his busy schedule. As Brooke pointed out, only one thing has been changed to " help axis".

Also I personally fought for no alt cap to improve the 38's ability to overcome the axis speed advantage it was shot down, but he didn't seem to be backing me up during that time.

PS many things went into Bruv's decision to possibly go axis, like a private squad vote.

[Brooke]

PS many things went into Bruv's decision to possibly go axis, like a private squad vote.

The real reason:  secret Iron Cross tattoo on left buttocks and intense craving for sauerkraut. 

[Bino]

Brooke, I personally like the design as it now stands (15-Aug). But I don't yet know if I will be available to fly the event. I hope to.