Hell Over the Hinterland design (Feb/March 2017 scenario)

[JunkyII]

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.

 

[bangsbox]

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

[Brooke]

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:



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?

[Brooke]

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.

[TheBug]

Human nature can't help but be motivated in the opposite direction of what you want when you get abrasive.

Not necessarily.

[Bruv119]

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.        

[Beefcake]

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.

[thrila]

What the public thinks of past events:

(Image removed from quote.)

Interesting, i really enjoyed Med Maelstrom.

[Bruv119]

I think the negative bar just represents the Axis tears.   

[JunkyII]

I think the negative bar just represents the Axis tears.   

They can discuss the rules all they want, doesn't stop me from starting my recruitment campaign for some P51 and spit pilots

[BFOOT1]

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!

[Brooke]

Thanks, Beefcake.  You are a true gentleman! 

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.

[Brooke]

Interesting, i really enjoyed Med Maelstrom.

I think the negative bar just represents the Axis tears.   

You are both right. 

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.

[Brooke]

go forth with peace and love.

Save it for the battle because you will need it.        

That's the spirit! 

[Brooke]

...

Thank you, bangsbox!