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

[Brooke]

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. 

[Devil 505]

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]

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.

[ROC]

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.

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.  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.  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.

[Vudu15]

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.

[Brooke]

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.

[Brooke]

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.

[Brooke]

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.

[Brooke]

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.

[SIM]

 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?

[Zoney]

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?

[SIM]

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?

[Beefcake]

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. 

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.

[Guppy35]

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?

[Vudu15]

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