June, 2017 Scenario design discussion

[Brooke]

an 8/8 cloud layer at 34 will look bad I think. Let us see some blue when looking up!

Perhaps a down-wind layer above 34k is a better solution?

Nice spot, my friend!    And good suggestion, too.

It's a thin layer of cirrus that looks like this from below, but you notice it if you fly through it.  We can't do downwind at 34k, or I would absolutely do that.

Flying close to it:


When a bit below it:

[Brooke]

The A-8 is so slow and climbs so poorly at alt, I worry about them.  The A-5 is nearly 40 mph faster and has about twice the climb rate at 30k.  That is significant.

Another way to look at this.

The FW 190D-9 and FW 190A-5 have similar climb at high alts.  Also, when you think about how much faster a D-9 is -- the D-9 is the same speed improvement over the A-5 as the A-5 is over the A-8.

[Fencer51]

A reminder that the LW gets two lives and can immediately re-up after being shot down and climb back to the fight.  Any allied fighter must proceed 100+ miles
to the west and to air spawn and then they have the long tail chase to attempt to close back on the bombers.  Not to mention the ability of the LW to drop down and rearm at any convenient base.  If anything the player split should be 55US/45LW, but that is not going to happen.

Brooke,

Better take a look at your terrain.  A57 is non operational.

Also you need to ensure that friendly fire is off. (IE does no damage)

You had best look at giving 3 lives to the fighter pilots of both sides or your second required mission may be sparsely attended by anything less than 4 engines.  The LW will almost certainly launch again if they get shot down while the bombers are inbound.  If they don't then you are going to have a bunch of unhappy HQ warriors sitting and waiting for the second inbound bomber wave at T+90.  And if they do launch a good chance that they will loose about half of those pilots once again.  As for the Allies they too have a choice, rather to sit in the briefing rooms discussing the latest news or re-up to escort the bombers back home.  Again you can probably figure on loosing 33% to 50% of those second flight fliers as well.  It may end up looking like February 45 by the time this all comes around.

[Brooke]

Fencer, thanks! 

Yep, going to need to get 57 fixed for bombers.

I'm not aware that there is an option for turning off friendly fire -- or at least I don't remember using it in scenarios (could be brain degeneration on my part, though).  We can turn killshooter on or off.  If it is on, friendly A shooting friendly B means A takes the damage.  If it is off, B takes the damage.  Either way, if a friendly shoots a friendly, someone is taking damage.

As for 3 lives, it's a good discussion to have.

It's always a balance between motivating folks to fly with a care to their virtual lives but not have it so restrictive that no one is left after T+1.5 hours.  Two lives has seemed a good balance of that for a lot of scenarios, including ones with longer travel times to target.  DGS, BOG, DGSII had 2 lives for fighters and one for bombers, but BoB 2008, RtR, Philippine Phandango, Tunisia Dawn of Battle, Red Storm, and more all had 2 lives for everyone, and I think fighting and bombing seemed to go the distance.

3 lives have been very rare.  There are a bunch of scenarios that had only one life (Rangoon 2004 and 2008, BoB 2004 and 2006).  Dnieper had 3 lives, but it was a meat grinder of a battle, with 1 sector to combat, an alt cap of about 20k, and fights starting in the first 10 minutes of the frame and being nearly continuous until the end.  Hinterland was also much more a meat grinder with similar dynamics to that, but it had 2 lives and except for frame 1 fighting lasted the distance.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to do 3 lives -- just that we should all talk about it and see what everyone thinks.

It would be good that 3 lives isn't equivalent to the feel of unlimited lives, and we need to careful that the 3rd life isn't way more valuable to one side than the other, such as axis being able to utilize that 3rd life way more effectively than the allies.

[Crash Orange]

I just wanted to note that it's currently 78 Allies to 44 Axis. Due to formations.

This is just silly. If you think a formation of bombers is anything remotely like an equal game asset to 3 fighters, either you've been hitting the schnapps way too hard or you've never actually played Aces  High.

Luftwaffles always start lobbying the second the design discussion is opened for a 3:1 numerical advantage with them in perk planes and the Allies in P-40s and Boston IIIs to make the scenario "fair". I wish you guys would fly just one scenario as Allies, preferably in B-24s, to get a little perspective. Even numbers with one side having some bombers and the other all in fighters is not even, and even numbers counting bomber formations as 3 planes is just laughable. And I bet none of you are in the BoB thread lobbying for the RAF to have 50% more fighters than the LW for that one.

Edit: I should add, it's not by any means everyone who flies Axis or even everyone who prefers Axis who does this, it's the same small group of people. I've flown Axis several times and had a blast. I'd be glad to fly this one as Axis myself as the numbers now stand.

[Kanth]

I hope you do. 

I'd be glad to fly this one as Axis myself as the numbers now stand.

[JunkyII]

That cloud layer is the same we use in KOTH.....barely has any effect on what you see unless you are crossing it.

Going to register in a G6.

[Devil 505]

The typical alt in Big Week seemed to be 25k, which is why I increased it a measly 2k.  23k was quite low for Big Week, it seems.

Let's compromise at 24k.

As for 190A-8's, there were two reasons to making them 190A-5's.  First is that 190A-8's weren't around until after Big Week.  Second is that all I hear from axis guys is wanting A-5's instead of A-8's.  I thought they'd be happy to get A-5's instead of A-8's, but I get the lethality aspect.

The A-8 is so slow and climbs so poorly at alt, I worry about them.  The A-5 is nearly 40 mph faster and has about twice the climb rate at 30k.  That is significant.

I understand the firepower issue, but if you really want firepower, the axis could have some 110G's with higher firepower still, way more 30 mm ammo (not just 55 rpg), no convergence issue, the same speed as the A-8 at alt, and climbs better than the A-8 at alt.

I also don't mind fighting P-51's in the 110G: 
(Image removed from quote.)

I'm going to fly axis in this one.  I will likely be in a 109.  If there are 110G's, I might fly one of those, though.

That 2K of alt is important because the Axis fighter performance falls off over 20K and the Allies keep gaining as alt increases. From 23 to 25K, the Axis lose 10-15mph and a B-17 gains that much - and so do their fighters. The performance gap only widens further from there. That is why I recommended the total alt cap comes down to 30K as well as putting the B-17's at 23K. You have put them in very little danger after the first pass by the Axis. Since the whole event is based on bomber escort, then the bombers should be the focal point of the action. I still think 23K is better for total event balance. Every little bit helps keep pressure on the bombers and making sure the escorts concentrate on protecting them.

I can't say I disagree with you on the performance merits of the A-5 over the A-8, but the matchup model was balanced with the A-8 and it's ability to hammer away at bombers with the 30mm's. If you feel that the balance is still maintained with A-5's then give one 190 squad the option of either the A-5 or A-8.

As for the historical use of the A-8, remember that the A-7, near identical to the A-8, had been in use with Jg 1 and Jg 26 since January '44.

Also, you did mention this:

Folks voted for A over B, so I figure they want it this way.  I'm hesitant to take what people voted for then turn it into one of the choices that didn't win the voting.

and this:

A. 
Early 1944, with:
B-17's, P-47D-11's, P-38J's, and small number of P-51B's
vs.
Bf 109G-2's, Bf 109G-6's, and FW 190A-8's.

Seems only fair to have the option open for those that want the A-8.

Now with the 110's, I think you should give the Axis 4 of them to make up for the firepower shortcoming.

I'm going to fly axis in this one.  I will likely be in a 109.  If there are 110G's, I might fly one of those, though.

Looking forward to flying with you for a change. Pencil me in to lead III/Jg 54.

[Brooke]

I'm flying axis in this one -- likely in a 109G-6 unless there are 110G's, in which case maybe I'd register for one of those.

However, I've flown bombers and fighters, escort and intercept, on axis and allied sides many times.  So when folks talk about what it is like to fly bombers, or to escort bombers -- or to intercept bombers (including massed groups of B-17's) -- I get it.

I try my best for scenarios to be fun for everyone -- both fighter and bomber pilots.

I can't guarantee outcomes, as it depends on sides' plans, how well the sides execute, and the skill level on each side, which varies scenario to scenario and even frame to frame.

However, decent bomber missions are generally how things worked out in DGS (where I flew B-17's), BOG (where I flew 109's), the BoB's (where I flew Ju 88's, He 111's, 109's, Stukas, and Hurricanes, depending on which running it was), Southern Conquest (flew Ju 88's), Stalin's Fourth (flew Boston III's), Philippine Phandango (flew Ki-67's), and Tunisia Dawn of Battle (flew Ju 88's).

My favorites have been DGS, BoB 2013, and Southern Conquest.  We had to fight our way to and from targets, it wasn't easy and we didn't always survive, but we got our share of targets, and when we did, it was a real sense of accomplishment.

That's what I'm hoping it's like here. 

[Brooke]

Now with the 110's, I think you should give the Axis 4 of them to make up for the firepower shortcoming.

The axis CO will definitely get to decide if he wants some 110G's instead of all 190's.

Looking forward to flying with you for a change. Pencil me in to lead III/Jg 54.

Likewise.   

[FBDragon]

I'm really looking forward to this one!!! I'm really torn between flying with my CO (Devil5o5) or flying my favorite ride the 190A8!!!

[StokesAk]

I think that having the alt cap be so high really sucks some fun out of the event. A P38 can barely cruise at that altitude, I can only imagine how the 190s and 109s must feel. Being at such high altitude limits how the fight turns out, basically the axis get one attempt at a pass on the bomber stream and after that all bets are off.

Im also worried about how the axis are supposed to kill the bombers with their plantset. B17s are VERY tanky and its gonna be really hard for axis fighters to get any meaningful damage off while allied escorts are gunning for them.

In BoG the axis had 190A8s which they used effectivly to HO pass the bomber stream and it worked well for them. I just dont see how the axis are going to be able to put a dent in the 17s while they have an equal amount of allied fighters chasing them down. How can the axis put up a defense against the bombers without draining all their resources to deal with the escorts.

The allies get to dictate the engagement, where and when they engage. The axis dont have enough forces to be PROACTIVE, only REACTIVE to what the allies do.

[Krusty]

Some issues have been raised already and I'd like to add a couple of comments to them.

Regarding the allied planes vs axis planes ratio: It's high. The comments include that bombers got hit hard in past scenarios -- but this was with a LOT more players so axis could devote squadrons to sweeping attacks to draw off fighters, so that bomber-hunter groups could specifically be employed. Neither of those is likely in light of our last scenario. We'll have enemy fighters in close proximity to each other, and we won't be able to separate "escorts" from "attacker" on the axis because those lines are blurred or gone. This is compounded by the fact that US escorts will have 2x historical ammo (most of the P-47s will be using an unhistorical overload ammo) and will be able to remain on-station far longer than they should when realistically they'd have to break off after expending ammo. I know Guppy doesn't want to address that and thinks it's not an issue but it is. [edit: no offense guppy, that's the take I got from your comments in other thread] When you have P-47s loitering for an hour because they can it changes an entire battlefield dynamic. Because of these and other aspects, the ratio is a tad high in favor of the allied team at the moment.

Regarding the 190A8s: Our A-8 is modeled after the Sturm variant but without the additional armor to help it out. Further, the weights are all jacked up so that the MG151/20 loadout is heavier than it should be and the Mk108 possibly lighter than it should be. Regardless, the comment was made about 190A8s and the extra firepower needed to hunt down the bombers. Well... I can see that, but on the other hand at the alts the axis are forced to fight at the A-5 would better represent the lighter loadouts that our A8 can't quite match, even with only the 2-gun package. The A8 with 4x20mm should weigh the same as a dora. It's heavier than that and with less performance. So... I can see allowing the option to use either A5s of A8s at squadron CO choice (tailored to mission objective). I think that the option to swap 190s for 110s is probably just going to doom the 110s based on the balance issues above (comment #1). The firepower would be good but the planes would have a prolonged chase to use those guns and would be more vulnerable than 190s.

Regarding bomber alt cap: 24k is... well here's the thing with alt caps: You set a cap, guess where the bombers will be? At the cap. So, I really can't comment TOO much about this because whatever I'd suggest would just be the new "look for bombers here" alt. While bombers could be found at this alt they could also be found much lower, many as low as 16k in the massive 100s-of-bombers streams, the small rare percentage might be up at 28k and the low percentage were at 16k and the rest in between around 20-22k. I think 22k (going with the assumption that any set cap is the "find me here" alt for bomers) would be representative of the most common bomber level engaged by LW defensive fighters. 24k is a little high, but ... again, it's within a realm the axis side can reach (which is good) but above all their best altitudes by quite a bit (which isn't so good, but still managable)


TL;DR:
1) allied numbers a tad high
2) allied P-47s most common fighter and all will use unhistoric overload ammo. Disable that or lose all balance.
3) 190A5 option bridges gap, our A8 version too heavy. 110s probably dogmeat in this setup.
4) 22k would be better for bombers. 24 is... "eeeehhh... doable" but 22 or 23 would be more representative.

[Guppy35]

So lower alt for the bombers so the LW fighters can operate better, lower ammo for the Jugs so the LW gets less lead thrown at them, and lower number of Allied Fighters so the LW fighters have less to contend with......Do I detect a slant here?

[Guppy35]

Thinking about it and the numbers of players scenarios seem to draw now.  Why not simplify this thing a bit?  We basically with the numbers Brooke has for each side, have one Bomb Group and 1 Fighter Group for the Allies and one JG for the Luftwaffe.


So you set it up where the idea is the scenario is just one part of a larger raid.  That US Fighter Group is covering it's Box of 17s to the target and back.  The Luftwaffe is out to kill it.

So the 354th FG 51Bs are escorting the 91st BG 17s and are intercepted by the 109s and 190s of JG26.  Lets face it, Bigweek isn't run without the Mustangs. It also kills the concerns of too much ammo for the Allied fighters.

One Fighter Group CO with three Squadron Leaders. One Bomber Group CO and 2 Squadron Leaders.  And the JG with 1 JG CO and 3 Gruppe commanders.

It might feel a bit more historical that way instead of these small flights representing different groups.

Nothing changes in terms of objectives.