Design discussion for Fjord Fury (June 2018 Scenario)

[Hajo]

Brooke concerning the Lancaster.  Anyone flying a fighter with a good gun package salivates in the MA when it sees a form of Lancasters.  It's easier to even attack from the rear then a B17 , B26, or B24.

It is larger then Ju88s and is easy to hit.  It is not a very fast bomber.  It's defensive firepower is the weakest of the four engine bombers.  Even in my old age when I see Lancasters I see three kills if I'm in a P47.  If I'm in a cannon bird it makes it more difficult for the set of 3 Lancasters to survive.  Something that may wish to be considered.  Also........and I hate to say this maybe some historical events can't be portrayed with the limited map, limited amount of targets.  We haven't solved the number of participants being so low question.  So, imho this event has provided a road map for the Axis to defend, designated what will be hit, a very difficult target set in a narrow fjord with a limited path to get to the target.  This is how they will get there, this is what they must bomb.  Axis CO has a cakewalk in this instance.  OK Boys.......go here and wait.  As I said this may just be an event that we shouldn't do because of the limitations and the obvious advantage the Axis will have in defending a well defined target with limited access and egress , they know where the attacking force will be with extended Radar, because this is where they HAVE to go and have limited areas and paths in which to attack. I hate to say this, this event has a chance to be the worst ever.  I have no idea how this could be planned to make both sides happy.  Maybe something else could be planned.  Again this is just my opinion. For what little it may be worth.

[Brooke]

The Final Battle had N allied fighters, 0.68N allied bomber aircraft, and 1.59N axis fighters.

Right now, we have N allied fighters, 1.84N allied bomber aircraft, and 1.23N axis fighters.

In other words, if we ran The Final Battle again (where Lancs did at times make it to target and where they didn't get all destroyed every mission) and increased the number of Lancs by a factor of two, and reduced the number of axis fighters by 22%, how would it go?  Wouldn't the Lancs do better?  Well, that's what we have in Fjord Fury right now compared to The Final Battle.

If you have a scenario with N allied fighters, 2N Lancs, and 100N axis fighters, all the Lancs will die every time.  If you have a scenario with N allied fighters, 2N Lancs, and 0.1N axis fighters, all of the Lancs will live every time.  Somewhere in between lies balance.

We want a balanced scenario, where it's not a cakewalk for the Lancs, and it isn't 100% loss every mission.

So, what do we put in, and how do you estimate that is the appropriate number?  I am just going by past scenarios and tweaking from there.

[Hajo]

Brooke you and the designing CMs have an unenviable task of trying to make the majority happy.  I applaud each and every one of your efforts collectively.   Trying to even out this Scenario is going to be very very tough.  I don't know what to do about scoring.  I don't know if it actually matters that much.  All I'm saying, and again this is just my feeble opinion.  This design because of the constraints may not be suitable at this time.  Again, it's just my opinion.  I think in this rare case no matter what you and the designing team do it will not be satisfactory to at least half.  Again, just my opinion for what it's worth.

I won't be participating in the event as I posted before because of other obligations, so just maybe I ought to keep my big mouth shut.  I think I will.

[Brooke]

Thanks, Hajo.  I hope you can make it for October-ish scenario, though. 

[Hajo]

Thanks, Hajo.  I hope you can make it for October-ish scenario, though. 

I'll be there! 

[Vudu15]

1.You are recommending that we replace one group of K-4's with G-14's with gondolas, right?  I'd rather face K-4's than G-14's with gondolas.  Ditto wanted to turn one group of K-4's into G-14's with gondolas.  He was OK with my request to keep them K-4's.

2.You are recommending more P-51D's be turned into P-51B's due to gun loadouts?  That's goofy, so I suspect that's not it.  Or are you recommending that we add additional P-51B's, increasing the allied side size?

I'm hesitant to add more allied planes.  I'm concerned that if we have too many, the axis will have a very hard time because I've already adjusted the ratios of planes to be more friendly to the bombers than most of the past strategic-bombing scenarios.

Regardless, I would still do it if Ditto also thinks it's best.

Ditto, what do you think?

1. No, ALL K4s should be dropped and ONLY G14s should be used. See this is where your lack of knowledge when the dogfights start comes to light. A bad shot is a bad shot, K4s or G14s both have issues. 1-3 30mms are enough to tag a LANC but you need SEVERAL seconds on target with 20mms even with gondolas(leave that option with the GL not forced) This gives the bomber force even unescorted a chance to fight and even kill attackers. PLUS escorts have a better chance fending off attacks due to disparity in performance. You need more 20mms than 30mms to kill LANCs and if they take gondies they will suffer in the fighter role which as someone for the allies you would want. key point is if you cant shoot it still wont matter 30 vs 20.

2. Yes drop most of the D ponys in favor of Bs this gives the 109s better surviveability against the escort and still have increased performance while give the best balance to both sides.

But at this point in this farce of an FSO yall do whatever it is you want as you always have. I just don't think you understand how the average fighter vs fighter in this setup really breaks down. I'm not talking squad vs squad I mean man to man. Thats where you should look...but I'm afraid you just dont and never will understand what I'm talking about. You need to bring these event write ups to a panel of 3 to 5 people and let them look them over and adjust them BEFORE the general public, then make slight adjustments to tweak a month form gameday. The group should focus on historical accuracy AND balance and IF you take the time you CAN achieve both. But I'm done you cats do what you want, this crap will continue so long as people continue to play and not ask, Hey couldn't this be better?

[Vudu15]

Compared to The Final Battle...

The Final Battle was THE worst event I think by far and should be taken out back and shot post haste. and to your point shouldn't be used as reference unless its to showcase just how far fetched and ridiculous rules and plane sets can be.

[Brooke]

There you go, folks -- a lesson for us all on how to keep it classy. 

[Dace]

Classy or not, he's correct.

[Brooke]

Let's take a quick summary and move on to what we need to determine.

Summary:

-- The event that players voted in has P-51's, Spit 14's, Tempests, and Lancs vs. 109k's, 190d's, Ta 152's, and FW 190A-8's.
-- We will be running that.

What remains to decide:

-- Some folks are concerned about Lancs being weak.
-- If so, how many allied fighters do the allies need to make it balanced, and why that number?

This isn't complicated.  At some point, allies have enough fighters and bombers so that bombers aren't all lost every mission.  That's what we want.  How many fighters is that and what is your reasoning on why that number?

[perdue3]

I really don't think you can solve a weak bomber issue by throwing more fighters in. That seems like the wrong way to approach the problem. The solution is found in scoring. However hostile Vudu may be, he has a good point regarding the Final Battle. But, as you said, we are not discussing that.

[Brooke]

We do that all the time in scenarios.

If the balance is off, even if they are B-17's, they get wiped out.  If the balance is OK, even if they are Ju 88's, they do OK.

Also, although I wasn't that fond of The Final Battle either, players did rate it a +3, so people overall liked it OK.  And we aren't comparing stats to The Final Battle (and BOG, DGSII, Rabaul, BOWL, BW) to make this one more similar to The Final Battle (or BOG, DGSII, Rabaul, BOWL, BW).  We are looking at stats in those past scenarios to glean what ratios tend to result in good balance.  It is data mining.

Lancs aren't horrible.

We will be fine if we get the numbers in the right ballpark.

[oboe]

You may need to look at more than just ratios to get an accurate picture.   For example, the hitting power and speed of the intercepting fighters (early War vs late War), the bombing altitude restrictions in place, how many and how predictable were the targets, were there other attack forces present that may have split the defending fighters - things like that.   

It IS an interesting problem to look at though.  And after this one is in the books we'll have that much more data to mine...   

[Brooke]

The solution is found in scoring.

Oh, and scoring is important, too -- you are right.

It is possible, though, to have balanced scoring and a scenario that isn't balanced in its fun, though.

For example, let's say you have a scenario where only one bomber out of 16 is going to make it to target, and you compensate for that by having very high points for that one bomber that gets through.  That might result in balanced scoring, but it would be no fun for bomber folks.

We want to design for balanced play, and then put balanced scoring on top of that.

[Brooke]

You may need to look at more than just ratios to get an accurate picture.

Very true -- there is high variability in the data based on what you point out and based on the execution of sides.  For example, some scenarios have frames where one side wins by a lot then the other side wins by a lot when the design and ratios have not changed.

We have to keep that in mind in the data mining.  For example, if you found that a/d = 1.8 always results in great balance for strategic-bombing scenarios with B-17's.  Now you have Lancs.  You probably will need a/d higher than 1.8.  What if 1.8 was great for Lancs and Spit 9's vs. Bf109G's, now you have 109K's and Spit 14's?

There's a lot of judgement in it however you go, but data does give at least some starting points -- some ballparks to work in.