Author Topic: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design  (Read 7948 times)

Offline Spikes

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15738
    • Twitch: Twitch Feed
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2020, 11:25:22 AM »
Sometimes one has to set aside their personal dislikes which are couched under the guise of 'unbalanced.' The fear of F4Us in a scenario has always used such an overinflated excuse. It casts the F4U fans in the game completely aside with no effort being made to balance things otherwise. Yes, that includes an abundance of N1Ks, Ki-84s (not all that different from Perdue's description of how Dieppe was made playable). The CM team would then be tasked with trying to address player perception that late Japanese warplanes could not possibly survive the onslaught of any model of F4U. I suspect that such a task is so unsavory to the personal joys of a number of CM's biases that the effort would seem insurmountable.

We put F4Us into events where the F4U fits. I even ran an event in November that pitted F4Us against a reasonable Luftwaffe defense. Most Axis players (these days) dislike Pacific theater events to begin with, so it is nice to give them something decent or competitive (which is difficult to start with in Pacific unless you are talking 1942 and prior with even matchups like the A6M2 and F4F).

A6Ms, N1Ks, and Ki 84s were no match for an F4U-4 in real life and they are not in Aces High either.


Well, that was both a defensive and weak response to my charge of not even trying to explore options in applying the entire AH inventory, if possible. I never claimed it would be easy but, apparently, layering excuses to not make the attempt was easier. Addition by subtraction? Does asking something harder of you really equate to 'trolling' in your mind?  ;)

We apply the 'AH inventory' as best that we can. I don't understand how any person can say that we don't explore options when we've used the Lancaster as a Short Stirling, a Yak-7b as a D.520, a C.205 as a MiG-3 and in most cases those experiments have worked pretty well.

I do not understand what you are asking us to do. Your original post was to start a discussion on event design and multiple CMs that design events have opened up on the subject to shed some light on their thinking. After these posts you reply with some snarky comment about how we aren't doing anything to include more aircraft. I don't appreciate being berated when I dedicate a good amount of time to all of these events.

How about you contribute in a meaningful way rather than mocking my team which puts a lot of time and effort into putting events on month after month for everyone to enjoy?
i7-12700k | Gigabyte Z690 GAMING X | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 | EVGA 1080ti FTW3 | H150i Capellix

FlyKommando.com

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2020, 11:40:29 AM »
It is nice, admittedly. They are far from perfect and at times may seem even poor, but we are striving for that perfect middle road. I think there aren't enough critics, actually. It seems that every scenario gets an average of +4 in Brooke's rating system. That means the team feels that we did well and continue doing the same thing. The truth may be much different, but we can only work with what is given to us. If no one critiques, how can it improve?

Discussions such as these are necessary for events to continue and to improve. I think every designer on the CM Team is open to criticism, which is another nicety that has not always been present.

Would you recommend the same tactics that were used against the design team I was on, as the best way of“offering  criticism” to the team you are on?
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2020, 11:42:51 AM »
Would you recommend the same tactics that were used against the design team I was on, as the best way of“offering  criticism” to the team you are on?


No. My behavior as an adolescent was not commendable and I do not condone it.
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com

 

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2020, 11:43:54 AM »

A6Ms, N1Ks, and Ki 84s were no match for an F4U-4 in real life and they are not in Aces High either.


Reasserted opinion noted. I believe you are wrong.


I do not understand what you are asking us to do.


Again, consider reconsidering your stance based on the idea that all AH toys in inventory are potentially practical in scenarios if enough effort is applied to do so. Just consider it. You can even just pretend you are.


How about you contribute in a meaningful way rather than mocking my team which puts a lot of time and effort into putting events on month after month for everyone to enjoy?


Invitation to join the CM team accepted. I've contributed time and effort as an AH volunteer before. I'll do it without being comped.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #34 on: July 13, 2020, 11:56:30 AM »

No. My behavior as an adolescent was not commendable and I do not condone it.

Good to know.  About as close as we will get to an apology.   I’ll step back from this discussion.  Good luck going forward.  I’ll be in a Spit V over Dieppe for the 190s to look for
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Spikes

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15738
    • Twitch: Twitch Feed
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2020, 11:58:32 AM »
Reasserted opinion noted. I believe you are wrong.
The F4U had a K:D ratio of 12:1 against the A6M and 6:1 against the N1K and Ki 84. Super competitive.

Perhaps my wording was skewed, I am of the firm belief that any aircraft in the game is 'practical' in a design. Whether we choose to utilize them in a design due to fun, balance, or historical purposes is a different story. Planes that are 'too good' are often left out of events for the same reason planes that are 'too bad' are left out. Very few people want to fly an obsolete aircraft against newer, faster, better ones.
i7-12700k | Gigabyte Z690 GAMING X | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 | EVGA 1080ti FTW3 | H150i Capellix

FlyKommando.com

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2020, 12:00:38 PM »
Invitation to join the CM team accepted. I've contributed time and effort as an AH volunteer before. I'll do it without being comped.

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7321
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2020, 12:27:43 PM »
So, my example of what is 'fair' or 'fun' for the community in scenarios was not supposed to be expressed in response to the same from a CM? Oh, Dolby, Dolby, Dolby. Did you intend to offer a post where you either wanted to offer a way to be more inclusive, regarding the the inventory or wanted to back up a reasonable excuse not to be? Yes? No? Maybe?  :D

I was merely making an informed and accurate observation.
 
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10


"BE a man and shoot me in the back" - pez

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2020, 12:42:08 PM »
I was merely making an informed and accurate observation.

Actually, you were just making up an observation while not understanding the discussion. There's a difference. :old:

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2020, 02:52:49 PM »
Good to know.  About as close as we will get to an apology.   I’ll step back from this discussion.  Good luck going forward.  I’ll be in a Spit V over Dieppe for the 190s to look for

I am sorry Guppy.

 :salute
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com

 

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2020, 05:37:51 PM »
I am not sure if you ever responded to my philosophy post or to my directed question, Arlo. I assume you mean Aces High's plane list. I think every plane in Aces High has a place in Special Events. However, for some planes, that place is very, very specific. Limitations must be placed on certain aircraft for, what should be, obvious reasons. Let's get hypothetical:

F4U-4 and F4U-1C. I am not sure of the last time these were used in an FSO or Scenario. I can tell you that I do not remember. They do not make their way into events for two reasons: they are extremely good aircraft, better than nearly all others and their role in WWII limits their use in an accurate event. I agree, that every plane can be balanced. 6 Hurris versus 1 K-4 is somewhat balanced, albeit a poor choice of matchup. If I were tasked with fitting these two late beasts into a setup, I would do it. But I would go about it in a very specific way. Let's build an event, perdweeb style.

First, I start with an operation, an event, a mission, a battle, etc. I choose the battle then the planeset, not the other way around. Many designers do it differently, and that is fine. I choose a battle and research all the aircraft used and how many. I then place that in a matchup, or order of battle. I then start whittling that historical OOB into a playable AH event. Once I have the plane set (with or without subs), I can start to build the event. From here, I determine what the aircraft should be doing. Are they defending, attacking, bombing, escorting, scouting, killing tanks, etc.? Once I have figured out what each aircraft will do, it is time to balance it with numbers. I first figure out what the side balance will be (50/50, 53/47, etc.). Then, I determine which planes should be limited based on both the historical OOB as well as that plane's capability compared to its opposition. So, I start with real, actual data and transform it into an event. Rather than building a planeset that is accurate first, then adding history, I start with history and make it balanced. Just a tad different than many designers.

Let's do Okinawa together:

Here is a quick list I compiled of the Allied forces at Okinawa (FAA, USN, USMC):

279 FM-2
325 TBM/TBF
151 SB2C
701 F6F (96 Jabo, 30 to be on island)
565 F4U (192 likely U-4+1C+1D, 96 Jabo)
40 Seafire
9 Firefly
2 Walrus
36 Mariner

Because this is hypothetical, I will forgo the research figuring out the exact number of each type of F4U present. If I really was designing an Okinawa event, I would definitely continue the research to get exact numbers. The same can be said for the Japanese although that information is extremely difficult to find. For simplicity's sake, I would probably do even numbers of Ki-84's and N1K's at minimums of 20 a piece. But, we are here to discuss the Allies. Now, let's whittle that list of stuff down to something we can actually work with.

2108 Total aircraft. 38 of which are seaplanes, so we are down to 2070. Convert that to percentages:

FM-2: 13.5%
TBM: 15.7%
SB2C: 8%
F6F: 33%
F4U: 28%
Seafire: 2%

(Got a little lazy with the decimals, forgive me)

For an FSO, we expect around 130 for an event. Generally speaking, PTO is less popular and yields lower numbers, so to be safe I would shoot for 120. Because the Allies are the only side attacking, usually I would give them the numbers advantage. Maybe that is unnecessary here, but let's do it anyway. Let's say 52/48 on the split. That is 62 pilots that we can expect and therefore 62 airplanes. The Seafire and dive bombers are too low a percentage to include, I think. So, we take them out. Some designers like to leave them in there as an option, but I do not see  the point often times. We can't have 6 types for only 6 squadrons. That becomes a logistical Gordian Knot, so we need to keep the type count down to around 4 if we can help it. That leaves us with F6F, F4U, TBM, and FM-2. If we apply the same percentages we are looking at:

FM-2: 8
TBM: 10
F6F: 20
F4U: 17

This is not 62, so we can add some to which ever type we think needs it. If it were me, I'd go with less TBM's and more FM-2's or F4U's. So let's make that change and get to 62:

FM-2: 12
TBM: 8
F6F: 20
F4U: 22

These are the numbers we will work with in hopes of achieving. The issue is the F4U. Without the facts, it is difficult to place a number on them. Let's keep it hypothetical and claim that there were equal numbers of F4U-4 and F4U-1C. Let's go one step further and claim they numbered half the F4U's total, which seems too large a number to me. But, my research would eventually lead me to the answer, but I don't want to spend more than the 90 minutes I have already spent on this single post.

FM-2:12
TBM: 8
F6F: 20
F4U-1D: 12
F4U-1C: 6
F4U-4: 6


This is what I finish with. These are the ideal numbers as history and balance would have them (sort of). There is more to do. Of the 20 F6F's, at least 4 of them should be bombing. The 1C and -4 should also be bombing. For this situation, I think I would allow the F6F's to be all fighters so that the F4U's can carry the bombs. Another issue is the number of plane types. 6 is too many, so I would weigh removing one of the two late beasts or removing the 1D. Let's do that:

FM-2: 16
TBM: 8
F6F: 26
F4U-1C: 6
F4U-4: 6

I removed the 1D's and distributed those people to the FM-2 and F6F. Now that I have a decent looking set, I can balance. Some may say that the set is not quite good enough and others will say it is way too good. I think, so long as the -4 and 1C are required to bomb as they were doing in 1945, it is fine. They would be Jabo only and each maxed at 6. This way they are included, they are accurate in their inclusion, and there are not enough of them to make it an unplayable arena. But, these limitations must be placed because they will not be facing Spit 16's, Yak-3's, K-4's, Dora's, and Tempests. They will be facing Ki-84's and N1K's. This is how I would use them in an event if I had to and I think it would be fine. My final product would look like this:


Allies (52%)                                                             Axis (48%)

FM-2 (min 12)                                                          Ki-84 (min 20)
TBM (min 8)                                                             N1K (min 20)
F6F
F4U-1C (max 6)
F4U-4 (max 6)


F4U's must carry ordnance and make attacks on objectives by T+60.





That is basically how I attack a design. I run ideas past people along the way and even ask for help researching quite often. Every airplane has a place, but some airplanes are included incorrectly which then saps some fun out of people's experiences. But, with logic, understanding, and cleverness, any airplane can play a historically accurate role in an event.
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com

 

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2020, 05:47:28 PM »
No argument. Well done.

What a dedicated VF-17er might prefer would be F4U-1As in the Battle of the Solomons Sea. ;)

"In the Battle of the Solomon Sea on November 11, 1943 Fighting 17 took off from a land base and landed on the carriers U.S.S Bunker Hill and U.S.S. Essex. They refueled and then flew cover over the task force and shot down 18.5 Japanese aircraft. They proved in this action that the F4U could be successfully operated in combat from a carrier."

https://www.vought.org/special/html/sfight17.html

« Last Edit: July 13, 2020, 06:19:54 PM by Arlo »

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2020, 07:21:18 PM »
No argument. Well done.

What a dedicated VF-17er might prefer would be F4U-1As in the Battle of the Solomons Sea. ;)

"In the Battle of the Solomon Sea on November 11, 1943 Fighting 17 took off from a land base and landed on the carriers U.S.S Bunker Hill and U.S.S. Essex. They refueled and then flew cover over the task force and shot down 18.5 Japanese aircraft. They proved in this action that the F4U could be successfully operated in combat from a carrier."

https://www.vought.org/special/html/sfight17.html

1A's are not as difficult to get in an event like the -4 or 1C. When we talk about ALL that AH has to offer, it is difficult to get the likes of the U-4, 163, 152, 234, Tempest, and Spit 16 into events fairly and accurately. 1A's are easy, as are -1's. Your Solomon Sea idea is beside the issue which also happens to be sub-topic of this topic.
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com

 

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2020, 07:32:35 PM »
Granted. Proving that any and all AH models can be possibly included in scenario design goes past just F4U-1As in the scenario I described. Though there seems to be a consensus among a few that even my scaled back example is oppressive to the current group of Axis players, I believe that it wouldn't be as all encompassing as that. I'd be willing to prove my original claim using this as a baby step, however.

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2020, 08:26:54 PM »
Granted. Proving that any and all AH models can be possibly included in scenario design goes past just F4U-1As in the scenario I described. Though there seems to be a consensus among a few that even my scaled back example is oppressive to the current group of Axis players, I believe that it wouldn't be as all encompassing as that. I'd be willing to prove my original claim using this as a baby step, however.

We have done multiple events in the past two years with Corsairs. What I spelled out for you above can be done with B-29's, Me 163's, Me 262's, Ar 234's, Tempests, Spit 14/16's, etc. Point being, every plane has a role and a place in events. However, the designer must be careful about how they are implemented to ensure balance, fun, and accuracy.
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com