Author Topic: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design  (Read 454 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22432
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2020, 09:45:34 PM »
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.

I appreciate that viewpoint.  :salute :cheers:

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13918
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2020, 03:48:15 AM »
Scenarios have these goals, not all of which are possible to 100% achieve:

1.  Themed on a historical battle or occasionally a "what if" setup.
2.  Player reading 1st-hand accounts of real battle feeling "that's what it was like flying in the scenario."
3.  Popular enough to gather enough players to run the event.
4.  Fun for all players in all plane types.

1 and 2 pull in the direction of history and realism (except for the occasional "what if" design).  3 and 4 usually pull away from history and realism.

A scenario will not fill if players in general feel one side is too dominant.  There are some plane types and match ups that are very hard (or impossible) to fill.

What-if scenarios include Fjord Fury, The Final Battle, Operation Downfall.

Some scenarios with one side significantly outnumbering the other:  Stalin's Fourth, Battle of Britain.

A recent scenario with more changes from history than usual because of items 3 and 4 above:  Rabaul.

Some scenarios with F4U's:  Rabaul (F4U-1A), The Final Battle (F4U-1D), Operation Downfall (F4U-4, F4U-1C, F4U-1D), Philippine Phandango (F4U-1D, F4U-1A).

Scenario with B-29's:  The Pacific War.  It was fun, even for me flying Ki-61's against B-29's.

Some less-favored planes that I can still get at least 5 people to fly the whole scenario in:  Il-2's, He 111's, P-40 fighterbombers, Bf 110C fighterbombers, B5N's, Hurribombers, B-25H's, A-20's.  Planes that are very hard to fill:  Stukas, B-25C's, C-47's.

Some scenarios I'd love to see run one day if I thought we could fill it:  Cactus Air Force and other stuff from the Guadalcanal Campaign, stuff based around B-29's like frame 4 of The Pacific War, a what-if US vs. Soviet late-war, Milne Bay, Tali-Ihantala, Stalingrad, Midway.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2020, 03:50:06 AM by Brooke »

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3919
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2020, 12:02:59 PM »
Sometimes Scenarios and FSOs become too far from accuracy for my liking and likewise, sometimes the events are not balanced as well as they could be because of the designer's desire to keep a close proximity to accuracy. It is a give and take and findign the right recipe is the goal. Sometimes we get really close and other times we do not.

Regarding airplanes not being used often, I think we have covered that. I think it is difficult to work certain aircraft in, such as the Ju 87D and the B-29. If this topic needs to be continued, I am more than willing to comment further or theorize how best to utilize certain aircraft in an event.
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com

 

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22432
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2020, 12:11:47 PM »
Sometimes Scenarios and FSOs become too far from accuracy for my liking and likewise, sometimes the events are not balanced as well as they could be because of the designer's desire to keep a close proximity to accuracy. It is a give and take and findign the right recipe is the goal. Sometimes we get really close and other times we do not.

Regarding airplanes not being used often, I think we have covered that. I think it is difficult to work certain aircraft in, such as the Ju 87D and the B-29. If this topic needs to be continued, I am more than willing to comment further or theorize how best to utilize certain aircraft in an event.

By all means, please. I would appreciate more insight.  :)

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3919
Re: The philosophical, practical and honest goals of scenario design
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2020, 12:29:32 PM »
There are also intangibles that must be considered when designing an event. Too many designers look at plane matchups as an A vs. B fight. Instead, we must consider the type of fights that will be happening. I have multiple events in my portfolio that have not been ran because I have so many questions about little things. These answers can be sought, but in a test format. I do not remember ever having I-16's versus Ki-43. How would that play out? I know that a Ki-43 should win 1v1, but what about a group? Things need to be considered more than climb rates, speeds, and turn radii. You must also consider the difficulty of flying certain aircraft. I think everyone would agree that a Spitfire is easier to fly than a Bf 109. This must be taken into account. Look at the difficulties of flying a Yak-7 and Bf 109F. Or even, the Ki-61 and P-38G (this one bit us last year). When these things are not considered, we get a lackluster event that could have been better with subtle changes. Or in extreme cases, an event that never should have been ran.

Another difference in design philosophy I often see is bomber matchups. Designers like to look at bombloads and speed comparisons, but none of that matters, in my opinion. What matters is how it stacks up against enemy fighters. If they both are equally in danger (or easily killed), they are balanced. Some bombers have natural advantages over others and that is just the way it is. I think a Ju 88 and Boston are very evenly matched for two reasons: the Ju 88 has a bombload advantage thus making it easier to bomb with and the Boston is faster making it more difficult to kill. This is a nice balance and no changes are necessary. The real question is, can the Axis plane set (usually Bf 109F, G, and 190A-5) kill Bostons? The answer is yes. Next, can the Allied plane set (Yak-7, Spitfires, P-40s, P-39s, et al.) kill Ju 88s? The answer is yes. Therefore these two bombers are balanced. No need to limit the bomb load of the Ju 88 because then that balance swings the other way. Now, we have two bombers that carry the same payload but one is faster than the other. We balance the disadvantages, as you aforementioned, thus achieving something resembling balance.

An interesting situation is the Tu-2S and Ju 88. This is a perfect example of how it is balanced. This hypothetical plane set would be late-ish Luftwaffe versus late VVS. So, we are thinking A-8, G-14, G-6, Ju 88 vs. Yak-9T, Yak-9U, La-5/7, Tu-2S. At first glance yo uwill think, "Wow, the Ju 88 is outmatched by the Tu-2S and is in no way comparable." But, nevermind the capabilities of the bombers themselves and instead look at how difficult it would be for each side to kill the other bomber. Can Bf 109G's and 190A-8s reasonably kill Tu-2's effectively? I think, yes. Can La's and Yak's kill Ju 88's reasonably effectively. I think, yes. Although, I think the VVS would have MORE difficulty killing Ju 88s because their fighters are not designed to do that. So, because of these reasons, I think Ju 88 v Tu-2 is fine so long as there are late-ish Luftwaffe fighters around (not Bf 109F and Bf 110C). This, however, opens up another can of worms, which is why are VVS fighters escorting medium altitude bombers which are bombing strategically?  :headscratch: Still working on that one...
« Last Edit: July 14, 2020, 12:43:50 PM by perdue3 »
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com