DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 575--------------------------------------------------
Re: E11 Things to Come
By: Rick McKown Date: November 18, 2018, 1:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Based on our two E11 games I believe that making four changes,
all against the Japanese, as Gordon & Andrew are proposing, is
quite extreme. I think that missing the two P-51's gyro
gunsight capability in their first two games actually could have
had a significant impact - certainly our impression is that the
gyros, which give those P-51s both a +1 drm on their ACT rolls
and a +1 FP on their Losses rolls, are a very powerful tool in
inflicting losses (and consequent cohesion roll failure) on the
Japanese.
If a change in favour of the Yanks is deemed to be necessary
(and I remain skeptical) then simply eliminating the "Low Ammo"
would give the P-51 squadrons a bit more "endurance" without
directly reducing the ability of the Japanese to inflict some
pain.
Rick
#Post#: 576--------------------------------------------------
Re: E11 Things to Come
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 18, 2018, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll dig into the numbers tomorrow, but I'm wondering the extent
that which Andrew and Gordon's perceptions are influenced by the
outlier scenario where the Japanese did extremely well.
#Post#: 577--------------------------------------------------
Re: E11 Things to Come
By: Gordon Christie Date: November 18, 2018, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We've tested this over 3 weeks & the scenario has (I think)
changed a bit-I haven't kept the old playbooks to log changes
but I think at one stage the US had an experte (which now seems
to have gone) which would equate to 1 gyro squadron & the
Japanese have gone from 3 to 2 experten.
Changes to the scenario as it stands would be:
Lose fuel limits
Reduce Japanese veterans by 1
Increase Greens by 1
I appreciate what Rick is saying but we've seen very few US
victories in the later stages of testing this one & i'm struck
by the frequency of Japanese attacks on the bombers in all of
our tests. I do think it needs a distinct tilt in favour of the
US....I entirely accept others may feel the tilt is a little too
far though:-))
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 578--------------------------------------------------
Re: E11 Things to Come
By: Elias Nordling Date: November 19, 2018, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I also disagree with Gordon's conclusions. I've found that with
3 veterans, the US fighters are just able to parry the incoming
Japanese fighters, most of which are so fragile as to get only
one or two shots.
I'm not sure if it is a matter of playing style. I split
whenever I can and dogfight whenever I can with defenders, for
example.
I agree that missing the gyro sights makes quite a difference.
You sure you didn't miss the fact that three of the Japanese
units are flights and not squadrons?
I'd be happy to try this one PBEM with me as the US against any
of you to see if there is something either of us are missing.
#Post#: 696--------------------------------------------------
Re: E11 Things to Come
By: Gordon Christie Date: December 9, 2018, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the long delay. A lot else has been going on & time
has been very short.
Andrew & I gave this another run with all of the previously
discussed changes to see if we had shifted it too far in favour
of the US.
This time out result was:
US 15 single engined & 3 twin engined fighter kills (+19.5 VP),
1 bomber squadron broken, 1 disrupted for +15 exit VP (+34.5
total)
IJAAF
3 B-29 kills, 9 Mustang kills (+18); 9 attacks on bombers (+9)
for +27.5 VP total
Final result was +7.5 VP for a Japanese win.
I still think this needs the suggested changes for balance. The
Japanese have 7 units (4 sqns, 3 flights) against 8 US flights
if all of the Mustangs split & the bombers are far from
invulnerable against Japanese firepower of 2 or more for the
majority of their units. With VP for attacks on the bombers the
US have to work hard to win.
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 698--------------------------------------------------
Re: E11 Things to Come
By: Elias Nordling Date: December 9, 2018, 1:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In your last run, you got something line the results I usually
get with the scenario as currently written. With beefed up US,
like the first version, the Japanese didn't come near the
bombers.
#Post#: 725--------------------------------------------------
Re: E11 Things to Come
By: pilotofficerprune Date: December 15, 2018, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, following Gordon/Andrew's play, I'm going to split the
difference on this. I'm unhappy with the idea of removing the
fuel limits as I reckon that would have a massive impact, and I
like the idea of relatively fragile Americans. However, I can
implement part of the Japanese quality proposals, if only to
reduce the longevity of 'über-Japs'.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page