DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4205--------------------------------------------------
Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: December 31, 2019, 3:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a thread stub.
#Post#: 4954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: March 28, 2020, 1:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ethan made a comment on CSW suggesting the campaign display
would be clearer if instead of separating the progression arrows
in the scenario tree by success/failure, they instead indicated
Soviet/German success. I think this is a sound suggestion so I
will be making this change and will update the components in
this week's update.
#Post#: 5029--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Gordon Christie Date: April 10, 2020, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Since this is Wing Leader: Legends it seems only fair to follow
the fortunes of Allan Galland and 13/JG13 at Kursk:
The battle opens with Allan's Staffel leading a strong LW
fighter defence (OOB 5) against an inexperienced Soviet raid
(OOB3) attacking German airfields. Aided by good GCI the LW has
much the better of the air combat downing 7 Yaks & 13 Pe-2s for
no loss. Allan employs gun pods on his 109G-2 to great effect
destroying an entire squadron of Peschkas. Despite their losses
the Soviets bomb well crippling one airfield (10 hits) and
damaging the other (2 hits) but not enough to seriously
inconvenience LW operations. The VVS bombers fail to achieve
their objective (+1 CVP) and suffer grievous losses (+1 CVP)
offset to some degree by the weak forces employed (-1 CVP for
OB). Campaign score +1
The following day Allan's 109s cover the bombers (OOB2) as they
try to suppress stubborn Soviet defences (DAK 03). Yak 1s rise
in numbers (OOB4) but are roughly handled by the LW losing 10
aircraft for only 1 LW loss. Even without fighter interference
the bombers bomb poorly (2 hits on troops, 4 on bunkers) and the
Soviet defences hold the advancing Panzers at high cost (-1
mission failure for Germans, +1 for VVS losses).
Campaign score +1
With the Germans seeking a breakthrough Allan covers the panzer
spearhead against VVS counterattacks led by IL-2s
(Counterattack, LW OB6, VVS OB 1). Only 2 LW fighters are lost
but the Soviet escorts sacrificially hold off the German
fighters despite losing 9 aircraft. Flak downs a single
Sturmovik and the Panzers suffer (5 hits on one tank, 2 on the
other) but push on (+1 CVP). Campaign score +2
With victory in sight Allan forsakes his trusty 109 for an Fw
190 to cover Hs 129s & Ju87s (OB 3) (we misread the playaid &
played Tank Army rather than last gasp but the outcomes would
have been similar). Soviet fighters come ups in large numbers,
including many new, if inexperienced Yak 9s (OB5). then outcome
is a disaster for the LW. Allan breaks attacking a squadron of
green Yaks, losing 2 wingmen in the process whilst 4 other LW
fighters & 10 (!) bombers go down for only 1 VVS fighter loss.
The bombers press on despite fearsome losses and inflict
crippling damage on 1 target but fail to damage the other (2
hits) enough to permit a breakthrough by ground forces (-1 CVP,
-1 for losses but +1 for soviet OB) & the operation ends in
stalemate (+1).
Allan is posted to Sicily where his talents are better employed
....
Our thoughts:
Good narrative. Flows well. We managed 4 scenarios in 4 sessions
& could play the whole thing in a long afternoon comfortably
face to face. OB choices are interesting & the setups mesh well
without any inconsistencies we could see. Scenarios have
interesting variations in setup, cloud etc so don't feel
repetitive.
Main issue is difficulty for the raider player. 2 targets always
have to be significantly damaged & with only 3 bomber units the
outcome always hinges a lot on the single bomber attacking the
second target (as you need to split the bombers 2:1 against the
2 targets). Even where bombing is good against one target (which
we saw a couple of times) a single average roll against the
second target dooms the attacker. The strafing scenarios average
out a but more as there are more attack rolls & the law of
averages helps but even then with only 3 attackers hitting both
targets hard is quite a challenge.
I'd be inclined to tune the bombing more to make solid damage to
a single target the objective; ideally set so that the escorts
have to protect the bombers effectively to give average dice
rolls in the attack a chance of causing sufficient damage for an
attacker success. It is notable that the attacker failed on
every occasion this time out.
Couple of OB thoughts:
LW OB5 is a bit of a monster, possibly 1 flight less or -1 CVP.
VVS OB 5 is similarly powerful. I'd be inclined to lose 1 unit
from both & make them both 0 CVP. I assume VVS OB 5 features
Yak-9s-the text mentions yak-9s but the illustration is a Yak-7?
LW OB4 is very weak & I wonder if it would give much of game. I
didn't use it & i suspect few German players will.
Although the qualitative edge is very much with the LW as
demonstrated by our first 3 scenarios (the fourth was one of
those wild outliers where 1 side couldn't roll above 6 & the
other couldn't roll below 8..) the sheer number of VVS fighters
makes it hard to either protect the bombers if attacking or
reach the VVS bombers if defending. I wonder if the LW needs
another flight in 1,2,3,4 and possibly 6.
Overall though very good. Manageable size, another novel
campaign format & generates some interesting scenarios with a
good narrative of a qualitatively superior LW starting to
struggle against a changing VVS which is mainly composed of
inferior aircraft but now has enough decent fighters to be
dangerous at times.
Main issue is tuning the bombing to give the raiders a
reasonable chance of success- I'm inclined to think a single
target is the way to go.
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 5033--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 10, 2020, 5:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A great AAR. It sounds like our goals of making a campaign of
manageable size and scope is working..
Some thoughts and questions:
Bonus CVP. How are the bonus CVP for losses working? Do these
need to be adjusted? I noticed from your play the results were:
1st scenario - VVS losses +1
2nd scenario - VVS losses +1
3rd scenario - VVS losses +1
4th scenario - German losses -1
I’m wondering whether we need to increase the Soviet thresholds
a little. I noticed the losses were:
Pre-emptive Strike - LW no losses; VVS 7 Yak, 13 Pe-2
Spearhead - LW 1 aircraft; VVS 10 Yak
Counterattack - LW 2 fighters; VVS 9 fighters, 1 IL-2
Tank Army - LW 6 fighters, 10 bombers; VVS 1 fighter
Bombing. I like to distribute the bombing. I wonder whether the
formula should be ‘both targets take hits, but one must be
heavily damaged’? I’m nervous of making it only a single target,
as I think that’s too easy.
OOBs. Point taken on German OOB #5. Let’s make it a -1 CVP pick
and also drop one of the veteran markers.
I missed that the Soviet OOB #5 had Yak-7 visuals in place of
YAK-9. I’ll fix that, but I’ll keep the OOB as-is until we’ve
had a bit more test.
If you think OOB #4 is too thin to ever be used, I can increase
it by a flight and adjust the CVP to +0.
#Post#: 5054--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 13, 2020, 2:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For the next tests can you please make sure to log in the AAR:
(a) Each scenario played
(b) Bombing results
(c) The CVP (and source of each CVP) for each scenario
(d) Losses on each side for each scenario; where bombers are
involved list fighter and bomber losses separately
#Post#: 5058--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 14, 2020, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To mix things up, and also account for the greater difficulty of
these missions, I'm adjusting DAK07 and DAK09 victory conditions
so that minor damage is required on both targets.
#Post#: 5147--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Gordon Christie Date: April 27, 2020, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Second run through this with Andrew as the VVS.
DAK 01 LW OB 5 VVS OB 2
3 LW fighters lost; 11VVS fighters 6 bombers lost; only 1
(strafing!) hit on AF. Poor bombing dice but LW OB 5 highly
effective. LW AtA dice probably a bit better than average
+1 CVP (LW success); -1 CVP (LW OB) Nett 0
DAK 03 LW OB 1 vs VVS OB 6; again -1 CVP for LW OB
4 LW fighters 6 bombers lost (-1 CVP) ; 5 VVS fighters lost;
AtA dice strongly favour the VVS.
14 hits on bunker (good bombing dice on bunker, 10+ for both
IIRC despite unfavourable modifiers); none on troops---> LW
failure (-1 CVP); all hinged on the third bombing roll (against
the troops) which was poor
Campaign now -3 CVP (-1 failure, -1 LW losses -1 LW OB)
DAK 05
LW OB 6 VVS OB 1
LW lose 2 fighters VVS 7 fighters 6 IL2s
3 hits on 1 tank, 2 on the other (all strafing); again narrow
failure for the attacker (+1 CVP)
Campaign score now -2 CVP
DAK 09
LW OB 3 VVS OB 5 (+1 CVP)
LW lose 2 fighters, 9 bombers (-1CVP) VVS 5 fighters
1 hit on tanks-poor bombing rolls but odds heavily against the
Germans with much disruption on the bombers from the powerful
VVS fighter OB (LW failure -1 CVP)
Nett -1 CVP
Final campaign outcome -3 CVP---> SOVIET victory
Thoughts:
Things that work well:
Plays quickly & cleanly. 2 experienced players could readily
play through in a 3-4 hour FtF session. We reset the VASSAL
module after each playing & total playing time was probably no
more than 3-3.5 hours.
The scenario setups all work. No part of the setups felt jarring
& the scenarios all flow well form the start.
There is a bit of variability in the OOBs though perhaps with
familiarity there feel to be some more obvious OB choices at
each stage. This may not be a bad thing, nor may it be avoidable
but it is worth mentioning.
Good narrative flow.
Outstanding issues:
The raider player needs more opportunity to win. On 2 occasions
here the raider came close but I still feel for the bombing (not
strafing) scenarios the need to hit 2 targets hobbles the raider
needing above average bombing rolls to win. For strafing
scenario- essentially those later in the game with tanks- hits
on both targets isn't unreasonable & there should be enough
attacking rolls (2 strafing plus one bombing for each unit) for
the law of averages to come into play. We've yet to see a raider
win in 2 runs through. We discussed splitting the 3rd bomber
squadron into flights to give 2 attacks on each target but I'm
not convinced that would really sort the problem & would make
play slightly more cumbersome.
Compared to the history LW losses feel a bit too high on many
occasions. Bombers in particular suffer more than think was the
case historically & it is very easy to lose CVP for bomber
losses as the LW (in some situations virtually impossible not
to) & it is possible that the logical LW response in some
situations is to run away (-1 CVP) rather than attack (probably
-1 CVP for losses & -1 CVP for failure). Anytime I see VVS OB 5
(+1 CVP) running away is logical as the LW come out with nett 0
rather than at least -1 (unless the dice really favour them).
Making the bombing more likely to succeed would at least
partially fix this.
The LW fighters struggle as they are always heavily outnumbered.
It takes a lot of good fortune to get amongst the Soviet bombers
in sufficient numbers to cause enough losses to gain CVP & the
risk of CVP losses for losing fighters in the defending
scenarios is real. We've played one scenario of the third run &
the LW lost 4 fighters with the weak OB 4 despite reasonably
good AtA dice- think OB 4 is likely to be unhelpful for the LW.
I would bump up most of the LW fighter OBs apart form 5 by 1
flight equivalent (either an additional flight or convert a
flight to a squadron)
VVS OB5 is a bit of a monster-possibly no coincidence Andrew
kept it to the end both times.
The loss limits need watching. It feels much easier to push the
LW into CVP losing territory (3 times in 8 plays so far) than
the VVS (once). Possibly total VVS losses (including fighters)
should count in some situations. At present their is no reason
for the VVS player not to risk fighters under all circumstances
(e.g. chasing down broken flights of superior LW fighters). LW
loss limits for CVP effects should be tweaked up a bit or,
perhaps, the quality differential should be widened a bit to
give somewhat more historical loss rates (though at the risk of
the Soviet payer feeling too much like a punchbag).
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 5148--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 27, 2020, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So let’s look at the bombing:
DAK 01 - VVS bombing (LW OB#5; VVS OB#2)
Target Airfields - just 1 bomb hit on airfield
DAK 03 - LW bombing (LW OB#1; VVS OB#6)
Target Bunker + Troops - Bunker hits achieved by failed any hits
on troops
DAK 05 - VVS bombing (LW OB#6; VVS OB#1)
Target tanks - Hits on both tanks but narrow failure to achieve
heavy damage on one tank
DAK 09 - LW bombing (LW OB#3; VVS OB#5)
Target tanks - Just 1 hit on tanks against strong opposition
All bombing failed to achieve its objective. However, of those
it looks as if two were major failures and two were squeakers.
I remain concerned that changing the raider victory conditions
to permit a focus on one target would make it too easy to gain a
victory. Perhaps the balance would swing too far to the raiding
side. However, it’s clear it’s a struggle.
If we changed the raider VCs so that just one target needed to
be heavily damaged to win, but perhaps added a bonus CVP for
damage to the second target, what would that do the dynamic of
the campaign?
#Post#: 5149--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 27, 2020, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Let’s look at matchups for a second:
DAK 01
LW#5 vs VVS#2 - It’s a strong vs. strong match
3 LW losses versus 16 VVS (inc. 6 bombers)
DAK 03
LW#1 vs VVS#6 - It’s a strong vs. moderate match
10 LW losses (inc. 6 bombers) versus 5 VVS
DAK 05
LW#6 vs VVS#1 - It’s a moderate vs. strong match
2 LW losses versus 13 VVS (inc. 6 bombers)
DAK 09
LW#3 vs VVS#5 - It’s a moderate vs. strong match
11 LW losses (inc. 9 bombers) versus 5 VVS
So the impression I get is that either the defences are too
strong, or the raider escort/sweep is too weak. I’m tempted to
beef up the escort on both sides, though you suggest it’s mainly
the Luftwaffe that needs the boost. Does the VVS orbat #5 need
easing back a fraction?
Let’s check the frequency with which orbats have been chosen so
far:
Luftwaffe
#1 - 1
#2 - 1
#3 - 2
#4
#5 - 2
#6 - 2
VVS
#1 - 2
#2 - 1
#3 - 1
#4 - 1
#5 - 2
#6 - 1
It may be too early to read anything into this, but it’s
interesting that after two campaigns LW #4 has yet to be
selected.
#Post#: 5150--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 27, 2020, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree that perhaps the bonus CVP for VVS raid losses might
need to include the fighters.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page