DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5151--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 27, 2020, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I want to do a whole bunch of changes to scenarios and OOBs and
issue a new version of the campaign at the weekend.
Thanks for the AAR. Much to ponder here.
#Post#: 5152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Gordon Christie Date: April 27, 2020, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I tried OOB 4 for the LW in game 1 of our third test.
Despite good die rolls I still managed to lose 4 fighters (-1
CVP) & the VVS managed 10 hits on the airfield. We tried using a
single airfield to see how it went so i think this would count
as an attacker success (-1 CVP).
I can't see any VVS raider OB where LW OB4 is likely to do more
than lose badly enough to cost the LW -1 CVP for 4 fighter
losses, particularly as there is no disincentive for the larger
numbers of VVS fighters to try & hunt down broken LW fighters at
every opportunity.
Having tried it once I wouldn't retry OB4 under any
circumstances I can conceive of. If it was +1 CVP I might pick
it to run away & rely on poor bombing rolls & flak:-))
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 5153--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Gordon Christie Date: April 27, 2020, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Other thoughts:
Bonus CVP for hitting both targets if one is heavily damaged is
an interesting idea. Certainly worth pondering.
Overall I think the LW needs 1 flight more pretty much across
the board. VVS OB 5 is still an outlier but it does have a CVP
penalty though even then it is really strong with 3 squadrons of
Yak 9s which are the best fighters in the mix here: 6-7 on the
deck with Edge is something the LW doesn't really have an
answer to. Even higher up (alt 4+) they can stand toe to toe
with the LW fighters & dogfight with advantage. Possibly flip it
to 3 Yak 1B & 2 Yak 9 squadrons & keep the CVP penalty?
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 5154--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 27, 2020, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think we have the countermix for 2 x Yak-1B, but I was
thinking of throwing in an extra Green marker.
#Post#: 5161--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 27, 2020, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, to summarise the changes I shall be looking at this week:
(1) Change raider victory conditions to permit a success on
heavy damage to a single target.
(2) Consider adding a bonus victory condition for the raider
based on damaging the second target.
(3) Tweak Luftwaffe raids to boost OOB by 1 flight or
equivalent.
(4) Tweak LW OOB #4 upward slightly. (Add one flight?)
(5) Tweak VVS OOB #5 down slightly. (Subtract one Yak-9
squadron?)
(6) Increase threshold of bomber losses for bonus CVP versus LW
raids.
(7) Combine bomber and fighter losses for bonus CVP versus VVS
raids.
#Post#: 5162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Gordon Christie Date: April 27, 2020, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That defangs one of the Yak-9s sufficiently to achieve pretty
much the same outcome.
Overall I wonder if the quality differential needs to be a bit
bigger. Like you I'm awaiting Bergstrom's next volume(s) eagerly
but in general my sense of the narrative at this stage was that
the LW qualitative edge was still *very* marked, though there
are some interesting outliers as Bergstrom points out (III/JG26
at Leningrad in early Spring 43 being one of the most notable,
although the extent to which this reflected a very different low
altitude air war to that which the Kanalgeschwadern were used is
an interesting question). I think slightly more LW fighters
would shift it in the right direction but I'm not entirely
convinced even then that the quality gap doesn't need to
widen-though possibly more veteran bombers might have the
desired effect too.
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 5163--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 27, 2020, 3:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For the purpose of calculating bonus CVP, here’s a summary of
mean total losses per scenario for the VVS:
As raider:
20 + 10 + 17 + 13 = mean of 15
As defender:
10 + 1 + 5 + 5 = mean of 5.25
Here’s a summary of LW bomber losses:
0 + 10 + 6 + 9 = mean of 6.25
#Post#: 5164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 27, 2020, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]That defangs one of the Yak-9s sufficiently to achieve
pretty much the same outcome.[/quote]
I was looking at that orbat. The reasons it is so powerful are:
(a) The preponderance of Yak-9s
(b) The presence of a Veteran and Experte marker
(c) The Veteran means it is the only Soviet squadron in the
campaign that can split.
I did consider debuffing the Soviet aircrew quality, but losing
one Yak-9 squadron while keeping the Veteran and Experte seems
like a better call to me.
#Post#: 5166--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 28, 2020, 1:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gordon, how far are you and Andrew through a third playthrough?
#Post#: 5167--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: April 28, 2020, 2:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Gordon Christie link=topic=151.msg5162#msg5162
date=1588019231]Overall I wonder if the quality differential
needs to be a bit bigger. Like you I'm awaiting Bergstrom's next
volume(s) eagerly but in general my sense of the narrative at
this stage was that the LW qualitative edge was still *very*
marked, though there are some interesting outliers as Bergstrom
points out (III/JG26 at Leningrad in early Spring 43 being one
of the most notable, although the extent to which this reflected
a very different low altitude air war to that which the
Kanalgeschwadern were used is an interesting question). I think
slightly more LW fighters would shift it in the right direction
but I'm not entirely convinced even then that the quality gap
doesn't need to widen-though possibly more veteran bombers might
have the desired effect too.[/quote]
We could certainly increase the number of Green markers for the
VVS, though currently they tend to hover around the 50% of
fighter strength mark.
I wonder if defanging Soviet OOB #5 might alter the perception
of VVS strength, as it is currently the one OOB guaranteed to be
called on in play.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page