DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5248--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: May 3, 2020, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew and Gordon: any comments or thoughts regarding the latest
batch of changes for the campaign?
#Post#: 5290--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Al Cannamore Date: May 7, 2020, 1:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's been a few days since the new playaid was released. Would I
mess up any campaigns in progress if I updated the Legends
extension?
#Post#: 5300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Gordon Christie Date: May 7, 2020, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew (VVS) & I have now completed our third Kursk campaign
run.
Capsule summary: We're happy with this at Alpha.
More detailed summary from the Kursk chapter of "Where have all
my wingmen gone?" by A Galland:
Raid 1 sees the Kommodore of JG13 lead 3 flights of 109s (LW
OB4) against a large formation of well escorted Bostons (VVS
OB2) raiding German airfields. Regretting his decision to send
half the geschwader away on leave after misreading the starting
date on the operation order for Zitadelle Alan leads the heavily
outnumbered fighters unsuccessfully losing 4 aircraft against 7
VVS fighters & 2 only 2 of the fast and slippery bombers with 3
more bombers falling to flak. The airfield is hit hard (12 hits;
DR 11,12,3) for Soviet success.
Soviet success +1
LW losses +1
Nett +2
Comment; Previous OB4 used. Definitely underpowered but new OB4
might have made a better show of it. Alan remembered a pressing
appointment in Minsk shortly after engaging a flight of La5s
(break DR3 with losses) & departed leaving 2 of his wingmen to
walk home...
Chastened JG13 flies in support of Ju88s bombing Soviet front
line positions (DOK 02 Air Superiority). 1 fighter & 1 bomber
are lost in air to air combat, and another of each to flak
(total 2 fighter, 2 bombers) but Alan has a good day with 11
Soviet fighters falling. Soviet positions are hit hard (8 hits
on 1 troop unit, 2 on the other) allowing the army to advance &
Alan goes home with time to polish his medals before his wingmen
get back on foot.
German success -1
Soviet losses -1
Nett 0
Comment: I'd put the Ju88s at alt 4 or 5 then they could steep
angle without adjusting altitude. Part of the reason for the
better bombing was that I optimised the bomber altitude by
starting the attack from alt 5 above the flak & steep angling
using the good bombsight on the Ju88A-14.
With the army making progress & everyone back from leave JG13
escorts a strong force of Stukas (OB1 +1 CVP) against Soviet
positions holding up the advancing Panzerkorps...fighter
opposition is intense (VVS OB 5 -1 CVP)
JG13 does well shooting down 10 Soviet fighters, losing 2
fighters & 2 bombers (1 to flak) but the bombers disappoint.
After one gun position effectively (4 hits) poor bombing on the
other battery (DR2, 3) results in the advance stalling.
CVP: LW failure -1 CVP Soviet losses +1
Nett 0
Comment: For the first time against VVS OB 5 the LW didn't feel
completely out of control. I do begin to think that VVS OB 5
should be 0 CVP rather than -1
With the Germans stalled we went on to Operation Kutuzov rather
than Breakthrough (I think my mistake) but I don't think this
alters the validity of the outcome of the final game...
Alan leads a maximum strength effort (OB5) against the
Sturmoviks (OB1) attacking the ground forces. Much thought about
whether the extra flight of 109s is worth the CVP but, undaunted
Alan presses on,
loading gun pods given the likelihood of encountering IL2s...
The 190s deal with the sweeping La5s & one squadron of Yaks
before breaking. The 109 flight dispose of another Yak squadron
& 2 IL-2s whilst Alan bounces a Yak 1 squadron climbing clear
of the Soviet formation.
3 Yaks, and 1 109 fall in the ensuing combat leaving Alan's
disrupted squadron needing to stop the onrushing Sturmoviks to
save the day. The first pass netts 2 IL-2s and a disruption.
With the Soviets at 13 losses
and needing 3 more kills for the all important loss CVP Alan
sweeps in....and succeeds! DR12 +2 gives 6 hits & even with
Alan's remarkable ability to roll 1s on hit confirmation 4 more
Il-2s fall & the IL-2s break. The flak turns in a respectable
performance killing 1 and the ground troops another. Poor IL-2
cohesion rolls result in only 1 hit despite respectable bombing
rolls. Alan flies home in triumph whilst, once again, Werner,
his faithful Katschmarek, begins the long walk back to German
lines....
LW 4 fighter losses
VVS 8 fighters 11 IL-2s (2 to flak)
CVP -1 Soviet failure
Losses -1
German OB +1
Nett -1 DRAW
Comment: The Soviets might have won by selecting the weak Pe-2
OB, chancing the Germans selecting OB5 for a nett +2 CVP shift &
then running away. I'm inclined to suggest a 1 CVP swing against
the raider player if none of the bombers bomb to avoid running
away bravely becoming a tactic.
Overall losses 52 VVS: 16 LW which feels about right based on my
understanding of the history. Definitely feels like quality
against quantity for the LW but the OB adjustments made this
feel far more competitive.
Thoughts:
For some bizarre reason Andrew & I saw different victory
conditions on dropbox when looking at what should have been the
same (most recent) version of the rules. I wonder if I had some
odd caching issue preventing me seeing the most up to date 3rd
May version. Andrew's version of the bombing victory conditions
which didn't require both targets to be hit in a number of
scenarios sounded good to me &, as I think it is more up to
date, would satisfy all my concerns.
I certainly think VVS OB 5 should be 0 CVP now. The difference
between LW OB 5 & 6 feels marginal ( 1 extra flight but 1 fewer
experte) & I wonder if all the fighter OBs should be 0 CVP.
Since there is a real possibility that you will need all 3
fighter OBs having 1 strong, 1 intermediate & 1 for both sides
weak makes for some interesting choices & I wonder if the CVP
penalties just muddy the waters.
Otherwise happy with the oBs. LW OB1 is monster & deservedly
costs a CVP.
Overall though we're happy to sign off on this at alpha. We may
well give it another go but I think it is pretty much there.
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 5302--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: May 7, 2020, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You guys definitely need to play this again with the latest
stuff, as it looks like it was played with a mixture of the old
and new scenarios and OOBs.
For example: you log DOK01 as giving a +1 CVP for Luftwaffe
losses based on four aircraft, but the new scenario has the
threshold as five.
#Post#: 5303--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: May 7, 2020, 12:44 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 + 9 + 19 = mean of 14.6
As defender:
10 + 1 + 5 + 5 + 11 + 10 = mean of 7
Here’s a summary of LW bomber losses:
0 + 10 + 6 + 9 + 2 + 2 = mean of 4.8
The LW bomber losses have fallen fractionally while VVS defender
losses have risen fractionally.
#Post#: 5304--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: May 7, 2020, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So by my reckoning you guys seriously miscalculated your CVP.
DOK 01 - +1 Soviet success (didn’t get LW losses bonus)
DOK 02 - -1 German success; -1 minor damage on both troops units
(you forgot this result); -1 Soviet losses
DOK 04 - -1 German success (you reckoned this a failure); -1
Soviet OOB; -1 Soviet losses
DOK 08* - -1 Soviet failure; -1 Soviet losses; +1 German OOB
* The last mission should have been the German raid DOK 07, by
my reckoning.
So, by my reckoning, you:
(a) Figured the loss bonus wrong on the first scenario
(b) Forgot the bonus CVP for bombing on the second scenario
(c) Figured victory incorrectly on the third scenario
(d) Played an incorrect fourth scenario (should have been a
German raid instead of a Soviet raid)
(c) Incorrectly figured the net CVP, which was -5, a decisive
German victory! (Actually, the total minuses were -6!)
#Post#: 5305--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: May 7, 2020, 1:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, what next for changes? My suggestions are:
(a) Increase the VVS defender loss thresholds from 7 to 10.
(b) VVS OB5 either boosted or reduced to 0 CVP.
I’ll make these changes at the weekend. When I have these done
could you please play again?
And can I ask you to please download and make sure you have the
latest version of the files before you play? I don’t wish to
sound harsh, and I say this with love, but this isn’t the first
time you’ve tested an older generation of a scenario or campaign
and it plays merry hell with trying to figure out the balance.
#Post#: 5306--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Elias Nordling Date: May 7, 2020, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It happens to me sometimes because I have all the tables and
ADCs open in Acrobat and I open the latest scenario book but an
old one is hiding among the tabs popping up when I least expect
it :-)
#Post#: 5307--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Gordon Christie Date: May 7, 2020, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, our test started with the previous version & ended with the
current version. I suspect I have a caching issue with dropbox.
I have been trying to keep up the current version but bizarrely
Andrew & I were looking at different versions of what appeared
to be the same document at the same time yesterday. I simply
cannot explain this & we spent 15-20 minutes trying (and
failing) to understand what was going on so I did the AAR on
notes made for the old version. Also I think I haven't (until
now) properly internalised the differences between victory
conditions & bonus CVP for target damage. It might be helpful to
be aware that you may need to write this in a way that people as
daft as me can understand.... I'd suggest adding a line to the
end of para 1 (Soviet or German victory conditions) in place of
"This affects the Campaign marker" to the effect that
"Immediately shifts the campaign marker to reflect success or
failure as noted on the playaid" or similar.
Weirdly I can now open the up to date pdf file which I couldn't
open after several tries last night. I genuinely wonder whether
my machine has some sort of cache issue with dropbox pointing me
to previous versions. I've long since stopped printing out test
stuff & for the last 6+ months I've gone to dropbox to get the
latest version every time we play to try & avoid this problem.
This test was definitely affected by changes part way through
though I haven't properly accounted for this in the AAR.
Sorry-I'm really frustrated by this bit of dropbox oddness but
it is what it is...i probably should have gone back in today &
rechecked my notes against the current version.
1. Scenario 1 I think has shifted the LW loss bonus but agree as
out now stands it would be +1
DOK 02 Again agree about bombing. This shifts to nett -2
DOK 04 Agree again German OB 1 stills seems to be +1 in dropbox
today's I think this shifts to nett -4 (-1 success -1 Soviet
losses -1 Soviet OOB +1 German OOB)
I think -1 CVP for Soviet OB 5 is probably a bit harsh as
previously mentioned.
We can certainly play DOK 07 as the final scenario in this run &
see where we get from the result for DOK 04. Straightforward &
make the whole exercise more useful & valid.
FWIW I think this is still of some use as a test. The OB changes
stand up well, it feels more competitive for both sides & we
need to get the VP balancing right. The loss ratios for both
sides feel better.
I like the bombing victory conditions much better-even if it has
taken a long time for me to understand them:-)) We probably need
to focus on balance for bombing but it is good that the raiders
are achieving results now.
I'm going to stand by my original judgement that this is pretty
much there at alpha but we can certainly give it another go.
First though we'll complete DOK 07 for this run through on
Sunday. Of interest as we're both forced into the OB we haven't
yet used.
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 5308--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: May 7, 2020, 2:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if I came over a bit harsh. I really appreciate the test
and there's some great data in this. It was just the difference
between a draw and a blowout was significant.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page