DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5771--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: June 4, 2020, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It worries me that you haven't yet seen a defender win.
#Post#: 5772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Elias Nordling Date: June 4, 2020, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm thinking one problem is that the fight in the air is usually
over before the bombers reach the target. This allows me to take
all the time I need to bomb, to send in one bomber at a time,
watch the result, and then decide which target to send the next
bomber against. So I don't have to gamble on going for the bonus
point.
This is probably more a factor of the defenders being to weak
than the target too far away. Once I voluntarily circled a turn
while still under attack because I felt the reward was greater
than the risk.
#Post#: 5773--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: June 4, 2020, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is this a set-up problem? Do we need to stage the sweep or the
defender set-up differently?
#Post#: 5775--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Elias Nordling Date: June 4, 2020, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think it's a set up problem, I think the defenders
are probably too weak and the hits needed for a win too low.
#Post#: 5776--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: June 4, 2020, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The thing is that the hits needed for a win (heavy damage on two
targets) were too high in Gordon and Andrew’s initial plays.
They felt they were highly reliant on luck to achieve them. I
tried scaling back to make it easier (heavy damage on one
target, minor on the other) but that appeared to be too much.
(Unless Gordon and Andrew didn’t play that change, which is a
possibility given the caching problems.)
If it’s too easy for the raider to achieve a win, I’m not sure
what the solution is right now.
#Post#: 5779--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: Elias Nordling Date: June 4, 2020, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Currently all you need for a win is heavy damage on one target.
If it was heavy damage on one target and at least minor on the
other, it would be a little tougher. And not all my plays so far
would have been attacker wins.
#Post#: 5780--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: June 4, 2020, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]If it was heavy damage on one target and at least minor
on the other, it would be a little tougher.[/quote]
I had that at one stage: heavy + minor. However, when Gordon and
Andrew tested it they said it made no difference. They seemed to
think the problem was splitting three bombers between two
targets.
That said, I wonder if they actually tested those victory
conditions, given the problems they were experiencing with
caching the Legends book files.
#Post#: 5782--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: June 4, 2020, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I want to get a picture of what damage was done in various
missions and see what the pattern is. This is from the last
two-and-a-half campaigns:
DOK01 - Airfield Heavy?/None?
DOK02 - Troops Heavy/None
DOK04 - Artillery Slight/None
DOK08 - Artillery Minor?/None?
DOK01 - Airfield Heavy/Minor
DOK02 - Troops Heavy/None
DOK04 - Artillery Heavy/Heavy
DOK07 - Tanks Heavy/Minor
DOK01 - Airfield Heavy/None
DOK02 - Troops Heavy/Minor
From this sample, raider victories are 8 out of 10. If we were
to return to a victory being heavy + minor damage the raider
victories would be 4/10.
#Post#: 5783--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: June 4, 2020, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I currently feel as if I will have to slip back to a situation
where the raiders must inflict heavy damage on one target and
minor on the other as a base victory. It’s clear the current
system is too easy for the attacker. I’m seeing a pattern that
strongly favours the raider and is tramlining routes through the
scenario tree.
Before I open the campaign to wider testing I want to get us to
a point where raider success is harder. Given that bombers can
arrange to bomb after the air fight is over, getting that
balance of results is the best route.
#Post#: 5784--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kursk Campaign
By: pilotofficerprune Date: June 4, 2020, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For future AARs I need:
(1) Please make sure to indicate the ID of the scenario played.
There have been some that haven’t done this.
(2) A breakdown of damage per target in the format: Artillery
Heavy/Minor, or Bunker Heavy/Troops Slight.
Cheers.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page