DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6587--------------------------------------------------
S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 14, 2020, 2:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew and Gordon's feedback:
Andrew (Axis) & I have now had a couple of runs at Asso di
Bastoni. Posted here in the absence for the moment of a more
specific thread. Progressive tweaks in progress & we'll get back
to a third run when we're finished with Tip & Run
RUN 1 : As written
Not clear intent of SSR5? Ensure barrages for intial bombing?
What about R side P-47s starting in barrage? We found this all a
bit problematic. The barrages can plink away (albeit at low
odds) at the P-47s in a way that feels a bit odd & the P-47s are
a bit stuck (circling) unless they can free themselves sup by
getting a tally (likely but by no means a given). We thought
this all bit untidy & resolved it by adjusting setup & ground
targets for the second run (below)
Do P-38s have to set up in formation with bombers? It reads as
though the P-38s ,are locked into a close escort position (& are
correspondingly easy to tally if desired). Question is just to
clarify the intent-in many ways it adds another interesting
dimension to the scenario.
RUN 1:
The P-47s missed early tallies but avoided any harm from the
flak & were able to reverse course & get back into the fray
using the "same radio net as a friendly squadron with a tally"
provision for sweeps by GT3 but it felt slightly forced. The
Axis concentrated on the bombers & aimed to go after the back
box, ignoring the lead bomber box. One P-38 squadron assigned to
escort the lead bombers sailed on through the fray without
tallying at all.
First 4 bombing rolls 9,10,11,12!...which went a long way toward
USAAF success. That said the odds are long for the bombers
(cloud -1, altitude -2 even before flak & fighters effects) so
this might well be one for deterministic bombing (see below).
Felt tough for the Axis fighters. Their numerical advantage is
this & they are (slightly) outclassed qualitatively. Taking gun
pods for the 109s night make a difference but makes them pretty
vulnerable. Overall it didn't really fit the historical
narrative
USAAF 6 B-24 1 B-17 2 P-38 1 P-47 lost 14 hits on L hand AF
Axis 15 fighters lost
VP
USAAF 15 AtA (30 VP) + 20 ground---> 50
Axis 25 AtA---> +25
-25
? We havered about who won. High losses on both sides. We felt
like this was a bloody draw shifted in the Allies favour by
spectacular bombing results. Given the fairly balanced fighters
forces 2 VP per fighter for Axis losses feels like a mountain to
climb for the Axis at the current VP thresholds unless the USAAF
completely whiff the bombing
? not double VPs for Axis fighters --> -10 VP still crushing US
win but more average bombing would have taken it back towards 0
to +5 (ore even +9-10) depending on the distribution of hits
between the airfields
MODIFIED start
Delete L hand AF & flak so no barrage on GT1 SSR necessary &
removes P-47s from early flak. As I suspect we'll discover in
several Supremacy scenarios we revisit there are too many
targets & we were overly literal in our interpretation of
targets at that stage in design evolution (Lest anyone feel I am
being hypocritical here I put my hand up as a major
offender...). Distributing bombing over 2 targets is going to be
pretty ineffective given the bombing mods so reducing to 1 feels
easier & allows the Axis fighters time to intercept & make a
difference. As written the R hand bombers hit the L hand
airfield without time for the Axis fighters to cause disruption
& have a relatively free pass apart from the flak. We felt this
makes the scenario much more manageable & gets rid of SSRs 5 &
9.
Could delete SSR 5,6 & 9 ? delete SSR 10 (were Axis fighters in
Italy really that valuable in March 1944-as above. This really
makes it tough for the Axis)
P-47s setup in O & P away from flak- cohesion hits likely if
circling in barrage
Move R hand bombers back to I13, J12...more time for intercept
?P-38s in escort parameters-though probably tying them more
closely to the bomber formations makes it better overall as the
Axis fighters can try to strip the close escorting P-38s & it
is another tactical choice.
RUN 2
USAAF 2 bomber losses No bombing hits 5 bombers disrupted poor
bomber cohesion & bombing rolls though minimum bombing mod (alt,
cloud) is -3
Axis 12 fighter losses
VP
USAAF 12
Axis 6
-6 Felt Allied win
This was another dice driven outlier. The Axis combat rolls were
dreadful. Nonetheless we felt this played much better. The crux
of it feels that the Axis fighters area bit underpowered. Next
steps.....
1. Remove cloud over AF or deterministic bombing (2/1/0
intact/disrupted/broken). Deterministic bombing (2/1/0 hits for
intact/ disrupted/ broken) feels good. With VP thresholds at
6/12 hits & a slightly stronger Axis fighter force & possibly a
longer run to the target (which could shift a couple of squares
right) the Allies will probably have to work to avoid the key
level of disruption.
2. Add veteran to Axis
3. Add MC 205 flight in S15 (more Mc 205s can't be bad...:-))
4. Gun pods on 109s-SSR to remind players might be helpful. We
keep forgetting to take gun pods in situations where they may be
useful.
We'll go at this after Tip & Run.
Overall its a an interesting scenario with real potential but
needs a bit of tweaking in the light of nearly 5 years of
additional scenario design experience.
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 6588--------------------------------------------------
Re: S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 14, 2020, 2:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The follow-on conversation:
<Elias>
>What about R side P-47s starting in barrage?
You should have them return to base to catch up with the
Italians.
<Gordon>
Not a bad suggestion though it does seem bit odd & potentially
slightly gamey that the best initial move is to RTB half your
fighters. Feels more comfortable to me to start them outside the
barrage & add an extra Mc 205 flight on the R which gives both
sides some more options/ choices. I suspect the only way the
Axis gets a win here unless we really tweak the VPs is that
there need to be slightly more fighters & the 109s need gun pods
(& enough interference run by the others fighters that the
upgunned 109s get a reasonable crack at the bombers without too
much fighter interference. That said I think with those tweaks
there is an interesting matrix off decisions for both sides &
replay value.
<Elias>
The idea was to give the Axis a window of opportunity and that
it would be a good idea to break off the attack once the odds
turn against their favor. We don't have many hit and run
scenarios so I'd still like to see that aspect kept, rather than
beefing up the Axis to make it a fair fight. That said, with
experience I'd have the P47 sweep either sweep the opposite
direction or arrive as a reinforcement just outside of attack
range.
#Post#: 6590--------------------------------------------------
Re: S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 14, 2020, 2:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
General thoughts:
(a) I'm in favour of deterministic bombing, which is probably
the preference for this type of scenario, in favour of keeping
the cloud, which forces barrage fire from the flak.
(b) I'm open to suggestions regarding the P-47 sweeps. I agree
the currrent set-up is awkward. In the original concept they
were to engage the right-hand interceptors, though I'm coming to
wonder whether they need to be reinforcements, as Elias
suggests, perhaps setting up 3+ or more from the nearest enemy?
(c) I'm tempted to completely drop the following SSRs as
superfluous - #3, #6, #8.
#Post#: 6688--------------------------------------------------
Re: S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: Gordon Christie Date: October 4, 2020, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Third run at Asso di Bastoni modified as below:
MODIFIED start
Delete L hand AF & flak so no barrage on GT1 SSR necessary &
removes P-47s from early
flak
Could delete SSR 3,5,6, 9 ? delete SSR 10 (were Axis fighters in
Italy really that valuable in
March 1944)
P-47s setup in O & P away from flak- cohesion hits likely if
circling in barrage
Move R hand bombers back to I13, J12
P-38s in escort parameters
RUN 3 MODIFICATIONS
Remove cloud over AF or deterministic bombing
(2/1/0 intact/disrupted/broken)
Add veteran to Axis
Add MC 205 flight in S15
Gun pod on 109s-SSR reminding players of potential for gun pods
might be helpful.
RUN 3:
USAAF 4 bomber 4 fighter losses 10 hits on AF; 2 disrupted & 1
broken at bombing...12 hits with deterministic bombing
Axis 8 fighters lost
VP:
Axis: +16 AtA
USAAF +18 (+28 if using deterministic bombing which just made 12
hits)
Draw using bombing rules; US win with deterministic
bombing-though barely (1 more cohesion hit on the bombers would
have shifted it down to draw)
Dice probably somewhat favoured US-poor Axis fighter combat
rolls initially; good bombing rolls (12,12 for first 2)
Overall better-more balance. Both sides felt like they had a
chance. Second veteran useful for the Axis & makes their
fighters a bit tougher. Some interesting choices about using the
right hand Mc205s (including the extra flight) to try &
neutralise the P-47s or go after the bombers.
I'd be very inclined to go with deterministic bombing (2/1/0) or
if using the bombing rules remove the cloud over the target as
the altitude bombing mods (-2) plus the cloud mods (-1) make
effective bombing difficult even without the effects of flak. I
think the Axis has a chance to hit the bombers hard enough that
pushing the bombers down by enough cohesion hits to reduce
bombing to 11 hits is entirely possible though challenging.
There is enough space before the bombers attack that the Axis
have choices.
We're giving this another run but I think this is nearly there
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 6690--------------------------------------------------
Re: S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: pilotofficerprune Date: October 4, 2020, 9:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think deterministic bombing is the way. I shall try and
incorporate your changes into the scenario shortly.
#Post#: 6692--------------------------------------------------
Re: S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: pilotofficerprune Date: October 5, 2020, 2:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew and Gordon, if you grab the latest v2 version of
yesterday's scenario book it now incorporates your changes.
Please check that over and play that version.
#Post#: 6705--------------------------------------------------
Re: S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: Gordon Christie Date: October 9, 2020, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
RUN 4 with deterministic bombing
Losses:
USAAF 6 bombers 7 fighters---> +25
LW 7 fighter losses AF 12 hits (very narrow...several barely
passed cohsion checks on final turn of bombing; 2 stragglers
fell to flak, 3 cohesion checks on bombers with 0, 1 & 2 losses-
failing any would have shifted bombing down to +11 hits, +10 VP
& Axis win) +27 VP
Draw/ (very) marginal US win
Axis cohesion & US tally rolls poor; overall dice probably
favoured no one.
This now feels about right. Fits the historical narrative well.
This felt like a fairly representative run through. Decisions
for both sides-the Axis can load the 109s with gun pods & try to
use the Mc 205s to neutralise the US fighters or just go hard
for the bombers (not sure which, if either, is optimal), US have
some choices about splitting or not. Interesting contrast
between the Mc 205s which turn well & the fast, but less agile,
US fighters. Gun pods definitely an option for the 109s but the
US fighters are good enough that podded 109s caught by fighters
are going to suffer badly....
VP levels are probably about right but, as ever more testing
will validate.
Happy at Alpha.
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 6706--------------------------------------------------
Re: S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: pilotofficerprune Date: October 9, 2020, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Roger that. I shall shortly start filtering testers onto that.
#Post#: 6724--------------------------------------------------
Re: S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: Okmed Date: October 12, 2020, 12:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's a report on my first test, flying solo. If anyone wants
to run an opposed test, I'm up for that.
Scenario: S19 Asso di Bastoni
Version: v1.2
Player(s): Dave Demko (solo)
Narrative: Axis load-out: 1x Bf 109 squadron with Experte,
Veterans, and AAR; 1x Bf 109 squadron with Experte and gun pods,
1x MC.205 squadron with Veterans, and the rest as-is. The Axis
fighters tried to avoid the US fighters initially and drive for
the bombers, except that one MC.205 squadron distracted the
left-side escorts. The right-side escorts had a successful
reaction. The P-47s got wrong-footed and got solidly into the
fighting a turn later than they might have. A Bf 109 squadron
with Veterans, an Experte, and AAR managed an unopposed attack
on some B-24s: three hits, three kills. Epic. But it was not
enough. Two bomber squadrons were Disrupted, but overall bomber
losses were light. Flak was ineffective with both barrage and
direct fire.
Results:
USAAF for bombing = 20
USAAF for fighter kills = 13
Axis for bomber kills = 15
Axis for fighter kills = 6
net -12 = blowout US victory
felt like a US victory, but nearer-run than the score suggests
Recommendations: Knocking down heavies is difficult, so we'll
have to keep an eye on scores as we compile multiple playing. It
seems like both sides have some interesting options. The US may
have to come up with some non-trivial adjustments to react to
the interceptors, so replayability and freedom from
"perfect-solution" approachs both seem high.
Two things about the text of the scenario: 1) We should include
split limits for the US fighters. 2) If Broken bombers score
zero points for bombing, we should mention that in special rule
2.
#Post#: 6743--------------------------------------------------
Re: S19 Asso Di Bastoni
By: Okmed Date: October 15, 2020, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's my second run-through.
Scenario: S19 Asso di Bastoni
Version: v1.2
Player(s): Dave Demko (solo)
Narrative: Axis Plan: optimize bomber-killers with gun pods,
veterans, and one Experte (A15) in the Bf 109s, the other
Experte in an MC.205 squadron. Flak used all barrage to maximize
the number of possible cohesion rolls against bombers. The P-47s
tallied and got turned around efficiently, and one P-38 squadron
had a successful escort reaction. Fighters on both sides were
efficient with their tallies and shooting, but the US fighters
had worse cohesion rolls. The best Bf 109 squadron and the
MC.205 flight stayed unbroken well longer than average. The
Germans lost one Bf 109 to friendly fire by chasing bombers into
a barrage (net gain 1 VP for the Axis). The USAAF's tactical
error was in not splitting for the sake of covering all
interceptors.
Results:
US bombing Heavy damage = 10
US fighter kills = 13
Axis bomber kills = 42
Axis fighter kills = 1
net +20 for a Massive Axis victory
That felt like a massive Axis victory b/c of the bomber
slaughter, though keeping the bombing damage down to Heavy was
also good. Turning back two broken squadrons was notable. Reason
for the outcome: Getting a pod-armed BF 109 squadron into the
bombers unopposed. That squadron and the MC.205 flight refused
for quite a while to break, so they took lots of shots. Flak
barrages also inflicted two Disruptions on bombers.
Recommendations: This outcome does not mean the scenario is
unbalanced. Very good Axis gunnery and cohesion dice plus
inefficient USAAF tactics contributed to the outcome. One
notable point: Twice both sides declined dogfights after combat
in squares with bombers: The Axis of course wanted to shoot
bombers, and the US preferred to fight with the Defense bonus of
the combat boxes (heavy bomber groups) instead of using their
inferior Turn ratings. After a chaotic initial fighter clash,
this playing settled down to an orderly business. Nevertheless,
it offers consequential options for both players and seems to
have good replayability. My recommendation at this point is to
keep on compiling data on balance.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page