DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6806--------------------------------------------------
S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: pilotofficerprune Date: October 29, 2020, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Gordon's first post:
First go at ramrod 5-31 (anticipating there will be a new
subfolder for this shortly...)
Andrew as LW:
RAF 3 bombers 8 fighters No hits
LW 14 fighters
14 VP each
Nett 0
LW win Not unreasonable.
Overall dice probably mildly favoured the LW but not
sufficiently to greatly distort the outcome.
2 significant areas of concern:
1. Overall size. This is a big scenario & although it works we
wondered whether it actually needs to be a s big as it currently
is. We're going to try a slightly cut down version with 2 fewer
fighter squadrons on each side & slightly fewer veterans to see
if it flows better.
2. Bombing. In common with most scenarios with smaller numbers
of bombers, higher altitude bombing & relatively lucrative
targets this can be swingy. This may well be something that we
just accept though there are a couple of possible solutions. If
this was a bomber exit scenario & was tuned for RAF victory with
all or almost all the bombers exiting undisrupted that would put
the focus on the fighter vs fighter combat & set the bar high
for the RAF (appropriately with slightly more good quality
fighters & high quality), which would fit well with the
narrative. It would also avoid the flak rating as a wild card to
mess up bombing even if the RAF do well AtA.
Deterministic bombing in the same fashion as Asso di Bastoni is
another option. With 2/1 (disrupted)/0 (broken) for the bombers
the VP thresholds split interestingly. All bombers attacking
undisrupted would give +12 VP which would reward good RAF AtA
outcomes (& may need some luck with the flak). Median outcome
would be +6 VP for 3-5 hits & 0 or 3 VP if the bombers get
beaten up (which is a good metric for RAF failure). In some
respects I quite like this but I worry that we're in danger
almost of undermining the bombing rules by not using them too
often....
Minor concern about flak-which will probably be a running theme
as we revisit Supremacy scenarios. Heavy flak B is perhaps a bit
powerful- only 1 bomber kill & 1 disruption on this play through
but it does have the potential for good flak performance to
really offset good RAF AtA performance & make the outcome too
luck dependent with flak rolls driving the final outcome.
We'll keep tweaking but that's the initial thoughts
#Post#: 6822--------------------------------------------------
Re: S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: Gordon Christie Date: October 31, 2020, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hot off the playtest press:
Changes:
Delete support Spitfire wing in (wing leader in F11); bombers
start in trail in A8, B8, C8; JG2 & JG26 Fw190 wings reduced to
2 rather than 3 squadrons
RAF 3 veteran, 1 Experte LW 2 veterans 2 experten; LW loss
limits 12/6
Cloud in S9-X9 changes to wispy
Change Heavy Flak B to H1(1). This will need a new counter.
Overall i suspect the Supremacy flak values need tuning back a
bit. I think it is important that late war flak is a bit more
potent than early war flak but given the extent to which Heavy
Flak D (H0[1]) has become the default heavy flak in the other
modules I think a new Heavy Flak B counter valued at H1[1] is a
reasonable way to capture the evolution of "average density"
heavy flak without becoming overpowering. It is still bit more
potent but the single channel encourages liberal use of barrage
which I think captures the effects of heavy flak better than the
proliferation of direct fire channels we had in the original
Supremacy box.
Deterministic bombing 2/1/0
Outcome:
RAF 6 fighters 2 bombers lost 4 hits on factory (+6 VP) (1
bomber to flak; 1 bomber squadron disrupted by flak , 1 by
fighters)
LW 14 fighters lost
Allies 14 +6 (AtG) --> +20
LW +10
Nett +10
We felt this was a Draw/Allied win
In terms of VP thresholds I think the Allied median bombing
outcome should be +6 VP (3-5 hits). 6 hits for 12 VP would be a
n outstanding performance against the fighters leavened by some
luck with the flak as well. 0-2 hits would imply a lot of
fighter attacks on the bombers (as the flak is unlikely to do
that well alone) & would not unreasonably be Allied loss
territory. The wider narrative suggest the Allies need to do
better than even AtA to win so i'd suggest a draw window of +6
to +9 as a starter.
Overall feeling wa that this was better & that the scenario
benefitted from being slightly smaller. The LW wings are a bit
harder to spot & there are some choices as to how to manage the
intercept with a fair amount fo cloud to hide in & reasonable
GCI. Conversely there is scope for some thought about the escort
tactics and the bomber profile through the cloud.
we're happy with this at Alpha. It's smaller and definitely
feels tighter but achieves the effects originally intended
(showcases the Spit IX & demonstrates why the LW were on the
defensive in France by this stage).
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 6823--------------------------------------------------
Re: S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: pilotofficerprune Date: October 31, 2020, 7:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheers. Let me work these changes in tomorrow morning (Sunday)
and then ask Elias to give it a go-over?
#Post#: 6825--------------------------------------------------
Re: S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 1, 2020, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gordon, we don't really have space for you flak counter request.
However, I can apply the improved fire direction modifier to Hvy
Flak D in the SSRs.
#Post#: 6829--------------------------------------------------
Re: S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 1, 2020, 4:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Elias, this is posted up now. Can you please take a look at it?
#Post#: 6831--------------------------------------------------
Re: S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: Gordon Christie Date: November 1, 2020, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nerfing heavy flak D sounds fine to me.
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 6832--------------------------------------------------
Re: S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 1, 2020, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gordon, can you and Andrew please take a look at S29 Kursk
Counterattack?
#Post#: 6833--------------------------------------------------
Re: S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: Elias Nordling Date: November 1, 2020, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Will do
#Post#: 6839--------------------------------------------------
Re: S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: Elias Nordling Date: November 2, 2020, 1:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The clouds that were broken in S9-X9 in the original version are
wispy in the revised version. I don't know if this change was
intentional, but it pushes the number of wispu clouds used
beyond the counter sheet limit for wispy clouds in Supremacy.
#Post#: 6840--------------------------------------------------
Re: S18 Ramrod 5-31
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 2, 2020, 1:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting.
Yes, it's intentional. But I didn't realise we were beyond the
counter limits. If we were to change some of the wispys to
brokens to fit within the countermix, how many counters would we
need to change?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page