DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66--------------------------------------------------
E15 Fire in the Sky
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 12, 2018, 9:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: 4 Feb
Playtester: Elias Nordling
Played Fire in the Sky
It is a super-cool situation, but I felt the scenario had
trouble generating the right narrative.
The US fighters jumped the bomber, and the escorts reacted. The
melee broke down into separate combat where a group of Japanese
fighters tried and failed to reach the transports. The US
fighters, meanwhile, didn't have enough time to shoot up the
bombers enough, that rolled good and scored 4 hits on the
airfield.
By turn 3 all but one US squadron was broken, and that too was
gone the next turn, after killing two more bombers.
Final score:
Japanese: 5 points for bombing + 2 P39s shot down: 7
US points: 6 fighters, 5 bombers downed. 16.
Final score: 9. A draw. That seemed fair, but neither side was
really able to properly shoot up the other's bomber/transports.
The Bombers drop their bombs by turn 3, unless the US rolls good
on tallies (which they did here), they will only get one pass on
the bombers before they drop their bombs. Meanwhile, the
Japanese have trouble even reaching the transports before they
land, and the US fighters can block them fairly easily.
I think it is possible that tinkering with the setup is all that
is needed to get the right narrative. Here are some thoughts:
1: Have the Japanese fighters on sweep rather than escort. We've
done that before with uncoordinated escorts. As is now, they
just get to jump ahead into action by being escorts.
2: Put the bomber further away from the airfield to give the
P39s some more time to work on them.
3: Have the transports arrive at the airfield from the same
direction as the bombers. I think that might be the only way the
Japanese would be able to get them without first getting drawn
in to the fight over the bombers or blocked by the US fighters.
4: Also, you should specify which Ki48 is used. I didn't think
it was the early one, but it matters if it has speed brakes or
not.
#Post#: 67--------------------------------------------------
Re: E15 Fire in the Sky
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 12, 2018, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: 9 Mar
Playtester: Elias Nordling
Nope, I still can't get a narrative resembling the historical
playing this.
The Transports will land largely unmolested, and even a lucky
Japanese is easily parried by the US fighters. The Japanese
bombers will get through to bomb. Not necessarily in good order,
but it is highly unlikely that a large number of them will go
down in flames before bombing simply because there are few turns
of combat before they get there, and the Japanese can put in
fighters as padding.
For what it's worth, the Japanese managed to bomb for 1 point,
and lost 4 bombers, 2 of them in the egress. 9 Japanese fighters
were lost. The US landed both transports safely while losing 5
fighters. Final score 17.
One thing that will help making the Japanese bombers a little
more vulnerable is splitting them up into flights. I don't think
it will be enough though, the fighters are simply able to match
each other's moves, and there are not enough targets that you
have to make hard choices between attacking and defending.
Needs more work to work.
The Ki48s should be underlined since they are a variant.
#Post#: 68--------------------------------------------------
Re: E15 Fire in the Sky
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 12, 2018, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul
Playtester: Elias Nordling
After all the tinkering, this one looks right now, and I got a
remarkably historical result. All of the bombers were destroyed
but one managed to drop its bombs and cause minor damage. Three
C47:s were lost but both flights managed to land.
Final score:
Japanese:
Bombing 1+3
3 C47, 3 P39
Total: 13
US: 5 Ki43, 8 Ki48
Landing 6
Total: 27
+14 points, US victory. It felt like one, and the Japanese had
the chance to both break or kill one of the C47 groups and bomb
with the first flight, which could have been a win, so the VPs
now feel right.
The Ki48:s should be underlined since they are a variant.
Other than that, I see no need for further changes.
#Post#: 69--------------------------------------------------
Re: E15 Fire in the Sky
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 12, 2018, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep
Playtester: Dave Demko/Elias Nordling
Here is my point of view on Fire in the Sky vs. Elias. This
doesn't count as yet another test if it's already counted in his
column.
Fire in the Sky v0.6
US Elias vs. Japanese Dave
This playthrough tests the revised setup which gives the
Japanese more time to chase the transports. The initial gambits
were two Ki-43 squadrons chasing the C-47s and one remaining
high, close to the bombers, while all three P-39s set vectors to
go after the Ki-48s. Both sides tallied well except for one
Japanese squadron, making it a turn late to protect the bombers.
The P-39s inflicted heavy losses on the Lily squadron, and one
squadron, with Vets and an Experte, was able to engage fighters,
break them, and go back to bomber-hunting. The Japanese
squadrons shot down some C-47s but broke relatively early. The
Ki-48s were disrupted but chose to stay on the bomb run. Flak
hit a bomber and broke a Ki-43 squadron, keeping it from closing
on the transports. Bomb damage against the airfield was minimal,
and the all-star P-39 squadron was able to bag yet another
bomber.
Final score: Japanese VPs = 1 bombing +1 fighter kill + 4 for
the two transport kills
US VPs 10 for bomber kills, 6 for fighter kills, 6 for landings
32 - 6 = 26, massive US win
Dave's comments: Japanese attacks on the transports were
insufficient, bombing was a negligible 2 hits, and the P-39s
were effective on offense (getting kills) and defense
(protecting the transports). The Japanese rolled poorly trying
to force dogfights. Even if the Japanese had bombed at 100%, the
net score would have been 17, still a solid US win. When Elias
broke my last fighter before it could take one more shot at the
trailing transport, that was pretty much game over. I think we
validated the idea about giving more time & incentive to attack
the transports. Even with that extra time, I had trouble getting
shots on them. We still like the new set-up positions.
Elias's comments: Disregarding the VP levels, at least we get a
fairly historical result. If we don't disregard the VPs, it is
probably better for the Japanese to abort the bombers right away
and go all in on the transports. (Dave: A few times I have
considered doing this. Keeping the bombers in the game probably
means a net VP gain for the Americans.)
I have a couple of further ideas for the scenario. One is to
split up the Japanese bomber squadron into two flights. This
will of course make it even harder for them to get through, but
it will also make the historical result of all downed more
likely. Also, it will break the symmetry that there are as many
potential targets for both sides as there are fighters so that
you mostly end up with fighter duels.
With two bomber flights, the US player will have a reason to
send two fighter squadrons to the bombers instead of just one,
which in turn will give the Japanese a choice between trying to
parry this or going for the transport, a choice that is
currently lacking. Of course, this will probably even further
hurt the Japanese VPs, so I think they need a strong incentive
to even try to drop the bombs. Like 5 points for each squadron
that drops bombs, 2 points for each AIRCRAFT that drops bombs,
and perhaps also doubling of bomb damage.
#Post#: 70--------------------------------------------------
Re: E15 Fire in the Sky
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 12, 2018, 9:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Sep
Playtester: Dave Demko
Fire in the Sky (first solo playing)
I took a look at Fire in the Sky after reading Elias's report.
This playthrough uses the setup as printed in v0.5. The Japanese
have to be very lucky on their first-turn tallies to pursue the
transports. They rolled well, and I tried these general plans:
The Japanese went relentlessly after the transports while the US
protected one transport and tried to swarm the bombers with two
squadrons. Flak was ineffective. Air combat around the lead
transport was tit-for-tat. Air combat around the bombers was a
major failure for the Americans (one break, one dogfight). The
Lily squadron steep-angle bombed opposed only by flak for 4 hits
on the airfield. Three C-47s were killed, though the US scored
for landing both flights.
Results: US VPs were 4 for kills and 6 for landed transports.
Japanese VPs were 6 for killed C-47s, 2 for killed P-39s, and 5
for bombing
Net: -3, a thumping Japanese victory
Recommendations: None now. This proves that tearing up the
transports is possible, given luck. This outcome was an edge
case. I will retest with the original setup and with Lee's
proposed shifts.
#Post#: 71--------------------------------------------------
Re: E15 Fire in the Sky
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 12, 2018, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Sep
Playtester: Dave Demko
Fire in the Sky (second solo playing)
Same plans as my previous playing, but with a different outcome.
Again, this is using the setup in v0.5 of the scenario. The
Japanese gave priority to the transports, while the Americans
tried to swarm the Lily squadron first. Again two P-39 squadrons
went after the bombers while one defended the trailing transport
from a single Ki-43 squadron. What was different this time? The
Japanese failed all but one of their dogfight attempts, and the
Americans didn't trip over their own pitot tubes while attacking
the bombers. The Lily sqdn was badly shot up and broken before
it bombed, managing only 2 hits on the airfield (the chapel?).
They went for glide bombing instead of steep-angle (allowed for
the Ki-48-IIb) because it looked like a quicker way to attack
and run for it. Flak again was weak, inflicting a -1 bombing
modifier but no kills or cohesion hits.. The scenario had
running battles throughout, and all Ki-48s were shot down
eventually. That's a big bag of VP. The Americans lost three
C-47s but landed both flights unbroken.
Results: US VPs 11 for fighter kills + 14 for bomber kills, 6
for transports = 31
Japanese VPs 3 for fighter kills + 6 for transport kills, 1 for
bombing = 10
If I had set up a proper steep-angle bomb run, the same dice
would have yielded 4 hits for 5 VP, giving the Japanese 14 total
Either way, the score would be 21 or 17, both big US victories
Conclusions: This and my previous playing were solo games, each
using the same basic plans for both sides. This one yielded an
outcome pretty close to what the scenario gives for historical
results. Both playings yielded extreme results that may well not
have come up in competitive play. I'm not saying Elias is wrong
about the scenario needing work, but I believe both sides can
achieve convincing wins.
Both sides use the same plans: Japanese go for the transports,
Americans go for the bombers first. By turn 2 the Lily sqdn is
broken, and the P-39Ns have been dominant in air-to-air. Again
the Americans are using two sqdns against the bombers and one to
chase some Ki-43s before they catch the transports.
Meanwhile Elias thinks, "There is nothing much to gain from
ganging up on the bombers, though, but if they were split into
two flights, there would be." I can say that being worth 2 VP
apiece might make them tempting. Course, I just trashed three of
them and broke the squadron in two turns of combat.
Side point about the outcome: Once it had been broken, I
considered having the Ki-48 squadron jettison bombs and run for
it. Since it was already shot up and had only two surviving
aircraft, a retreat would have gained the Japanese only 3 VP net
(two aircraft minus the 1 for damage not inflicted on the
airfield), for no effect on the scenario's outcome.
#Post#: 72--------------------------------------------------
Re: E15 Fire in the Sky
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 12, 2018, 9:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The current VP outputs for plays are:
Elias 1st = 9
Elias 2nd = 17
Elias 3rd = 14
Dave 1st = 26
Dave 2nd = -3
Dave/Elias 1st = 21
Average = 14
#Post#: 129--------------------------------------------------
Re: E15 Fire in the Sky
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 15, 2018, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A lot of these tests are quite old, and I could do with data
from v0.9 or later. However, as my only adjustment I've shifted
the 'draw window' upwards for the next release, to give the
Japanese a chance.
#Post#: 244--------------------------------------------------
Re: E15 Fire in the Sky
By: Gordon Christie Date: September 27, 2018, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew and I have now run through this three times. It is a
pretty straightforward, tight scenario with a reasonable number
of choices for both players, although the opening can feel bit
scripted. That said the inherent volatility of the system gives
it considerable unpredictability and, as is often the case for
small scenarios, a certain puzzle -like feel – although the
optimal solution continues to feel very elusive.
The initial setup pretty much drives the action. The high US
fighters go for the bombers whilst the lower fighters climb
hard, and might get a head-on attack on the bombers from the
squadron starting at altitude 2 with a favourable tally roll on
game turn 1. The Japanese are a bit more reactive, and looking
for a long-range tally on the transports.
In our first run the US shot down all eight Japanese bombers
together with 3 fighters, although the solitary straggler from
the lead squadron managed 3 Victory Points for bombing before
his demise. 1 US fighter and 2 transports were lost and 6
Victory Points gained for landed transports.
US Victory Points were 25 (19 air to air and 6 for landed
transports), Japanese where 5 air to air to air and 3 for
bombing for a final total of +17 and a bare US victory. This
felt like it should been in solid US victory territory with a
better than historical exchange ratio and successful arrival of
the transports.
Our second run through saw the fighters on both sides break
more readily (the first one probably saw some slightly better
than average cohesion rolls, particularly from the Americans).
The US shot down 3 fighters and 5 bombers (+13 Victory Points)
and landed all of the transports (+6 Victory Points) for a total
of 19, offset by the loss of 2 US fighters and 6 Victory Points
for bombing. Final score was +11. Again this would be a
Japanese victory whereas I think we felt was probably a draw,
although probably edging towards US victory.
Third time out we deliberately tried to break the scenario by
starting the Japanese fighters as low as possible with the aim
of getting early tallies on the transports and forcing them to
abort. Only 2 transports were lost, although one flight did
abort. The Japanese were probably unlucky not to shoot down more
transports. Conversely the US managed to shoot down all 8
bombers and 4 fighters which, together with +3 Victory Points
for the landed transport flight give them a final total of +23.
Offset by the loss of 2 US fighters and 2 transports together
with +3 or Japanese bombing this gave a final total of +14 for a
draw, although again this felt like it should be edging towards
US victory with the loss of all the Japanese bombers. Once again
a solitary heroic straggler managed to survive and bomb for 3
VP before succumbing.
The main issue seems to be Victory Point balancing. Our feeling
was that the victory thresholds should probably be shifted by
about 4 such that +8 or less is the Japanese victory, +9 to +12
draw and +13 or more a US victory. We might give this one final
run tonight but overall it's a good scenario.
One final thought might be that the Japanese bombers should not
be allowed to change altitude as, otherwise they can drift up
into the cloud at altitude 5 over the target which will tend to
protect them from fighters, and – since victory points are
scored from overflight rather than effective bombing – not
affect VP for bombing.
Cheers
Gordon
#Post#: 252--------------------------------------------------
Re: E15 Fire in the Sky
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 28, 2018, 2:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, here’s my VP spreadsheet, listing the VP totals for each
playthrough:
Elias 1st = 9
Elias 2nd = 17
Elias 3rd = 14
Dave 1st = 26
Dave 2nd = -3
Dave/Elias 1st = 21
Andrew/Gordon 1 = 17 (US victory/perceived as US victory)
Andrew/Gordon 2 = 11 (Japanese victory/perceived as draw)
Andrew/Gordon 3 = 14 (Draw/perceived as slight US victory)
Average = 14
A problem I have here is that the average is 14 VP, but you are
perceiving that as the threshold for a US victory. That 14
average remains the same in my spreadsheet even if I delete some
outlier results. So we have a potential mismatch between what is
the PERCEPTION of victory/failure and what the game is actually
outputting as a result. Though of course we might just be
experiencing a run of American successes in play. What does a
Japanese victory look like?
I need to mull on this further, but I’m open to ideas.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page