Comparing Planes to One Another for Scenarios

[ptownhiker]

Ever since a recent pickup game where a Hurricane's turning radius won the day against a D.520, I have been looking into a plane comparison system that incorporates maneuverability. I am doing this because I want to use a points system to help me create balanced scenarios (something like the Battletech points system). My initial thought was to create a system that incorporated one part firepower, one part maneuverability, and one part damage resistance. I am not satisfied with the results because, once I add all three parts, there doesn't appear to be a lot of difference among most of the planes. I have two questions about developing a points comparison system.


Question 1: How important is maneuverability and damage resistance compared to firepower? I started with the rulebook's description of using firepower as a way to measure the relative effectiveness of planes. I took the average damage values of each weapon (both long range and short range values) and added them together to give the plane a firepower rating. I then added the plane's damage resistance. Finally, I added a maneuverability rating that I “alchemized” from the number of maneuver cards the plane uses and what the different maneuver cards could do. The end result was that, excepting for biplanes and dive bombers, there didn't appear to me to be a lot of difference among the planes.

Question 2: How do you rate the relative importance of the maneuver cards? In other words, what is more important: the speed of straights (and the difference between fast and slow speeds on straight, the tightness of turns (which I measure in the distance a plane will travel to make a 180 degree turn), or the sideways movement of sideslips (or perhaps the combination of sideways and forward movement of sideslips)?

[Oberst Hajj]

There are a couple of useful threads on setting up a points system here on the site. They were targeted at the WWI version of the game, but I think the methods would work here as well.

1. There really is not a lot of differences between all the planes when you break them down statistically. After all, they were all from the same era and mostly of the same technology level. I think you would see more separation between the planes if you also included climb rates and max altitudes.


2. The problem is that each player will value the different aspects of a plane differently. This becomes more pronounced as this will change with the situation the player is in. During a dogfight most players want maneuverability and firepower. when they are hurt, they want speed and ruggedness to escape.

For assigning points to the maneuvers, I think you have to factor in the speed band, rather it is a steep or not (for that plane) and how many of that same maneuver is in other decks (it's rarity if you will). You might need to go as far with the rarity as both in and out of the same speed band.

[Sixer]

Quick criticism that shouldn’t be taken too seriously... shouldn’t this belong in “Mission Discussion”, because it is essentially about Mission Construction? Now that that’s out of the way...

The more a plane’s high speed is higher than its opponent’s high speed, and its low speed is lower than his opponent’s low speed, the more a trailing plane can dictate to his opponent, “I’m trailing you, and there’s nothing you can do about it!”, because the trailing plane can neither be forced to pass for a shot, nor can it be outran. This also means that a skilled pilot is more likely to bring his close-range fire on his opponent on purpose rather than by accident, and do additional damage.

Assuming a plane with a slower high speed than its opponent, having the same low speed as its opponent is slightly better, but still problematic if the opponent is good. The opponent will get just close enough to use close range fire, and adjust speed accordingly; either matching the low speed of his opponent to stay behind, or wait long enough at slow speed for his opponent to build up a long enough lead to get in close again. It would be slightly better still for the plane with the slower high speed to have a slower low speed as well, to force a pass. However, both of these conditions, a plane with a slow high speed and a same low speed, or a plane with a slow high speed and a slow low speed, enable the opponent to use boom and zoom tactics; the plane has “bomberitis”, if you will. The only way to correct for this is to give the plane slightly better long-range damage than his opponent (A damage, most likely), which he is more likely to be able to use, or considerably better close-range damage (B or C, or maybe D for more challenging opponents), to reward skillful pilots who chose a harder to fly plane for achieving a difficult firing solution.

“Rate of turn” seems tied DIRECTLY to straight-line airspeed, although perhaps I should check some of my new maneuver decks for confirmation. All turns seem to be either 22.5º or 45º, regardless of speed; the speed determines the turning radius in what appears to be a strict linear function. Sadly, it appears the game designers never heard of a Doghouse Plot. Differences in turning ability among the maneuver decks seem to ONLY take place in sideslips... some decks have two of the same sideslip card with both fast and slow speed, some have the same sideslip only duplicated in a fast speed, and some have a unique fast sideslip that may or may not have a duplicate slow speed sideslip. These differences are much tougher to weigh. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

I would like to see a convenient printable chart with plane comparisons that we can quickly use to establish fair matchups. Even better would be a handy-dandy iPhone app for composing on-the-fly simple missions... the rulebook ones seem insufficiently balanced, in my opinion.

[ptownhiker]

Hi Ryan,
Your thoughts on the straights make sense to me. I believe the ideal would be for a plane to have a long fast straight with a short slow straight on the same card. After that, I would prefer a long fast straight and long slow straight on the same card. This is a comparison, in fact, between the A deck (effectively having the ideal I describe) and the D deck.

I should also say that on my Christmas break I measured the different maneuver cards and recorded the movements in mm on a spreadsheet. I will post the information when I have more time (I am heading out the door as I type this).

On the turns, I found that all of the turns are 30 degrees, 45 degrees, 60 degrees, or 90 degrees. The differences I found were in how much distance the plane had to travel to make those turns. A good difference is comparing the A deck and H deck. While both deck have the same fast straight speeds of 60 mm, their distance traveled to make a 180 degree turn vary greatly (the A deck turns much faster than the H deck).

That's all for now (returning gifts with the wife and then seeing The Hobbit). I will post more later.

[ptownhiker]

After spending some time reviewing other threads on points values (mostly on WWI, as Col. Oberst said), I have updated some of the ways I was evaluating maneuver decks. I organized the attributes of the maneuver deck cards into categories (slow, medium, fast, wide turning, tight turning, etc). I selected attributes that were "average" -- actually the worst attributes associated with "modern fighter planes" (mostly decks C and D) -- and declared those to have a value of zero. I added bonuses for superior attributes and subtracted penalties for inferior attributes. I also applied penalties for decks without Immlemanns; decks with steep maneuvers besides those for climbs, stall, and dives; and cards which lacked a slow option on certain cards. I then took the deck values and either added or subtracted their value to the sum of a plane's damage resistance and firepower. Some decks, like the A deck and E deck, add to the total. Other decks, like the D deck and the abysmal XA deck, subtract from the total.

I am more pleased results of using the maneuvers to modify the sum of damage resistance and firepower rather than just adding maneuver values to damage resistance and firepower. This has increased the relative strength of resistance and firepower. I want to test out some things with the planes.

If you are interested in what the decks look like numerically, here is a link to the tables I created for the decks I have (I don't have the F, G, J, and K decks). The differences, as people who pay closer attention to the cards than I have in the past) is not in the number or type of cards in most of the decks, but in the measurements associated with the cards.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhudZsXtb6IndHBmWllhU0dQMTFrR09YNUJVM0VsZWc#gid=0

[ptownhiker]

I have posted the attribute categorizations I have used for my point value system for maneuvers. I did not evaluate dives, climbs, and stalls because with the exception of the I dive bomber deck, there is no differences in the cards from one deck to another that is not already accounted for in the speed difference of the straight cards. I penalized the one deck, XA, that didn't have an Immelmann, and I divided the rest of the cards into straights, turns, and sideslips.

For the last three categories, I designated primary attributes. These are the attributes that I consider to be most important for that type of maneuver. For straights, that is the fast speed distance. For turns, that is the tightest circle the plane can make at slow speed. For sideslips, that is the maximum amount of sideways distance the plane can make in two sideslips.

I also designated four secondary attributes: one for straights, one for turns, and two for sideslips. The secondary straight attribute is the distance between the fast and the slow maneuver; for turns, it is the longest distance traveled using the least angle turn; for the sideslips it is the total distance both forward and sideways traveled on a fast maneuver, and the difference between a fast and slow maneuver.

I also added penalties for the number of steep maneuvers a deck has beyond dives, climbs, and stalls; and for maneuvers that only have a fast or slow maneuver (again, excepting dives, climbs, and stalls).

The spreadsheet can be viewed here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhudZsXtb6IndGdsNC1uRld5WlFfZGkwbVZoLXYxM2c#gid=0


I coded what I designated the neutral values in green. I identified the neutral values as the worst ones possessed among decks A, B, C, D, E, and H (the modern fighter plane decks I have). Any attribute worse than the designated neutral value is a penalty subtracted from a plane's damage resistance and firepower (a negative one point for each category below the neutral). Any attribute better than the designated neutral value is a bonus added to a plane's damage resistance and firepower (a positive one point for each category above the neutral). I arbitrarily decided to count secondary attributes half as much as primary attributes (half point for each category).

I also subtracted half points for each steep card beyond climbs, stalls, and dives; and subtracted half points for each maneuver card that only had a fast or slow option (again, except for climbs, stalls, and dives).

I have listed example point totals for planes I have so far run through the system. I have run a single scenario test: a Bf 109 using the solo rules against two Gladiators. The maneuverability of the Glads greatly overwhelmed the 109 although I think that is a shortcoming of the solo rules more than anything else. I am not sure what to make of the rating of the He 111.

70467

[CappyTom]

I have posted the attribute categorizations I have used for my point value system for maneuvers. I did not evaluate dives, climbs, and stalls because with the exception of the I dive bomber deck, there is no differences in the cards from one deck to another that is not already accounted for in the speed difference of the straight cards. I penalized the one deck, XA, that didn't have an Immelmann, and I divided the rest of the cards into straights, turns, and sideslips.

For the last three categories, I designated primary attributes. These are the attributes that I consider to be most important for that type of maneuver. For straights, that is the fast speed distance. For turns, that is the tightest circle the plane can make at slow speed. For sideslips, that is the maximum amount of sideways distance the plane can make in two sideslips.

I also designated four secondary attributes: one for straights, one for turns, and two for sideslips. The secondary straight attribute is the distance between the fast and the slow maneuver; for turns, it is the longest distance traveled using the least angle turn; for the sideslips it is the total distance both forward and sideways traveled on a fast maneuver, and the difference between a fast and slow maneuver.

I also added penalties for the number of steep maneuvers a deck has beyond dives, climbs, and stalls; and for maneuvers that only have a fast or slow maneuver (again, excepting dives, climbs, and stalls).

The spreadsheet can be viewed here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhudZsXtb6IndGdsNC1uRld5WlFfZGkwbVZoLXYxM2c#gid=0


I coded what I designated the neutral values in green. I identified the neutral values as the worst ones possessed among decks A, B, C, D, E, and H (the modern fighter plane decks I have). Any attribute worse than the designated neutral value is a penalty subtracted from a plane's damage resistance and firepower (a negative one point for each category below the neutral). Any attribute better than the designated neutral value is a bonus added to a plane's damage resistance and firepower (a positive one point for each category above the neutral). I arbitrarily decided to count secondary attributes half as much as primary attributes (half point for each category).

I also subtracted half points for each steep card beyond climbs, stalls, and dives; and subtracted half points for each maneuver card that only had a fast or slow option (again, except for climbs, stalls, and dives).

I have listed example point totals for planes I have so far run through the system. I have run a single scenario test: a Bf 109 using the solo rules against two Gladiators. The maneuverability of the Glads greatly overwhelmed the 109 although I think that is a shortcoming of the solo rules more than anything else. I am not sure what to make of the rating of the He 111.

70467

Great work David. Do you have a list with altitude? As we play with it almost always. I will start taking stats of who gets shot down and the plane they were flying.
:thumbsup:
Thomas

[ptownhiker]

Great work David. Do you have a list with altitude? As we play with it almost always. I will start taking stats of who gets shot down and the plane they were flying.
:thumbsup:
Thomas

I certainly do. Rather than paste another graphic version, I have linked it below from my Google drive.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhudZsXtb6IndHJuaXhsWm1Id0FrTXNudVVzMTdZQ1E



I have added two items for altitude: climb rate and maximum altitude. The neutral value (counting for zero) for those were a climb rate of four and maximum altitude of eleven. I counted the maximum altitude as being half as valuable as climb rate.

[ajn_70]

Great thread! I have been working on my own calculator but this is interesting, although I think I need to play more to get a feel for the decks. Question - Should there not be some points included for muti-engine and multi-crew aircraft? Just a thought.

-a

[Пилот]

Somehow I missed this thread before.

David,

First, thanks for working on point values, it's not an easy task and you took it seriously. It would be nice if you could add altitude values. Also, having in mind Stuka has two firing arcs, is it perhaps underpriced?

[ptownhiker]

The Stuka may indeed be undervalued in my calculations. When I constructed the values, I don't think I gave credit for rear firing guns (I would have to look at my old notes). At best, I might have counted the rear firing guns as half as valuable as the forward firing guns.

As for the altitude values, the link below contains modified points for altitude for several planes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhudZsXtb6IndHJuaXhsWm1Id0FrTXNudVVzMTdZQ1E#gid=0

Looking at this list again -- 18 months later, mind you --I am bothered by the fact that I gave the A and B decks the same value. I have it in my mind now that the A deck is superior because of that extremely wide sideslip. I have to look at the information again.


Dave S



Somehow I missed this thread before.

David,

First, thanks for working on point values, it's not an easy task and you took it seriously. It would be nice if you could add altitude values. Also, having in mind Stuka has two firing arcs, is it perhaps underpriced?