Bino:
I believe there to be more factors than numbers per side at Frame start or trying to get the plane set match ups perfect. My comments:
I like the Coral Sea scenario. Im not a real early war guy but the plane setups are very close. Which means it comes down to the guys which is the way I like the scenario's.
This is not a back to the drawing board. Tweaking yes.
Subbing of the B5N for the Devistater was good keep it. Get 1 US skin for it so that I will stop my whining about flying a Lend lease IJN plane with stolen IJN torpedo's to sink IJN ships that look like USN flattops!!!!
I agree the SBD should be restricted to the 500lb bomb to better match the D3A's 250kg bomb load. This would more even up the sides.
The island recovery fields were nice. I would remove them next time. Its not real in many cases. Cant move them either. Even in the last scenario they could be used to ones advantage. in short if your boat sinks your screwed, just like in real life. I think the non fighting Task Group further back and completely out of range for use is the better option.
The Zero to F4 match up is pretty close. I know some will argue both sides but they are fairly close once you get past the speed, maneuverability, range, firepower etc etc.
The scenario was a little bland in that the ships never moved. During the course of the battle the sides really weren't perparred for the "search" factor of the engagement. I think we proved that each side could locate the Task Groups fairly quickly given they always started almost from the center of the grid sectors. What I would like to see is the box's shifting and moving with maybe Frame 1 at extreme range replicating the first sightings. Frame 2 closer as the fleets maneuver towards each other. Frame 3 at close range with second strike capability. And you guys need to bring back the BIG BOAT BATTLE as a side show to the main engagement after H+60. That is a hoot!! I would recommend 2 TG's vs 2 TG's so that involvement can be greater.
One twist on the next ocean going scenario recommendation. Make the "search" a bigger part of the game play. So using this scenario as an example. Each side has 2 Task Groups but has 3 Task Group box's. One sector doesn't have a Task Group, place them close together. This would force larger forces to be used for searching. Strike Packages would have to launch more towards the center and wait for search AC to locate and report. Also don't place the starting Task Group in the center each time. Just an idea.
Squads - Not all squads are created equal. Some small squads like the 111st fight like larger squads (see Frame 3 results). Likewise some larger squads don't do as well as their numbers would lead you to believe. Who's in that squad as well as how they coordinate and fight is more important than the shear numbers. Plainly if your in a squad that shows up to the FSO with 5 Min's to spare and you have to download a game map to enter, find out who the CIC is, find out what your mission is because you didn't read the email traffic well then your probably not going to do as well as compared to the squads that do much more. FYI I'm not worried about offending those guys because they wont be reading this post because they don't care.
Squad CO's: Some can command and lead much larger groups and they make it look easy. Others cant. Others have military experience which directly relates or they have been flying in the FSO for more than 10 years and they are just plain good.
CIC plans and command and control: Some plans look like they were hastily put out Wednesday night with nothing more than dividing up the side and issuing the good old "Go for it" plan. And others put a lot of time and energy into the process, and it shows. If your not creative and thinking of new ways to help your side win, or using every measure of advantage you can then your not planning to the fullest. Then your just going through the motions of CIC booty duty. Most planners don't take into account the scenario win. Going into Frame 3 as the ALLIED CIC I didn't plan that frame as i would have liked, I planned it to win the scenario. If your tasked with CIC duty and you plan it yourself your going to be at a disadvantage against the 325th when we CIC a frame as we employ a planning staff meaning emails, phone calls and conference calls. Just saying.
Comm's: If your running a mission without a dedicated comm's channel with commo officers only relaying flash traffic like I do your going to be at a disadvantage because while your typing my comm's guys have already relayed the flash traffic. And I will always have at least 30 second head start on you while you try to type and fight, everytime. And in a rush how many times have grid coordinates been typed in wrong. Or you ask for a resend and the guy who sent the message is now engaged and not looking at the text buffer. Doesn't happen when you use a Comm's officer who can fight and talk on multiple channels all at once. This is how split second timing is achieved. These actions count toward victory's.
So when you look at this scenario where the plane setups were pretty close. The numbers were close as well. So why the ALLIED victory. Yes the 1000lb bomb load of the SBD's played a part, but didn't carry the scenario. However I would say the side squad selection, CO's, CIC's plans, comm's and ultimately the squad members themselves in how well they practiced, coordinated, rehearsed and then communicated during fight made the difference. Things the CM team really cant control well. Not unless you keep a little black book on every squad like I do
