Author Topic: FSO Proposal  (Read 5218 times)

Offline ELD66

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2008, 04:55:23 PM »
P38J was not introduced until august of 1943 and most were sent to north africa. It would be better if you swapped the J for the G. And the B24J was only in the ETO during 1943. If we include it why not also include KI67 with limited numbers and no formations?
E1Diablo in game

Member of JG11 Sonderstaffel


Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2008, 06:52:22 PM »
This campaign is also set at the tail-end of 1943 (November/December), by which times more Js would have been available. Additionally, by 1943 the Americans were largely giving up on the 38 in Europe due to the problems they were having in colder climates, so most were going to the Pacific (P-38s were being rushed into the PTO almost as fast as they could be built). Finally, the P-38H we're missing would be more appropriate to this setup than the G, and the 38J would be a closer substitute.

B-24Js can also be removed from the setup outright. It'd be nice if HTC would have given us earlier models of the 24 and 17 (we don't even HAVE a B-17 appropriate for the Pacific, as all Gs were in Europe) but I believe they've already gone on record saying "Not gonna happen." However while the B-24J can substitute for earlier models (technically I can call it a PB4Y in the writeup instead and be correct, as the PB4Y was a 24D modified with a nose turret for use by the Navy. In other words, a 24J) the Japanese bomber at this time would have been the G4M. The Ki-67 is as much a substitute for the G4M as the Ki-84 and N1K2-J are for the Ki-43 and 44. :p
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2008, 11:34:43 PM »
After some consideration, I'd like to suggest this revision:

The gaps in the plane set are really too large to do all of what I want to do with this set up. Additionally the real focus is the reduction of Rabaul, and by this point in the war Japan was largely on the defensive and unable to mount an sort of appreciable counter-offensive against American airfields and bases. Therefore I'm removing the Japanese bombers. This setup I think would be more effectively run if treated like the Battle of Britain: Japan only defending while the US only attacks. This will also help alleviate the disparity between the American and Japanese aircraft by allowing the Axis to field their entire force as fighters. Combined with a 60/40 split that should help finish balancing things out.

American targets would include Japanese bases facilities on New Britain and New Ireland and the surrounding islands, as well as convoys (task groups with CAs and DDs only. No IJN CVs in this setup) in the area.

Plane Set

United States

F6F-5 (limited, CVs only)
F4U-1A (limited, Bougainville)
P-38J (limited, all land bases)
P-39Q (all land bases)
P-40E (all land bases)
SBD-5 (CV and Bougainville)
TBM-3 (CV and Bougainville)
B-25C (all land bases)
B-25H (limited, all land bases)
PB4Y-1 (Eld: ;) ) (limited, all land bases)
PT Boat (limited, optional, 2nd life in fighters -- at least one convoy should be placed within range of a PT spawn and indicated as such in objectives if the Allied commander wishes to use PTs)

Japan

A6M5
Ki-67

Side distribution: 60/40
Allied Special Mission: "Black Sheep One" - One Corsair pilot is designated as Boyington. Allies receive a bonus for any aircraft he shoots down. Axis receives a bonus if HE is shot down.
Possible Japan option: Include a limited number (say, 20-30) A6M2s. These pilots would have a 2nd life in this aircraft. This would be more an option to give a little more variety to the Axis plane set, and could further help balance the Axis in a similar manner as Vals and Kates with second lives would.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2008, 01:18:08 PM »
I'd get rid of the B-25H and P-40E, add the A-20, and add the P-47D11.  There were 3 P-47 groups operating in New Guinea by this point.  The P-40's by this point were operating mostly as air support platforms on short range missions like the P-39's.  Most offensive missions were P-38 and P-47 escorted missions.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2008, 01:46:09 PM »
I'd like to keep the B-25H, which WAS operating in the area, as something of a novelty. So far every setup with 25s since her addition to the game has used the glass-nosed C. This would be an interesting opportunity to apply the B-25H to its historical role of blowing gaping holes in enemy ships.

It's nothing against the A-20. She's a good ship, and the widespread use she sees in FSO is a testament to the ubiquitousness of the aircraft in about every theater of war. But she IS getting a lot of use, and at least so far we haven't run a setup that gives the pumpkin chucker a chance to show her stuff in historical action.

I see what you're saying about the P-47, however with the Lightning, Hellcat and Corsair in play I'd like to keep the P-40 as it gives the Japanese a more balanced opponent. I CAN put her in place of the P-39Q. This wouldn't be QUITE as overpowering.

BTW, that should be Ki-61 in the Japanese plane set above.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2008, 01:49:03 PM by Saxman »
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2008, 02:16:47 PM »
We have used the B-25H in an FSO before...I believe it was an Italy setup that Nomde did last fall.  Regardless, the B-25H wasn't in theater in November 1943, the B-25G was, just to be picky  :P.  While the A-20 was operating in every theather, the Havoc epitomized the interdiction campaign conducted by 5th Air Force, and was an aircraft that General Kinney considered ideal for his operations.  To have a New Guinea setup that did not include the A-20 would be, IMO, poor taste indeed.

Perhaps an AirSols type planeset would capture what you're looking for better than what you've listed here?
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2008, 02:23:31 PM »
More details on the AirSols set?
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2008, 02:33:48 PM »
AirSols was the abbreviation for Air Solomons.  It was the combined command of all air units in the Solomons and superceded the Cactus Air Force.  It provided most of the land-based USMC/USN aircraft involved in Operation Cartwheel (i.e. VF-17, the Black Sheep, etc.) but also included British, Australian, and USAAF aircraft.  It was a separate command from 5th Air Force, even though their respective areas of operation were adjacent/overlapping.

I'd have to do some research to find all of the aircraft and units assigned, but certainly F4U's, P-40's (RAAF), P-400's, etc.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2008, 03:16:04 PM »
What about this:

F4U-1A (Bougainville, limited)
P-38J (all land bases, limited)
P-47D-11 (all land bases, limited)
P-40E (minimum requirement, all land bases)
"P-400" (P-39D, minimum requirement, all land bases, 20mm option only)
A-20 Havoc (all land bases)
SBD-5 (minimum requirement, Bougainville)
TBM-3 (minimum requirement, Bougainville)

One type Drawn From:

"PB4Y-1" (B-24J, all land bases, limited, no formations)
B-25H (all land bases, limited)
PT Boat (optional, limited, 2nd life in aircraft)

P-40s, P-39s, SBDs and TBMs would have a minimum number that must be used. F4Us, P-38s and P-47s will be limited. A-20s are unlimited.

Additionally, the Allied CiC will then choose one of three optional types: B-24J, B-25H or PT Boat. These will be limited in number, and the CiC of each frame can only use one of these types. PTs would have a second life in any aircraft the CiC chooses.

I've removed the carriers from the allied side. This will remove one of the top-tier Allied fighters (F6Fs) and focus the campaign as a land-based operation.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Fencer51

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4677
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2008, 05:28:43 AM »
There were land based F6Fs as well.
Fencer
The names of the irrelevant have been changed to protect their irrelevance.
The names of the innocent and the guilty have not been changed.
As for the innocent, everyone needs to know they are innocent –
As for the guilty… they can suck it.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2008, 07:49:34 AM »
A rather small percentage of them.

Anyway, I don't want the Allies to have FOUR fighters that will dominate the Zeke and Tony.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2008, 08:01:56 AM »
A rather small percentage of them.

Anyway, I don't want the Allies to have FOUR fighters that will dominate the Zeke and Tony.

Hey, we dominated the F6F with our Ki-61s during Fire in the Philippines. :D
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #42 on: October 16, 2008, 09:19:41 AM »
Ok, SHOULD dominiate. :p
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Fencer51

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4677
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #43 on: October 16, 2008, 11:19:57 AM »
A rather small percentage of them.

Anyway, I don't want the Allies to have FOUR fighters that will dominate the Zeke and Tony.

Actually there were 2 or 3 squadrons in AirSols.

And we did quite well against them with KI-61s.  That KI-61 is a ride not to be underestimated.
Fencer
The names of the irrelevant have been changed to protect their irrelevance.
The names of the innocent and the guilty have not been changed.
As for the innocent, everyone needs to know they are innocent –
As for the guilty… they can suck it.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: FSO Proposal
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2008, 11:26:26 AM »
If you do it with an AirSols setup, there would be no P-47D or P-38J.  P-39's and P-40's would be included with the USMC/USN aircraft as they were part of AirSols.  The P-47D and P-38J's would have been part of 5th Air Force.  So, my recommendation would be to either do it with an AirSols allied plane set, or a 5th Air Force plane set.

But again, the P-39 and P-40 were rarely used offensively at this point in the war in PTO...
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech