I'd like to start a reasonable discussion... if possible.

[Hajo]

Let's not get off topic.  Dantoo started a great thread.  Discussing ideas is a good thing.

[humble]

I think you have a conflict in the sense that historical accuracy and good game play don't always go hand in hand. There were relatively few "fair fights" during WW2, especially in aviation. BoB was one and Kuban would be a second. You've got reasonable parity in the Med/ETO in 43 I think and maybe in the Solomons....

Adding the "correct" planes doesn't alter the realistic imbalance that occurred during much of the war. As it relates to the Japanese plane set I don't think we have a lot of gaps since the majority of the actions can be functionally covered. Obviously the Oscar is a big gap but the Judy less so since it was incapable of operating from most Japanese carriers left after the losses in 1942. The B6N2 also was primarily land based....

While historically inaccurate the inclusion of the B7A would combine a measure of historical accuracy (it did see combat) with enhanced game play and a very usable "main arena" niche plane. Obviously the Betty is required at some point for scenarios etc....

[Saxman]

Dave, I told you on wishlist: READ MY WHOLE POST. I did NOT say those planes were "critical." In fact I specifically said they were NOT but would just be nice to have.

[daddog]

Like Sax I see a need for more Japanese AC.

Also I thought the A6M3 had self sealing fuel tanks and the A6M2 did not.

One FSO, far far away in time, my squad was given m16s to attack a vbase held by panzers.  The designer said it was "historic".

Wow. I don’t ever remember one designed like that. Then again my memory is not perfect. For all I know that could have been one of my designs. All I can say it would never happen again. I have always leaned toward playability when looking at designs rather than historical accuracy.

[NOT]

there was the one with M-8s vs. tigers.




NOT

[Cee64E]

there was the one with M-8s vs. tigers.




NOT

Yeah.  I was in that one on the M8 side.  Not much fun at all.  However, that said, I have found the vast majority of FSO events to be a lot of fun as planned.  Occasionally, there have been events that didn't go as planned that turned out to be less fun than they could have been, but overall I've enjoyed my participation in FSO and plan to continue.

This most recent frame was particularly fun for me and my Squadron mates.  Even being on the axis side, the turkeys in that turkey shoot as it were, we did pretty good IMO.  We knew going in that it was going to be rough on us, but with very capable escort by Saxman and VMF 251 Bucaneers, we actually sank the CV that was our target.  Almost no one made it back, but we all had fun.  And frankly, gentlemen, that's why I sink my hard earned dough into this game.

<S> to the 251st from all of us in Rolling Thunder and a <S> to the folks who take time out of their day to plan and arrange these events just so the rest of us can play.   

[daddog]

there was the one with M-8s vs. tigers

Had my doubts about that. Ghostdancer said he had one with Firefly's VS Tigers, but M8's were optional scouts.

I don't ever recall one with M8's pitted against Tigers and that was the only option.

[ghostdancer]

My Tunisia design had Fireflies versus Tigers and with the option of also using M8s as scouts. Heavy tanks though were deployed  by both sides. Also Husky had LVTs versus M8s and then in the last frame Fireflies and M8s versus Tigers and M8s. But I have never done a design with just M8s versus tanks.

[Saxman]

I think the Battle of the Bulge this past year had a spawn limit on M4s, which left the Allies with M8s vs. Panzers by a particular time frame.

[Nefarious]

I think the Battle of the Bulge this past year had a spawn limit on M4s, which left the Allies with M8s vs. Panzers by a particular time frame.

Correct, M4s and Tigers were disabled at T+90

[Stoney]

Here's the rub in my opinion, and it mainly affects the PTO setups, especially after the 1943 period when U.S. designs leapfrogged the IJN/IJA in technological superiority:

Even when we introduce the G4M and the Ki-43, the Japanese are at a disadvantage.  The Ki-61, Ki-84, and N1K2 are the only aircraft in the planeset that are competitive with the mid-to-late USN aircraft.  The torpedo and dive bombers perform so poorly, and are so fragile that they will never compete.  Even designs like the Judy will be easy pickings for Corsairs and Hellcats.  In my mind, there's simply no way around the qualitative advantage enjoyed by the US aircraft.  It gets even worse when you include USAAF aircraft, especially the B-24, P-51D, etc. in the latewar period.

I desperately want to find ways to create balanced PTO setups, but from a design perspective, they are extremely difficult.  We can't even have a early-war PTO setup without people remarking on how durable the F4F is compared to the A6M2's weaponry.  From a historical standpoint, my personal opinion is that the IJA/IJN never had a chance in the air during WWII simply because they're designs couldn't compete, and by the time they had competitive designs, they lacked the industrial capacity to produce them.

So, my soap-boxing aside, the question at hand is how to design PTO setups that create a competitive atmosphere for both sides.

[Greziz]

I dont know about you but I was in the turkey shoot. I feel that we the japanese had a strong chance for success we outnumbered our foe and struck strong. However I saw a note of discord after we had dropped the bombs. Some wanted to rtb and regroup I suppose and others YELLED We can do this we outnumber them. In the end I feel we suffered so catastrophically in the air to air is simply because we did not stick together as well as we perhaps should of. Those who decided to flee did not do so as a group but simply tried to break when they had a reasonable opening. however the beastly f6f with its beastly speed and power advantaged had the ability to pick apart the runners. I was one of the aces for the japanese with a staggering 2Kills and successful landing. I thought I had 3 assists and 1 kill but appears I managed to harass and pick on the same 2 f6f's However many of us used up our ammo fast and what not. I believe if we had worked on some better group tactics like a thatch weave etc we could have taken far more americans with us. Oh and I was also the very last low japanese pilot to escape. I forced 4 f6f's to OVER SHOOT me and ran like the dickens. The only other ally was about 10 or so k above me watching like a buzzard. I am merely lucky the f6f's did not persue me as they could have easily run me down. amazingly enough I took no dmg to parts but was merely riddled with bullets everywhere no dmg. I was 1 of the few in the KI 61 I am surprised the a6m's didnt fair better though. I for one see a6m's do amazingly well all the time in the main arena against f6f's and stuff. I am terrible in the a6m personally I stall it and wreck it bad. but I see people who can latch onto almost anything and never lose it in their a6ms

[fudgums]

The japanese zekes we fought(353rd)came in low with ords.basically gave us the fight,we knocked out 20 as a squad but they barely got the cv. I think the zekes have to fight their fight together and not divided like greziz said

[Saxman]

Here's the rub in my opinion, and it mainly affects the PTO setups, especially after the 1943 period when U.S. designs leapfrogged the IJN/IJA in technological superiority:

Even when we introduce the G4M and the Ki-43, the Japanese are at a disadvantage.  The Ki-61, Ki-84, and N1K2 are the only aircraft in the planeset that are competitive with the mid-to-late USN aircraft.  The torpedo and dive bombers perform so poorly, and are so fragile that they will never compete.  Even designs like the Judy will be easy pickings for Corsairs and Hellcats.  In my mind, there's simply no way around the qualitative advantage enjoyed by the US aircraft.  It gets even worse when you include USAAF aircraft, especially the B-24, P-51D, etc. in the latewar period.

I desperately want to find ways to create balanced PTO setups, but from a design perspective, they are extremely difficult.  We can't even have a early-war PTO setup without people remarking on how durable the F4F is compared to the A6M2's weaponry.  From a historical standpoint, my personal opinion is that the IJA/IJN never had a chance in the air during WWII simply because they're designs couldn't compete, and by the time they had competitive designs, they lacked the industrial capacity to produce them.

So, my soap-boxing aside, the question at hand is how to design PTO setups that create a competitive atmosphere for both sides.

Incidentally, I'm sort of surprised to see a lack of land-based aircraft for the Japanese, as they were involved in the battle as well. Would have allowed small numbers of the more capable IJAAF fighters.

fudgums,

One thing I'm sure hurt the Japanese in several target areas was the mass discos that hit about 15mins into the frame. AKDogg's AAR bears witness to that, as that strike hit in three successive waves as a result and the AK's were able to pick them apart as they came in. The Allies could basically get right back in position if they discoed, but for the most part the Axis discos couldn't catch up to the original strike, and the original strike couldn't stop and wait for them. we had a number of discos in our strike as well, but fortunately our flight plan allowed our discos to "cut the corner" and had virtually reformed entirely by the time we made contact with the enemy, allowing our two strike package squadrons to make a more effective effort against the target while VMF-251 tangled with the CAP.

[Dantoo]

The thread is going well.

I am not overly focussed upon what may have happened last week or what might happen next week. Rather, for the future guidance of design,  I am wondering if there is some discussion to be made about what should be prioritised, historical accuracy or playability.  Is this a false dilemma?  Is there another way?


Again, I define playability as the opportunity to carry out one of the designer's set tasks and return home safely.

I do agree the plane set for the PTO is limited.  In the continuing absence of further types, what should the designers do?  Would the introduction of the Oscar (isolated example) change anything anyway?  Should we develop a framework that we can work within, that gives a quality immersion experience but sacrifices all but a notional historical accuracy?  Are we willing to warp the rigid bulwarks of history or is it yet a better idea to abandon the thought that you should be given a chance to "do the job".