Learning from The Final Battle, and the next scenario

[skribetm]

thank you for the correction guys! that would actually be a better choice for the scenario(late war take-back of the philippines!)
wider choice of planesets, and more battles/subplots in the campaign!





Battle of Leyte Gulf

On October 20, 1944, the U.S. Sixth Army, supported by naval and air bombardment, landed on the favorable eastern shore of Leyte, one of the islands of the Visayas island group, north of Mindanao. The Japanese miscalculated the relative strength of forces and attempted to destroy the landing through a major sea battle in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, fought on October 23–26. The decisive naval battle effectively destroyed the core of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

The U.S. Sixth Army continued its advance from the east, as the Japanese rushed reinforcements to the Ormoc Bay area on the western side of the island. While the Sixth Army was reinforced successfully, the U.S. Fifth Air Force was able to devastate the Japanese attempts. In torrential rains and over difficult terrain, the advance continued across Leyte and the neighboring island of Samar to the north. On December 7, 1944, U.S. Army units landed at Ormoc Bay and, after a major land and air battle, cut off the Japanese ability to reinforce and supply Leyte. Although fierce fighting continued on Leyte for months, the U.S. Army was in control.

Battle of Luzon

Troops of the 185th Inf., 40th Div., take cover behind advancing tanks while moving up on Japanese positions on Panay Island

On December 15, 1944, landings against minimal resistance were made on the southern beaches of the island of Mindoro, a key location in the planned Lingayen Gulf operations, in support of major landings scheduled on Luzon. On January 9, 1945, on the south shore of Lingayen Gulf on the western coast of Luzon, General Krueger's Sixth Army landed his first units. Almost 175,000 men followed across the twenty-mile beachhead within a few days. With heavy air support, Army units pushed inland, taking Clark Field, 40 miles northwest of Manila, in the last week of January.

Two more major landings followed, one to cut off the Bataan Peninsula, and another, that included a parachute drop, south of Manila. Pincers closed on the city and, on February 3, 1945, elements of the 1st Cavalry Division pushed into the northern outskirts of Manila and the 8th Cavalry passed through the northern suburbs and into the city itself.

As the advance on Manila continued from the north and the south, the Bataan Peninsula was rapidly secured. On February 16, paratroopers and amphibious units assaulted Corregidor, and resistance ended there on February 27.

Despite initial optimism, fighting in Manila was harsh. It took until March 3 to clear the city of all Japanese troops. Fort Drum, a fortified island in Manila Bay near Corregidor, held out until 13 April, when a team went ashore and pumped 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel into the fort, then set charges. No Japanese survived the blast and fire.

In all, ten U.S. divisions and five independent regiments battled on Luzon, making it the largest campaign of the Pacific war, involving more troops than the United States had used in North Africa, Italy, or southern France.

[Wildcat1]

And to think i got bored with 38's and found the HOG's and Hellcat to be much more appealing to me.

when was that? when you joined vf-17? 

[TonyJoey]

Hellcat has been very fun flying lately, so can't wait to fly it in this upcoming scen.

[Big Rat]

and i love the hog, especially the a-hog, but i just think its a bit too easy for the experienced flyer 

A hog flown properly is probably the busiest plane in the game. I don't think any of us trainers recommend them for new fliers.  I went from 109's to hogs, I find the 109 less busy, and I don't think anybody considers the 109's easy.  But I transgress, back to the topic at hand

 
BigRat

[whiteman]

when was that? when you joined vf-17? 

no that was a couple years before I restarted VF-17

[Spikes]

A hog flown properly is probably the busiest plane in the game. I don't think any of us trainers recommend them for new fliers.  I went from 109's to hogs, I find the 109 less busy, and I don't think anybody considers the 109's easy.  But I transgress, back to the topic at hand

 
BigRat

I agree with BigRat. The hog is the jack of all trades in the right hands. It is easily flown, but hardly mastered.

[Wildcat1]

no that was a couple years before I restarted VF-17

oh... (shuts up)

to be honest, my favorite Navy plane is the FM2. it is just so manuverable, and its lighter than the standard F4F (but who flys that in the MA anyways), so its a win-win for me 

so if we ran the battle of Luzon, would the FM2 be flown by the British or the Americans?

[Beefcake]

Well here are my gripes.

1. Both sides need to have static targets in addition to any moving targets. The Allies in FB could either hit land base strat or shipping, the Axis, however, could only hit shipping for major points. Now there are several problems that appeared with this. The Allies simply sailed their fleets west which increased the search and flight time for the Axis bombers. Half of the bomber time was spent searching for CVs and once found we had to contend with 5" flak which would usually kill at least 2 bombers in one hit. On the other hand the Allies -could- hit our ships but they mostly hit our cities which...well...never move so they're not hard to find. Basically once the Axis fell behind in points there was no way they could make them back up, where as the Allies could widen the gap by bombing cities for massive points.

2. Ships need to have a boundary of operations in all future events. Granted they need room to maneuver but they should not be able to be removed from the fight totally. Fleets that are targets in events should either have a boundary box that they operate in or they should have a certain area that they must reach by frames in.

3. Honestly I'm in the "Objective Based" crowd. Lets do away with the major point scoring and relay more on taking an objective and aircraft kills. 

----------

Now moving on to the next scenario. All I have to say is B25C!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111

[Wildcat1]

im all for the objective-based system.

which probably means we can throw Leyte Gulf out of the window because that would turn into one big furball (then again, theres nothing wrong with that  )

this is my sample scoring system (note how there are no points):

allies:
confirmed kills of enemy aircraft/vehicles: 137
capture V46 by T+100: complete
capture V47 by T+100: complete
capture V51 by T+100: incomplete
destroy active enemy CV: incomplete
more than 75% destruction of AAA factories: complete


axis:
confirmed kills of enemy aircraft/vehicles: 104
succesful defense of V46 by T+100: incomplete
succesful defense of V47 by T+100: incomplete
succesful defense of V51 by T+100: complete
succesful defense of allied active CV: complete
less than 75% destruction of AAA factories: incomplete

so since the allied team completed 3 objectives to the axis's 2, and killed more enemys than the axis, they win 4/2

i think this could work

[TequilaChaser]

* Something that should seriously be addressed in the future Scenario designs is the fact that in "The Final Battle" Scenario, the Bomber Pilots actually had SIX lives, meaning in order to put that player out of comission the opposing team had to down 6 planes........ I think all players should have an equal amount of lives, if you take off with 3 planes, then that should count as 1 life if you do not bring those 3 planes back successfully...

the way it was in "TFB", the Bomber pilots could lose 2 planes and still not count as losing 1 of thier 2 lives they were alloted......


* I disagree with the idea of "Boxing In" the task groups.......... in the "TFB Scenario", each frame showed where the CV's ( task Groups ) would be at ... at the start of each frame, and they were there for every frame except one, which things were delayed at the start and Fencer was overwhelmed with letting people back in ( discos? ) and launching aircraft of the sides ( announcing in CM Text ), in that Frame if I remember right, the task grps got jumped to their starting Sectors late, but they did get moved....... nothing goes 100% correct everytime......

but to propose a Boxing In, is going to always be a masacare of those targets, they have no room for escape, this is simply wrong to make this a rule or whatever......

Our CV's went in all different directions, btw... we never sent them DIRECTLY west....... sometimes they went South, sometimes they went North.... most times they went diagonally SW or NE or NW... sometimes we played coey, and sent them in different directions..... heck, in the last frame we sent them toward the fight, hdg toward A124 area from the get go..... except when they had to maneuver for Defense

* another thing that seemed more of a Main Arena Gaming tactic rather than something that would of happened in WWII ( unless it really did happen and I never heard about it ) was the use of RATOs on the  "on the Deck/NOE ar234s" after they dropped their Bomb Loads...... I thought the RATOs were used to get these aircraft off the runway when they were hvy with ordinance, not to drop their ord. then hit the juice to run away.......

I have always looked at these Scenario's as reenactments with the "What If" possibility of changing the outcome, I am not saying NOE missions are wrong, but I would prefer if the "Gamey Tactics of the MA" were left out of the possibility to change the outcome....... kind of hard to find the immersion when seeing things like this in a Scenario......

points are points... some will want to participate to "win The War" "gain the most Points", while for the majority ( least I think the Majority ) participate in them to find that immersion of being swept back in time and get the adrenaline rush of the Dog Fight, the escorting the massive bomber Raids, the defending of the homeland, etc..... I am sure the Scenario CM Team will figure out a way to offer some type of scoring system whether it is based on points or based on objectives that everyone will be able to appreciate......

I hope everyone finds my suggestions and views worthy of making future Scenarios better for everyone.......

I enjoyed "TFB", but I feel it could have been better and if I know Fencer, it will be better the next time it is hosted/presented

  

[Spikes]

* Something that should seriously be addressed in the future Scenario designs is the fact that in "The Final Battle" Scenario, the Bomber Pilots actually had SIX lives, meaning in order to put that player out of comission the opposing team had to down 6 planes........ I think all players should have an equal amount of lives, if you take off with 3 planes, then that should count as 1 life if you do not bring those 3 planes back successfully...

the way it was in "TFB", the Bomber pilots could lose 2 planes and still not count as losing 1 of thier 2 lives they were alloted......


* I disagree with the idea of "Boxing In" the task groups.......... in the "TFB Scenario", each frame showed where the CV's ( task Groups ) would be at ... at the start of each frame, and they were there for every frame except one, which things were delayed at the start and Fencer was overwhelmed with letting people back in ( discos? ) and launching aircraft of the sides ( announcing in CM Text ), in that Frame if I remember right, the task grps got jumped to their starting Sectors late, but they did get moved....... nothing goes 100% correct everytime......

but to propose a Boxing In, is going to always be a masacare of those targets, they have no room for escape, this is simply wrong to make this a rule or whatever......

Our CV's went in all different directions, btw... we never sent them DIRECTLY west....... sometimes they went South, sometimes they went North.... most times they went diagonally SW or NE or NW... sometimes we played coey, and sent them in different directions..... heck, in the last frame we sent them toward the fight, hdg toward A124 area from the get go..... except when they had to maneuver for Defense

* another thing that seemed more of a Main Arena Gaming tactic rather than something that would of happened in WWII ( unless it really did happen and I never heard about it ) was the use of RATOs on the  "on the Deck/NOE ar234s" after they dropped their Bomb Loads...... I thought the RATOs were used to get these aircraft off the runway when they were hvy with ordinance, not to drop their ord. then hit the juice to run away.......

I have always looked at these Scenario's as reenactments with the "What If" possibility of changing the outcome, I am not saying NOE missions are wrong, but I would prefer if the "Gamey Tactics of the MA" were left out of the possibility to change the outcome....... kind of hard to find the immersion when seeing things like this in a Scenario......

points are points... some will want to participate to "win The War" "gain the most Points", while for the majority ( least I think the Majority ) participate in them to find that immersion of being swept back in time and get the adrenaline rush of the Dog Fight, the escorting the massive bomber Raids, the defending of the homeland, etc..... I am sure the Scenario CM Team will figure out a way to offer some type of scoring system whether it is based on points or based on objectives that everyone will be able to appreciate......

I hope everyone finds my suggestions and views worthy of making future Scenarios better for everyone.......

I enjoyed "TFB", but I feel it could have been better and if I know Fencer, it will be better the next time it is hosted/presented

  

Cheers TC,
I also agree there were gamey tactics on both sides...maybe it isn't the best idea to run a what if style scenario because things can't be enforced right because it never actually happened...

I also think that the objective system should be put in place because of that immersion people are looking for...so someone can't just point horde the entire time. Change will be good this time around I think.