Next Scenario

[Guppy35]

CM's talking trash? Oh no, CM's aren't allowed. BTW, if you are gonna talk smack, you should do a little homework. I dont like uneven matches (K4 v I16), I like em even and fair. Most importantly, fun. Go PTO Early War!

There is no Allied bias. BoG for example, we Luftwaffe hacked so ya'll should be complaining. Oh wait...

Honestly, IDC what next scenario is. I will be there no matter what it is. I do like Eastern Front and NO ONE here can say that we do too much Eastern front. CM's sure like PTO though.

But you are so easy to get going Perd.  As for BoG, I'm still waiting for you to come out of the ack!

Just so you know, my dream scenario would be 1943 RAF v Luftwaffe Channel Front.  About as even a fight as you can get.  Spit V and IXs, Tiffies, 190A5s, 109G6s, Mitchells, Marauders and the occasional Mossie.  Ju88s, 110Gs and 109F8s standing in for those tip and run raiders the LW was using against the south coast.

I suppose the LW guys wouldn't like to fight Spitfires though

[ROC]

Are you guys really going to make me drag out my "it's not the plane or terrain" rant?

[Tank-Ace]

While a plane or terrain doen't MAKE a scenario, it can certinaly make one much more fun, or a pain at times.

If guppy had said we should sub in the spit 16 for the spit 9 because it more closely resembles the later 9 models, I'd probably stay home. Or at least start asking for the G14 in place of the G10 .

[HB555]

Personally, I like to fly what was actually flown, and usually try for the side that actually lost to see if I can make a difference in the historical win/loss book.
But then, that's just one old dogs opinion.

[Devil 505]

Are you guys really going to make me drag out my "it's not the plane or terrain" rant?

While I mostly agree with that statement, I believe that the planeset led directly to Coral Sea '11 not getting off the ground.
In the last year there have been 3 scenarios, two of which were PTO. I think that the community is a little burnt out from PTO setups. Even a great setup like Coral Sea can fall victim to poor timing, which it did.

[Tank-Ace]

HB555, the issue is that you can only affect you're single corner of the fight. Maybe you're side won a dogfight it didn't win in real life, but individual pilots can't change the strategic picture.

For example, if a carrier is sunk, there is no reduction in the number of aircraft flown against you in the following frame. And if you win a frame, it doesn't stop the other side from advancing (on the ground, possibly resulting in airfields closer to their strategic targets).

Unless we (the participants) are given control of the strategic situation, it can be difficult to change the outcome of a battle.

[Brooke]

Personally, I like to fly what was actually flown, and usually try for the side that actually lost to see if I can make a difference in the historical win/loss book.
But then, that's just one old dogs opinion.

 

Me, too.  I also am fine with flying the less-popular plane models in the setup.  Folks flew those planes in the real battles, and I get satisfaction out of flying such a plane and doing decently.

[swareiam]

IMHO - There seems to be less interest from the staff in scenario from the mid years MTO. Why is that?

Other than Operation Husky, there were many great campaigns that spanned every aspect of the scenario experience.

Especially in mainland Italy.

[Tank-Ace]

We also have yet to see a Battle of France scenario, which would be COMPLETELY doable with the aircraft we have now. Not a single one is missing that can't be filled in for with a very similar aircraft or tank.

Allies
P-51B/D
Spitfire mk IX/VIII
Typhoon
P-38J
P-47D25/D40
Mossie VI
b-24
B-17
Lancaster
A20
M4(75)/M4(76) (the '76 added in July, mixed at a ratio of 4/1)
Firefly

Axis
Bf109G2
109G6
109G14
Fw 190A5
Fw190A8
Fw190F8
110G2
Ju-88
Panzer IV and Panther (mixed at a ratio of 5/1)
Tiger I/II (Starts in the Tiger I and switch to the tiger II in mid July)

[Brooke]

IMHO - There seems to be less interest from the staff in scenario from the mid years MTO. Why is that?

A lot of what we run has to do with what terrains are available.  I like mid-war MTO as much as everything else.  In fact, what was supposed to be running right now was mid-war MTO.  It was ready to go, but there was an issue that we couldn't get around, and late in our process we substituted Coral Sea, as the terrain was all up to date, tested, and the design was done.

I don't dislike any theater or time period.  I like them all.  What I like best in scenarios is representation of what battles were fought and variety.  I like it best when we are able to vary the theater, time period, and style of combat from scenario to scenario.

[Devil 505]

In fact, what was supposed to be running right now was mid-war MTO.  It was ready to go, but there was an issue that we couldn't get around,

Are you at liberty to elaborate on the issue? Has it been corrected? Will it be corrected?

[Wildcat1]

Are you at liberty to elaborate on the issue? Has it been corrected? Will it be corrected?

Probably the damage issue with the transport ships on the Italy terrain

[Devil 505]

Probably the damage issue with the transport ships on the Italy terrain

Maybe, but that didn't stop FSO from happening.

[Brooke]

Yep, it had to do with being able to destroy ships (an important part of the scenario that was in mind).  I do think that it will be fixed, but it sounds like it isn't easy.

[Guppy35]

IMHO - There seems to be less interest from the staff in scenario from the mid years MTO. Why is that?

Other than Operation Husky, there were many great campaigns that spanned every aspect of the scenario experience.

Especially in mainland Italy.

You based this statement on what exactly?

A profile I did for my youngest son. This is his fictional Red Tail Mustang.   I note you have an interest in Red Tails as well. You should see what his room looks like!  So as far as interest in the MTO, I'd suggest you are incorrect, and my interest isn't limited to just the 332nd