having some balance troubles or is everybody cool with this?

[Shifty]

There are 2, btw.. The First Team and The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign.

You will LOVE them.

Thanks Drone I appreciate the reccomendations.  

Shadup Bailey.

I've read and read over and over through the years about the CV battles of 1942 they are some of my favorite aviation history subjects.
The only example I have been able to find on SBDs as CAP during Coral Sea are like this below. Like I said Friday when I was attempting my torp run
against the Lexington upon seeing the SBDs my first thought was Oh $*** followed by. Well this is Coral Sea



This one taken from Air War Pacific Chronolgy.

Hey Jaeger... Wiki also says the saucer people regulary visit youranus as well.  

[Shifty]

Lundstroms "The First Team" is a good read.  "Shattered Sword" is compulsory!

That link I gave to a page from the "The First Team" shows that at 11.00 am on the 7th May there were 14 SBDs up on anti-torpedo patrol, 10 from the Yorktown and 4 from the Lexington.  There are plenty of other examples just in that book. Another quick one. 1st February, Page 79, "Yorktown at 0903 launched VS-5s fourteen SBDs as anti-torpedo-plane patrol".  That's fourteen up on CAP from the Yorktown alone, months befor the Coral Sea battle.  It wasn't a one-off or two-off or whatever.  SBDs were used as bombers and scouts.  They were also used as fleet air defence in the normal course of operations.

There is perhaps another issue in that I think there were only 36 wildcats between the two carriers.  In FSO we have more planes than were available in the battle itself.  I'm sure the CMs took all this and much more into account when they initially allowed 70 F4Fs.  Haven't got time to firm up the numbers from reality but they're moot anyway.  FSO is not a historical recreation.  Can't be or there wouldn't be any fun.

Thanks Dantoo! 

[mbailey]

Shadup Bailey.

 

[captain1ma]

Hey Jaeger... Wiki also says the saucer people regulary visit youranus as well.  

Like i said, take it for what its worth. the point i was making was the last paragraph about the SBD's

[Shifty]

Like i said, take it for what its worth. the point i was making was the last paragraph about the SBD's

Huffy this morning are we?? 

[HighTone]

I have refrained from posting in this thread because I don't think my comments would be conducive to good game play.

I assigned the Zeke squadrons there rides based on an average turn out those squads had in frame one. They in turn had great turn outs in frame two.

It was not intentional.

It felt like to me that frame two was a bit better balanced.

The allies will always have the advantage in the PTO. Any setup or situation where the Japanese had an advantage in real life will be watered down either for game play reasons, plane set reasons, or historical reasons. True in some ways for the eastern front as well.

The Japanese and Russians always have a tough go, fighting against plane set issues, lower turn outs and lack of familiarity.

I very rarely take my squad to fight on the winning side of history. Its tough, but something my guys have taken on as a source of pride.

The score doesn't mean squat to me....the fight it where the juice is at. All the better IMO when that fight is uphill.

[captain1ma]

Huffy this morning are we??  

LOL not at all!! although I can see how it could come across that way.  

I have refrained from posting in this thread because I don't think my comments would be conducive to good game play.

I assigned the Zeke squadrons there rides based on an average turn out those squads had in frame one. They in turn had great turn outs in frame two.

It was not intentional.

It felt like to me that frame two was a bit better balanced.

The allies will always have the advantage in the PTO. Any setup or situation where the Japanese had an advantage in real life will be watered down either for game play reasons, plane set reasons, or historical reasons. True in some ways for the eastern front as well.

The Japanese and Russians always have a tough go, fighting against plane set issues, lower turn outs and lack of familiarity.

I very rarely take my squad to fight on the winning side of history. Its tough, but something my guys have taken on as a source of pride.

The score doesn't mean squat to me....the fight it where the juice is at. All the better IMO when that fight is uphill.

i think you did what you could. the outcome is what it is. half the fun is that fact that the outcome might not be the same as it was in reality. this game is not a re-creatation of the events but follow as closely as possible. sometimes the outcomes are the same, sometimes not.

the CM team cannot exactly predict how many people are going to show up or not show up. JG54 has had trouble making 5 players and ended up with 10 this week. I cant speak for the other squads, but i know there were some deviations in numbers for some of the other squads too. stuff happens and its not predictable.

<S> to the job the CM team does no matter what the outcome. lets just have fun and stop sweating the little things!!

[Arlo]

The allies will always have the advantage in the PTO.

Not a good sentence to use when rationalizing to the general public of FSO.

Just sayin'. 

[BLBird]

Interesting that this thread went from a "small number of zeros" to finding out they were over by 30, or did I miss something? 

[HighTone]

Not a good sentence to use when rationalizing to the general public of FSO.

Just sayin'. 

You really shouldn't quote it out of context of the paragraph its in, in order to try and stir the pot.

Just sayin  

[MachNix]

Using what Captain1ma posted from Wikipedia (for what it is worth):

IJN
A6M 34 (40%)
D3A 33 (39%)
B5N 18 (21%)
Total 85

USN
F4F 24 (26%)
SBD 47 (51%)
TBM 21 (23%)
Total 92

Their split was 48/52 (IJN/USN) and ours is 55/45.

Using the same composition (percentages) with the number of pilots USAFCAPcTSgt posted -- 173 IJN and 150 USN -- the number would look like this:

IJN
A6M 69
D3A 67
B5N 37
Total 173

USN
F4F 39
SBD 77
TBM 34
Total 150

I'm not proposing that the above should be used but I'm just noticing how they decided what they should put on the carriers.  It looks like IJN was totally reliant on the A6M for fighter cover and USN could split the duty between the F4F and SBD.  I'm assuming that 40% of a carrier's fighting force for both sides was determined to be fighter and that the USN could achieve that goal by having 26% F4F with some number of SBD's.

Got to run.

[Arlo]

You really shouldn't quote it out of context of the paragraph its in, in order to try and stir the pot.

Just sayin  

Do you know what the word 'context' means? Illustrate how you were taken 'out of', then.  

[HighTone]

Do you know what the word 'context' means? Illustrate how you were taken 'out of', then.  

I meant nothing insulting by my post. It just seemed to me that you were taking that one sentence out of the context of the paragraph to make it seem like an axis vs allied issue. I was just saying that  sometimes trying to recreate the historical success of the Japanese and Russian setups is difficult to do at times for the special events. That being due to plane set restrictions and overall gameplay ability, and the lack of popularity of the plane set.

Perhaps instead I may have taken your post wrong 

[CAP1]

and the lack of popularity of the plane set.

 i cut up your post a bit.......

 i've never really understood the lack(or perceived lack) of popularity of pto planes. especially the early war rides. they can(and often do) provide the best fights. 

[Arlo]

I meant nothing insulting by my post. It just seemed to me that you were taking that one sentence out of the context of the paragraph to make it seem like an axis vs allied issue. I was just saying that  sometimes trying to recreate the historical success of the Japanese and Russian setups is difficult to do at times for the special events. That being due to plane set restrictions and overall gameplay ability, and the lack of popularity of the plane set.

Perhaps instead I may have taken your post wrong 

  back. I wasn't insulted, in the least. But, (and I hope you appreciate this .... in context) whenever I see a sentence like that ... involving why a setup was adjusted (no matter the sides being discussed) ... it happens to come off as a slight inferiority complex (it's our planes!). I've seen it claimed when it comes to German vs US (or Allied) - and visa versa. I've seen it claimed involving German vs. Russian. I've long seen it as a claim about the Japanese plane set versus about anything.

Truth be told, the A6M vs F4F setups are not disadvantageous to the Axis. It's the pilots and tactics. In the past, VF-17 has flown Japanese aircraft in this kind of setup with no such issue and none of us felt the need to make the public claim you did in that sentence ("The allies will always have the advantage in the PTO.").

If it makes you feel better, in the last FSO, where my squadron had the privilege to fly I-16s, I heard most of my squad complain (internally) about that plane, as well. Although I didn't get many kills, I had a blast. I avoided what felt like non-stop passes by 109s with a smile and chuckle the entire time. Seighin felt the same.

It's not always the plane set. I would venture it seldom is.

Also, with rotation of who gets to fly what each frame ... an over-reaction in model availability/restriction isn't always necessary (though I suppose in some cases it's warranted). Small adjustments can oft do the trick. In this case, the F4F numbers were cut dramatically (and not due to frame loss) and the A6M availability was not only maintained but increased, whether through intent or not (in spite of losses in the previous frame). But ... I guess if that's the only way to get players to come back for a second frame I can live with it.