Congrads on the new setup changes in this scenario

[Viper61]

I really like the this setup and the changes that have been made.  Long over due and I hope that they will be continued by the others who setup future scenario's.  A few changes in particular:

      Fuel burn rate set to 1.0 - This is how all scenario's should be setup without exception.  For the first time in a TBM I didn't have to hustle to a target, only climb so high, or force an attack or throttle back to idle and glide before I ran out of fuel.  Love it!

      CV's begin at a Grid Cross and they are open to drive any place they want within the allotted time period of 2 hours - Brilliant idea - As a Squad planner I had to go in a run a sim to watch and record how far a CV could travel in a given time period and then calculate my arrival time to then calculate possible locations or moves that the enemy CIC could have made.  In the open Ocean scenario's this might be a big deal but working in and around islands where the CV can go and hide / park next to a friendly field for additional ack protection or to help shield against attacks from a certain direction.  Or to plan to hit it fast before it could drive off and hide next to a friendly base.  The fun I have is in the planning and calculations of getting the mission completed as efficiently and as well as possible.  It was great to see a little challenge added to the game play.  Its real and it a great adder to the game.

      Opening all ordnance to the plane sets.  Another great move.  Its real and makes all bomb and rocket carrying AC lethal and you have to plan for it.  Any plane that can carry torpedo's or bombs now can be looked at in a different scenario.  For Frame 2 my squad elected a high and low attack approach using the TBM's to both drop bombs by diving in while the low flight attacked with torpedo's.  Our attack in itself wasn't as well coordinated as I would have liked nor the results as good as I would have liked to see, we learned from the first ever use.  Additionally our guys got to fly the mission profile they wanted.  That equals more fun for all.  Again its real and a great adder to the game.

      ALLIED CV's all around the AXIS position.  A great add to the game play, probably not historically accurate but that is not important when the game play is.  It was great being able to plan a mission that could take advantage of a great portion of the map and allow for multi angle approach's to a target space.  Its been awhile but I remember this scenario being restricted to ALLIED CV's just in a sector or zone so attacks could only really come in from certain directions.  Which then canned the event.  And make no mistake it was hard getting to the enemy fleet's without being observed.

Nef I believe this is your scenario and if you are responsible a BIG <S> to you and any other CM's that were involved.  Appreciate you listening to the requests posted back a few weeks ago and then incorporating changes that opened up the game play.  I know you don't plan them all so a request to the other CM scenario planners:

       Open up your scenario's like what was done here and allow for more and free game play

[Nefarious]

Thanks!

I look at all suggestions and think about some type of implementation or those ideas spur different ideas.

Looking at some of your comments, I would like to reply to some.

I have never used a different fuel burn in any FSO than 1.0. I know it has been done by other Admins, but it seems to only be used on large scale terrains that are not 1:1, Like Blacksea.

I asked the CM team for suggestions about possibly changing the way TF's are placed after I had heard some suggestions from my March FSO about fleet placement and control. What was proposed is what were seeing in this FSO. I think the verdict is still out on it, We had a incorrect Destroyer sunk in Frame 2 after T+60 (Secondary Strike) and I wanted to avoid that. But it has shown some promise from comments so far and forces a new focus towards scouts in a larger role than before when identification was relegated to 1 square grid and scouts aren't really needed.

I think that ordnance restrictions are needed in some cases, and I think it is needed in this current FSO. Specifically 1000lbers for the F6F and F4U. It is a huge advantage and the scores reflect it in frame 2. I have disabled 1000lbs for these fighters in the past, and 2000lbs for TBMs, but I decided to drop them this FSO upon suggestion and discussion from my March event. I'm not going to change it now, but look for them to be disabled again in my events in the future for these two aircraft in this event or similar time and theater. It's just way to easy for the Allies to sink MA standard Task Forces, the advantage is clear. I also removed the Minimums from aircraft this FSO and just used Maximums, something that I believe several people were suggesting back in March. It hasn't seemed to influence anything, the Axis are still launching 67's and the Allies TBMs, the Axis are losing a lot of 67s due to formation torpedo attacks.

As always, I am open to positive discussion of the rules and settings and love hearing new ideas to inspire improved game play in fun and challenging ways. I agree, that opening up the gameplay is needed, but some things will always be needed to ensure the standard themes in FSO.

[Devil 505]

I really like the this setup and the changes that have been made.  Long over due and I hope that they will be continued by the others who setup future scenario's.  A few changes in particular:

      Fuel burn rate set to 1.0 - This is how all scenario's should be setup without exception.  For the first time in a TBM I didn't have to hustle to a target, only climb so high, or force an attack or throttle back to idle and glide before I ran out of fuel.  Love it!

Indeed. 1.0 Fuel burn is a must for FSO.

CV's begin at a Grid Cross and they are open to drive any place they want within the allotted time period of 2 hours - Brilliant idea

I don't agree at all. Especially in this setup, or similar setups where CVs are used to launch attacks against land bases. This creates a huge disparity in the balance of one side knowing exactly where their target is and on side that must search for theirs.

Also, while this method is only slightly more difficult than the old method of restricting CV movement to a single sector as far as primary attacks are concerned, this new method makes secondary action impossible. The CVs are moved to far from enemy fields to make a second strike a viable option and still have time to RTB before T+120. I don't like setups where action is limited because of long distances, similar to why I dislike fuel burn higher than 1.0. It's no fun when there is still 50 minutes of the frame and perfectly good airplanes are towering out because they can't make it to the remaining action in time. Setups should be designed to enable pilots to have action for the full 120 minutes.

ALLIED CV's all around the AXIS position.  A great add to the game play, probably not historically accurate but that is not important when the game play is.  It was great being able to plan a mission that could take advantage of a great portion of the map and allow for multi angle approach's to a target space.  Its been awhile but I remember this scenario being restricted to ALLIED CV's just in a sector or zone so attacks could only really come in from certain directions.  Which then canned the event.  And make no mistake it was hard getting to the enemy fleet's without being observed.

Again, I completely disagree with this. Completely surrounding the islands provides an enormous advantage for the Allies and is a detriment to the overall gameplay. The Axis defenders had to deal with the possibility of attack from any direction, whereas the Allies know exactly where the CV attackers are coming from. Gameplay is best served when the ability for each side to win is near equal, and the difference is made by the ability and fighting spirit of the players.

 

[LilMak]

I have no problem with the CVs moving. It's basically the whole point of the boat. I rarely have time to get in more than one sortie during these events anyway because of the distances involved. Fuel burn being one is pretty cool but it's also good to have fuel management become an issue as well.

[LCADolby]

Viper putting out praise, he must have had a good Friday

Devil typed a lot of sense 

[Viper61]

LOLOL Dolby I give praise when do  And Nef deserves a hardy hand shake on these changes.

Devil your comments on the CV movement and not knowing it is for secondary strikes is a planning issue.  In real battles both sides put out scouts and they stay in contact and track the targets.  If your side chooses not to track the where abouts of your target I say that's a planning issue.  If I were a Axis CIC I'd have a few high flying KI67's empty and tracking the CV's I had to attack as points depend on it.  But that's me.

          The surrounding of the island I would agree does need to be fair and balanced.  I know in past scenario's the ALLIED boats were located in one sector so attacking the island only had to take place from 1 or 2 directions which was unfair for the ALLIES.  So I agree with you that a fair and even as possible placement is needed.  For this scenario probably a few IJN TG's out to sea would have balanced that issue.  Generally speaking any target in a any scenario should have a good chance to be hit from at least 3 sides.  Other wise you have defenders all piled up in small corridor of death of the attacking force.  I hate those scenario's.  But Devil to your point the ALLIED boat defenders aren't safe either were having to protect our boats from 3 sides given the placements so far.

Nef - I see your point on the ordnance limitations in order to balance the sides.  Your correct it wont be fair if 1 ALLIED plane could carry as much ordnance as 3 AXIS planes.

A midway style scenario with the CV movement rules as we have them now will force some good changes in how the battles are tracked and how the sides react to each other.  Should be a hoot.