Help with design of upcoming Eastern Front scenario

[SuBWaYCH]

I think the current setup is great and completely workable. There are a lot of people who would love to ONLY fly bombers or ONLY fighters in a scenario, and I think it might be a bit unpopular to say that they have to fly both the F-8's and/or Ju-88's.

I don't think Stuka's add anything to the scenario - we want the action to be fast paced and consistent. Adding Ju87's will just slow down the action and give easy targets to the soviets.

Hopefully high interest leads to registration filling up quickly, and then we get the option of adding an additional squadron to each side or adding onto the existing squadrons (hopefully adding some more bombers).

Also, I can commit to being Axis CO at this time - my best friend is having a baby girl in June but its looking like it'll be a weekday and not a weekend!

I will start sending out messages to those interested in leading groups and get a command team assembled.

[Devil 505]

I don't like the idea, but unfortunately, I think you're locked into having to do something like this given the low expected turnout. I imagine that there will only be one attack objective per side at a time, otherwise assets will stretched too thin.

Maybe also allow unlimited strafing in Ju87G-2's and HurriD's in the final hour just to keep them involved. This would replace the Ju-87B dive bomber in my mind, and help to keep the balance.

[Brooke]

I like it a lot better as a player when I get a single plane and single history that is my role in the scenario.

If it's a collection of planes, it seems a lot more shallow to me and gets to be more like a board game with no scenario depth.

One one extreme, you'd sign up for a scenario and be in JG 52, where Hartman, Krupinski, Rall, and Barkhorn flew.  You'd fly a 109G on the Eastern Front.  If you want, you can fly the 109G for the month in advance of the scenario and get all the nuances of it.  If you are really into it, you could read a book that has some JG 52 action in it.

On the other extreme, your side gets 109G's, 190A's, 190F's, Ju 87's, and Ju 88's, and you get shuffled temporarily into whichever one seems best for some points formula or to meet (somewhat-artificial) objective X.  People in those situations don't bother to practice the various aircraft, get into the history of it, or read about a particular group.  They just show up on game day and fly whatever and with whatever is their current AH ability.  That, to me, biases things away from what makes scenarios toward an event that becomes more like "This Day" or a snapshot.

So, if I think particular groups will work, I am heavily in favor of that.

Only if I think being in a particular group will be a disaster do I use the tool of lumping that ride in with others, to dilute the downside of it.

In this scenario, 190F-8's should be fine.  If a side has a problem utilizing 190F-8's when historically it would have Stukas, I have no sympathy.    Il-2's, I *think* will be OK.  In fact, while I have been for a long time wishing for an Eastern Front scenario so that I could fly the P-39 in it, now that it's here, the Il-2 is looking also appealing to me.  The Il-2 is such a major aircraft of WWII.   The Tu-2's also look appealing.

It is interesting to discuss all of this, though.  I like discussions.

[Brooke]

Also, I can commit to being Axis CO at this time

MARVELOUS!

Whooo hoooo!

OK, Axis -- you folks have your CO.

And welcome back, Subway!     

[Brooke]

OK, folks, in honor of ROC and Subway stepping up for CO duty, everyone is required to listen to at least the first 40 seconds of this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M

Celebrate good times, come on! 

[Brooke]

Every one around the world -- come on! 

[ROC]

It is interesting to discuss all of this, though.  I like discussions.

Discussions are good, but I build things, and hate meetings.  I have a horrible reputation in my industry, I sit on several boards, and am well known for "I am not going to go to a meeting to talk about things we need to talk about that we talked about the last time we talked".
Lets lock down the design so we can begin work on the plans and training.  I can't start while one of my key people is still designing it   When the design is done, I'll start, it's not fair to the other side if we start planning and then make changes while the designer is part of the planning effort on one side, so until the design is complete, I won't participate in the setup discussion and can't start the planning effort. 
Devil, good points, Ive watched this event evolve and you have really brought some good elements to the design, thank you.

[BaldEagl]

If I saw 190A-5's I'm in.

Stukas aren't that bad at turning as long as the ords been dropped.  Until then they're easily killed but IMO they are fun to fly nonetheless.  I'd leave them in and give everyone a free life in a Stuka.

Also did I see the air and GV wars are to be completely separate?  I get that GVers hate BT's but the air/ground interaction on the Eastern Front is a big part of what made it the Eastern Front.  If GVers lives are unlimited I'd open up that conflict otherwise why carry armor piercing rockets on a F-8?

[Brooke]

A largest proportion of missions and targets for attack planes were supply depots, fuel tanks, train yards, airfields, troop concentrations, critical transportation hubs, and the like.  It is highly realistic for those (or stand-ins for them) to be the targets in this Scenario.

In addition, Scenarios have explored a large range of interaction between major tank battles and aircraft.  Every such experiment from 2007 onward has resulted is so much complaining and grief that it is as enjoyable for me as stomach flu.  I do get it.  Some pilots like attacking tanks, sure, but many tank drivers would rather not participate than have to worry significantly about getting bombed out of a tank battle.

So, for both of these highly practical reasons, this Scenario has a tank battle (where the action is purely a tank battle) and an air battle that involves hitting what were the more-typical targets for air attack.

With regard to F-8's, they don't have rockets in this one as they are present as an earlier-than-historical transition from Stukas which typically didn't carry rockets.

[Brooke]

If I saw 190A-5's I'm in.

You certainly did! 

JG 54 is there with Otto Kittel and Walter Nowotny in their 190's.

[Brooke]

Folks, should I have in registration a few spots on each side dedicated to tanks?

That way, each side could sign up a few tank commanders who would kick off the tank battle prior to any pilots being out of lives and to manage people as they join the tank battle.

Or we could keep it more informal and each side can round up a few folks as it sees fit.

Thoughts?

I don't want to make it a large registration for tanks as I want the planes to fill up, especially Il-2's and F-8's, as ground attack is a big part of the battle in this one.

[ROC]

Yes, add a hand full of tank slots so we can at least know who may be interested in a dedicated tank role.

[Brooke]

Yes, add a hand full of tank slots so we can at least know who may be interested in a dedicated tank role.

Roger that.

[Arlo]

 

[kilo2]

I can GL one of the 109 units of needed.