Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)

[KCDitto]

B/C

[USCH]

B/C

[puller]

B
C

[Guppy35]

Brooke, these two issues should be kept separate. The have no tangible reason to be linked.
This is flat out incorrect. Sorry to be so blunt, but this needs to me made perfectly clear.

This is an accuracy issue just as much as a playability one - and in either case, is satisfied by having the 109 types mixed.

Bf 109G-6 production began in February 1943 - the exact time frame this scenario is set. No unit in the Luftwaffe had exclusively G-6's until summer. The earliest reference I have seen to the definitive use of a G-6 in Tunisia is the death of Joachim Muncheburg on March 23. If any G-6's were available in February, they were in small amounts, and dispersed between units.

As for how the choice affects playability, the performance between the G-2 and G-6 is small but noticeable (similar to the difference between the P-51B and D) where one sacrifices some speed and maneuverability for improved firepower. But some prefer feel of the G-6 due to the heavier nose, making it more stable.


As for the Spit9's they were not used by the 12th AF until April '43. So their inclusion is not accurate.

The Spit9 affects playability by becoming the best overall plane in the setup. It matches the speed of the 109s and 190 above 15K, roughly matches the G-2 (best Axis climber) in climb rate over 12K and out turns and handles better than the 190 or 109 at every alt. It has twice the 20mm ammo as the SpitV. There is no meaningful weakness inherent to the Spit9, whereas every single other plane sacrifices some meaningful ability to gain an advantage somewhere else.


To be both historically accurate and  playability balanced, the answer is to have no Spit 9's and mixed G-2's with G-6's.

I call BS.  If we are going to hide behind history then can we balance the numbers historically? My suggestion was four IXs and 8 Vb.  The four IXs are to balance it out a bit.  RAF IXs were in theater and flying cover for US raids.  So to eliminate their availability as the 31st didn't get theirs til April really doesn't address the issue.  Can we eliminate the F8s since they weren't really there?  Can we cut down the numbers of 190s to reflect their actual historical presence?  That would be silly.  I'm not flying Spits in this, but I'd like to see this reflect the conditions of the time, and that included Spit IXs that were able to fly cover for the P40s, Spit Vs etc

[kilo2]

I call BS.  If we are going to hide behind history then can we balance the numbers historically? My suggestion was four IXs and 8 Vb.  The four IXs are to balance it out a bit.  RAF IXs were in theater and flying cover for US raids.  So to eliminate their availability as the 31st didn't get theirs til April really doesn't address the issue.  Can we eliminate the F8s since they weren't really there?  Can we cut down the numbers of 190s to reflect their actual historical presence?  That would be silly.  I'm not flying Spits in this, but I'd like to see this reflect the conditions of the time, and that included Spit IXs that were able to fly cover for the P40s, Spit Vs etc

The same argument over and over. Your side changes based on what benefits you the most.

[FBDragon]

BC!!!!!

[Guppy35]

The same argument over and over. Your side changes based on what benefits you the most.

I missed you    So you are saying they didn't have Spit IXs in numbers in the MTO during that time frame?

[Phast12]

B/C

[Joker312]

Tell you what, the dedicated luftwhinnies always want things their way. As they are a majority on this board they will win the vote and ensure their planes will outperform anything the other side has, always hiding behind the guise of historical fact.

Historically, the axis faced 8 or 10 to 1 odds. Why not argue for that?

Many might have missed it but I saw Bruv say he was gonna fly Axis, I wonder if that has anything to do with the SpitV not being able to compete with the FW190a5 or the 109G2.

Lets keep putting up votes so the very vocal few can mold the scenario to their liking.

I don't think I will be participating in this.

[Devil 505]

I call BS.  If we are going to hide behind history then can we balance the numbers historically? My suggestion was four IXs and 8 Vb.  The four IXs are to balance it out a bit.  RAF IXs were in theater and flying cover for US raids.  So to eliminate their availability as the 31st didn't get theirs til April really doesn't address the issue.  Can we eliminate the F8s since they weren't really there?  Can we cut down the numbers of 190s to reflect their actual historical presence?  That would be silly.  I'm not flying Spits in this, but I'd like to see this reflect the conditions of the time, and that included Spit IXs that were able to fly cover for the P40s, Spit Vs etc

Call BS all you want, but the historical number of Spit9's operated by the 12th Air force in February 1943 is zero. It would stay at zero for another two months. That's a fact and you know this.

Also, Brooke reduced the number of 190A-5's in Jg2 for the exact reason you specified. There was 12 originally. I also recommended swapping out the F-8 for the A-5, also for the sake of accuracy. Brooke has his reasons for not wanting to do so.

If this was to be a truly proportional representation of fighters, then half the Allies would be in P-40's with half the Axis in 109G-2's, and the event will be crap. And there will still be zero Spit9's.

[Brooke]

Lets keep putting up votes so the very vocal few can mold the scenario to their liking.

That's not why I called a vote.

I call votes either because I don't think it matters hugely either way and want the community to be able to say what it prefers (like this issue) or because I do think it matters hugely, but I'm not sure my view of it is what most people would think is good (like with how to deal with walkons vs. registered players).

LW fans do not outnumber allied fans in the game.  In fact, if you look at scenario recruiting and attendance, I would say that it is the other way around.

Also, this topic is open to all, vocal or not.  How loud you announce your preference has no bearing.

I don't think I will be participating in this.

Why not?  Are there important elements of the design that you think are wrong?  If so, you should speak up.  If not, then what do any posts that you disagree with matter?

I hope that you fly in it.  The whole point here is to develop a fun Scenario with a good, fun, balanced design in an inclusive environment where everyone can put in comments if they want.

[Devil 505]

Historically, the axis faced 8 or 10 to 1 odds. Why not argue for that?

For the same reason that the half of the total Allied fighters aren't P-40's - nobody will show up. But you won't show up anyway. Instead, you'll just troll the event discussions like you always do with whines about "ze luftwhinners"

Hello pot, meet kettle.

[Brooke]

Between late 1942 and March/April of 1943, the axis went from outnumbering the allies in air battles to being outnumbered by the allies in air battles.  Somewhere in between, the balance was even.  My reason for picking Feb 1943 was that it was my best guess of when the battles in the air were even.

[Brooke]

The reason to have or not have Spit 9's is about balance.

If you look at the overall plane set (fighters, attackers, and bombers) and feel that the axis has a plane-set advantage, then you should be voting for the allies to have some Spit 9's.

When I consider the entire plane set and all objectives (not just Spits  and 109G's), I am not sure either way, which is why I opened it to a vote.

My feeling for a while has been that the axis has a bit of a fighter advantage, that attack planes are about a wash, and that the allies have a bit of a bomber advantage, with it being decent overall.  But that involves judgement, which can be wrong.

That is why I'm asking folks for their input.

[Joker312]

See Rule #4