ANZIO 1944 Scoring

[swareiam]

All,

Here is the scoring for the three frames of ANZIO.







Thanks for flying.

 

[MachNix]

Thanks for getting the scores up quickly. 

I flew for the Axis and had a much better time then the scores would indicate.  Tactically, or strategically, this set up is a lot harder for the Axis.  The Axis needed to force the fight, where the Allies just needed to survive and wait for the 88s and 410s to show up.

I did hear some complaints about the ack due to the number of ships in close proximity to each other.  Maybe next time fewer ships that are worth more.  Seemed strange that a ship that took 3,000lbs of ord to sink was only worth 10 pts when a hanger was worth 25 pts for about the same amount of ord.  Maybe I'm missing something there.

Overall, I would say I had fun.   

[swareiam]

Actually that was a typo. The hangars were worth ten points as well.

Did you happen to fly Rabaul 1943?

[Snork]

The lopsided scoring would seem to indicate a really bad scoring scheme. I fly for fun, not score, but this is silly. Why score at all if it's inherently going to be a blow out?

[Stampf]

The lopsided scoring would seem to indicate a really bad scoring scheme. I fly for fun, not score, but this is silly. Why score at all if it's inherently going to be a blow out?

It's what's trending these days...

[horble]

Didn't help that in the last frame either the allies had a good turnout, or the axis a poor one, or both.  Brought the numbers at launch to equal, which made attacking tough.

Not sure what you can really do about that though.

[MachNix]

swareiam,

Okay on hanger typo.

Yes, flew Rabaul 1943 for the Allies.  Scores in that one were closer but the attackers (Allies in that case) still lost suggesting these setups favors the defenders.  I think the scores were closer in Rabaul due to the firepower/durability of the Allied plane set as compared to the Axis which allowed more damage to the targets.  Even though the Axis won, not sure how much fun they had when it seem to take the entire ammo load to down a single B-25 and their rides would catch fire with a couple of pings.  I think the attackers where able to get control of the airspace over the targets in Rabaul but this did not happen in Anzio.

Still think Anzio was fun but don't know what the 88, 410, 190F-8 drivers thought.

[swareiam]

swareiam,

Okay on hanger typo.

Yes, flew Rabaul 1943 for the Allies.  Scores in that one were closer but the attackers (Allies in that case) still lost suggesting these setups favors the defenders.  I think the scores were closer in Rabaul due to the firepower/durability of the Allied plane set as compared to the Axis which allowed more damage to the targets.  Even though the Axis won, not sure how much fun they had when it seem to take the entire ammo load to down a single B-25 and their rides would catch fire with a couple of pings.  I think the attackers where able to get control of the airspace over the targets in Rabaul but this did not happen in Anzio.

Still think Anzio was fun but don't know what the 88, 410, 190F-8 drivers thought.

Well...

Based on the write-up and its historical perspectives, this event was about the Luftwaffe stopping the Anglo-American fleet from landing more troops and supplies ashore and gaining a larger foothold behind the Wehrmacht troops at Casino and the Gustav Line. So sinking the ships was historically the goal of the real battle and stopping the British and Americans infantry from moving farther inland was a high priority for the Luftwaffe.

The Allies did not really protect the fleets. They were wide open most of the event. So I suppose I don't see why more emphasis wasn't placed on destroying ships and increasing the Axis score. Five hangars on one Allied base could not profit the Axis as much as they would stand to lose by bringing in their 410s and 88s to attack it.

I suppose I would have gone after the unguarded ships with the rock haulers and increased the Axis score. But this one is in the books and this is just my opinion. 

Best Regards,

 

[KCDitto]

Well...

Based on the write-up and its historical perspectives, this event was about the Luftwaffe stopping the Anglo-American fleet from landing more troops and supplies ashore and gaining a larger foothold behind the Wehrmacht troops at Casino and the Gustav Line. So sinking the ships was historically the goal of the real battle and stopping the British and Americans infantry from moving farther inland was a high priority for the Luftwaffe.

The Allies did not really protect the fleets. They were wide open most of the event. So I suppose I don't see why more emphasis wasn't placed on destroying ships and increasing the Axis score. Five hangars on one Allied base could not profit the Axis as much as they would stand to lose by bringing in their 410s and 88s to attack it.

I suppose I would have gone after the unguarded ships with the rock haulers and increased the Axis score. But this one is in the books and this is just my opinion. 

Best Regards,

 

UNGUARDED?

Hummm   Does this look unguarded to you?




Every time we were over the fleets we were attacked....

This was moments after we in JG11 sunk the cruiser... Chased in, bounced on over and chased out.

[swareiam]

Com'n Ditto, that is a light force at best.