Vote on what will be the June, 2017 Scenario

[JunkyII]

Do you not remember the FSO's that have this setup? They're awful. Worst events in AH, period.

Late War Pacific is the only part of the war that I think is heavily lopsided just because the Japs don't have a counter to the P51D....KI84 and N1k can't keep up....Early and Mid are good though.

[Guppy35]

We just had an ETO 1945 scenario, so option C is out.

My preference is A.
Options A and B are nearly the same, so I'll happily take both.

btw, mid 1944 most jugs in the 8th AF were razorbacks (represented by our D11) but with the paddle blade props, so performance-wise closer to our D25. The 56FG and likelt others operated razorbacks and bubble tops together for an extended period. The performance difference is not critical, so how about allowing a free choice of D11 and D25 to jug squadrons in option B?

D-23 would be nice. D-11 just really doesn't cut it for mid 44

[BFOOT1]

C!
Requesting either the 355th, or 352nd FG

Change my vote to B, I'd like to fly a bravo this go around.

[Fencer51]

I would think A or B, with a March 1944 time frame being ideal.  354th, 357th and 4th only had 51Bs then.
Care will have to taken during the design to ensure that the D11s and 109s have sufficient range and adequate basing.  A set of targets in NW Germany, Holland, Belgium and NW France would work.

B24s were limited in speed  by association with the 17s IRL. They should be ŗestricted from operating alone.


Those proposing scenarios must be aware that the terrain set has been reduced with AH3's release.

[Guppy35]

If we go with A, I want one of these 4th birds.  Would be fun to get into that history a bit.  I'd just end up a ball of wreckage in a Jug.  Probably in a Mustang too, but it might take longer

[BFOOT1]

If we go with A, I want one of these 4th birds.  Would be fun to get into that history a bit.  I'd just end up a ball of wreckage in a Jug.  Probably in a Mustang too, but it might take longer

I wouldn't mind flying with the Debden boys either, it'd be nice to be in a group with all of us enthusiasts together.

[Guppy35]

First profile I ever did for a scenario bird was a 4th Mustang after walking on with Fencer's 4th FG birds in Battle over Germany

[Devil 505]

I vote for A.

It allows for the best balance in plane set with small adjustments for better balance and accuracy.

There would be few 109G-2's by 1944 - have as an optional plane for one G-6 squad (Jg 26).

There would be a mix of190A-5 and A-8's in early 1944.

The Bf 109G-6 A/S also entered service in early '44 - should be represented by the 109 G-14 in equal(and low) numbers as the P-51 for balance purposes.

[Krusty]

There would be few 109G-2's by 1944 - have as an optional plane for one G-6 squad (Jg 26).

There would be a mix of190A-5 and A-8's in early 1944.

The Bf 109G-6 A/S also entered service in early '44 - should be represented by the 109 G-14 in equal(and low) numbers as the P-51 for balance purposes.

The A-5s could fill a bit of a gap, especially since our A-8 has 250kg too much weight but no extra armor to show for it. I think they should be allowed interchangeably as the unit desires -- you get the extra firepower or the slightly better high-alt performance with a lighter loadout.

However, the G-6 and the G-14 are the same plane with MW50 added to the latter. The G-6 A/S was a high alt variant with a higher FTH like the G10 or K4, but without MW50.

Currently the G-6 and G-14 have the same off-wep speed curve in AH. with a FTH around 21k instead of closer to 26k like the A/S probably had.

Also, as a general rule MW50 was very scarce to begin with. It really wasn't until mid-1944 that it started showing up with some regularity, and then it took a while longer to become commonplace. Early 190Ds, for example, were "Dry" and did't have MW50 to boost their power. The systems just weren't available. Thus, if the A option is chosen then the G-14s really wouldn't fit much. Depending on the rest as well, they probably wouldn't fit much in the B option either.


Edit: Regardless, the G-2s were long replaced by early 1944. As you say.

[Devil 505]

The G-14 is a substitution for the G-6A/S. I am well aware of the historical scarcity of MW-50, but the speed boost at altitude with WEP makes it at least closer to the performance gained by the A/S then a standard G-6. There is also a playability issue here with the P-51's that the G-14 helps to close by a small margin. If the proposed design had no P-51's then I'd be happy to leave the G-14 in the hangar as well. As it stands though, I'd say that the G-14 is a necessary inclusion. I'd limit the Ponies and G-14's to single small squad each with a slight numerical advantage to the G-14 (such as 6 P-51's and 8 G-14's)

As for how the 190A-5's are incorporated, I have no opinion - only that they are included in some capacity.



Edit:

Edit: Regardless, the G-2s were long replaced by early 1944. As you say.

According to the Jg 26 War Diary, two 109G-4's (essentially a G-2) were lost between February and March 1944, so they were still in limited use at this point.

[Krusty]

I get what you're saying. I think (maybe) that instead of substitute, that limiting the P-51 use would be more appropriate. The P-51Bs still blow the G-14 we have out of the water with regards to overall speed and high alt performance. Especially with bombers in use, the balance will have to give the German side more fighters to devote to attack and more to dogfighting. Maybe option A would be best in this case -- with P-51Bs being limited in numbers.


That aside, I have another soapbox item: the P-47 loadouts should disable the "overload" ammo loadout. This was never used in combat that anybody can satisfactorily prove, doesn't approach even the remote realm of reality with regards to flight loads and limitations that are documented in myriad dozens of places. I did some fairly extensive research taking dozens of official AARs counting bullets expended, every reference to ammo count in every published report and even using estimated or ballasted weights did the math to find how much ammo it was accounting for. None of it came close to the overload option we have in this game. Even with 8 guns, the P-47s over Europe did so with 267-ish rounds per gun. Look at it this way: What if the game had an option for 200 rounds of 30mm on the Bf109s, when historically they only ever used the "normal" load? You'd disable that for scenarios, right? Right.

[DubiousKB]

....Look at it this way: What if the game had an option for 200 rounds of 30mm on the Bf109s, when historically they only ever used the "normal" load? You'd disable that for scenarios, right? Right.

Yeah but the way ammo works in this game, 1-30mm round is about the equivalent to 267-ish .50cal rounds. The cannons/tators are so OP!  Might as well be a spy strapping remote bombs on allied aircraft for remote detonation when it comes to axis cannons.

Plus those darn Luftwaffe planes are sooooo small! We need all the ammo we can get! You guys have a freeeeeeeking flying elephant to shoot at... just call me Dumbo.

[Beefcake]

Since if I get to play I'll be flying a B17 anyway I choose either A or B as we just finished a late war scenario.

[Krusty]

Yeah but the way ammo works in this game, 1-30mm round is about the equivalent to 267-ish .50cal rounds. The cannons/tators are so OP!  Might as well be a spy strapping remote bombs on allied aircraft for remote detonation when it comes to axis cannons.

Plus those darn Luftwaffe planes are sooooo small! We need all the ammo we can get! You guys have a freeeeeeeking flying elephant to shoot at... just call me Dumbo.

That's not a counter-argument for sticking with historic loadouts. The P-47s have a volume of fire, a rate of fire, and a lazer-flat trajectory allowing for some of the easiest killing in the game. They also have fire equivelant to 3x 20mm cannons (think: La-7) with 3400 rounds of ammo. They didn't carry more than 267-300 rpg, depending on the weapons setup. Most times they kept 8x .50cals so they had rounds per gun in the 260 area, give or take 10 depending on your source. They only went up to 300 or so sometimes when they dropped the gun count down to 6x .50cal, and even those could be statistcal outliers or rounding (people in WW2 made mistakes too) up to an even number.

[edit: corrected total in-game ammo]

[DubiousKB]

hmmm back to gunnery practice for me then... cause the .50 cals to me seem week-sauce.  Must be just me.