Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)

[Brooke]

There were (roughly speaking) four types of action at Rabaul in this time period:
1.  NOE B-25's, escorted by P-38's, out of Dobodura direction.
2.  High-alt B-24's, escorted by Corsairs and Hellcats, out of Munda direction.
3.  High-alt B-24's, escorted by P-38's, out of Port Moresby.
4.  SBD's and TBM's off CV's, escorted by Corsairs and Hellcats.

We don't have enough players to cover all of these.

To start with, I picked option 2 to cover a lot of the Black Sheep action, and most (although certainly not all) bomber folks would prefer B-24's over SBD's and TBM's.

But that action would be then be a majority of escort of highish-alt B-24's.  It would be in action a lot like Big Week, which we recently completed, only without even the diversity of target location.  If we put B-25's in there, it would add a lot of diversity to the type of action, and things for sure would range from higher right down to the deck.  Then it requires P-38's, too, which several players very much wanted.  So, that enables options 1 and 2.  With the slight modification of allowing the B-24 group to take off from either Munda direction or Port Moresby direction, it also enables option 3.

The two drawbacks are:
1.  With only about 40 players on a side, we now have fewer Corsairs than if we were doing just option 2.
2.  It's a little cumbersome on the allies to coordinate two widely separated forces (but they can handle it  ).

[Brooke]

(I was hoping the design slots might increase giving Black Sheep fans and Jolly Rogers both some slots - increasing the Japanese slots, in turn .... 60 or even 80 to a side wasn't unheard of and this would be a prime opportunity to grab some STEAM players and hook them on events)

I haven't seen uptick in This Day events, for example, so I can't count on an increase here.

If registration fills up early enough, then we can increase things in proportion (which would need bomber increase as well).

[Brooke]

1.  May I suggest a revision to the P-38 squadrons with the 80th FS being put in in lieu of another.  Just saving you guys from the wraith of the bomber pilots.

2.  VF-17 would be a better choice IMHO.

I'm totally happy to have the groups be the ones the players prefer (as long as they were there, of course).

3.  Why the H model B-25 in lieu of the B/C with the straffer package?  If you do not want flights of 3, then disable that for the B/C models.

B-25C strafers were the ones there, not B-25H's.  However, H's have a tail gun, which C's lack, and I already envision B-25's having a tough role for various reasons, and the Japanese are upgraded significantly in their plane set.  Redtail suggested we use H's instead to give them at least a little improvement in defense, and I think that's a good idea.

4.  Also, would it not make more sense to swap A66 for A61?  This would allow the bombers time and space to get up and forum up before entering enemy airspace.

I'll give them a66 in addition to a61.  They do also already have a63, but no harm in adding another farther base if the allies want it.

[Fencer51]

B-25C strafers were the ones there, not B-25H's.  However, H's have a tail gun, which C's lack, and I already envision B-25's having a tough role for various reasons, and the Japanese are upgraded significantly in their plane set.  Redtail suggested we use H's instead to give them at least a little improvement in defense, and I think that's a good idea.

How about a nice compromise where the option is there for the B-25C strafers with 3 plane formations but then the player only gets 2 lives.  I just think that single plane B-25s are going to go down quick without much enjoyment, while formations increase targets for the Japanese and are more realistic.

For the record I am leaning toward B-25s or the Axis this one.

[Arlo]

If registration fills up early enough, then we can increase things in proportion (which would need bomber increase as well).

But of course.

[Brooke]

... it may be difficult for the players to track in game to see how they are progressing, which is how they adapt their missions and plans during the frame. 

Quick question

For tracking, I think it will be OK.  A B-24 pilot will know if he destroyed a hangar or not (so knows if he got 2 pts or not), and if he got any objects destroyed on a town (so knows if he got the 1 point or not).  Likewise for the B-25 pilot.

As a bomber guy (well, at least half the time), I'm not worried about guns not counting at towns, as there aren't a lot of guns compared to the large number of buildings, and for a B-24, the odds of hitting just a gun and not a building are a lot lower than hitting buildings regardless of whether a gun is in the mix.  For a B-25, allowing town guns makes it easier than strafing out a building, and I wanted them to have to work a little at it.  On a ship, though, guns make up the majority of what is destroyable, so you need to keep them in there.

To give a view of what I imagine, assuming a B-24 pilot makes it to target, I'd think he'll go for a hangar (and if not a new guy, get 2 points) and then drop a bomb or two on a town (and new guy or not, likely get a point).  If he's down to 2 aircraft, though, given hardness of the hangars, he'll have to decide if he can hit with all bombs (and none left for town), or just go to town for the surer 1 point -- will depend on the skill of the bomber pilot.  If he's down to 1 plane, then he'll go for town.

Assuming a B-25 pilot makes it to target, he has a choice -- go for bunker (which is harder and more dangerous, and more points) then town, or go for town 1st then bunker (but you maybe have less surprise over field, depending on how you do it), or if field is too dangerous, just go for town and bug out (and leave some points but don't die).

[ROC]

On a ship, though, guns make up the majority of what is destroyable, so you need to keep them in there.

  Was it your intention to allow the bomber to fly low over the ship, fire off some tail guns and take out the small guns, and that counts? I would think the guns that a bomb would be needed to destroy, not unlike a town building, would be the desired objective, cause them to actually have to drop.  It doesn't matter to me, just want to make sure I am clear on the intent. 

[Brooke]

  Was it your intention to allow the bomber to fly low over the ship, fire off some tail guns and take out the small guns, and that counts? I would think the guns that a bomb would be needed to destroy, not unlike a town building, would be the desired objective, cause them to actually have to drop.  It doesn't matter to me, just want to make sure I am clear on the intent.

That's OK, but I wouldn't think it worth it for B-24's to go low for ships when they don't get any extra points if they sink one (at least not as things are currently written).

For B-25's it's different, but I want to give them high probability of getting that 0.33 points if they live to strafing position.

[Brooke]

How about a nice compromise where the option is there for the B-25C strafers with 3 plane formations but then the player only gets 2 lives.  I just think that single plane B-25s are going to go down quick without much enjoyment, while formations increase targets for the Japanese and are more realistic.

For the record I am leaning toward B-25s or the Axis this one.

My thought is that it would degrade the flying experience of being a ground attack/strafer, as you would fly in a manner to keep your drones rather than the style you'd probably otherwise fly.

If I were flying B-25's (same for me -- I might be in B-25's or axis), I would probably prefer a single plane but more lives, as long as my takeoff base is close enough to give me a chance to utilize those extra lives.

The way I was trying to give the B-25's more chance is (other than B-25H) getting things a bit more spread out than is historical, with ships at a different location than Simpson Harbor.

It's a good thought, though, and I'll try it out some to see what it's like flying ground attack with formations.

[Brooke]

A thought about B-25's.

They are faster than Il-2's (and only about 30 mph slower than 190F's), and we did OK in Il-2's in Dnieper.

Dnieper had more spread-out targets, though, but I was trying to put some of that in this one with ship placement.

[Arlo]

Will a detailed map of ship placement be put on the scenario page?

[Arlo]

[Brooke]

Sweet, Arlo! 

[Brooke]

Will a detailed map of ship placement be put on the scenario page?

Currently, it just needs to be in the stated sector

[Hajo]

Brooke from what I've read SBDs' aren't going to be in the scenario.  Am I correct in that assumption?