Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)

[Devil 505]

Years upon years of discussion here has led to me believe scenarios are the crown jewel of Special Events with every detail picked over and backed up with top notch historical realism, more so than any other event in Aces High.

If this is the case, I would try to fit scenario time frame to the AH plane set, and not the AH plane set to the time frame. I understand the voting process has already ended and the event is being hammered out but I figured I would try to explain my comments above.

Just my 2 cents. <S>

I agree Nef.

This is not Rabaul '43 or even '44, but some total fiction. Might as well call it "Battle of Gilligan's Island 1944" If this was a Philippine event there'd be no problem. But the way to balance Rabaul would be to strictly limit the P-38's and corsair numbers and have many more P-40's P-39's and F-4F's for the Allies, while keeping the Axis in the Ki-61's and A6M's that were actually there.

[Arlo]

But the way to balance Rabaul would be to strictly limit the P-38's and corsair numbers and have many more P-40's P-39's and F-4F's for the Allies, while keeping the Axis in the Ki-61's and A6M's that were actually there.

And there it is. Been expecting this.

P.S. F4Fs in this battle are as fictional as anything else. http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Rabaul-Raids.php

[Devil 505]

And there it is. Been expecting this.

P.S. F4Fs in this battle are as fictional as anything else. http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Rabaul-Raids.php

That's great for the carriers.

Got anything that covers the land based Marine air units other than the Black Sheep and their corsairs?

[Arlo]

That's great for the carriers.

Got anything that covers the land based Marine air units other than the Black Sheep and their corsairs?

Brooke's designed this small enough that the land based F4Us need nothing more than the Black Sheep and Jolly Rogers (the Navy ground based unit) that participated. 6 whole planes each. 12 total. Are you asking for more?  I can research this for you.

[Devil 505]

Yes, I'm curious to know what other air assets were in striking distance of Rabaul at this time. Since the Corsairs and Hellcats were so new, I'm sure there must have been some Wildcats still in the area - but I don't have the reference material to verify it.

[Arlo]

Start here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/II/USMC-II-V-3.html

Let me know if you find anything I missed. 

[Arlo]

This may be interesting, as well. It's Japanese interrogations post battle.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-52.html

[puller]

I've been reading arlos cited documents now for about a week...

I will of course be flying in this event...To what degree is yet to be seen...

The idea of nikis and ki84 to balance out this event is....Well 

The Allies had p39s and p400s...With limited 38 access...And when the 38s showed up it was a bad deal for the Japs...

I guess y'all will have me and Ditto to shoot at...

[Arlo]

There doesn't seem to be that 'limited' an access (to P-38s) in General Kenney's report.

https://archive.org/details/GeneralKenneyReports

There's always the P-47 option.

Historical feeling versus balance and fun being the issue, I suppose since the Allied plane set is actually quite accurate (with some examples missing entirely) Brooke could simply wipe the IJ planes that weren't actually there completely from the board and just give the Axis a large numerical advantage with nothing but A6M5s. But I don't see how that makes a 'better' historical accuracy argument. We all know that it's about both immersion and a battle setup that's not strictly a 'side A shooter/side B target' thing. That's tricky to pull off in late 43/44/45 Pacific scenarios. Us Pac/USN players really do appreciate the complexity and this is a rare treat for us, as is. I bet Bong fans and Pac (in general) fans feel the same.

I have faith in the Axis players to make this a competitive and challenging event and hope to see the effort to poke holes in it not gain momentum ... like .... every .... single .... pac .... event .... in the past (except PH and Midway).

But since this is a design discussion and criticism is part of it - how about some suggestions that don't try to make this yet another F4F battle (which Rabaul wasn't)? What would you do to 'fix' this to be a fun battle for all? The Allies have a limited but accurate plane set. the Axis have a modified (for balance .... in their favor) plane set. As I said before, would numbers in favor of the Axis (1.25 to 1, 1.4 to 1, 1.5 to 1, 1.75 to 1) with a more historically accurate plane set be acceptable? As I said, that's just one other historical tweaking instead of another .... but I'd be good with it. Maybe something not yet tried in twenty years or so will come up.

[Brooke]

If you guys want a reference on this battle:

Setup will be influenced by action described in:
(Image removed from quote.)

The Japanese had mostly A6M's and a small number of Ki-61's.

For the allies, as stated previously:

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.

(As a smaller contingent, the allies also had some P-47's and occasionally some RAAF P-40's, and some missions by Beaufighters on the deck.)

Obviously, using the fully historical plane set would never get enough players to run it.  So to run Rabaul during this time period, you must change the plane set.

Two thoughts related to that:

1.  Plane types are only one historical parameter among many historical parameters that are just as important.  Almost all scenarios (Coral Sea being maybe the one exception, in my view) have significant changes relative to history.  To me, high realism is:  When I fly in it, does the action I experience feel like what I read about for the actual battle.  Yes?  Great -- that is realism.  No -- alas, that is not realism, even if the plane types were the same.

2.  Regardless, the plane set vs. history was made completely clear in the description in the voting topic.  There were two other choices.  Now, people have voted; this is what they picked (by a wide margin); and we are working on the rule set.

So, this is what folks wanted.  Let's get on with the rule set. 

[Brooke]

By the way:

Want to have an event about when Boyington, the Black Sheep, Blackburn, the Jolly Rogers, Dick Bong, Tommy McGuire, Marion Carl, Neel Kearby, Robert Hanson, Gerald Johnson, the Fighting Corsairs, etc. were *all* flying in the *same* skies?  (How amazing is that?)  This is the time and place.

[Arlo]

By the way:

Want to have an event about when Boyington, the Black Sheep, Blackburn, the Jolly Rogers, Dick Bong, Tommy McGuire, Marion Carl, Neel Kearby, Robert Hanson, Gerald Johnson, the Fighting Corsairs, etc. were *all* flying in the *same* skies?  (How amazing is that?)  This is the time and place.

There were notable Japanese aces, as well:



 

[Devil 505]

But since this is a design discussion and criticism is part of it - how about some suggestions that don't try to make this yet another F4F battle (which Rabaul wasn't)? What would you do to 'fix' this to be a fun battle for all? The Allies have a limited but accurate plane set. the Axis have a modified (for balance .... in their favor) plane set. As I said before, would numbers in favor of the Axis (1.25 to 1, 1.4 to 1, 1.5 to 1, 1.75 to 1) with a more historically accurate plane set be acceptable? As I said, that's just one other historical tweaking instead of another .... but I'd be good with it. Maybe something not yet tried in twenty years or so will come up.

I only mention the Wildcat because it was actually in this theater at some time, whereas the George and Frank never were. Also, given the low expected turnout, there should be only one squadron - hardly "another F4F battle". I also figure the Wildcat would be preferable to most Allied pilots over the P-40 or P-39.

Even if every Wildcat squadron had either been withdrawn or upgraded to a Corsairs and Hellcats historically, it is still far less a stretch from reality to include F4F's over Ki-84's and N1k2's.

Rabaul may not have been "another F4F battle" but it was an A6M battle and with the existing planeset they are relegated to being the most useless of any plane on either side.





 

[Arlo]

As Brooke mentioned, this plane set and the rationale behind it was not kept secret before the vote. Never-the-less, if we were to neuter the IJ set from the standing design what's your next suggestion to re-attain balance without a replacement of one of the U.S. FGs with F4Fs (again, a contradictory move in the face of demanding plane set purity)? Is it a ration adjustment of more overall players on the IJ side? Right now Brooke has 34 IJ fighters to 30 Allied. He's dealing with reduced scenario participation already. But maybe an adjustment will draw more interest. 40 IJ fighters? 30 A6M5s and 10 Ki-61s? That's 1.3 to 1 (or so). 50 IJ fighters 36 A6M5s and 14 Ki-61s? That's a little over 1.6 to 1. With the IJ fighters needing to shoot down bombers then the ava fighter match-up is kinda shifted, as well.

Or would you still want to replace one (or more) allied fighter groups with ahistorical F4Fs alongside that, as well?

[KCDitto]

I like the 2:1 idea with Zeros