Please rate "Target Rabaul" scenario

[Hajo]

From a Historical point of view.  I, and probably many others would probably fly with an outclassed Axis/Allied side in a REAL Scenario just for the challenge AND the History.

Unfortunately societies change.  Everyone wants to win.  Gets a Trophy.  If I would search these posts to see what side the majority of 4 or above points would all be Axis and one Allied Pilot.

Unfortunately I signed on before everything was settled.  When we found out we were just an add on to the so called scenario because B25s were there I was disappointed to say the least.

Before I sign on for another scenario I will check the scoring, how much "what if" is designed into it.  Scenarios titled with an actual battle best have the actual vehicles and aircraft in it.

This scenario had no historical basis anywhere in it but for the map.  If we have to "balance" it to the side of fictitious I'll pass.  You do know that most conflagrations in actuality were unbalanced.  Whats wrong with that?  I and many like me who enjoy and know the history of these battles would probably fly with the underdog!  Why you may ask?  Because that is what was real and a fact.  Not about scoring but realizing the heroism and the up hill battle that they faced everyday in the face of adversity was real.  They fought knowing the odds but showed up everyday to do the best they could to defend their country and their brothers in arms.  Times don't change, people do.  The historic values now have to be manipulated so that we can attract people with an advantage mind you, to get them to consider participating.  For many of us this has detracted from our participation in so called historic scenarios that are not based on historic fact.  I took 6 months off this year from this game.  We Old Coots who are into the history are far fewer then we used to be even 5 years ago.  I came back hoping things might improve.  I registered therefore I had an obligation to participate.  I chose a B25 to fly knowing that low and slow we would be targets.  We did well albeit handcuffed by scoring.  I did not know this from registering early.  I did have some fun, I flew with a bunch of great guys.  But my further participation in "Fairy Tale" what ifs' is going to be questionable.  This is my opinion.  Others do not have to agree.

Brooke and the designers have an unenviable job not to mention thankless, to try and appease everyone.  It's very difficult to get a CO now!  We used to have many volunteers to CO.  As far as the history of these events,  it is long gone.  If the History leaves I'm afraid others including my self just may leave with it.  It's not a threat.  One player means nothing.  I'm afraid I am beating a dead horse here.  I am only one person.  The masses have to be appeased.  People of like mindedness on the History of Air to Air Combat have left the game or no longer participate.  We used to get 200 or more to participate.  Now we have to twist arms to get a side CO or change the actual history to get someone to play.  Pity.  That's just the way it is today.

[TheBug]

+2 For many of the reasons mentioned above by Allied pilots and I also do not like setups with multiple lives where the fight location is biased very much to one side.  Malta being another example.  Although thank you for setting it up and running it Brooke.   

[swareiam]

3+

Target Rabaul was a good design. The unfortunate part is that scoring left it hard for the Allies to win a frame. It will be adjusted for future runs.

 

[zack1234]

4.9 and 5 because i attended

[Brooke]

I should expanded the system to include the rating of +zack.

[TheKenzer]

+5

[ROC]

Target Rabaul was a good design

+2
+2 simply because it was fun to fly, I did not like the design at all.  I didn't participate in the discussion as after the voting was done, the concept changed and debates were repeatedly dismissed as "the players voted for it".  The players did not vote for it, the players voted for Rabaul.
The event was predictable.  There was no need for radar, we found the Allies all too easy.  The objectives, time from target and target locations made the routes obvious.
This was another snapshot, tossed together with no effort made to balance the planeset other than switch plane types around. A good design can account for a near historical set up with one side getting beat but still winning by not getting beat as badly as the real war, or a number of other factors that can make a scenario more than simply a quickly thrown together effort just to get one on the books.  I am not guessing here, I know what it takes to build one, how long it takes.  Look at how much time was spent between the selection and running the event.  No time to team build, no time to recruit, no time to even find a CO.  No need at all to train, the Axis did no real mission planning, there was no need.
I've beat my last horse to death on this subject.
Devil505 has a concept a few of us are going to take a run at, we'll see what shakes out, but I won't be in another one of these.

[1ijac]

3+........ I had four good afternoons spent flying around and shooting at planes.  Thanks to those who put it all together so we others could show up for some enjoyment.

one-eye

[Brooke]

I'm thinking of the Journey song "Don't Stop Believin'" but with the lyrics:
Some will love it
Some will hate it
Some are born to be complained at

(No, I won't give up my day job.)

This is what players voted for:

Time to vote on what our next scenario will be.

A.  Rabaul with Marine Corsairs, Navy Hellcats, USAAF B-24's, and B-25H's, and maybe some RAAF P-40N's and maybe P-38's vs. Imperial Japan's Ki-84's, N1K2's, Ki-61's, and Zeros.  Many famous US and Japanese aces fought at Rabaul.  For good playability, most of the Japanese planes will be the later-war types, even though historically at that time it was mainly Zeros and some Ki-61's.  B-24's will be hitting land targets.  B-25H's (straffer/75 mm cannon) will be for antishipping and possibly some ground attack.  Setup will be influenced by action described in [the book "Target:  Rabaul"].

It was clear about those Ki-84's and N1K2's, and that's what we ran.  Once people pick that, we can't reverse it on them after the fact.  No way.

Also, we finally have a PTO event that Ditto liked!  Ditto for the win!   

ROC, you voted for Choice A.  Then I asked you in late September what you thought of the design, and you told me the scenario is fine. 

I'm sorry to hear otherwise.   But I was glad that you flew in it, and I had a blast flying with you in it.   

Anyway, on with the ratings. 

[Delirium]

Brooke, some of us hang around on the forums sparingly and fly even less. I didn't notice any mention of the late war Japanese planeset until after the settings were finalized, I had just popped into the forum to answer a P38/Rabaul question. You actually asked for advice considering the balancing issues after we discussed using P38Gs;

Questions I have for all of you:

-- Do you think the Japanese fighters (with all those Ki-84's) will dominate the US fighters?  Ki-84's are very, very good planes.  They are faster than F6F's and P-38G's, and they handily outturn the US planes.  It is tough when your opponent is faster and outturns you.  Or will the Ki-84's lower robustness serve as enough of a balancing factor?

-- Do you think the B-25's will be able to get to and from targets at times and not be all shot down every time.  Targets are not widely spread; the B-25's are singles; and they are doing attacks on the deck.  Or will the ship separation be good enough?

Literally one day later you posted;

Looks like we've gotten what relevant input we're going to get.

That said, don't take any criticism personally. It has spelled the doom of many a scenario designer in the past and does not usually end well. I can say I appreciate the time and effort you put in. Heck, you added me to the Allied forum even though I could not fly in the event, and it was greatly appreciated.

Speaking of criticism, I am of the opinion that some of the grumbling is directly tied to the overall numbers in events and the game itself. Some of us yearn for a day when we had 300 aircraft fighting in a 100 mile area with more comm chatter than the game could support at one time. Now, we struggle to even have enough bodies to fill the events. It is frustrating for everyone in the community without a doubt.

[Popsman]

+5

[ROC]

Then I asked you in late September what you thought of the design, and you told me the scenario is fine.

I know I voted for A, was the best option and I felt like a PTO event.  Voting for it and liking it are two different things. 
The least input you ever got from me.  It was fine.  I didn't care to go into it.  There was no point.  Look at the results, most of us saw that outcome from the start, it was not an inspired design and I know you know this.  It was fun to play, I got to fly, no big deal, but it's time to put some energy into the designs again.  You know this is an old debate we have had for years, and you know full well what designs have been rejected in the past and why, now that they have been run it's time to get serious with them again. Put some effort into it please.  You know I count bullets, you need to start.  You can't design an event off theory, you need to test your runs, timing, and verify things. I know it's hard work, but I can assure you, the players are putting in exactly as much effort into their missions, planning and interest as you are. 
Back to topic, rating.  It was fun to fly with the gang, always is.  There was no time to team build, no real need to mission plan, no excitement to recruit, and if you don't think those elements are as much or more to a scenario than launch time, you forgot what a scenario is.

[Wiley]

I'd give it a +3.  Got to fly with people, had a fair bit of fun.  I'm not qualified to comment on historicitycaliness.

If I'm hearing right though the Allies are essentially saying it was a turkey shoot IRL so it should've been a turkey shoot here.  That I've seen from most people in the game over the years I've been here the line to be the turkeys in the turkey shoot is not tremendously long.

How do you propose to bring in people to essentially be target drones?

Perhaps the only scenarios that should be run are the ones where both sides had a decent chance rather than bending lopsided fights to be balanced?  It would keep the history grognards happier and would be more attractive to people who want things fairsies.

Wiley.

[Spikes]

I know I voted for A, was the best option and I felt like a PTO event.  Voting for it and liking it are two different things. 
The least input you ever got from me.  It was fine.  I didn't care to go into it.  There was no point.  Look at the results, most of us saw that outcome from the start, it was not an inspired design and I know you know this.  It was fun to play, I got to fly, no big deal, but it's time to put some energy into the designs again.  You know this is an old debate we have had for years, and you know full well what designs have been rejected in the past and why, now that they have been run it's time to get serious with them again. Put some effort into it please.  You know I count bullets, you need to start.  You can't design an event off theory, you need to test your runs, timing, and verify things. I know it's hard work, but I can assure you, the players are putting in exactly as much effort into their missions, planning and interest as you are. 
Back to topic, rating.  It was fun to fly with the gang, always is.  There was no time to team build, no real need to mission plan, no excitement to recruit, and if you don't think those elements are as much or more to a scenario than launch time, you forgot what a scenario is.

I agree it was fun to fly in (I basically flew as a walk-on) but the result was expected as is any late war PTO setup.

What killed the "mood" or "vibe" for me was the 15 page thread of mud-slinging and bickering, beating the thing to death. I feel that the people participating in that thread were tired of the event before it even began.

[Guppy35]

Quoting the real "Guppy" Lt. Hamilton "Tadpole" Salmon III, 39th FG P38 Pilot, from the Book "Nanette"   

"The Nips put up about a hundred fighters the first day and chewed us all up, and MacArthur issued a communique  saying Rabaul was as good as wiped out.  And the next day they flung about three times as much at us., and afterwards MacArthur said Rabaul was completely neutralized.  And the next day the sky was so black with Nips, you couldn't see the sun."

I didn't mind the numbers, but Guppy was up against Zekes and Tonies.  If there had been 50 Zekes I could have bought in that I was over Rabaul in my cartoon 38, but it was Ki 84s and N1Ks I saw. 

I guess that's just the history nut in me wanting to see what I've read so much about.  Put me in a J or L over the Phillipines against Ki-84s or N1Ks and I'll feel the part. 

I want the fight, and I would expect the Japanese knew where we were coming from.  And I don't care if we get enough points, as long as for those moments I can feel a bit like I think it might have been for the real life Guppy's over Rabaul.