Please rate "Target Rabaul" scenario

[oboe]

Just my impressions, Krusty, that's all - to be taken with a grain of salt.  I was a low-level participant so I can't really speak to Allied planning and tactics.  In fact there really hasn't been much of a post mortem discussion that I've seen - though I don't have access to the planning forums so I may be missing any discussion going on right now.

I think tactics can definitely be an issue, but as Wil3ur pointed out in an earlier post, even changing tactics and mixing things up didn't help the Allies scorewise.  And as you yourself noted - there were times when the bombers were well-protected and you couldn't get near them.  But the Allies still lost every frame.   <shrug> that just seems like that might indicate a balance (planeset, numbers) or scoring problem.   

Was very cool to see a gaggle of Ki.61s screaming in on us by the way! 

[Krusty]

 

[KillyJim]

+4

being on losing side did not make it less fun, but did add to realistic stress, the overly hardened bomber targets did make it hard to hit without all surviving remaining drones though.

all scenarios cannot be the same layout , countries and themes, so you have to rate it based on what it is. It was realistic enough evidently.

fun times.

[Brooke]

even changing tactics and mixing things up didn't help the Allies scorewise.

I would say strategy had a large impact.  There was a big difference between frames 1-2 and frame 3.  In combat terms, the allies won frame 3, where they had a large amount of close escort for the B-24's and executed the escort role very well.

[oboe]

I would say strategy had a large impact.  There was a big difference between frames 1-2 and frame 3.  In combat terms, the allies won frame 3, where they had a large amount of close escort for the B-24's and executed the escort role very well.

Hiya Brooke,

I don't disagree with anything you've said here.  But if in combat terms, the Allies won Frame 3, why did they have a lower score than the Axis?   That suggests something was at least slightly "off" in scoring, doesn't it?   

[Brooke]

Hiya Brooke,

I don't disagree with anything you've said here.  But if in combat terms, the Allies won Frame 3, why did they have a lower score than the Axis?   That suggests something was at least slightly "off" in scoring, doesn't it?   

In frame 3, the allies did great, but they had a very unfortunate situation.  They took off in bombers very late in the frame, then just went back and landed shortly after takeoff.  None of those planes got within 50 miles of an enemy icon.  Usually, that is no big deal.  But on this map, most of the allied coastal fields are weird.  They are small airfields with only one strip, have a cliff at one end, and a mountain planted right at the other end of the runway.  For fighters, it's weird and maybe a little dangerous, but it is much worse for formations of B-24's.  When the bombers went back to land, there were several formations lost in landing.

The scoring system counts ditches, crashes, bails, and deaths as losses, but it doesn't have a statement like "ditches and crashes, unless they happen when landing an aborted mission where no aircraft involved is ever within 50 miles of an enemy".  So, in this instance, it ended up counting something akin to transport losses.  It was unfortunate for the allies, and I wanted very much for them to get the win they deserved in that frame.

[Guppy35]

You can give inferior side more aircraft, have single bombers instead of bomber formations on some occasions, darbar, altitude constraints...

What generally happens is the defending side gets more fighters, and often upgrades to what they'd really have had, to get guys to fly.   So the attackers have less fighters to defend and are fighting better aircraft in numbers, and the bombers often get mauled no matter what the escorts do.  I don't have an answer, but there was a reason bombers went down in droves without adequate escort for real and we clearly mimic that.  Problem is the attacking crowd, regardless if Allied or Axis, has to do more with less to get the defenders to play, or at least that's how it often seems

[oboe]

In frame 3, the allies did great, but they had a very unfortunate situation.  They took off in bombers very late in the frame, then just went back and landed shortly after takeoff.  None of those planes got within 50 miles of an enemy icon.  Usually, that is no big deal.  But on this map, most of the allied coastal fields are weird.  They are small airfields with only one strip, have a cliff at one end, and a mountain planted right at the other end of the runway.  For fighters, it's weird and maybe a little dangerous, but it is much worse for formations of B-24's.  When the bombers went back to land, there were several formations lost in landing.

The scoring system counts ditches, crashes, bails, and deaths as losses, but it doesn't have a statement like "ditches and crashes, unless they happen when landing an aborted mission where no aircraft involved is ever within 50 miles of an enemy".  So, in this instance, it ended up counting something akin to transport losses.  It was unfortunate for the allies, and I wanted very much for them to get the win they deserved in that frame.

Thanks for that explanation - I recall that incident but didn't realize it occurred at such a high rate to cost the Allies the frame in score.  Those are operational losses and add to the realism of the scenario IMO.  It was tough luck for sure but I don't disagree with how that was scored.  I had trouble with that airfield too.

<S>

[Brooke]

By the way, I give a big <S> to the B-24 pilots in this one.  They were enormously valiant and dedicated and had high morale the whole way through.  When I fly bombers in scenarios, I feel privileged and happy to fly with that group of folks.