Design discussion for Fjord Fury (June 2018 Scenario)

[oboe]

Can you sneak in time for a 19 or 65 Squadron Mustang IV oboe?

Probably, but it doesn't work like that.   There are no open slots for P-51D skins and no P-51D skins up for adoption.  The 51D is totally locked up.

Even if there were some orphaned '51D skins, it wouldn't help.  The adopting skinner is obliged to re-do the exact same aircraft skin.   The P-51D skins we have now are it.   That's all we are going to have until the Mustang's 3D model is updated, which may be a very long time from now.  Skinners (Vraciu et al) have suggested adding a P-51K or bumping the skin limit up from 32 but haven't been able to convince HTC.    I've advocated for an early block D (w/o tail fillet) and a bird cage P-51B as a means to increase slots and improve historical accuracy of the skins we have, but that hasn't gone anywhere either.

Cactus did a natural metal RAF '51D skin, from 303 Sqdn I think - that might be the best stand-in for the Mustang IV in this scenario.

PS Thanks for the pages on the Norway air combat.   Good stuff!

[Brooke]

Looking at dates, looks like we'll make it June 2, 9, 16, and 23.  That way, we don't stray into 4th of July weekend.

[Brooke]

Brooke, since oboe already has a 315 skin for the 51B, how bout changing the group of 6 Mustangs to Mustang IIIs.  I want em if they can be 315

Guppy, would it work to let individual pilots pick the B or D, so there might be a mix of B's and D's in that group?

B's are faster at 30k, but I'm a little concerned about their lower firepower.

Swareiam and Ditto, what do you think?

[Guppy35]

Guppy, would it work to let individual pilots pick the B or D, so there might be a mix of B's and D's in that group?

B's are faster at 30k, but I'm a little concerned about their lower firepower.

Swareiam eand Ditto, what do you think?

Better that it looks the part, and it was the version 315 was flying over Norway.

[oboe]

Better that it looks the part, and it was the version 315 was flying over Norway.

The same argument can be made for trading in an equal number of K4s for G14s.  The G14 is closer to the actual version of 109 flying with JG5 over Norway at the time, and we have a historically correct skin for it.   If both the 51B and G14 are considered a reduction in capability, wouldn't it be fair to sub in the lower-capability aircraft to both sides in small but equal numbers?

Btw, I downloaded the NorthSea terrain and it looks really sharp.  Flew in and around some fjords and the rugged terrain was quite cool.  I wish there was an MA-compatible version of that terrain.   Not sure who created it, but kudos and great job!

Other thoughts for discussion:

1) A question about the scoring - Why are Tirpitz and Lutzow both worth 21 pts?   The Tirpitz was far more dangerous of the two, shouldn't its destruction be worth more to the Allies?   Would it be worth shaving a few points off the Lutzow and adding them to the Tirpitz?  Or would that be unbalancing in some other way?

2) Any chance of shaving some of the Lancaster numbers down to create a Mosquito unit?   The Mossies were also actually there, and their presence would make the scenario a more interesting problem, both in attack and defense.

[Brooke]

Ditto wanted a group of G14's instead of one of the K4 groups.

The problem is that the G14 with gondolas gives the axis three groups that are bomber killer monsters then: the Ta 152 (with 1 30 and 2 20 mm cannon), the 190A-8, and the G-14 with gondolas.

Lancs are not all the well defended compared to B-17's and B-24's, and some folks think Lancs catch on fire easily.  I'm worried if we have too many bomber-killer monsters in there, it is a wipeout of the bombers every frame, which is not fun balance for bomber guys.

What do folks think?

[Guppy35]

Lose the 152s since they were never there and replace them with G-14s.

Oboe's suggestion in losing some Lancs and adding Mossies would be helpful too as then there is the potential for both the higher alt and lower alt runs.  Defenders can't just perch at 30K waiting to pounce if there might be Mossies on the deck racing in to attack the shipping

[Brooke]

Lutzow and Tirpitz are scored the same for convenience.  They are near each other, so it is no problem to go for one over the other, and it wouldn't change the action to make the scoring asymmetric.

I'd rather not to try to make this into a scenario that has a strategic element and a tactical element.  We don't have a lot of players to cover both those modalities as well as we'd like, and we wanted to focus on strategic bombing in this one to mix is up from Kuban that was completely tactical.

[Brooke]

A large motivation for putting this design in the voting mix was (like The Final Battle of 8 years ago) to give folks the chance (if they wanted it enough to win the voting) to fly some latest-war prop planes that they almost never get to fly in scenarios and to put in matchups that are rare in scenarios.  We specifically wanted Spit 14's, Tempests, and 152's.

[Brooke]

Here are the things we need to nail down.

-- Is 42,000 lbs hardness on the ships appropriate?  Some folks think it is too high.

-- Lancs are not gunned as well as B-17's or B-24's, and some folks feel Lancs catch fire easily.  Do folks think with this setup we will average out to about 50% of bombers getting back to base (which is my idea of good balance)?

-- Is it OK for allies to get +1 vp if they destroy all hangars at Bergen in each of two frames, or should it be each of 3 frames?  I.e., is 2 frames too easy?

-- Should the axis have more than 50 miles of radar radius?

[oboe]

Are you able to use the Cruiser object for the Lutzow, and the BB object for the Tirpitz?  (i.e. will Allies be able to tell which ship they are attacking?)

Are you able to have the ships anchored in the fjords?   Or will they be in port, or underway at sea with destroyer escorts, etc?

The standard displacement of the Tirpitz was 42,900t; the Lutzow was 12,630t.   I have to defer to bomber guys on the question of absolute hardness and whether or not it makes a difference if they are trying to hit a moving or stationary target.  But really, they should have relatively different hardnesses, with the Tirpitz about 3x tougher than Lutzow.

I think the Lancs are in trouble if caught by a sizable force of LW fighters, even with escorts.   Its very tough to stop a determined attack on a bomber force - we saw that in Kuban.  Even if the Allies sweep out front of the bombers, the D9s and Ta 152s would most likely be able to blow through the fighter screen and outrace the escorts to the bombers.   I think one of the best ways to help the Lancs is to split the LWs defences - force them to be concerned about Mosquito attacks.

Is it possible to effectively prohibit gondolas on the G14?   

[KCDitto]

Are you able to use the Cruiser object for the Lutzow, and the BB object for the Tirpitz?  (i.e. will Allies be able to tell which ship they are attacking?)

Are you able to have the ships anchored in the fjords?   Or will they be in port, or underway at sea with destroyer escorts, etc?

The standard displacement of the Tirpitz was 42,900t; the Lutzow was 12,630t.   I have to defer to bomber guys on the question of absolute hardness and whether or not it makes a difference if they are trying to hit a moving or stationary target.  But really, they should have relatively different hardnesses, with the Tirpitz about 3x tougher than Lutzow.

I think the Lancs are in trouble if caught by a sizable force of LW fighters, even with escorts.   Its very tough to stop a determined attack on a bomber force - we saw that in Kuban.  Even if the Allies sweep out front of the bombers, the D9s and Ta 152s would most likely be able to blow through the fighter screen and outrace the escorts to the bombers.   I think one of the best ways to help the Lancs is to split the LWs defences - force them to be concerned about Mosquito attacks.

Is it possible to effectively prohibit gondolas on the G14?

MAP not compatible with the BB.

[AKKuya]

One group of Lancasters for the level bombing and the one group of Mossies for dive bombing would be OK with me.

[Guppy35]

A large motivation for putting this design in the voting mix was (like The Final Battle of 8 years ago) to give folks the chance (if they wanted it enough to win the voting) to fly some latest-war prop planes that they almost never get to fly in scenarios and to put in matchups that are rare in scenarios.  We specifically wanted Spit 14's, Tempests, and 152's.

Being a bit of a 41 Squadron history buff, what you are describing with that match up is more of the 2 TAF vs the LW.  That's a historical match up as the 152s did mix it up a bit with Tempests.  The Temps were 'rat catching' 262s as were the Spit XIVs of 41 and the rest of 125 Wing.  Throw in the Spit XVIs that were flying ground attack and you have that fight over Germany

[oboe]

MAP not compatible with the BB.

That's disappointing, but you have to work with what you have I guess.   So if I understand correctly, the Cruiser shape will be used as a stand-in for both the battleship Tirpitz and the Lutzow.  And unless the Allies are given location of each unit, they will not be able to tell which ship they are hitting; further, both ships will have the same hardness.   If that's the case it probably doesn't make sense to have Tirpitz worth more points than Lutzow...

Being a bit of a 41 Squadron history buff, what you are describing with that match up is more of the 2 TAF vs the LW.  That's a historical match up as the 152s did mix it up a bit with Tempests.  The Temps were 'rat catching' 262s as were the Spit XIVs of 41 and the rest of 125 Wing.  Throw in the Spit XVIs that were flying ground attack and you have that fight over Germany

Might be a good idea to keep this setting in mind for a scenario design at some point down the road.  I don't recall Spit XVIs in a scenario before, bet a lot of pilots would appreciate that one included.   Maybe as a 12 hour event specifically focused on getting players from the MA to come in and give scenario play a try?