Hello, Devil.
I don't think the 9.12 spawn difference is significant, but if so, it doesn't matter to move the spawn farther back then either -- so I'm fine with that. I'll bring it up with the other CM's, and if no one objects, I'll move it back a bit.
One thing to keep in mind is that scenarios with attack missions need at least two target areas, at least a couple sectors apart, and need to allow attackers to go NOE if there is radar. That way, a side typically cannot defend all targets all the time and must instead choose what to prioritize on defense. The goal is a setup where attackers end up sometimes getting intercepted prior to target and sometimes not, depending on what they and the opponent do. If we designed it with all targets covered all the time, attackers would get intercepted every time and fail every time, which is both miserable for attack pilots and not historical for most of the tactical battles we are themed on.
All scenarios to date with attack missions have these features, including: Nuisance Raids, Pantelleria, Kuban, Rabaul, Hinterland, Tunisia, Dnieper, Southern Conquest, The Pacific War, Battle of Britain 2013, Med. Maelstrom, Winter Sky, Enemy Coast Ahead, Philippine Phandango, Red Storm, Coral Sea, Dawn of Battle, BoB 2008, Husky, BoB 2006, Downfall, Stalin's Fourth, Coral Sea, and BoB 2004.
1.
Once we put together historical bases, historical target locations, using the AH terrain we have, balance it as best we figure, and put in the above design elements, the sides are not going to be the same. Here, assuming 9.12 is moved back, access to defense areas and target areas looks similar enough. Axis has more bases to land at than the allies, outside the presumed main battle areas of a95 and Anzio to land at, but that is historical. Axis has p106 and a108 for flashing and throwing up ack, including lots of puffy ack, in between the allied bases, but that is just how the layout must be.
Dnieper, by the way, was one of the most-popular scenarios, and was one of the most-active scenarios of all time. I would say it did work.
2.
The points are not made so that 6 190F's equals 6 P-40's plus 7 B-26's. The design is made so that 6 190F's equal 6 P-40's (yes, 190's are better, but we are focusing more on attack here, and allies are less picky about every particle of how their planes match up) and 7 B-26's are worth on average zero.
How is that? As you point out, the general idea is that if a B-26 formation gets to target, hits it, and lands, it gets +3 points for its side. If a B-26 formation goes up and is shot down short of target, it gets -3 points for its side (+3 for the other side). If it goes up, hits its target, and is shot down, it gets +0 points. If half the B-26's make it to target and get back, that is +0 points. Half of bombers getting to target and back is very approximately about what happens on average in scenarios. You can find some scenarios where it is more, and some where it is less. See below for what is probably the best analog to this setup, and how that stacked up.
Actually here, we have cut down the points for level bombers to +2.5, but the general idea is the same.
B-25C's aren't in for two reasons. One is that they don't fill, and the bomber pilots who flew them last (who are core bomber pilots in scenarios, and who are fine with flying Ju 88's, not sissies who need only the best things to fly) all told me afterwards that they didn't want to fly B-25C's again. The second reason is that the B-25's flown in Operations Shingle and Strangle were, apparently, B-25J's. And B-25J's are about the same as B-26's -- about the same speed, same defensive gunnery. So, you can think of the B-26's in Anzio as B-25J's if you want.
3.
B-26's are good bombers. But B-26's at 14k are not as difficult as B-17's at 25k under a cloud of US speedsters at 35k, yet these same axis planes do fine there. My best ever was seven B-17's in my 109G-6 with gondolas in a frame of Big Week. I think folks can do fine in the excellent 190A's and 190G's.
I don't think Pantelleria is a good Anzio analog, for several significant reasons. I think Hinterland frames 1 and 4 are better for that (but not frames 2 and 3, as the bombers were completely ignored in those frames). Frame 1 had 21 bomber aircraft shot down and 8 Successful Drops (out of 20 pilot-sorties), for a net score of 3 points. Frame 4 had 40 bomber aircraft shot down and 13 Successful Drops (out of 24 pilot-sorties), for a net score of -1 points. That is basically a wash for bombers, most of which were shot down by 109G's.
I think the Luftwaffe can do fine.
