Author Topic: Planeset usage (Read 874 times)

Kratzer · « **on:** January 14, 2002, 04:24:56 PM »

Pardon me if I'm out of the loop, but it seems that COs may have launched all one plane type in past frames...

Isn't the idea that all the planes would be used, and thereby make a more interesting, and 'historical-ish' event?

I couldn't find a discussion of this, so apologies if this has been beaten to death already... if it does happen, it seems pretty lame for a country to launch only their best ride, even if that ride saw limited usage.

It seems there are no percentages of each type allowed by the TOD staff - is this correct?

Kratzer · « **Reply #1 on:** January 16, 2002, 11:07:41 AM »

Nobody wants to touch this?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #2 on:** January 16, 2002, 11:13:29 AM »

There has been no restrictions pertaining to plane usage. It has been run like a typical operation of war, that being "What will get the goals accomplished?" For instance, the frame before last, the CO for the Allied chose to use a fighter that could carry bombs. It was able to do both the ground work required to obtain the goals outlined to our side, as well as have air superiority. This past frame, I chose to use the IL-2's as "bait" and draw the enemy down while a 2nd flight came IB and finished them off. This accomplished two things, allowed us to hit the enemy field fast and accomplish the goal outlined by our orders (at the sacrifice of my own squaddies I might add...) and draw the enemy down so they could be eliminated and pave the way for the other goal outline to us, that being destruction of the nearby city. We took losses, but where we lost, we gained in points by hitting both primaries and secondary targets flat. The ATA kills were just icing on the cake.

skernsk · « **Reply #3 on:** January 16, 2002, 01:22:09 PM »

Kratzer,

I was leaving this for daddog to respond to since he's the boss.

We CM's will limit the number of "perk" planes allowed.

In my upcoming TOD (on the events page) I have put a limit on the number of Spit IX's since they were not readily available at that time.

daddog might have some more input ... I'll leave it at that.

daddog · « **Reply #4 on:** January 16, 2002, 06:47:19 PM »

Sorry kratzer, was not ignoring you. Sometimes I can't keep up and lose track of posts I need to respond to. Thanks for being patient and punting this.

There is not a rule that says Frame C.O.'s have to use all the different types of AC they can. I would say that most of the time Frame C.O.'s do use several different type of AC. I can only remember 2 frame out of 20 or so that all the AC were the same. I am considering a rule that will require Frame C.O.'s to use at least "2" different AC for that frame.

When we have had "perk" AC or as skernsk has pointed out some that were not common to that period of the war we have and will limit them to "one" squad only. So for example if you were a Frame C.O. with 7 squads to work with only one may use the Spit IX's. Of course you might pick one of your larger squads, but I am not worried about that.

Kratzer · « **Reply #5 on:** January 16, 2002, 10:34:13 PM »

Thanks for the clarification.

Now a question for everyone:
What is the general consensus on what people would prefer?

Personally, I like to see a lot of different aircraft up there, a good sampling of what would have been in the air during that part of the war.

skernsk · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2002, 08:01:05 AM »

This is a good topic.

I would like to see each aircraft in the TOD flown. Minimun 1 squad per aircraft.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2002, 08:04:05 AM »

I like variety.

daddog · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2002, 12:17:26 PM »

So would you want the rules edited so it would require Frame C.O.'s to have every AC flown?

What if you have more AC than Squads? Let the Frame C.O. choose I would think. And if you have 5 AC and 5 squads each must fly a different AC?

This could come to a problem when we deal with objectives. Since not all the same AC are at the same fields. Some squads could find themselves very far from an objective.

How about a "minium" of three different AC flown on each side? That work for you?

Kratzer · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2002, 12:26:57 PM »

Well... I was about to say that each aircraft type should be enabled at a couple fields and a percentage of the total force should be allocated to each type... but that would make it a pain in the bellybutton for the COs trying to juggle squads to get it to line up, and large squads would likely fly snazzy fighters a lot of the time...

How about basing it on the number of available aircraft types and the number of squads available? Say there are 4 aircraft type and 4 - 6 squads, then they have to choose at least 3 aircraft types, and if there are 7 or more squads, they have to choose all 4? Some sort of scale like that maybe? Then you could enable multiple types at multiple fields if that would alleviate some of the issues with distances, etc.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #10 on:** January 18, 2002, 12:45:08 PM »

Attendance would be a problem in that case. Its been a problem in the past...I say keep it simple. Require each CO for each side to use a min. of 2 A/C type, and if one of those is a bomber, then the second A/C type must have one squadron flying the bomber.

Keep it simple, makes it alot easier on the CM's (Bless their hearts) and the CO's of each frame.

Kratzer · « **Reply #11 on:** January 18, 2002, 12:53:31 PM »

I not following you... how would that affect attendance? Are you saying that people won't show up unless they get to fly the aircraft of their choice?

I would certainly like to see more than 2 different aircraft in use... in that situation, you would see, for example, a squadron of 4 people in Il-2s, and everyone else in La5FNs. I'd prefer to see squadrons of Il-2s, Yaks, La5s, etc. The scale could be very simple, and it would be easy when the TOD was announced and the squads for each side listed for the CM to say 'Allies must use X number of different aircraft types, Axis must use X number of different aircraft types'. I think that would be very simple.