Next AH Scenario- Guadalcanal - Operation Watchtower

[ramzey]

everyone can start practice:D
here <---------

[brady]

That was actualy kinda fun:)

[Soulyss]

the p-51's were overmodelled....

[Keebler]

home....Henderson field  

[Esme]

Hmmnn.. I've only just checked in here to see what's next after Niemen.  I must admit, I'd rather fly Ki67's as replacement G4Ms and restrict my speed as necessary, than fly Ju88s masquerading as G4Ms.   But then.. I'm not sure what I'll be signing up for in this game (honestly!). You can be damned sure that if asked to fly Ki67s at under some particular speed then that's exactly what I would do. Shame that it would seem that sufficient of the rest of the community can't be so trusted (even if its only being trusted to REMEMBER to fly em slow :-} )

Suggestion: ask HTC to add into the game a speed or throttle limiter that can be set seperately for each plane by CMs, for use in scenarios.

Must admit, my main concern wouldn't be the speed of theKi67 as against the G4M, it'd be the rlative toughness of the twi planes.  The G4M burst into flames if someone looked at it nastily, almost, never could understand why they bothered arming it with 20mm cannon unless it was simply to bolster crew morale sufficiently that they would fly it without getting too jittery.

Nice pics thus far... looking forward to seeing the terrain when it's released!

Esme

[Bolt45]

I have a dumb question ..couldn't the Peggy 's speed be modified
by HT or the CM , that way the faster speed issue could be resolved  ? I'd much prefer it over the Ju 88 ..

[jordi]

The CM's can not chagne any FM settings for any of the planes.

I doubt if HT will go in and modify any settings just for a Scenario.

We have what the game offers to work with.

Mike Bowman
AH CM Scenario Staff

[Easyscor]

Originally posted by jordi

They also have at their disposal up to 20 bombers from the following groups.
Citose kokutai - Betty Bombers ( substitued with the Ju-88 )
582nd kokutai - D3A1’s
Jokosuka kokutai – B5N2’s
[/B]

Dumb question but I can't figure out what this means.  Is Citose kokutai a separate group or which Group(s) get the Ju88s?  

Dumb question expanded upon:
It looks like Citose kokutai might be a separate Group but then it says "up to 20 bombers" implying they're not a bomber group at all and making me think they have LVTs as the primary ride.  I note LVTs aren't listed anywhere but are referred to several times in the write up at the web page.  After two full frames runing troops in Niemen.....

[jordi]

The IJN Gets 20 ( that number may change ) Bombers to fly from Rabual.

Of those bombers they can be a mix of Betty( Ku88 ) , KATES or VALS. The mix of bomber types is up to the IJN CO.

In the REGISTRATION it wwil probably begiven just one unit name.

Mike Bowman
AH CM Scenario Staff

[Easyscor]

Ah rgr Jordi.  Thanks.

[Soulyss]

Ok before anyone gets up in arms, I'll just get it out of the way up front.  No I am not saying that the allies SHOULD get the use of B17's.  Because if I say that I know someone going to get their undies in a bunch and spark a huge Ju88 vs. Ki67 debate ALL over again.  Soooooooooo with that in mind.


Was any thought given to letting B-17's play a part in the scenario? B-17's did play a part in the Guadalcanal campaign from day 1.  Both as bombers and for recon.  The obvious problem I see was that these were B-17F's (correct?) not the G which we have in AH, which would give any B-17 we use the benefit of at least the additional firepower in the chin turret, I'm not familiar with performance differences, but I can imagine that the G had better speed?

Anywho was the inclusion of the B-17 considered? and if so was it dropped in favor of historical accuracy? game balance? Thanks Jordi, et al.

[jordi]

We did not add them in since the bases they were at are not on the map.

From all that I have read they really only hit a few ships at best during the campaign.

So we decided that it was not worth adding them in.

Mike Bowman
AH CM Scenario Staff

[Soulyss]

Ok I admit I'm starting to change my opinion on the B-17 issue.  I've been reading "Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle" by Richard B. Frank, and the B-17 units in the area did play a role in the campaign.  Both as recon and engaged in antishipping sorties.  Granted the impact of the B-17 as a ship killer was negligible but I guess I think that shouldn't preclude us from trying in AH.   The biggest problem was that the 11th Bomb Group was stationed at Espritu Santo which was about 590 miles south east of Guadalcanal and thus not on the map we're using.  But I'm finding out now that at least in small numbers B-17's from that group did land at Henderson.  In the book there are records of B-17 lost at Henderson on the ground from shelling and aerial attacks.  

So what would the opinion be of B-17's in small numbers maybe a handful, never more than 4 (bombers not formations) or somthing be allowed at Henderson per frame to represent ferrying from Espiritu Santo?  

The other problem is that the B-17 we have is the G whereas historically they were stuck with the F model (I think).  Near as I can figure the only major change from the F to the G was the addition of chin turret.  Could this be surmounted by adding a rule that would require all B-17's to empty the magazine of their chin guns after takeoff?

Anyway just a thought.  Think that B-17's could be a valuable tool for the scenario, and that there is some sort of historical precedence for it.

[jordi]

We looked at the B17 and the role it can play and decided that would play a minor role at best and that particular function of scouting would be elimiated due to the fact that the frame is just 2 hrs long and the start area that the IJN Fleets start in is known to the US.

Now if we had the P39/400 or a real Betty . . .

Mike Bowman
AH CM Scenario Staff

[Soulyss]

Gotcha Jordi, thanks.