This Week: Tunisia 1943

[jarbo]

This setup is based loosly on a 1943 setup, but some modifications have been made for balance.  On this setup
will be evaluating enabling full friendly radar in CT, please give feedback in CT forum.
DO NOT CAPTURE ROOK BASES OR IT WILL GOOF UP ARENA (bottom left corner)

Plane Set

Allies (Bish):
CV41: F4F, SBD, TBM, LVT (both)
CV42: Sea Hurricane (Hurri-IIC), TBM, LVT (both)
Airfields: Spit-V, Hurri-IIC, Hurri-IID, P-40E, Boston-III, B-17 (1 or 2 rear fields), C-47, M-3, M-8, M-16,
Ostwind, Panz-IV
Ports/V-fields: M-3, M-8, M-16, Ostwind, Panz-IV, PT (where spawn points allow)

Axis (Knight):
Bf109E-4, Bf109F-4, Bf110C-4, C202, Ju87, Ju88, C-47, M-3, M-8, M-16, Ostwind, Panz-IV, Tiger-I (perk:15 pts)
Ports/V-fields: M-3, M-8, M-16, Ostwind, Panz-IV, Tiger-I (perked 15 pts), PT (where spawn points allow)

Design Notes: Uses standard Axis and Allies base assignments. Left out the Bf109G-2/G-6 for balance? sake.
Added the Hurri-IID to provide extra anti-tank punch to counter the German Tiger.
ALL Other CVs will be destroyer groups only w/ LVTs enabled.

Other settings:

Ack .7
Fuel 1.5
Radar Ct Norms

Downtimes
Field Obj: 45min
Hangars: 30min
Ack: 20 min

Strat: Disabled

Jarbo
CT Staff

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by jarbo
This setup is based loosly on a 1943 setup, but some modifications have been made for balance.  

Looking forward to it, Jarbo.  P40 v. 202 is my favorite match.

- oldman

[Eagler]

thanks Jarbo

[GRUNHERZ]

Get rid of one of the CV, this map is ruined by constant CV vulching of coastal bases.

[lazs2]

grun... you might feel differently if the LW woulda had the foresight to actually build a carrier plane.... or even one that turned for that matter.
lazs

[kanttori]

Why CT has very often this non-historical so called "balanced setup"? Why not even Bf 109 G2 is there? It is historical fact that in 1943 almost all the Axis had them and of course Germans in Tunis, too!:confused:

I have now flown mainly on CT about half year and I have noticed almost every week that Allied had the newest current year aircrafts and axis 1-2 year older models. Or if the Axis models are current year planes allied have future planes from next year!:D

This "balanced setup" is a little bit true in FinRus maps, too: The fact is that Russe had La5FN's (FN = better engine) in Finnish front only in one unit: 159 th IAP. The other units had "normally" La5 planes.

Also in Finnish front was only 27 individual Yak9T aircraft (with 1 x 37 mm CAN and 1 x 12,7 mm MG) and the rest were "normally" Yak9 (1 x 20 mm CAN and 1 x 12,7 mm MG).

I know that FM2 (our "Brewster") is about 40 MPH faster than original Brewster, but FM2 is not so good turning fighter than original Brewster was. Armament is the same in the both planes (4 x 50 cal MG).

And we change the FM2 to BREWSTER as soon as HTC make it to us!:D But as you can see, we have tried to make FinRus arenas as historical as it we can. My opinion is that it is balanced both historical and playing the game meaning, isn't it?

I want to fly Axis side with Bf 109 G2 always when we have autumn 1942 or later timeline CT maps and when the G2 was in the current historical area. And of course Allied must have their historical correct planes, too!;)

And my opinion is that CT should should be only historical arena, not fantasy arena with fantasy setups. If somebody like fantasies, he can go and play with toys to MA!:D

I WANT REAL RAW WAR!

[Jester]

I agree with Kanttori - ALWAYS KEEP IT HISTORICAL in the CT. That is what the attraction of the arena is for most people.

I have no problem with the Allied Carriers. They were there in theater and should be represented. I like the idea of one USN and one RN carrier.

As Kanttori said the Germans did have the ME-109G model in theater during 1943 so we should get it IMO. If you want to keep it a close race just give us the G-2, we can do without the G-6.

Other than that - killer set up Jarbo and CT Crew.  !

If you do have any "WHAT IF" scenarios keep them based in history. Example the Korean War set-up was OK but we should have had F-86 Sabers (ME-262's) to counter the MIG-15's (ME-262's).

As for Lazs2's comment about the German Navy not having a carrier - enable one for the Axis and I will start TRAGERGRUPPE 186 tomorrow flying ME-109T's & JU-87 Stuka's off her. HORRIDO!    Would love to see a CV war between German & Axis Carriers but that would probably be better suited to an event in the SEA.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Andijg
I agree with Kanttori - ALWAYS KEEP IT HISTORICAL in the CT. That is what the attraction of the arena is for most people.

I disagree.  At any given point in history, someone usually had an uber ride.  If you duplicate this in the CT, the result is lop-sided numbers.  I agree that the historical aspect of CT is often what brings us here; but we don't stay if we find that one side is grossly outnumbered (well.  I do, but people with better sense won't).  So I'm with Jarbo's notion of evening out the history a bit.

That said, right now I am predicting an allied force composed principally of Spit Vs.  I don't see that the G2 would be out of place in those circumstances.

- oldman

[Nifty]

Give the Allieds Spit IX's, and you'd still see me in a Spit V.  She's my baby, and I don't forsake her when she's in the CT.  

btw, where's the 190?  II/JG2 flew 190A-4's and 190A-5's in Tunisia through march '43.  I see nothing wrong with giving the Axis the 190A-5.  Limit it if you have to, but it was there.  

I also see nothing wrong with the 109G-2 being used in Tunisia, 1943, if in fact, the LW was using that variant at the time.

Of course, this is coming from a Spit V guy who'll fly it in the MA against everything under the sun.  

Anyways, I'll be in the CT tonight after I die in Squad Ops.  I'll be in a Spit V, even if I have to shoot at Mongrels!  

[Eagler]

what can you do in a g2 you can't do in a f4?

given the choice Ill take the 109f everytime..pls tell me what I'm missing...

[Nifty]

The G-2 is faster and has a slightly better climbrate than the F-4.  The F-4 turns better, IIRC.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Nifty
The G-2 is faster and has a slightly better climbrate than the F-4.  The F-4 turns better, IIRC.

That's been my experience.  Someone said that the G2 is even faster than the G6.

- oldman

[brady]

Jarbo has endevored to creat what he feals is a balanced set up ( I agree with him that it is), I agree that the CT must always strive for as balanced a set up as is possable while maintaining as much imershion historicaly as possable. This is going to cause problems for some people on ocashion as it can put their favorate planes out of the loop, so to speek, A good plane set does not nescessarly include all the planes that were available nore are the planes that are available going to be used in the numbers they were proportainiatly historicaly. For Example were going to see 90% spits in the air which is not historical but spits are popular for a number of reasions I dont nead to get into hear. I mean we could get real anal and limit certain planes to certain fields but were not doing that because we want even the spit dweabs to have some fun. I gues what I am saying is that a balance must be struck at some point, a line drawn and in this case I think the set up will play well, with no side having too big of an advantage over the other.

[Kevin14]

IMO the Spit V will be abused like mad.  Just my $0.02

[Slash27]

How would it be abused? Because people fly it? Not being a jerk, Im just curious what you are calling abuse.

 I think the Axis should get the G-2. No reason they shouldnt have it if it was there. Make for a fun time for both sides.