Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 02:50:12 AM
Your comments and thoughts -- if you can make them civilly -- are welcome.
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 02:50:57 AM
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSxtStrZ1SSalXUh263OajXVVeE1AIhQY1DJDAXI4MIRAYj1oFPYZjwIWfPz4FoErqQ0KBLbQrvoMT9/pub
Post by: Vudu15 on July 30, 2018, 03:29:16 AM
Why are the allies getting spit8s instead of 9s I thought in 43 the 31st was still transitioning from 5s to 9s?
What are point generating land targets? Actual hangers? Or buildings?
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 03:45:51 AM
To add another Spitfire group, we would need to add another group to the Luftwaffe of course. Also, we should increase the number of bombers a little to keep their ratio.
Thus registration would go from 68 to 84. 84 is higher than what registrations have been running, so I'm not sure it's a good idea.
But we are opening it up to discussion here to see what folks think.
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 03:50:41 AM
Why are the allies getting spit8s instead of 9s I thought in 43 the 31st was still transitioning from 5s to 9s?
I don't care if they are Spit 9's or Spit 8's. I have read that they had both 8's and 9's there in about equal numbers, but I am no expert on the topic.
I'll leave it to others to argue if they should be Spit 8's or 9's.
Quote
What are point generating land targets? Actual hangers? Or buildings?
All hangars (fighter, bomber, vehicle) and all bunkers (ammo, fuel, barracks).
Post by: TWCAxew on July 30, 2018, 08:50:53 AM
But we are opening it up to discussion here to see what folks think.
Speaking for my squadron, it will be composed out of guys who will fly for the first time a scenario or don't fly in it regularly. So that should bumb numbers up a touch. They will fly in it because I asked them to.
DutchVII
Post by: Larry on July 30, 2018, 10:45:34 AM
Post by: jeffn on July 30, 2018, 10:56:11 AM
In reply to your question, from the write up
"Fighters have no bombs or rockets."
Post by: Larry on July 30, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Post by: Devil 505 on July 30, 2018, 12:17:20 PM
That's why I asked because I'm confused. I may be mistaken but I thought SG groups were, for the most part, ground attack.
Yes, the 190's in Sicily belonged to ground attack units: Schlachtgeschwader 2(Sch.G.2) and Schnellkampfgeschwader 10(SKG 10)
There are mentions in this book of II/Sch.G.2 mounting fighter sorties, both in escort and defense roles.
http://airwarpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/Sample-Fw-190-in-the-Battle-for-Sicily.pdf
Post by: Guppy35 on July 30, 2018, 12:18:01 PM
I can tell why you didnt want me as CO.
Why are the allies getting spit8s instead of 9s I thought in 43 the 31st was still transitioning from 5s to 9s?
What are point generating land targets? Actual hangers? Or buildings?
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
31st had a mix of Vs and IXs from April of 43. They got the VIIIs in August 43
Post by: Larry on July 30, 2018, 12:29:33 PM
Yes, the 190's in Sicily belonged to ground attack units: Schlachtgeschwader 2(Sch.G.2) and Schnellkampfgeschwader 10(SKG 10)
There are mentions in this book of II/Sch.G.2 mounting fighter sorties, both in escort and defense roles.
http://airwarpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/Sample-Fw-190-in-the-Battle-for-Sicily.pdf
I figured they must have run escort missions if their bombs have been disabled. I just wanted clarification. P.S. do you have that book? If so is it a good read? I need to add more to my bookshelf and since my birthday is coming up I can get away with spending a few hundred on books with the wife.
Post by: Guppy35 on July 30, 2018, 12:30:11 PM
Post by: KCDitto on July 30, 2018, 12:36:30 PM
Post by: Vudu15 on July 30, 2018, 12:37:47 PM
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Post by: Vudu15 on July 30, 2018, 12:46:21 PM
Weiser has asked if we can put in another Spitfire group into the design.I would say no. The axis are already going to be hard pressed to cover all targets with the ammo they have also hindered by 6 of your fighters being 202s Id say if wanting extras Stick to the write up and add them to 38s or 40s and I thought y'all had this sorted thats why they were talking directly with the CM team?
To add another Spitfire group, we would need to add another group to the Luftwaffe of course. Also, we should increase the number of bombers a little to keep their ratio.
Thus registration would go from 68 to 84. 84 is higher than what registrations have been running, so I'm not sure it's a good idea.
But we are opening it up to discussion here to see what folks think.
And what the heck do you mean you dont care what spits are in the event? I mean how are you supposed to balance an event if you dont care which model was really fighting in the area plus the range on the 8 alone makes it that much more dangerous.
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Post by: TWCAxew on July 30, 2018, 12:49:30 PM
31st had a mix of Vs and IXs from April of 43. They got the VIIIs in August 43
Weiser has asked if we can put in another Spitfire group into the design.
What if we trade 1 group of p38 for spit 5s and trade the spit 8 for the 9?
DutchVII
Post by: Devil 505 on July 30, 2018, 12:58:49 PM
I figured they must have run escort missions if their bombs have been disabled. I just wanted clarification. P.S. do you have that book? If so is it a good read? I need to add more to my bookshelf and since my birthday is coming up I can get away with spending a few hundred on books with the wife.
I do not have the book, but based on the selections in that preview it seems very good.
Here is an in depth review, with the same conclusion: http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2010/10/focke-wulf-190-in-battle-for-sicily.html
Post by: Devil 505 on July 30, 2018, 01:05:07 PM
They had a mix of G-4s and G-6s. We don't have G-4s, so I requested a group of G-2s.
I'm sure the Luftwaffe experts will correct me if I'm wrong, but it also appears JG 53 was in G6s by the time of the Pantellaria operations in June of 43
I have a G-6 skin for 7./Jg 53 from this exact period, June '43 in Sicily.
I also have a II/Jg 27 skin for the G-2 from May '43 in Sicily.
I recommend switching the 109 types between these groups.
Post by: Devil 505 on July 30, 2018, 01:18:19 PM
Will sector counters only work in areas with radar coverage?
Post by: Larry on July 30, 2018, 01:35:37 PM
Post by: TWCAxew on July 30, 2018, 02:25:55 PM
I have a question. In the writeup it says Pantelleria will start out as an axis base but it says it will be an allied base after capture. Will the allies have to actually capture it or will the CMs simulate its capture in between or during a frame?
No sir,
If the allies score enough points they will gain control over the base.
So if they score by frame 2 enough points, than from frame 3 and on it will be there base. If the allies do not score enough points than the base remains axis for frame 3. If the points are gathered in frame 3 than the base will become allied in frame 4.
I hope this clears it up and pretty cool if you ask me :salute
DutchVII
Post by: Krusty on July 30, 2018, 02:56:23 PM
31st had a mix of Vs and IXs from April of 43. They got the VIIIs in August 43
F Mk.IXs or LF Mk.IXs? Because in this 1943 time slot the LFs were a little more common with the higher boost levels than our 1942-era F Mk.IX. In the past we've often subbed the 8 or the 16 in-game for the LF Mk.IXs as they better match its era-accurate performance. I'm not sure about this setup, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.
Post by: asterix on July 30, 2018, 03:00:56 PM
Post by: perdue3 on July 30, 2018, 03:04:43 PM
I would recommend renaming the units in the OOB. It just bothers me to see an entire FG or Gruppe be comprised of 6 pilots. I would bring it to the Squadron/Staffel level. I.e., rather than have 31st FG in Spitfire Mk. VIII's, have 31st FG/308th FS in Spit VIII's. If you change it to Mk. IX's, it would be either 307th or 309th. I will also second Devil's recommendation of placing the G-6's in JG 53 and the G-2's in JG 27. I would rename III./JG 53 to 7./JG 53 and II./JG 27 to 6./JG 27.
I also saw that bunkers and hangars are worth 3 points each. If 9 are destroyed (27 points) before Frame 3, the Allies receive .5 Victory points (please correct me if I am wrong). No problem here except that a hangar does not equal a bunker. You have hardness of bunkers at 2k lbs, where a hangar in 2,781 lbs. Considering that there are many more bunkers than there are hangars, I would either eliminate bunkers (barracks maybe?) or make them equal to hangars in terms of hardness. Thus, the hardness of bunkers would be 2.7812 in the arena settings. I say this because I would definitely tell my bombers to focus bunkers. You can effectively miss the bunkers and still achieve three points because of hardness settings versus a hangar.
Lastly, a tie is possible. If both sides win 2 frames and each side gain .5 Victory Points, it becomes a draw. It would be a draw even if one side dominated 2 frames and the other side barely won 2 frames. I would build in a VP system that disallows ties. You could also apply a tiebreaker rule.
Overall, it looks pretty good for a preliminary write up. Looking forward to it :salute
Post by: perdue3 on July 30, 2018, 03:08:21 PM
F Mk.IXs or LF Mk.IXs? Because in this 1943 time slot the LFs were a little more common with the higher boost levels than our 1942-era F Mk.IX. In the past we've often subbed the 8 or the 16 in-game for the LF Mk.IXs as they better match its era-accurate performance. I'm not sure about this setup, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.
If they sub a 16 for the 9, we will take some K-4's for our G-4's :devil
Post by: perdue3 on July 30, 2018, 03:28:02 PM
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 03:54:26 PM
Speaking for my squadron, it will be composed out of guys who will fly for the first time a scenario or don't fly in it regularly. So that should bumb numbers up a touch. They will fly in it because I asked them to.
DutchVII
Good work, Dutch! :aok
Post by: bgoldy on July 30, 2018, 04:06:13 PM
Maybe leave out the spread out axis task groups and concentrate on the island (including having some ships around it). Maybe leave out the JU88 as well and give allied more bombers. Have Luftwaffe trying to inflict heavy losses to allied aircraft before they bomb their target, instead of ships. Maybe make it more about the surrender of Pantelleria rather than capture. The combat area seems kind of spread out IMHO.
So basically the last scenario again?
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 04:12:24 PM
And what the heck do you mean ...
This is the main point: I'm not an expert on whether 8's or 9's were there, so I'm leaving that determination to people with expertise; and I'm OK with whichever one they determine is most appropriate.
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 04:17:10 PM
"No sector counters below 1000 ft. Pantelleria and ships have no radar. Sector counters only, no “dot” radar for land bases."
Will sector counters only work in areas with radar coverage?
Yep. The current writeup has range-based sector counters from the mainland bases (North Africa and Sicily), but no range-based sector counters from Pantelleria or ships. Pantelleria and ships have base flash, though, currently set at 8 miles.
Post by: Guppy35 on July 30, 2018, 04:21:04 PM
I have a G-6 skin for 7./Jg 53 from this exact period, June '43 in Sicily.
I also have a II/Jg 27 skin for the G-2 from May '43 in Sicily.
I recommend switching the 109 types between these groups.
Me too as I've got JG53 on the brain and a new G6 profile to work with :)
Post by: Guppy35 on July 30, 2018, 04:23:45 PM
F Mk.IXs or LF Mk.IXs? Because in this 1943 time slot the LFs were a little more common with the higher boost levels than our 1942-era F Mk.IX. In the past we've often subbed the 8 or the 16 in-game for the LF Mk.IXs as they better match its era-accurate performance. I'm not sure about this setup, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.
I don't ever remember subbing the 16 in a scenario for anything. Too many heart attacks :)
As much as I love the 8, if there are going to be two groups of Spits, I'd go with Spit Vs and IXs. Both the RAF and USAAF were using IXs as high cover for Vs at the squadron level.
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 04:30:31 PM
[naming of units]
Swareiam and Ditto, can you guys take lead on determining group naming and incorporating people's suggestions there as you see appropriate?
Quote
I also saw that bunkers and hangars are worth 3 points each. If 9 are destroyed (27 points) before Frame 3, the Allies receive .5 Victory points (please correct me if I am wrong).
The allies receive 0.5 Victory Points if they destroy 25 valid targets (75 points worth) prior to end of Frame 2. I need to write that in the rules in a better way than it's in there currently.
Quote
Lastly, a tie is possible. . . . You could also apply a tiebreaker rule.
Yes. I think having a draw is OK, but depends on people's preferences.
Quote
Overall, it looks pretty good for a preliminary write up. Looking forward to it :salute
Thank you, and <S> to you as well.
Post by: Guppy35 on July 30, 2018, 04:46:55 PM
F Mk.IXs or LF Mk.IXs? Because in this 1943 time slot the LFs were a little more common with the higher boost levels than our 1942-era F Mk.IX. In the past we've often subbed the 8 or the 16 in-game for the LF Mk.IXs as they better match its era-accurate performance. I'm not sure about this setup, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.
Just to clarify on the first VIIIs that the 31st got. I checked the 31st FG History. They were early FVIIIs with Merlin 61s, not LFVIII with the Merlin 66, the same as the AH Spit IX with the Merlin 61.
To me that means stick with the IXs and Vbs as they had both in 43.
Post by: Bruv119 on July 30, 2018, 05:01:06 PM
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 05:06:14 PM
all I know is everything is better with more Spitfires. :D
Post by: perdue3 on July 30, 2018, 05:25:17 PM
I don't ever remember subbing the 16 in a scenario for anything. Too many heart attacks :)
As much as I love the 8, if there are going to be two groups of Spits, I'd go with Spit Vs and IXs. Both the RAF and USAAF were using IXs as high cover for Vs at the squadron level.
They did in an FSO one time.
Post by: BFOOT1 on July 30, 2018, 05:47:33 PM
Post by: perdue3 on July 30, 2018, 05:52:24 PM
Just to clarify on the first VIIIs that the 31st got. I checked the 31st FG History. They were early FVIIIs with Merlin 61s, not LFVIII with the Merlin 66, the same as the AH Spit IX with the Merlin 61.
To me that means stick with the IXs and Vbs as they had both in 43.
Sounds good, I just know that they did have Mk. VIII. If Spit IX is better representation, then do that. In which case, the squad should be named either 307th or 309th.
Post by: perdue3 on July 30, 2018, 07:32:12 PM
Post by: Guppy35 on July 30, 2018, 08:25:48 PM
After much tutoring from Devil505, I think I got my G6 template closer to what he was trying to show me.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6Pant7_zpsgjl5shta.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6Pant7_zpsgjl5shta.jpg.html)
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 08:35:36 PM
Post by: Devil 505 on July 30, 2018, 08:47:35 PM
So, everyone good with that group being changed to Spit 9's?
Yes, change the Spit 8's to 9's please.
Post by: Devil 505 on July 30, 2018, 08:49:24 PM
Just save me tail end charlie in JG53
After much tutoring from Devil505, I think I got my G6 template closer to what he was trying to show me.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6Pant7_zpsgjl5shta.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6Pant7_zpsgjl5shta.jpg.html)
Looking good. :aok
Post by: Larry on July 30, 2018, 09:02:41 PM
Just save me tail end charlie in JG53
After much tutoring from Devil505, I think I got my G6 template closer to what he was trying to show me.
Dan you're a P38G dweeb and you're going to fly a 109? Did the evil luftweenies finally turn you to the dark side?
Post by: Guppy35 on July 30, 2018, 09:27:27 PM
Post by: weiser on July 30, 2018, 09:44:02 PM
I have done research on Pantelleria and both Spit 8 and 9's were there, they were part of the 31FG with the 307,308 and 309 squad. I'm the one who is asking to increase the numbers for the event. My reasoning behind it is that there are a lot of guys that can not participate in all scenario's, but if we can get a lot of guys willing to commit to a couple of Saturday's then we can schedule them in when they can make it, If they show on a unscheduled day than they will be reassigned to another squad. This would mean a little more work for the CO and GL, but anytime we try to increase the numbers the better. Once they experience in an event, than they may be more likely to show when not scheduled just to have fun. We all know that most would rather fly a fighter that they like, that's why I'm suggesting increasing fighters squad's first and get the bug going.
By no means am I trying to make thing's unfair when it comes to the event, just trying to get more people interested, and it may be a good way to start.
Other than that I'm OK with the write up and will go with what the event committee approves.
General Carl"weiser"Spaatz
CO Allies
Post by: Vudu15 on July 30, 2018, 09:49:50 PM
Yes go to Spit9s not 8s
and if I see this right every field on the Island is a valid target? and you have 11 fields for the allies to hit and only 6 for the axis to hit not counting the unmovable fleets.
Post by: SEseph on July 30, 2018, 09:53:45 PM
Post by: Vudu15 on July 30, 2018, 09:56:19 PM
Gentleman,
I have done research on Pantelleria and both Spit 8 and 9's were there, they were part of the 31FG with the 307,308 and 309 squad. I'm the one who is asking to increase the numbers for the event. My reasoning behind it is that there are a lot of guys that can not participate in all scenario's, but if we can get a lot of guys willing to commit to a couple of Saturday's then we can schedule them in when they can make it, If they show on a unscheduled day than they will be reassigned to another squad. This would mean a little more work for the CO and GL, but anytime we try to increase the numbers the better. Once they experience in an event, than they may be more likely to show when not scheduled just to have fun. We all know that most would rather fly a fighter that they like, that's why I'm suggesting increasing fighters squad's first and get the bug going.
By no means am I trying to make thing's unfair when it comes to the event, just trying to get more people interested, and it may be a good way to start.
Other than that I'm OK with the write up and will go with what the event committee approves.
General Carl"weiser"Spaatz
CO Allies
The write up has an in for this P38s and P40s can be added to at will, I don't think on top of everything else having longer range spits is a good idea for the Axis to also contend with in the guise of "bringing more players" which will most likely be another squad of good pilots now in spit 8s than can run the same missions as the other allied a/c with ease.
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 09:56:31 PM
Feel free to say what you suggest. I encourage folks to do that as long as they can make their points in a civil manner. :aok
Post by: weiser on July 30, 2018, 10:06:14 PM
Dimensions:
Span 36 ft. 10 in. length 32 ft. 10 in.; height 12 ft. 8 in.; wing area 242 sq. ft.
Weight:
Normal loaded 7,400 lb.
Performance:
1720 hp Merlin 66 engine; Maximum speed 404 mph @ 21,000 ft, Rate of Climb 4,700/min, Service Ceiling 42,500 ft.
Armament:
"b" wing" 2 20mm cannon, 4 0.303 in. Browning machine guns
Flown by:
307th FS April 6, 43 to March 44
308th FS April 23, 43 to March 44
309th FS April 12, 43 to March 44
Lt Leland Molland's Spitfire Mk VIII: 308th FS
Dimensions:
Span 40 ft. 2 in. length 32 ft. 10 in.; height 12 ft. 8 in.; wing area 248.5 sq. ft.
Weight:
Normal loaded 7,807 lb.
Performance:
1710 hp Merlin 70 engine; Maximum speed 416 mph, Rate of Climb 4,530/min @ SL, Service Ceiling 45,000 ft.
Armament:
"b" wing" 2 20mm cannon, 4 0.303 in. Browning machine guns
Flown by:
308th FS May 43 to March 44
Post by: jeffn on July 30, 2018, 10:09:53 PM
Gentleman,
I have done research on Pantelleria and both Spit 8 and 9's were there, they were part of the 31FG with the 307,308 and 309 squad. I'm the one who is asking to increase the numbers for the event. My reasoning behind it is that there are a lot of guys that can not participate in all scenario's, but if we can get a lot of guys willing to commit to a couple of Saturday's then we can schedule them in when they can make it, If they show on a unscheduled day than they will be reassigned to another squad. This would mean a little more work for the CO and GL, but anytime we try to increase the numbers the better. Once they experience in an event, than they may be more likely to show when not scheduled just to have fun. We all know that most would rather fly a fighter that they like, that's why I'm suggesting increasing fighters squad's first and get the bug going.
By no means am I trying to make thing's unfair when it comes to the event, just trying to get more people interested, and it may be a good way to start.
Other than that I'm OK with the write up and will go with what the event committee approves.
General Carl"weiser"Spaatz
CO Allies
I agree with Weiser on taking measures to attempt to increase the amount of players that participate. Speaking as a player who has "walked on" in the past, i was happy to do what ever was asked. Even tho i am not a good bomber, i would fly one, or a fighter that may not be the hottest bird in the hanger but that's me
Maybe we can wait and see how fast sign up fills up, once open, and go from there if extra fighter squads should be added?
Post by: Guppy35 on July 30, 2018, 10:34:36 PM
Lt Fawcett's Spitfire Mk IX: 309th FS
Dimensions:
Span 36 ft. 10 in. length 32 ft. 10 in.; height 12 ft. 8 in.; wing area 242 sq. ft.
Weight:
Normal loaded 7,400 lb.
Performance:
1720 hp Merlin 66 engine; Maximum speed 404 mph @ 21,000 ft, Rate of Climb 4,700/min, Service Ceiling 42,500 ft.
Armament:
"b" wing" 2 20mm cannon, 4 0.303 in. Browning machine guns
Flown by:
307th FS April 6, 43 to March 44
308th FS April 23, 43 to March 44
309th FS April 12, 43 to March 44
Lt Leland Molland's Spitfire Mk VIII: 308th FS
Dimensions:
Span 40 ft. 2 in. length 32 ft. 10 in.; height 12 ft. 8 in.; wing area 248.5 sq. ft.
Weight:
Normal loaded 7,807 lb.
Performance:
1710 hp Merlin 70 engine; Maximum speed 416 mph, Rate of Climb 4,530/min @ SL, Service Ceiling 45,000 ft.
Armament:
"b" wing" 2 20mm cannon, 4 0.303 in. Browning machine guns
Flown by:
308th FS May 43 to March 44
The ones they were flying in the time frame of the scenario were both using Merlin 61. Both had the Universal wing that was called the C wing on the Spit V but was not designated with a letter on the VIII and IX as it was standard. B wing was the earlier Spit V wing with a smaller cannon load.
Post by: Devil 505 on July 30, 2018, 10:36:05 PM
I agree with Weiser on taking measures to attempt to increase the amount of players that participate. Speaking as a player who has "walked on" in the past, i was happy to do what ever was asked. Even tho i am not a good bomber, i would fly one, or a fighter that may not be the hottest bird in the hanger but that's me
Maybe we can wait and see how fast sign up fills up, once open, and go from there if extra fighter squads should be added?
I agree in principle with being a bit more flexible with walkons. It is not likely that many will want a P-40 or C.202. Even the P-38 is a bit of a niche. As long as there are a reasonable number of P-38's and P-40's, I would have no problem with Allied walkons having SpitV's in addition to the squad of SpitIX's.
Post by: puller on July 30, 2018, 10:43:36 PM
Post by: Vudu15 on July 30, 2018, 10:47:11 PM
Folks have been telling you for years and you've just about run em all off.
The spit debate should have been put to bed 2 weeks ago, fleets on straight lines is just sad, and numerous targets for the allies to split forces and strike at will and then ditch or bail to airspawn and start again. Oh and lose your island so that you can I assume fight an extended engagement from the mainland...yep nothing wrong here. I will of course fly it but I'll be anything but quiet about how twisted this and I would just assume other events will become.
On to the event at hand...
So fleets will be standard layout or will extras be added?
Next for bombers is that "loss" +-1 for each plane in the formation or just +-1 for just the trio?
So for the capture of the island is that 25 points or 25 targets?
Where is the map for when/if the island is lost?
"When Pantelleria is an available target for your side, bomber groups must Attempt at least one Mission to Pantelleria." wouldn't it always be an available target for one side as opposed to at some point it may not be a valid target? asking for a friend.
I'll continue to ask questions as I run into em. thanks in advance.
Post by: Brooke on July 30, 2018, 11:52:19 PM
I'm not sure how well cargo/supply ships were able to maneuver anyway, and that's what we are more intending as the targets here. We don't have merchant fleets to use, though, so our normal TG's are the stand ins.
Post by: Brooke on July 31, 2018, 01:01:25 AM
Civility has gotten us nowhere...
You, Vudu, can post about what you think is bad in a design. You don't need to agree with me or the Scenario Team.
But you need to leave out the insults, abrasiveness, and corrosive attitude. That detrimental disruption has no place here.
If it keeps happening, I will ask for a meeting of the CM team overall to decide what to do, because I've done my best to explain the above two sentences several times already.
Post by: Brooke on July 31, 2018, 01:39:46 AM
numerous targets for the allies to split forces and strike at will
Allies and axis have approximately the same geographical distribution of targets. In both cases, at least two separate concentrations.
Quote
and then ditch or bail to airspawn and start again.
Ditching and bailing will give the enemy points, same as shooting the plane down.
Your comment seems to apply about equally to both sides.
Quote
Oh and lose your island so that you can I assume fight an extended engagement from the mainland...yep nothing wrong here.
The "Setup" section of the writeup explains why the loss of the island is in the event.
Quote
So fleets ...
Answered in an above post.
Quote
Next for bombers is that "loss" +-1 for each plane in the formation or just +-1 for just the trio?
Shoot down a bomber aircraft, get 1 point for your side (so 3 for trio).
Good catch on the loss part as the formula currently would give only 1 point for ditch of a trio instead of 3 points for ditch of trio. I will fix it. Thank you for pointing that out.
Quote
So for the capture of the island is that 25 points or 25 targets?
As mentioned in a previous post, 25 targets (75 points). I do need to write that part in the rules more clearly -- it's not worded well currently.
Quote
Where is the map for when/if the island is lost?
One map covers it all.
Quote
I'll continue to ask questions as I run into em. thanks in advance.
Only a minority of your post is insulting or derisive (no thank you for that part), and the rest of it is civil (thank you for that part :aok ). You can talk about stuff you think is bad in the design while still being civil -- you just did it several times -- and that is totally welcome here. :aok
Post by: asterix on July 31, 2018, 10:03:25 AM
...Sicily has 11 fields, Pantelleria has only 2, A33 and P72, unless I am wrong here. Names on the map or something would not hurt.
and if I see this right every field on the Island is a valid target? and you have 11 fields for the allies to hit and only 6 for the axis to hit not counting the unmovable fleets.
Post by: asterix on July 31, 2018, 10:18:04 AM
Maybe leave out the spread out axis task groups and concentrate on the island (including having some ships around it). Maybe leave out the JU88 as well and give allied more bombers. Have Luftwaffe trying to inflict heavy losses to allied aircraft before they bomb their target, instead of ships. Maybe make it more about the surrender of Pantelleria rather than capture. The combat area seems kind of spread out IMHO.
So basically the last scenario again?Not exactly because there would be a single concentrated target area, it would not be a high altitude fight. I watched the video in the following topic http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,393599.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,393599.0.html) and got the impression that the battle for Pantelleria was about allied forces pounding the island as axis tried to defend their home base with not much help from other islands as communication got disrupted by the bombing. Current setup seems more like nuisance raids or Kuban scenario where both sides trade blows at each other.
Post by: perdue3 on July 31, 2018, 10:47:29 AM
Pantelleria is a problem only because the Axis can't be based there. We have to defend it, yet the Allies are an equal distance from it at T+0. A33 should be a base for at least the C.202's.
Post by: Brooke on July 31, 2018, 05:31:25 PM
Post by: Brooke on July 31, 2018, 05:43:37 PM
One side will have Pantelleria and, at a separate location, a collection of ships.
The other side will have a collection of ships and, at a separate location, another collection of ships.
We liked both sides having two locations much better than both sides having one location.
Post by: BFOOT1 on July 31, 2018, 05:44:25 PM
Just save me tail end charlie in JG53
After much tutoring from Devil505, I think I got my G6 template closer to what he was trying to show me.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6Pant7_zpsgjl5shta.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6Pant7_zpsgjl5shta.jpg.html)
Does this mean I get a 190 profile :)
Post by: Brooke on July 31, 2018, 06:27:48 PM
A33 should be a base for at least the C.202's.
In the real battle, the axis didn't launch anything of significance from Pantelleria. It was allies launching from North Africa and axis launching from Sicily (and to a lesser extent Sardinia, Corsica, and Italy), so that's how we have it here.
If history were that the axis was hanging out over Pantelleria, waiting for for the allied attack to show up (which wasn't how it went), it should be all the axis fighters based at Pantelleria in order to replicate that.
Also, regardless of any of the above, C.202's alone against a bomber assault would be an ineffective suicide mission and would suck for c.2 pilots.
Still, defending fighters can get to Pantelleria before attacking bombers. It's just that both side's fighters can get to Pantelleria at the same time, just like if in reality they launched from North Africa and Sicily at first light and both headed to Pantelleria.
Post by: Devil 505 on July 31, 2018, 06:40:49 PM
If history were that the axis was hanging out over Pantelleria, waiting for for the allied attack to show up (which wasn't how it went), it should be all the axis fighters based at Pantelleria in order to replicate that.
As long as the Allies cannot launch planes from the island if they capture it, I have no problem with not basing any Axis planes there when they hold it.
Post by: perdue3 on July 31, 2018, 06:45:33 PM
As long as the Allies cannot launch planes from the island if they capture it, I have no problem with not basing any Axis planes there when they hold it.
Agreed. The Allies should not be able to make use of the airfield if we cannot.
Post by: Brooke on July 31, 2018, 08:02:17 PM
As long as the Allies cannot launch planes from the island if they capture it
Absolutely.
It's the same for both sides.
No squadrons are based there, and so there is no launching of fresh planes from there.
If your side owns it, you can land and refuel there (if you are gutsy enough to risk it). That's it.
Post by: Guppy35 on July 31, 2018, 08:07:56 PM
Does this mean I get a 190 profile :)
I only have an A8 profile. No A5 :)
Post by: Brooke on July 31, 2018, 09:23:50 PM
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSxtStrZ1SSalXUh263OajXVVeE1AIhQY1DJDAXI4MIRAYj1oFPYZjwIWfPz4FoErqQ0KBLbQrvoMT9/pub
Changes:
-- Fixed Frame Score formula so that ditched/bailed/etc. bomber formation is 3 points, not 1.
-- Made wording of Timely Capture and Inflicting Heavy Losses more clear.
-- Added notation under map pointing out what Pantelleria is.
-- Reworded things to make more clear where fresh planes are available and that you can land and refuel at Pantelleria if your side owns it (but no fresh planes from Pantelleria).
Post by: Vudu15 on July 31, 2018, 09:45:27 PM
Pantelleria is the little island in the middle, with a33 and p72. Sicilian airfields (a26, a28, etc.) and North African air fields (a3, a54, etc.) were not targets in the battle.
I'm a goon and thought Sicily was Pantelleria....so the allies cant attack the fields on Sicily until they take Pantelleria? Am I reading that correctly?
Also I see the Spit 8s still on the board, while some units may have had them I think they add an unfair advantage to the allies in terms of added range +-30mins at full power and increased performance at all alts with WEP. While we are kinda tagged with having wonderful planes with beanbag guns (202s)
Post by: Devil 505 on July 31, 2018, 09:52:58 PM
I'm a goon and thought Sicily was Pantelleria....so the allies cant attack the fields on Sicily until they take Pantelleria? Am I reading that correctly?
The bases in Tunisia or on Sicily are not targets. Just the base on Pantelleria and ships.
Post by: Vudu15 on July 31, 2018, 09:53:54 PM
The bases in Tunisia or on Sicily are not targets. Just the base on Pantelleria and ships.
danke
Post by: Guppy35 on August 01, 2018, 12:09:11 AM
I'm a goon and thought Sicily was Pantelleria....so the allies cant attack the fields on Sicily until they take Pantelleria? Am I reading that correctly?
Also I see the Spit 8s still on the board, while some units may have had them I think they add an unfair advantage to the allies in terms of added range +-30mins at full power and increased performance at all alts with WEP. While we are kinda tagged with having wonderful planes with beanbag guns (202s)
Only 6 Spits. Not that much of a difference
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 12:21:26 AM
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 12:35:57 AM
109's are a little faster than, turn better than, and climb better than P-38G's. They are also easier to fly in scenarios because of the P-38's compressibility.
Should we increase the number of P-38's slightly to account for 109's being a little better, such as adding a few P-38's to the allied side, or adding a couple of Spitfires?
Guppy, Oboe, BFOOT, 1ijac, you guys flew P-38G's in Tunisia against 109G's. What do you think of the matchup?
Post by: bgoldy on August 01, 2018, 01:11:49 AM
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 01:40:00 AM
Post by: KCDitto on August 01, 2018, 07:51:08 AM
Really vudu? Bruv only flew in two of the frames... the most pilots we had at once were the two frames he flew in which was 5 for the first frame, two of which were gone in the first hour. Our strongest force was the second frame... so you using the temps doesn’t really prove you’re point. Or bruv either. No offense bruv.
I think he is referring to Dnieper where over 4 frames Bruv had like 5 thousand kills and broke up every massed attack the Luftwaffe tried to organize.
Post by: swareiam on August 01, 2018, 08:20:36 AM
I think he is referring to Dnieper where over 4 frames Bruv had like 5 thousand kills and broke up every massed attack the Luftwaffe tried to organize.
Nope that was frame 3 of "Hinterland" where two tempest corralled the entire Luftwaffe force for a full 20 minutes.
Two Tempest managed 18 kills with no reasonable response.
Well played Bruv and Thrilla. :aok
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 09:59:27 AM
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Post by: BFOOT1 on August 01, 2018, 11:03:45 AM
Post by: puller on August 01, 2018, 11:04:24 AM
Post by: swareiam on August 01, 2018, 12:33:43 PM
Challenge your teams to make an ordinary aircraft a winner on the battlefield.
Cheers...
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 12:58:39 PM
A word of caution to both sides leadership concerning how they speak about their available aircraft. The basic setup is established. Your recruiting to fill seats when your aircraft have derogatory language behind their names will not help when it comes to getting buts in seats.LOL im sure small italian children are told stories of how thier ancesters ejoyed flying 109s over 202s. Back to average folks they either dont fly 202s or know they are junk....now the 202 is an amazing aircraft to fly light on the controls doesnt like to snap roll can stall and flap with some practice acceleration is good dive speed is good has nice range.....but the guns oh my goodness the guns. I set my convergence around 150-200 and it'll take a 1/3 to 1/2 your ammo load to bring down regular aircraft unless you get pilot hits or other critical hits that will slow or stop the aircraft so that you can deliver precision hits to bring em down. So thanks but I think if we have to fly em we can talk bad about em if we want. Bad guys ;) know theyre bad and so do we.
Challenge your teams to make an ordinary aircraft a winner on the battlefield.
Cheers...
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Post by: TWCAxew on August 01, 2018, 01:10:29 PM
Perhaps we can trade out the c202 with the 205s they should easier to fill aswell. And than trade out 1 set of p38's for the spit 9 or a 5 (whichever is a better balance). When registration is full we could add more 202s and p38's. Any thoughts?
DutchVII
Post by: Larry on August 01, 2018, 01:24:45 PM
The existence of such and what is needed for balance (Spit 9's over 8's) might be two separate issues; at least in this instance it is. I have a large problem with the write-up in general. BUT, I'm not going to poke holes. I'll fight it as written and even though unwinnable, I'll fight to win.
The 400-mph Macchi C.205V Veltro fighter made its combat debut when fifteen machines escorted a force of Italian Regia Aeronautica torpedo-bombers tasked to attack Allied warships bombarding the island of Pantelleria southwest of Sicily, Italy.
https://ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?aircraft_model_id=72
Post by: Spikes on August 01, 2018, 01:34:03 PM
I just wonder if there where any 205 sqaudrons around at that time? Or did they see serves on a later date? Those are some great airplanes and it would be fun to show them off in a scenario aswell since we don't see them to often, especially in a scenario where they shine.Yes there were. 205's would be fun.
Perhaps we can trade out the c202 with the 205s they should easier to fill aswell. And than trade out 1 set of p38's for the spit 9 or a 5 (whichever is a better balance). When registration is full we could add more 202s and p38's. Any thoughts?
DutchVII
Post by: swareiam on August 01, 2018, 01:50:56 PM
LOL im sure small italian children are told stories of how thier ancesters ejoyed flying 109s over 202s. Back to average folks they either dont fly 202s or know they are junk....now the 202 is an amazing aircraft to fly light on the controls doesnt like to snap roll can stall and flap with some practice acceleration is good dive speed is good has nice range.....but the guns oh my goodness the guns. I set my convergence around 150-200 and it'll take a 1/3 to 1/2 your ammo load to bring down regular aircraft unless you get pilot hits or other critical hits that will slow or stop the aircraft so that you can deliver precision hits to bring em down. So thanks but I think if we have to fly em we can talk bad about em if we want. Bad guys ;) know theyre bad and so do we.
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
I really think the thing that is missing from this discussion is this.
Scenario is a CHALLENGE.
Scenarios are not written to hand either side a victory, regardless of what has transpired in past events. Each CO will need to deal with several Challenges, Issues, Deficiencies and Risk within the event. The areas of concern are different for each side. The design is as close to history as it needs to be and has a serious stab/attempt at the best balance.
Remember with the advent of military aviation technology in history, balance is a sine wave with multiple phases. I don't think that line is ever going to be flat. I don't think that line is going to be flat in scenario design either. We truly do attempt to make the best events that we can.
Scenario is meant to be fun, because we all love to fly them. It is suppose to be a serious challenge for the COs, command staffs, and GLs to execute. I think we should stop trying to overly equalize the event knowing that it is pretty close and plan for the challenges that are presented in the write up.
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 02:00:37 PM
I really think the thing that is missing from this discussion is this.
Scenario is a CHALLENGE.
Scenarios are not written to hand either side a victory, regardless of what has transpired in past events. Each CO will need to deal with several Challenges, Issues, Deficiencies and Risk within the event. The areas of concern are different for each side. The design is as close to history as it needs to be and has a serious stab/attempt at the best balance.
Remember with the advent of military aviation technology in history, balance is a sine wave with multiple phases. I don't think that line is ever going to be flat. I don't think that line is going to be flat in scenario design either. We truly do attempt to make the best events that we can.
Scenario is meant to be fun, because we all love to fly them. It is suppose to be a serious challenge for the COs, command staffs, and GLs to execute. I think we should stop trying to overly equalize the event knowing that it is pretty close and plan for the challenges that are presented in the write up.
Good I'm glad you see that so it'll be spit 9s for the allies right?
Oh and of course you would say that flying for the allies, and It's my job to make sure that it is more equal...see you think it's ready and I flying against you dont think it is. I think that's called bias if I recall. If such a thing could be done by the CM team.
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 02:07:42 PM
Anyway, the topic we were discussing was: should the allies have a couple more planes or not?
BFOOT gave an opinion. Would still like to hear from Guppy, oboe, etc. if they can.
Post by: perdue3 on August 01, 2018, 02:12:50 PM
Good I'm glad you see that so it'll be spit 9s for the allies right?
He will likely be in a P-40.
There were a very small number of C.205's available for Pantelleria. Keep in mind, they were brand new and just in time for Corkscrew. It doesn't matter to me if we have C.205's. What is important, as Brooke mentioned, is the balance of fighters. Because we have C.202's, the worst Allied aircraft is better. Let us assume that that is the P-40. Then we have G-6's against 38G and G-2 against 38G. This is fairly even, although the 109 is slightly better overall. But, if 38 sticks actually fly them and 109 sticks fly 109's, it will be even. Finally, Spitfire versus 190, 190 wins. Not a 1v1 necessarily, but a 190 will dominate whatever fight it is in if it has alt. Fighter versus fighter seems balanced to me. If anything, a slight edge to the Luftwaffe, but not enough of one to justify adding Allied fighters.
Post by: SEseph on August 01, 2018, 02:15:46 PM
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 02:19:40 PM
Needs to be Mk 9s at 6 a/c and no additions to the squad sizes during registration.
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 02:20:47 PM
"During May and June 1943, after being re-equipped with Mk VIII and Mk IX Spitfires, it escorted naval convoys in the Mediterranean and bombers on raids to Pantelleria."
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
The issue of adding extras to the registration doesn't make sense
We are talking about side balance, not how we handle overfull condition. You have to determine side balance.
For example, you can have a design that says one side gets 10 fighters and the other side gets 10 fighters. If you are overfull, you assign walkons 1:1 to each side.
Or you can have a design that says one side gets 12 fighters and the other gets 10 fighters. If you are overfull, you assign walkons 1.2:1.
Post by: SEseph on August 01, 2018, 02:25:37 PM
There are conflicting references on when the 31st got what. For example:
"During May and June 1943, after being re-equipped with Mk VIII and Mk IX Spitfires, it escorted naval convoys in the Mediterranean and bombers on raids to Pantelleria."
The issue of adding extras to the registration doesn't make sense as you've added the ability to add walkons to the 38s or 40s for the allies and 109s or 202s for the axis.
Needs to be Mk 9s at 6 a/c and no additions to the squad sizes during registration.
The success of the Mk IX reduced the importance of the Mk VIII. Although the first production model was completed in November 1942, it took until June 1943 for the first squadron to be equipped with the model. One reason for the delay was that it had been decided to use the Mk VIII in the Mediterranean and Far East, and so the first squadron to use it was No. 145, based on Malta. By the summer of 1943 the crisis in the Mediterranean was in the past, and the Mk VIII saw most of its service during the invasion of Italy, often in a ground attack role.
Easy, since there are conflicting accounts, go with the safe choice. We KNOW the 9's were there. We KNOW the 8 NEVER fully replaced the 9 in Europe. We also know they had predominantly 5's. So the 6 Spit 9's will do.
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 02:30:51 PM
So no I don't think the allies should get 2 more of anything at this time.
Post by: SEseph on August 01, 2018, 02:37:52 PM
Service debut of the C205s came in February 1943, when four examples joined the C.202’s of the 1 Stormo of the Regia Aeronautica at Sicily and Pantelleria, and by end of the March the number had risen to 21.
The aircraft had its first combat mission on April 7 over Tunisia, when fighters from Pantelleria escorted naval and aerial convoys plying between Italy and North Africa. On that day, they encountered superior numbers of Spitfire V and Curtiss P-40 fighters, obtaining significant results. In fact, by April 19, they had claimed 18 Allied aircraft destroyed.
During the Allied invasion of Sicily the 51 Stormo, one of the elite fighter units of the RA, was heavily involved in defending Sardinia, bagging ten P-40s for the loss of three C.205 by the end of July.
I can give numbers and combat records of the 205's. I feel this is a better case for them replacing the 202's than the argument for adding Spit 8's.
Just saying...
Post by: swareiam on August 01, 2018, 02:50:43 PM
Good I'm glad you see that so it'll be spit 9s for the allies right?
Oh and of course you would say that flying for the allies, and It's my job to make sure that it is more equal...see you think it's ready and I flying against you dont think it is. I think that's called bias if I recall. If such a thing could be done by the CM team.
Dweeb is correct and I completely agree with his fighter to fighter balance analysis.
Quote
There were a very small number of C.205's available for Pantelleria. Keep in mind, they were brand new and just in time for Corkscrew. It doesn't matter to me if we have C.205's. What is important, as Brooke mentioned, is the balance of fighters. Because we have C.202's, the worst Allied aircraft is better. Let us assume that that is the P-40. Then we have G-6's against 38G and G-2 against 38G. This is fairly even, although the 109 is slightly better overall. But, if 38 sticks actually fly them and 109 sticks fly 109's, it will be even. Finally, Spitfire versus 190, 190 wins. Not a 1v1 necessarily, but a 190 will dominate whatever fight it is in if it has alt. Fighter versus fighter seems balanced to me. If anything, a slight edge to the Luftwaffe, but not enough of one to justify adding Allied fighters.
He is correct again in stating that I will be in a P-40.
Look, CMs are not the enemy here. We are players just like everybody else and we really want these events to thrive. So that not only you can have fun, but we can have fun as well.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/P40FRedTailTest1_zpsijzufqhs.jpg)
How many iron crosses do you see on this aircraft?
Well then I can tell you from my own personal perspective that I have fun flying this "Least of All" airplane in scenarios. It challenges me to be my best and out fly and out think my foes and when I can no longer do that, I die.
To me, 12 kill marks says it all. So let's get down to some agreement and get on with some registration, shall we?
Post by: perdue3 on August 01, 2018, 02:55:20 PM
Would the Spit VIII or Spit IX be better for the event? In my opinion, considering all of the information given and the balance of the event, six Spit IX's is the correct decision.
Post by: SEseph on August 01, 2018, 03:25:04 PM
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/uncle-sams-spitfires.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_mkVIII.html
https://ww2-weapons.com/macchi-c-205v-veltro/
Agree Spit IX.
Still think 205's should be added.
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 03:26:25 PM
Post by: TWCAxew on August 01, 2018, 03:40:19 PM
Fair enough. If I'm willing to post it, I should allow it to be examined.
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/uncle-sams-spitfires.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_mkVIII.html
https://ww2-weapons.com/macchi-c-205v-veltro/
Agree Spit IX.
Still think 205's should be added.
Since I am the one who suggested the 205s, I got a bit concerned about balance. I have been comparing the axis planes with the allied planes. And I got to to the conclusion all allied planes are outclassed by the axis planes if we would drop the c202s and replace them with the 205's. In order to balance this one of the P38 sqauds should be replaced by either a spit 9 or 8 Squad. The 190a5 and the 205 are still better than the spits and the 109g2s are pretty close. The 109g2 outclasses the P38G according to what I get back from the stat page (the page might be bugged for me) http://www.hitechcreations.com/component/ahplaneperf/?Itemid=139
Edit: it seems like the g2 is also better than a spit 8 and spit 9 according to the charts.
DutchVII
Post by: Guppy35 on August 01, 2018, 03:42:10 PM
I hate to be THAT guy, but the historian in me would really like to see sources along with claims and quotes. I am guilty of this as well, but now there are many people claiming different things. This way we can see each source that creates the conflict and judge it from a historiographic stand point. Otherwise, we are all just throwing information around and getting no where. We can also avoid this source conflict by looking at it from a different angle:
Would the Spit VIII or Spit IX be better for the event? In my opinion, considering all of the information given and the balance of the event, six Spit IX's is the correct decision.
If we are trying to adhere to the history, then I would agree that the Merlin 61 engined Spit IX in AH is more accurate for the time frame than the Merlin 66 Spit VIII.
Maybe if the VIII are to stay than the 202s go away and 205s or more 109G6s are added?
Post by: SEseph on August 01, 2018, 03:43:14 PM
Look, CMs are not the enemy here. We are players just like everybody else and we really want these events to thrive. So that not only you can have fun, but we can have fun as well.Not the enemy, but the adversary for sure. The issue I see, and have had myself, is the CM team all flying in an event. It's not that we don't want you to enjoy the event, it's that we don't want to feel as though when we bring up issues we see, that the CM assigned to the other side, or the designer, who then shoots down the idea (good or not, makes little difference) many would feel as though you are biased. Maybe have certain members build this event and referee, and the others can fly, then next event, you all switch places. But the issue at hand, the same one I had long ago, Redtail, is it feels like sometimes there is a certain amount of bias (like it or not)
Quote
To me, 12 kill marks says it all. So let's get down to some agreement and get on with some registration, shall we?
12 kills means little other than you got 12 kills.
I have 15 kills in one scenario; does that make me suddenly better? (Yes, I did, Ask any PoTW, I'll see if I can dig it up[ in the logs)
***EDIT I lied, it was 13
Top Pilots: Kills
SEseph (80th FS "Headhunters"): 13
Post by: perdue3 on August 01, 2018, 04:35:00 PM
Fair enough. If I'm willing to post it, I should allow it to be examined.
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/uncle-sams-spitfires.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_mkVIII.html
https://ww2-weapons.com/macchi-c-205v-veltro/
Agree Spit IX.
Still think 205's should be added.
These are all tertiary sources that do not cite primary sources. Hard to place much credibility on them, sadly.
Post by: Devil 505 on August 01, 2018, 05:14:10 PM
The Spit9 compares very favorably to the 190. No clear advantage for either side here.
The 109G is better than the P-38 in most respects. It's a close matchup, but the advantage here is with the Axis.
The P-40F is a good matchup for the C.202. The 202 has a slight speed advantage and is much superior in terms of climb/acceleration and turning. The P-40 is better in the dive and has a huge advantage in firepower.
The P-40F may seem worse, but is more useful. It's utility helps to close the gap between the 109 and P-38.
The C.205 completely dominates the P-40 in terms of speed and climb, while still being better in the turn. The 20mm cannons remove the one true advantage the P-40.
Post by: SEseph on August 01, 2018, 05:25:14 PM
These are all tertiary sources that do not cite primary sources. Hard to place much credibility on them, sadly.
https://ospreypublishing.com/peter-antill
He is the author of one. I checked his credentials and what not. I always do. It's how to write a good paper. Just the face of it is irrelevant. Gotta dig.
Martin Waligorski
He is a contributor to many historical journals and magazines, as well as the awards his site (the one I referenced). So third party, maybe, but not from any John Doe, these are credentialed men in the field.
This is like telling James McPherson when his gives you a fact about the US War of Rebellion that he has to source his facts or you don't believe him...
Post by: KCDitto on August 01, 2018, 05:28:00 PM
8f longer range is the only issue, to me that is a non issue.
Post by: swareiam on August 01, 2018, 05:32:56 PM
Wrhwk I was never worried about what plane you were flying, it wouldn't much matter what you flew to me. The added range on the Mk8s is what I have the biggest issue with.
Vudu,
To be honest, what it is going to come down to is the pilot sitting in the seat of what aircraft.
In Tunisia, on one particular mission, I got into a twist with Trogdor in my P-40F. During the merge I had the upper hand on him. But because of his recovery from my mistake and knowledge of his aircraft, he bested me and did a really great job at killing me. My hats off to Trogdor. :aok
There were at least six of twelve other "fighter Kills" that I didn't screw up. :lol
Let's stop worrying so much about the small and minute advantages of one aircraft over another and starting looking at who's going to be sitting in these seats.
The man in the seat is the real story, not so much what's under the cowling.
or more poignantly;
"The man makes the suit, the suit doesn't make the man."
Post by: KCDitto on August 01, 2018, 05:38:32 PM
Remember, we have air spawns...... full bag at a fuel setting at 1 at 25k will last the entire frame. Minus combat time of course.
I just don't see the big deal, let them fight with 70 min fuel load as far as I am concerned.
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 05:40:16 PM
Vudu,Glossed over where you and a wingman lost to me on the deck I was in a 110. You angered and I killed your wingman. You did get ROC though so I guess thats like half a kill.
To be honest, what it is going to come down to is the pilot sitting in the seat of what aircraft.
In Tunisia, on one particular mission, I got into a twist with Trogdor in my P-40F. During the merge I had the upper hand on him. But because of his recovery from my mistake and knowledge of his aircraft, he bested me and did a really great job at killing me. My hats off to Trogdor. :aok
There were at least six of twelve other "fighter Kills" that I didn't screw up.
Let's stop worrying so much about the small and minute advantages of one aircraft over another and starting looking at who's going to be sitting in these seats.
The man in the seat is the real story, not so much what's under the cowling.
or more poignantly;
"The man makes the suit, the suit doesn't make the man."
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Post by: Devil 505 on August 01, 2018, 05:48:34 PM
So Devil, you also vote for the Spit 9 over the 8?
8f longer range is the only issue, to me that is a non issue.
Yes.
The Spit8 also has advantages in greater speed and climb/acceleration. I feel that these attributes tip the balance too much over the 190.
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 06:04:50 PM
We change allies from Spit 8's to Spit 9's. We give the allies 2 more Spits.
This accounts for Spit 8 being faster on WEP, turning better, climbing better, and having 20 minutes more time aloft compared to Spit 9, and for 109G's being slightly better than P-38G's.
JeffN, Weiser, Swareiam, and Ditto -- what say you?
If you don't like that, how about 4 more Spits?
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 06:13:38 PM
If axis wants C.205's, it would require removing some 109G's and replacing them with C.205's. I'm not sure I'm in favor of that, but I guess I'm not completely against it -- haven't thought a lot about it.
Post by: Devil 505 on August 01, 2018, 06:19:34 PM
OK, with all that under consideration, here's what I propose.
We change allies from Spit 8's to Spit 9's. We give the allies 2 more Spits.
This accounts for Spit 8 being faster on WEP, turning better, climbing better, and having 20 minutes more time aloft compared to Spit 9, and for 109G's being slightly better than P-38G's.
JeffN, Weiser, Swareiam, and Ditto -- what say you?
If you don't like that, how about 4 more Spits?
Is there a typo in here?
The solution adding 4 spits because there is opposition to adding 2 makes no sense.
Needs clarification.
Post by: swareiam on August 01, 2018, 06:34:37 PM
12 kills means little other than you got 12 kills.
I have 15 kills in one scenario; does that make me suddenly better? (Yes, I did, Ask any PoTW, I'll see if I can dig it up[ in the logs)
***EDIT I lied, it was 13
Top Pilots: Kills
SEseph (80th FS "Headhunters"): 13
Nah, you missed the point. The point was that I took the inferior aircraft from the start, didn't complain or grip and had a really great time in the event [period]... That was the only point. :aok
I will continue to support that point as well. My hat is off to those that feel challenged in the "Least of all" aircraft. i.e. 109G-6, 202s, P-40Fs and in minor cases the P-38G.
So, If you are looking for immersion, challenge and fun that is what we hope you will find in this event. We are not always perfect or even close, but the three of us work well together and give it that old college try. We are not writing these events and then posting them for everyone to get their opportunity to change what was written. The basic foundation of the event is written and by the time the community sees it, we are just looking for tweeks. That is really it...
I urge you all to take on this challenge on as it is written with minor tweeks. You many not like somethings that you see, but I guarantee you that if you approach this event with the right attitude, it will be more fun than you can possibly image.
So prepare to plan, think and fight your way through and have a really great time doing it.
Hey it is a challenge. So go forth and be challenged.
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 06:37:57 PM
Needs clarification.
Some folks might think adding only 2 isn't enough.
Post by: swareiam on August 01, 2018, 06:40:59 PM
OK, with all that under consideration, here's what I propose.
We change allies from Spit 8's to Spit 9's. We give the allies 2 more Spits.
This accounts for Spit 8 being faster on WEP, turning better, climbing better, and having 20 minutes more time aloft compared to Spit 9, and for 109G's being slightly better than P-38G's.
JeffN, Weiser, Swareiam, and Ditto -- what say you?
If you don't like that, how about 4 more Spits?
Yep, let's go ahead and make that change.
Post by: Devil 505 on August 01, 2018, 06:43:56 PM
Some folks might think adding only 2 isn't enough.
Some folks might think adding 2 is too much.
Post by: swareiam on August 01, 2018, 06:54:26 PM
The freakin war would still be going waiting for those two to finish their arguments and get the "Just Right" planeset. :headscratch:
The 12th Air Force would still be sitting in Tunisia with F-35s, B1s and B2s fueled up, loaded up and fired up ready to launch.
Post by: Guppy35 on August 01, 2018, 07:13:53 PM
Post by: swareiam on August 01, 2018, 07:20:31 PM
Leave the 8s and lets just get ready to fly the thing :)
What he said...
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 07:45:14 PM
Spit 8's are changed to Spit 9's, and two Spits are added to the group.
(I'm working to get things closer, not working to oscillate between two positions that are not converging.)
Post by: APDrone on August 01, 2018, 07:53:41 PM
Re: B25c
For your consideration.
Any axis opponent equipped with a craft with better performance than a D3A is a gross mismatch vs our capabilities and be scratched from the Order of Battle.
So there.
:old:
:bolt:
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 08:01:29 PM
Post by: puller on August 01, 2018, 08:34:17 PM
I don't think adding the C.205 will help anything related to balance.
The Spit9 compares very favorably to the 190. No clear advantage for either side here.
The 109G is better than the P-38 in most respects. It's a close matchup, but the advantage here is with the Axis.
The P-40F is a good matchup for the C.202. The 202 has a slight speed advantage and is much superior in terms of climb/acceleration and turning. The P-40 is better in the dive and has a huge advantage in firepower.
The P-40F may seem worse, but is more useful. It's utility helps to close the gap between the 109 and P-38.
The C.205 completely dominates the P-40 in terms of speed and climb, while still being better in the turn. The 20mm cannons remove the one true advantage the P-40.
We had 2 Malta scenarios in a row where we had the 205 squad...Right???
If it wasn't it felt like it :noid
Post by: Devil 505 on August 01, 2018, 08:49:10 PM
We had 2 Malta scenarios in a row where we had the 205 squad...Right???
If it wasn't it felt like it :noid
No, the raids on Malta were over before the 205 was introduced.
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 08:49:37 PM
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
P.S. forget the 205 talk.
Post by: jeffn on August 01, 2018, 08:50:47 PM
To reiterate, Swareiam, Ditto, JeffN, and Weiser, can you get on board with this:
Spit 8's are changed to Spit 9's, and two Spits are added to the group.
(I'm working to get things closer, not working to oscillate between two positions that are not converging.)
Yes sir, I accept the challenge.
Further comment: There has been a lot of great discussion in this thread, although some has been combative, it shows the care and passion the player base involved has for these events. I am fine with the plane set as is, including the two extra spits.
I am really looking forward to working with and against such knowledgeable players.
Lets get to sign up, forums and setting up our perspective strategies.
Post by: Brooke on August 01, 2018, 08:53:12 PM
We had 2 Malta scenarios in a row where we had the 205 squad...Right???
I don't think so. MM (in 2013) was C.202's. Southern Conquest (in 2016) Malta frame was C.202's, Torch frame was C.202's. Maybe you are thinking of Southern Conquest Husky frame, which had C.202's and C.205's. But Husky is invasion of Sicily (after Pantelleria).
Post by: KCDitto on August 01, 2018, 08:54:58 PM
Yes sir, I accept the challenge.
Further comment: There has been a lot of great discussion in this thread, although some has been combative, it shows the care and passion the player base involved has for these events. I am fine with the plane set as is, including the two extra spits.
I am really looking forward to working with and against such knowledgeable players.
Lets get to sign up, forums and setting up our perspective strategies.
AXIS CO has spoken, so let roll with it.
Post by: Vudu15 on August 01, 2018, 09:08:08 PM
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Post by: puller on August 01, 2018, 10:15:50 PM
No, the raids on Malta were over before the 205 was introduced.
No...That Dnieper scenario and another one...I though you and I had the C205 squad during them...
Post by: SEseph on August 01, 2018, 10:43:43 PM
AXIS CO has spoken, so let roll with it.
AH, so the enforcer comes out to demand 'Yes Men!'
I'm going to fight for the ideas I feel valid and I'd expect no less from anyone else, even a side CO. If they want a Yes Man, they need to state that before they go. If they want argument because it forces consideration of counter points and forces one to come up with reasonable ideas to counter it and there by allowing a better plan, then they need to accept they won't have Yes Men.
This discussion has changed several things so far and the way I see it, the Axis CO has given in for no clear reason or gain and this was SUPPOSE to be settled before it was posted.
Just saying...
Post by: perdue3 on August 01, 2018, 11:17:04 PM
https://ospreypublishing.com/peter-antill
He is the author of one. I checked his credentials and what not. I always do. It's how to write a good paper. Just the face of it is irrelevant. Gotta dig.
Martin Waligorski
He is a contributor to many historical journals and magazines, as well as the awards his site (the one I referenced). So third party, maybe, but not from any John Doe, these are credentialed men in the field.
This is like telling James McPherson when his gives you a fact about the US War of Rebellion that he has to source his facts or you don't believe him...
McPherson is a popular historian. He, and others like him, should be the ones whose sources are critiqued most heavily. Just because I want to, David McCullough sucks too! Just because he was the head of the AHA doesn't make him an incredible student of history. This is quite off topic, but this is also venturing down my street lol. I am not a popular historian nor do I believe that they deserve Pulitzer Prizes. But, subjectivity aside, this is why I said what I did.
WW2 Weapons site. I looked for an authorship citation, I did not find one. So I checked front page and found this: "All information, data and statistics used in the Web WW2 Weapons had been compiled from a variety of sources and the large, over decades collected, library of the author about military history, WW2 and weapons. Because of those many, unfortunately the additional effort to specify each individual references is too hugh. But this are the savest and most reliable information, which are also constantly updated and improved to the best of knowledge and belief." This disclaimer is alarming to say the least in terms of scholarship.
I can't really fault you for historyofwar.org, it is a great place to start any form of research. However, it is tertiary (sometimes not even scholarly) and only provides a basic foundation of knowledge; not unlike Wikipedia for middle school students.
I have read some of Waligorski's stuff on plastic model sites, history forums, etc. While his works are indeed tertiary on the Spitfire site, I give him more credibility than the other two. It would have been nice if he had cited some sources himself, but oh well. He does use a primary source, but not to prove anything useful in this debate about Spit IX and Spit VIII.
This was fun, I am sorry if I ruffled any feathers. That certainly was not the objective.
I really see no need in adding two Spitfires. We have C.202's and Ju 88's compared to B-26's/B-25's and P-40F's. There is no large advantage for the Axis that justifies adding 2 more of arguably the best plane in the setup. I will also add that if 6 Spit VIII's or 8 Spit IX's was an option, I would have chosen 6 Spit VIII's. The difference in performance and the advantage is negligible, until you add 2 more.
Cheers, :salute
Post by: KCDitto on August 01, 2018, 11:31:13 PM
AH, so the enforcer comes out to demand 'Yes Men!' WHAT? He agreed to the plane set. NEXT!
I'm going to fight for the ideas I feel valid and I'd expect no less from anyone else, even a side CO. If they want a Yes Man, they need to state that before they go. If they want argument because it forces consideration of counter points and forces one to come up with reasonable ideas to counter it and there by allowing a better plan, then they need to accept they won't have Yes Men. again WHAT? was there something else? Instead of accusations why don't you bring on the next point?
This discussion has changed several things so far and the way I see it, the Axis CO has given in for no clear reason or gain and this was SUPPOSE to be settled before it was posted. WHAT? Plane set was discussed ad nauseam NEXT
Just saying...
Post by: SEseph on August 01, 2018, 11:35:45 PM
You were right to request sources and for this very reason. It allows us to determine the credibility. No feathers ruffled at all!
This was fun, I am sorry if I ruffled any feathers. That certainly was not the objective.
Quote
I really see no need in adding two Spitfires. We have C.202's and Ju 88's compared to B-26's/B-25's and P-40F's. There is no large advantage for the Axis that justifies adding 2 more of arguably the best plane in the setup. I will also add that if 6 Spit VIII's or 8 Spit IX's was an option, I would have chosen 6 Spit VIII's. The difference in performance and the advantage is negligible, until you add 2 more.
Cheers, :salute
I wish they would listen to this.
***EDIT*** The Spit 8's have an extra 20-30 minutes of fuel. In this event, that can make a world of difference as well.
Post by: SEseph on August 01, 2018, 11:46:25 PM
He agreed to the initial plane set too, if you've forgotten so quickly.
My point is that it needs to be left alone, or give us 205s if you want 2 extra Spits. He is wrong not to demand something in return since he ALREADY AGREED the first time around, AS DID THE ALLIED CO. (Do you want it in red?)
And after that naseum we've changed it after 10 pages with no reasonable deal made. It's a bad deal. I'm publicly agreeing with Perdweeb. How much more evidence do you need that this is a bad idea to add 2 more spits?
Post by: Devil 505 on August 01, 2018, 11:56:08 PM
It's this kind of dictatorship that motivated me to sit out the last one - really starting to reconsider my desire to participate in this one.
Post by: TWCAxew on August 02, 2018, 12:11:26 AM
The extra spits where to compansate that we allied will be flying slower spitfires than would be fair and the lack of feul the spit 9s would hold. Overall the axis planes are better with the exception for the c202.
I as allied XO have suggested to give the axis C205s. This was decided to be unfair and in historically. It's really give and take. I am not sure why you are attacking JeffN, other than a reason to disagree. The planes seem to be balanced somewhat this way with still dominant axis planes.
DutchVII
Post by: TWCAxew on August 02, 2018, 12:18:50 AM
What I do not like is that the change was made to the Spit8 in the initial writeup without discussion. The majority of posters on this thread agreed that the Spit9 was the better choice - without the stipulation that there should be more of them. And then Brooke comes in and gives a ballocks choice of 8 Spit 9's or 6 spit 8's.
It's this kind of dictatorship that motivated me to sit out the last one - really starting to reconsider my desire to participate in this one.
I think it's more a suggestion than anything else. Nothing is set in stone yet. If most axis are feeling this way, I don't mind taking less spits as XO. I have convidece my guys will make do with whatever is given to us.
That being said. I do think there would be a better balance with 2 more spit 9s.
DutchVII
Post by: Devil 505 on August 02, 2018, 12:33:09 AM
OK, with all that under consideration, here's what I propose.
We change allies from Spit 8's to Spit 9's. We give the allies 2 more Spits.
This accounts for Spit 8 being faster on WEP, turning better, climbing better, and having 20 minutes more time aloft compared to Spit 9, and for 109G's being slightly better than P-38G's.
JeffN, Weiser, Swareiam, and Ditto -- what say you?
If you don't like that, how about 4 more Spits?
that the only mention of adding any more spits was by Weiser - but not for balance or accuracy but to entice more players to attend.
Gentleman,
I have done research on Pantelleria and both Spit 8 and 9's were there, they were part of the 31FG with the 307,308 and 309 squad. I'm the one who is asking to increase the numbers for the event. My reasoning behind it is that there are a lot of guys that can not participate in all scenario's, but if we can get a lot of guys willing to commit to a couple of Saturday's then we can schedule them in when they can make it, If they show on a unscheduled day than they will be reassigned to another squad. This would mean a little more work for the CO and GL, but anytime we try to increase the numbers the better. Once they experience in an event, than they may be more likely to show when not scheduled just to have fun. We all know that most would rather fly a fighter that they like, that's why I'm suggesting increasing fighters squad's first and get the bug going.
By no means am I trying to make thing's unfair when it comes to the event, just trying to get more people interested, and it may be a good way to start.
Other than that I'm OK with the write up and will go with what the event committee approves.
General Carl"weiser"Spaatz
CO Allies
The course of the discussion was not leading to adding more spits as compensation for a performance deficiency in the P-39G. This was soely Brookes idea and he decided on it being implemented with no discussion outside the CM's and CO's.
The consensus of the posters in this thread was that the the Spit9 was both better for balance and accuracy and that 6, and 6 only, was the right amount for either.
I believe that there are better solutions for the P-38 problem, but I guess that the discussion has been decided for us.
Post by: SEseph on August 02, 2018, 12:34:23 AM
The extra spits where to compansate that we allied will be flying slower spitfires than would be fair and the lack of feul the spit 9s would hold. Overall the axis planes are better with the exception for the c202.
First off, The CM's thought the setup was fine initially. Very balanced in THEIR words. Now suddenly it's not. Devil, Perdweeb, myself, others, we have accumulated a LARGE amount of experience. We want a fair game. Not an easy win. Easy win would be DEMANDING 205's WITHOUT 8's and REQUIRING Spit 5's! We want it as written, with 6 Spit 9's.. no other changes. Load up your 38's, train now instead of expecting cohesion and expertise on day one... make it work.
Quote
I as allied XO have suggested to give the axis C205s. This was decided to be unfair and in historically. It's really give and take. I am not sure why you are attacking JeffN, other than a reason to disagree. The planes seem to be balanced somewhat this way with still dominant axis planes.
As Allied XO, it is your duty to inform your CO that he agreed to the write-up; one that he immediately began making demands on when it was publicly posted.
Post by: Vudu15 on August 02, 2018, 12:38:31 AM
Did weiser and Jeff agree to the plane set before this was released to us? If so why did it change?
Where did this hostage situation come from with the extra 2 spits?
I have to agree with Devil on this one, but I said I would lead and I believe I have a lot to offer to the command team here as well as newer pilots and possible GLs/XOs . I'm here to tag US planes, as many as I can but that doesn't mean we have to take bad deals plane wise. and I'm sick of the restrictions and helicopter mom attitudes of the CM Team over the last few events in regards to the COs on each side. Allies would have gotten exactly what they wanted if some of us hadn't fought it and I bet he would have gotten 2 squads of spits again if some of us hadn't fought back. I was never for the 205s being added by the way. Why are we as folks flying for one side getting so much kickback (I can understand me) on just what should be a fair planeset?
DUTCH
I know that with a Spit8 I can fly past Pantelleria fight for 15 to 20 mins and fly home without being worried about fuel state(and the 8 has a decided advantage with WEP). In an FSO with a Spit9 I shot down 5 Ju88s and got home on fumes I had to watch my fuel the whole time which balances the 9 against it being a serious force multiplier against the axis. If we brought our 24 fighters(now 26) against your 24 you have us in fuel endurance, over all ammo capacity(even with gondolas) and then were are bringing 202s which the odds are will get one or two kills to more than likely the loss of the whole six planes. Leave the 205s out they were never a real option at any point. See if I had six of me yeah not an issue but I wont have six of me I'll have me and X number of guys who either have limited time or have barely flown the 109 and will be lost to noncombat issues(compression, landings, fuel and not conserving ammo) The 38s will lose some to compression but you also have the ability to place folks who are uncomfortable in 38s in P40s remember that this P40 has a merlin not an Allison motor.
Post by: TWCAxew on August 02, 2018, 12:57:47 AM
Since I know Weiser pretty well, I think it's safe to say he would agree with anything that is the most fair for everyone. Whether we get more spits or not. I do not know of any agreements between JeffN and Weiser.
For now I am gonna join my gf on the boat and enjoy the sun with a gentle breeze.
Whatever you guys think is right I would say we roll with, as long everyone think it's fair. {$}
Ps: my squad in Kuban flying bf110s had the most kills and highest bombing score from all squad's. It's more about execution than what planes you get.
Edit: the ps was directed at this: "In an FSO with a Spit9 I shot down 5 Ju88s and got home on fumes I had to watch my fuel the whole time which balances the 9 against it being a serious force multiplier against the axis" I think it's pretty irrelevant the same thing can be done with any other plane. Especially if you make a good approach and have no enemy fighters around.
Also I have full confidence in Perdue's, spikes and devils experience and knowledge. It's not like I am trying to dismiss anything you say. On the contrary i take it by heart. So if you say it should be this way or another I will fully support it.
DutchVII
Post by: perdue3 on August 02, 2018, 02:41:13 AM
I have given my opinion on the fighter balance. I stand by it still yet. 8 Spit IX's has a greater change than you think because Spits are easy to find pilots for. Not to mention they will own the skies where 190's do not have an advantage. If they ever find themselves alone with 190's, they will outnumber them. I suppose my point is that 8 Spit IX's do not equal 6 Spit VIII's.
Post by: perdue3 on August 02, 2018, 02:43:48 AM
Post by: Brooke on August 02, 2018, 03:25:40 AM
Please everyone, take a quick survey here:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,393948.0.html
Post by: Brooke on August 02, 2018, 05:22:41 AM
---- The old way ----
Prior to recent times, scenarios were designed in private by the CM team. There was no public input. Once the writeup was publicly posted there were no further changes allowed, and suggestions were not wanted (as there would be no changes anymore anyway).
---- What I wanted to try ----
1. Have the players vote on the theme of the battle.
2. The scenario team works up a starter design for whatever won the vote.
3. The scenario team posts the starter design/writeup and opens the "scenario design" topic, where the design process works as follows.
---- The design topic ----
In the design topic, everyone can post comments and suggestions and discuss. During this process, if the scenario team sees a suggestion that it agrees is a significant improvement, it puts a change into the writeup. Not every suggestion will be considered an improvement. During the process, the scenario team itself may come up with new ideas. If a change seems like it will be highly contentions, the scenario team may choose, in its own discretion, to seek approval of both side CO's before putting it in. Throughout, the scenario team can answer questions and explain why a change is (or is not) made, giving people a view into the process.
The purpose of the design topic is:
-- To get more eyeballs on the design looking for errors and significant design flaws.
-- To get suggestions for the scenario team to consider.
-- For players to see explanations of why a change was or was not put into the writeup.
-- To serve as a sounding board for ideas.
-- To give players at least some input where there was zero before.
What is not the purpose of the design topic (and wouldn't be allowed even if I thought it was a good idea, which I don't):
-- To turn the design process into design by public vote.
-- For the scenario team to abdicate its responsibility to determine the final design.
-- To obligate the scenario team to implement every suggestion.
-- To obligate the scenario team to agree with you.
-- To remove the scenario team's right (that everyone has) to reconsider or come up with new ideas.
---- Analogy ----
You know in a scenario when the CO puts up a "strategy discussion" topic? Folks can post ideas on what the orders should be, what the strengths and weaknesses are, but ultimately it is the CO's responsibility to choose what to do, what suggestions to implement, which ones not to? And then, once he puts out the final orders, folks accept those as the final orders? You know how in scenarios decent players don't act up if their strategy suggestions aren't implemented by the CO in the orders? You know how in scenarios decent players don't bitterly complain about the final orders, calling the CO dictatorial, threatening to quit because the CO didn't put in their idea? You now how people don't tell the CO that they and four other players voted and decided that the orders should include this or that?
Well, that's how this topic should go.
Thoughts at random, based on some recent posts I've seen:
-- If you think this process is dictatorial, maybe you didn't participate in scenarios prior to 2016, where the process was approximately infinity percent more dictatorial.
-- If you don't like this system, your alternative is the old way. No CM but me wants anything but the old way, and I'm starting think they are right.
-- The scenario team has the right to have opinions, too.
-- The scenario team is not obligated to agree with your opinion, even if you and some buddies think it's great, even if you get all emotional about it.
-- We are not playing 5-year-old games like "you said, 'X is great', so you can't ever say 'after thinking about it some more, I don't think X is great anymore'. You are stuck with X once you say it!"
-- We don't have design by vote. The scenario team's responsibility is still to do what it thinks is best.
What makes you mad is if the scenario team doesn't do what you want. But the scenario team makes changes or not only because we honestly think doing it makes a better scenario. We don't want to make you mad. We'll try not to. But we will do what we think makes a better scenario whether you get mad about it or not. Ultimately, you decide if you are going to be mad or not. If you can choose not to, you'll be happier.
Post by: Brooke on August 02, 2018, 05:34:08 AM
1. Read this:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,393907.msg5226781.html#msg5226781
2. Vote here:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,393948.0.html
Post by: Larry on August 02, 2018, 05:42:11 AM
Post by: APDrone on August 02, 2018, 06:39:56 AM
Post by: Brooke on August 02, 2018, 07:01:56 AM
In the course of our gentlemanly discussions regarding the graceful, swan-like Spitfire, it seemed for a moment like folks might be OK with 8 Spit 9's. But ye gods, while bringing in those two extra Spits, one rolled over Arch Duke Ferdinand, crushing him flat, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and everything was downhill from there.
So, here we find ourselves still with version 2 of the writeup. Written in the table "Allied Order of Battle", still sitting patiently between P-38's and B-25's, are 6 Spit VIII's.
What to do?
Some axis folks want those 6 Spit 8's to become 6 Spit 9's, and that's it. (Why? Because they consider the Spit 8 superior to Spit 9's. I didn't think so before, but they were so hot on it, I dug into more, and yes, they convinced me that I was wrong. The Spit 8 is better than the Spit 9.)
And, after more thought about all of this, I feel that the allies with all Spit 9's and no Spit 8's will be a little under powered compared to the axis. This based on having flown 190A's vs. Spit 9's, 109G's vs. P-38's, P-38's vs. 109G's, P-38's vs. 190A's in scenarios and thinking some more about Tunisia, 1943. Under powered by like maybe a couple of airplanes worth (which, before the fate of Arch Duke Ferdinand, I would have thought to be not such a big deal).
So, axis people who do not like:
A. 8 spit 9's
Which of these do you like better:
B. 6 Spit 8's.
C. 6 Spit 9's and two more P-38G's.
I know you prefer:
D. 6 Spit 9's.
I will even put D up to a vote in the scenario team. My vote will be "no" on D, but I'm a minority vote. I'm OK with B or C -- not sure which I think is best.
Post by: Brooke on August 02, 2018, 07:17:59 AM
This is just my opinion but I think because this battle took part around Italy and because they were there the C.205 should be included in this setup in limited numbers.
There are several types of aircraft that were there in smaller numbers that we aren't putting in the scenario (110's, C.200's, C.205's) because we have 24 fighters (4 6-plane) fighter groups on the side. If there historically were 40% 109's, 24% 190's, 27% c.2's (only a quarter of those are C.205's), the best way in our opinion is what we have.
We can't add another group -- we are already picking the size to be what we think we will get based on past 1.5 years of scenarios. We don't want to change a 6-plane group into a 4-plane group and a 2-plane group. We don't want to remove a 109 group and replace it with C.205's (because that is way out of whack representation wise). We don't want to replace the c.202's with c.205's, as more c.202's were there than c.205's, and as that ruins the balance with P-40's.
Now, if we had 100 pilots on a side, we could probably squeak them in. :aok
Post by: jeffn on August 02, 2018, 09:52:29 AM
AH, so the enforcer comes out to demand 'Yes Men!'
I'm going to fight for the ideas I feel valid and I'd expect no less from anyone else, even a side CO. If they want a Yes Man, they need to state that before they go. If they want argument because it forces consideration of counter points and forces one to come up with reasonable ideas to counter it and there by allowing a better plan, then they need to accept they won't have Yes Men.
Seph,
This statement is unfair and not accurate. Obviously your opinion, but I would ask that you give me a chance to prove you wrong. Na, change that, I will prove you wrong.
I have not posted much because this group covers all topics, both side very well. I can tell you that I have erased posts because someone has beat me to it.
My feeling is that if two extra spits or p-38’s are going to make such a huge diffence, than we have already lost. I like a challenge, I would hate for any event to be extreamly one sided. With our 190s, 109s and ju88s and who is leading them, I feel we have the edge. It will all come down to pilots, strategy, some perfect timing and a little luck.
Will post more later, busy work day, need to get back to it.
<S>
Post by: perdue3 on August 02, 2018, 12:51:02 PM
Post by: jeffn on August 02, 2018, 01:04:13 PM
Post by: Larry on August 02, 2018, 01:05:27 PM
E - lets start this thing already so I can blow some stuff up!
Post by: BFOOT1 on August 02, 2018, 02:04:05 PM
PS don’t forget to change them from fighter groups, to fighter squadrons!
Post by: perdue3 on August 02, 2018, 04:14:20 PM
c add more 38’s :aok
PS don’t forget to change them from fighter groups, to fighter squadrons!
This!!
Post by: Devil 505 on August 02, 2018, 04:14:47 PM
So, axis people who do not like:
A. 8 spit 9's
Which of these do you like better:
B. 6 Spit 8's.
C. 6 Spit 9's and two more P-38G's.
I know you prefer:
D. 6 Spit 9's.
I will even put D up to a vote in the scenario team. My vote will be "no" on D, but I'm a minority vote. I'm OK with B or C -- not sure which I think is best.
Option D is still the ideal option, C would be the next best solution since it actually addresses the most imbalanced portion of the plane set. I still think that the imbalance in the P-40F vs C.202 matchup already helps to compensate.
Perhaps another solution is to replace the 109G-2 squad with G-6's to bring the performance closer to the P-38's. The P-38 is faster than a G-6 above 22K.
Post by: SEseph on August 02, 2018, 05:46:26 PM
Option D is still the ideal option [...]
This.
Post by: KCDitto on August 02, 2018, 08:55:40 PM
:salute
Post by: Brooke on August 02, 2018, 09:19:36 PM
The good news is that I took all the options through the process (vote by scenario team and vote by CO's) including D as I said I would, and [pause to heighten suspense] option D carried the day. I have already made the change in the writeup.
The bad news is that it turns out I don't have dictatorial powers. Alas.
Now that the decision is made, I am fully on board with it and of high morale. I will not be crabbing about a decision not going my way or making snide or derisive comments about people who didn't agree with me.
Onward and upward. :aok
Post by: Devil 505 on August 02, 2018, 09:28:05 PM
:salute
Post by: jeffn on August 02, 2018, 09:48:48 PM
Right on!
Post by: KCDitto on August 02, 2018, 10:08:03 PM
I have 9./SKG 10 for the 190's
7./JG 53 for the 109 G6s
6./JG 27 for the 109 G2s
any pref for the Bombers and the 202s ?
Post by: Devil 505 on August 02, 2018, 10:19:52 PM
Devil5O5 and Perdweeb,
I have 9./SKG 10 for the 190's
7./JG 53 for the 109 G6s
6./JG 27 for the 109 G2s
any pref for the Bombers and the 202s ?
The fighter squads look fine.
I'll do some digging on the Ju's and 202's.
Post by: Brooke on August 02, 2018, 10:26:17 PM
Thanks for reevaluating this issue, Brooke.
:salute
Well, thank you, Devil! <S> to you as well. :aok
Post by: perdue3 on August 02, 2018, 10:54:43 PM
Devil5O5 and Perdweeb,
I have 9./SKG 10 for the 190's
7./JG 53 for the 109 G6s
6./JG 27 for the 109 G2s
any pref for the Bombers and the 202s ?
Sweet. Give us a little time on buffs and C.202's.
Post by: KCDitto on August 02, 2018, 11:12:47 PM
Post by: perdue3 on August 02, 2018, 11:55:01 PM
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW13/Ju88A5-KG30-(4D+DR)-Sicily1941-284af+s.jpg)
Post by: perdue3 on August 03, 2018, 12:27:32 AM
Post by: lunatic1 on August 03, 2018, 12:37:03 AM
Post by: Brooke on August 03, 2018, 03:45:33 AM
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iur/?f=1&image_host=http%3A%2F%2F37.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m33v3aUpCE1qlzduwo1_500.gif&u=http://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m33v3aUpCE1qlzduwo1_500.gif)
Post by: perdue3 on August 03, 2018, 12:58:38 PM
Because we value having skins for these events, we have been in discussion with skinners. We would like the Ju 88 squads to be comprised of III/KG 54 who were based in southern italy during Corkscrew. That would be 8./KG 54 and 9./KG 54.
This should end the Axis naming saga. <S>
Post by: Brooke on August 03, 2018, 04:09:58 PM
Post by: perdue3 on August 03, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
When you guys are done picking the squad names, could you do a post here that lists them in one post? Then I'll put them into the writeup.
Sure.
C.202 - 91a Squadriglia
Bf 109G-2 - 6./JG 27
Bf 109G-6 - 7./JG 53
FW 190A-5 - 9./SKG 10
Ju 88 - 8./KG 54
Ju 88 - 9./KG 54
Post by: Brooke on August 03, 2018, 05:35:55 PM
Post by: Guppy35 on August 03, 2018, 08:48:22 PM
So this is my 7.JG53 109G6. I wanted tail end charlie of 6 so white 6 for me. Added some cartoon art in the same spot as the real guys did. So I think my scoreboard is fairly in the spirit of the event. Oberfeldwebel Von Cork's kite. Can we fly now? :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6PantVonCork_zpsxdjzfh5n.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6PantVonCork_zpsxdjzfh5n.jpg.html)
Post by: Devil 505 on August 03, 2018, 11:20:57 PM
Post by: Molsman on August 04, 2018, 11:23:32 AM
One of the joys of this stuff is always being able to learn more history. Turns out the 7.JG53 109s had some art on a number of their G6s. With that in mind, I tried to mimic it a bit without just using one of the real versions.
So this is my 7.JG53 109G6. I wanted tail end charlie of 6 so white 6 for me. Added some cartoon art in the same spot as the real guys did. So I think my scoreboard is fairly in the spirit of the event. Oberfeldwebel Von Cork's kite. Can we fly now? :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6PantVonCork_zpsxdjzfh5n.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6PantVonCork_zpsxdjzfh5n.jpg.html)
Guppy
I will be Leading on of the JU88 Groups, you made me a few of the Battle planes already was wondering if you Could make one for this event and I am naming this One Sweet N Evil Karen
<S>
Crazyman
Post by: perdue3 on August 04, 2018, 05:09:33 PM
I want to applaud you on your work on this scenario. I think you guys, especially Brooke, have handled this public forum very well. You remained democratic, which is very much appreciated, and you accepted ideas, thoughts, and criticisms very honorably. I send a very sincere thank you. :salute
Post by: Brooke on August 04, 2018, 05:31:47 PM
Post by: Guppy35 on August 04, 2018, 08:12:14 PM
Guppy
I will be Leading on of the JU88 Groups, you made me a few of the Battle planes already was wondering if you Could make one for this event and I am naming this One Sweet N Evil Karen
<S>
Crazyman
If I get time to create a Ju88 template I can. I don't have an 88 done at this point.
Finished the 7.JG53 XO's bird. SESeph
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6PantSESeph_zpsheq909oi.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6PantSESeph_zpsheq909oi.jpg.html)
Post by: SEseph on August 04, 2018, 08:23:34 PM
If I get time to create a Ju88 template I can. I don't have an 88 done at this point.
Finished the 7.JG53 XO's bird. SESeph
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6PantSESeph_zpsheq909oi.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6PantSESeph_zpsheq909oi.jpg.html)
SWEET! My Hellcannon!
Post by: Molsman on August 04, 2018, 09:23:32 PM
If I get time to create a Ju88 template I can. I don't have an 88 done at this point.
Finished the 7.JG53 XO's bird. SESeph
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6PantSESeph_zpsheq909oi.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6PantSESeph_zpsheq909oi.jpg.html)
No Problem Dan
Post by: Guppy35 on August 04, 2018, 11:58:13 PM
No Problem Dan
Actually started on a template for a Ju88 tonight. Hopefully it will turn out :)
Post by: Molsman on August 05, 2018, 08:25:06 AM
:aok
Post by: Guppy35 on August 07, 2018, 02:59:30 PM
Hope you don't mind Vudu :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6PantVudu15_zpsdjii2npx.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6PantVudu15_zpsdjii2npx.jpg.html)
Post by: Vudu15 on August 07, 2018, 08:16:37 PM
Finally got a copy of Jochen Prein's second volume on JG 53 that covers the time frame of the scenario. Naturally there is a photo of the StaffelKapitan of 7.JG53 in it, and he's sitting in white 1. So it had to be. The art is obvious :)
Hope you don't mind Vudu :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/109G6PantVudu15_zpsdjii2npx.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/109G6PantVudu15_zpsdjii2npx.jpg.html)
I like it sir thanks! <S>
Post by: FBDragon on August 08, 2018, 06:13:30 PM
I've always loved your artwork, you do a very fine fine job!!!! :salute :salute :salute
Post by: Brooke on August 09, 2018, 03:32:35 PM
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSDlA1M2zajojRp5O0TX_Wh8_2AYh0tFQ2TJNIi2IdoZ8d5fmAUXH7i0oOiuj1PRJ8LrSho6dLvcN-I/pub
v6, 8/9/2018
-- Allowing ships and Pantelleria to have radar, which are also now acceptable targets (as they were historically).
Post by: Vudu15 on August 09, 2018, 04:40:20 PM
Post by: Guppy35 on August 09, 2018, 04:48:43 PM
Hey Guppy :salute, my A5 needs to be updated too. fuselage number is 14. If your too busy I do understand. :cheers: :salute
I've always loved your artwork, you do a very fine fine job!!!! :salute :salute :salute
On it :aok
Post by: KCDitto on August 10, 2018, 06:21:53 PM
(https://s20.postimg.cc/ywu5dypql/Pant_Recruiting_Poster.png)
Post by: Brooke on August 20, 2018, 12:59:33 AM
Latest version of writeup (refresh in browser to make sure you have latest):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSDlA1M2zajojRp5O0TX_Wh8_2AYh0tFQ2TJNIi2IdoZ8d5fmAUXH7i0oOiuj1PRJ8LrSho6dLvcN-I/pub
Post by: TWCAxew on October 04, 2018, 08:19:50 AM
I am reading the write-up and I was looking specifically to which planes can be added for walk-ons. I noticed for the 109's no specific model has been stated. It just says 109's. Can both be added or just 1 specific model? In my head it was just the 109G2 for some reason.
Thanks,
DutchVII
Post by: Brooke on October 04, 2018, 10:33:39 PM
Post by: TWCAxew on October 04, 2018, 11:31:52 PM