Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: daddog on November 01, 2006, 03:16:12 PM
-
Japanese (IJN) forces consist of Zero Team and IJN Team.
Zero Team will be:
* 50% A6M2 Zero (no bombs, droptanks OK).
* 50% A6M5b Zero (no bombs, droptanks OK).
Was years before the A6M5 was out. Why did you put it in?
-
VERY VERY Good question! Might as well give the Americans either the F6F or the P-51D!
If my memorie serves me right, A6M5 didnt come out till late 43 early 44.
-
The reason for A6M5b's is already covered in the writeup. See Reasons for Various Aspects of Rules.
Also, the number of them are one of the things that might be adjusted based on the beta frame.
If you guys have any questions about the reason for some aspect of the rules that is not covered in Reasons for Various Aspects of Rules, let me know -- I'd like to add it.
-
Although the IJN didn't use A6M5b's at Pearl Harbor, some are in the mix to account for the fact that many of the US bombers are later-war variants. At Pearl Harbor, of the aircraft we are modelling, the US had B-17D's (we use B-17G's, which have better defensinve armament), A-20A's (we use Boston III's, which are very similar to A-20A's), P-40B's (which we have), P-40C's (we use P-40B's, which lack self-sealing fuel tanks and drop tanks), F4F-3's (we use F4F-4's with 4-gun configuraiton), SBD-1's (we use SBD-5's, which have self-sealing fuel tanks and larger tanks, but we disallow use of the 1000 lb bomb), SB2U-3's (we use SBD's), and B-18's and PBY bombers (we use SBD's and TBM's, which are better in some ways, worse in others).
Ok so I see your reasons that are stated in the rules. As far as the B-17’s I thought they were unarmed? Yes your not using formations, but should they be allowed to fire at all? Many other items you list above (P-40B for example) is a weaker version of B the American’s use. That is an IJN advantage. You use the F4F because we don’t have the F3F, but what is the difference? I gather that is an American advantage, but you don’t state what is it. You mention the SBD variant we use has self sealing tanks, but that is a minimal factor to toss in the A6M5. You mention the ordnance of the SBD which has nothing to do with a reason to use the A6M5 over the A5M2. Not that you intended it as a reason to sub out the A6M2. Finally you mention the SBD’s and TBM’s pointing out that in some ways they are better AC then what was at PH and not in others.
Over all I really don’t see an impelling reason to give the IJN 50% A6M5’s and 50% A6M2’s.
Personally I would drop an AC or two from the Allied side before I would give the IJN the A6M5 to counter act some “uber” element the American’s have due to the variants you choose in the setup. A6M5 does not belong in Pearl Harbor IMHO.
-
Originally posted by daddog
A6M5 does not belong in Pearl Harbor IMHO.
Agreed.
-
The A6m5 came out in March, 1944 and doesn't belong in Pearl.
-
Phew. I was afraid I was going to be alone there for a bit. :)
-
I've spent a bit scratching my head over this too. Once I threw out any sense of historicality, the overall matchup is kind of hard to call. The A6M5 should be absolutely invincible vs. fighters - but on the other hand, the allied attack aircraft are mightilly (and inapropriately) well armed and armored compared to the the Japanese planes.
I have no doubt that it is going to be a freakshow. However, as long as enough people come to have fun, it just might be. (Though with only 1/3 of the seats being fighters, just getting enough people might be a trick.)
-
This was a tough one to get our hands around. The plane matchups just don't work well "historically" and there is still a discussion on the final plane compliment with all the COs and Design team.
There will be a very solid need for a well attended beta test to confirm some conditions regarding the matchups. There has been some tests performed, but seeing them square off against each other in a large group will really expand on the differences.
I know that everyone is looking at this from both a historical point of view and the reality of the existing plane models and how they actually perform, and we all greatly appreciate the comments and feedback.
I think Brooke has shown a good comparison between the planes, and if we were to strip off all the Icons and look at the Plane Performance exclusively, then they match up pretty well. I also have a thought in the back of my mind that the A6M5 might be too much, but have thought fewer of them, not removing them completely.
Again, it's one of just a few loose ends that are being tightened.
Prior to a Beta Frame, anyone up for a large fight in the SEA this Sunday Evening to pit some of these planes against each other to see how they fare?
I can toss up a map, and if we can pull 50 or so people in we could Really run these things out and see how they work. Wouldn't do much good with a handfull of people, we have that data already.
-
OK, here are the full details of why I suggest a6m5's in the mix.
The US has these non-historical advantages based on what planes are available (as per http://www.ww2pacific.com/aaf41.html):
No Brewster Buffalos, only F4F-4's.
No Curtiss P-36 Mohawks, only P-40B's.
No Boeing P-26 Peashooters, only P-40B's.
No B-18 Bolo's (SBD-5's and TBM-3's instead, both faster, more maneuverable, harder to hit, better offensively, and likely sturdier)
No PBY's Catalinas (same as for B-18, only moreso)
No B-17D's (only B-17G, which has tail gun, more defensive armament, more armor, better self-sealing fuel tanks)
No SBD-1's (only SBD-3's, which have more armor and better self-sealing fuel tanks)
No TBD's Devestators (only TBM-3's, which are faster, more armor, better self-sealing fuel tanks)
So, the US has a lot of aircraft that are better than historical. Specifically, they are faster and sturdier than their historical counterparts. It seems to me, rather than screwing with numbers (which isn't any more historical than some other adjustment) the best way to adjust is it to give the IJN in some of its planes a little boost in speed and amount of ammo. The a6m5 isn't much better than the a6m2 -- it is a little faster and it has more ammo -- just the thing needed.
Now, if you think the IJN will cream the US even if it has all a6m2's, then I'm all for just a6m2's. However, I think the IJN will have its hands full and that the fight is not going to be so lopsided.
-
By the way, the reason there are B-17's there is that there were 12 B-17D's at Pearl. I am not counting the other 12 that were flying into Pearl during the attack and which were not armed.
-
Originally posted by SkyGnome
Once I threw out any sense of historicality . . .
Well, I've spent about 100 hours researching, finding references, posting them in the rules, working to make it as historical as playability and constraints of the game seem to allow.
Granted, this is work I've done based on my knowledge and judgement, so I can't and don't claim it's perfect. Still, I'm hoping it at least is not lacking "any sense of historicality".
a6m5's for me is the change to make that is *least* disruptive to historical elements and being most directly fair considering the US aircraft mix. That's why I recommend it.
-
Ya gotta work with what you have got....
Brooke
-
A rumble in the sea this sunday sounds like fun. just make it after 3 pm mountain and i'll be there.
pez
-
Originally posted by Brooke
snip
Now, if you think the IJN will cream the US even if it has all a6m2's, then I'm all for just a6m2's. However, I think the IJN will have its hands full and that the fight is not going to be so lopsided.
Brooke, past iterations of this event at Air Warrior used A6M2 only for Team Zeke. In each instance, Team Jordi won both the US and IJN phase of that year's event. The planeset considerations you mention were relatively the same there. I suggest this indicates that balance exists with the A6M2-only setup, if the ROE in this design are similar.
culero
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Well, I've spent about 100 hours researching, finding references, posting them in the rules, working to make it as historical as playability and constraints of the game seem to allow.
Granted, this is work I've done based on my knowledge and judgement, so I can't and don't claim it's perfect. Still, I'm hoping it at least is not lacking "any sense of historicality".
a6m5's for me is the change to make that is *least* disruptive to historical elements and being most directly fair considering the US aircraft mix. That's why I recommend it.
I meant no offense, and you sort of took my statement out of context. I didn't say that the rules lacked any sense of historicallity, just that if one starts reading them with the intent to critique the historicallity, they'll find a lot to complain about. However, if one approaches it looking for a good aircraft matchup, one will find less to complain about.
I appreciate your work, and have a great deal of respect for the work you've done in the past.
-
Thanks, SkyGnome. I do like as much historical aspect as we can manage and still have playability -- and I shouldn't be touchy! :)
Culero, good points.
-
Folks, we are going to have a test in the Special Events Arena on Sunday (sort of a pre-beta). If you can participate, please join us and show up at 3 pm Eastern Standard Time, noon Pacific, 8 pm UK time, 10 pm Finland time.
We are going to test an engagement between US and IJN forces representative of the mix of planes on day 1 of the battle. We are going to see if the IJN needs a6m5's or not.
-
Im sawing off the tail cone on my B-17 and rigging up a fixed .30 Cal browning to be fired remotely from the waist gunner position ;-)
Should be fun ;-)
-
This test time is overlapping with Close Escort... is it not?
My experiences today at EWA with the early Zero.. 4 sorties, twice ack hit me and lit my plane in fire with first hit.... that means about 10 seconds to live.
I truly hope PH puffy ack will not be like that :)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
This test time is overlapping with Close Escort... is it not?
From the Close Escort forum:
Close Escort Tour Six
Frame One of Operation Husky: the Invasion of Sicily
Sunday, November 5th 1500 hours (3 pm est)
Already got the e-mail about the test session... Maybe we'll see a lot of people for the Close Escort - or a different kind of a CE.
How about having the test on Saturday at the same time, or would that be too soon?
-
Ahh Geez, I thought that slot was empty, This wont work darnit.
How about Saturday instead? Dang it!! I hate missing things like that.
-
Blauk, ack is going to be mild, we want the players to get the kills, not the AI :)
-
I see the reasonings now. From what i understood, it was going to be just P-40Bs for the Americans. I thought it would be rather rediculous to have both versions of the Zero. But now seeing Americans get the F4F and stuff, i can agree that the IJN should get the Late model. But i say we wait and see what happens during Beta testing, and if there are problems, lets correct them! This way, we wont have a repeat of "Operation Downfall" and the many complications it had.
On a personal note, if anyones looken for command spots, im more then willing to help. If you want details on my experiance with Scenarios, feel free to PM me and ill give ya the details. I have no idea who are the COs and who needs what, im just saying in general..........
HOOK ME UP BROTHERS!!
:D :t :noid
-
I'll resend all the info.
BlauK, thanks for spotting that -- I should have checked.
Let's have the pre-beta test on Saturday at 3 pm Eastern Standard Time.
-
Just sent out the following.
ROC, is there anyone we need to notify to reserve the Special-Events Arena for that time?
Hello, all.
My apologies. The previously announced time for this test session was already taken.
We will have the Pearl Harbor pre-beta test in the Special Events Arena. It will be Saturday, November 4, at 3 pm Eastern Standard Time, noon Pacific, 8 pm UK time, 10 pm Finland time.
Again, the more who show up, the better the test will be. I hope all of you can show up. We will run an approximation of day 1 of the Pearl Harbor scenario to test out various play-balance settings (such as seeing if we should have any a6m5's in the mix of aircraft).
Best regards,
-- Brooke
-
We are going to test an engagement between US and IJN forces representative of the mix of planes on day 1 of the battle. We are going to see if the IJN needs a6m5's or not.
Well that is fair and I could not ask for more. I was going to hammer home some more points concerning some things you posted above, but you are more than willing to look at this from both sides. I can’t ask for more.
All I can say at this point is with so many variables at work in an event like this it would be difficult to judge if the A6M5 is needed or the IJN should only have the A6M2. Each test could come out with very different outcomes negating each end result. Granted the Americans have some late model versions, but the A6M5 just seems to subtract from the event IMHO.
-
Seems to me the only justification for the A6m5 would be the five B-17Gs. Much as I'd like a B-17, I'd have to say dump all the B-17s so you don't need the A6m5. Besides, any zeke that goes after a B-17 would be dog-meat anyway. Put the pilots into Bostons or TBMs. Keep that in mind Saturday during the Beta.
Do we have the terrain already?
-
What is the difference between the a6m2 and the a6m5, all i can see is upgraded weapons?
-
Originally posted by Easyscor
Seems to me the only justification for the A6m5 would be the five B-17Gs. Much as I'd like a B-17, I'd have to say dump all the B-17s so you don't need the A6m5. Besides, any zeke that goes after a B-17 would be dog-meat anyway. Put the pilots into Bostons or TBMs. Keep that in mind Saturday during the Beta.
Do we have the terrain already?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
We gotta save the B-17 PPL
-
The A6M5b is faster too. Climbs better. And whether or not it was a feature of the plane IRL, it will stay right with any allied plane in a dive without coming apart, and without freezing up the controls.
And of course it still turns like the Zero it is at slow speeds.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Just sent out the following.
ROC, is there anyone we need to notify to reserve the Special-Events Arena for that time?
Hello, all.
My apologies. The previously announced time for this test session was already taken.
We will have the Pearl Harbor pre-beta test in the Special Events Arena. It will be Saturday, November 4, at 3 pm Eastern Standard Time, noon Pacific, 8 pm UK time, 10 pm Finland time.
Again, the more who show up, the better the test will be. I hope all of you can show up. We will run an approximation of day 1 of the Pearl Harbor scenario to test out various play-balance settings (such as seeing if we should have any a6m5's in the mix of aircraft).
Best regards,
-- Brooke
And 2pm Central:D
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
The A6M5b is faster too. Climbs better. And whether or not it was a feature of the plane IRL, it will stay right with any allied plane in a dive without coming apart, and without freezing up the controls.
Are you sure of this ?
I was on the IJN side during Rangoon and I was never able to catch a single US plane.
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
snip
But now seeing Americans get the F4F and stuff, i can agree that the IJN should get the Late model.
Actually, if this thing is set up properly, US will have relatively few F4F, especially in Frame One where they should be only a token presence. This shouldn't be a determining factor.
culero
-
Originally posted by daddog
Each test could come out with very different outcomes negating each end result. Granted the Americans have some late model versions, but the A6M5 just seems to subtract from the event IMHO.
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Are you sure of this ?
I was on the IJN side during Rangoon and I was never able to catch a single US plane.
Brooke assures me this is no longer the case, but I was able to make it work before. If Brooke's observations are correct, then I have no objection to the A6M5.
-
A6m5 is 25mph faster almost across the board. Only @ 15k does this reverse, and it's a very small alt window. The climb rate is almost 500fpm faster @ any alt.
The a6m5 has double the cannon firing time, and quite a bit more 1-second burst leathality.
A6m5 takes 28.8 secs to 250mph. The A6m2 takes 41 seconds.
The a6m2 turns significantly better both with & w/o flaps.
The only thing an a6m2 can do to an a6m5 is out turn it, the a6m5 wins in every other category.
Now, I haven't gotten crazy in an a6m2 lately... but my favorite ride in the entire game is the a6m5b (so I know a little how it handles), and once you're starting to get around 350mph, the controls become so heavy you can barely maneuver. In a dive pretty much everything can either escape, or make a high speed break and get a better position while the controls are barely responding and you have no option but to pull hard and pray you don't lose too many angles when it forces you from lead to lag pursuit.
-
Its also better armored.
-
i cant believe you are getting so worked up about the a6m5 as if it is some sort of wonderplane.
a well flown f4f will eat it alive, just like it does the a6m2. If the fight gets close in, an a6m5 will be easier to kill than the a6m2.
-
As these plane balances are tested today, I hope people remember that Both sides get to fly both With and Against the Zekes.
So it's not like One side will dominate due to anything other than their own abilities.
-
Originally posted by ROC
As these plane balances are tested today, I hope people remember that Both sides get to fly both With and Against the Zekes.
So it's not like One side will dominate due to anything other than their own abilities.
That's what I don't get. Unless team Zeke is getting paid off from one team or another, we are fighting both sides, just one at a time.
Oh and about the bribes, cash only please :aok
-
hehe Zors, bribes work :)
Here's the reasoning behind the Team Zeke concept.
The IJN had the larger force. The event would be a joke for the US side if we tried to keep it historically accurate. Who would sign up with a handful of planes that couldn't launch until they were under attack, that sort of thing.
So the side switch happened. Change sides, both sides get a chance to defend and attack.
The numbers being lopsided on the initial IJN side though would leave the sides unbalanced. How do you have 100 US and 150 IJN switch sides? Now the IJN side is 100 and there are 150 US players.
Thats not really rerunning the event as a true side switch, putting the same conditions on each side so the teams could win on their own strategy.
So Team Zeke. Pull 50 players into Team Zeke, and they fly the Zekes. Team Alpha and Team Beta are evenly divided, and have the primary task of inflicting damage on the bases and CVs. The Zekes are there to shoot things down, kinda whatever is flying that isn't green.
So essentially, yes, team zeke is fighting both sides, supporting the IJN Team they are on at the time.
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
That's what I don't get. we are fighting both sides, just one at a time.
If the zeke5 wipes out the US, no one will want to fly US those frames, that's no good but at least with the zeke2, it's more accurate historically. Remember, you cant judge a setup without looking at everything as a package, the terrain, the arena settings, planeset, player numbers, lives, and aircraft allocations. Something as simple, and possibly unforeseen as where the battles takes place on a terrain can unbalance an event design. My philosophy is to always start with the terrain and planeset and then balance with the arena setup, player lives/allocation and rules restrictions. Changing the planeset is something I wont do except to fill holes in AH, because IMO its not needed and it should be an accurate recreation of history and balance can be achieved in other ways. For instance, firing off some portion of the nose and tail ammo on the B-17s might be needed it you leave them in this setup.
You might ask if I ever put in a plane that didnt belong? Yep, but it wasnt my idea, and the choice was how to fill a hole in the planeset and keep a frame people wanted to fly.
-
Originally posted by Easyscor
If the zeke5 wipes out the US, no one will want to fly US those frames, that's no good but at least with the zeke2, it's more accurate historically. Remember, you cant judge a setup without looking at everything as a package, the terrain, the arena settings, planeset, player numbers, lives, and aircraft allocations. Something as simple, and possibly unforeseen as where the battles takes place on a terrain can unbalance an event design. My philosophy is to always start with the terrain and planeset and then balance with the arena setup, player lives/allocation and rules restrictions. Changing the planeset is something I wont do except to fill holes in AH, because IMO its not needed and it should be an accurate recreation of history and balance can be achieved in other ways. For instance, firing off some portion of the nose and tail ammo on the B-17s might be needed it you leave them in this setup.
You might ask if I ever put in a plane that didnt belong? Yep, but it wasnt my idea, and the choice was how to fill a hole in the planeset and keep a frame people wanted to fly.
Don't get me wrong, I have huge respect for all levels involved in putting together scenarios and running them. I will fly what ever I get and will enjoy myself all the while :) Hell with the Finns taking up alot of the spots in team zeke I doubt I would get a A6M5b anyway ;)
-
Right zorstorer, I'm onboard with whatever they come up with. I'm saying it isn't what I and some others expected knowing the planeset and history, and I'd handle it a different way. Lets see what this afternoons Beta test showed. Oops it's after midnight now, that was yesterday.
-
Zorstorer,
Bodhi is the Team Zeke leader. The Finns have no say on what planes they are going to fly ;)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Zorstorer,
Bodhi is the Team Zeke leader. The Finns have no say on what planes they are going to fly ;)
Oh I know ;)
I just remember fighting you guys the last 2 scenarios ;)
It will be nice to fight with for once :D
-
Originally posted by Brooke
I'll resend all the info.
BlauK, thanks for spotting that -- I should have checked.
Let's have the pre-beta test on Saturday at 3 pm Eastern Standard Time.
Arggghhh...I saw the first post by ROC and marked my calendar and
didn't read this thread again until now, after I had gone online and
found the Close Escort event in SEA :( It's now Sunday and I was
home and available yesterday :(
BTW, Brooke, who did you "resend info" too?
I registered for Team Jordi on Thursday. Haven't seen any confirm
or email since. Registration page shows me on the roster OK though.
=GB=
-
Jordi will be much more active come Tuesday, he's neck deep in a campaign :)
-
Originally posted by Gypsy Baron
BTW, Brooke, who did you "resend info" too?
I registered for Team Jordi on Thursday. Haven't seen any confirm
or email since. Registration page shows me on the roster OK though.
Sorry, GB. I sent e-mail to everyone registered, to the e-mail address listed by the registration system. You might want to check what e-mail address you have on the registration system.
-
just got email , i still thought it was today and ended up flying in CE anyways . gotta use work email so wife dont know i making plans to fly , instead of spending time with her. you know the things like cutting the grass and painting walls and god forbid dinner and cinema :(
-
I've finally had a chance to read the published setup, OOB, and rules. Given that context, I agree with ROC's assessment that some A6M5 content for Team Zeke can be considered as reasonable.
My call is that they are not needed and shouldn't be used over Oahu, but that the IJN fleet CAP should have them. Its not historically correct, but given the published context of setup, OOB, and rules it makes good playability sense.
Just IMHnsO (as if I l know anything about this event anyway ;))
culero