Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on August 26, 2008, 10:22:55 AM
-
There, I said it. Please delay a BoB scenario unless we get the He-111. :frown: It's just not worth it otherwise.
-
I disagree.
Was Rangoon worth it without the Betty? SURE!
Would have been better with the Betty, but we made do.
BOB has been done a number of times with the He111. Is it the best? No, but it will do.
-
I gotta agree with Gavagai. As one of the Allies last time it was readily apparant that the JU88s are too fast. As part of a mixed force they would be fine, but as the total Axis bomber force they are over powering.
It is the CM's call though, it has been ran twice before.
-
I disagree.
Was Rangoon worth it without the Betty? SURE!
Would have been better with the Betty, but we made do.
BOB has been done a number of times with the He111. Is it the best? No, but it will do.
:huh I believe the Betty was strictly IJN, Burma would have had Sallys (KI-21?).
I wish we had ran it with He111s a number of times. :)
-
at least We got the stuka .. we didnt even have that ..
so lets see,,, no more BOB because of no 111....
I better go find another job , cause a couple of guys say No.
-
at least We got the stuka .. we didnt even have that ..
so lets see,,, no more BOB because of no 111....
I better go find another job , cause a couple of guys say No.
Roscoroo, no one is saying you need to find another job. :) Chances are that we are going to get the HE111 in the future, possibly within the year. There were comments made about the JU88 last time from both sides concerning the relative speeds and how it was a problem.
Besides a couple guys posted requesting it be ran, and that was ok. :lol
-
It would be nice to have both the Do17 and He111.
-
We'll be going ahead with running Battle of Britain as the next scenario. As BoB is a popular scenario (with many requests over the past year for us to run it) and will run from time to time still to come, and as I bet one of these years AH will add the He 111, if there are folks who don't want to play BoB until the He 111 is added, they will get their chance later on. Everyone wins.
-
It is the CM's call though, it has been ran twice before.
-
Without the He-111 running the BoB is a pity. Without the Ju-87 it's unthinkable. :P
-
I'd like to see He111 but I dont see it near future...
What if we use B-25 as a He111 instead of Ju88?
-
We did some testing back when deciding what to use as the Betty. If I recall correctly, the B-25 is faster than the Ju 88 when the Ju 88 is totally loaded down.
-
BoB had to run without the Heinkel in 02, 04 and 06. Yes it is a pity but this time we don't have to be embarrassed to use the Ju88 because it was actually there.
The rest of the planes is also extremely close (only 109E-4 instead of E-3s) and most importantly it's going to be a huge load of fun. :)
-
Was there any difference between the E3 and the E4 beside the canopy? That's the only difference I've been able to find... sorry for the kind of off-topic post
-
Very minor differences. Canopy, armor behind canopy, essentially the same plane, had the same specs, and the few changes they had were often retro-fitted to E-3s in the field.
The Ju88, on the other hand, is an A-4, which didn't start showing up until the BOB was about over. This is a later bomber with longer wingspan and faster top speed than the one that mostly flew in the BOB had.
On top of that bombers in AH run full throttle anyways, exacerbating the top speed issue.
P.S. In my first reply I said He111. I meant to type Ju88 "We've been doing it with the Ju88 and making do"
-
On top of that bombers in AH run full throttle anyways, exacerbating the top speed issue.
But so do the fighters.
-
Just a couple idea's to ponder .
We could adjust hardness on objectives alittle more, and maybe (just an idea ) add Spit v's 1 or 2 squads only for intercept as balance against the ju-88's that were built in '41 . Remember a spit v only has around 6 good shots now with its cannon amount at 120 per . after that its just a injected spit 1 .
Remember our main Goal is giving events players enjoy , and it was discussed years ago .the balance vs the actual numbers in the Real event. a closer Balance won out for making events enjoyable for all.
-
Just a couple idea's to ponder .
We could adjust hardness on objectives alittle more, and maybe (just an idea ) add Spit v's 1 or 2 squads only for intercept as balance against the ju-88's that were built in '41 . Remember a spit v only has around 6 good shots now with its cannon amount at 120 per . after that its just a injected spit 1 .
Remember our main Goal is giving events players enjoy , and it was discussed years ago .the balance vs the actual numbers in the Real event. a closer Balance won out for making events enjoyable for all.
I think it's almost always a better idea to leave an aircraft absent if necessary than to make a dubious substitution, but that seems to be the big difference between the way I think and the way the CM's think.
-
But so do the fighters.
Fighters flew at full throttle. Bombers did not. Bombers didn't even climb at full throttle. Wrap yer mind around that one. They didn't climb at full throttle, they climbed at reduced. Fighters did attack bombers and other fighters while at full power, but bombers remained at cruise even while being attacked. They just did NOT fly like they do in AH. However fighters flew a lot more like they do in AH than the bombers.
In summary: It's a non-issue for fighters, but for bombers it makes all the difference in the world.
-
Just a couple idea's to ponder .
We could adjust hardness on objectives alittle more, and maybe (just an idea ) add Spit v's 1 or 2 squads only for intercept as balance against the ju-88's that were built in '41 . Remember a spit v only has around 6 good shots now with its cannon amount at 120 per . after that its just a injected spit 1 .
Remember our main Goal is giving events players enjoy , and it was discussed years ago .the balance vs the actual numbers in the Real event. a closer Balance won out for making events enjoyable for all.
I don't think it's that great an idea... The 109E is out climbed, out sped, out turned, by the spit1 as-is. The SpitV isn't much faster but the cannon and the WEP and the handling simply make the 109E dogmeat.
You have an even worse problem adding hurr2cs, because of the current way hurricanes and 110cs are better than spit1s/109es... Then the hurricane 2cs and spitvs decimate escorts and have free run at the bombers.
Then you have to add 109Fs and/or 190s to counter the spitVs, and ... well...
I think the BOB scenario is just one of those few scenarios that has to remain traditional to the original event. It just loses its essence if you add later planes.
I don't know what to suggest if you want changes, but I would like to request not adding spitVs.
-
Why push things? Why run Bob for the 4th or 5th time? There are plenty of dates in actual History that we don't have to substitute aircraft.
In the ETO we have it just about covered....in North Afrika again we just about have it covered. We have early 109s and the P40 series.
along with the 202. We have Bostons and B25s. We have ground vehicles also for that date in time.
Just my imho that sometimes we put on a Scenario just to put one on. Again....no fault of the CMs. CMs can't be responsible for everything.
I like waiting for an anticipated well designed and a well thought out Scenario with people involved on both sides as well as CMs and CO's.
I can wait longer for those types of events....the event could be shaped, planned, and advertised and the Community kept abreast of the design and any snags. Heck.....the Community might want to get involved in making a map.....research etc. Research could be varified....sources listed and quoted etc.
Let's not put all of the responsibility on the CM Staff. As I've stated many times CMs give up a lot of their free time and imho should enjoy the game more and be given the chance to do so. I don't get to see Brooke, Roo, and ROC up much anymore. I think they deserve some time to play also. I would like the CM Staff help guide as well as create. But I would also like to see some of the Community getting deeper into the design with suggestions, research etc. and not make the CM carry the complete load. More involvement by the Community may or may not occurr. But we don't know if we don't ask. Making skins for an event, maps, design etc. the more involved the more that will participate in Scenarios.
Just of course mho.
-
I think that BoB, based on popularity and requests, is a scenario that will probably run once every 2-3 years. (Some folks would like it to be an annual event, which could happen if we run a lot more scenarios per year, but is too often when we are at 3-4/year.)
My feeling is that, for scenarios, we should run at least 3-4 per year. (More would be better, but let's make sure we can achieve 3-4/year and go from there.) Rather than have N/year of new designs, I'd rather have N+M/year, where N are new and M are designs that ran before. Also, there are definitely ones from the past (even other than Battle of Britain) that I, as a player, want to play in again.
-
Ya know....the more I think about it ....the more I feel new aircraft should be added at this point to fill out the planeset for scenarios and other events not just for the MA players (who of course will benefit also).
Aircraft such as the Ki-43, A6M2-N, D4Y Suisei Dive Bomber as well as the "Sally" Bomber all Japanese.
LW-Hs129, Ju52, He111, Do17.
Aussie- The Boomerang.
US- F2A (Brewster Buffalo) for the Finns also and the early China Burma Theater
there are numerous aircraft that can be listed and all will take time to produce.
If we wished to do a Guadalcanal type scenario we have the F4F, the P40 Series as well as the P39. B17s were used widely also.
The A6M2 is in the stable but we are missing an early Japanese bomber methinks in this timeframe.
The Zero Floatplane was used in the South Pacific also. Ki43 would be a great addition also. Although I'm not sure the Oscar was based at
Rabaul along with the zero. Long flight for the IJN or IJA but they made it almost on a daily basis.
Nothing like flying from the mud and high humdity at Henderson field. The Japanese Navy coming down the slot.
LVTs being launched.....W00T! Lots of targets and potential fun there.
-
Ya know....the more I think about it ....the more I feel new aircraft should be added at this point to fill out the planeset for scenarios and other events not just for the MA players (who of course will benefit also).
:aok I'm new to AH, but from what I can see that transition should have happened years ago.
-
I have 2 ideas for BOB.
Do the usual setup and force the JU88's to load full fuel and full ord to slow them down.
Do something more mid war style, with 109F's and spit5's with London as target for all frames.
-
Do the usual setup and force the JU88's to load full fuel and full ord to slow them down.
We already do this, and they already need full fuel, and it doesn't really slow them down that much because they're still full throttle and full speed well before they're near the target.
-
We already do this, and they already need full fuel, and it doesn't really slow them down that much because they're still full throttle and full speed well before they're near the target.
Fwiw, I read that the Ju 88A-4 was actually slower than the Ju 88A-1. The whole point of the Ju 88 was to be fast; there's no justification for artificially tampering with the scenario to make it easier to catch. On the other hand, the Ju 88 was a minority of the of the Luftwfaffe bomber fleet. The He 111 and Do 17 were both able to be overtaken by RAF fighters, and that's what we're missing.
About the A-1 vs. the A-4, Wikipedia cites: Dressel, Joachim and Manfred Griehl. Bombers of the Luftwaffe. London: Arms and Armour (DAG Publications), 1994. ISBN 1-85409-140-9
-
Fwiw, I read that the Ju 88A-4 was actually slower than the Ju 88A-1. The whole point of the Ju 88 was to be fast; there's no justification for artificially tampering with the scenario to make it easier to catch.
There's no justification for falsifying the historical events and having Ju88s flying a mere 30mph slower than the hurricanes and spitfires chasing them. There's no justification for NOT having these bombers flying at 180mph like they normally cruised.
Also, the Ju88A-1 had less defensive guns, was less armored, had weaker engines, and longer wings. This translates into slower climb (less horsepower) and acceleration, and easier to kill when caught.
Even though the Ju88 was in the minority, it still lost more than the He111s and Do17s did, so its loss rate was astronomical. Not the case in AH.
Frame 4 of last BOB we just had a big raid "for fun" and the hurricanes knew we were coming. 90% of all the Ju88s made it out of there and back to base. After the initial pass the hurricanes could not catch us to attack us.
Hardly historical in any way, shape, or form. So don't say "artifically tampering" when all we're trying to do is RESTORE equilibrium to a messed-up system.
-
There's no justification for NOT having these bombers flying at 180mph like they normally cruised.
What's your evidence to back up this claim? I'm a little incredulous when a 295mph bomber cruises at 180mph, but if you can cite a good source I'll believe it. When I fly the Ju88, I can do more than 200mph when not at full power in level flight with a full bombload.
Actually, the A-4 had "long span wings," which implies longer than the A-1 which preceded it (same source as above).
Lastly, your complaint about bombers not flying at cruise speed in scenarios goes the same way for B-17s and B-24s. Did you make the same complaint for DGS? Just curious.
-
Lastly, your complaint about bombers not flying at cruise speed in scenarios goes the same way for B-17s and B-24s. Did you make the same complaint for DGS? Just curious.
Yep he did. :rofl But the bombers in DGS didn't run full out, they ran at reduced throttle to maintain formation better.
-
Well, krusty gets points for consistency! :aok
I still maintain that there were a lot of real-world limitations on fighters that aren't modeled in AH, so the cruise speed issue doesn't bother me because it seems like a fair trade-off.
-
Fencer's idea of "reduced throttle" in the DGS example is a few inches of manifold. They were still hauling arse faster than normal cruise speeds.
Oh, and Anaxo, bombers didn't fly at full power in WW2. They didn't do anything at full power except take off. Immediately after taking off they reduced power to climb settings and then when level even more to max cruise settings.
Quoted from somebody that flew the Collins Foundation B-17 and B-24:
"B-24 and B-17 both climb way to well in WB. When I was flying the Collings airplanes the B-17 would climb at around 800fpm, the B-24 6-700fpm. We never, I say again, NEVER saw climb rates over 1000fpm as you see quite often in WB. And with the airplanes I was flying we weren't hauling bombs and neither airplane was capable of hauling a wartime fuel load."
It's a WarBirds related comment but the real world example can also be held up to Aces High.
Max speed for the B-17G at 25,000 feet is 287, but cruising is 182. B-24J max is 290 at 25,000 ft and cruising is 215. That's TAS.
Fuel was life. Fuel was important. Fuel was more important than anything else because it kept the engines running (which kept the plane in the air). Any other issues could be overcome. With no engine you bailed, crashed, or died.
You think bombers crossed continents on full throttle? They'd never make it to the target, let alone back, with that kind of fuel consumption.
EDIT: The point is that fighters performed at full power almost every sortie. Bombers never did. The same issues (engine limitations) are lacking from both, but only yield totally unhistoric performance values in bombers in this game, so it only really affects bombers overall.
-
Fencer's idea of "reduced throttle" in the DGS example is a few inches of manifold. They were still hauling arse faster than normal cruise speeds.
Max speed for the B-17G at 25,000 feet is 287, but cruising is 182. B-24J max is 290 at 25,000 ft and cruising is 215. That's TAS.
The DGS B-17s ran at about 215 to 220. The B-24s ran at about 240. WAY below maximum power. Alot more than "a few inches of manifold".
-
A nice example I've stumbled upon which illustrates real limitations vs AH limitations:
>According to the linked docs it took the Lib over an hour to reach 20,000 feet. Average ROC 317 fpm.
Good point. Checking the B-29 manual, a fully combat-loaded Superfortress required about an hour to get to 20000 ft, too, and extrapolating the graph, it might have needed another hour to get to 25000 ft.
and the reply:
Maybe even longer than that
The linked test report says something about them not attempting to test at higher altitudes because just getting to 20k used up the total allowed continuous max power operating time. If they'd wanted to go higher they would have had to reduce power and give the engines a breather. That would have either required some period of cruising at 20k until the engines could be safely taken to max power again or resulted in an even lower climb rate at the reduced power. They decided it wasn't worth the effort and didn't try to conduct any higher altitude tests.
-
Ok, but do you or don't you have a primary or secondary source that says the cruising speed for Luftwaffe bombers in the BoB was 180mph?
Fwiw, I tested the Ju88 with a full bombload at 10k ft, 50% fuel, and set the manifold and rpm's to the cruise settings according to e6b. Level speed topped out at around 212mph TAS. After dropping bombs level speed went to 246mph TAS with cruise settings.
Add another 5k ft and the level speed would be greater.
--------------
I will say that I'm with you in your quest for greater realism. I have always made it clear that I would like to see high fidelity engine controls and modeling, but the majority are scared of it.
-
180 was taking the B17 as an average. It was also taking into account how early the Ju88 is and how slow many early bombers were historically speaking, so it's an estimate. Many bombers from the Ju88s time were slower than this. The Ju52's top speed is in the 150s I think ("top", not "cruising"), so I figured it probably wasn't much faster than the later-era B-17.
-
I will say that I'm with you in your quest for greater realism. I have always made it clear that I would like to see high fidelity engine controls and modeling, but the majority are scared of it.
I don't play this game to fiddle with engine controls, I play for the fight.
-
Having flown both sides of BoB, I'd say the speed of the buff formations are the least of the worries in the event.
In the first BoB, I lead a squadron of Spitfires and dogfights were happening at 38k+. Without an alt cap of some kind imposed, I feel it will limit not only the historical accuracy but also the joy in the event.
In the second BoB I participated in, I decided to fly a 110 for something that resembled my beloved P38 more than a 109E. If flown properly, a squadron of 110 can easily clean the clocks of any groups doubling their formation size. Apart from forcing them all to fly in EG210 and having eggs, I don't know how they could be reigned in.
-
BoB is the first of the Sunday Euro Events starting soon so I've been thinking about the 88 problem. I assume its possible to set the fuel % available at a field, so how about limiting available fuel for fields used by bombers. That way they are forced to use reduced throttle settings to have enough fuel to get to target and back again?
-
I've read a number of accounts from the RAF perspective. Most of the time the Spitfires barely had time to get up to the LW before being engaged (often bounced). They knew a raid was there, but with the time it took to figure out where it was going, which squadron would be best to intercept it, etc, the spitfires were only just getting up to 20-25k.
However, the Battle of Britain was a time of alt wars. It was the war to see who could fight the highest, so the 38k battles you mention aren't unheard of... okay they're really not likely but there is a historical context.
I'd personally like to remove all that 50k junk from the scenarios. It detracts from the point most of the time. We just have to do what we can to get things working in an acceptable manner.
-
100mph downdraft at 25k and go from there?
-
Down drafts usually just make both sides hover at the limit.
BOB fighter sweeps regularly broke 30k, though.
-
I don't play this game to fiddle with engine controls, I play for the fight.
Right, but you're fighting in a flight simulation. We could make your landing gear go up and down automatically because you don't want to be bothered with it, you want to play for the fight, but we know that would be super gamey. Same thing goes for high fidelity engine controls.
-
Down drafts usually just make both sides hover at the limit.
BOB fighter sweeps regularly broke 30k, though.
Yup, that's exactly how it is in the Dogs of War FSO right now. Everyone flies at the max of 24k when they can.
-
However, the Battle of Britain was a time of alt wars. It was the war to see who could fight the highest, so the 38k battles you mention aren't unheard of... okay they're really not likely but there is a historical context.
Context? Are you kidding? Give me proof of one fight in the historical BoB that happened above 34k. Heck, we had Spitfires hovering at 40k during that event...
Scenarios are there to recreate history and, more often than not, rewrite the events and the outcome. Do not re-write the event before the players even log in.
-
We're recreating history, not reliving it. Our last BOB'06 the Germans won, remember?
Overall we stick to the spirit of the real thing but we don't have to adhere to every stupid thing/blunder one side or the other did.
-
Overall we stick to the spirit of the real thing but we don't have to adhere to every stupid thing/blunder one side or the other did.
And an alt cap is a stupid thing, more so if the historical fights never happened up at that alt?
Krusty, I'm not asking for either side have to play as an pre-programmed robot, just a simple alt cap.
You're not recreating history with Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Emils at 40k, least compared to any of the books I've read.
-
Funny thing, Krusty. I'm actually depending on a stupid thing/blunder or two from you in this scenario. :D
-
delirium, I've read a number of pilot accounts as well and they regularly report barely getting to 25k in time to be bounced by 30k 109s, or even higher enemy planes.
I wasn't necessarily saying the alt cap was stupid. I think it'd BAD, not stupid. I was saying that we don't have to do the same things that historically LOST the real battle. Example: We don't have to limit the 109s to close escort only for the bombers. This severely limited the Luftwaffe capabilities and the range of the 109Es.
As far as my opinion on scenarios/etc: I don't think restrictions work in all cases. Rather, I think encouragement is needed. Instead of "restricting" the alt (which, unless you use a 125mph downdraft, is un-enforcable), "encourage" the players to fly lower than this. Either by clouds, reduced visibility, cross-winds above a certain alt (*not* downdrafts, mind you), or something.
Alt caps just don't work well IMO. I find it much MUCH more unrealistic to have everybody coalt and co-E hovering at 24.9k out of fear of a high speed downdraft than I find 35k fights unrealistic.
One only pushes the line. The other scribbles all over it and then erases the line of reality.
-
Blunder !!! We don't need no stinking Blunders :rolleyes:
the LW will have to go attack Russia when we're done with them.
-
What's your evidence to back up this claim? I'm a little incredulous when a 295mph bomber cruises at 180mph, but if you can cite a good source I'll believe it. When I fly the Ju88, I can do more than 200mph when not at full power in level flight with a full bombload.
Actually, the A-4 had "long span wings," which implies longer than the A-1 which preceded it (same source as above).
Lastly, your complaint about bombers not flying at cruise speed in scenarios goes the same way for B-17s and B-24s. Did you make the same complaint for DGS? Just curious.
The Battle of Britain Historical Society lists the JU88 Specs at this following link.
http://www.battleofbritain.net/0016.html
While the table doesn't identify whether this is a JU88 A1 the wing span specs are very near the specs stated for the A1 in another source "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe" by David Donald. (web site says 59' 10 3/4" vs 60' 3")
Max Speed at 16K per the website is approx 286mph with approx 239mph cruise.
So apparently the aircraft could cruise significantly faster than 180mph.
-
The rule of diminishing returns suggests that there's a larger difference between "max cruise" and "full power" than 40mph...
:noid :noid :noid
-
been thinking about this and going back to RL BoB might provide the answer (at least for alts). AFAIK lw buffs came in anywhere between 7-18k depending on the alt of the cloud base over England, so a decent thick layer of cloud would cap the alt for buffs at whatever seems appropriate (fairly low to compensate for the speed?) combined with a hefty fuel restriction it might be possible to force 88s to a reasonable alt/speed.
-
Can't have hefty fuel restrictions on BOB map. It's very large scale. You have the same fuel burn for fighters as well.
If I recall, though, in Frame 4 when I flew with the bombers in BOB'06 a noticable number of bombers were running out of fuel and gliding home, but this was from a pretty far bomber base, and maybe fuel leaks from .303 guns helped.
-
We're recreating history, not reliving it. Our last BOB'06 the Germans won, remember?
There have been 3 previous BoBs right? Who won the other two? (Obviously I suspect the Germans won all three big time, given the Ju88 and Bf110 performance in AH, but I'm just asking.)
A cloud layer sounds like a good idea.
-
The Few prevailed in 2004, the LW managed to bomb the 11th group into the underground in 2006.
previous runnings were in the Cap /tour of duty days ,and on back in our other games.
Fuel burn is set historical to the time the 109's had over England befor having to rtb. (1.24)
there will be a few rule changes yet as for we now have tools / settings that work correctly .... We have ways to keep the riffraff out .. ;)
-
Yep, 2004 the RAF won, but it was very, very close. As I recall, it came down to just a few buildings one way or the other.
One other thing to keep in mind here: there is wind. Level bombing with wind must very much be taken into account properly in strategy and tactics.
-
IIRC, 2006 was the first LW victory. The other 2 went to RAF.
-
How about we just tell the JU-88 pilots to stay at or below the BOB ju-88 speed and hope they have the honesty to do it.
There will always be "those guys" but I have faith that the LW leaders could keep most at correct speed.
Worst case scenario is they go full speed anyway, so there is nothing to lose.
-
No need, because the speeds that the Ju-88 are capable of in-game are the same as those that the Ju-88 was capable of in real life.
-
No need, because the speeds that the Ju-88 are capable of in-game are the same as those that the Ju-88 was capable of in real life.
The variant of the Ju-88 that entered service in time to catch the very tail end of the BoB was an earlier variant of the Ju-88 we have. it was slower, and arrived too late. We need the He-111. Not for the realism, but because we just need more friggin German bombers. (And any other kind of Early War aircraft, at that.)
-
Im not infavor of a restricted alt because that is where everyone will hang out.
I am however, in favor of some major cloud cover to force German bombers to fly at legit altitudes. Oh... and those clouds just may make those German bombers do a second pass at a lower alt or from a different angle so they can see the target. Interesting concept.
-
A good layer of strong wind above 15k would be sufficient for forcing bombers lower. You don't need clouds.
-
I am however, in favor of some major cloud cover to force German bombers to fly at legit altitudes.
:aok for realism and gameplay - doesn't restict fighters alt like a wind cap so they can use E to make up for the 88s speed. several layers of patchy but dense cloud would be enough to deterr buffs but still allow fighters the chance to spot them.
-
Clearly, neither of you have tried to get a ju88 to 17k ft with full fuel and a full bombload. :P
-
Clearly, neither of you have tried to get a ju88 to 17k ft with full fuel and a full bombload. :P
I didn't even think you could get 'em that high in a reasonable amount of time.
-
They get very sluggish above 12-14k with full loadout. In FSO last week we were able to get them to 18-19k (I forget which) and hit the target in maybe 45 minutes, but we had 75% fuel I think. Full fuel would take a little longer.