Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Squire on January 17, 2009, 10:45:44 AM
-
Allied:
Single Engined AC Destroyed- 151 for 302pts
Twin Engined Bombers Destroyed (all Ki-67s)- 39 for 195pts
*Air Total- 190 kills for 497pts*
Ground Targets- 135pts
Ships- 150pts
TOTAL- 782pts
Axis:
Single Engined AC Destroyed- 151 for 302 pts
Twin Engined Bombers Destroyed (all B-25s)- 41 for 205pts
Four Engined Bombers Destroyed (all B-24s)- 16 for 160pts
*Air Total- 208 kills for 667pts*
Ground Targets- 400pts
Ships- 150pts
* %5 penalty for two squads that exceeded the max limit. We need to start getting things under control that way.
TOTAL- 1156 pts
*The telling difference here was the very light destruction of grnd targets by the Allied bombers. The Axis hit many more high value targets such as Bomber, Fighter, and Vehicle Hangers despite having a bomber force with a poorer payload.
-
Is it me or did the axis use far more A6M5s than the 120 they were allowed?
# of A6M2 used 85
# of A6M5b used 163
-
The Val pilots all got to up A6m5s as a second life.
-
Fratricide at T+0, plus the D3A "2nd life" does not count towards the 120 max, also anybody spawning a 2nd time for whatever reason, drives the count up in the logs. The penalty assessed includes any over # there might have been, but yes, they were over.
-
the D3A "2nd life" does not count towards the 120 max
Ahhh, didn't realize that.
-
What about the 15k alt cap for bombers? I think I saw a number of Ki's over 15k.
-
I have not seen any evidence that the alt limit was broken by either side, if you have any film, email me at glbold@telus.net but im talking about gross violations, not just a few k of alt. The Ki-67s and other bombers that I saw all were 15k and below.
-
That's cool. No film, and they were within a couple thousand - prolly around 17k or something.
-
I have not seen any evidence that the alt limit was broken by either side, if you have any film, email me at glbold@telus.net but im talking about gross violations, not just a few k of alt. The Ki-67s and other bombers that I saw all were 15k and below.
All Allied Bombers (13) encountered here, were below the alt cap. :salute
And subsequently destroyed as well. :)
Nice work Axis. :salute
-
Tough scenario for the Allies this:
We chose to hold the limited F4Us we had in defense to try and counter the speed of the KI67's. The P38's were mainly on strike missions leaving us P40's and P39's to fill in the gaps on defense and provide escort cover. The P39 was the only fighter aircraft we had unrestricted numbers on and it bore the brunt of our escort duties. It really can't compete with zero's, but we were hoping a wave of 38's and a wave of 39's going in might have driven the defenders low before the Buffs arrived . Guess not.
-
The 353rd was definitely below 15K. We also converted a Cruiser into a submarine, which is now 15k below sea level. :aok
-
Tough scenario for the Allies this:
We chose to hold the limited F4Us we had in defense to try and counter the speed of the KI67's. The P38's were mainly on strike missions leaving us P40's and P39's to fill in the gaps on defense and provide escort cover. The P39 was the only fighter aircraft we had unrestricted numbers on and it bore the brunt of our escort duties. It really can't compete with zero's, but we were hoping a wave of 38's and a wave of 39's going in might have driven the defenders low before the Buffs arrived . Guess not.
Like they say the best plans go to s**t as soon as the shooting starts. :D
Our squadron of P-39s had the assignment to go in and engage the CAP at A18.
Once over the coast of Bougainville our plan was to sprint ahead of the strike engage the CAP.
Just off the coast Stoney74's P-38s became heavily engaged and did a great job of keeping the Japanese guys away from the the B-24s that were flown by the C-Hawks.
The C-Hawks also had some members flying P-40Es as escort and they were engaged behind the B-24s again doing a great job.
Then more A6M5s and Ki-61s showed up just as we crossed the coastline with the two close escort flights already tied up I made the decision to use our P-39s to try and defend the B-24s instead of sprinting ahead. SpiveyCh's B-24s were near the target and doing a great job of holding formation when I last saw them. We were sooned overwhelmed by A6M2s, A6M5s and a flight of Ki-61s and lost contact.
P-39Ds against A6M2s is a pretty exciting fight. With the A6M5s and Ki-61s we had our hands more than full. The Japanese leadership put up a very good defense plan for their bases.
We'll dust ourselves off and give it another shot next Friday.
<S>
-
The B24's were not in the air 5 min when were were pounced on by some rabid zekes. We had not formed up yet, and I was busy corralling some stray amd newer pilots, and plotting a course when I heard pings hitting my bomber and then a panicked "CHECKSIXCHECKSIXCHECKSIX!" from one of my fellow B24 pilots. By then, the zeke had taken out my rear gun, top gun, and I was on fire. I did manage to get some pings on him from the ball turret prior to him breaking off.
Lots of things that need to be discussed to discuss with the Allied commanders.. lots. ;)
One thing I want to know is why dont the allies whol fly the SBD have the ability to up a P39 for their second life??? If the Allies had the numbers in the Bougainville campaign, and they did, allowing the Japs to up A6m5's for their second aircrafft allows them MORE numbers and not only that, but they are allwoed a very potent package.
I say the allies in teh SBD's should get a second life in a P39.
-
The B24's were not in the air 5 min when were were pounced on by some rabid zekes. We had not formed up yet, and I was busy corralling some stray amd newer pilots, and plotting a course when I heard pings hitting my bomber and then a panicked "CHECKSIXCHECKSIXCHECKSIX!" from one of my fellow B24 pilots. By then, the zeke had taken out my rear gun, top gun, and I was on fire. I did manage to get some pings on him from the ball turret prior to him breaking off.
Lots of things that need to be discussed to discuss with the Allied commanders.. lots. ;)
One thing I want to know is why dont the allies whol fly the SBD have the ability to up a P39 for their second life??? If the Allies had the numbers in the Bougainville campaign, and they did, allowing the Japs to up A6m5's for their second aircrafft allows them MORE numbers and not only that, but they are allwoed a very potent package.
I say the allies in teh SBD's should get a second life in a P39.
I am not a fan of the 2nd life thing in FSO, even when one side already gets the privilege and the other doesn't. FSO would be a higher quality event if the 2nd life were put in the box of 'ideas that were tried but which failed to increase the immersion.'
-
The CM has already changed the second life for the D3As.
The A11 CAP ran into some trouble with altitude and contact times, as well. VMF-251 was assigned to patrol the gap between A12 and A30, which is about half a sector from our launch base (A11). However no sooner do we get into position and are STILL making our way to altitude (we're at 15k, aiming for 25) when we receive a report from the 325th of contact made with the enemy and A12's radar flashing. We shortly after are overflown by Zeros at about 18-20k.
I know the map has limitations with launch base distances, but I'd expect to be able to get at LEAST a sector from base before making contact with the enemy.
:O
-
Yeah, I can tell you that whoever planned out the Axis orders did a fine job in getting the zekes down to A11 & A12 very quickly. We were still on the climbout in P-39's when the largest formation of zekes I have ever seen came screaming in and tore us to pieces. We had split the squad for patrolling the defensive CAP area and were murdered. We got a few of them, but all in all they hurt is bad which let the destruction of ground targets commence with little resistance.
-
Not only down there quickly, but at a significant altitude advantage as well.
I wonder if maybe the Axis was allowed too many A6M5s, which aren't really that comparable to the A6M3, especially in rate of climb (the A6M5 climbs MUCH better).
-
theyre just zero's they cant catch me
-
I had trouble catching the B-25s in my A6M2 at C49. Defensive fire got me and I ended up burning and was forced to bail.
I did get one's engine and fuel.
-
I had trouble catching the B-25s in my A6M2 at C49. Defensive fire got me and I ended up burning and was forced to bail.
I did get one's engine and fuel.
Shoulda been at A9 :D
We were able to vulch some B-25s landing there with no escorts. Ill try to get some pictures.
-
<S> to the allies defending a40. They refused to give up the fight even when the were overwhelmed. Unfortunately the kept engaging my squads A6M5s with their P-40s and P-39s in ones and twos. This of course allowed them to be singled out and dealt with. Their was a lone F4U there that kept barreling through our group guns blazing and then running clear out of icon range. We eventually just evaded and then ignored him until he came back. One or two allied pilots tried to rearm while there was a dogfight going on less than 2k from a40 and got popped on the rearm pad. Overall a valiant defense. :salute
-
The thing that gets me is that this campaign should be almost an entirely DEFENSIVE campaign for the Japs. But instead this scenario did what most others do: set things up fo the two side meet in the middle and duke it out.
If one were to read up on the history of the Bougainville campaign, not only did the allies have almost free reign in the air but the Japs didnt ever really did go to it on the offensive not at least with any merit. NOTE: I am not calling for an obvious allied superiority, but damn.
Im not going to sit here an critisize the event planners to the point of being negative, but a big question I have is just how in depth did the research go on flight numbers, aircraft ratios, etc, and just how much of a blind eye was turned so the numbers would be "mroe even".
Maybe instead of "who gets the most points", perhaps it needs to be a certain side needs to perform to a certian level in order to win. Perhaps the scoring needs to be "X number of OBJ destroyed" and/or "X number of aircraft destroyed. Still use teh poitns system, but dont make it so same same.
Also, maybe in the Bougainville campaign the Japs shouldnt be able to up ALL fo their planes from the call of "GO", perhaps a time delay, pehaps a restriction until their radar ring flashes, enemy sightings, etc. This "get ready, get set, GO!" for both sides is questionable, imo.
It simply shouldnt be a "meet in the middle and duke it out" type thing. Not for either side.
-
Design one and submit it. I'm sure they would take a look at it and I myself would be interested to see what you come up with because I agree with what you're saying.
-
The thing that gets me is that this campaign should be almost an entirely DEFENSIVE campaign for the Japs. But instead this scenario did what most others do: set things up fo the two side meet in the middle and duke it out.
If one were to read up on the history of the Bougainville campaign, not only did the allies have almost free reign in the air but the Japs didnt ever really did go to it on the offensive not at least with any merit. NOTE: I am not calling for an obvious allied superiority, but damn.
Im not going to sit here an critisize the event planners to the point of being negative, but a big question I have is just how in depth did the research go on flight numbers, aircraft ratios, etc, and just how much of a blind eye was turned so the numbers would be "mroe even".
Maybe instead of "who gets the most points", perhaps it needs to be a certain side needs to perform to a certian level in order to win. Perhaps the scoring needs to be "X number of OBJ destroyed" and/or "X number of aircraft destroyed. Still use teh poitns system, but dont make it so same same.
Also, maybe in the Bougainville campaign the Japs shouldnt be able to up ALL fo their planes from the call of "GO", perhaps a time delay, pehaps a restriction until their radar ring flashes, enemy sightings, etc. This "get ready, get set, GO!" for both sides is questionable, imo.
It simply shouldnt be a "meet in the middle and duke it out" type thing. Not for either side.
I agree that it should have been a defensive setup for the Axis. Some of the other changes might be a little more difficult to implement, but we already have seen the offense vs. defense work in the past. I AM a bit curious why the "meet in the middle" setup was used instead.
-
A few things.
The Japanese in the Solomons were not completely defensive in 1943, nor did the Allies have "free reign". There are numerous accounts of Japanese level and dive bombers operating in the Solomons at this time, including attacks made against targets as far away as Guadalcanal. Add to that not every FSO is going to follow exactly how a campaign may have been fought historically in any case. You can look at any number of other SEA events to see that, including many, if not most FSOs. If you do that, you quickly end up just carbon copying designs that have been done already. In "A Long December" the side split was 50/50. Great FSO as it was, imho, it was hardly representative of the historic air power situation in the Western ETO in late Dec 1944.
The map in use is exactly where the lines were in September 1943. I dont really get the "meet in the middle" stuff. The terrain is what it was. Its an island chain and thats where the lines of demarcation were, I didn't make them up. The airfields are also accurate, for the most part. The plane set is also accurate for the time frame, save the Ki-67, which as I already said, is a stand in for a/c like the Ki-49-II and others. Yes, I wish we had a G4M, we dont yet, I hope we do soon.
You could do many different variations of this setup, and they would all be played out differently. Could you do a more defensive Japanese posture? yes, of course. Do you need to do that every time? I would say I hope not.
There are also many factors that have to be taken into account, the map size and the terrain it includes, and doesn't, the 2hr time frame, and playability issues, such as expected attendance of both sides rosters, ect.
Scoring, is completely subjective. You have to quantify it somehow. If you don't use points, then you would use some other, just as artificial method. There were no "points" or "frames" in WW2, its a game function. At the end of the day you have to have a quantifiable way to say "this is how you did", because its a game, and players want a tally, and so, we give them one.
Hope that clarifies a few things. Im not going to get into some lengthy debate here, but I thought a few points were warranted.
-
<S> to the allies defending a40. They refused to give up the fight even when the were overwhelmed. Unfortunately the kept engaging my squads A6M5s with their P-40s and P-39s in ones and twos. This of course allowed them to be singled out and dealt with. Their was a lone F4U there that kept barreling through our group guns blazing and then running clear out of icon range. We eventually just evaded and then ignored him until he came back. One or two allied pilots tried to rearm while there was a dogfight going on less than 2k from a40 and got popped on the rearm pad. Overall a valiant defense. :salute
That was one of mine. We had 9 but ran into 880sqn and about 30 more A6M5's 4 of us got killed then the rest dove out to 40. Then the rest attacked KI67s a few more got killed. Then the last 3 got into a fight with a6ms 2 died there and then the last went back to 40 and defended to the end. But 613th did get 2 in Top Pilot:Kills allied and on Top Squad:Kills list both squad firsts for us.
-
A few things.
The Japanese in the Solomons were not completely defensive in 1943, nor did the Allies have "free reign". There are numerous accounts of Japanese level and dive bombers operating in the Solomons at this time, including attacks made against targets as far away as Guadalcanal. Add to that not every FSO is going to follow exactly how a campaign may have been fought historically in any case. You can look at any number of other SEA events to see that, including many, if not most FSOs. If you do that, you quickly end up just carbon copying designs that have been done already. In "A Long December" the side split was 50/50. Great FSO as it was, imho, it was hardly representative of the historic air power situation in the Western ETO in late Dec 1944.
The map in use is exactly where the lines were in September 1943. I dont really get the "meet in the middle" stuff. The terrain is what it was. Its an island chain and thats where the lines of demarcation were, I didn't make them up. The airfields are also accurate, for the most part. The plane set is also accurate for the time frame, save the Ki-67, which as I already said, is a stand in for a/c like the Ki-49-II and others. Yes, I wish we had a G4M, we dont yet, I hope we do soon.
You could do many different variations of this setup, and they would all be played out differently. Could you do a more defensive Japanese posture? yes, of course. Do you need to do that every time? I would say I hope not.
There are also many factors that have to be taken into account, the map size and the terrain it includes, and doesn't, the 2hr time frame, and playability issues, such as expected attendance of both sides rosters, ect.
Scoring, is completely subjective. You have to quantify it somehow. If you don't use points, then you would use some other, just as artificial method. There were no "points" or "frames" in WW2, its a game function. At the end of the day you have to have a quantifiable way to say "this is how you did", because its a game, and players want a tally, and so, we give them one.
Hope that clarifies a few things. Im not going to get into some lengthy debate here, but I thought a few points were warranted.
Thanks for the heads up. It is apprecaited. <S>
I didnt mean any disrespect when I questioned the parameters of the set up. But it seems as if the forces are established, the airfields are made public, and the start time is given, with a "meet in the middle" mentality. Why are the fleets not allowed to be in a bigger area? There is no chance to miss the fleet. There is no need for scouting. Just point nose on and GOGOGO when the "Fields are open" call is made. I have a lot of respect for the planners and admin, it takes a lot planning and time to set things up. But for ideas or constructive critisms not to be shared would do no one any good. ;)
How would I mix things up? ...
Not all aircraft would be allowed to up at the start. Both sides would have fighters on patrol. Both sides would have scouts in on missions. Both sides would have a lot of aircraft on the ground when hostiliteis began, more so the Japs than anything. The yanks/kiwis would simply up more aircraft if the "major engagement" or "fleet found" call was made. Simply put, the alts would be different mostly due to differences in launch times), the ranges away from base would be different 9due to launch times), and the sudden DIVINE WIND of aircraft wouldnt be so omnious for both sides. I would limit the B24's to 18k, the B25's to 13k (both very feasible and proper operating alts), the Betty/Peggy would be near 18k as well, iirc from my readings. SBD/D3A alts would be maxed near the same. Blanket settings for ALL aircraft of a certain type isnt typical of offensive operations in either WWII theater. Base the max alt on their typcial bombing alts for that theater or time frame (B24's flew at 18k or lower and the B25 was at 13k at its highest typically vs land based targets in PTO, vs shipping they were much lower as constant visual updates were needed by the pilot/bombidier on target variables.
I would place alt limits on fighters to help mimic true to historical scenario facts. What alt did the zeke's fly at for normal operations in late 43 in the SW PTO? Yeah, I thought so. What about the P38's, 39's, and 40's? Hmm... I know there are a lot of things that cant be regualted by the servers, but to a certain degree the planners/admin can step in and say: "Because it was THIS way in the actual event we shall require it here.", etc. I would also draw borders or limit fuel (no DT's) on certain aircraft so that not just every and any aircraft can be everywhere on the map. That may sound restricting but it does prevent a swarm of enemy aircraft over a target that would otherwise be more true to the norm. Last but not least in this tidbit... do NOT make it known where each side is upping from. Keep as much info as private as possble until the night of the event. I realize there is a need for planning flight paths and all... bu to publich that "it will be from A10 or A12" give the Jap (or the yanks depending on perspective) a direct line of attack KNOWING that there are enemy aircraft in teh air *right there*.
Make it extremely costly to lose an aircraft. I still see a lot of guys bounding into battle when in the real work they'd wait for more of their wing to arrive prior to jumping into the ring vs overwhelming odds, advatage or not. This goes for both sides. Better yet... give those pilots that engage and are able to shoot down, get an assist, destroy an OBJ, etc, give those pilots a "bonus" score for getting their plane back. Not enough ephisis isplaced on surviving. There is still too much of an MA "tora tora tora" attitude in the SEA, imo. Just an observation.
FWIW... I am designing a scenario of my own. I am designing an "Invasion Normandy" campaign that will have mostly Allies air/sea vs Axis ground and token LW in Phase I, Allied air/ground vs Axis ground/token LW for Phase II, and for Phase III the Pzrs will have been unleashed from the north as well as some larger LW reserves! I'm diving into a treasure trove of sources for as much unit, weapons/vehicle/aircraft, and material data as I can. My scenario wont be about meeting in the middle as much as it will be about the Germans slowing the tide as much as possble. I'm trying to plan an actual beach invasion with LVT2/4, supported by destroyers and attack aircraft vs light armor (M8's, 251's, M16's, jeeps) and a limited number of tanks (Pzr4), supported by at veh bases for a Utah/Omaha/Sword/Juno beach. We'll see how it works out. The points scale will be much more dynamic for the Germans.
-
Make it extremely costly to lose an aircraft. I still see a lot of guys bounding into battle when in the real work they'd wait for more of their wing to arrive prior to jumping into the ring vs overwhelming odds, advantage or not. This goes for both sides. Better yet... give those pilots that engage and are able to shoot down, get an assist, destroy an OBJ, etc, give those pilots a "bonus" score for getting their plane back. Not enough emphasis is placed on surviving. There is still too much of an MA "tora tora tora" attitude in the SEA, imo. Just an observation.
This is the only point I really agree with, but the cost of aircraft losses is already accounted for in score. On the other hand, I always like it when aircraft that land safely count for points.
-
That was one of mine. We had 9 but ran into 880sqn and about 30 more A6M5's 4 of us got killed then the rest dove out to 40. Then the rest attacked KI67s a few more got killed. Then the last 3 got into a fight with a6ms 2 died there and then the last went back to 40 and defended to the end. But 613th did get 2 in Top Pilot:Kills allied and on Top Squad:Kills list both squad firsts for us.
I wasn't wasn't discrediting his tactics. I was merely using it as a reference for how the fight progressed. I just thought he would have severed the other defenders better by using his planes advantage over my zekes to better assist the 40s and 39s. His long extensions allowed my boys to slice and dice the 40s and 39s alot easier than if he had stayed closer and put us on more of a defensive. Big :salute on your leaderboard status sir. It is a thrill to see your name up in lights, unless it's for friendly frags...
-
...
I always like it when aircraft that land safely count for points.
:aok
Points for kills is OK, and yet more points for each safe landing is even better!
-
i strongly agree about not keepin the fleets in such small areas, this gives a reason to use scouts and i also agree that certian planes should not be able to take off until the scouts have found the enemy fleet.
-
You're assuming folks have the time to spend 2 hours LOOKING for the fleets and another 45 minutes getting the attack package to them after that.
The point of FSO is to engage the enemy. Not to re-create gameplay best suited for offline games.
Even with "target must be hit by T+60" many times strike packages barely find the CV and get within visual range by the alotted time, let alone having any escorts, top cover, or beneficial positions. Often times we've got there by the skin of our teeth and had to dive right in. The results of such hasty attacks are usually dismal.
Forget the whole "we need scout missions!!!" requests we've been seeing for years, they don't work in online games where other folks sit in the tower 2 hours for you to do a 1-man job by yourself.
-
Krushy your dead on and I agree and let me add this to it.
Been reading the logs above recommended improvements or making it more "realistic"
All of you that have been in the FSO for many years have seen this all before, I know I have. I do have point of "realistic" FSO's vs. the "meet in the middle" as we are referring to it.
This is a game and we are all here to have fun. Squad participation over the last 12 months has doubled so it is working very well. The 325th VFG attendance numbers have tripled over the last 12 months. I have no desire to attand "reinactments" of historical accounts of WWII. I already know who won. I come into the FSO to plan and operation and fight with other well organized squads with the intent to see if our plan, organization and abilities can out beat the other side. The varible is the plane set and scenario control measures. In this reguard the FSO is a huge success and there is nothing like it anywhere.
EVERY FSO:
Should provide each side with an "equal" chance to win. The sides need to have equal targets to defend and attack. Without this simple idea the FSO will lose attendance because the AXIS side would in in almost every scenario after 1943 be out numberd or out preformed (minus a few exceptions). No one wants to fly missions in which they have no chance to win.
Reconing for ship or placing ships into a larger grid: We only have 120 minutes to lift and return. I dont want to spend my time either flying around looking for a fleet for 60 minutes or sitting on the ground for 30 minutes waiting for a recon report. This is not fun!! I think the current techniquie of providing you a "grid" location is realistic. This "simulates" a long range recon plane spotting the fleet and reporting its location. Your strike group assemblies and launchs (Start of the game). The time period between the recon report and your launch would be several hours in real life thus a "distance that the spotted ship coule move" the "grid". Which is what you S-2 section would provide to you. A last known location and a cirlce drawn around it with the cirlce representing the distance the shiip could move.
-
They used to use a 4 sector grid to place target TGs in. It was at times frustrating to find and hit before T+60. Sometimes it was not found at all. And in some cases fuel did not allow for a follow up strike. Sometimes the limitations were one sided depending on the plane set and map.
Now it seems that 1 sector is the norm. Not sure when or how this came about. Defenders are often fully engaged when the ord arrives by design. Not saying it's intentional. Just a little too orderly. No matter how much you spread out a strike package, it still funnels to 1 sector. With a larger containment area it is possible for the bombers to be closer to the TG than many of the fighters/scouts when it's located. On site coordination is needed to delay the bombers until superior forces arrive over target. This IMHO is FSO at it's best.
Being that the attraction of using TGs as targets is that they are moving targets, I think that a larger containment area should be used when possible. I think 2 sectors could have been used in this one. It does mean more consideration by the CMs on when to use a larger containment area and I leave it to them to decide the marits of my views<S>