Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Nefarious on March 17, 2014, 06:39:50 PM
-
The Allied Ace was Jayro of the Gunfighters flying the F4U-1.
He was representing Kenneth Walsh. Walsh was one of the most experienced pilots in the USMC's first Corsair squadron when they arrived at Guadalcanal in February 12th 1943 and they were thrown right into combat the day they arrived. He claimed his first three Japanese planes on April 1st and would become the first Corsair ace on May 13th. He would be awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions against the Japanese on August 30th. Walsh retired a Lt Colonel and passed away in 1998.
While flying his Corsair, Jayro shot down two Ki-43-IIs piloted by Warloc and Sabot of 1841 Fleet Air Arm. He also had an assist. Jayro landed successfully.
The Axis Ace was 68Raptor of the 68th Lightning Lancers flying the A6M3 Model 32.
He was representing Masaaki Shimakawa, who claimed his first victory on the opening day of the war against the US in the Philippines. A pilot in the famed Tainan Air group of Rabaul he was aboard the Carrier Kaga when it was sunk during the Battle of Midway. He was rescued and then began flying in the Solomons where he would down a total of 8 aircraft and share in another 12-13 before coming down with Malaria and being shipped home in March 1943. Shimakawa passed away in 1997.
While flying his Zero, 68Raptor shot down 5 aircraft in the short span of 4 minutes. 3 SBD-5's piloted by SKfgALPO and Jaeger1 of JG54 Grunherz, and BLBird of G3-MF. Along with 2 F4F-4s flown by Doc72CH and QcareCH of the 364th C-Hawks FG. 68Raptors furious run was ended though by Biggamer of the G3-MF who also shot down 5 enemy aircraft in his F4F-4. Sounded like a heck of a battle.
Here are the Frame 2 Scores and totals. The Axis Bomber formations suffered heavily this frame. 72 Betties were shot down, compared to 4 in frame 1. The Axis still managed to destroy more object points than the Allies, a reversal from frame 1 where the Axis lead in Air to Air Points. The Allies go into Frame 3 with 15 F4U-1s, 16 P-38Gs, and 10 P-40Fs. Good luck to all in Frame 3.
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/ralphmunnich/20140314FRAME2SCORES.jpg) (http://s205.photobucket.com/user/ralphmunnich/media/20140314FRAME2SCORES.jpg.html)
-
The big outlier in those stats is the 72 Betties.
How is it possible for a design to incorporate that plane but not be so unbalancing?
There must be genuinely useful ideas out there.
-
The big outlier in those stats is the 72 Betties.
How is it possible for a design to incorporate that plane but not be so unbalancing?
There must be genuinely useful ideas out there.
.
-
The big outlier in those stats is the 72 Betties.
How is it possible for a design to incorporate that plane but not be so unbalancing?
There must be genuinely useful ideas out there.
Real life . IT was called the flying lighter
-
Real life . IT was called the flying lighter
I'm sure Dantoo gets that. The challenge is balancing the history with playability. Unfortunately with the Betties, these two factors are inversely proportional.
-
Yep like the TBM in for the TBF--- some things in the game are just confounding!
.
-
It's amazing the difference in the number of losses from Frame 1 to Frame 2 are. From what I can gather from the logs, it appears that formations were used by all squads who used G4M1s.
In frame 1, the Axis launched 36 G4M1s, losing 4. They also launched 19 D3A1s, and lost 17.
In frame 2, the Axis launched 42 G4M1s, losing 72. They launched 0 D3A1s.
Why the large difference in losses?
-
It's amazing the difference in the number of losses from Frame 1 to Frame 2 are. From what I can gather from the logs, it appears that formations were used by all squads who used G4M1s.
In frame 1, the Axis launched 36 G4M1s, losing 4. They also launched 19 D3A1s, and lost 17.
In frame 2, the Axis launched 42 G4M1s, losing 72. They launched 0 D3A1s.
Why the large difference in losses?
Any reason they can't bomb up the Ki-43s? I didnt see them on the no ord list.. Seems like a better option than the Val.
-
Any reason they can't bomb up the Ki-43s? I didnt see them on the no ord list.. Seems like a better option than the Val.
The Axis have no Ords restrictions on any aircraft or bomb.
-
Using the Objective scores and aerial kills of Frame 2 I did some math to answer... How many G4M1s could the Axis lose before they lost Frame 2?
The Axis could have lost 23 G4M1s and edged out Frame Two by 2 Points, Final scores would have been 1035 Axis, 1033 Allies.
Had the Axis lost half of the 72 total G4M1s lost, 36, the Axis would have lost by 141 Points. 1176 Allies, 1035 Axis.
APDrone recommended some scoring changes at the pre-FSO announcement post, I can see the validity in reducing the score of the Betty, but the swing from Frame 1 to 2 shows that anything can happen and it will effect the score.
-
It's amazing the difference in the number of losses from Frame 1 to Frame 2 are. From what I can gather from the logs, it appears that formations were used by all squads who used G4M1s.
In frame 1, the Axis launched 36 G4M1s, losing 4. They also launched 19 D3A1s, and lost 17.
In frame 2, the Axis launched 42 G4M1s, losing 72. They launched 0 D3A1s.
Why the large difference in losses?
I can only speak for the first frame, we came in and the G4's had *0* enemy defense to encounter. Those loses were to ack or other issues. No G4's were shot at by players that I'm aware of. I'll also say that we only encountered ~12 planes in defense. Also they were all boxes of buffs and took down 2/6 ships including the CV and Cruiser.
-
Vulnerability plays a big role for sure but let me expand, through numbers, the problem that COs using this plane set typically must face.
Where ships (as here) are the target, then the problem of minimum ord to crack the target becomes a major issue of force composition.
Let's look at the Carrier/Cruiser combo and the scoring in this FSO simply by way of example. The designer guides the CIC's planning by providing incentive through scoring. The higher the score for the target, the more certain you can be that the designer wants you to hit it.
This FSO the designer has allocated 144 points for a carrier and 72 points for a cruiser. It will take 8000lb and 2000lb of ordnance in direct hits to score the points. Even a lb less and you get nothing.
To solve your allocations, you have to look at the load carrying capacity of the strike aircraft in your arsenal and determine minimum carriage capacity to determine the number of aircraft and types to use.
Let's look at the Allied set first.
A B25 can carry 3000lb of ordnance. A single trio carries sufficient ordance to sink a carrier. A single aircraft carries sufficient to sink a cruiser.
The TBM can carry 2000lb. Four planes required for a carrier and one for a cruiser.
An SBD loads up 1000lb needing eight planes for a carrier and on 2 for a cruiser.
Against that minimum load for effect you have factor in a multiplyer. This figure takes account of the skill set of the pilots and the likely vulnerability of your aircraft to the defenders. It his higher for moving targets than fixed targets.
If I was sending B25s against a carrier I might choose a 3 to 1 ratio (YMMV but I am setting out a problem faced by all CICS). This means that I would send 2 trios of B25s against a carrier/cruiser combo and then mulitply that by 3 to get sufficient bombs out to have a certainty of effect for effort. That is a total of 6 trios per shipping group minimum. That's 18 planes but only 6 pilots. (I get 12 extra people in fighters now to protect assets). 180 points risked.
For TBMs I'd use the same ratios and come up with 4 + 1 required on target with a total of 15 airframes (and pilots) for effect. 75 points in the ring.
SBD's are different. Their more accurate delivery provides some relief on the multiple.
You need 10 singles for target destruction but can happily drop to a 2 to 1 ratio given their accuracy and toughness. 20 SBDs for a pair of ships and you just about get a guarantee of 216 points for an exposure of 80 points risk.
Now for the Axis arithmetic.
Big old Betty carts 2200lb thus 6600lb in trios. You require two trios to hit the carrier and one to get the cruiser.
If you were able to use the same ratio as the other side (you can't because of vulnerability) you would require 9 trios minimum for an effective strike at the target. This is 27 planes at 11 points per plane (yes there is a greater penalty for losing a G4M than a B25 in this one) which is a risk of 297 points for a possible gain of 216. You get to use less pilots as escort because you have to have more in bombers.
You are required to use (and risk) 24 minimum at 11 points a loss.
Having less planes to escort means your bombers are now more vulnerable. But wait! They are already more vulnerable because AH determined that they should be destroyed easily. Now you have a deep problem. The only way you can start to guarantee that the target gives you anything back at all is to further increase that multiplyer up to 3.5 or 4. Remember you get nothing at all if the ship stays floating - it's all-in each hand.
Looking at the other types:
Vals carry 770lb requiring 11 hits on a cv and 3 on a cruiser. 14 planes perfectly striking required in all but a mulitplyer of 2 might suffice in the right hands hands. 28 planes at a cost of 4 gives 112 risk against 216 gain. Thats 8 more than the SBDs meaning that you lose a squad that might have been able to escort them.
B5Ns can carry 1760lbs which means 5 for a carrier and 2 for a cruiser. A simple 7 X 3 = 21. You might choose to use a lesser multiple given the ability to dive bomb, but I have used 3 because of the lack of effective self defence. Risk 105 for a possible reward of 216.
The A6M3 doesn't carry ord but the Ki43 carts a useful 1100lb. Thats 8 for the carrier and 2 for the cruiser. Multiple is probably just a bit above 2 as it is not a dedicated dive bomber but in the hands of fair pilots you can get a result. Take 25 and you risk 75 points with a fairly good chance of getting a few home.
So what does that tell us? Well it possibly means that you should expect to see lots and lots of Ki43s in the air for the final frame. :eek:
This possibility however doesn't at all help answer my original question:
How is it possible for a design to incorporate that plane (the G4M) but not be so unbalancing?
There must be genuinely useful ideas out there.
My genuine inquiry is about how we can encourage its use in events and little to do with the mathematics showing that it has less than slight appeal to CICs and pilots.
The old "G4M model 11 24 MIN" will ensure their use, but I'm sure there are more attractive ways to incentivise the use of an airframe we begged and begged for.
-
Apology about the length of that, but I can relax knowing that only those that actually care about the subject will post anything other than TLDR :)
-
Apology about the length of that, but I can relax knowing that only those that actually care about the subject will post anything other than TLDR :)
A great post, I wouldn't expect anything less. A very good break down on all the options for CICs for this FSO, which as you mention, can have varying degrees of difficulty and points risks. As always, your input is very much appreciated Dantoo.
The idea was to allow flexibility to the Japanese. Instead of Val and Kate requirements giving them a 24 pilot minimum on the Betties and the Oscars. Trying to make this as fair as possible for the Axis was the number 1 priority from the start. Careful review by other CMs and even public discussion of the event before it starts allow for ideas and critiques to spur changes or edits to the event. Even then, after all the talk and pre-gaming, the first frame comes and everything is out the window. The first frame was relatively close. For being so outgunned, the Axis did well in the air, outscoring the Allies, but failed to sink enough boats. In frame 2, the Allies tightened up and the Axis tried an all Betty approach and was shot to pieces after destroying more objects.
I want solutions, as I want to make the players enjoyment my highest goal. Looking at your post there are more than one thing we can look at for future PTO events that might help the Betty conundrum.
- Lowering the score of Japanese Aircraft.
- Adjusting the score of Ships or how they are scored.
- Adjusting the minimums of Japanese Aircraft.
-
I want solutions, as I want to make the players enjoyment my highest goal. Looking at your post there are more than one thing we can look at for future PTO events that might help the Betty conundrum.
- Lowering the score of Japanese Aircraft.
- Adjusting the score of Ships or how they are scored. - Adjusting the minimums of Japanese Aircraft.
The measures in red do nothing to rebalance fun against forcing pilots in to death traps. It's a hard sell to a dead pilot at T+45 that his early exit is ok because it won't hurt the point total that much.
There are other issues, beyond the Betties, with PTO events in general and this setup in particular that lead to frames as bad as last week for the Japanese. Lack of Ki 61s being a big one this month.
-
The lack of ki61's for this set up and the last pto setup has been puzzling to me as well. The Tony was in regular use during the time frame the setups were placed in. :headscratch:
-
Dantoo's comments are spot on and I agree and would plan the same way if I were CIC'ing this go around.
The factor is also in the plane match up's. in short the ALLIED planes carry more ammo = more opportunities to shot down AC. Also we all know the IJN AC tend to fall apart after just a few rounds into them or catch fire. So in a completely even match up of a ALLIED squad in American fighters chasing IJN bombers they will shot down more of them than a IJN squad in fighters chasing down ALLIED bombers. In this set up as I have seen thus far having defended twice on the AXIS side all the ALLIES have to do is send in a fighter sweep 15 minutes before the Main Effort and engage the fighter Cap over any target. This almost forces the fight (because the ALLIED AC are faster) and forces the AXIS AC to use up what little amount of cannon rounds they have defending themselves. Then the bombers arrive and only have to withstand the BB's that are left. IJN bombers have to withstand a hail of .50cal rounds.
So after 2 frames of the AXIS getting wiped out I am glad the CM's are at least talking about some changes for Frame 3 <S> Because at this point there is nearly no hope that the AXIS could win and I would argue ever had a "fair" chance. I hope the changes are substantial in order to at least give the AXIS a fair chance to win one frame. Generally speaking there is a case if your a AXIS defender to up and then land and tower out thus saving your plane and those points your just as well off. Because your target will be destroyed anyway, you'll probably lose your plane in the process unless the ALLIED bombers cant find the target.
-
The following changes have been made to the setup and scoring for frame 3.
- The Japanese will now have the Ki-61-Tei-I at 31 Maximum. (Equal to the remaining number of Allied P-38G and F4U-1). The Ki-61 will be enabled at all available Japanese LAND bases.
- The G4M1 will be reduced in points from 11 to 6.
I apologize for the late changes but they were warranted, 68th Lightning Lancers please see the updates and make any adjustments to the sent orders as you feel necessary. The event will be updated on the website after Frame 3 for future reference.
Thanks. Good luck all in Frame 3.
-----
The reasoning behind the missing Ki-61 had historical reasons.
The Ki-61 did not operate in this area of the South Pacific. From what I understand, it became operational in summer of 1943, flying from Wewak, New Guinea. It never saw action in the Solomons at this period of time. It appears that most of it's fighting was done with the JAAF in New Guinea and later New Britain later in 1943 when the Allies grip tightened on Rabaul.
I originally had the Ki-61 in the planeset in private pre-frame discussion with a max limit of 72 per 3 frames (equal to the Allied Max fighters), but upon reading of it's exploits, or lack there of, in the the South and Southwest Pacific, I decided to remove it for historical sake. For playability sake, it should have been left in.
Sometimes you make the right moves, sometimes you don't. Good luck all.
-
Thanks for the support and I don't want to be a negative nanny, but my thoughts were about future events rather than this one.
If I can redefine the question, how do you design an event to make the Betty an attractive ride?
I wasn't angling for any changes to this particular FSO. The ole Betty is one of a number of rides we practically begged for so we that could have it in special events. Now that we have it we need to find ways to use it right along with some of the other special jobs. If we can't find a way to make it/them a popular ride, we have to find a way to make them less unpopular!
I'm scratching my head and wondering how an event can be constructed around some of these planes. Fairly obviously they have particular weaknesses. Perhaps those weaknesses need to be compensated with greater numbers of escorts or similar? I hate restrictions. I'm more fond of finding balance through the comparisons of firepower rather than airframes though. Need incentives that shout out and cause people to say "wahoooo it's PTO and we've drawn the Bettys, YAAAAAY!"
:)
-
In my CM Days I flirted with the idea of an all Asian setup. Chinese I-16s against Japanese A6M2s G4Ms and B5Ns. I was always afraid I'd bore the hell out of everyone for an entire month though. :D
-
In my CM Days I flirted with the idea of an all Asian setup. Chinese I-16s against Japanese A6M2s G4Ms and B5Ns. I was always afraid I'd bore the hell out of everyone for an entire month though. :D
Sounds fun to me :cheers:
-
Side balancing is the key. Any scenario can be fun early or late war as long as its balanced and the guys think they can survive past H+20. These Pacific battles because of the plane sets anything from 43 onward almost has to favor the AXIS with a 60/40 split in man power in order to offset the AC advantage of the ALLIES.
Historical significance also needs to take a back seat to side balancing.
Nef good changes for Frame 3 and glad to have seen them even if late. Lets see where the points fall out in this frame.
-
Nef good changes for Frame 3 and glad to have seen them even if late. Lets see where the points fall out in this frame.
Frame 1 only saw a marginal defeat of the Axis, Even with a 43 pilot deficit. If they would have matched the other two carriers to the Allies the Axis would have won the frame easily. The issue appeared after frame 2 when two-thirds of the Axis Bombers were shot down.
I'm not quite so sure the missing Ki-61 was a factor in frame 1 or 2 as I think other underlying issues like the high scoring G4M1 and other "things" were.
That being said, My job is to provide enjoyment and when it's not working, I need to listen to people take a look at what's going on. As long as it's civil and not filled with veiled insults, I'm a pretty easy guy and will make adjustments as needed.
<S>