Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: KCDitto on March 22, 2014, 01:50:44 PM
-
I have to make plans and need the dates of the scenario....
If plans are not submitted in triplicate by the due date the management (wife) will deny all requests for Saturday activities...
-
Two weeks
-
calendar marked for two weeks. :rofl
-
:noid
-
Logistical nightmare on my end so there isn't one on your end :D
Close enough to taste, blending 4 frames into one design can be difficult, 4 designs into 4 frames is giving me a headache lol Every time I "finish" it I find a continuity flaw. Sorry for the delay, but this one needs to be tight. It's going to be confusing moving between frames, I don't want to cause confusion by trying to stuff too much into a frame.
-
LOL 3 weeks.
-
OK ROC...
I will "DEAL" with the wife ack... :O
-
Started to broach the subject in passing to the Mrs....Fingers crossed. :x
-
I don't need to ask permission. That's my story and I'm sticking to it....
Remember ROC...KISS.
<S>
-
When does registration open?
-
When does registration open?
When Roc gets it all sorted for us "legal begals[sic]"
-
Come on Roc, get the lead out. I've got a flight of noobs I've talked scenario's up to so much they're literally gagging for it.
-
:noid
-
Come on, I am dying to register, allied of course. P-38s woot.
-
Come on, I am dying to register, allied of course. P-38s woot.
I recently read "Aces High: The Heroic Saga of the Two Top-Scoring American Aces of World War II", by Bill Yenne. It was a great book. (About Dick Bong and Tommy McGuire and lots of P-38's, of course.)
-
Still going to be that god awful PTO event?
-
Nope, it's not going to be that god awful PTO event.
-
Still going to be that god awful PTO event?
Perhaps it would help to be more specific in the definition of God Awful?? :rofl
-
It doesn't matter HB, I'm doing what I want as it will be complained about no matter what is done :)
It isn't going to be a god awful PTO event, it's going to be a damned fun one :cheers:
-
To be clear, its not that I don't think you're trying your best, its just that I think you happen to have made a poor decision.
-
It doesn't matter HB, I'm doing what I want as it will be complained about no matter what is done :)
That is abnormal?
-
At least use the B5N2 for the TBD. Its a MUCH closer approximation than the TBM makes.
-
It's a god awful event that is a poor decision, although, you haven't seen the event yet. Good to know.
Have a great day :aok
At least use the B5N2 for the TBD. Its a MUCH closer approximation than the TBM makes.
If you don't know the objectives or the battle conditions, how do you know this is correct? You don't. You are speculating. I'm not interested in offering facts to disprove your fabricated opinion. Here's a thought, when the event comes out, take all of this boundless creativity and energy and apply it to figuring out how to get the god awful plane set to work in your favor. It can be done, successful people do this all the time, try it. Achieving the impossible is a wonderful feeling because, and this might be a secret, life is full of god awful situations and we simply have to put on our big girl panties and try. I am designing an event not to make it easy, but to challenge people. Seems like you have tossed it in early. That's ok, as I have said before, that is actually part of the event this year. This one is designed to test the participants. It's already working. Don't I just suck?
That is abnormal?
Of course it isn't abnormal. It's my job here. I make the decisions :cheers:
-
I think that Tank-Ace's solution would be to replace all Japanese planes with German planes, replace Japan with Germany terrain, and replace US PTO planes with US ETO planes. ;)
-
Of course it isn't abnormal. It's my job here. I make the decisions :cheers:
That is why the comment was meant to be a rhetorical question.
This is all part of the event. You are all being tested by ROC.
-
See Rule #4
-
Tackling LW bombers at 25k with escort is never going to be 'fun', when its the high point of the scenario.
LW doesn't have a bomber in a pacific war.
You are all being tested by ROC.
Not everyone. Most of the people I see in events passed these entry level tests many, many years ago.
-
LW doesn't have a bomber in a pacific war.
Not everyone. Most of the people I see in events passed these entry level tests many, many years ago.
Ha, well played.
-
LW doesn't have a bomber in a pacific war.
B-29, B-24? They are kind of late war I would guess. I could be wrong.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Tackling LW bombers at 25k with escort is never going to be 'fun', when its the high point of the scenario.
You mean including 8th AF scenarios? Most people love that (as judged by comments and polls).
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200710_derGrosseSchlag/pics/frame4/Image-0058.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/007-inOnB17s-Image-0010.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame2/007-escort-SNAG-0008.jpg)
-
You mean including 8th AF scenarios? Most people love that (as judged by comments and polls).
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200710_derGrosseSchlag/pics/frame4/Image-0058.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/007-inOnB17s-Image-0010.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame2/007-escort-SNAG-0008.jpg)
No, not including 8th AF scenarios. Those are an exception, since the whole thing is designed around bomber interception. And besides, the 109's are usually tasked with stripping escorts, not dealing with the imperfect results of those attempts, so I usually get a pass on hitting escorted bombers.
-
From this, its evident that the CM team made absolutely zero efforts to explore options for a TBD substitute, and decided to go with the TBM, which is known to be just a horrible substitute for the TBD.
Not exactly.
It is true that the TBM is a much better plane than the TBD. For that reason, and because Coral Sea and Midway are major WWII battles and the subject of scenarios, the TBD is one of the top 5 planes I'd like to see added to the plane set.
It is also true that the B5N is a better fit in terms of airspeed.
Payload doesn't matter because all US torpedo bombers in Coral Sea and Midway scenarios use torpedoes.
However, the B5N is, I suspect, less sturdy than the TBD, has no forward-firing gun at all, and would have Japanese skin in the scenarios (because of how skins are implemented on the servers). So, immersion of having a bunch of Japanese-marked torpedo bombers has to be considered, along with those other factors.
Also, we have tested TBM's in several runnings of Coral Sea, and it is not unbalancing at all. In those runnings, the IJN side has done about as well as the US side. What ends up mattering is whether or not there is CAP and, if so, whether or not there is strong escort. If there is CAP and not strong-enough escort, the TBM's get annihilated just like B5N's do. It boils down to the fact that, whether you are in a TBM, B5N, or TBD, you are approaching for a considerable distance on the deck at low speed, so top speed of the plane ends up not mattering much in actual runnings of the setup.
So, some of your points are correct, and are not a surprise to or ignored by the CM team, but you are missing some other points that we need to consider. Your preference on which set of things is more important isn't wrong -- but it is your preference, that one set outweighs the other.
HTC will add the TBD at some point, I bet, and we won't have to pick.
-
See Rule #4
-
I did a TDI which had the TBM as a substitute, it was the biggest unbalanced pile of tripe I have ever flown in in 6 years of AcesHigh.
If you think it's not unbalanced, you only listened to the guys flying allied.
-
You know damn well I meant late war.
Wow, no pleasing you at all is there, now it's also my fault you didn't make yourself clear. Ok, I'll try and do better.
Tackling LW bombers at 25k with escort is never going to be 'fun', when its the high point of the scenario.
Umm..
No, not including 8th AF scenarios. Those are an exception, since the whole thing is designed around bomber interception
Wait, you said "Never..when it's the high point of the scenario" except....when it is exactly the high point of the scenario. Never actually means, well, never.
Is this one of those times when I should have known what you meant? So just for clarification so I can make a strong attempt at knowing what you meant, when you say never, should I be reading Never, Most of the time, or Some of the time? I mean, since I should know damn well by now what you meant, I honestly feel I should try to clarify it. I'm trying hard to do what you think I should do, although I suppose you will find some fault with my effort.
Tank, heads up, it might not have occurred to you that you may be correct in your plane performance comparisons, yet the planes were chosen specifically for those reasons and your "facts" actually change nothing. Just because you don't know why something was picked does not mean it was wrong. That is your opinion. Clearly, we chose planes for a reason, not every reason is going to be explained to you. Sometimes, it's part of the design balance and a deliberate obstacle to be climbed over. Whether or not you like it is up to you to deal with, but not liking something does not make an opinion a fact.
Anyway, nice break from reality, got work to do and things to finish up. This was entertaining as usual :) Don't worry Tank, I'm not mad, bitter or irritated in the least, I'm actually having a great time :D
-
Not exactly.
It is true that the TBM is a much better plane than the TBD. For that reason, and because Coral Sea and Midway are major WWII battles and the subject of scenarios, the TBD is one of the top 5 planes I'd like to see added to the plane set.
It is also true that the B5N is a better fit in terms of airspeed.
Payload doesn't matter because all US torpedo bombers in Coral Sea and Midway scenarios use torpedoes.
However, the B5N is, I suspect, less sturdy than the TBD, has no forward-firing gun at all, and would have Japanese skin in the scenarios (because of how skins are implemented on the servers). So, immersion of having a bunch of Japanese-marked torpedo bombers has to be considered, along with those other factors.
Also, we have tested TBM's in several runnings of Coral Sea, and it is not unbalancing at all. In those runnings, the IJN side has done about as well as the US side. What ends up mattering is whether or not there is CAP and, if so, whether or not there is strong escort. If there is CAP and not strong-enough escort, the TBM's get annihilated just like B5N's do. It boils down to the fact that, whether you are in a TBM, B5N, or TBD, you are approaching for a considerable distance on the deck at low speed, so top speed of the plane ends up not mattering much in actual runnings of the setup.
So, some of your points are correct, and are not a surprise to or ignored by the CM team, but you are missing some other points that we need to consider. Your preference on which set of things is more important isn't wrong -- but it is your preference, that one set outweighs the other.
HTC will add the TBD at some point, I bet, and we won't have to pick.
I-16 subbing for G.50 has happened. 110-C for KI-45 has happened. Did that hurt immersion?
There is more of course. For some reason TBM is immune to being switched out for something closer to a TBD.
1941-1945 Pacific it is going to have a TBM. Just say that from now on.
-
Just want to add that the TBM thing is a major minus in PTO scenarios -
an A6M cannot really run down a TBM, it's rear guns will eat a Zero alive, and is made of solid steel and is really hard to kill - the difference between a TBD and a TBM-3 (45 edition) is massive . . and I cannot count how many times I have had to give up chasing one because I could never catch it even with alt andd a jump, or, my favorite, chasing a TBM for 2 sectors (after ignoring orders to break off) and getting picked off by 2 F4Fs that probably flew 3 sectors to save the TBM. . . TBMs alone, more then anything else, is the most imbalanced thing ever. A 1945 plane has no problems against any early war zero. . .I have experienced this firsthand in every early/mid war PTO scenario when frankly the Zeros killed a LOT of TBDs and never had any problems killing them during the war.
I have heard many COs, not just mine, call off an obvious pick on TBMs because they know that with a short dive, all the fighter will be stretched out, on the deck, with little or no TBM kills. I have seen purposeful strategies that use low TBMs as bait to lure Zeros down knowing they cannot be caught. Despite what anyone says, TBMs are PTO breaking.
as for the rest of it, seems like the same issues are brought up over and over, people get banned, people are told to back off, people are told that their opinions don't matter - but really - these issues are glaring and perhaps it would be nice to see some recognition of these issues.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
I have flown torpedo bombers in every scenario and every "This Day in WWII" event that has had torpedo bombers in it. That includes flying mostly B5N's in "This Day: Coral Sea", B5N's in "This Day: Pearl Harbor", and TBM's for half the time in the Coral Sea scenarios and B5N's for half the time in scenarios. Since Coral Sea is a side-switch event, it is by definition exactly balanced. However, it is my opinion that the B5N and TBM as torpedo bombers do not give that much difference in effect. The reason is, as I have stated, that regardless of which one you are in, you have to approach a known location for an extended distance at sea level and 200 mph while focusing on your line up to target. In that situation, it doesn't matter all that much whether you are in a TBM or a B5N. I didn't do particularly better in the TBM than the B5N -- mostly it depended what the cap and escort were like. If the ship wasn't defended, then either one is the same (hit with a torpedo). If the ship is well defended, then either one is the same (will be shot down).
-
I-16 subbing for G.50 has happened. 110-C for KI-45 has happened. Did that hurt immersion?
There is more of course. For some reason TBM is immune to being switched out for something closer to a TBD.
1941-1945 Pacific it is going to have a TBM. Just say that from now on.
There haven't been any scenarios with I-16's, so I don't know about that. We did use the 110 as a substitute in some Rangoon's. Yes, subs do hurt immersion. But, when you don't have the actual plane available, you then have to pick something. It's a matter of judgement what to pick. We each, apparently, have different opinions or judgements on what is best.
-
Just want to add that the TBM thing is a major minus in PTO scenarios -
I'm not sure if you flew in Coral Sea or Coral Sea 2009 scenarios, but if you are talking about FSO's, I have no idea if FSO's with TBM's in them are a lot different than how scenarios went. In most of the scenarios, I was a GL of a torpedo bombing squadron. There was no lack of us at times getting slaughtered in TBM's. Usually, that was on the deck. With some altitude, we avoided getting slaughtered whether we were in B5N's or TBM's -- until we were on the deck. The B5N was a magnificent diver with excellent high-speed handling. A Zero couldn't easily shoot down a B5N at altitude if the pilot is alert, as he could just dive to 400-500 mph, where the B5N handles great but the Zero is very heavy on the controls.
as for the rest of it, seems like the same issues are brought up over and over, people get banned, people are told to back off, people are told that their opinions don't matter - but really - these issues are glaring and perhaps it would be nice to see some recognition of these issues.
I'm not sure if "by the rest of it" you mean anything else I wrote, but if I disagree with something for reasons, I don't change my mind just because someone brings up the same point again and again with no new information. I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so, either. In scenarios, the only way a person gets banned is by being disruptive and failing to tone it down after being asked to do so (sometimes repeatedly over a long period of time). When you say "people get banned, people are told", you are being a bit overzealous with your implication. One or two people have been banned from scenarios in the past 10 years. I don't think I've told anyone that his opinions don't matter. I'm always up for discussing opinions.
-
I just looked through "This Day in WWII: Coral Sea" logs. There have been 7 runnings of it. The US (with TBM's) sank 4 ships in total, and the IJN (with B5N's) sank 7 ships in total.
-
My scenario results in TBM's vs. B5N's.
Coral Sea 2005.
TBM, 2 torp hits, shot down 2 times.
B5N, 3 torp hits, shot down 3 times.
Coral Sea 2009.
TBM, 3 torp hits, shot down 4 times.
B5N, 2 torp hits, shot down 3 times.
-
Folks, from that data, it looks like TBM's and B5N's are similar in effect.
-
No experience trying to chase them down on the deck in an A6M2 I see.
A later war sub for early and mid; From that data, A stacked deck, a loaded die, and Pure bloody mindedness not the see sense, logic and reason.
-
Did I miss a link for the event write-up?
Considering the supposed arguments, without an event write-up, seems rather petty to me.......
-
No experience trying to chase them down on the deck in an A6M2 I see.
No, I have done that as well occasionally. And then there is the great deal of my experience being in TBM's that are chased down by A6M2's. I don't think that you have flown TBM's in Coral Sea scenarios, though. Nevertheless, my argument isn't that TBM's are fast as judged by A6M's. See below for a very precise explanation of what I am saying.
A later war sub for early and mid; From that data, A stacked deck, a loaded die, and Pure bloody mindedness not the see sense, logic and reason.
I have a good grasp of sense, logic, and reason and a long education in and then a professional background in science and analysis. There are lots of occasions (in physics, biology, chemistry, engineering, economics, social policy, finance, etc.) where people have an opinion: "X is very important. If you have X, clearly it changes things." This is based on the person's thoughts, but to see if it really is true, you use a couple of tools on actual data to verify whether those thoughts are correct or mistaken. The tools are statistical analysis and especially regression analysis. It is a fancy name for a straightforward, simple-to-understand technique. Regression analysis is used in situations where an effect can be due to lots of different variables, including the one that you are interested in. In other words, you are interested in finding out if X is really important or not, but there are also variables Y and Z that matter. So what you do is that you look at past data and compare all of the cases you can find where Y and Z are the same (or as similar as you can get given the data) and the only (or then main) difference is that X is changing. Then, if there is a statistically significant difference in result between when X is one value vs. another value, you know that X is significant. If there is no statistically significant difference, the changes to X are not significant.
What I have shown you above is a quick version of regression analysis on past data, compared results when X = TBM and when X = B5N, and found that the result does not vary significantly.
Thus, the feeling that TBM's are a significant advantage is not born out by the data.
The one caveat to the analysis is that, if the A6M2 and D3A are significantly more capable than the F4F and SBD, it could mask the B5N being worse in effect than the TBM. This is because I have no data of events where both sides have the same fighters and divebombers and only the torpedo bombers are being varied.
Note in the above that I am definitely *not* saying that TBM's are harder to catch under some circumstances (namely going full speed) than TBD's or B5N's. What I am saying is that the data says that it doesn't matter. This might be because most torpedo bombers are lost on their run to target, on the deck, toward a known target, when they are going ~200 mph no matter what their top speed is, for a substantial distance, while the pilot has to focus on his flying and can't man his guns. But the explanation doesn't matter -- the data shows what it shows.
When data shows that a result goes contrary to your thoughts on the matter, sense, logic, and reason demand that you update your thoughts. ;)
-
Other times that I have used analysis for a scenario was in figuring out if Fireflies are reasonably even compared to Tigers in a particular scenario setting. Some folks thought yes, and that it should be equal numbers of Fireflies to Tigers, some thought no, and that there should be more Fireflies than Tigers. Some folks had very strong opinions and arguments in each camp, accusing people in the other camp of not knowing what they were talking about, bringing into play all sorts of stats on gun power, statistics on the tanks, various lines of reasoning, anecdotes and stories of personal experience in the tanks, etc. The data showed the actual effect.
-
By the way, for those of you reading the above and thinking that you can't reconcile your personal experience with it, keep in mind that it was an analysis in a specific context: the Coral Sea scenarios and "This Day in WWII" events. If there were different goals (like bombing ships or land targets from altitude and at high speed instead of using torpedoes slow and on the deck) or different settings (like ack not being turned way, way down), that could significantly increase the effect of the TBM vs. the B5N. The TBM might be way more effective in the MA or in FSO's, for example.
The data above is just for scenarios and This Day events.
-
Payload doesn't matter because all US torpedo bombers in Coral Sea and Midway scenarios use torpedoes.
Fair point.
However, the B5N is, I suspect, less sturdy than the TBD, has no forward-firing gun at all, and would have Japanese skin in the scenarios (because of how skins are implemented on the servers). So, immersion of having a bunch of Japanese-marked torpedo bombers has to be considered, along with those other factors.
I believe the 75mph speed differential would be more of an issue than toughness. The issue isn't in actually shooting them down, but rather in catching them, when we have only about 25mph on them at their attack altitude, and the A6M isn't really known for its low drag airframe and high power engine allowing it to maintain speeds in excess of Vmax for any period of time.
For the gun, lets be honest, it was a single .30 caliber machine gun mounted in an aircraft that was still rather under powered, and none too great in a fight.
As for the immersion, I believe Krusty made us a Ki-45 skin for the 110C for the Road to Rangoon setup. Given that the TBD and TBM aren't identical twins either, I would think a change in skin would be perfectly sufficient to alleviate any problems.
Also, we have tested TBM's in several runnings of Coral Sea, and it is not unbalancing at all. In those runnings, the IJN side has done about as well as the US side. What ends up mattering is whether or not there is CAP and, if so, whether or not there is strong escort. If there is CAP and not strong-enough escort, the TBM's get annihilated just like B5N's do. It boils down to the fact that, whether you are in a TBM, B5N, or TBD, you are approaching for a considerable distance on the deck at low speed, so top speed of the plane ends up not mattering much in actual runnings of the setup.
Given the Deck speed of the TBD was less than 200mph, the A6M's can have significant rates of closure on them at their attack altitude, even just at Vmax. However, we have to spend longer periods of time closing on the TBM's, making the CAP's job easier.
And to be clear, its not that I think the TBM CAN'T be balanced, just that the B5N2 would require less balancing, as well as more closely emulating the TBD.
So, some of your points are correct, and are not a surprise to or ignored by the CM team, but you are missing some other points that we need to consider. Your preference on which set of things is more important isn't wrong -- but it is your preference, that one set outweighs the other.
HTC will add the TBD at some point, I bet, and we won't have to pick.
Heres hoping they pull a fast one like they did with the P-47M then.
-
"This entire discussion is getting blown out of proportion and escalating for no good reason.
Please, EVERYONE, wind your bleedin necks in. Cease jibes and personal attacks, stop being so damn thin skinned. "
OK, my opinion doesn't matter anyhow.
-
This entire discussion is getting blown out of proportion and escalating for no good reason.
Please, EVERYONE, wind your bleedin necks in. Cease jibes and personal attacks, stop being so damn thin skinned.
Now, we do have a valid point being made: that the TBM is not a great sub for the TBD and that A6M pilots find it much more difficult to successfully intercept and therefore, don't find those types of engagement seen before in the SEA enjoyable. However, if I recall comments made about the forthcoming scenario correctly, this is going to be a multi-timeframe event? ie, each successive frame will be further along in the war and a later date on the calendar? If so.....then surely the TBD/TBM issue will only be an issue for a frame or 2? If a CM could confirm how many frames this will be a concern for, maybe those with a concern could put up with it for a frame for the reasons CMs have already stated. Hint hint, please say it'll be just the one frame.
-
I believe the 75mph speed differential would be more of an issue than toughness. The issue isn't in actually shooting them down, but rather in catching them, when we have only about 25mph on them at their attack altitude, and the A6M isn't really known for its low drag airframe and high power engine allowing it to maintain speeds in excess of Vmax for any period of time.
True, but here are the various ways things went in the Coral Sea scenarios. For torpedo bombers going the whole way on the deck, Zeros had no problem catching them, as the Zeros were not flying around on the deck. For torpedo bombers going in at higher alts, the Zeros didn't seem to have too much trouble either for two reasons. One is that the Zero has better speed advantage at medium alts (75 mph or so). The other is that Zeros still are generally flying around higher than torpedo bombers. TBM's that go in high generally are around 12-15k, but Zeros were still often up at 20-25k.
For the gun, lets be honest, it was a single .30 caliber machine gun mounted in an aircraft that was still rather under powered, and none too great in a fight.
That's a reasonable thought, but many is the time I *desperately* wanted even a single 30 cal forward firing on my B5N. It's weak, but there is a world of difference between no gun at all and a single 30 cal. With no gun at all, no one has any care at all of you being on his 6. Even with one 30 cal pinging them, they definitely don't ignore it and move. Also, it is much, much more satisfying for the torpedo bomber pilot to have at least one forward gun.
As for the immersion, I believe Krusty made us a Ki-45 skin for the 110C for the Road to Rangoon setup. Given that the TBD and TBM aren't identical twins either, I would think a change in skin would be perfectly sufficient to alleviate any problems.
That's why I referred to this situation earlier: "and would have Japanese skin in the scenarios (because of how skins are implemented on the servers)". The problem is that you can't put skins into a scenario without them being built into the terrain, and that only happens in the rare case that (1) a terrain is being rebuilt at least a couple of months in advance and (2) someone has done a suitable skin. The odds of it are like the alignment of planets. Getting a skin in for a scenario has happened a couple of times in 10 years. Builds of terrains involve the terrain team putting in a bunch of work, and it has to then be run through checks and cleared by HTC.
Given the Deck speed of the TBD was less than 200mph, the A6M's can have significant rates of closure on them at their attack altitude, even just at Vmax. However, we have to spend longer periods of time closing on the TBM's, making the CAP's job easier.
The attack speed for all torpedo bombers (regardless of Vmax) is about 200 mph. Attackers have never had a problem getting on my torpedo bomber once I'm on the deck -- and that's whether I'm flying a TBM, B5N, Ju 88, or Ki 67 (I've flown them all as torpedo bombers in scenarios).
And to be clear, its not that I think the TBM CAN'T be balanced, just that the B5N2 would require less balancing, as well as more closely emulating the TBD.
It hasn't required any balancing, though. Coral Sea has equal numbers on each side, and each side has about 1/3 fighters, 1/3 dive bombers, and 1/3 torpedo bombers. All we do is put B5N's in the for the IJN and TBD's in for the USN.
Heres hoping they pull a fast one like they did with the P-47M then.
I hear you. My preference list is:
Yak-1 (For Eastern Front mid-war, Yak-1 was very important)
B6N (Most-produced Japanese torpedo bomber, taking over for the early-war B5N)
D4Y (Most-produced Japanese dive bomber, taking over for early-war D3A)
Pe-2 (Most-produced Soviet attack plane other than Il-2, for Eastern Front)
TBD (Important for Battle of Coral Sea and Midway)
Beaufighter (Multi-role, would add a lot of flavor to events)
-
I'm not sure if you flew in Coral Sea or Coral Sea 2009 scenarios, but if you are talking about FSO's, I have no idea if FSO's with TBM's in them are a lot different than how scenarios went. In most of the scenarios, I was a GL of a torpedo bombing squadron. There was no lack of us at times getting slaughtered in TBM's. Usually, that was on the deck. With some altitude, we avoided getting slaughtered whether we were in B5N's or TBM's -- until we were on the deck. The B5N was a magnificent diver with excellent high-speed handling. A Zero couldn't easily shoot down a B5N at altitude if the pilot is alert, as he could just dive to 400-500 mph, where the B5N handles great but the Zero is very heavy on the controls.
I'm not sure if "by the rest of it" you mean anything else I wrote, but if I disagree with something for reasons, I don't change my mind just because someone brings up the same point again and again with no new information. I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so, either. In scenarios, the only way a person gets banned is by being disruptive and failing to tone it down after being asked to do so (sometimes repeatedly over a long period of time). When you say "people get banned, people are told", you are being a bit overzealous with your implication. One or two people have been banned from scenarios in the past 10 years. I don't think I've told anyone that his opinions don't matter. I'm always up for discussing opinions.
oh Brooke, I am not attacking you or anyone else, by the "rest of it" is referring to anything else other people may take/have issues with - whatever those issues may be - especially considering the thread i not about TBMs to begin with. I am not a very subtle guy, my sense of subterfuge is far too Asian and is not easily translated into these kinds of threads - my post was simply stating that the TBM-3 is a major drawback to playing Axis on PTO setups, and I belive there has been quite a few posts are are very objective and technical that explain why the TBM-3 has no place in the early/mid war PTO lineup.
And yes, while it may be a bit out of place, I was referring to FSOs more then scenarios - although I think the TBM thing applies to both.
It is a major issue from what I have seen in what other COs do and don't do - and that is all I am communicating. No hostility intended other then saying: The TBM-3 is a direct and vast upgrade to the TBD - not a little, but a lot and I know this because I experience it every PTO.
-
I understand that some folks have strong opinions about the TBM. It's just that the data shows that TBM vs. B5N is a wash in Coral Sea scenarios and "This Day in WWII: Coral Sea" events. That might not be the case for FSO's because of a difference in settings -- I don't know. I didn't go through any data on any FSO's.
-
I understand that some folks have strong opinions about the TBM. It's just that the data shows that TBM vs. B5N is a wash in Coral Sea scenarios and "This Day in WWII: Coral Sea" events. That might not be the case for FSO's because of a difference in settings -- I don't know. I didn't go through any data on any FSO's.
If it is not blue and it doesn't have a forward firing gun, TBM.
Ships sunk is not the only variable Brooke.
As examples:
How many kills were scored in a TBM.
How many planes were lost.
-
This discussion sounded very familiar so I did a quick search and found this http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,348956.75.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,348956.75.html). I posted this since some were referencing TBMs in FSO.
A quick look at the logs for that event shows that just about every TBM was shot down.. a few got a kill or two in TBMs and a couple of ships were destroyed by TBMs (3 I think over the 3 frames).
Just a quick look at logs show that the TBM is a death trap with a very low survival rate.
-
This really makes me miss AH2!
Someone once told me, if you don't like it, design one yourself(even if it's chit)...
:salute :salute
-
If it is not blue and it doesn't have a forward firing gun, TBM.
I'm not sure what that means.
Ships sunk is not the only variable Brooke.
As examples:
How many kills were scored in a TBM.
How many planes were lost.
Ships sunk or torp hits are the best metric because ships sunk count 50 times more than a kill for "This Day: Coral Sea" and 90 times more than a kill for Coral Sea scenarios.
I guarantee you that TBM's have more kills than B5N's since B5N's have no forward gun at all and since the TBM's have more defensive guns. However, the question isn't whether or not TBM's have more kills than B5N's, the question is does it matter? The data indicates that it does not.
And, here are the actual stats on kills from Coral Sea 2009. TBM's got 0.7 kills per pilot. B5N's got 0.3 kills per pilot. TBM's and B5N's got a total of 61 kills in four frames out of a total of 865 kills in total in those four frames. The difference in kills between TBM's and B5N's were 25 kills out of 865 kills total. That is not significant.
-
Can't the computer gurus simply allow the dauntless to carry a torpedo? I know I know it is not accurate. But... :airplane:
-
Can't the computer gurus simply allow the dauntless to carry a torpedo? I know I know it is not accurate. But... :airplane:
I'd give that a probability of zero to three significant digits. ;)
-
I'm just an interested observer, and don't fly in scenarios and FSO.
One thing I would say after reading this thread today is that the word "immersion" has come up from the CM side of the argument a few times. Does immersion not count for everyone? Here's what I'm getting at:
The data you're using Brooke to justify the use of the TBM is accurate IMO in terms of overall scoring in the scenarios, however it isn't data that addresses the specific complaint I'm reading - guys flying IJN fighters aren't able to attack it easily, or chase it down. You have no data for the amount of kills not achieved due to all the reasons people who have flown the Zeros vs the TBM, as there is no possible way to get that data, to be fair to your argument. That doesn't change the fact that the "immersion" factor for those pilots flying IJN fighters, and tasked with going after the bombers, is far less "immersive" than it would be if the TBD existed, as you've said. From what I can see, it just looks like those pilots feel short changed by your argument that even though they have a point regarding their inability to kill the TBD substitute, it shouldn't matter to them as the overall objectives of the scenario show that the IJN bombers get through and score as well as the TBMs do. I think that the bottom line for them is that they feel they would be more fairly served by a different a/c being used as the TBD substitute, yet the reason given for that not occurring is that it would ruin the immersion factor of the pilots flying it - yet it's done at the expense of the immersion of the pilots having to attack it.
I understand these issues are mostly out of the control of the CM guys, as they don't create the aircraft, and it certainly nobody's fault that there isn't a TBD around, and like I said, I have no dog in the fight and don't even participate, but from an outside observers vantage point, I can understand why this problem keeps coming up.
Brooke wrote some very interesting posts in the last couple pages, the couple regarding scientific methods and such was one of the more interesting things I've read on the bbs in a while.
-
I don't fly scenarios anymore either Gman, but the TBM sub can be much worse then that.
I would argue however that the Zeke 2 can catch TBM stragglers, particularly if damaged. These guys are usually out of position and off course, giving the Zeke the opportunity to anticipate a shortcut to intercept.
Fortunately for the TBM sub, participants rarely practice leading up to a scenario anymore because IF a TBM group spends a night or two each week practicing for the month before a first frame, then eight organized TBMs can easily defeat two Zeke 2s. It rarely ever happens that way.
Queue ROC to talk about team building and practice. :D
:bolt:
-
. . . guys flying IJN fighters aren't able to attack it easily, or chase it down. You have no data for the amount of kills not achieved due to all the reasons people who have flown the Zeros vs the TBM, as there is no possible way to get that data, to be fair to your argument.
You can estimate that. You can look at loss rate of TBM's vs. B5N's. In Coral Sea 2009, TBM's were lost about 80% as often as B5N's. That's a difference, but it's not large. In fact, it is within the variance of that statistic frame to frame (lowest was TBM's lost 67% as often as B5N's in the test frame and highest was TBM's lost 120% as often as B5N's in frame 4).
My feeling is this. Yes, Zero pilots have to work harder to kill a TBM than they would a TBD, but they just put in some extra effort, and so it doesn't translate into a significant difference in torpedo hits, deaths to fire from torpedo bombers, or kills of torpedo bombers.
In short -- I think it's the typical case of a person's perception being at odds with what the data shows.
-
You're right, I don't disagree with any of that.
What it comes down to in my opinion is that Zero pilot's perception of what exactly "extra effort" means, and that is precisely where the problem truly lies. One side feels it's more than the other, that's all.
Also, using your own rules regarding estimates, comparing TBM loss rates to the B5Ns I feel won't give an accurate idea of how many more of the allied bombers would be shot down if they were TBDs. The only way to accurate measure that, is to actually use an aircraft that IS the TBD, or at least has performance numbers that are within a couple of percent either way. We can't do that right now, as even by substituting the TBM for a Japanese bomber with an American skin, the data wouldn't be accurate, as their are huge damage point differences, as well as the fact that there are 2 very different types of fighters killing the bombers in your sample.
If the TBD is ever added, this argument could truly be settled scientifically when the same scenario is run in the future, and the loss rates of that are compared to the data you have now. Until then, it's all just opinion, on both sides of the argument. I realize that you're just doing what you can (CMs) with the tools you have, and that either suggested option isn't really optimal, and that you're choosing the one you think is best.
-
Also, using your own rules regarding estimates, comparing TBM loss rates to the B5Ns in no way can possibly give you an accurate idea of how many more of the allied bombers would be shot down if they were TBDs.
I think it can, but it is based on my feeling that the TBD wouldn't be worse than the B5N.
-
Ah, I see where you were going with that now. If you feel the TBD would perform similarly to the B5N, that makes it much clearer.
Anyway, good discussion, thanks for taking the time.
-
psssst, Brooke, check your PMs will ya.....
-
Queue ROC to talk about team building and practice. Big Grin
Haha Ya, Easyscor was with us when we drilled, and I mean drilled down to the bone. He knows why I get impatient sometimes when the discussion gets bogged down in the spreadsheets and performance charts. We have always taken whatever was given and did remarkably well with it. Spreadsheets tell you what the Plane does. We define what can be done with them :)
-
Haha Ya, Easyscor was with us when we drilled, and I mean drilled down to the bone. He knows why I get impatient sometimes when the discussion gets bogged down in the spreadsheets and performance charts. We have always taken whatever was given and did remarkably well with it. Spreadsheets tell you what the Plane does. We define what can be done with them :)
What a plane can do also defines what can be done with it. A P-51 will never be able to turn with Ki-43. Physics simply dictate that this is impossible. A Ki-43 will never catch a 262 in a level flight, once again, the physics dictate that this will never happen. Even in a dive, the Ki-43 is limited by the structural integrity of its airframe, to such a degree that Vne for the Ki-43 is less than Vmax for the 262. An A6M2 cannot dive with a TBM; it simply breaks apart before the TBM does.
Just tested some times for deceleration from a dive. The A6M2 takes ~55 seconds to decelerate from 375mph to about 282mph, and ~1:26 to decelerate to 271mph.
The TBM, loaded with a torpedo, takes ~47 seconds to decelerate from ~375 to 280mph, 1:18 to decelerate to 269mph, 2:00 to decelerate to 255mph.
So from a dive, both aircraft take roughly comparable times to decelerate to the 280mph mark. However, the TBM has a higher dive speed.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that a group of A6M2's exit their dive 3k behind a group of TBM's that have also exited a dive. For ~40 seconds, we know their speed differential is essentially nil, assuming both have the same dive speed. The A6M will take an additional 31 seconds to decelerate to Vmax of 271mph at 500ft. The TBM will take an additional 53 seconds to decelerate to it's Vmax.
For the ease of calculations and expediency, lets simply assume the TBM has decelerated to 255mph by 1:26. This gives us an average speed of 275mph for the A6M2 from 0:55 to 1:26, and an average speed of 267 for the TBM, giving us an average speed differential of 8mph for time ~0:50 to 1:26. So by time 1:26, we can assume the A6M2 has closed the gap from 3000yds to 2860yds.
At 1:26, we assume the TBM is at a constant speed of 255mph and the A6M2 is at a constant speed of 271mph. This gives us a speed differential of 16mph, or 7.82 yds/second. We simply divide the remaining distance of 2860 by 7.82yds/s to give us the time, in seconds, it will take for the A6M2 to close the gap. The answer is 365s, or 6.08 minutes.
Were the initial distance 2000yds, the A6M2 would take 3.95 minutes to close the gap. Were it 1500yds, it would take 2.9 minutes.
The TBM's speed is in no way negligible, and if any CAP is present, their job is very, very, VERY easy. Much easier than if we had a TBD, capable of less than 200mph at sea level, and only 202mph at 7k.
Hell, at 7k, the difference in speed for the TBM and TBD is even larger, meaning that the TBM makes an even more unrealistic target at 7k than it does on the deck.
Now I accept your reasoning for using the TBM, but do not dismiss the speed difference as insignificant, or easily overcome by simple pilot skill. This isn't a dogfight, we're simply comparing the time it takes to chase them down, which is 100% quantifiable, and therefore directly comparable.
-
Especially with short icon ranges.....which I'm very against.
-
Now I accept your reasoning for using the TBM, but do not dismiss the speed difference as insignificant, or easily overcome by simple pilot skill.
I don't dismiss it as insignificant, the data tells us that it doesn't much matter.
-
As a Squad leader I can tell you that I have turned down the chance at attacking low TBM-3's because of their speed and toughness. Not only would we kill any chance of maintaining altitude but also all of our rounds to kill one or two. As Tundra said, the data cant show how many kills that weren't achieved due to the fact it was a TBM-3 vs. A6M2.
B5N is a much better substitute for the TBD and is actually still a hell of an upgrade.
-
I don't dismiss it as insignificant, the data tells us that it doesn't much matter.
But it doesn't. All it tells us is that the A6M is as effective at killing the TBM as the F4F is at killing the B5N2, it doesn't say that the B5N2 and TBM are interchangeable, since they are being operated under different situations.
And I can see why that would be, as well. The F4F has an easier time of catching the B5N, but a harder time killing them, given how maneuverable it is. The A6M has a harder time catching the TBM, but an easier time killing it.
I would fully expect allied torpedo bomber losses to jump significantly if they would finally be given the B5N2 as is objectively the best decision, ignoring the skin. The A6M is just about the ideal aircraft to kill it, save for the Ki-43.
Besides that, the data ENTIRELY ignores the effect that the speed has on the effectivnes of a CAP. Chasing down the TBM, an escorting F4F has at least a minute to simply make the A6M turn. Doesn't even have to shoot him down; just make him turn, and he looses airspeed needed to even catch the damn thing.
The TBM's get further away, making the job of running them down even more difficult.
All that changes dramatically when you have 75mph+ closure rate on your target, vs 16mph.
-
In Coral Sea 2009, TBM's were lost about 80% as often as B5N's. That's a difference, but it's not large.
I feel the need to point out that 20% is not insignificant. 2% is insignificant, 20% is a massive, massive difference.
This idea that 'it doesn't matter', I feel is a false assumption.
-
Besides that, the data ENTIRELY ignores the effect that the speed has on the effectivnes of a CAP. Chasing down the TBM, an escorting F4F has at least a minute to simply make the A6M turn. Doesn't even have to shoot him down; just make him turn, and he looses airspeed needed to even catch the damn thing.
The TBM's get further away, making the job of running them down even more difficult.
All that changes dramatically when you have 75mph+ closure rate on your target, vs 16mph.
Also remember, if the Zeke is out of the very limited 20mm ammo then the TBM has the advantege in firepower as well. Given that in a tail chase, the Zeke must take a flightpath that most efficently cuts the distance, it's aproach is VERY predictable. Hense, The tailgunner in the TBM has the upper hand over the fighter. Which is not at all remotely close to historically accurate.
The only way to even partially negate the speed differential disparity would be to limit the TBMs to an alt less than 3K.
-
Ya know....it might be a band aid over the problem but.....limiting numbers of TBMs in early war frames to compensate could be an idea.
-
As a Squad leader I can tell you that I have turned down the chance at attacking low TBM-3's because of their speed and toughness. Not only would we kill any chance of maintaining altitude but also all of our rounds to kill one or two. As Tundra said, the data cant show how many kills that weren't achieved due to the fact it was a TBM-3 vs. A6M2.
As a squad leader of torpedo bombers in every frame of every scenario that has used them and as a pilot of torpedo bombers in every "This Day in WWII" event that has used them, I can tell you that I have not even once seen enemy fighters not engage me or my group.
The data can estimate how many kills weren't achieved, as I have shown.
With regard to speed, an A6M2 has a 70 mph speed advantage over a TBM at 15k. By comparison to other scenario setups, a P-38 has a 50 mph speed advantage over a Ki-67 at 15k; a Spit V has a 70 mph speed advantage over a Ju 88 at 15k; and a Bf 109G-14 has a 50 mph speed advantage over a B-17 at 15k. At 0k that shrinks to about 20 mph, but Zeros are usually not cruising around at 0k. They usually have at least some altitude when they spot the TBM's, so I don't t think it's that hard catching TBM's on the deck (which is in line with my experience in TBM's).
With regard to TBM's being so tough that you can kill only a couple, well, that is the case for everything. Most people in scenarios don't kill more than a couple of anything. Let's look at your kills in Med. Maelstrom (frame 1, 1 kill in mission 1, zero in mission 2; frame 2, 2 kills in mission 1, 1 in mission 2) and in DGS II (frame 1 zero kills; frame 2, 2 kills in mission 1, zero in mission 2; frame 3, 3 kills in mission 1, 3 in mission 2 -- well done; frame 4, 2 kills in mission 1, zero in mission 2). If people are killing a couple of enemies in a mission, they are doing well. Attacking TBM's in A6M2's is much easier than attacking formations of Ju 88's, Ki-67's, or B-17's, so anyone shying away from that fight definitely would be shying away from attacking any formations of anything, which doesn't seem to happen.
-
But it doesn't. . . .
[etc.]
I realize that there is no convincing you, no matter what I analyze. ;)
One can estimate things based on past events, and you can always say of that analysis, "But you didn't roll back the hands of time, substitute X for Y, and then rerun history." Sometimes that is a valid criticism (if the analysis makes assumptions that are way off), and sometimes that is not a valid criticism (if the analysis makes assumptions that are not way off). The only assumption you need to make in my analysis above is that the TBD isn't a significantly worse plane than the B5N. So, if you want to pick at my analysis, you can make cases that the TBD is significantly worse than the B5N (although I doubt that's the case). Any other picking at it is barking up the wrong tree.
Regardless, in the end, what really matters -- what trumps arguments of this or that thing being wrong, whether it is this plane substituted for that plane, or too many of this type of plane, or this objective or that objective being unfair, etc. -- is this: do both sides win approximately as frequently? If yes, then things are balanced. In Coral Sea, both sides won approximately as frequently.
-
I feel the need to point out that 20% is not insignificant. 2% is insignificant, 20% is a massive, massive difference.
This idea that 'it doesn't matter', I feel is a false assumption.
No, because that 20% difference equates to a difference of about 6 kills. A 6-kill difference is insignificant -- it is very far into the noise of kill rate in a scenario frame.
and
No, because it's 6 kills and because the difference resulted in no significant difference in torpedo hits or frame outcome.
-
Also remember, if the Zeke
Zeke's have done fine vs. TBM's in the scenario and "This Day" events.
The only way to even partially negate the speed differential disparity would be to limit the TBMs to an alt less than 3K.
The Zero has more and more speed advantage as alt increases (see above -- it's 70 mph advantage at 15k). But there is already a limit to TBM's being at zero altitude and 200 mph substantially before target (well, if they want to hit anything with their torp).
-
Zeke's have done fine vs. TBM's in the scenario and "This Day" events.
Not when you factor in protecting the CV. By the time the TBM's are dealt with, the carrier is critically damaged or sunk.
The Zero has more and more speed advantage as alt increases (see above -- it's 70 mph advantage at 15k). But there is already a limit to TBM's being at zero altitude and 200 mph substantially before target (well, if they want to hit anything with their torp).
The idea here is to eliminate the TBM's ability to dive from high altitude to ridiculous speed, while also giving the defenders a height advantage that could be converted into a realistically usable speed advantage.
-
Ya know....it might be a band aid over the problem but.....limiting numbers of TBMs in early war frames to compensate could be an idea.
Coral Sea scenarios and "This Day in WWII: Coral Sea" are already balanced. The data proves that they are balanced, with the IJN winning about as many times at the USN.
-
See Rule #4
-
Not when you factor in protecting the CV. By the time the TBM's are dealt with, the carrier is critically damaged or sunk.
That was already covered. See data above.
The idea here is to eliminate the TBM's ability to dive from high altitude to ridiculous speed, while also giving the defenders a height advantage that could be converted into a realistically usable speed advantage.
Both B5N's and TBM's can dive to high speed. So can SBD's, D3A's, and lots of other planes. If a pilot with altitude is willing to blow altitude to avoid you, you will have a harder time shooting him down. That's just physics. But . . . all torpedo bombers -- TBM's, B5N's, Ju 88's, and Ki-67's -- are at 100 ft altitude and 200 mph near target. There's your huge advantage as a defender. That's why torpedo bombers are so very easy to shoot down that the vast majority of them (even Ju 88 formations and Ki-67 formations) die every mission they go out.
-
See Rule #4
You say "X is important." I then get the available data, analyze it using the major method of analysis used by all fields of science, and see what the data says. It turns out it that the data shows X not being important (if you measure importance in frame outcome, torpedo hits, torpedo bombers lost, or enemy fighters shot down by torpedo bombers). Then, you ignore this data and accuse me of being the irrationally stubborn one.
That is irony.
-
Brooke, theory doesn't always work in practise. Had you done any science experiments at school you would already know that and be fully open to what the players are trying to tell you.
-
Brooke, I honestly don't understand how you can compare loss rates of two different torpedo bombers with significantly different capabilities, being attacked by two different fighters, and just say "oh yeah, they're interchangeable", when you yourself have noted a 20% difference in loss rates.
Literally the only similarities is the mission profile, and the 5 minutes or so before ordnance release.
How many TBM's and B5N's are killed during their attack run vs prior to their attack run? How many are killed after the attack run?
Loss rates due to CV ack should actually be higher for the B5N's simply because its a more fragile aircraft. Is that accounted for in your statistics?
-
My friends, please remember, the team that sets these events up is 100% volunteer.
If you really want to become more involved in developing these events you could volunteer your time and I imagine you would have a lot more input. I think anyone looking in from outside might not have as much information as the design and implementation team. I believe the team is unbiased and working to put out a fun, fair, and enjoyable event.
If we could just tone down the rhetoric, stop with the little snarky comments, and at least show some respect to the work that has gone into making this happen, we will all enjoy it more. Including the CM team. They deserve to have fun too. I wouldn't take that job for anything. These guys certainly have a thicker skin than I do.
I am looking forward to flying this event and future events. I'm not saying that the CM team is being driven to quit, but what if they finally have had enough, throw up their hands and say they are done? Who will take their place? You? And how will you deal with the 10% of players that do nothing but complain? I'm a 90%'er......we have fun every time, because we go in with a positive attitude and reap the rewards.
-
My friends, please remember, the team that sets these events up is 100% volunteer.
If you really want to become more involved in developing these events you could volunteer your time and I imagine you would have a lot more input. I think anyone looking in from outside might not have as much information as the design and implementation team. I believe the team is unbiased and working to put out a fun, fair, and enjoyable event.
If we could just tone down the rhetoric, stop with the little snarky comments, and at least show some respect to the work that has gone into making this happen, we will all enjoy it more. Including the CM team. They deserve to have fun too. I wouldn't take that job for anything. These guys certainly have a thicker skin than I do.
I am looking forward to flying this event and future events. I'm not saying that the CM team is being driven to quit, but what if they finally have had enough, throw up their hands and say they are done? Who will take their place? You? And how will you deal with the 10% of players that do nothing but complain? I'm a 90%'er......we have fun every time, because we go in with a positive attitude and reap the rewards.
I've looked into it. Last I checked, they apparently had a rule that you had to be 21 or older, and I don't fit that requirement.
-
Brooke, I honestly don't understand how you can compare loss rates of two different torpedo bombers with significantly different capabilities, being attacked by two different fighters, and just say "oh yeah, they're interchangeable", when you yourself have noted a 20% difference in loss rates.
There are a few reasons. First is that they don't have to be the same as long as the TBD isn't significantly worse than the B5N. Second is that the two fighters are different, yes, but they are contemporaries that aren't hugely different in top speed, where firepower and sturdiness are offset in different directions (i.e., f4f less firepower than a6m2 but sturdier so can have longer fire time on bomber shooting back). Third is that, as explained above, 20% difference in loss rate isn't significant.
How many TBM's and B5N's are killed during their attack run vs prior to their attack run? How many are killed after the attack run?
Here are the logs:
http://ahevents.org/event-logs.html
The relevant ones are Coral Sea 2009 and "This Day in WWII: Coral Sea". If you do the analysis, make sure to gather enough data so that your statistics are sound (i.e., don't pick just a couple of frames to look at -- do them all).
Loss rates due to CV ack should actually be higher for the B5N's simply because its a more fragile aircraft. Is that accounted for in your statistics?
Well, since here you are missing the most-important and most-noted aspect of the setup, I'm thinking that you haven't flown in any of the Coral Sea scenarios or "This Day in WWII: Coral Sea" events at all. Am I wrong?
-
That was already covered. See data above.
Both B5N's and TBM's can dive to high speed. So can SBD's, D3A's, and lots of other planes. If a pilot with altitude is willing to blow altitude to avoid you, you will have a harder time shooting him down. That's just physics. But . . . all torpedo bombers -- TBM's, B5N's, Ju 88's, and Ki-67's -- are at 100 ft altitude and 200 mph near target. There's your huge advantage as a defender. That's why torpedo bombers are so very easy to shoot down that the vast majority of them (even Ju 88 formations and Ki-67 formations) die every mission they go out.
Brooke, I hope this helps to explain to you why regardless of the data that you present, that using the TBM-3 in early war PTO setups is a problem and not at all historical.
There are 3 stages to mounting a successful torpedo attack.
1. Approach to target.
2. Attack run
3. Egress
The difference in the balance between the TBM and B5N is in stage 1. When the IJN intercepts TBM's, they still have a fair chance of reaching a suitable drop point. When USN fighters intercept B5N's, the fighter's hold all the cards, and only the luckiest pilots get to drop their ord.
If Aces High had the TBD, the comparable difficulties facing torpedo pilots would be fairly equal. As is with the TBM as a substitute, this is not even close. If the aircraft itself can't be realistically substituted for, then the manner in which the substitute is utilized must be governed in order to achieve parity.
The logs from events only tells part of the story. I'm not saying that your data is not valid. It is valid, just incomplete. What is needed is a comprehensive study as to how the aircraft are employed, how many attackers make a torp run, success of attacks, the ability for defenders to mount attacks on torpedo planes, kills against torpedo planes, and effectiveness of tail gunners.
Should a study such as this be conducted, I am confident that the findings will bear the result of the TBM not being a wise choice for substitute without limitations.
Here's an example of the completely unrealistically (yet incredibly effective) method of using 20K TBM's to attack the carrier. Yes, most of the TBM's were shot down, but not before the carrier was crippled. It was finished off by a wave of unmolested SBD's, who went unopposed due to all the defenders needed to tackle the TBM's.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,348956.msg4608856.html#msg4608856
If a competent Allied planner would use these assets like this consistently, the Allies would never lose. It is merely dumb luck if attacks fail, whereas dumb luck applies to the IJN if the attack is successful.
-
People here mostly have been polite, and I don't mind taking time to discuss what I see as reasons for things.
-
There are a few reasons. First is that they don't have to be the same as long as the TBD isn't significantly worse than the B5N. Second is that the two fighters are different, yes, but they are contemporaries that aren't hugely different in top speed, where firepower and sturdiness are offset in different directions (i.e., f4f less firepower than a6m2 but sturdier so can have longer fire time on bomber shooting back).
The A6M is also facing .50 caliber fire from the planes its shooting at, and only has 120rounds of 20mm cannon to use before it has to saddle up and hose down the TBM's with the 7.62mm's, which REALLY exacerbates the TBM's unhistorical firepower.
Third is that, as explained above, 20% difference in loss rate isn't significant.
Perhaps I missed where you said that. If I'm understanding you correctly, and that, on average, TBM's survive 20% more often than B5N's, then that sounds like a fairly significant problem, given that, depending on how the specific event is set up, the axis will be scoring 20% less points from kills on bomber aircraft specifically because the TBM is being used as a sub for the TBD.
Here are the logs:
http://ahevents.org/event-logs.html
The relevant ones are Coral Sea 2009 and "This Day in WWII: Coral Sea". If you do the analysis, make sure to gather enough data so that your statistics are sound (i.e., don't pick just a couple of frames to look at -- do them all).
Before I do them, how will I know when they initiate their attack run? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but a point of yours seems to be that, since they all have to make an attack run, it should be the great equalizer. If that is true, we would expect that the majority of losses occur during the attack run.
Now let me be clear. If you provide me a way to do this, I will do it gladly. But upon initial inspection of the information contained in the logs, I will simply have to estimate when the attack run began based on the time each group scores their first hit on a ship (~5 minutes prior sound fair?), and assume that all bombers for that group began their attack run at the same time. Would this be a correct assessment?
Well, since here you are missing the most-important and most-noted aspect of the setup, I'm thinking that you haven't flown in any of the Coral Sea scenarios or "This Day in WWII: Coral Sea" events at all. Am I wrong?
I have not participated specifically in a Coral Sea event.
-
The difference in the balance between the TBM and B5N is in stage 1. When the IJN intercepts TBM's, they still have a fair chance of reaching a suitable drop point. When USN fighters intercept B5N's, the fighter's hold all the cards, and only the luckiest pilots get to drop their ord.
My recollection based on my experience is:
1. If intercepted on the way to target without substantial escort, we get shot down, whether we are in TBM's or B5N's.
2. Mostly, we are not found on our way to target and are mostly shot down near the target.
If the aircraft itself can't be realistically substituted for, then the manner in which the substitute is utilized must be governed in order to achieve parity.
There has been parity in the events. IJN and USN each win similar numbers of frames.
What is needed is a comprehensive study as to how the aircraft are employed,
They are employed in the same way.
how many attackers make a torp run, success of attacks, the ability for defenders to mount attacks on torpedo planes, kills against torpedo planes, and effectiveness of tail gunners.
This is part of the data above.
Should a study such as this be conducted, I am confident that the findings will bear the result of the TBM not being a wise choice for substitute without limitations.
So, if all past frames have been balanced (this is a true and incontrovertible fact), and a B5N is worse than a TBM in a way significant to outcome (your belief), and we substitute B5N's for all TBM's (your feeling of what we should do), what would happen in your view to balance then?
Here's an example of the completely unrealistically (yet incredibly effective) method of using 20K TBM's to attack the carrier. Yes, most of the TBM's were shot down, but not before the carrier was crippled. It was finished off by a wave of unmolested SBD's, who went unopposed due to all the defenders needed to tackle the TBM's.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,348956.msg4608856.html#msg4608856
It is a common argument to take one data point and use it to generalize instead of to use data that allows you correctly to draw statistical inferences. Example: "A large body of data shows that smoking is bad for you." "Oh, yeah? My Aunt Beatrice smoked 5 packs a day since she was 10 years old and lived to be 100." In your case, it is one frame of an FSO (and I'm not sure if the setup of FSO's is close to the scenarios and "This Days" or not). I'm using data of all frames of Coral Sea 2009 and all runnings of "This Day in WWII: Coral Sea". Also, for your one example of frame 3 of an FSO, I flew 9 frames of Coral Sea scenarios and four frame of "This Day: Coral Sea" that support my conclusions.
If a competent Allied planner would use these assets like this consistently, the Allies would never lose. It is merely dumb luck if attacks fail, whereas dumb luck applies to the IJN if the attack is successful.
I don't think so. I do that with my B5N's, too, and the effect of doing it in B5N's is the same as doing it in TBM's. I would do it in TBD's, too.
-
The A6M is also facing .50 caliber fire from the planes its shooting at, and only has 120rounds of 20mm cannon to use before it has to saddle up and hose down the TBM's with the 7.62mm's, which REALLY exacerbates the TBM's unhistorical firepower.
A6M's, according to the data, don't have a lot of trouble shooting down TBM's in the environment of the event. Most of them are shot down every mission.
Perhaps I missed where you said that.
See above.
I will simply have to estimate when the attack run began based on the time each group scores their first hit on a ship (~5 minutes prior sound fair?), and assume that all bombers for that group began their attack run at the same time. Would this be a correct assessment?
Yes.
(Although, again, all of this arguing of fine points doesn't change the fact that the final result -- balance of the scenario -- is fine.)
I have not participated specifically in a Coral Sea event.
You should fly TBM's in the next scenario. It will have them.
-
Here's an example of the completely unrealistically (yet incredibly effective) method
More effective, yes. Unrealistic, no. Some torpedo bombers went the whole way down low, but that's a tactical decision. It could be done differently, and in fact there were examples of torpedo bombers going in higher, diving down near target. I can give you book references if you are truly interested in reading them -- please don't ask me to track it down though unless you do want to read them, as it's work for me.
-
Honestly I don't think this day in WW2 events should be used in your data. Unless you are willing to use FSO data.
This day in ww2 is hugely different than scenario.
-
A6M's, according to the data, don't have a lot of trouble shooting down TBM's in the environment of the event. Most of them are shot down every mission.
Loss rates of A6M's to TBM's, escorting fighters, etc.
That the TBM's die is not the only thing going into it.
Yes.
(Although, again, all of this arguing of fine points doesn't change the fact that the final result -- balance of the scenario -- is fine.)
If more TBM's survive to the attack run, its fair to say more are getting ordnance out. More ordnance = more points or objectives accomplished. Or at the very least a greater chance of this happening.
Now I have a test in Physics, Introduction to Film, and Human Development this week, and next week is finals week. I will go through the logs and get the data, but I cannot guarantee it will be this week.
You should fly TBM's in the next scenario.
I feel like I will do no such thing. I'm not saying its easy for the TBM's. Nobody is saying that at all. What we're saying is that it is unhistorical hard to shoot them down for the A6M's.
It will have them.
Oh, of that I have no doubt, the CM's have made this abundantly clear.
How about this Brooke, should we be able to get someone to create a USN skin for the B5N for the next EW PTO event, would you be willing to use it in place of the TBM, given that your primary argument was immersion? New skins are added all the time, and new aircraft with default skins are added all the time. I haven't noticed a need to redownload each terrain every time this happens. Unless the special event servers are fundamentally different, it should work the same way.
We've proven that it is empirically a better substitute for the TBD, ignoring the skin. This being the case, should we remedy the skin, there should be no logical reason to use the TBM.
-
But upon initial inspection of the information contained in the logs, I will simply have to estimate when the attack run began based on the time each group scores their first hit on a ship (~5 minutes prior sound fair?), and assume that all bombers for that group began their attack run at the same time. Would this be a correct assessment?
More thought on this while driving home from work. This will get into some picker details of data analysis.
You are trying to estimate what percentage of planes are shot down near the target and what percentage are shot down not near the target.
If bombers are shot down near the time of someone in the squadron getting objects destroyed (call this "Condition A"), it is reasonable to conclude that the plane is near the target.
However, concluding that, if a plane doesn't fall into Condition A, it is not near the target when shot down is not a good assumption. The reason is that there are times when the whole squadron is lost while attacking the target, and no one got any objects destroyed.
So, if you find that the majority of planes shot down are in Condition A, that is good enough to conclude that most bombers are shot down near target. So, first I'd do that and see. But if most planes are not shot down in Condition A, it is not valid to conclude that most planes are shot down away from target. So, if most planes are not shot down in Condition A, more work must be done to conclude if they are mostly near target or not.
I'm not sure how to do this easily. One way is to look at my AAR's here and use my descriptions and time of events to conclude whether it was happening near target or not, and confine relative comparison to my torpedo-bombing squadron. Of course, that's not great, but I'll think some more.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/coralSea2009.htm
-
There will be TBMs.
You can spend your time complaining about it, or spend it trying to figure out a way to take them out.
But it isn't going to change. You are welcome to waste pixels arguing about it though.
-
Loss rates of A6M's to TBM's, escorting fighters, etc.
That's given above.
If more TBM's survive to the attack run, its fair to say more are getting ordnance out. More ordnance = more points or objectives accomplished. Or at the very least a greater chance of this happening.
Let's say (torp hits) = function(x, y, z). If you already have (torp hits), you don't need to fret about x, y, and z. We have data already on torp hits above.
Now I have a test in Physics, Introduction to Film, and Human Development this week, and next week is finals week. I will go through the logs and get the data, but I cannot guarantee it will be this week.
Don't be screwing around with a bunch of time on the message board when you have tests coming up. One is of importance nearly zero, and the other has lots of importance.
What we're saying is that it is unhistorical hard to shoot them down for the A6M's.
Yes, I understand. My point is that the extra difficulty doesn't result in any significant outcome. There is no significant difference between win rate of USN vs. IJN, number of torp hits, number of fighters shot down by torp bomber, or number of torp bombers lost to fighters. This could be because of: (1) it is merely perception, or (2) TBM's are harder to shoot down, but only in situations that are an insignificant part of the scenario, or (3) a mixture of the two. I think it's 3.
How about this Brooke, should we be able to get someone to create a USN skin for the B5N for the next EW PTO event
I already discussed that angle above.
We've proven that it is empirically a better substitute for the TBD, ignoring the skin.
No, that's an opinion. The B5N is slow like a TBD and has a rear gun like the B5N (unless it is the 2-gun version, in which case it has twice). However, the TBD has a forward gun (again, not insignificant to the bomber pilot, I can assure you), and no one knows what its sturdiness is or how it would be in a dive compared to a B5N.
-
See Rule #4
-
Don't be screwing around with a bunch of time on the message board when you have tests coming up. One is of importance nearly zero, and the other has lots of importance.
Don't worry, I know how important grades are.
Yes, I understand. My point is that the extra difficulty doesn't result in any significant outcome. There is no significant difference between win rate of USN vs. IJN, number of torp hits, number of fighters shot down by torp bomber, or number of torp bombers lost to fighters. This could be because of: (1) it is merely perception, or (2) TBM's are harder to shoot down, but only in situations that are an insignificant part of the scenario, or (3) a mixture of the two. I think it's 3.
Okay, I accept it doesn't have a large impact on the scenario outcome. However it ruins things for the A6M's tasked with shooting them down no less than flying a japanese-skinned bomber does for the allied pilots.
I already discussed that angle above.
Humor me. How is it different than the addition of a new skin in the MA, or a new aircraft for the game as a whole?
No, that's an opinion. The B5N is slow like a TBD and has a rear gun like the B5N (unless it is the 2-gun version, in which case it has twice). However, the TBD has a forward gun (again, not insignificant to the bomber pilot, I can assure you), and no one knows what its sturdiness is or how it would be in a dive compared to a B5N.
Let me rephrase; based on what we know at the moment, the B5N makes a closer approximation of the TBD than does the TBM, the only actual way we're sure the TBM is closer to the TBD is that it has forward firing guns (8x the firepower of the TBD, in AH metrics).
I will try to find more information as to Vne and toughness of the TBD vs that of the TBM and B5N. However you seem to have simply gone with the assumption that it more closely matches the TBM, just because.
You can call it an opinion if you like, but the fact remains that you have eschewed a plane that we can verify approximates the TBD much better than the TBM does in terms of quantifiable metrics, for the sake of its paintjob and a forward firing gun.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
Actually, I expect some really great changes to happen in the not too distant future :D I think you simply confuse what you think you know with what you actually know.
See Rule #4
You quoted "sit down and shut up" Please show me where I said that. I don't like being misquoted. Yet again, I think your imagination is running wild on you.
-
See Rule #4
Constructive criticism is fine, calling people, who have taken their own time to produce something, idiots or stupid, is not :old:
-
Actually, I expect some really great changes to happen in the not too distant future :D I think you simply confuse what you think you know with what you actually know.
How mysterious of you.
When are you going to release the write-up. I am interested to see when/where/how I am going to fly that sweet p-38.
-
Just my $0.02
Here's an example of the completely unrealistically (yet incredibly effective) method of using 20K TBM's to attack the carrier. Yes, most of the TBM's were shot down, but not before the carrier was crippled. It was finished off by a wave of unmolested SBD's, who went unopposed due to all the defenders needed to tackle the TBM's.
This is exactly what happened in Midway with TBDs (real, not AH). It is well known tactical mistake to drop all the CAP to kill torpedo bombers and not expect the dive bombers - it is especially well known because of Midway.
The only difference between what you describe and Midway that some TBMs managed to actually hit anything before they died. IIRC one of the reasons that TBD failed to hit is very problematic torpedoes that used to fail easily and in AH torpedoes do not fail if used in the proper envelope.
So tell me how is this different?
You can only blame the defenders for not keeping the reserve of a high CAP to catch the dive bombers despite the fact that is one of the basic things should be learned from the history.
but all the above does not matter... because
We don't have TBD, yet we have TBM... Once we have TBD in AH would can talk about what torpedo bomber to choose. Now it is just irrelevant and purely theoretical discussion.
Finally in terms of game balance, IJN has much better planes overall, so talking about "unfairness" of TBM especially when they have very little chance to survive is just bad taste (IMHO).
-
Okay, I accept it doesn't have a large impact on the scenario outcome. However it ruins things for the A6M's tasked with shooting them down no less than flying a japanese-skinned bomber does for the allied pilots.
No, some A6M2 pilots (some who have never flown in either the scenario or the "This Day" events) feel that TBM's are too hard to shoot down compared to what they think a TBD would be like. The large majority of pilots like the Coral Sea scenario and This Day event just fine.
Humor me. How is it different than the addition of a new skin in the MA, or a new aircraft for the game as a whole?
You know, when I have already posted the answer to exactly that question in this very topic, when you didn't read that response and now keep asking me to look it up for you, and when looking it up takes me time as it would you, I get the feeling that you think my time is less valuable than yours, which, I assure you, is not the case.
Let me rephrase; based on what we know at the moment, the B5N makes a closer approximation of the TBD than does the TBM
No, it's not based on what we know at the moment.
, the only actual way we're sure the TBM is closer to the TBD is that it has forward firing guns (8x the firepower of the TBD, in AH metrics).
The TBD is infinity times the forward firepower of the B5N, which is my main point. Also, the TBD had a 30 cal or a 50 cal. I'm not sure when it got the 50 cal. If 50, the TBM has 2x the forward firepower of the TBD.
I will try to find more information as to Vne
What is useful is knowing how fast you can dive before parts come off, at what speed compressibility sets in, and at what speed you can no longer maneuver well. I don't think that Vne is any of those. I would think it would be at least the first of those, but some planes go well beyond their Vne will no ill effects, both in AH and in real life.
and toughness of the TBD vs that of the TBM and B5N.
That will be very hard to determine, I think. I think that the best you will get is a statement that it didn't have self-sealing fuel tanks and anecdotal statements like "it had poor armor". Keep in mind, though, that a statement like "it had poor armor" isn't very useful other than knowing, I guess (although even that is not certain) that it at least had some armor, unlike perhaps the B5N.
However you seem to have simply gone with the assumption that it more closely matches the TBM, just because.
No, I don't assume that. But I don't assume the opposite either.
but the fact remains that you have eschewed a plane that we can verify approximates the TBD much better than the TBM does in terms of quantifiable metrics, for the sake of its paintjob and a forward firing gun.
No. The TBD is closer to the B5N in top level speed and rear firepower. It is closer to the TBM in forward firepower. It is closer to the TBM in being actually a USN aircraft. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of sturdiness. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of dive ability. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of turning ability. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of handling at speed.
-
Ya know, until Roc chimed in with "You are welcome to waste pixels arguing about it though" all I was thinking was how this thread has gone to a polite, very professional discussion with Brooke ensuring he'd responded to any point or query made by the player base. Reminds me of a conference call I just took part in.... :salute Brooke.
Roc, shush, you're not helping.
-
Roc, shush, you're not helping.
Wait, so I'm obligated to listen and accept viewpoints but not voice mine? O...K then. That's probably not going to happen Swoop. People are going sideways over whether or not the TBM should or should not be in an upcoming event, I simply pointed out that they will, in fact, be there.
-
Honestly I don't think this day in WW2 events should be used in your data. Unless you are willing to use FSO data.
This day in ww2 is hugely different than scenario.
"This Day in WWII: Coral Sea" and the Coral Sea scenarios share what is the most-important aspect of setup for torpedo bombers: auto ack lethality at 0.02, no 5", no quad 40 mm. That has an enormous impact on torpedo bombers and how they work. I don't know what the FSO settings were. Also, neither This Day nor scenarios are squad based, and I think that has an impact on how people play.
However, if anyone wants to examine the FSO settings to see if they are the same and then to gather statistics from logs, they can do so. It's all publicly available data.
-
"This Day in WWII: Coral Sea" and the Coral Sea scenarios share what is the most-important aspect of setup for torpedo bombers: auto ack lethality at 0.02, no 5", no quad 40 mm. That has an enormous impact on torpedo bombers and how they work. I don't know what the FSO settings were. Also, neither This Day nor scenarios are squad based, and I think that has an impact on how people play.
However, if anyone wants to examine the FSO settings to see if they are the same and then to gather statistics from logs, they can do so. It's all publicly available data.
That was the point that he was making, and part of why I think your data is incomplete. Your event features unlimmited lives and allows players to operate independant of the planned action. This behavior could either be beneficial or detremental to the pilot, but either way it is an uncontrolled variable that can skew your data set. FSO and scenerio events by definition do best at eliminating these variables. Whereas, TDI and Snapshots have no means to limit them.
-
Wait, so I'm obligated to listen and accept viewpoints but not voice mine? O...K then. That's probably not going to happen Swoop. People are going sideways over whether or not the TBM should or should not be in an upcoming event, I simply pointed out that they will, in fact, be there.
Yes you're supposed to listen, Roc. That's why your the head of the scenario team. One would assume that a person in your position would be able to weigh all the viewpoints in an impartial manner and make decisions that best serve the event as a whole.
At least acknolege the existance of a disparity that requires some considderation. Don't just stand there touting "We'll stay the course." and "I'm the decider." If you want to get lippy with sombody trying to get your goat, fine. But your post to Swoop was out of line. Your attitude makes you look ignorant and unworthy of your position.
If you're dead set on having TBM's then bring something to the table to justify them. The ststus quo from past events is not strong enough anymore. If historical accuracy is a priority for scenarios, then whatever substitute is used for TBD's must be similar. The performance and strength of the TBM is not close enough.
-
Wait, so I'm obligated to listen and accept viewpoints but not voice mine?
You didn't voice an opinion, you just told people that attempting to discuss what a lot of people seem to think is a valid point is a 'waste of pixels'.
I simply pointed out that they will, in fact, be there.
In an insulting manner. As I say, you're not helping. Comments like yours just wind people up. Continuing to argue semantics wind people up. You are winding people up.
Even if your opinion cannot be swayed, it's far more professional and polite to at least give your customers the impression that their concerns will be considered, not just rejected out of hand.
-
it's far more professional and polite to at least give your customers the impression that their concerns will be considered
? Really? Fake it?
How polite and professional would it have been to string them along? Gee guys, what great arguments, what insight, you know, I really think you are on to something and I'm going to try really hard to make sure you are satisfied with the results. Thank you so much for sharing. That would give the impression that their concerns were still being considered. Event comes out, TMBs are in. How cheesy would that have been? Lipservice is far more insulting than simply laying out a fact.
Now, if you think I could have phrased it better or differently, well Sir, that is a valid opinion and I'll consider that in the future posts.
-
That was the point that he was making, and part of why I think . . .
The data isn't invalid. The data is the data. You can gather it from FSO's if you want and let us know what it says, but there are only two things that come to mind that would bias the TBM vs. B5N statistics.
1. If ack strength isn't sufficiently low. Then, the extra robustness of the TBM will make an enormous difference. If FSO auto ack can shoot down a B5N, or if either 5" or quad 40 mm or both are enabled, it is not comparable to the scenario or This Day environment.
2. If A6M2's are not attacking TBM's when they have the opportunity to do so. I've never seen that happen in scenarios or This Day events, but two people commented on their squads choosing not to do so in FSO's. I think it's an MA squad dynamic, which isn't present in scenarios or This Day.
-
The data isn't invalid. The data is the data. You can gather it from FSO's if you want and let us know what it says, but there are only two things that come to mind that would bias the TBM vs. B5N statistics.
1. If ack strength isn't sufficiently low. Then, the extra robustness of the TBM will make an enormous difference. If FSO auto ack can shoot down a B5N, or if either 5" or quad 40 mm or both are enabled, it is not comparable to the scenario or This Day environment.
2. If A6M2's are not attacking TBM's when they have the opportunity to do so. I've never seen that happen in scenarios or This Day events, but two people commented on their squads choosing not to do so in FSO's. I think it's an MA squad dynamic, which isn't present in scenarios or This Day.
5" and quads are disabled in FSO.
Number 2 is an opinion which holds no validity. My FSO tactics carry into the MA and other events.
-
Roc, any reply I could give you right now will be violating rule 4. Therefore, I think it's just safer if I stop talking to you completely.
See you in the air over the pacific. :salute
-
5" and quads are disabled in FSO.
What is autoack strength?
Number 2 is an opinion which holds no validity. My FSO tactics carry into the MA and other events.
Unless previous posters were untruthful about not attacking TBM's, it is a valid opinion. I have never seen A6M2's in a position to attack TBM's not attack them in a scenario, and I've been GL of TBM's in every frame of every scenario that had them; yet there were two posters who talked about purposefully not attacking TBM's in FSO's. I didn't say all squad members do this, so whether you as one data point do or don't isn't the issue.
-
Excuse me, I was referring to "I think that is MA tactics" bit.
Ack setting is usually .3 in FSO.
-
I have never seen A6M2's in a position to attack TBM's not attack them in a scenario
Me either actually.
-
Excuse me, I was referring to "I think that is MA tactics" bit.
No, not MA tactics -- by "MA squads" I mean the squads that are organized in the MA and then play in FSO's as opposed to squads in scenarios. For example, there is the "Army of Muppets" that is a squad in the MA and might be registered to play in FSO's. In a scenario, though, there is no "Army of Muppets" squad. A squadron in a scenario is just a label for the planes representing the historical squad in that battle, like "VT-2" or "JG 11" or "303 Sqn" or whatever. Let me call them "FSO squads" instead of "MA squads" to avoid confusion.
Ack setting is usually .3 in FSO.
The TBM would be favored significantly over the B5N with that setting, I think. That setting is 0.02 as in Coral Sea scenarios and This Days, so even though the B5N is much, much less sturdy, it doesn't matter vs. auto ack.
-
The TBM would be favored significantly over the B5N with that setting, I think. That setting is 0.02 as in Coral Sea scenarios and This Days, so even though the B5N is much, much less sturdy, it doesn't matter vs. auto ack.
When would the 1944 TBM-3 not be favored over the B5N?
-
When would the 1944 TBM-3 not be favored over the B5N?
Under the conditions of Coral Sea scenarios and This Day: Coral Sea. That is the subject of the voluminous discussion and data above.
-
It was rhetorical.
-
No, some A6M2 pilots (some who have never flown in either the scenario or the "This Day" events) feel that TBM's are too hard to shoot down compared to what they think a TBD would be like. The large majority of pilots like the Coral Sea scenario and This Day event just fine.
I suspect some aren't aware of the degree to which the TBM out performs the TBD, and that others are simply less vocal. While it might not ruin the scenario, I'd be willing to bet that those A6M pilots tasked with hunting them would much prefer the B5N be used, were they informed of the performance numbers.
You know, when I have already posted the answer to exactly that question in this very topic, when you didn't read that response and now keep asking me to look it up for you, and when looking it up takes me time as it would you, I get the feeling that you think my time is less valuable than yours, which, I assure you, is not the case.
I did read the response, and based on what I've observed, it appears to be incorrect. You say skins are built into the map. For the MA, this is provably incorrect, as we don't have to download a new terrain each time we get a new pack of skins. Even the default skin appears not to be built into the terrain, as we don't have to redlownload every terrain whenever we get new aircraft added to the game. I suppose for the default skin, the other possibility is that the terrain files are redownloaded along with the version update.
AS for the SEA, I've also been in the SEA without needing to download a new terrain file each time we get a new aircraft or skin pack.
So like I said... humor me.
No, it's not based on what we know at the moment.
Yes, it is. What we know the B5N2's performance most closely matches the TBD's, its rear firepower most closely matches the TBD's.
The TBM's forward firepower is either a fair approximation of the TBD's, or grossly in excess of it, depending on when it got the .50, and its blue.
For god only knows why, you've ranked blueness and its forward firepower (frankly pretty irrelevant to the survival of the bombers, apparently) as being more important than performance and the firepower than will be doing most of the shooting.
The TBD is infinity times the forward firepower of the B5N, which is my main point. Also, the TBD had a 30 cal or a 50 cal. I'm not sure when it got the 50 cal. If 50, the TBM has 2x the forward firepower of the TBD.
Okay, so forward firepower MIGHT be somewhat close to that of the TBD.
What is useful is knowing how fast you can dive before parts come off, at what speed compressibility sets in, and at what speed you can no longer maneuver well. I don't think that Vne is any of those. I would think it would be at least the first of those, but some planes go well beyond their Vne will no ill effects, both in AH and in real life.
Its as close as we're going to get. You can either accept the data that I can find, go dig up your own, or quit using these points as arguments.
That will be very hard to determine, I think. I think that the best you will get is a statement that it didn't have self-sealing fuel tanks and anecdotal statements like "it had poor armor". Keep in mind, though, that a statement like "it had poor armor" isn't very useful other than knowing, I guess (although even that is not certain) that it at least had some armor, unlike perhaps the B5N.
See above
No, I don't assume that. But I don't assume the opposite either.
Then why not say "we don't have enough information for this to be a useful point for either side a the moment" instead of saying "but it might be closer to the TBM, we don't know"?
No. The TBD is closer to the B5N in top level speed and rear firepower. It is closer to the TBM in forward firepower.
0.29lbs of damage from a single .30cal is closer to 0 damage from no guns, than it is to 2.34lbs of damage from a pair of .50's.
In terms of destructive potential, its closer to the B5N. In terms of actually having a gun, its closer to to the TBM.
But frankly, quantifiable data matters more to me than you feeling better as you essentially flip an attacking fighter the bird by firing at him as he passes.
It is closer to the TBM in being actually a USN aircraft.
And here I think we've come to the crux of the problem.
Yes its a USN aircraft, but that's irrelevant since its not representing itself. The only benefit derived from it being a USN aircraft is that its already blue (although the wrong shade)
It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of sturdiness. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of dive ability. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of turning ability. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of handling at speed.
Its not unclear, its entirely unknown at this point. I said I would try and find information as to this, but you seemed to not like that much.
While I understand its not a perfect analogue I just want so say that the performance difference between the TBD and the TBM is greater than that between the 109G-6/AS and the 109K. And yet I bet everyone would scream bloody murder if it was used as a stand-in for the G-6/AS.
-
I suspect some aren't aware of the degree to which the TBM out performs the TBD, and that others are simply less vocal. While it might not ruin the scenario, I'd be willing to bet that those A6M pilots tasked with hunting them would much prefer the B5N be used, were they informed of the performance numbers.
AH pilots tend to know the AH aircraft. Also, the scenario isn't about only the A6M2 pilots. The most-vocal pilots are the ones who have complaints, not the ones who are content. So, when you go by what people mention, it is biased in the negative direction, not the positive one. Also, what I talked about is backed up by polling. Purporting that people probably aren't happy or shouldn't be happy isn't going to get much yardage.
I did read the response, and based on what I've observed, it appears to be incorrect.
I see . . . you can't take my word for it. If there is a new skin in the MA, you can use it on the Special Events servers. However, HTC doesn't allow you to put non-historical skins into the MA. So, no US-skinned B5N's, no Japanese-skinned Bf 110's, etc. in the MA. They allow you to put such non-historical skins into the Special Events servers, but only by building the skins into a Special Events terrain. Hence: "The problem is that you can't put skins into a scenario without them being built into the terrain." -- unless that has recently changed, and I don't know it (which isn't impossible, I suppose).
For god only knows why, you've ranked blueness
When people fly in a scenario, the experience is enhanced if they are flying USN planes when they are representing the USN in the event, rather than flying Japanese planes and especially rather than flying Japanese-marked Japanese planes. It's the same reason the experience is enhanced by having a historical terrain, rather than any old terrain on which you say "a19 represents Berlin", and by having clouds and sky color that is an approximation of the weather during the historical battle, having snow on the ground if there was snow on the ground, having the historical squadron labels, and having historical skins when possible. Yes, it is also enhanced by having the historical aircraft. So when the exact historical aircraft isn't available, and we have to substitute, there are numerous considerations. Consider scenarios that have B-17D's. Is a B-17G (with its much-superior defensive fire) the best substitute on performance? Maybe a restricted-load Lancaster seems a better choice by some fighter pilots who think the B-17G is too hard to shoot down compared to what they think a B-17D would be like. We would still use the B-17G and adjust numbers so that scenario outcome is balanced.
and its forward firepower (frankly pretty irrelevant to the survival of the bombers, apparently)
I already talked about that above. It is not irrelevant at all to bomber pilots.
as being more important than performance
You are choosing top level speed as being most important when the data shows it doesn't much matter to frame outcome, number of torp hits, number of bombers lost to enemy fighters, or number of enemy fighters lost to bombers.
0.29lbs of damage from a single .30cal is closer to 0 damage from no guns, than it is to 2.34lbs of damage from a pair of .50's.
Tell me -- if someone is on the tail of your fighter pinging it with one 30 cal, are you going to sit there unmoving or move? That's the importance of the forward-firing gun. There have been *so many times* I have wished for even one 30 cal forward gun on the B5N.
Yes its a USN aircraft, but that's irrelevant since its not representing itself. The only benefit derived from it being a USN aircraft is that its already blue (although the wrong shade)
I disagree.
I said I would try and find information as to this, but you seemed to not like that much.
Vne won't tell you what is useful. You can find it or not as you wish. What would be more useful is finding out what armor the TBD had. Where was it, what was it, and what was its thickness compared to what the B5N has (if anything) and compared to what the TBM has.
While I understand its not a perfect analogue I just want so say that the performance difference between the TBD and the TBM is greater than that between the 109G-6/AS and the 109K. And yet I bet everyone would scream bloody murder if it was used as a stand-in for the G-6/AS.
In scenarios, there is always a group of people screaming bloody murder over some particular item, no matter which way you set it. That has been true since scenarios were invented in 1993 (where I CO'ed in the first one and was the person who was screaming bloody murder over some aspect that, with the benefit of experience, I now recognize as trivial). If we had a scenario, needed Bf 109K's, and only Bf 109G's where available, we'd likely use Bf 109G's and adjust things to balance the scenario.
-
The data isn't invalid. The data is the data. You can gather it from FSO's if you want and let us know what it says, but there are only two things that come to mind that would bias the TBM vs. B5N statistics.
1. If ack strength isn't sufficiently low. Then, the extra robustness of the TBM will make an enormous difference. If FSO auto ack can shoot down a B5N, or if either 5" or quad 40 mm or both are enabled, it is not comparable to the scenario or This Day environment.
2. If A6M2's are not attacking TBM's when they have the opportunity to do so. I've never seen that happen in scenarios or This Day events, but two people commented on their squads choosing not to do so in FSO's. I think it's an MA squad dynamic, which isn't present in scenarios or This Day.
I never said that your data was invalid. I sad that it is incomplete, due to you using logs from TDI events, since it does not paint the complete picture of what happens in fully organized events. As I stated before, TDI allows players to engage and attack on their own initiative. That means the kills/deaths and sunken ship stats that you take from those logs potentially have a large variance over what woukl have been seen had all attacks been conducted in organized groups. The trends in your data should be checked against the trends from FSO and scenarios and be included if they reasonably jive with the rest of the data.
It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of sturdiness. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of dive ability. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of turning ability. It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of handling at speed.
The TBM and B5N both have great dive abilities, each able to reach 520mph in a dive from 20K and pull out without damage from that that speed. I'd say that figuring the dive abilities of the TBD is moot in this case because the dive abilites of the TBM and B5N are essentially equal.
That's why I mentioed that regardless of which plane is substituted for the TBD, there needs to be a very low alt cap (not higher than 5K) set in place for torpedo attackers.
-
AH pilots tend to know the AH aircraft. Also, the scenario isn't about only the A6M2 pilots. The most-vocal pilots are the ones who have complaints, not the ones who are content. So, when you go by what people mention, it is biased in the negative direction, not the positive one. Also, what I talked about is backed up by polling. Purporting that people probably aren't happy or shouldn't be happy isn't going to get much yardage.
Very rarely do content people work towards improvment, and that applies across any human endevour. It's called complancy. Complancent people do not push for change, period. Hence any change that comes was iniated by people from a disenfranchised position. History has proven this to be a universial fact.
As you undoubtedly know, special events require balencing playability: the balance in the ability for each side to win in an even battle, against historical accuracy: the percieved ability for the event to replcate the historical events as they unfolded in real life.
Substituting the TBM for the TBF satisfies niether of these critera. The TMB skews the playability in favor of the Allies, and also skews the historical accuracy further from reality than if the B5N were substituted.
When people fly in a scenario, the experience is enhanced if they are flying USN planes when they are representing the USN in the event, rather than flying Japanese planes and especially rather than flying Japanese-marked Japanese planes. It's the same reason the experience is enhanced by having a historical terrain, rather than any old terrain on which you say "a19 represents Berlin", and by having clouds and sky color that is an approximation of the weather during the historical battle, having snow on the ground if there was snow on the ground, having the historical squadron labels, and having historical skins when possible. Yes, it is also enhanced by having the historical aircraft. So when the exact historical aircraft isn't available, and we have to substitute, there are numerous considerations. Consider scenarios that have B-17D's. Is a B-17G (with its much-superior defensive fire) the best substitute on performance? Maybe a restricted-load Lancaster seems a better choice by some fighter pilots who think the B-17G is too hard to shoot down compared to what they think a B-17D would be like. We would still use the B-17G and adjust numbers so that scenario outcome is balanced.
Do not confuse immersion with historical accuracy. Immersion is relative.
You mention that the immersion of a USN torpedo squad is lost by having them fly a Japanese skinned aircraft, I would also contend that immersion is equally lost by A6M attacking Japanese skinned planes. So I'll call it a wash.
What about the immersion of the A6m2 pilot having to attack the far supior TBM, is that also not ruined? One substitue only effects asthetics whereas the outher tilts the ballance of playability. That is why we are pushing for a change.
-
On skins:
The default skin provided, by the game, can be replaced by building the skin into any given terrain. It is an option we made available specifically for events. It is the only way to get a non-historic skin on a plane and use it online, in the game.
Of course, the big risk in doing that occurs when we update that 3D model and the skin will no longer work for it, requiring the terrain to be reworked and updated.
-
AH pilots tend to know the AH aircraft. Also, the scenario isn't about only the A6M2 pilots. The most-vocal pilots are the ones who have complaints, not the ones who are content. So, when you go by what people mention, it is biased in the negative direction, not the positive one. Also, what I talked about is backed up by polling. Purporting that people probably aren't happy or shouldn't be happy isn't going to get much yardage.
This typically extends to their primary rides, and the big boys of the war like the B-17, and the P-51D. Even then, you get a lot of misinformation from anecdotes of pilots running 150 octane fuel, or that over-boosted the engine, or what have you. Hell, even simple ignorance comes into play.
For example, a fair handful of players from a certian unnamed squad seem discontent with the P-51D's modeling. According to them, it should be better because the USA won the war, and obviously if 109's are beating them, then the P-51 is under modeled. Screw the fact that there were 150 octane mustangs not represented in AH, and that latewar improvements to the 109G-10 and K-4 gave them parity or an advantage at high altitude.
According to one of them, the P-51D is "slow, barely breaking 300mph on the deck. And it climbs like s**t". When I confirmed that a 25% fuel P-51D was in fact capable of 368mph and ~2900fpm "as per the charts", his only response was "well who's charts are they"?
Ask your average AH player what the top speed of the G-10 was vs the K4, vs the G-14, and they couldn't give you an answer. Unless I miss my guess, most would probably just go with the G-14 because they both have G in the name.
Now you can argue that the scenario crowd is more likely to know more, and I'll accept that. However as example, were you to take a poll asking "did you know the TBD's top speed was only 202mph?" most would say no. We don't have the TBD, and no matter how much you love AH, theres no guarantee you're also a history buff.
Obviously people know the TBM does not make a perfect TBD; its a latewar replacement for it, how could it NOT be better. But I suspect that many aren't aware that there is at least a 53mph deck speed difference, and a ~75mph speed difference at altitude.
When people fly in a scenario, the experience is enhanced if they are flying USN planes when they are representing the USN in the event, rather than flying Japanese planes and especially rather than flying Japanese-marked Japanese planes.
I disagree with that point when substitutions are involved. Say we're doing an italian scenario, and want to represent the Re.2005 with a Spitfire VIII. The Spitfire is reminiscent of the 2005, and give it an Italian skin, and it would make a pretty damn fair visual approximation of one. Yeah, it would be using a Merlin instead of a DB 605, but you don't SEE the engine.
I disagree with this point especially considering that you could make a case that the TBD actually looks more like a B5N than it does a TBM.
I've flown 110C's as substitute for Ki-45's, and the fact that it was a 110C in no way broke the immersion, thanks in part to the excellent skin by Krusty. It looked Japanese, I was flying for the Japanese, shooting at things that looked allied, and being shot at because I looked Japanese. Now the skin part I give you. However given that Skuzzy has spoken up, I'd like to see what he has to say as to the difficulty of building in the skin vs the risk involved.
It's the same reason the experience is enhanced by having a historical terrain, rather than any old terrain on which you say "a19 represents Berlin", and by having clouds and sky color that is an approximation of the weather during the historical battle, having snow on the ground if there was snow on the ground, having the historical squadron labels, and having historical skins when possible. Yes, it is also enhanced by having the historical aircraft.
But thats exactly what you're doing. You're telling everyone to just pretend its a TBD, despite the fact that it makes a rather aggressively poor approximation of one.
So when the exact historical aircraft isn't available, and we have to substitute, there are numerous considerations. Consider scenarios that have B-17D's. Is a B-17G (with its much-superior defensive fire) the best substitute on performance? Maybe a restricted-load Lancaster seems a better choice by some fighter pilots who think the B-17G is too hard to shoot down compared to what they think a B-17D would be like. We would still use the B-17G and adjust numbers so that scenario outcome is balanced.
Here's the thing, in your example, you're substituting a B-17 in for a different B-17, I would assume because of the fact that it is infact a B-17, and looks like another B-17. But you're not doing that here, you're substituting in an entirely different aircraft, that neither approximates the TBD in performance, firepower, or looks aside from the fact that its also blue.
I already talked about that above. It is not irrelevant at all to bomber pilots.
But its not irrelevant to the A6M pilots either. 2 .50's is enough to seriously damage an A6M, where as a single .30 is not, unless the guy is ether EXTREMELY accurate, or very lucky.
You are choosing top level speed as being most important when the data shows it doesn't much matter to frame outcome, number of torp hits, number of bombers lost to enemy fighters, or number of enemy fighters lost to bombers.
I'm choosing top level speed and firepower over blueness (and not even the correct shade of blue), yes.
Tell me -- if someone is on the tail of your fighter pinging it with one 30 cal, are you going to sit there unmoving or move? That's the importance of the forward-firing gun. There have been *so many times* I have wished for even one 30 cal forward gun on the B5N.
If there is a single .30 pinging me and I have 75mph on the guy, I'll move a little bit to spoil his aim, and continue on wherever the hell I was going to go. I'm certianly not going to go "Oh god!!!!" and pull a split-S to escape the overwhelming destructive capacity of a .30.
I disagree.
And I respect that, however just because you're a CM doesn't mean you are right. It does, for better and for worse, put you in a position to do something about your opinion, but it doesn't make that opinion anything more than an opinion.
Vne won't tell you what is useful. You can find it or not as you wish. What would be more useful is finding out what armor the TBD had. Where was it, what was it, and what was its thickness compared to what the B5N has (if anything) and compared to what the TBM has.
As I said, I would do both.
In scenarios, there is always a group of people screaming bloody murder over some particular item, no matter which way you set it. That has been true since scenarios were invented in 1993 (where I CO'ed in the first one and was the person who was screaming bloody murder over some aspect that, with the benefit of experience, I now recognize as trivial). If we had a scenario, needed Bf 109K's, and only Bf 109G's where available, we'd likely use Bf 109G's and adjust things to balance the scenario.
But a G isn't just a G. Theres G-2's, G-6's, G-14's, and G-10's. The best I can come up with is using a G-14 to represent the K4 instead of the G-10, despite the fact that the G-10 is a closer approximation of the K4.
And we're looking at the exact opposite of the situation you put forth. You're using an over performing LW aircraft to represent a poorly performing EW aircraft. Which is why I specifically used the example of the K4 subbing for the G-6 or G-14/AS, as it is a better analogy for what we're looking at.
-
On skins:
The default skin provided, by the game, can be replaced by building the skin into any given terrain. It is an option we made available specifically for events. It is the only way to get a non-historic skin on a plane and use it online, in the game.
Of course, the big risk in doing that occurs when we update that 3D model and the skin will no longer work for it, requiring the terrain to be reworked and updated.
Skuzzy, how big of a job is building the skin into the terrain? Say Devil were to whip us up one of his skins (and given Devil's work, I have no doubt that it would be a very nice skin), would it be a matter of hours, days, weeks? Or would this be a months long process?
-
Skuzzy, how big of a job is building the skin into the terrain? Say Devil were to whip us up one of his skins (and given Devil's work, I have no doubt that it would be a very nice skin), would it be a matter of hours, days, weeks? Or would this be a months long process?
Again (since I already covered that), you can't take my word for it, I guess.
-
I never said that your data was invalid. I sad that it is incomplete, due to you using logs from TDI events,
If you don't like the This Day data, then don't pay attention to it. If you want FSO data analyzed, you can do so. However, FSO's auto-ack setting is an important change that, I suspect, would show would benefit TBM's over B5N's.
What is it in This Day events that you see benefiting TBM's and not B5N's or vice versa? A different environment that isn't biased is still OK for comparing the effectiveness of two aircraft. It has to be a differential effect to knock out that analysis as being useful.
That's why I mentioed that regardless of which plane is substituted for the TBD, there needs to be a very low alt cap (not higher than 5K) set in place for torpedo attackers.
That would be inappropriate and contrary to some history of the use of the planes. Besides, they are already all limited to 100 ft altitude and 200 mph on their attack runs.
-
Actually......US torps need to enter the water at 250mph or less, not 200mph. According to one of the loading messages anyway....
-
Very rarely do content people work towards improvement . . . [etc.]
Contentment isn't identical to complacency. History does not show content people not working toward improvement. Some historical examples: large timespans in ancient Athens, large timespans for Rome, portions of the history of Britain, much of the history of America, and many individual business people, inventors, engineers, scientists, and artists who are content yet still work toward improvement.
As you undoubtedly know, special events require balencing playability: the balance in the ability for each side to win in an even battle, against historical accuracy: the percieved ability for the event to replcate the historical events as they unfolded in real life.
I am gratified to know that you undoubtedly know that I undoubtedly know that.
Substituting the TBM for the TBF satisfies niether of these critera. The TMB skews the playability in favor of the Allies, and also skews the historical accuracy further from reality than if the B5N were substituted.
See large analysis and discussion above that proves the converse.
You mention that the immersion of a USN torpedo squad is lost by having them fly a Japanese skinned aircraft, I would also contend that immersion is equally lost by A6M attacking Japanese skinned planes. So I'll call it a wash.
You are totally misunderstanding that aspect. If one side has less immersion and another side has less immersion, it isn't a wash -- it is twice as bad.
What about the immersion of the A6m2 pilot
It's better for him (and everyone else) if we had TBD's. It's easier for him under some circumstances (which the data seems to indicate play an insignificant part) if we used B5N's instead of TBM's. Is it better immersion for him to shoot at B5N's? Most of the times I've been shot up in TBM's or B5N's, it is on the deck near the target, where it doesn't matter at all what the top speed of the aircraft is. So, if my experience is how it is in general, the A6M2 pilot's immersion is also increased by a TBM instead of a B5N.
-
Actually......US torps need to enter the water at 250mph or less, not 200mph. According to one of the loading messages anyway....
Some speed is added by the drop ( vtot = sqrt(v_x^2 + v_y^2)), so unless you are at 0 ft altitude, going 250 will cause your torpedo to die.
Also, the faster you go, the longer your torpedo is below its running depth. If you are going slow, you can get closer to a ship than if you are going fast and not have your torpedo go under the target.
Most of my drops are at 175 mph, sometimes less, in case I need to get in very close for targeting accuracy.
-
This typically extends to their primary rides, . . . [etc.]
I think that the large majority of players are happy with the scenario. I don't think an appreciable number of them would change their minds, even if there is someone out there trying to convince them to be unhappy.
But [but but but . . .]
This is just going over the same ground again and again.
-
Again (since I already covered that), you can't take my word for it, I guess.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "trust but verify"?
You said it involved a lot of work, you gave no time frame for what "a lot of work" is. And given the CM team's treatment of the situation, I feel I'm perfectly justified in verifying this. Until a while ago, I felt you might have been exempt from this criticism of the CM team, but you've grown more and more dismissive the longer this goes on.
I think that the large majority of players are happy with the scenario. I don't think an appreciable number of them would change their minds, even if there is someone out there trying to convince them to be unhappy.
Change their minds about the scenario as a whole? Perhaps not. But I think that they would definitely agree that the B5N is the better choice.
This is just going over the same ground again and again.
You're right, we've simply reached a difference in prioritization, I think. I prioritize performance and firepower, you prioritize blueness :aok.
Btw, nice summarization of my post. If you want to casually dismiss valid points like that, well that's your choice.
-
I felt you might have been exempt from this criticism of the CM team,
Thanks! :aok
but
Alas. :(
-
But I think that they would definitely agree that the B5N is the better choice.
Yeah, see I'm afraid I don't agree. Unfortunately, I don't have an alternative to suggest either, but flying a plane pretending to be a TBD that has japanese instruments would completely ruin the immersion for me. Completely and totally. Forget the skin, I'm looking out the front anyway, I can't see the skin. But the japanese writing all over the cockpit and those god awful altimeters the IJN planes have would just kill it for me.
a) it's only for Pearl and Midway, after those frames we're historically accurate anyway.
b) scenarios are designed to be fair and give both sides the same chance of winning, the use of TBMs over TDBs will have been taken into consideration in either scoring or plane limits or both.
c) one of the very early scenarios (Afrika Korps) had typhoons pretending to be beaufighters....and I still maintain to this day that was the best scenario I've ever flown in.
and d) this discussion has gone on way too bleedin long already.
-
You said it involved a lot of work, you gave no time frame for what "a lot of work" is.
You mean other than "a couple times in the last 10 years" sort of timeframe that I talked about? In this case, what I wrote was: "The problem is that you can't put skins into a scenario without them being built into the terrain, and that only happens in the rare case that (1) a terrain is being rebuilt at least a couple of months in advance and (2) someone has done a suitable skin. The odds of it are like the alignment of planets. Getting a skin in for a scenario has happened a couple of times in 10 years. Builds of terrains involve the terrain team putting in a bunch of work, and it has to then be run through checks and cleared by HTC."
That covers it pretty well, but I can rephrase it to explain another way. Normally, it isn't done. When it has been done, it involved (1) a person making a skin, (2) a person rebuilding a terrain to put the skin in (see below for more information on this factor), and (3) Skuzzy recertifying the terrain and releasing it for use on Special-Events servers (a bunch of work for him, but I don't know how many man-hours it is).
Terrains are handled by the Terrain Team. These volunteers build new terrains and rework old terrains that are broken or made non-optimal by updates to AH. They have a large backlog of old terrains to rework or replace, and a queue of new terrains that they want to develop. Take whoever you think is an example of an overworked person (a booked-solid surgeon, maybe, who hasn't spent an evening with his family for the past two months; or a salesman who is in the process of travelling to 20 states and 10 different countries on high-value sales calls) and see if he has a spare day to help you paint your house. It's like that.
And it's not just the work -- it's the timing of it. You have to do the work between the time you pick the plane set for the next scenario and about one month from the start of that scenario. How big is that window? It's somewhere around a few months. So, the skinner gets a month to do his work, and the terrain team gets a couple of months to do the work (or whatever mix adds up to a few months). Those people who do the work have to be available exactly during that specific time period, start the work during that period, and end it during that period. In addition just to the effort involved, the need for it to happen in a particular window is what cuts down the odds of it as well.
-
I didn't read every post, but does anyone realize that the TBF fought at Midway? Six of VT-8s TBFs were brought to Midway on Hornet. They attacked the Japanese fleet without escort. 5 were shot down, one limped back to Midway shot up badly with the rear gunner dead. It was written off.
There is very little difference between the Grumman built TBF and the GM built TBM. Just detail differences that would have no impact on game play.
-
Tank-Ace, you will be happy to hear this. Falcon tells me that there is a way now to add skins to Special-Events terrains without the laborious process I described above, which is excellent. That means making the skin is now the main work with very little time needed for adding it to the server -- and what I described above is now completely wrong!
So, you were right after all to suspect my description of what is involved in getting skins into the Special-Events arenas. :uhoh
-
I got to meet Harry Ferrier once, who flew on the plane Widewing mentions.
There is a great book about VT-8 and about US torpedo bombing -- "A Dawn Like Thunder: The True Story of Torpedo Squadron Eight", by Mrazek.
-
Unfortunately I have read most of these posts.
I have lead squadrons in a couple scenarios.
The CMs do a thankless job but for a few who understand the personal time and work involved.
I would not blame any of them if they just gave up.
There are always some personal agendas involved in this community.
I don't register for Scenarios anymore. That should be no big deal to anyone.
If anything I may walk on rarely.
I just don't appreciate the negativity that builds before, during, and after a Scenario.
But that's just me. Some of this Community should grow up. I'm older and I don't suffer children as I once did.
CMs carry on! You do great work.....and thanks.
-
See Rule #4
-
Unfortunately I have read most of these posts.
:rofl :aok
Hajo, come play in this next one! It will be glorious. :aok
Don't let a small number of folks complaining about this or that ruin your fun. Heck, there are whole countries of people not just complaining about you (as a citizen of the US), but who would like to kill you if they had the chance, and you don't let that ruin your fun!
A blast from the past. Here is the caption in my AAR for this picture below from Coral Sea 2009: "A view back at my Avenger. There are enough Zeros to get me, but it's the pest of a smoking Zero that gets me, my Avenger exploding a moment after this picture was taken. If it weren't for him, I might have at least lived to my drop point. So close! (It turns out the Zero that got me was flown by Hajo -- at whom I now shake my fist! :) ). t=0:47"
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame2/023-dead-Image-0061.jpg)
-
:rofl :aok
Hajo, come play in this next one! It will be glorious. :aok
Don't let a small number of folks complaining about this or that ruin your fun. Heck, there are whole countries of people not just complaining about you (as a citizen of the US), but who would like to kill you if they had the chance, and you don't let that ruin your fun!
A blast from the past. Here is the caption in my AAR for this picture below from Coral Sea 2009: "A view back at my Avenger. There are enough Zeros to get me, but it's the pest of a smoking Zero that gets me, my Avenger exploding a moment after this picture was taken. If it weren't for him, I might have at least lived to my drop point. So close! (It turns out the Zero that got me was flown by Hajo -- at whom I now shake my fist! :) ). t=0:47"
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame2/023-dead-Image-0061.jpg)
Brooke I had a blast in that Coral Sea Event.
-
I wouldn't either.
And where would that leave us, as the playerbase? Or is that the goal here with all this crying? And if so I have to ask again, where would that leave us?
What happened to you, Doo? Did you take a couple months off - Go play warthunder and lose your balls? Damn, Scoob you used to be a fighting man. I have never witnessed a more pathetic catalogue of defeatist wimpisms than this thread exhibits. Whining about torpedo bombers? My god, get a grip folks. Strap in, goggle up and kill the enemy.
Any kommnader worth his stripes could take either side in this scenario and win handily.
-
I would not blame any of them if they just gave up.
Absolutely nothing, not one single thing, in this or any other thread comes even remotely close to causing me, personally, to think this isn't worth doing.
Stampf, as usual, nails it. Any kommnader worth his stripes could take either side in this scenario and win handily.
-
TBMs for TBDs is a go :huh
Well I guess next time the Battle of Britain is upon us,
I'm looking forward especially to my 109F1 substitute; the handy 109G6
It amounts to the same thing. :D
-
Any kommander worth his stripes could take either side in this scenario and win handily.
QFT :aok
-
Well I guess next time the Battle of Britain is upon us,
I'm looking forward especially to my 109F1 substitute; the handy 109G6
It amounts to the same thing. :D
No. The comparable argument in Battle of Britain isn't 109f vs. 109g, because we had the 109f and didn't need any substitute. It was Ju 88 vs. He 111. You could reproduce the argument here with three simple substitutions: "He 111" becomes "TBD", "Hurri" becomes "Zero", and "Ju 88" becomes "TBM". Then, we got the He 111, and we saw that He 111's and Ju 88's do about the same.
-
I wouldn't either.
Your Honor.....I rest my case.
-
See Rule #4
-
You didn't get it :( you just don't get it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AbjYmLIIGE ;)
-
Well this conversation has gone sideways.
-
Can't beat a little En Vogue :)
-
Can't beat a little En Vogue :)
Last time I was around you were in the few, what happened?
-
Last time I was around you were in the few, what happened?
The best thing ever :) I created my own Squadron/Staffel
-
Well this conversation has gone sideways.
Yes . . . about 157 posts ago. ;)
-
Brooke,
You going to be in TBM's?
If so, and if I can commit to all four frames, and if you want me, are you going to make us practice for hours on end so we all know what we are doing in them? Know the strengths and weakness' of every thing we may come up against? Are we going to have to spend hours just drilling on the optimum drop angles? Optimum dive angles? Optimum flight altitudes? Are you going to try to make sure that if you die, everyone in your squadron is up to speed on the attack plan and can take over as Group Lead? Is this going to be another one of those scenarios where, due to the knowledge and plan you share, the practices you make us attend and all the rest of your hard nose Group Leader shenanigans, we will always consider this a great scenario, even if we all die?
Just curious. :D
-
Brooke,
You going to be in TBM's?
If so, and if I can commit to all four frames, and if you want me, are you going to make us practice for hours on end so we all know what we are doing in them? Know the strengths and weakness' of every thing we may come up against? Are we going to have to spend hours just drilling on the optimum drop angles? Optimum dive angles? Optimum flight altitudes? Are you going to try to make sure that if you die, everyone in your squadron is up to speed on the attack plan and can take over as Group Lead? Is this going to be another one of those scenarios where, due to the knowledge and plan you share, the practices you make us attend and all the rest of your hard nose Group Leader shenanigans, we will always consider this a great scenario, even if we all die?
Just curious. :D
Heh! :aok
I'm happy to be in either TBM's or B5N's. I'm not sure if I need to be on one side or the other yet. Would you fly B5N's if I'm in those instead?
-
Brooke following HB555 off the Shoho in Coral Sea 2005, ready to go after the big fish.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/coral_sea/pics/frame3-12_takeoff4.jpg)
-
And where would that leave us, as the playerbase? Or is that the goal here with all this crying? And if so I have to ask again, where would that leave us?
What happened to you, Doo? Did you take a couple months off - Go play warthunder and lose your balls? Damn, Scoob you used to be a fighting man. I have never witnessed a more pathetic catalogue of defeatist wimpisms than this thread exhibits. Whining about torpedo bombers? My god, get a grip folks. Strap in, goggle up and kill the enemy.
Any kommnader worth his stripes could take either side in this scenario and win handily.
Aw Stampf :(
I never said that Scenarios need to go away nor events as a whole. I continue to lobby for my FSO return. I simply feel the Scenario Event needs a serious re-work. That aside allow me to say:
I feel that the TBM-3 has no place in Early Pacific setups. However, the TBM-3 will NEVER keep the Axis from winning a historic event that has a squadron led by perdweeb. I will admit that I am not the best combat group leader in Aces High, but only because you still lead one. I love a challenge and I will still fly with the odds against me, I welcome it. But, I still see no reason not to mention the problems. Will the TBM-3 keep me from flying? No. Will it keep me from embarrassing every fighter group that enters icon range? No. Will it keep the Axis from winning? Maybe, if I am not there. The War Thunder bit was below the belt, but I wipe it off.
Despite what you see, read, think, or hear dont forget I am still the baddest boy around (next to you) when I have a squad following me into a nasty hornet's nest. {Stevie Wonder plug: I wish those days could come back once more}
<S> Stampf
-
Get in the mood, folks.
Are you ready to fight for half the world?
Pacific action is headed your way!
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frameTest/012-drop-Image-0014.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frameTest/030-explodeB5N-Image-0050.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame1/001-takeofff4f-Image-0000.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame1/009-brookeAndClone155-Image-0024.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame1/011-justBeforeDrop-Image-0033.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame1/026-brookeAndLtarhamr-Image-0078.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame2/012-thenHamr-Image-0034.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame2/022-run-Image-0060.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame3/001-takeoff1-Image-0002.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame3/003-otwSouth-Image-0007.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame3/007-lightHimUp-Image-0018.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame3/023-torpAway-Image-0051.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/coral_sea/pics/frame3-15_result4.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame1/032-otwBack-Image-0094.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/coral_sea/pics/frame3-1_dawnTakeoff.jpg)
-
In the previous pics, some names from the past, and some still around:
Bruv and Klingan of VF-2 taking off in their F4F's from Lady Lex.
ROC screaming in on three Zeros to try for the clear.
Beefcake, KKen, and Babalon out hunting the IJN big fish.
A collection of Finns on their way to ruin your day (if you are the enemy).
<S> to them all!
-
Heh! :aok
I'm happy to be in either TBM's or B5N's. I'm not sure if I need to be on one side or the other yet. Would you fly B5N's if I'm in those instead?
Rather fly Blue "Uber" planes ;), but hell yea, I could do B5N's. :aok Just so long as they have meatballs on the wings and cookies in the cockpit.
-
Rather fly Blue "Uber" planes ;), but hell yea, I could do B5N's. :aok Just so long as they have meatballs on the wings and cookies in the cockpit.
Excellent. I'll let you know which I will be in, and we will go hunting the big fish like the olden times. :aok
-
I already know exactly what plane I will be in and what I will be doing.
I will be in the fun plane.
I bet you can guess what I will be doing.
The land of the rising sun..............for the Emperor.
JG11 Uber Alles !
-
The scenario will be over before you get to your target altitude Zoney :P
-
I already know exactly what plane I will be in and what I will be doing.
I will be in the fun plane.
I bet you can guess what I will be doing.
The land of the rising sun..............for the Emperor.
JG11 Uber Alles !
Zoney,
It is guys like yourself that make scenario what it is. The expectation that you create to put yourself in the mind of a Japanese pilot going into battle against the American dogs. The edge of fear that you feel manning your plane on game day wondering what will happen, but all the while knowing that there is a battle to be fought and mission objective to be obtained. It is guys like yourself that make this past time fun for me. I appreciate you wearing your expectation on your sleeve and committing yourself to a victory that is very far off. Whether I am for you or against you doesn't matter. What matters is that you are focus on the immersion of this time and the mission that you have set yourself on.
Good Luck sir :salute
Tora Tora Tora!!!
-
Zoney,
It is guys like yourself that make scenario what it is. The expectation that you create to put yourself in the mind of a Japanese pilot going into battle against the American dogs. The edge of fear that you feel manning your plane on game day wondering what will happen, but all the while knowing that there is a battle to be fought and mission objective to be obtained. It is guys like yourself that make this past time fun for me. I appreciate you wearing your expectation on your sleeve and committing yourself to a victory that is very far off. Whether I am for you or against you doesn't matter. What matters is that you are focus on the immersion of this time and the mission that you have set yourself on.
Good Luck sir :salute
Tora Tora Tora!!!
Tora Tora Tora??? Looks like Ill be having to shoot you down at some point ;) :salute
-
You would think that the whole event evolved around the TBF instead of 10 to 15 planes in one frame.
One, if they were stupid, might wonder why the complaints were all from a certain Squadron. Alas, their comical agenda goes back years. Funny how they never complain when Fw-190D9s are used in numbers in 1944 events.
The whole 'concern' is so much male bovine droppings.
-
Fencer!!!! Howdy!
-
Funny how they never complain when Fw-190D9s are used in numbers in 1944 events.
What does it sub for?
-
I guess if TBM's are that good then the whiners should just fly TBM's for the Allies and show us just how uber they are.
-
2 Hours. Just sayin.
-
Fencer!!!! Howdy!
Brooke, I am in, IJN, waiting for B5N Assignment from my Group leader :D. Number 2 IJN Registrant. Let the games begin.
-
Brooke, I am in, IJN, waiting for B5N Assignment from my Group leader :D. Number 2 IJN Registrant. Let the games begin.
We might have to get you assigned over to US, as I think I'm on US this time. I'll make sure and get back to you asap.
-
Teach me to listen to you. :rofl You did tell me you were not sure.
Will stay out of all IJN Chat until I know for sure.
-
Swareiam is my friend :)
-
I guess my D9 question shall go unanswered.
So I shall allow another thought for some to ponder; The meaning of AS in G14/AS and the difference over the normal G14. Including the application of normal G14s at high altitude interceptions of B17s instead of AS modelled G14s.
Don't answer it on the BBS, just ponder it, and understand it.
-
Is the G-14/AS much different from a K-4?
-
I don't see you registered Dolby. Aren't you going to play ?
-
Is the G-14/AS much different from a K-4?
Ponder that for the time being.
I don't see you registered Dolby. Aren't you going to play ?
After the BoB CM shambles, I'm walking on this time.
-
Ponder that for the time being.
I'm not an expert in 109 versions, which is why I asked, but OK -- I'll go look a bit, since I guess there's something too fascinating to reveal directly.
-
The G-14/AS and K-4 seem very similar to me in the small amount of research I just did. Same prop, same MK108 cannon available, close top speeds at 26k, about the same HP, one having a DB605ASM and the other having a DB605DB.
OK, I have pondered. Did I miss anything? Could be -- I didn't ponder enormously.
-
G14AS over K4;
20mm nose option, Gondola options plus Rocket option, which is better for buff hunting.
Better range.
Better turn.
There are;
Different climb and speed rates.
Different weights.
Different torque amounts.
Handling characteristics.
As it is now we don't have any of the high altitude 109 versions which were used from spring of 1944 until late 1944.
Affecting every axis flyer tasked with high altitude interception.
Easy to answer, so let go back to my 190D9 question as I answered the pondering one for you..
Funny how they never complain when Fw-190D9s are used in numbers in 1944 events.
What does it sub for?
-
G14AS over K4;
I don't think anyone has ever done much with rockets in scenarios. I much prefer no gondolas, but maybe some folks like them. I think it's a lot more effective for 109's to be fighters and use 190A's as bomber destroyers. But OK, that is a difference then to the extent it would be used.
Better range.
I don't think I've ever needed more range in a 109 in scenarios other than Battle of Britain.
Better turn.
Different climb and speed rates.
Handling characteristics.
I would guess that all of those are very similar.
Easy to answer, so let go back to my 190D9 question as I answered the pondering one for you..
You asked what the D9 is substituting for? Generally, for no aircraft at all. It is often the case that a scenario will have more aircraft or a higher proportion of better aircraft than were in the historical battle, in order to make the scenario balanced.
-
Hey Brooke ....... what are you flying and leading? Count me in if I fly for you.
Doesn't matter which side. Doesn't matter what aircraft. Unfortunately I'll only be able to make maybe 3 out of the four.
Keep me posted.
-
Hey Brooke ....... what are you flying and leading? Count me in if I fly for you.
Doesn't matter which side. Doesn't matter what aircraft. Unfortunately I'll only be able to make maybe 3 out of the four.
Keep me posted.
Looks like I'm flying with a lot of the fellas who flew DGS, looks to be good fellas!
-
Hey Brooke ....... what are you flying and leading? Count me in if I fly for you.
Doesn't matter which side. Doesn't matter what aircraft. Unfortunately I'll only be able to make maybe 3 out of the four.
Keep me posted.
Yes! :banana:
I'll let you know as soon as I know which side I'm on.
I have to let HB know, too.
-
Hey Brooke ....... what are you flying and leading? Count me in if I fly for you.
Doesn't matter which side. Doesn't matter what aircraft. Unfortunately I'll only be able to make maybe 3 out of the four.
Keep me posted.
OK, I am assigned to the IJN side.
So, B5N torpedo bombers it is (as long as the Japanese CO is OK with that).
-
Brooke, I am in, IJN, waiting for B5N Assignment from my Group leader :D. Number 2 IJN Registrant. Let the games begin.
OK, I'm registered Japanese and ready to go! :aok
Time to start recruiting additional torpedo-bomber pilots!
-
OK, I am assigned to the IJN side.
So, B5N torpedo bombers it is (as long as the Japanese CO is OK with that).
I thought you were CMing the Allieses?
-
Brooke registered, requested B5N under your lead.
-
I thought you were CMing the Allieses?
Turns out that Redtail (Swareiam) previously requested the US side, so I'm taking the IJ side. I have fun flying axis or allied -- I'm good with either one.
-
Yes! :banana:
I'll let you know as soon as I know which side I'm on.
I have to let HB know, too.
He knows. :aok