Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on July 25, 2016, 02:23:15 AM
-
Here is a link to a starting point for the October North Africa Scenario:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
People can post suggestions and questions in this topic.
Best regards. <S>!
-
B17s and B26s addition need some thought due to the balance issues with Ju88.
Ju88s were designed to dive bomb, relaxing this rule for the Ju88 would historical options.
(The fighters are yet to be given type in the write up)
-
i've read it where are the spit8 or 9's? :D
-
I agree with Dolby regarding the B-17's and 26's.
Jg 77 would still have G-2's at this time. I have not ever seen evidence of any G-6's being deployed to North Africa.
P-38's and 190's were not common in North Africa - that proportion should be reflected by having these squads being smaller than the average, not larger.
The C.202 will be hard to get pilots to fill and will be ineffective except in the hands of exceptional pilots. I would replace these with another Luft squad in 109F's, which were still being used. The 109F will also help balance the SpitV.
-
I nominate Dolby to lead the C202 squad....
:neener:
-
Devil I don't know what you mean by common but according to what I have read the 12th AF had 2 groups of P38's consisting of 5 Squadrons each with a complement of around 25 aircraft. 125 P38's. The 14th flew combat operations starting in Nov 42.
JG2 flew FW190s in Africa. II Group I believe would have had 36 to 64 aircraft assigned depending on supply status and maintenance levels.
Almost 200 combat aircraft is a pretty good showing and there are 3 other types that each side has to use.
As for the squads being a bit larger I am sure the designers had a good reason to add 2 aircraft to those Squads.
-
I nominate Dolby to lead the C202 squad....
:neener:
Seconded
-
The C202 is a fantastic fighter; nimble, agile and quick. I once landed 7 kills in one sortie in the MA. Sure I'll lead the C202s.
-
The C202 is a fantastic fighter; nimble, agile and quick. I once landed 7 kills in one sortie in the MA. Sure I'll lead the C202s.
202s are junk...we will be annihilated in them...after a entire scenario in the C205 awhile back I wont even look at either one of them in the hanger....
Fantastic fighter... :bhead
In a 202 I wouldn't want to be around any p39s not to mention 38s...such junk...I'm reminded of a FSO where we were in 202s...
109Fs are Cadillac's compared to 202s...
I'm gonna have to change my offline drones to see what happens when 26s are shot at by 202s...26s shake off hizzookas... :noid
-
In a 202 I wouldn't want to be around any p39s not to mention 38s...such junk...I'm reminded of a FSO where we were in 202s...
Me too! It was the most kills I have ever had in an FSO, 6 as I recall. It's a great fighter. Not an MA fighter but in this case, it will do pretty well.
-
Hello, all.
Some brief comments so far.
For which plane types were there in Feb. 1943 and in what rough proportions, all of that comes from the list of references. There weren't any Spit 8's or 9's in the 12th AF. There were 109G-2's and G-6's as opposed to a bunch of 109F's by 1943. There were lots of P-38's and some 190's (less than 109's, but JG 2 was in 190's as was SKG 10 by 1943).
Regarding bombers, the 26's and 17's have better defense than the Ju 88's, the 25's have worse. The 25's and 26's don't carry as much ord as 88's, the 17's are about equal. Overall, my opinion is that it is about a wash or that the allies have a slight advantage in bombers. Ju 88's are quite decent bombers. I have flown them more in Scenarios than anyone in AH, including in the Tunisia Scenario in 2009 that had B-25's, B-26's, and B-17's on the allied side and Ju 88's on the axis side.
For balance, the LW has a slightly better fighter set, about an equal ground-attack set, and a slightly worse bomber set. Given that you never get a perfect balance because we do use different planes on each side of a Scenario, this mix in my opinion is historical and seems OK.
In Scenarios like this one, I can tell you being a bomber pilot a lot, if you get formations, level bombing is much better than divebombing with singletons. There is the possibility of forced singleton missions, though, if bombers rearm during an hour -- so I will think about glide bombing for singletons. Ju 88's could do it and probably B-25's did it some in history. I'm not sure about B-26's, and B-17's almost never did that. Maybe allowing it for all but B-17's? Hmm. Not sure. Let's ponder.
C.202's were one of the historically important planes in this theater, and they are decent planes, especially considering that the allies have P-40's and P-39's. They should stay in, as should P-40's, P-39's, A-20's, Bf 110's, and Ju 88's. C.202's are higher up the popularity tree than Ju 88's, He 111's, Il-2's, Bf 110's, B5N's, Boston III's, and TBM's, and I've flown all of those (and actually Stukas, too) in Scenarios and gotten people to fly them with me.
-
Devil I don't know what you mean by common but according to what I have read the 12th AF had 2 groups of P38's consisting of 5 Squadrons each with a complement of around 25 aircraft. 125 P38's. The 14th flew combat operations starting in Nov 42.
JG2 flew FW190s in Africa. II Group I believe would have had 36 to 64 aircraft assigned depending on supply status and maintenance levels.
Almost 200 combat aircraft is a pretty good showing and there are 3 other types that each side has to use.
As for the squads being a bit larger I am sure the designers had a good reason to add 2 aircraft to those Squads.
Joker, I'll freely admit that my knowledge of Allied unite is nowhere close to that of what I know of Luftwaffe units, but I find it hard to believe that more than 25% of all American fighters in North Africa in February '43 were P-38's. Granted, we're not looking for perfect proportional representation here, but these initial setup proportions do not seem close to historical reports.
For which plane types were there in Feb. 1943 and in what rough proportions, all of that comes from the list of references. There weren't any Spit 8's or 9's in the 12th AF. There were 109G-2's and G-6's as opposed to a bunch of 109F's by 1943. There were lots of P-38's and some 190's (less than 109's, but JG 2 was in 190's as was SKG 10 by 1943).
Brooke, regarding the G-6, the earliest record of them in Tunisia is a report of an MIA pilot shot down on April 16, 1943.
Just what constitutes "lots of P-38's"? It is common knowledge that the P-38 was the best fighter in the American arsenal at the time and units were converting to them as fast as possible, but again I have to ask - was the relative proportion of P-38 units in Tunisia close to 25% of the total number of squadrons there? I ask the same question regarding the SpitV. Seems to me that the workhorses were still the P-40 and P-39.
As for the 190's, II/Jg 2 was the sole fighter unit with them. However there were 7 groups of 109G's and some F's* (I,II and III/Jg 53; I,II and III/Jg 77; and II/Jg 51)
* few 109F's remained in fighter service by February. But, Schlachtgeschwader 2 was fully equipped with the type as dive bombers. (alas, our 109F can not carry bombs)
And why sub the F-8 for SKG 10? The F-8 has too much armor and carries too much ordnance. They had A-4's and our A-5 is so close that HTC allows A-4 schemes to be skinned on the A-5. (I even skinned a SKG 10 A-4 from this exact period)
Regarding bombers, the 26's and 17's have better defense than the Ju 88's, the 25's have worse. The 25's and 26's don't carry as much ord as 88's, the 17's are about equal. Overall, my opinion is that it is about a wash or that the allies have a slight advantage in bombers. Ju 88's are quite decent bombers. I have flown them more in Scenarios than anyone in AH, including in the Tunisia Scenario in 2009 that had B-25's, B-26's, and B-17's on the allied side and Ju 88's on the axis side.
Perhaps removing the B-17 and replacing one Ju 88 squad with He 111's (external ord only) would help balance the bombers? The He-111 is alt least in the speed range of the B-25 and the defensive armament is also relatively poor.
Finally I'm happy to see that there are may who sing the praises of the C.202.
-
Also how about some Jabo P-40E's?
I skinned this Tunisian beauty, and would love to see it used in the scenario.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ffuY4YyMFMQ/T8WW9caBZpI/AAAAAAAAAU8/pkEjrj_6ae8/s1600/00+Overcash.jpg)
-
Skip the heavy bombers. keep it to the mediums. Use Bostons instead of A20Gs. Mitchells, and consider skipping 26s. RAF Spit V, and small number IX, RAF P40E and USAAF P40F, skip the 39s., USAAF P38Gs
109G2 and G6, small number of 190s, 110s, 88s, maybe 111s? 202s
Give Bruv a small batch of Spit IXs flying as the Polish Fighting Team that was there.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Pedestal/Spit-IX-PFT_zpsn0xbcsim.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/Pedestal/Spit-IX-PFT_zpsn0xbcsim.jpg.html)
I want the 417 Squadron Spit Vs.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Pedestal/Corky417_zpsswj2mjce.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/Pedestal/Corky417_zpsswj2mjce.jpg.html)
I already have Redtails P40F set to go so he should have those :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/North%20Africa%20Scenario/P40FRedTail_zpsxv33gff9.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/North%20Africa%20Scenario/P40FRedTail_zpsxv33gff9.jpg.html)
Beefcake's B25
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/guppy35012/Mitchell-II-Temp-Converted_zpstq7pbdkt.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/guppy35012/Mitchell-II-Temp-Converted_zpstq7pbdkt.jpg.html)
-
Also how about some Jabo P-40E's?
I skinned this Tunisian beauty, and would love to see it used in the scenario.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ffuY4YyMFMQ/T8WW9caBZpI/AAAAAAAAAU8/pkEjrj_6ae8/s1600/00+Overcash.jpg)
That be a K I believe with the larger tail. Go with RAF 40Es since they had plenty of them as fighter bombers :)
-
The "K" has the standard length tail with a curved fillet on the leading edge.
Here's an "N" with the longer tail. Note the rearward position of the vertical stab to the horizontal. On the standard tails, the leading edges line up.
(http://www.air-and-space.com/20050522%20Chino/DSC_1546%20P-40N%20NL1195N%20left%20rear%20taxiing%20l.jpg)
-
Yep. Larger not longer :)
-
For balance, the LW has a slightly better fighter set,
Slightly better? I don't see how the P-39s and especially the P-40s will be anything but lambs for the slaughter, and the Spit V is still outclassed by all the German planes. The P-38s are the only Allied fighters that can engage any of the LW planes on anything like equal terms. The C-202s will be more survivable in this environment than the P-39s and easily superior to the P-40s.
If we're going to dispense with historical numerical imbalances for the sake of a balanced scenario, I don't see why we can't also tweak the historical plane set a little for the sake of a balanced scenario as well (still keeping it planes in service at the time, of course). Upgrade the Spit Vs to Spit IXs (which were in service well before February 1943) and maybe balance that by ditching the B-17s for Boston IIIs, which were certainly present in Tunisia, if not in 12th AF. I like the idea of RAF P-40 jabos as well.
Keep in mind that when the choices for the vote were described this was billed as having as many RAF as USAAF planes - "Estimated plane set: Spit V, Spit IX, P-38G, P-40, P-39, A-20, B-25, Boston III vs. 109G, 109F, 190A-5, 110C, C.202, Ju 88."
-
Yep. Larger not longer :)
Gotcha :aok
-
Well, since you asked...
This is a twelve hour event. You are scoring it based on points. I am not focusing on the only other 12 hour event we've had to push the format as "the" single best way to run it, but we have had these conversations in depth, Nefari and I.
You can't balance this event based on standard events. You have this scored as an overall points based event. What happens when 3 hours into the fight, most of your fighters log off, and one sides bombers show up in bulk and accumulate a massive lead on bomb damage? It might take 6 hours of extreme effort to overcome a burst of bomber activity. The pacing of events like this has to have an element in place that allows for quadrants to be fought for, then move onto other quadrants. Each quarter of the event is a stand alone score, and it's achieve the objective or don't. This way, the Allies can win in the morning if you get a large turnout of Euro players who want to be Allies, next phase when the Axis come on in force they can secure a win, prime time puts the next phase into the Allies column then the last frame can either draw the event to a tie or push a side over the top. With points based across the twelve hour, it's too easy for one side to dominate too early and leave no margin for later.
Quarters also create command segments. You don't need one CO to run 12 hours, you can create CO Teams if needed, and have each leader hand off the event to the next CO if they want. You need to create a segmented event to allow for options for command and missions.
You can launch 3 missions per segment, the COs can decide if they have a chance to win in the last hour or if not, can opt to send their planes out to set up for the next mission instead.
You need to refine your objectives per segment. Not a blanket "all targets are available". Free for all will encourage players to simply hide and seek and pork the map instead of push the fights over more limited targets.
Set up each 3 hour segment to have it's own objectives, own target area, and the ability but not the requirement for command to hand off leadership to the next guy without there being a mission already in progress.
Once you do that, you can then count the objects on the targets, count the bombs available, and then come up with a balance based on Facts, what can be killed, what can be bombed, how many planes does it take to drop a bomber, how many bombers does it take to drop objects, and balance the event on facts, not assumptions and historical documents that have no relevance here. Or, if you want to historically account for the ratio of, say P38s, then do that, and THEN you can assign how many bombers need to be up, compared to how many have a chance of surviving, and then set the hardness of the objectives to reflect this. Designing an event of this scale needs to be done from the Facts First, then adjust to meet the Expectations. Divide up the targets into 4 battle areas. Spreadsheet the objects and total damage. Add the number of bombers needed to kill the objectives. Decide what percentage of bombers need to survive to meet the objectives. Then start adjusting hardness of objects based on fighter plane numbers and spend the next 5 weeks crunching data.
That's just my opinion.
-
Free for all will encourage players to simply hide and seek and pork the map instead of push the fights over more limited targets.
I want to elaborate on this one point a little more.
This doesn't mean micromanage and script the event. It means, for the sake of balance, you have to have a battle that allows for and counts on attrition. If 15 bombers are needed to achieve an objective, and 30 bombers are launched knowing the x number of fighters stand a good chance of killing half of the bombers in a simple generic fight, it stands to reason that you need to focus heavily on doing better than average to down more than half the bombers to prevent them from achieving their objective. This means the balance is created to allow for the bombers to get in, allow for enough defenders to keep the bombers alive and fight the attacking enemy, and enough enemy to prevent it. This model works if you point to the 3 targets that are in a particular battle area, and keep the fight focused there. 3 solid chances to get in and achieve the objective. If you don't focus the fight, you can't balance for objectives, because one side can simply stealth around the map from 30 different directions and pork fields and only half have to make it out alive. This means the other side has to send out singles to go find the singles, and it's a bad event for everyone. This, not scripting, is why you focus the fight. You make it so the fight has to be won, and both sides have an equal chance of winning it.
-
Slightly better? I don't see how the P-39s and especially the P-40s will be anything but lambs for the slaughter, and the Spit V is still outclassed by all the German planes. The P-38s are the only Allied fighters that can engage any of the LW planes on anything like equal terms. The C-202s will be more survivable in this environment than the P-39s and easily superior to the P-40s.
If we're going to dispense with historical numerical imbalances for the sake of a balanced scenario, I don't see why we can't also tweak the historical plane set a little for the sake of a balanced scenario as well (still keeping it planes in service at the time, of course). Upgrade the Spit Vs to Spit IXs (which were in service well before February 1943) and maybe balance that by ditching the B-17s for Boston IIIs, which were certainly present in Tunisia, if not in 12th AF. I like the idea of RAF P-40 jabos as well.
Keep in mind that when the choices for the vote were described this was billed as having as many RAF as USAAF planes - "Estimated plane set: Spit V, Spit IX, P-38G, P-40, P-39, A-20, B-25, Boston III vs. 109G, 109F, 190A-5, 110C, C.202, Ju 88."
Don't be so hard on the Spit Vs. They can do just fine against the 109s and they were there in bigger numbers at the time. I want em anyway :) I agree on the 39 not being included. it was too much of a secondary role player. The estimated plane set is a good one, just put the RAF 40Es in for the 39D :aok
-
Well said ROC.
Just an observation though, Target for Today had only one side attacking making your system easy to implement. Brooke has many varying attack aircraft types across both sides, each with it's own ability to fight and survive.
The B-26 will excel in both areas while the Ju 88 lacks the survivability despite having a nearly equal bomb load. How do you balance that in terms of scoring?
Perhaps having an object quota per attack squad set to reflect the relative ability to attack and survive is a solution?
-
Brooke you mentioned the fact that the Ju 88's were based in Sicily and questioned how to handle that. How far did the American heavy bombers travel to reach their targets in Tunisia?
To me the best idea is to have the bombers for both sides have takeoff bases chosen not necessarily based on historical location but placed so that the tame to target both sides is as equal as possible.
-
Well said ROC.
Just an observation though, Target for Today had only one side attacking making your system easy to implement. Brooke has many varying attack aircraft types across both sides, each with it's own ability to fight and survive.
The B-26 will excel in both areas while the Ju 88 lacks the survivability despite having a nearly equal bomb load. How do you balance that in terms of scoring?
Perhaps having an object quota per attack squad set to reflect the relative ability to attack and survive is a solution?
Leave the 26 out. The 25s and A-20s can do the job :aok
-
Leave the 26 out. The 25s and A-20s can do the job :aok
I agree on the 26, but that still does not balance the scoring.
Here's an example, I'll use the B-26 vs. Ju 88 for the sake of argument because each carries 4000 lbs of ord. Say that it takes 10 sets of either bomber to drop 100 buildings if an attack has no opposition. what percentage is likely to survive an attack that has opposition. Lets assume that the B-26's suffer 33% losses and thus only drop 66 buildings on average. Therefore the threshold quota would be 66 buildings to achieve the objective. 65 buildings and below nets the defenders the win. That's how Target for Today worked. Simple and easy.
But what about the Ju 88's? They will suffer worse than 33% losses on average and thus a 66 building quota for a win is unreasonable.
And that's just with 2 planes with equal bomb loads.
-
I agree on the 26, but that still does not balance the scoring.
Here's an example, I'll use the B-26 vs. Ju 88 for the sake of argument because each carries 4000 lbs of ord. Say that it takes 10 sets of either bomber to drop 100 buildings if an attack has no opposition. what percentage is likely to survive an attack that has opposition. Lets assume that the B-26's suffer 33% losses and thus only drop 66 buildings on average. Therefore the threshold quota would be 66 buildings to achieve the objective. 65 buildings and below nets the defenders the win. That's how Target for Today worked. Simple and easy.
But what about the Ju 88's? They will suffer worse than 33% losses on average and thus a 66 building quota for a win is unreasonable.
And that's just with 2 planes with equal bomb loads.
I have no answer, other than all I'm worried about is getting to dance with 109s in my Spit VbTrop :)
-
I have no answer, other than all I'm worried about is getting to dance with 109s in my Spit VbTrop :)
That will be fun as long as we can keep the P-38's and 190's out of it. :devil
-
ROC, good point on the segmenting of the battle so that a blow out from over-representation in one, say, 3-hour segment doesn't determine the outcome of the whole event. I will score things in four segments and have the victor be the one who wins the most segments.
Good point also on focusing of battle to avoid boring missions that are all avoidance. The map for this battle is a little smaller than the active area for phase 1 of TFT and has the same number of land targets as phase 1 of TFT (3), so I was thinking that area would give it enough focus. But when you add in ships (a 4th target for level bombers) and consider that there a quite a lot of targets for attack planes on land and sea, it probably does need phases to focus that better, as you say. I will work on that.
Many thanks.
-
And why sub the F-8 for SKG 10? The F-8 has too much armor and carries too much ordnance. They had A-4's and our A-5 is so close that HTC allows A-4 schemes to be skinned on the A-5. (I even skinned a SKG 10 A-4 from this exact period)
Found the answer in the write-up.
FW 190F's not used in 1943 -- they were 190A's, but the F has about same performance and allows me to enable bombs on just the ground attackers.
I still don't like it. Would it not be just as easy to count object's destroyed be the attack Groups? Also, trust your group leaders to make sure their pilots take the right loadout.
and also...
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Aces%20High/Skg10%20190%201_zpsllsr5cpf.png~original) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/Aces%20High/Skg10%20190%201_zpsllsr5cpf.png.html)
-
There were few He 111's in 1943 in Tunisia compared to Ju 88's. Since the US level bombers are already better somewhat than the Ju 88 as an average set, it doesn't work to put in He 111's.
B-17's, B-26's, P-39's were not insignificant in early 1943. For January-March, 1943, from the daily chronology by the USAAF (which is a day-by-day summary of the action of the day), here are the number of mentions of each US aircraft:
p-38 -- 40
p-39 -- 29
p-40 -- 79
spitfire -- 21
a-20 -- 47
b-17 -- 64
b-25 -- 90
b-26 -- 53
Mentions is not the same as number that were there, but it is at least indicative of how much it was in the daily action.
So, B-17's, B-26's, and P-39's should be in it.
-
Devil, this is the hard part of "balance". Short of an exact match up of speed and payload each side has to have the objectives aligned with their abilities. It is not unreasonable to put the bomb damage and survival expectations different for each side.
Perhaps having an object quota per attack squad set to reflect the relative ability to attack and survive is a solution?
Yet, as hard as it is, you are already ahead of it.
For example. Let's start by balancing just one side. Let's count how many B25s (or whatever) need to achieve the objectives for Allies. You then plug in expected loss ratios, determine how many should survive, and such. Once the "facts" are established, you plug in the amount of the JU88s that will deliver the same amount of ordinance, with the same chance of success, and the same time to target. Might be 45 bomber formations for Allies per quarter, and 54 Axis, it won't matter, it's the tonnage that you count and balance. That's one way to possibly attack this balance issue. There are others, but it really depends on how Brooke defines the objectives, how close, how long to get to each target (3 hours per segment, need to get 3 flights to target per segment) but the format here is we don't count planes, we count ordinance and ability to deliver. We even have to plug in the formula to define speed so that targets are spread out by each sides ability to get their, not both "25 miles apart", make sure that each side gets to their objectives at the same time regardless of speed.
Then, of course, we need to anticipate the ability to defend the targets, so each thing we solve ads another thing to solve :bhead
But, the Start Point is Target Cluster. That defines everything. Identify the objective. Adjust the sides to meet the objectives. Adjust the Objectives if it proves to be something unable to achieve. Great events aren't designed, they evolve.
The ability to shoot down bombers has to be equal. If the JU88s are more in number than the B25s, and half the B25s and half the JU88s have to be shot down, there needs to be enough fighters on both sides to shoot down the bombers, self defense must be counted, all bullets, ordinance and speed need to be identified and accounted for. It's all about the spreadsheet that works in the game itself, not the historical balance, those facts and figures fall apart in game.
It can be done, it's a butt ton of work, and not easy but sure as hell worth it! I think the only downside is, like Nef, Brooke has to deal with ME! :rofl
As I wrote this, I saw your latest post Devil. The loadout on attack planes can be controlled. You can enable and disable the guns, bombs, rockets per plane. The objective should be simple, take down the "stuff". Achieve the objective or not. Now, you have to decide, should the event be a level bombing/dive bombing JU88 event and escort the bombers in, and win or lose on the sides ability to escort the bombers in and out, or is it point based where the fast fighters can stealth in and pick off objects. Personally, and I will work to balance the design no matter what, but personally, a massive mission like this should hinge on an orchestrated effort to keep the bombers alive and get them to target, not let the swift fighters in to pick off the buildings. It was a factor in the last event, the attack planes were the deciding element, a major event like this shouldn't come down to who got the fighters in, but who can get the bombers in. IMHO, I haven't talked to Brooke at all about this design, just tossing in options to consider. This event should hinge on getting a coordinated effort across 4 battles, 3 hours each, and get the bombers to target. It's too easy to get the attack planes in from the sidelines, it's incredibly difficult to coordinate a successful escorted bomber campaign. If someone is going to invest 12 hours or a fraction of that for an event of this caliber, it should be worth the effort. Again, My Humble Opinion. (Ok I know, I see you guys out there laughing at Humble) :neener:
-
There were few He 111's in 1943 in Tunisia compared to Ju 88's. Since the US level bombers are already better somewhat than the Ju 88 as an average set, it doesn't work to put in He 111's.
B-17's, B-26's, P-39's were not insignificant in early 1943. For January-March, 1943, from the daily chronology by the USAAF (which is a day-by-day summary of the action of the day), here are the number of mentions of each US aircraft:
p-38 -- 40
p-39 -- 29
p-40 -- 79
spitfire -- 21
a-20 -- 47
b-17 -- 64
b-25 -- 90
b-26 -- 53
Mentions is not the same as number that were there, but it is at least indicative of how much it was in the daily action.
So, B-17's, B-26's, and P-39's should be in it.
HAHA! I did the same thing an hour ago! :rofl :rofl :rofl
Also add 5 to the P-39 because there are mentions of the P-400
-
As I wrote this, I saw your latest post Devil. The loadout on attack planes can be controlled. You can enable and disable the guns, bombs, rockets per plane. The objective should be simple, take down the "stuff".
This won't work when you use the same plane (190A-5) for both a fighter squad (II/Jg2) and an attack squad (Skg 10).
Brooke's solution is to have Skg 10 in F-8's and not A-5's, but why make a substitution when we have the correct plane to begin with?
And I skinned the very plane being depicted here on the A-5.
-
There were few He 111's in 1943 in Tunisia compared to Ju 88's. Since the US level bombers are already better somewhat than the Ju 88 as an average set, it doesn't work to put in He 111's.
B-17's, B-26's, P-39's were not insignificant in early 1943. For January-March, 1943, from the daily chronology by the USAAF (which is a day-by-day summary of the action of the day), here are the number of mentions of each US aircraft:
p-38 -- 40
p-39 -- 29
p-40 -- 79
spitfire -- 21
a-20 -- 47
b-17 -- 64
b-25 -- 90
b-26 -- 53
Mentions is not the same as number that were there, but it is at least indicative of how much it was in the daily action.
So, B-17's, B-26's, and P-39's should be in it.
The reality is, we know who won and lost the war. This Game, Today, the event in October, this has nothing to do with what was. Each side must have an Equal Chance of winning and losing. So the cannons, speed, ordinance need to be equal. Then, regardless of historical accuracy, the strongest team will win. This is the difference between taking the field and REENACTING a battle and taking the field and going to war today. If you balance the event based on historical accuracy, it's inevitable that you are going to sway the results towards the inevitable conclusion. At the end of the war, the Axis were pummeled. Their fuel was gone, their infrastructure was gone. There was never a balanced and even battle. That is the way of war. This is a Scenario. Both sides must be equal in ABILITY, the result will be based on the people who play it and whether or not they can assemble a team.
Again, In My Humble Opinion.
-
This won't work when you use the same plane (190A-5) for both a fighter squad (II/Jg2) and an attack squad (Skg 10).
Brooke's solution is to have Skg 10 in F-8's and not A-5's, but why make a substitution when we have the correct plane to begin with?
And I skinned the very plane being depicted here on the A-5.
I don't know why the planes were substituted.
Question for you though Devil, do you see a role for attack planes or do you see this as a bomber campaign? I don't actually care if the JU88s dive bomb even, I just think there is a long rang bomber campaign which is different than short range attacks. This has the "feel" of a bomber campaign with elements of attack planes added because, well, just because.
-
Given the previous post, what we should discuss is relative numbers that are a compromise between history and balance.
Bombers are, in my opinion, balanced OK. Axis bomber load is better, but it's planes are a less survivable than the allied average but not as bad as people think.
Currently:
190's are, as Devil says, over represented. They were there, though, and an important deployment for the 190A, so the question is what should that number be? Thoughts on that?
For the US set, I don't have the totals that were participating in battle in early 1943. I know what planes were actually seeing action there in early 1943 (see above post). At that point, it probably is more down to selecting numbers for balance than even using time to debate the historical numbers.
The way I was thinking of the fighter balance. P-38G's, Spit V's, 109G's, and 190A's are all in the same very general ballpark. I feel quite comfortable in P-39's fighting 109's and 190's as long as the fight gets down to about 15k or less after a short bit, so I wasn't hugely worried about P-39's. They did OK when they had enough dedicated people in them in Dnieper against 109G's and 190A-5's. In a Scenario setting, I think of P-40's and C.202's as offsetting. The C.202 is a nice plane with low-lethality guns. The P-40F has great guns, sturdiness, and dive capabilities, but crappy climb. If a many-on-many fight developed in a Scenario between C.202's and P-40F's, I think it would be about even. A bunch of P-40's vs. a bunch of 109G's would not go well for P-40's, but P-40's could do OK if there are some P-38's or Spits with them, and they are (I think) a little better than Spit V's at attacking bombers and a huge amount better than C.202's at attacking bombers.
That was my reasoning in thinking that the fighter set isn't too bad, with an edge, but not a huge edge to the axis.
If I'm wrong about that, the way to fix it is relatively fewer P-40's and P-39's and more P-38's and Spits.
Those of you who think the current ratios of fighters are wrong for balance, please post some suggested numbers for folks to consider.
-
The reality is, we know who won and lost the war. ... Each side must have an Equal Chance of winning and losing....
Again, In My Humble Opinion.
I completely agree and don't dispute any of that.
My only thought is that, with the US fighter set listed, by adjusting the numbers, given that the US bomber set is a little bit better than the axis bomber set (not by a lot, though), I think it is balanced.
If folks think it isn't balanced even with adjusting numbers of P-38G's, Spit V's, P-39D's, and P-40F's vs. 109G's, C.202's, and a small number of 190A-5's -- then we need to get what I would consider pretty ahistorical, but I would still do it if it were the only way to have acceptable balance.
It's like Dnieper. The LW had Stukas, not 190 jabos; but Stukas are quite grim (I know as I've flown them several times in Scenarios), so we changed it to 190 jabos.
Here, the main weakness, I think, are P-40's. P-39's are not that bad, I don't think; and when they were manned with dedicated pilots (not just a few unknown walkons), they gave as good as they got vs. 190G's and 190A's.
I think of the C.202's as the balance to the P-40's, sort of this way:
In the same ballpark: P-38G's, Spit V's, 109G's, 190A's.
Also in the same ballpark: P-40F's, C.202's.
P-39D's -- less, but can still fight 109G's and 109A's in my opinion. (25% of the fighter force at a bit of disadvantage)
I was thinking that only 25% of the US fighter forces therefore generate a bit of disadvantage and that 3/4's are in the same ballpark. I think of that being balanced by the US bombers being a bit better (but not hugely better).
But -- those are my thoughts. If I'm wrong about that, and the US fighters need some boosting, then we can do that by more 38's and Spits and fewer P-39's and P-40's. I would still keep some in, though, as well as C.202's. I think that still can be balanced -- just might need numbers adjustments.
-
Also, keep in mind that, while P-39's are less capable in fighter combat vs. 109G's and 190A's (although again not as bad as folks think) and P-40's are significantly worse vs. 109G's and 190A's, P-39's and P-40's are sort of on par with C.202's in many on many, and P-39's and P-40's are quite good vs. bombers and attack aircraft, which the C.202 isn't.
What I'm saying to folks out there who are thinking about how the fighters stack up against each other is to keep in mind that there are complications or a matrix of things to consider.
First is that the fighting is typically many on many, not one on one, and so some aircraft characteristics become more important. Also, the fights are often mixed -- not all one type of aircraft -- where each type of aircraft can bring its strengths to bear. There are bombers and attack planes to kill, and some planes that might not be the best in fighter-vs.-fighter alone might be better than their opponents at shooting down bombers and attack aircraft. A P-40 or P-39 is a lot better at taking down a Ju 88 than a 109 is at taking down a B-17, B-26, and even a B-25; and *enormously* better than a C.202 at that.
So, it's a complicated business.
My feeling is that this one will be fine with it's current mix and adjustment of numbers to have less 190's, P-40's and/or P-39's.
Let's see what folks think should be the particular numbers of the various fighters, using (for now) 50 fighters on each side.
-
I think it is balanced.
Prove it.
You think it's balanced. As a friend, I want you to answer each of these questions.
Did you count the individual objects on the field?
Did you add up the hardness of the individual objects on the field?
Did you count the tonnage each bomber option can carry?
Do you know how many bombers are needed to achieve the objective?
Do you know what the average attrition is throughout scenarios for bombers?
Did you anticipate average attrition when you chose the targets?
Is it possible for the bombers to achieve the objective if the average attrition rate proves true and the average amount of bombers are destroyed?
Do you know how many cannon rounds are needed to take down each bomber?
Are there enough cannon rounds available to take down enough bombers at just enough of the ratio to blunt their attack? Not too many, just enough.
Does each side have an even amount of ordinance to take down the other sides bombers while defending themselves?
The check list I have is 4 times as long, if you can't answer these, the rest don't matter.
Now, answer these if you can. Then, let's talk if you still think it's balanced. Say Yes to these, I'm good to go. If you think it's balanced after counting these items, we're on the same page. If you haven't counted these, we are not.
I'm not giving you crap here, I'm trying to make sure you count the stuff that absolutely needs to be counted long before you even begin to consider whether or not you have the right mix of fighters or bombers. Nothing matters until you define the objectives and back it up with facts.
Brooke, if you can't answer YES to each of these, you are guessing. So far, you "think", you "feel", your "thoughts are" but none of that matters. Now, you also have the option as the scenario CM to tell me to pound sand :) I will. But, if you want my help, these questions need answered.
-
Prove it.
:aok
Even if you can answer "yes" to all of those, there is still some guesswork involved (like judging attrition).
Yes to all of those except the following (which I believe are fine based on results of past Scenarios but do not consider being proof):
Do you know how many cannon rounds are needed to take down each bomber? There is enormous variability based on shot placement.
Are there enough cannon rounds available to take down enough bombers at just enough of the ratio to blunt their attack? Not too many, just enough. -- Likewise, large variability.
-
This won't work when you use the same plane (190A-5) for both a fighter squad (II/Jg2) and an attack squad (Skg 10).
Brooke's solution is to have Skg 10 in F-8's and not A-5's, but why make a substitution when we have the correct plane to begin with?
And I skinned the very plane being depicted here on the A-5.
The why is already in what you said: so I can control loadout. That way, I don't have to police it. If the F-8 weren't close to the same performance as the A-5, I would probably not do it. But it is so close that I don't think people would much notice other than icon text saying "F8" instead of "A5".
I don't think we'll be able to get custom skins into an AH3 terrain. I'll ask, but my recollection is that it isn't possible in AH3.
-
This has the "feel" of a bomber campaign with elements of attack planes added because, well, just because.
It's because ground attack was a significant portion of the air action in Tunisia.
-
Folks, just to summarize, for people who think the version 1 fighter numbers aren't balanced well enough, if you can, please give your suggested numbers for the various fighters (50 fighters on each side) with a description of why you think this is balanced better.
This will let us see more specifically what folks are thinking.
-
Also, like with other Scenarios, I would like to have a test frame.
How long a test frame would folks participate in? 3 hours? 6? A full 12 (just to make sure everything works over that time span)?
-
Also, like with other Scenarios, I would like to have a test frame.
How long a test frame would folks participate in? 3 hours? 6? A full 12 (just to make sure everything works over that time span)?
4 hours
-
The why is already in what you said: so I can control loadout. That way, I don't have to police it. If the F-8 weren't close to the same performance as the A-5, I would probably not do it. But it is so close that I don't think people would much notice other than icon text saying "F8" instead of "A5".
I don't think we'll be able to get custom skins into an AH3 terrain. I'll ask, but my recollection is that it isn't possible in AH3.
The Skg 10 A-5 skin is already in game.
I don't think you have to do any policing. I imagine that you will simply count the objects destroyed by the attack groups, just like in Dnieper. The Jg 2 CO will know that any ground attack action by his squad will not net any points for the Axis and only result in fewer potential points for the bombers and attackers to score. I dealt with this during a frame of Dnieper where my A-5's were escorting the F-8's noe and one of my walk-on wanted to make a strafing run.
Easy to control at the squad level and no sweat off your back. :aok
-
The reality is, we know who won and lost the war. This Game, Today, the event in October, this has nothing to do with what was. Each side must have an Equal Chance of winning and losing. So the cannons, speed, ordinance need to be equal. Then, regardless of historical accuracy, the strongest team will win. This is the difference between taking the field and REENACTING a battle and taking the field and going to war today. If you balance the event based on historical accuracy, it's inevitable that you are going to sway the results towards the inevitable conclusion. At the end of the war, the Axis were pummeled. Their fuel was gone, their infrastructure was gone. There was never a balanced and even battle. That is the way of war. This is a Scenario. Both sides must be equal in ABILITY, the result will be based on the people who play it and whether or not they can assemble a team.
Again, In My Humble Opinion.
Not quite; AcesHigh re-enacts BoB realistically, Axis would win my miles and miles.
-
The difficult part for me is choosing which side :uhoh
109's or Spitfires, it's a very difficult decision. Fly with my old allied buddies? Or my new Luftwaffe friends?
-
Not quite sure what you mean Dolby.....
If what your getting at is the AH BoB scenarios were the real battle the outcome is almost always an Axis victory, I get it.
The AH scenarios were never meant to be an actual recreation of the factual outcomes. It's meant to be a game thats fun for all who participate.
Al least thats the way I understand it.
-
There were few He 111's in 1943 in Tunisia compared to Ju 88's. Since the US level bombers are already better somewhat than the Ju 88 as an average set, it doesn't work to put in He 111's.
B-17's, B-26's, P-39's were not insignificant in early 1943. For January-March, 1943, from the daily chronology by the USAAF (which is a day-by-day summary of the action of the day), here are the number of mentions of each US aircraft:
p-38 -- 40
p-39 -- 29
p-40 -- 79
spitfire -- 21
a-20 -- 47
b-17 -- 64
b-25 -- 90
b-26 -- 53
Mentions is not the same as number that were there, but it is at least indicative of how much it was in the daily action.
So, B-17's, B-26's, and P-39's should be in it.
You going to completely leave out the RAF? That impacts those numbers too
-
Seems to me that Brroke's vision is to focus on the 12th Airforce.
-
Seems to me that Brroke's vision is to focus on the 12th Airforce.
I'd like to see the RAF, haven't flown as RAF officially.
-
I'd like to see the RAF, haven't flown as RAF officially.
It is ok,
I can put cannon rounds in your Spitfire just like I can your P-51 :aok :D
-
It is ok,
I can put cannon rounds in your Spitfire just like I can your P-51 :aok :D
You still didn't shoot me down!!! And that whole FSO kill thing didn't really count... :rofl
Looking forward to this one my old friend, I'm now going to post a for sale add and whoever pays the highest wins me for the scenario, I shall start the bidding at three sheep :noid
-
You going to completely leave out the RAF? That impacts those numbers too
I don't think that we have the player numbers these days to pull off the two fronts, both 12th AF and the DAF, so I'm picking to do just the one front.
The numbers I quoted, though, are only for the 12th AF, not for the DAF. It is the chronology from the USAAF in their operations and doesn't include DAF operations.
-
To get the ball rolling more on suggested different balance of planes, here is one among many possibilities.
This set:
-- reduces 190's as per Devil's comments to be more realistically proportional to 109's,
-- increases the P-38/Spit ratio (as is likely also more realistic), and
-- makes P-40's+P-39's equal to number of C.202's (balancing the lowest-performance planes on each side).
The non-realistic aspect is that the proportion of P-40's is much lower than history, which is this case's sacrifice to playability.
Fighters
P-38G, 24
Spit V, 12
P-39D, 6
P-40F, 8
Bf 109G-2, 15
Bf 109G-6, 15
FW 190A-5, 6
C.202, 14
Then, to make the bomber mix more even as well -- basically half the US force worse than Ju 88's and half better.
Bombers
B-25C, 7
B-26B, 4
B-17G, 4
Ju 88A-4, 15
What do folks think of this?
-
A question for all who played in TFT and especially ROC and Nef.
We will allocate people to sides, and we have a maximum number of each type of plane that is available. That way, if there is some portion of the day where nearly everyone is there (like 3 pm Eastern or something), and we get the mix of planes as listed.
However, at some portions of the day, there are going to be half that peak number of players -- maybe a lot less at some times.
At those points, I was thinking sides would likely reallocate their pilots up into the better planes that now have open slots, and there would end up being no C.202's, P-40's, and P-39's for some portions of the battle.
Is that how we should have it here? I think so (as I don't see any desirable ways around it) -- but what do folks think?
-
My suggestions would be to reduce the 190s a little, switch to a normal 4 frame scenario, 7pm EDT start time and a 1941/1942 timeframe. :aok
-
My suggestions would be to reduce the 190s a little, switch to a normal 4 frame scenario, 7pm EDT start time and a 1941/1942 timeframe. :aok
:aok
:bhead
-
My suggestions would be to reduce the 190s a little, switch to a normal 4 frame scenario, 7pm EDT start time and a 1941/1942 timeframe. :aok
;) :aok
-
Is that a yes!! :banana:
:D
Last FSO frame 208
Last Scenario frame 73
There has to be an answer somewhere in there.
Not saying that I know what it is, just wondering out loud.
-
More B25s. :cry :aok
-
Saturday in June..... Not the answer you are looking for, but I think a big reason for the numbers. I faced wife ACK every Saturday that I sat down at my desk.
-
A question for all who played in TFT and especially ROC and Nef.
We will allocate people to sides, and we have a maximum number of each type of plane that is available. That way, if there is some portion of the day where nearly everyone is there (like 3 pm Eastern or something), and we get the mix of planes as listed.
However, at some portions of the day, there are going to be half that peak number of players -- maybe a lot less at some times.
At those points, I was thinking sides would likely reallocate their pilots up into the better planes that now have open slots, and there would end up being no C.202's, P-40's, and P-39's for some portions of the battle.
Is that how we should have it here? I think so (as I don't see any desirable ways around it) -- but what do folks think?
I don't know if it matters to others like it does to me,but the fastest way to kill any immersion is to bounce from plane to plane. Part of what separates or used to separate scenarios from everything else was the chance to dive into the history and connect to a historical group.
That part is as much fun as the flying for me
-
Immersion is a big element of scenarios in my opinion too. Which I also believe is greatly diminished in this 12 hr format.
-
I don't know if it matters to others like it does to me,but the fastest way to kill any immersion is to bounce from plane to plane. Part of what separates or used to separate scenarios from everything else was the chance to dive into the history and connect to a historical group.
That part is as much fun as the flying for me
You taking the 31st FG in Spit V's?
If so count me in!
-
Is that a yes!! :banana:
No, but we will have a 4-frame scenario for the one after this one. :aok
Last FSO frame 208
Last Scenario frame 73
There has to be an answer somewhere in there.
Not saying that I know what it is, just wondering out loud.
I would love to get the attendance of FSO's. And we can do that -- we just need to make Scenarios run on a regular schedule of Fridays at 10 pm, make it squad-based, and run FSO designs. ;) More seriously, most of it is that squads turn out for FSO's, but they don't for Scenarios.
I've tried to budge that dynamic, but I haven't been successful at it.
I would love players to help get more squads into Scenarios.
How do we do that?
-
More B25s. :cry :aok
Yep, but -- man! -- can we get anyone to fly and lead them? Beefcake, do you have any ideas? :D
-
You taking the 31st FG in Spit V's?
If so count me in!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znxFrgql5dc#t=19
:devil
-
No, but we will have a 4-frame scenario for the one after this one. :aok
I would love to get the attendance of FSO's. And we can do that -- we just need to make Scenarios run on a regular schedule of Fridays at 10 pm, make it squad-based, and run FSO designs. ;) More seriously, most of it is that squads turn out for FSO's, but they don't for Scenarios.
I've tried to budge that dynamic, but I haven't been successful at it.
I would love players to help get more squads into Scenarios.
How do we do that?
"No, but we will have a 4-frame scenario for the one after this one."
But you totally ignore the time aspect in this response.
By listening to other players and trying something different, instead of sticking with what is right in your mind and ignoring the results over the last few years. You know it is possible you could be wrong.
Not meant as an attack on you.
-
As far as plane bouncing is concerned, this is what happened in TFT. During the event we never had enough registered P51 and other long range fighters online but we had plenty of Spits. As the event progressed and the distances increased the Spits couldn't escort the bombers deep into enemy territory which resulted in heavy bomber losses. Someone realized that we could switch pilots over which is what happened because my bombers were getting hammered.
During a 12 hour event you have no idea how the numbers are going to go and so you have to be able to fill positions as needed.
Brooke recommendation about the event, this is a personal thing for me. Can we drop the bombing of ships as a requirement? Make it a bonus or something but I hate having to do level bombing missions vs ships in scenarios it always sucks and I personally hate it.
-
Yep, but -- man! -- can we get anyone to fly and lead them? Beefcake, do you have any ideas? :D
Vudu15, he loves B25s. :D
-
I don't know if it matters to others like it does to me,but the fastest way to kill any immersion is to bounce from plane to plane. Part of what separates or used to separate scenarios from everything else was the chance to dive into the history and connect to a historical group.
That part is as much fun as the flying for me
I'm totally with you on that -- I feel the same way. I like to devote myself to a single airplane, practice it in the MA going into the Scenario, get into it, maybe even read a book by a pilot of that aircraft, even if it is an Il-2. For Dnieper, I practiced the Il-2, read a book by an Il-2 pilot, flew Il-2's every frame, and had a blast.
If everyone were like me and you, we would just register for our planes and say in them regardless of what the turnout was like.
The problem is that, if we allow walkons, the walkons will be put in where there is space available, but I have to avoid giving walkons preferences to registered pilots -- or it is a disincentive to register. So, a couple of examples.
In one case, let's say we have only a 109G group and a 190A group. On game day, both groups have some open spots, and walkons are put in there. Folks in the groups don't mind all that much, since 109G's and 190A's are both popular.
In the other case, let's say we have only a 109G group and a C.202 group. On game day, both groups have open spots. But there are guys who registered for C.202's who really wanted 109G's instead. If they have to stay in 202's when walkons who didn't register get a shot at the 109's, we now have a registration disincentive. I have to allow registered pilots to go into those open 109 spots if they want. The best to provide here for registered pilots is that they aren't precluded from moving into a plane slot they prefer (just like a walkon), but their advantage is that, if they like the plane they registered for, they can't be moved out of it unless they are OK with it. So, if some hotshot pilot comes along, they can't be booted out of one of the elite rides for the hotshot if they registered (whereas a walkon can be moved wherever).
That is my conundrum.
I have had some thoughts on different way to do it that doesn't result in a side moving all its pilots around as much, but it is more complicated or might not be popular, and I'm not sure it would work. For example, we could have that each side gets its registered pilots who show up. If there are walkons, they get allocated to whatever side is lowest in numbers. The axis can put walkons into C.202's until it has 50 fighters, into Bf 110's until it has 10 attack planes, and into B-25's until it has 15 bombers; the allies can put walkons into P-40's until it has 50 fighters, into A-20's until it has 10 attack planes, and into Ju 88's until it has 15 bombers. That would keep people in their registered planes, gives no relative advantage to walkons, and balances things. But I'm guessing people wouldn't show up as walkons then. We could try it and see, but I'm nervous about that.
Any thoughts on how to do something like that?
-
"No, but we will have a 4-frame scenario for the one after this one."
But you totally ignore the time aspect in this response.
By listening to other players and trying something different, instead of sticking with what is right in your mind and ignoring the results over the last few years. You know it is possible you could be wrong.
Not meant as an attack on you.
We did listen to other players, we did try something different, and we didn't ignore the actual results. When we ran 4-frame events on Saturday at 3 pm Eastern, we got N American players, M European players, and N+M total players. When we ran 4-frame events on Saturday at 8 pm Eastern, we got N+M American players, 0 European players, and N+M total players. Those were the results -- to think differently is to ignore what actually happened.
The main difference between FSO's and Scenarios for participation is that Scenarios have very little squad participation, and squads bring their guys. If time were the reason, our experiment in the past would have resulted in much larger participation, which was not the case.
So -- other than time (because we already tried that and found it not to be the solution) -- what are some suggestions?
My suggestions is for the players to recruit squads into Scenarios. Get them lined up and in here. They will then bring their guys, and the recruitment effort snowballs.
-
I'll think about helping with the squad recruitment if still interested when you get back to doing scenarios as they should be along with ideas to increase attendance if you still need it. This 12 hour gimmick should be its own event.
-
We did listen to other players, we did try something different, and we didn't ignore the actual results. When we ran 4-frame events on Saturday at 8 pm Eastern, we got N+M American players, 0 European players, and N+M total players. Those were the results -- to think differently is to ignore what actually happened.
So -- other than time (because we already tried that and found it not to be the solution) -- what are some suggestions?
The Sat. night scenario was run 1 time if I remember correctly. And it was a very poor set up that caused a lot of people to ditch the later frames. Again going from memory. :old:
-
Fly the last frame of the 12 hour event...........
It would start 8 PM EST ish
Problem solved
NEXT....
-
And it was a very poor set up that caused a lot of people to ditch the later frames. Again going from memory. :old:
It was one of the most-highly rated Scenarios of all time.
-
I'll think about helping with the squad recruitment if still interested when you get back to doing scenarios as they should be along with ideas to increase attendance if you still need it. This 12 hour gimmick should be its own event.
I will take you up on that, and the Scenario after this one will be 4-frame.
Please start planning! :aok
-
It was one of the most-highly rated Scenarios of all time.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to Winter Sky, Death Ground, which was very average.
-
I'm pretty sure he was referring to Winter Sky, Death Ground, which was very average.
Ah, yes. That one ran at 9:30 pm Eastern, too.
It has a rating of 2.5 and the same attendance as the nearby non-8th-AF Scenarios (some having higher and some lower ratings).
These experiments resulted in no attendance boost from it being 9:30 pm.
-
I don't know if it matters to others like it does to me,but the fastest way to kill any immersion is to bounce from plane to plane. Part of what separates or used to separate scenarios from everything else was the chance to dive into the history and connect to a historical group.
That part is as much fun as the flying for me
Same here. I enjoy the the history. The pilots stories, their pictures, the music they listened to, etc.
Did all 12 hours of TFT. I'm in for all 12 hours, in a P38. Its the only plane I fly.
LtngRydr
-
Fly the last frame of the 12 hour event...........
It would start 8 PM EST ish
Problem solved
NEXT....
:aok
-
Guys, what do you think of the idea -- that registered pilots fly the planes they registered for and walkons get the following aircraft:
For fighters: P-40's, C.202's.
For Attack: A-20's, Bf 110's
For bombers: B-25's, Ju 88's
This way, I don't have to deal with people moving around in aircraft all the time, and it is an incentive to register.
-
How do we do that?
If it was me, admittedly not having much experience, I would first off ask all the FSO COs to ask all their guys why they don't fly scenarios. They really aren't that different from FSO so you would figure they would find them just as enjoyable. There has to be something that is putting them off. Maybe it just is that Friday night 11pm EDT time slot is the magic ticket, but I doubt it is just that. If it is because FSO is squad based, design in the ability for squads to register as a unit instead of individually to guarantee they fly together.
As for the 3pm time slot. There is no way you are going to convince me that is a good idea. Just use the MA population as an indicator. What ever pilots you may gain from Europe doesn't justify it. Anyhow if you started at 7pm it wouldn't be a much later start for GB than FSO for all the eastern time zone participants, who seem to do just fine. A later start will give you a much bigger pool to draw from after that you will need to solve whatever other problem it may be that is just not getting people to participate in scenarios. Which may be that there just isn't an interest in them anymore. Which I am starting to think is the case by how this 12hr gimmick was able to get traction. 10-15 years ago the scenario crowd would of got a good laugh at that idea.
-
I'm not sure where the current negativity regarding the 12 hour set up came from. I recall very clearly that those that participated enjoyed it thoroughly, because they said they did. Frankly I do not remember one person that said anything like, "It would have been better to be 3 hours each, 4 consecutive Saturday's".
It was the most fun I have ever had in Aces High and that includes FSO's which are near and dear to me and I always have a whole lot of fun on Friday's.
I must assume the 12 hour negativity is from players that did not actually play in it. Maybe they didn't play because they were just so sure they wouldn't like it, never tried it, and are stuck with their original negative opinion because they don't want to be wrong.
-
I agree with Zoney on this, the 12 hour scenario was unbelievable. Out of the scenarios I have flown, it was hands down the most fun I've had in AH.
-
The negativity is contained solely within the format itself. It is the frustration in the direction that scenarios have taken and the desire to see them return to the bigger events that they once were. Nobody is saying that this 12hr event may or may not be fun. All the planning and prep of a scenario to be blown on one big shoot'em up day. No post mission briefing, in between frame planning, anticipation, etc.. Maybe I'm a dinosaur when it comes to this game and the quick fix crowd has just taken over. Or should I say that's all that is left. The 12hr event should its own separate event and be in addition to a standard scenario not instead of.
-
Guys, what do you think of the idea -- that registered pilots fly the planes they registered for and walkons get the following aircraft:
For fighters: P-40's, C.202's.
For Attack: A-20's, Bf 110's
For bombers: B-25's, Ju 88's
This way, I don't have to deal with people moving around in aircraft all the time, and it is an incentive to register.
I understand it would be much easier for you and that is a good thing.
But from a new guy trying scenarios for the first time I worry they wouldn't have much fun if forced to fly something like these planes in a scenario with experienced sticks. How you get around this though is a tough one. If you get them to try a scenario you want them back. If you hook them you want to land them. :devil
Agree the negativity is the format itself and I am in the dinosaur category. The historical aspect as Guppy,Bug and others have pointed out is what brought most of us here in the beginning and is the underlying driver still for some of us. I have flown almost every scenario from the beginning of the game, up until a couple years ago. They were the best part of the game. It may be that the current player base is just not interested in that aspect. But I see a lot of old names posting and looking for what scenarios used to be, so I think the interest is still there.
I don't see the 12 hr. event drawing anymore players than the last time it was tried. If A/H 3 comes out before the event then you might get a boost in numbers from that though, but it may be short-lived. And for the guys telling me to fly the last hour or two, it might happen we will see. But with little historical immersion and as a walk on with few options and an arena with 30-50 enemy to fight, it will have to be a slow day here.
Good luck with it though.
-
I agree with zoney as well....
-
I realize that a lot of the conversation is about how do we increase participation in these events. Talking about how the 12hr event will draw players versus the four 3 hr frames. I don't have the answer to that except there will always be those that it appeals to and those that it doesn't.
The bottom line is that customers were given a vote and regardless of the length of time that the votes were cast, 12 hrs won.
Now it would seem to me that the customers, both those who voted for it and those that did not, need to determine how they can participate in the scenario to maximize their enjoyment. That could be flying till you drop for 12 hrs or getting together with some friends to up for a few hours. Either way the 12 hr format does allow for access to the scenario for many more players over a wider range of time zones.
Also if we the players get the word out to our friends, especially the FSO crowd, maybe some who have never tried this will and that can only help.
I like the 12 hr idea but I also enjoy the traditional 4 frames 3 hrs per. They each have pros and cons. I would like to emphasize the pros.
We are a shrinking player base, that's the reality. Until AH3 goes mainstream I believe that these numbers are all we are going to get. Lets make the most out of it and design a scenario that will draw from what we have left.
-
Actually, Scenarios draw the same (or larger) percentage of MA participation as before. In the days of 600 players in the MA on Saturdays, we were getting about 175 per frame in Scenarios (or about 30%). When I looked at it during Dnieper, we had a little less than 200 in the MA, and we got 75 in the scenario (or about 38%).
We can perhaps boost that percentage even higher by getting more squads, though -- so we might as well work on that.
Can someone message me a list of squad CO's BB ID's?
-
Maybe I'm a dinosaur
Nope, as you've seen posted, there are several of us who like multiple frames. Also, keep in mind that the 4-frame format had lots of votes along with you.
And the Scenario after this one will be 4-frame.
The 12hr event should its own separate event and be in addition to a standard scenario not instead of.
There are other folks who would like that as well. It's certainly not impossible.
But, for now, for this Scenario, the format and theme of battle were put up to a vote and chosen, and now we are on to elements of the specific design, recruiting, finding CO's, etc. If we can focus energies on that, things will go faster.
-
I'm not sure where the current negativity regarding the 12 hour set up came from. I recall very clearly that those that participated enjoyed it thoroughly, because they said they did. Frankly I do not remember one person that said anything like, "It would have been better to be 3 hours each, 4 consecutive Saturday's".
It was the most fun I have ever had in Aces High and that includes FSO's which are near and dear to me and I always have a whole lot of fun on Friday's.
I must assume the 12 hour negativity is from players that did not actually play in it. Maybe they didn't play because they were just so sure they wouldn't like it, never tried it, and are stuck with their original negative opinion because they don't want to be wrong.
I agree with you here about how fun and challenging the 12 hour scenario was. The 12 hour scenario also has the added benefit of excluding no player based solely on their time of day (except Aussies :neener:) and with the declining player base this is very important.
But I also agree with most of the critics of the 12 hour format. Those who like the long term camaraderie built within their squad and command team lose that aspect of the scenario. While I never thought of that aspect as being important before Target for Today, I did feel that it was sorely missed once it was over. Players who enjoy getting into the history of a particular campaign lose their ability to experience the grind of day-to-day operations. Those who enjoy the grand strategy aspect lose the ability to assess the past frame, confer with squad leaders, make adjustments, and draw up a new plan. Much of what makes a scenario different from other events is lost with a single frame event, regardless of length.
Target for Today proved that a 12 hour scenario is a viable tool for scenario designers, but I think it's use should be tied to a specific vision for the event. I believe that Brooke made a mistake in having both the basic setup and format up for popular vote. Now Brooke is forced to shoehorn a setup into a format which it does not necessarily fit. In my opinion, the 12 hour scenario should be reserved for representing a specific day from WW2: Alder Tag, Operation Cerberus, D-Day, Marianas Turkeyshoot, etc. By doing so, a 12 hour scenario can better connect with the players who enjoy the history by focusing on these pivotal days and leaving the multiple frame events to cover the flow of a campaign.
Of course, scenarios would probably benefit greatly from incorporating both into a setup. I can't see a situation where the scoring that works for a 12 hour event not being adequate for shorter frames as well. The pros and cons for each format don't contradict each other and a mixed format maintains all the traditional qualities while being accessible to a broader player base.
-
Can someone message me a list of squad CO's BB ID's?
Can't help you with that list but an alternate route if you haven't thought of it is to illicit the help of someone on the command staff of one of the FSO squads. From the AH Event sites they have the ability to email all other command staff members (at least they use to I am out of the loop a bit). Maybe somebody could relay a message for you. At least you know the FSO squads will be interested in events. The MA squads I think someone will just have to do the leg work. Catch me for the next event when it is a real scenario and at 7pm and I'll give ya hand. :)
-
I agree with you here about how fun and challenging the 12 hour scenario was. The 12 hour scenario also has the added benefit of excluding no player based solely on their time of day (except Aussies :neener:) and with the declining player base this is very important.
But I also agree with most of the critics of the 12 hour format. Those who like the long term camaraderie built within their squad and command team lose that aspect of the scenario. While I never thought of that aspect as being important before Target for Today, I did feel that it was sorely missed once it was over. Players who enjoy getting into the history of a particular campaign lose their ability to experience the grind of day-to-day operations. Those who enjoy the grand strategy aspect lose the ability to assess the past frame, confer with squad leaders, make adjustments, and draw up a new plan. Much of what makes a scenario different from other events is lost with a single frame event, regardless of length.
Target for Today proved that a 12 hour scenario is a viable tool for scenario designers, but I think it's use should be tied to a specific vision for the event. I believe that Brooke made a mistake in having both the basic setup and format up for popular vote. Now Brooke is forced to shoehorn a setup into a format which it does not necessarily fit. In my opinion, the 12 hour scenario should be reserved for representing a specific day from WW2: Alder Tag, Operation Cerberus, D-Day, Marianas Turkeyshoot, etc. By doing so, a 12 hour scenario can better connect with the players who enjoy the history by focusing on these pivotal days and leaving the multiple frame events to cover the flow of a campaign.
Of course, scenarios would probably benefit greatly from incorporating both into a setup. I can't see a situation where the scoring that works for a 12 hour event not being adequate for shorter frames as well. The pros and cons for each format don't contradict each other and a mixed format maintains all the traditional qualities while being accessible to a broader player base.
Very well said Devil. :salute
-
Very well said Devil. :salute
Ja.
<S>
-
You taking the 31st FG in Spit V's?
If so count me in!
Since it doesn't appear that there will be RAF, I'll have to go with the 31st. It will give me an excuse to learn more about that group :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/North%20Africa%20Scenario/Corky31st_zps1lkljao5.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/North%20Africa%20Scenario/Corky31st_zps1lkljao5.jpg.html)
-
Since it doesn't appear that there will be RAF, I'll have to go with the 31st. It will give me an excuse to learn more about that group :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/North%20Africa%20Scenario/Corky31st_zps1lkljao5.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/North%20Africa%20Scenario/Corky31st_zps1lkljao5.jpg.html)
Hey I can dig it!
I've researched the 31st FG pretty thoroughly. There's actually a really good historical fiction novel based off the 31st FG's experiences, it's awesome.
-
think I'll be going axis for this one Allied fighter choices are lacking.
-
think I'll be going axis for this one Allied fighter choices are lacking.
We don't want you :neener:
-
think I'll be going axis for this one Allied fighter choices are lacking.
that would make me happy..... And I bet devil would be too
-
When we try to balance aircraft it ruins the immersion for me. I'd much rather have the aircraft that were operating in the given theater at that time.
If the planes that are available in the scenario don't match the aircraft that actually flew there chances of me attending the scenario are slim to none.
That's just my opinion. I don't mind fighting uphill against the aircraft that were original to that actual time frame. However substituting superior aircraft
"just because" is a deterrent for me.
-
When we try to balance aircraft it ruins the immersion for me. I'd much rather have the aircraft that were operating in the given theater at that time.
If the planes that are available in the scenario don't match the aircraft that actually flew there chances of me attending the scenario are slim to none.
That's just my opinion. I don't mind fighting uphill against the aircraft that were original to that actual time frame. However substituting superior aircraft
"just because" is a deterrent for me.
Well the only substitution here is the F-8 for Attack A-5's, which I have argued against for many reasons.
All of the other aircraft presented in Brook's writeup are accurate and balance is achieved through managing the numbers of each plane and omitting those with a huge advantage or disadvantage. These numbers are still being debated.
-
Spit5 and 109F are a perfect match for each other, set their numbers even and go from there. (wants a 109F <G> )
-
think I'll be going axis for this one Allied fighter choices are lacking.
Thought you wanted a Spit 9?
-
I'd much rather have the aircraft that were operating in the given theater at that time.
The aircraft in this one are the aircraft that were there. We are focusing on the 12th AF front.
Here is the number of times they were mentioned in the 12th AF daily diary of operations from early 1943:
p-38 -- 40
p-39 -- 29
p-40 -- 79
spitfire -- 21
a-20 -- 47
b-17 -- 64
b-25 -- 90
b-26 -- 53
The group numbers listed in the writeup are groups that were flying missions into Tunisia.
-
Thought you wanted a Spit 9?
I did and there aren't any in the write up. No RAF either, we fly Axis. Kind of a squad rule, otherwise we would never flex our Saxon muscles.
Beware the hun in the sun because he is coming in 50 mph faster than you at all altitudes! :aok
-
"just because" is a deterrent for me.
Rest assured that I don't put things in just because. :aok
-
Saturday in June..... Not the answer you are looking for, but I think a big reason for the numbers. I faced wife ACK every Saturday that I sat down at my desk.
You sir deserve a medal for outstanding bravery in the face of enemy fire. I had moody baby ack one frame, she sat on my lap trying to flick the power switch!
-
To get the ball rolling more on suggested different balance of planes, here is one among many possibilities.
This set:
-- reduces 190's as per Devil's comments to be more realistically proportional to 109's,
-- increases the P-38/Spit ratio (as is likely also more realistic), and
-- makes P-40's+P-39's equal to number of C.202's (balancing the lowest-performance planes on each side).
The non-realistic aspect is that the proportion of P-40's is much lower than history, which is this case's sacrifice to playability.
Fighters
P-38G, 24
Spit V, 12
P-39D, 6
P-40F, 8
Bf 109G-2, 15
Bf 109G-6, 15
FW 190A-5, 6
C.202, 14
Then, to make the bomber mix more even as well -- basically half the US force worse than Ju 88's and half better.
Bombers
B-25C, 7
B-26B, 4
B-17G, 4
Ju 88A-4, 15
What do folks think of this?
First off, I'll tackle the bombers. The B-17 has to go. There is no way to balance it's superior bomb load and defense(toughness and firepower). As it is, the B-26 has better speed and defense (toughness and firepower) compared to the Ju 88. The bomb load between the two is close with 4000 Lbs for the B-26 and 4400 Lbs Ju88. The B-25 comes up very short compared to the Ju-88 with 3/4 the max bomb load, but the relative speeds are closer below 15K. It is possible to close the bomb load gap by having the Ju88 take the 2x 500Kg / 2x 250Kg external bombs for 3300 Lbs. In my opinion the Ju 88 is closer in capability to the B-25 than the B-26 and I don't think a split B-25/B-26 set is the answer. I would use B-25 exclusively as the Allied bomber with the lighter bomb load on the Ju 88.
Next, does this list indicate that you are abandoning jabo aircraft, Brooke? I doubt that based on your responses to other posts.
Finally the fighter lineup. The P-38G and 109G-2 compare favorably in speed and maneuverability, but the G-6 lags behind slightly. I would have the totals for the 38's equal the total 109's. Also, the G-6 was brand new in February and no group had been fully equipped with the type until after Tunisia had been abandoned. Assign both types to all 109 groups and leave the choice of G-2 or G-6 up to the pilot.
The next best match-up is the P-40F and C.202. Similar speeds, P-40 has much better guns and armor but the 202 has much better maneuverability. Based on the speed charts, the P-39 and SpitV are in the same bracket, but both have superior turning ability and firepower, making them both much better than the C.202.
The 190 is a wildcard with no comparable Allied plane. The 190 has excellent speed and the best gun package of any plane, and fair maneuverability (worst turn rate and best roll rate)
Based on the limited numbers of 190's in Tunisia a limited number should be seen here as well. Based on your USAAF Diary, the P-39 and spitfire are the fewest occurring Allied types, and that also should be reflected.
A 50/50 side split results in some strange numbers for the Allies in order to balance sides, I think a 55/45 split may be better for balance fighter combat.
Allies
P-38G, 25
Spit V, 8
P-39D, 6
P-40F, 16
Axis
Bf 109G-2/6, 25
FW 190A-5, 4
C.202, 16
If a 50/50 split is desired then drop the 190 from the Axis as a fighter.
Allies
P-38G, 30
Spit V, 4
P-39D, 6
P-40F, 10
Axis
Bf 109G-2/6, 30
C.202, 20
-
Spit5 and 109F are a perfect match for each other, set their numbers even and go from there. (wants a 109F <G> )
Equal and low.
-
If a 50/50 split is desired then drop the 190 from the Axis.
Allies
P-38G, 30
Spit V, 4
P-39D, 6
P-40F, 10
Axis
Bf 109G-2/6, 30
C.202, 20
:noid
-
Devil, I'm about to put the next draft of the writeup in, and it does include changes in numbers sort of like what you are talking about. I will post it tonight after I am back from work.
Next, does this list indicate that you are abandoning jabo aircraft, Brooke?
At the end of this, I ask folks for an opinion on a couple of options.
Option 1.
Dedicated attack aircraft and no bombs on fighters. Yes, in the battle the US fighters did have jabo duties at times instead of escort, fighter sweeps, interceptions, etc. There are two reasons for this option: balance and giving attack planes their place.
Regarding balance, the axis did not load bombs much at all on those 109G's (at least according to what I could find), whereas the allies did use P-38's and P-40's for that at times. The 190's that carried bombs are specifically already accounted for in the attack section. So, if the allies carry bombs on fighters and the axis doesn't, it creates a giant balance problem. Also, if you have fighters carrying bombs, you need to keep them from flying bombs around at the alt cap because that leads to the style of fighting being silly and totally ahistorical. Attack planes help create a much more realistic style to the fighting in battles like this one that were tactical in nature.
Regarding giving attack planes their place: The large majority of people in AH prefer fighters. There is a minority that like bombers. And there is a super minority that will agree to fly attack planes. It is far more challenging to fill attack aircraft. When you fly those aircraft, you want your role to matter -- not just be in there as a nod to history but mostly a target for fighters. If you have fighters doing attack work, it destroys the motivation to be a dedicated attack pilot. This is a fact, as I know from flying dedicated attack aircraft frequently in Scenarios and knowing the opinions of attack pilots, and it is how I feel about it as well.
Option 2:
One way to change this is to let P-40's carry bombs, let a portion of the P-38's carry bombs, cut down A-20's to a minimal number (or even eliminate them -- as they won't be appealing to many people under these conditions and need small number to have a chance to fill them), remove Bf 110's (maybe, as most jabos were 190's), increase 190A's significantly to balance bomb capability on each side, and let all 190A's carry bombs. Also, we would need fighters carrying bombs to have some imposed lower altitude cap or things get silly. Basically, we would be eliminating (or nearly eliminating) the dedicated attack groups and replacing them with fighter bombers.
---------------------------------
So, that's what I see as the viable options: (1) have dedicated attack aircraft, and fighters don't fill that role or (2) get rid of the dedicated attack aircraft, and let fighters fill that role with special alt caps if you have a bomb.
Which way do folks prefer?
-
I had moody baby ack one frame
Yes, but she got 15 of your 19 kills. ;)
-
She nearly killed a spit16 in the MA today.
I was doing the fighter pilet stuff and she lobbed my mouse onto the spacebar and held it there. Scored hits but no kill because he out climbed us and ran off.
She does now remember what button on my stick fires MG's it makes her giggle a bit :D but she can't reach the cannon. Baby steps.
-
I did and there aren't any in the write up. No RAF either, we fly Axis. Kind of a squad rule, otherwise we would never flex our Saxon muscles.
Beware the hun in the sun because he is coming in 50 mph faster than you at all altitudes! :aok
Thought there was a small number which was why I did the Spit IX profile for ya. Ahh well. I'll be looking for high 109s 😀
-
She nearly killed a spit16 in the MA today.
I was doing the fighter pilet stuff and she lobbed my mouse onto the spacebar and held it there. Scored hits but no kill because he out climbed us and ran off.
She does now remember what button on my stick fires MG's it makes her giggle a bit :D but she can't reach the cannon. Baby steps.
:aok I've had similar experiences with my twin daughters who are now 6. I do actually like it when they would say "I want to fly airplanes with Daddy" and climb up on my lap. It's so sweet!
-
Regarding balance, the axis did not load bombs much at all on those 109G's (at least according to what I could find), whereas the allies did use P-38's and P-40's for that at times. The 190's that carried bombs are specifically already accounted for in the attack section. So, if the allies carry bombs on fighters and the axis doesn't, it creates a giant balance problem. Also, if you have fighters carrying bombs, you need to keep them from flying bombs around at the alt cap because that leads to the style of fighting being silly and totally ahistorical. Attack planes help create a much more realistic style to the fighting in battles like this one that were tactical in nature.
I was referring only to the posted attack aircraft from the writeup; the A-20 and 190F. I agree that the fighter squads should not have a strike capability.
-
Version 2 draft of the writeup (make what you see says "version 2" or refresh the page):
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
Please take a look and post recommendations here.
The main changes.
-- Scoring is now segmented based on ROC's recommendation.
-- Targets are now segmented based on ROC's recommendation.
-- Plane numbers are rebalanced based on recommendations by Devil and others.
-
Brooke, link is still to version 1.
-
Brooke, link is still to version 1.
Please do a refresh of your browser. The file name is unchanged, and many browsers will cache the contents.
-
Please do a refresh of your browser. The file name is unchanged, and many browsers will cache the contents.
Got it. :aok
-
Hey Devil, you gonna lead a squad again? If so I'm in!!!! :devil :cheers: :salute :salute :salute
-
A proposed adjustment to the USAAF Fighters
10 14th FG P-38G
10 1st FG P-38G
12 31st FG 8 Spitfire V, 4 Spitfire IX (The Vs are earlier performing Vs not the later upgraded Vc so the IXs which the 31st also had would balance it a bit)
12 33rd FG P-40F
6 350th FG P-39D (Earl Miller's crew)
Our old AW buddy, the late Earl Miller in his P-39 "Eloise" over Tunisia. His 39 is skinned in game too
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/North%20Africa%20Scenario/Eloise2_zpsignwicft.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/North%20Africa%20Scenario/Eloise2_zpsignwicft.jpg.html)
-
That is a good point Corky, the Spit V we have in game was neutered if I recall.
The write up has 22k downwind is that correct?
-
Looking good Brooke. Would you be interested in shooting me the spreadsheet of the object per field, hardness, and available bombers for me to play around with?
I'm a bit concerned about the expected turnout and the available objectives. But, I asked earlier of you pushed this out on a spreadsheet and you said yes, I'd rather not re-create it if possible, it took me two weeks to build the template for the last one and you seem to have done it already. I'd prefer not spending my weekend duplicating what you already did. I have a concern with the objectives, distance and timing of the segments. I've got some ideas, but you probably have it addressed but I would like to see the counts and what you were thinking before I comment.
Thanks!
-
Follow up post on my thoughts regarding the attack aircraft.
Brooke, I think you handled the attack aircraft perfectly in Dnieper. By giving attackers a higher point value per object ensured that they were a crucial aspect of the attack plans.
As for the aircraft themselves, as much as I'd love to see some dedicated P-40 attackers, each plane would get only one 500 lb bomb, which has very limited damage.
That said, the 190F can only carry 1540 lbs with all bombs and the A-20 can only take bombs in factors of 1000 lbs. It is possible to have the 190(A or F) take only the 500 Kg bomb and the A-20 the two 500 lb internal bombs. The 110C can also take 500Kg (2x 250Kg) bombs but is much slower than the A-20 - but the A-20 is much slower than the 190. I think your plan to have split 190/110 against all A-20's is best here.
I still think you're level bombers are way off. The B-17 has no place here as it can't be balanced against Ju 88's. (see my last post for more analysis on this issue)
Also, do you really think you can fill 2 bomber squad's per side? Seemed to me that filling one was a challenge during Dnieper.
-
6 350th FG P-39D (Earl Miller's crew)
Our old AW buddy, the late Earl Miller in his P-39 "Eloise" over Tunisia. His 39 is skinned in game too
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/North%20Africa%20Scenario/Eloise2_zpsignwicft.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/North%20Africa%20Scenario/Eloise2_zpsignwicft.jpg.html)
Awesomeness! :aok
I'm changing that one at least right now. 350th it is.
Thank you so much! :aok
-
Brooke, for what it's worth I think you meant 310th BG for the 25s. 301st had 17s
-
Brooke, for what it's worth I think you meant 310th BG for the 25s. 301st had 17s
Quite correct -- thank you for spotting that. :aok
-
I still think you're level bombers are way off. The B-17 has no place here as it can't be balanced against Ju 88's. (see my last post for more analysis on this issue)
I did look at your earlier objection. I'm not ignoring it, but I think the B-17's are appropriate and OK. I want there to be B-25's, B-26's, and B-17's if at all possible because they were there. Half of them are B-25's, 1/4 are B-26's, and 1/4 are B-17's -- so 4 B-17's is all (which isn't a huge number).
I think it is balanced OK since B-25's take 3000 lbs, B-26's take 4000 lbs, and B-17's take 6000 lbs while the max loadout of the Ju 88 has 4400 lbs external (the 4x500 kg) and 2200 lbs internal (20x50 kg) for a total of 6600 lbs. That makes it like a B-17 in total load, although because of the difference in locations and types of ord, it is not as effective as the 6x1000 of the B-17, but still better than a B-26, as you get a B-26 loadout on external then an extra internal load that at least can be used for some mischief (although not very well at a town because the explosion pattern is too diffuse to take out more than 1 building in my testing). The Ju 88 is (at 12-15k) faster than the B-17, the same speed as the B-25, and only a little lower than the B-26. In survivability, the Ju 88 is better than the B-25 (50% of US bomber set) and worse than the B-27 and B-17 (together 50% of US bomber set). So, it is in all respects in the middle-ish range in things compared to the US set.
Also, do you really think you can fill 2 bomber squad's per side? Seemed to me that filling one was a challenge during Dnieper.
I am anticipating a registration for this that is 2x the registration for Dnieper. However, I have a question above on how to deal with player fluctuation during the event. I'll bring that topic back up again soon to get more discussion on it.
-
Looking good Brooke. Would you be interested in shooting me the spreadsheet
Thanks, ROC.
My figuring so far has been with formulas on paper and not a spreadsheet.
I'll take a stab at putting it into spreadsheet form and, if it seems like it is intelligible, absolutely send you a copy.
-
Man, I am so jazzed that Earl flew in Tunisia! I extra love this terrain now! :aok
-
I'm a bit concerned about the expected turnout and the available objectives.
Are you thinking we will get less than 150 for registration? I was hoping we'd get 2x Dnieper based on TFT being about double the average attendance for the three scenarios before it. I've got some thoughts on maybe how to check registration then adjust the numbers in the design, but I have to think about it more before I articulate.
I have a concern with the objectives, distance and timing of the segments.
Yeah, that's a good point. I was previously thinking it would average out with short missions and long ones allowing 3 per phase (and that Allies wouldn't use Constantine much at all), but now I'm thinking the bombing requirement should be 2 per phase instead of 3, just to be safer. What do you think?
-
Folks, in TFT, when you had a time period of less-than-full participation, did people get reassigned from lesser-capable aircraft to more-capable aircraft, or did they stay with what they registered for?
-
Ok, dumb question. When is registration gonna open up for it? I am SO impatient lol :x :x :x :old: :old: :old: :cheers: :devil :salute :salute :salute
-
Folks, in TFT, when you had a time period of less-than-full participation, did people get reassigned from lesser-capable aircraft to more-capable aircraft, or did they stay with what they registered for?
Brooke,
I don't recall anyone from my group, 355th FG, being switch off to another. We stayed together the entire event.
-
Folks, in TFT, when you had a time period of less-than-full participation, did people get reassigned from lesser-capable aircraft to more-capable aircraft, or did they stay with what they registered for?
I don't recall any moving of pilots on the Axis side. If any did, they were probably walk-ons.
-
Brooke,
My test show that a 500 lbs bomb dropped from a P-40F yielded 9 town objects in a single drop. I believe the P-40 should be introduced into the event as a fighter bomber as it was also used in the campaign in North Africa.
(https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/2/AACwYI8kNcH-X5eJDv_4mfgaV6U2gHwtAWPvpBVHK0yJuA/12/501113418/png/32x32/1/_/1/2/P40500for9.png/ENGuyIgEGIIQIAIoAg/_koCp8G159mXOzSzeRjgiFfWtk77fq_LEaVxFwj6VRI?dl=0&size=1600x1200&size_mode=3)
-
Folks, in TFT, when you had a time period of less-than-full participation, did people get reassigned from lesser-capable aircraft to more-capable aircraft, or did they stay with what they registered for?
I do not remember that taking place. I did change missions for squadrons, but once assigned to a unit everyone pretty much flew with that group and aircraft. But the axis does not have as many to choose from. Our 110 pilots had it rough, but every hour they upped again and looked for bombers.
I looked over my roster and did not have any players in different aircraft or units...
-
Brooke,
In additional testing with a 500 lbs. bomb. The image below is a P-40E after a single drop that yielded 10 objects. I think the 500 lbs. bomb on a single engine fighter will get work done when flown with precision.
I'd also like to advocate to give P-40 pilots the option the flying either the E or F models. Whereas the E is slower by a few knots and no WEP, it is slightly more maneuverable in a dogfight because of its shorter fuselage. It is the instability of the shorter fuselage that allows the better maneuverability. Small request...
Devil505 has a 57th FG skin for the P-40E. It is nicely done. :aok
I really would like you to reconsider the allowing the P-40s to carry bombs. Because it is the slowest fighter, the slowest rate of climb of any fighter and the least effective gun package, the fighter bomber roll suits it well and would allow some players that are not great fighter pilots to enjoy the opportunity to dive bomb and dogfight. It is the jack of all trades master at none of the allied aircraft.
Thanks for reconsidering this request as well.
(https://photos-5.dropbox.com/t/2/AADWYn4UhXf-pJdNCo0jbmzcGwmMOJq-8n3dxTDXX5brLw/12/501113418/png/32x32/1/_/1/2/Screenshot%202016-07-30%2011.11.54.png/ENGuyIgEGIYQIAIoAg/wjqzWjwmK3Hwoyx8U_Xt6xvshHardlSOhdYQZT28_28?dl=0&size=1600x1200&size_mode=3)
-
The town has a hardness of 4000 lbs per building so that level bombers don't run out of targets. With that hardness, none of the fighters would do much to town buildings.
For swapping plane types, I'd rather balance things by changing the numbers but keeping the plane types correct if that still allows good balance. In the case of the P-40's+P-39's, they are balanced off against the number of C.202's. P-40's aren't as good in some ways as a C.202 (like in ACM), but they are much better than C.202's in shooting down bombers.
-
The town has a hardness of 4000 lbs per building so that level bombers don't run out of targets. With that hardness, none of the fighters would do much to town buildings.
For swapping plane types, I'd rather balance things by changing the numbers but keeping the plane types correct if that still allows good balance. In the case of the P-40's+P-39's, they are balanced off against the number of C.202's. P-40's aren't as good in some ways as a C.202 (like in ACM), but they are much better than C.202's in shooting down bombers.
Okay...
4k per object. Wow! Missed that...
Doesn't this mean a single A-20 cannot destroy even one object on a bomb run? That's not right. Two thousand pounds per bomber. If you allow the wing bombs at least they can destroy one object on a pass.
:headscratch:
This one requires more thought...
-
The town has a hardness of 4000 lbs per building so that level bombers don't run out of targets. With that hardness, none of the fighters would do much to town buildings.
If that's the case, even the A-20's and 190's will be next to useless. What targets do you envision for them?
-
I edited my post to elude to that as well. :headscratch:
Requires more thought.
It will be hard to recruit guys to fly those planes.
-
If that's the case, even the A-20's and 190's will be next to useless. What targets do you envision for them?
I envision that attack planes will go after bases, and level bombers will go after towns.
An attack plane can destroy 5-10 objects at a base.
A bomber formation can destroy 6-14 objects at a town (depending on the bomber). Level bombers can attack bases as well, but they won't get as many objects because of the spread-out layout.
Both attack planes and bombers can be effective against ships in phases 1 and 4.
-
I think that bombers and attack planes in this one will be like Dnieper in terms of their impact and that will both be very important to scoring.
Town buildings are 4000 lbs, but not everything else. Base objects are not that hard.
-
Ok, that makes sense.
-
22k wind downdraft anyone?
Personally I would like that lifted to whatever the pilots deem appropriate.
-
22k wind downdraft anyone?
Personally I would like that lifted to whatever the pilots deem appropriate.
What I try to accomplish in a Scenario design is that a person who flies in it would, if he read a book on first-hand accounts of flying in the actual battle, feel that his flying experience in the Scenario is very similar to the type of action he read about.
For most battles, I read books of 1st-hand accounts of the action to get an idea of what things are like, then I work on a design where I'm trying to make the action be like that.
With respect to altitude in North Africa, I got the books listed in the references section of the writeup and searched (for the Kindle books) every single mention of altitude. There were no references to anything above 20k. Like Dnieper, the vast majority of the action (including fighter sweeps, bomber alts, etc.) was much lower than that.
When a Scenario has no downwind, fighter action gets way up there. That is true of 8th-AF style events (where that's how it should be), but it is also true of other things (Malta, for example) where it shouldn't. It's because we have things like visibility bonuses that real WWII pilots didn't, perfect maps, no mobile concentrations of troops and vehicles, and in-cockpit GPS. In North Africa, it is wildly non-historical and not at all a realistic combat experience to by flying around way above 20k.
-
Brooke, do you think an updraft would be more effective in limiting action to historical alts. Dnieper had guys gaming the downdraft to gain a speed boost.
-
Brooke, do you think an updraft would be more effective in limiting action to historical alts. Dnieper had guys gaming the downdraft to gain a speed boost.
Seriously? LOL that's just sad😀
-
Pretty sure it was just in the practice frame, but yes there were some pilots doing that.
-
Seriously? LOL that's just sad😀
Those Dirty Russians
-
Well if we are trying to be historically accurate. Let the Allies win and don't let the Germans fly.
Having an alt cap doesn't represent what is possible for both sides. Forcing people to fly low because of the conditions that were in place at the that moment is silly.
We don't have concentrations of troops or tanks. But if we did the alt would fall naturally. Taking an aircraft's performance advantage away for what you deem to be a better for `` realistic `` dogfighting is a weak position to have.
I was under the impression that we would try to recreate a battle but with our own battle plan.
If we are recreating a historical event then we should look at flight logs and die like we are recreating the battle if Gettysburg. You die, Jim dies and then I die on take off.... Sounds great, I'll dress up and we can have people watch from god mode.
We can dance in a well choreographed play. Sounds great!
-
The way I do it now is, I believe, ideal.
You can't fly for a prolonged period above the alt cap, but you won't otherwise greatly notice it with regard to brief vertical maneuvers, and it doesn't give any benefit.
I invite anyone who wants to experiment to set a downwind at 22k at -45 mph offline and then try it out.
-
Well if we are trying
Here's what I'm trying:
What I try to accomplish in a Scenario design is that a person who flies in it would, if he read a book on first-hand accounts of flying in the actual battle, feel that his flying experience in the Scenario is very similar to the type of action he read about.
For most battles, I read books of 1st-hand accounts of the action to get an idea of what things are like, then I work on a design where I'm trying to make the action be like that.
What I also do is balance it so that, given equal talent on each side, it would be near a draw.
So, nothing is choreographed.
-
Would you be interested in shooting me the spreadsheet
I have put my formulas (assuming I didn't botch getting them in there) into the spreadsheet here called "ahStuffCalculator". It is a LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet. LibreOffice is free to get.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/201610Tunisia/
Also, anyone else who wants to play around with things in the spreadsheet to see what various numbers look like, please feel free.
-
So, nothing is choreographed.
Might as well be.
-
Might as well be.
Not at all.
In both the real battle and this Scenario, there were constraints. Within those constraints, there is freedom to operate for both sides, and the goal is for each side to have an equal chance at victory, with victory depending on which side has better plans and/or executes better.
This is analogous to how we limit B-17's over Germany to realistic alts (such as 24k) instead of letting them go up to 35k. Can B-17's in AH fly at 35k? Sure, but they didn't fly up there in real life for real-life constraints that aren't part of AH. So -- we put in an alt cap for bombers so that pilots are flying in an event that is like the historical action and not unrealistically silly.
No one complains about that.
In the real Tunisia, there were constraints that aren't present in AH. It is less realistic to completely ignore those constraints than it is to put in a different constraint that gives a similar effect.
-
you let me know how that works out for you..
-
USCH, I hope that you will still fly in it -- at least to try it out and see if you do or don't like it.
you let me know how that works out for you..
I can already let you know how it worked, as we did it in the previous Scenario. It worked fine.
There have been fighter alt caps in the following:
Dnieper (downwind)
Med. Maelstrom (rules alt cap)
DGS II (rules alt cap)
Winter Sky (rules alt cap)
Enemy Coast (downwind)
BOG (rules alt cap)
Rangoon 2008 (rules alt cap)
DGS (rules alt cap)
Downfall (downwind)
Rangoon '42 (rules alt cap)
Some alt-capped scenarios are rated highly and some non-alt-capped scenarios are rated highly. As far as complaints go, the most complaints I remember were in scenarios with no alt cap, and people complaining about too much alt warrioring (although there weren't huge complaints there).
-
If you look at each phase as a frame, identify and count each object, add the number of bombers you want to reach the target, you can then figure out how many escort and attack planes you want. There is a great deal riding on a long event, it is worth taking the time to count everything and be sure. I am not saying this way is "the" way, but it's not a bad way. There is no downside at all knowing the absolute facts about the objectives and ordinance you expect to have in the air.
https://southernconquest.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/copy-of-target-for-today-object-list-v6.xlsx (https://southernconquest.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/copy-of-target-for-today-object-list-v6.xlsx)
This spreadsheet counts every object on a field, then shows how many bombers are expected. In this version, we set it up so that 8 or 9 formations an hour getting to target could get the objects down. This was a one sided bombing mission, not a two sided one. Your 4k hardness is higher, we used 3.5, but that is the number we came up with after excruciating detail and testing, we didn't just end up there.
I strongly believe you need to come at this from a factual count of the objects first, then make your adjustments from there. I don't see this in your spreadsheet. Then again, this isn't my event, it's yours, and you do it how you want. I'm sure it will be fine. There is a lot that can go wrong if you don't look at this completely different than a regular event though. Nef could very well tell you, where we ended up in the setup was quite a bit different than what it was originally envisioned as, which started out as much the same approach you are doing here. Trust me Brooke, you need to count these objects and design out from there. I know it's hard work, I did it. You need to do it.
-
you let me know how that works out for you..
Wow! Who peed in your Cornflakes? :)
-
Wow! Who peed in your Cornflakes? :)
Well lets look, the only Allied aircraft that has any speed advantage over the top 3 LW aircraft, only has that advantage when over 22k (the P38)
With that being said, the LW can out climb and out run any Allied aircraft at any altitude.
Now your only argument is that some (not even all) Allied aircraft can out turn some of the LW aircraft.
Or they can out dive them.
With that being said, the ground will always catch up to a diving aircraft, but a climbing aircraft will never run out of Space.
Basically the Allies are in a hole that only magical points from bombers hitting the target will ever get them out of. They cant honestly think that they have an equal chance fighting the LW. If you do, well revert back to what you quoted. Fighter wise the allies haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of having FUN. If fun is depicted by an "equal" match.
-
As one who is flying Allied, I figure on having fun either way. But then in the MA I figure the bad guys are always going to be above me anyway :)
-
OK, at least we are away from arguments over realism and on to it being an aspect of balance.
That is true and a good thing to ponder, but an alt cap is not an extra benefit to the axis.
The reason is that the P-40 and especially the P-39 are not high-alt planes, the P-40 because it takes it forever to climb, and the P-39 because it drastically loses performance above about 15k.
Yes, the P-38 gains speed on the 109 at very high alts (alts far above what were used in Tunisia), but starts to have some problems as well. I liked flying the P-38 in Battle Over the Winter Line -- and I love the P-38 -- but it is a handful up high, requiring types of care that pilots who are not experienced in the P-38 are not used to. I was not a threat to those 109G's and 190A's until the fight got lower. I could chase them down at high alt, but all they had to do was enter a shallow dive, and I couldn't follow because of compressibility. Some WWII P-38 pilots felt the same way -- that the P-38 was best once the fight went below about 20k.
-
Just keep in mind the thoughts of fighter pilots, cartoon or otherwise. The other guys bird is always better than yours. That way when you kill em, it makes you that much better of a pilot. And if you lose, you have a built in excuse :)
-
In this version, we set it up so that 8 or 9 formations an hour getting to target could get the objects down.
My goal is to set it up so that (1) a single target site is able to absorb the efforts of a full bomber or attack group getting in (so that you don't have to send in a group then retarget half of it if you are lucky with no losses otw to target) and (2) for the target sites overall to allow more than three sorties per hour of all bombers and attack aircraft and still not run out of targets (so that we never run out of targets).
I do that by counting objects of different types at the various target locations, testing how many objects at those locations the different types of aircraft can take down, and then making sure that a town can absorb the efforts of a full bomber force, that a base can absorb the full efforts of an attack group, and then three towns and three or more bases (with appropriate down time) are sufficient to satisfy those goals.
The other calculations are to get the scoring so that it is worth it to fly bombers and attack planes and not keep them on the ground.
Your 4k hardness is higher, we used 3.5, but that is the number we came up with after excruciating detail and testing, we didn't just end up there.
I picked 4000 lbs as a result of testing to satisfy two goals. First, I wanted to make it so that a town could absorb all (or nearly all) of a full bomber force (as talked about above). So you want high hardness. Second, I wanted to make it so that a B-25 pilot would get some objects destroyed. If you make it too hard, one B-25 formation gets no objects destroyed, and the guy following him if he drops on the same spot gets the objects destroyed. You get a situation where lead bomber pilots are always prepping an area for someone else to get all the objects destroyed, and bomber pilots (myself included) don't prefer that. Best is to have it so that even a first set of B-25's in can get some objects, but the town overall can absorb a lot of bombers if they all do make it there. If you can do both of those things, it is best. I still need to test some more on that setting, but 4000 is my placeholder that works for B-25's.
-
Just keep in mind the thoughts of fighter pilots, cartoon or otherwise. The other guys bird is always better than yours. That way when you kill em, it makes you that much better of a pilot. And if you lose, you have a built in excuse :)
When I'm shot down, my built in excuse is that I sucked. :aok
-
Folks, I want to think about how we handle walkons and bring this discussion up again.
Are we going to:
1. Allow all pilots (registered and walkon) to move into open spots.
or
2. Keep registered pilots in what they registered for and assign walkons to C.202's and P-40's.
We can't have this one -- keep registered pilots in what they registered for and let walkons fill open spots -- because any registered pilot for a C.202 who would prefer to fly a 109 is now worse off than a walkon, and we disincenitivise registration.
If we do option 1, we will end up during some times of the day with nearly all 109's, 190's, P-38's, and Spits and just a handful of people in C.202's and P-40's (which makes it worse for them). P-40 and C.202 groups will never have cohesion. Walkons will be happier, but I'm not sure what proportion of players in this will be walkons.
If we do option 2, walkons will be less happy, but we will get closer to the intended proportion of different aircraft and P-40 and C.202 group leaders can plan on more cohesion and fuller groups.
I prefer option 2.
Option 1 to me it is like making Scenarios that are just always P-51's, Spits, 109's, 190's, etc. -- just always picking the favored planes that were in any conflict and forgetting about what was really there. It seems against what Scenarios are aiming for.
-
Guppy brings up that the Spit group started getting Spit IX's in March, 1943.
Folks, should we make some of the Spit V's be Spit IX's? What do you think?
-
Guppy brings up that the Spit group started getting Spit IX's in March, 1943.
Folks, should we make some of the Spit V's be Spit IX's? What do you think?
The 31st operated a mix of them well into 44 and added VIII to the crowd later as well. The Vs would fly lower alt with the IX as their cover. Only seems fair 😀
-
Sounds like a Spit Pilot slot would be fun. SpitIX comparable speed to any 190s in the scenario (if there are some).
SpitV is a blast to fly. Flew one in scenario before last. Nice little aircraft.
-
OK,
As a former ATTACK Group Leader, I would like to bring up a couple observations.
"A-20A is a Boston III. However, the 8x.303's result in unbalanced scoring on strafing vs. cannons of 190F's and 110C's, so put in A-20G, but no wing-mounted bombs (so is about same as A-20A except for better forward guns)."
You seemed concerned about the unbalance of .303s versus 20MM cannon?
But not too concerned about 21,000 rounds of .50 ammo versus 4040 20MM?
6X.50 strafing will take down multiple buildings on a single pass and drop a notch of flaps on your run and you can take down a lot.
2X20MM and 2X13 strafing, you can take down a building but you have to stay fast in a FW or you will pancake. Now you have more control in a 110 but the 7.9s are pretty much useless.
Now, I notice you did not focus on bomb load?
10 A-20s have a bomb capacity of 40 500Lbs or 20,000 pounds of explosives
6 FW F-8s can carry.....UH 6 500 Kg or 6,000 pounds of explosives
4 110c can carry 8 250 Kg or 4,000 pounds of explosives
That is double the striking power of the AXIS...
Does anyone care? How do we "BALANCE"
Maybe take 6 of the A-20s away and add the P-40's to the strike group?
I do not know, just an observation.
-
OK,
As a former ATTACK Group Leader, I would like to bring up a couple observations.
"A-20A is a Boston III. However, the 8x.303's result in unbalanced scoring on strafing vs. cannons of 190F's and 110C's, so put in A-20G, but no wing-mounted bombs (so is about same as A-20A except for better forward guns)."
You seemed concerned about the unbalance of .303s versus 20MM cannon?
But not too concerned about 21,000 rounds of .50 ammo versus 4040 20MM?
8X.50 strafing will take down multiple buildings on a single pass and drop a notch of flaps on your run and you can take down a lot.
2X20MM and 2X13 strafing, you can take down a building but you have to stay fast in a FW or you will pancake. Now you have more control in a 110 but the 7.9s are pretty much useless.
Now, I notice you did not focus on bomb load?
10 A-20s have a bomb capacity of 40 500Lbs or 20,000 pounds of explosives
6 FW F-8s can carry.....UH 6 500 Kg or 6,000 pounds of explosives
4 110c can carry 8 250 Kg or 4,000 pounds of explosives
That is double the striking power of the AXIS...
Does anyone care? How do we "BALANCE"
Maybe take 6 of the A-20s away and add the P-40's to the strike group?
I do not know, just an observation.
A20G has no bombsite and it only has 6 .50cals in the nose and twin .50 in the top turret just letting you know in case you didnt
-
Thanks,
Did not changes the bullet count from the nose though..
Axis attack do not have bomb sights either
-
Ditto, check your numbers. You seem to have places a few extra 0's in there.
A-20 has 2100 rounds in the 6 forward guns.
190F has 500 cannon rounds in 2 cannon and 950 13mm rounds in 2 guns.
The F-8 carries 700Kg(1540 lbs)
Also, every write-up has the A-20's external bombs disabled. So the max bomb load is 2000 lbs. Which can be tuned even closer to the 190 by limiting the A-20 to the 2x 500 lb bombs and limiting the 190 to only the 500 Kg (1100 lb) bomb,
Looks to me like the F-8 can do more damage per plane over the A-20.
-
Times the number of planes available in the write up.
I was thinking total not individual plane Devil.
Can the CM limit the bombs avail to the 2X500?
-
A-20 can carry 4x 500 lb, or 2x 500 lb, or 4x 250 lb bombs in the internal bay. Obviously the four 500 lb bombs are overkill. but the other loads leave the Axis with a slight advantage - but that is as close as these loads can get. Across 10 planes, the axis will have 1000 lbs more ord than the Allies.
If Brooke allows the max bomb loads for each plane then there will be a huge Allied advantage (6360 lbs across 10 planes).
Can the CM limit the bombs avail to the 2X500?
Brooke should be able to disable the 4x 500 lb load.
-
Folks, I want to think about how we handle walkons and bring this discussion up again.
Are we going to:
1. Allow all pilots (registered and walkon) to move into open spots.
or
2. Keep registered pilots in what they registered for and assign walkons to C.202's and P-40's.
Brooke,
My first notion is to allow walk-ons to fill spots that were vacated by no shows, otherwise it's twice the management time to ensure that vacated spots are covered.
That's not how I want to spend my time.
-
Brooke,
My first notion is to allow walk-ons to fill spots that were vacated by no shows, otherwise it's twice the management time to ensure that vacated spots are covered.
That's not how I want to spend my time.
I agree. With the constant flux in total population over the 12 hours, I can't ever recall many of the squads being filled.
-
"If Brooke allows the max bomb loads for each plane then there will be a huge Allied advantage (6360 lbs across 10 planes)."
That was my point
-
I agree. With the constant flux in total population over the 12 hours, I can't ever recall many of the squads being filled.
During TOT the 355th FG stayed either filled or close to filled until the last hour and half where we dropped to half. Our CO took a break and ended up sleeping till the next morning and missed out on the fun at the end :D
-
"If Brooke allows the max bomb loads for each plane then there will be a huge Allied advantage (6360 lbs across 10 planes)."
That was my point
Yeah, but I'm not going to assume that he will make such a blunder.
-
Even so,
10 A-20s with guys like you know who flying them would be a force to be reckoned with.
No comment about dropping them to 4 and adding a single engine plane to the attack role
-
I think adding P-40's to the mix can only make the scoring more complicated. They can only carry a single 500 Lb bomb. The 190 can carry a single 250 Kg bomb, but the plane performance is unbalanced in favor of the 190. The 110 has similar performance to the P-40, but has double the bomb load.
-
Option 1 is the one that takes management time. You need to poll your groups, get headcounts for every group, and allocate walkons, and then keep polling and allocating for the next walkons later, etc.
Option 2 is significantly less management time. If the walkon is to be in fighters, he gets a P-40. Done.
The argument on management time is another reason for option 2.
-
I agree. With the constant flux in total population over the 12 hours, I can't ever recall many of the squads being filled.
That is why I like option 2 -- otherwise, some plane types will be empty or have 2 people in them (which really sucks). 109's, 190's, P-38's, and Spits will never have only 2 people in them.
-
A-20's vs. FW 190's and Bf 110's.
-- Attack planes will be going after bases, not towns (as they can't do much to towns).
-- As a result, targets will mostly be separated single objects, most targets are ground guns, and the vast majority of points will come from strafing.
-- I estimate that the average A-20 will get about 2 objects with bombs and that the average 190 and 110 will get slightly less than 1; but each plane will get a lot more than that in strafing.
-- You cannot have .303's as the A-20's nose guns in this one, or it would kill nothing in strafing.
-- Cannon does way more damage per round, so it isn't an issue of rounds of one vs. rounds of another.
-- The firepower of the A-20G, FW 190F, and Bf 110C are all similar (see http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php using the P-47 to estimate A-20G firepower, which are both 8x.50's).
-- Cannon is way easier to get ground guns with, because you can be off and still kill it with the explosion radius, but with MG's, rounds have to hit the gun itself, and more than one round needs to hit the gun. Your effective target area is probably 1/2 - 1/4 what it is for cannon. The effective firepower of the A-20 is thus less (effective being firepower x probability of hitting).
-- The A-20 is not as effective a fighter plane as either the FW 190 or the Bf 110.
-- I suspect that the A-20 will fare worse from ground gunners than 190's and 110's.
-
A-20's vs. FW 190's and Bf 110's.
-- I estimate that the average A-20 will get about 2 objects with bombs and that the average 190 and 110 will get slightly less than 1; but each plane will get a lot more than that in strafing.
-- Cannon does way more damage per round, so it isn't an issue of rounds of one vs. rounds of another.
-- The firepower of the A-20G, FW 190F, and Bf 110C are all similar (see http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php using the P-47 to estimate A-20G firepower, which are both 8x.50's).
Ok Brooke, I have some issues with the above items.
First, the A-20 has only 6 forward firing guns. The other 2 are in the top turret, which cannot fire strait ahead. Using the Gonzoville charts, any six .50 cal. package has a calculated lethality rating (right hand chart) of 60. The F-8 is rated for 69. A P-47 has a rating of 80. The 110C is rated at 47.
I also estimated the lethality of the 190 A-5 with only two cannon (the charts only count the largest gun package). I took the lethality of a fully armed A-5(94) and subtracted the lethality of the 109F-4(32) - leaving the value of three 20mm cannon(62). Divide 62 by 3 to find the lethality of one 20mm cannon(20.66) and add 21 to the 109F for a final lethality of 53 for the A-5. (this value is probably a little low as every 20mm cannon is counted as equal in my calculations, but the MgFF is worse than the remaining Mg 151's - regardless, it's closer to 60 than the F-8)
The firing time for the A-20 is 26 seconds and the firing time for the 20mm on a 190 is 22. So, the A-20 has longer firing duration duration and deals more damage per second vs the A-5, but less than the F-8.
Moving on to the bombs, why is the disparity so high in terms of estimated objects destroyed?
It appears to me that you are allowing the A-20 to take the max internal bomb load, even though you can equalize the loads with a smaller package for the A-20. All the gun data is moot if the bomb loads are not even close to equal. This must be fixed.
-
All the gun data is moot if the bomb loads are not even close to equal. This must be fixed.
^^
Either the objectives are based on each sides load out, or the objectives are equal and the load out is equal. Pick one. Can't have both.
If each plane has the same loadout and speed, then equal object counts are fine. If one side has more bombs and is faster, and you expect 3 sorties per hour, and one side that has more ordinance also has a better ability to self defend, you unbalanced the event. The side with the larger loadout that can self defend their bombers has an option of putting fewer escorts on the bombers, placing more on the attack side to take down the other sides bombers. Brooke, you have an equal amount of objects for each side to target over the event. One side has smaller loadouts with bombers less likely to self defend. If the 88s were so much faster than the Allied planes that they got in more sorties per hour but fewer bombs on target each sortie, you might have something. But they aren't that much faster.
You have a basic points model that has each side dropping bombs with no objectives defined. Simple points, simple volume. It's not balanced.
Example. If you have the potential for 500 objects to be dropped in 3 hour, and one side can drop 500 objects and the other side can drop 480 objects based on loadout, that is not balanced.
If the side that can only drop 480 objects also has a bomber that does not have the gunner slots as the side that can drop 500 objects, then it is weakened and cannot defend itself, needing more escorts.
If the side that can drop 500 objects is also the side that has the better gunner positions, then that side can self defend their bomber formations easier and can rely on fewer escorts. Those escorts can be sent against the other sides bombers. This then requires that the side that can not self defend has to put more fighters on the task of defending their bombers, taking away their ability to attack the other sides bombers.
Now, do you have an equal amount of escorts and defenders? You're write up might easily say yes, both sides have "x" number, but in practice, it doesn't work. Balance is far more than 6 = 6. Balance is Equal Chance = Equal Chance which may very well mean 5 = 7 ALL things considered.
See? Small things to consider, incredibly powerful impacts.
Do you know for a fact that this isn't where you are? I know you think you aren't there, but do you know you aren't? I asked if you considered this. You said Yes. No, you didn't. You know you didn't. The write up as it stands is crystal clear that you did not.
Brooke, I have suggested several times that you need to count these objects. You know I do, you know I always do. Why would I keep harping on this? Perhaps I already did the counts myself?
But I'm done harping on it. You said you considered all of this. So that's good enough for me ;) I'll be flying Axis though, I think they are going to need a hand on this one.
-
Option 1 is the one that takes management time. You need to poll your groups, get headcounts for every group, and allocate walkons, and then keep polling and allocating for the next walkons later, etc.
Option 2 is significantly less management time. If the walkon is to be in fighters, he gets a P-40. Done.
The argument on management time is another reason for option 2.
You really want to discourage walk-on's don't you. I'm afraid you'll get exactly what your trying for... the regulars registering, a percentage of them showing up and no walk-on's.
I've never flown in any scenario where every registered pilot made every frame. Never. Those spots were most often filled by walk-on's. It's never been a problem in the past so why is it suddenly such a big issue now? Hell, in the last BoB my entire squad was a different group of walk-on's every week (flying Spits BTW).
You're really over-thinking this. Leave it up to the CiC's and GL's and it will all work out fine.
-
You really want to discourage walk-on's don't you.
Of course not -- don't be absurd.
What I want are these things, but they are mutually exclusive:
1. I want more walkons.
2. I want registered pilots to have no disadvantages compared to walkons.
3. I want there to be P-40's and C.202's in the game.
4. I want people who registered for P-40's and C.202's not to be at a disadvantage.
#1 means, let walkons fill any open slot.
#2 means let registered pilots fill any open slot. If you don't, then walkons are getting a better deal than registered pilots.
#3 means you need to put people in P-40's and C.202's.
#4 is one of the biggest problems. If you let people switch out of P-40's and C.202's, there aren't going to be many people left in them. The heroic pilot who registers for P-40's or C.202's will be left with himself and a buddy in those planes while everyone else if flying 109's, 190's, P-38's, and Spitfires. He will go "screw that" and either want out himself or be unhappy.
I've never flown in any scenario where every registered pilot made every frame. Never.
Me neither.
Those spots were most often filled by walk-on's.
Yep.
It's never been a problem in the past so why is it suddenly such a big issue now?
If by "it" you mean "dearth of pilots in less-popular planes", then, yes, it has been a problem many times in the past. Most recently, in the previous scenario.
It is always an issue. Some Scenarios don't worry about it, and you effectively end up not having the less-popular planes in the conflict. Some Scenarios use other methods.
In this 12-hour format, we will get larger variation in player numbers over the course of the event. Some of the techniques used in 4-frame Scenarios won't work in this one.
Again, 2 choices:
1. Let everyone fill in open slots.
2. Keep registered pilots in their registered planes, but allocate walkons to P-40's, etc.
The usual way is #1.
I think that will result in no P-40's and C.202's for most of the event, and maybe they should then just be deleted. But then we are into designing Scenarios that are far less historical, and we are just going to use the dozen or so l33t rides of AH.
-
We have NOT filled entire squadrons and disbanded them before. The MALTA one we did not have the C202s as we put every pilot in the 109s
So let the CO and command staff deal with it.
I guess that is #1
-
Brooke, I have suggested several times that you need to count these objects.
I did. It's sheet 2 of my spreadsheet.
This one is based on (1) neither side running out of objects and (2) each side having about equal estimation of objects they'll destroy per sortie.
If both of those are achieved, the fight will by definition be balanced.
#1 is, I think, clearly met. I don't think it is possible for either side to wipe out all 3 towns and all the various base objects every 30 minutes.
So, the debate is over whether or not #2 is correct.
We don't have identical plane sets on each side, so 2 requires judgement and estimation, and not everyone will have the same judgement and estimation. To me, the attack forces and bomber forces are reasonably balanced in what they are likely to achieve on average. The fighter set might need some of the Spit V's to become Spit IX's -- that's one to ponder.
-
The advantage in registering is choosing your plane. Walkons take their chances. That chance is key, if all walkons are by rule to go into only P-40's and C.202's then you will have no walkons to put into those planes.
I think the solution is to lock registered pilots to their plane. That way there will probably be a slot or two per squad for walkons at any given time. And once a walkon is assigned, he can only be removed for another registered player of that squad.
In any case, you're not going to get many pilots to register for the P-40 or 202, because they will always be at a disadvantage. Those that do register know this and will feed off that disadvantage. So no matter what, many walkons will be going into those planes.
-
So, the debate is over whether or not #2 is correct.
We don't have identical plane sets on each side, so 2 requires judgement and estimation, and not everyone will have the same judgement and estimation. To me, the attack forces and bomber forces are reasonably balanced in what they are likely to achieve on average.
Based on what exactly? I have presented you with a copious amount of data to the contrary. I have also provided you many solutions to the to the balance issues.
Before I continue on this topic I want an answer to the following question: What is the max bomb load that you will allow for the A-20?
-
This is a bit of a philosophical question -- but I'm interested in people's thoughts.
Folks, if you you feel that walkons would rather not participate than fly a C.202 or P-40, then that sentiment should apply to registered pilots as well.
In that case, should we have Scenarios that have only MA-popular planes regardless of what was there historically (i.e., no P-40's, P-39's, and C.202's in Scenarios like this)?
What do people think?
-
Based on what exactly? I have presented you with a copious amount of data
And I have presented you back a copious amount.
Before I continue on this topic I want an answer to the following question: What is the max bomb load that you will allow for the A-20?
We are in drafts and discussing, so nothing is settled yet.
My inclination is 2000 lbs, as I said above.
-
This is a bit of a philosophical question -- but I'm interested in people's thoughts.
Folks, if you you feel that walkons would rather not participate than fly a C.202 or P-40, then that sentiment should apply to registered pilots as well.
In that case, should we have Scenarios that have only MA-popular planes regardless of what was there historically (i.e., no P-40's, P-39's, and C.202's in Scenarios like this)?
What do people think?
If that's the case then they should not be historical scenarios, but just events built around different terrains. I admit I'm a sucker for the less potent rides, flying a 39 in the last one for example. If it's all about the best ride then folks have lost the plot.
Obviously the best thing would be for the vets and best sticks to take the challenge of flying the lesser rides, but I don't know how often that happens. Might as well run all 1945 scenarios then
-
I just did a long test of A-20G vs. Bf 110C in AH3.
In the A-20G, I can manage about 20 ground guns with the full 2100 rounds of ammo (105 rounds/kill). I can manage 2-3 ground objects with the bombs.
In the Bf 110C, I can manage 49 ground guns with the full 360 cannon rounds (7.3 rounds/kill), not touching the .303 rounds (with which I can manage more ground guns). I can manage 1-2 ground objects with the bombs.
So, for me, I would kill more things with a Bf 110C than an A-20G. I am much better in these planes and in ground attack than the average ground attack pilot flying with me will be. For them, explosion radius of cannons will help, and they are likely to have trouble in the A-20 hitting single isolated ground objects with bombs. So, for the average attack pilot, too, the Bf 110C is better than the A-20G.
Now, that being said, given that the large majority of points in attack will come from strafing, it won't make much difference if the A-20's take 250 lb bombs, 500 lb bombs, or no bombs. I would set it to 250 lbs and be done with the arguing, except --
The only place where the bomb load is likely to matter is against ships. The 110 and 190 are way better at placing bombs than the A-20 because of its bad roll, absolutely horrible negative pitch response, and ripping off wings above 6 g's on pullout. So, to make damage to ships more even (although I don't expect that to be a major a source of points for the attack planes), I think the A-20 should be able to carry 500 lbers.
Devil, if you do your own testing and it is significantly different than this, then I will invite you into a custom arena with me, and we will go through it together.
-
...
If the squadrons, the planes and the number of pilots are limited (collectively the resources) then let the CiCs and GL's decide how to deploy their resources. You've given no consideration to the fact you may be hamstringing an entire side.
In a far flung extreme if no one registered to fly Axis all they'd be able to fly under your rule would be 202's.
People are going to register for every available ride. Some in larger or smaller numbers. Again, let the CiC's and GL's decide if they need more or less of something. I think it was Winter Sky, Death Ground I flew a Spit XVI and our group never exceeded 3 players. IIRC we had two in at least a couple of frames. Regardless, I have a lasting memory of dogfighting 5-6 109's at 30K and 3-4 more on the deck and living to tell about it.
I have a feeling all the Spit slots will fill in this scenario and I won't have a chance to register for one. Similarly the 190A-5 slots are extremely limited. In that case, If I'm forced into a P-40 or a 202 this scenario will be the first I've missed in years and scenarios are the only reason I maintain my AH subscription. I haven't flown in the MA since January and have averaged less than 3 sorties per month over the past year. This may ultimately be the reason to finally cancel my subscription.
Ultimately, do what you want. It seems you've already decided on this, the balance and the design. Why put on a pretense of asking for input?
-
It seems you've already decided on this
Nope.
I'm interested in what people think, with discussions and reasons and exploring the ramifications.
If it's something I'm completely set on, I don't ask. Someone else might bring it up (which is fine, and then we discuss it), but I don't ask.
-
A separate topic:
Decide what Brooke should fly
Let your vote be heard! :aok
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,380537.0.html
-
Just to refocus the discussion, the following are the two biggest outstanding things to decide.
------------- Let's Decide A ------------------
Do we have all Spits be Spit V's or half of them be Spit V's and half Spit IX's? After thinking about it, my opinion is slightly on the side of some Spit IX's for better fighter balance given that the Spit group did get some Spit IX's in March, 1943.
------------- Let's Decide B ------------------
For dealing with walkons, do we:
1. Allow any pilots (registered or walkon) to fill any open spot.
or
2. Restrict walkons to P-40's and C.202's.
Keep in mind that #1 means we probably will often not have many P-40's or C.202's flying around. I prefer #2, but almost all comments are in favor of #1, so I'm predicting we will go with that unless we see #2 gaining enough support.
-
I'll be flying Axis
I know you just got done being a CO -- and many thanks to you for that. By any miracle, would you be willing to be CO again? The axis needs its Air Marshall!
If you do, I will send you a bottle of Woodford Reserve or if you prefer Balvenie Double Wood. :aok
-
By any miracle, would you be willing to be CO again?
Nope.
-
Just to refocus the discussion, the following are the two biggest outstanding things to decide.
------------- Let's Decide A ------------------
Do we have all Spits be Spit V's or half of them be Spit V's and half Spit IX's? After thinking about it, my opinion is slightly on the side of some Spit IX's for better fighter balance given that the Spit group did get some Spit IX's in March, 1943.
------------- Let's Decide B ------------------
For dealing with walkons, do we:
1. Allow any pilots (registered or walkon) to fill any open spot.
or
2. Restrict walkons to P-40's and C.202's.
Keep in mind that #1 means we probably will often not have many P-40's or C.202's flying around. I prefer #2, but almost all comments are in favor of #1, so I'm predicting we will go with that unless we see #2 gaining enough support.
I have a statement and question. I say do half and half with the Spits since they were historically correct. Perhaps that'll get more people for the Spit group.
My question is has the 109F been considered as an alternate for the C.202? What about the C.205? I was doing some research and found that they were operating in the area, and performed pretty well against allied fighters. Just my thoughts, and just trying to help. No one rip my head off please :salute
Edit: my idea with the C.205 is perhaps have a split unit 50/50 of C.202's and C.205's, similar to our spit units. For walkons at least a C.205 is better than the C.202, and a 109 F is better than the C.202 in my opinion at least.
Edit: Also didn't see the time was February 1943, thought it was may for some reason silly me.
-
This is a bit of a philosophical question -- but I'm interested in people's thoughts.
Folks, if you you feel that walkons would rather not participate than fly a C.202 or P-40, then that sentiment should apply to registered pilots as well.
In that case, should we have Scenarios that have only MA-popular planes regardless of what was there historically (i.e., no P-40's, P-39's, and C.202's in Scenarios like this)?
What do people think?
I would love fictional scenarios / continuation latewar scenarios.
-
I am against the addition of the Spit9. It did not arrive in the MTO until April. The Spit5 is still competitive in this plane set because it is the best turning plane overall. It's like an A6M in any mid to late war PTO setup. The allies don't need better planes to achieve fighter balance, they need more total planes, which is also more historically accurate.
As for the C.205. It also entered service in April.
I even think the 109F tilts the balance too far to the Axis's favor. The Allies need to fill those P-39 and P-40 slots and their best chance is against the C.202.
-
It's like an A6M in any mid to late war PTO setup.
That's a point in favor of IX's since Zeros have a very tough time once the allied plane set gets substantially faster.
The allies . . . need more total planes, which is also more historically accurate.
The axis went from having superior aircraft numbers in combat (maybe not in theater, but in combat) to being outnumbered in combat sometime between Oct., 1942 and April, 1943. So, somewhere in that period, the numbers were about even. I'm not sure if the allies had more planes in Feb, but assuming they did --
That's too hard to administer during the 12-hour with great fluctuations of player numbers and allocation of walkons every hour. Workable is to balance the aircraft so that we can have equal numbers on each side.
-
That's a point in favor of IX's since Zeros have a very tough time once the allied plane set gets substantially faster.
Yes, but the disparity here is nowhere close to what is routinely seen in PTO events. The spit is better than the Zeke and the 190 is the closest thing to the Allied monsters in the PTO. My point is that like the Zeke, the SpitV has a dominant feature, which can be exploited by their pilots to have success. The SpitV is far better than the P-40, P-39 and C.202. You should know just how capable the SpitV is after the last Malta scenario.
The axis went from having superior aircraft numbers in combat (maybe not in theater, but in combat) to being outnumbered in combat sometime between Oct., 1942 and April, 1943. So, somewhere in that period, the numbers were about even. I'm not sure if the allies had more planes in Feb, but assuming they did --
That's too hard to administer during the 12-hour with great fluctuations of player numbers and allocation of walkons every hour. Workable is to balance the aircraft so that we can have equal numbers on each side.
Ok, this makes sense. :aok
-
I just did a long test of A-20G vs. Bf 110C in AH3.
In the A-20G, I can manage about 20 ground guns with the full 2100 rounds of ammo (105 rounds/kill). I can manage 2-3 ground objects with the bombs.
In the Bf 110C, I can manage 49 ground guns with the full 360 cannon rounds (7.3 rounds/kill), not touching the .303 rounds (with which I can manage more ground guns). I can manage 1-2 ground objects with the bombs.
So, for me, I would kill more things with a Bf 110C than an A-20G. I am much better in these planes and in ground attack than the average ground attack pilot flying with me will be. For them, explosion radius of cannons will help, and they are likely to have trouble in the A-20 hitting single isolated ground objects with bombs. So, for the average attack pilot, too, the Bf 110C is better than the A-20G.
Now, that being said, given that the large majority of points in attack will come from strafing, it won't make much difference if the A-20's take 250 lb bombs, 500 lb bombs, or no bombs. I would set it to 250 lbs and be done with the arguing, except --
The only place where the bomb load is likely to matter is against ships. The 110 and 190 are way better at placing bombs than the A-20 because of its bad roll, absolutely horrible negative pitch response, and ripping off wings above 6 g's on pullout. So, to make damage to ships more even (although I don't expect that to be a major a source of points for the attack planes), I think the A-20 should be able to carry 500 lbers.
Devil, if you do your own testing and it is significantly different than this, then I will invite you into a custom arena with me, and we will go through it together.
Brooke, let's just do a session in a custom arena. That way we know that all the arena settings are consistent.
:cheers:
-
Yes, but the disparity here is nowhere close to what is routinely seen in PTO events. The spit is better than the Zeke and the 190 is the closest thing to the Allied monsters in the PTO. My point is that like the Zeke, the SpitV has a dominant feature, which can be exploited by their pilots to have success. The SpitV is far better than the P-40, P-39 and C.202. You should know just how capable the SpitV is after the last Malta scenario.
Ok, this makes sense. :aok
You are talking from a LW view. I flew Vs against 109s and 190s in a scenario. In the 1941 version you end up flying defensive more than anything as you can't catch the 109s or 190s. Even if it's 8 Spit V and 4 IX it helps Give me the old AH Spitfire LF V and I'd say no IXs but we got the early V which is not the Spit Vc of 43. Not to mention it only has half the ammo load of the Vc
-
Except now you have lots of P-38's to do do the chasing.
Besides, the 31st FG received hand-me-down SpitV's - many of which were Vb's, with the Vokes filter no less. Our Vb is very representative of what was likely to be encountered over Tunisia in early '43.
The Spit9 completely unbalances the fighters in the event as it would become the best overall fighter in the event. Even 4 is too many for this event.
-
Except now you have lots of P-38's to do do the chasing.
Besides, the 31st FG received hand-me-down SpitV's - many of which were Vb's, with the Vokes filter no less. Our Vb is very representative of what was likely to be encountered over Tunisia in early '43.
The Spit9 completely unbalances the fighters in the event as it would become the best overall fighter in the event. Even 4 is too many for this event.
38Gs running stuff down? J models maybe but we don't have those. Sub Seafire IIc then so the Vc ammo load is available.
-
Sub Seafire IIc then so the Vc ammo load is available.
This would work I think.
What do you think, 50/50 split between SpitV's and Seafires?
-
Yes, but the disparity here is nowhere close to what is routinely seen in PTO events. [etc.]
True.
-
Brooke, let's just do a session in a custom arena. That way we know that all the arena settings are consistent.
:cheers:
Thank you, Devil! That is awesome! :aok
I'm not sure what time zone you are in. Except for Wednesday nights, I'm available most nights after 8 pm Pacific. I could be available prior to 11 am Pacific most days. I could probably make 6 pm Pacific. I can make Saturdays from about 2 pm Pacific to about 5:30 pm Pacific. I'll message you my cell phone number so that you can text me for coordination.
By the way, folks, once Devil and I set a time, we can open it up to anyone else who wants to come in and test things. I'll post the date and time once I know.
I will set it up in AH3, as I'm thinking that's what we'll have by October, but we can adjust things for AH2 if AH3 isn't out by then as well.
-
You are talking from a LW view. I flew Vs against 109s and 190s in a scenario. [etc.]
I flew 190A-5's in a Scenario against Spit IX's and Spit V's. Before doing this, I thought Spits would eat us up, but afterwards, I saw that I was completely wrong and thought that the 190A-5 was -- in a Scenario type fight -- superior to even the IX, let alone the Spit V.
-
I flew 190A-5's in a Scenario against Spit IX's and Spit V's. Before doing this, I thought Spits would eat us up, but afterwards, I saw that I was completely wrong and thought that the 190A-5 was -- in a Scenario type fight -- superior to even the IX, let alone the Spit V.
That is only because you flew with a GREAT squad :D :aok
-
I know I'm getting in on this discussion late but a spit IX, at high alt, will simply walk away from anything the axis could possibly field in a 1943 setup. Paired with Vs and flown in close coordination, they could be downright unstoppable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I know I'm getting in on this discussion late but a spit IX, at high alt, will simply walk away from anything the axis could possibly field in a 1943 setup. Paired with Vs and flown in close coordination, they could be downright unstoppable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brooke has included a 22k downdraft so this doesn't happen.
-
That is only because you flew with a GREAT squad :D :aok
:rofl :aok
It is true! I was carried to greater success thereby. :aok
-
Yes, at 22k and below with WEP, the Spit IX is slower than the 109G (except for a small range around 15k where it is about 5 mph faster).
-
That is only because you flew with a GREAT squad :D :aok
What happened to Brooke without Ditto around:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame2/019-down-Image-0036.jpg)
Look at this squad!
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/001-takeoff-Image-0000.jpg)
-
I flew 190A-5's in a Scenario against Spit IX's and Spit V's. Before doing this, I thought Spits would eat us up, but afterwards, I saw that I was completely wrong and thought that the 190A-5 was -- in a Scenario type fight -- superior to even the IX, let alone the Spit V.
I was in one of those Vs dancing with the 109s and 190s. At no point, regardless of what we did, could we catch the baduns or try and run if we were in trouble. If we got folks turning, we could at least dance, but the Vb in a 43 environment was not the equal of the LW birds. Saying that I had a blast, but I'm a glutton for punishment.
I still think a mix of 8 Vs and 4 IXs is viable.
-
Thank you, Devil! That is awesome! :aok
I'm not sure what time zone you are in. Except for Wednesday nights, I'm available most nights after 8 pm Pacific. I could be available prior to 11 am Pacific most days. I could probably make 6 pm Pacific. I can make Saturdays from about 2 pm Pacific to about 5:30 pm Pacific. I'll message you my cell phone number so that you can text me for coordination.
By the way, folks, once Devil and I set a time, we can open it up to anyone else who wants to come in and test things. I'll post the date and time once I know.
I will set it up in AH3, as I'm thinking that's what we'll have by October, but we can adjust things for AH2 if AH3 isn't out by then as well.
Any time in the PM is good for me, Brooke. Just set a day and time and I'll be there. :aok
-
Draft 5 of the writeup is now up.
Please hit refresh on your browser to get the latest version.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
Would someone be so kind as to double check that the target list in the tables is what is shown in the maps? That way, it checks if I made an error. Many thanks. <S>!
-
Any time in the PM is good for me, Brooke. Just set a day and time and I'll be there. :aok
Excellent! :aok
How about Thursday (in two days) at 8 pm Pacific in the AH3 custom arenas? I will create one called "Brooke test".
-
All are welcome to join me and Devil on Thursday at 8 pm Pacific time to check out what the settings will be like. We will be in AH3 (not AH2) in the custom arena called "Brooke test".
Want to try some bombing of towns? Some attack runs? Some killing of ships? Show up with a friend and dogfight him to see what the planes are like?
Feel free to join us.
-
IDK if it has been pointed out, but the allied shipping area is larger than the Axis.. (more room to hide things)
-
IDK if it has been pointed out, but the allied shipping area is larger than the Axis.. (more room to hide things)
If the allies put their fleet in the upper reaches, it would be a gift to the axis.
-
If the allies put their fleet in the upper reaches, it would be a gift to the axis.
Why do you think this?
-
If the allies put their fleet in the upper reaches, it would be a gift to the axis.
The Axis have to scout 2 full sectors, the Allies have to scout 1 1/2 sector. Again, freeing up more planes to attack a side instead of search. Balance it by giving the Axis 262 scouts so they can cover the larger area faster?
-
The Axis have to scout 2 full sectors, the Allies have to scout 1 1/2 sector. Again, freeing up more planes to attack a side instead of search. Balance it by giving the Axis 262 scouts so they can cover the larger area faster?
:huh
-
All are welcome to join me and Devil on Thursday at 8 pm Pacific time to check out what the settings will be like. We will be in AH3 (not AH2) in the custom arena called "Brooke test".
Want to try some bombing of towns? Some attack runs? Some killing of ships? Show up with a friend and dogfight him to see what the planes are like?
Feel free to join us.
just to be clear, the real event will be played in AHII unless an act of god gets 3 running by then right?...
-
The Axis have to scout 2 full sectors, the Allies have to scout 1 1/2 sector. Again, freeing up more planes to attack a side instead of search. Balance it by giving the Axis 262 scouts so they can cover the larger area faster?
:aok
-
The Axis have to scout 2 full sectors, the Allies have to scout 1 1/2 sector. Again, freeing up more planes to attack a side instead of search. Balance it by giving the Axis 262 scouts so they can cover the larger area faster?
:confused:
-
Why do you think this?
I think it would be a lot easier to cover closer in, but regardless --
Given that there are folks who don't like it, I will make the areas equal. The only reason I made them unequal is that it conformed to sector boundaries, and I figured that would reduce the probability of "The ships are 2 miles outside the area limits!" sort of thing. But it's easy enough to change it.
I'll do it tonight.
-
just to be clear, the real event will be played in AHII unless an act of god gets 3 running by then right?...
It will be whichever version of AH is the official released version at the time of the event.
-
Draft 6 up with adjusted shipping area. (Remember refresh to get latest.)
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
-
Target for Today participants:
How did it go for anyone who got shot down quickly into the 1-hour flight segment?
In past events, if I had too long a delay between when someone got shot down and when they could fly again, a lot of people just left.
Did that happen much?
What was typical flight time in TFT from takeoff until you were in a fight?
-
I'm sure some people left if they missed a launch window, but I bet most welcomed a break. Others just rode shotgun to be an extra set of eyes.
I don't remember how long it took until initial contact in the first phase, but after that there was always something important thing to do.
-
Target for Today participants:
How did it go for anyone who got shot down quickly into the 1-hour flight segment?
In past events, if I had too long a delay between when someone got shot down and when they could fly again, a lot of people just left.
Did that happen much?
What was typical flight time in TFT from takeoff until you were in a fight?
The action was pretty much constant through the whole frame. About halfway through I pulled my plane over in the grass and went and ate. I'd imagine that getting shot down after a couple hours would be a nice break.
-
cant wait to hide the Cv under the dirt... :banana: :rofl
-
:rofl I reported a bug in beta a while back where the PT boats go right into the land and continue..I can only assume it hasn't been fixed.
cant wait to hide the Cv under the dirt... :banana: :rofl
-
Is there a list of both sides groups that have been claimed by group leaders?
-
Swareiam would be the one to post what he is thinking for allied side.
We still need an Axis CO.
Nefarious, how about it -- Axis CO? :aok
-
Hey Devil, what about you COing axis, I trust your judgement and I am sure many others would encourage the same.
-
I won't have the time for all that come October, Dolby. Thanks for the nomination though. :salute
-
Target for Today participants:
How did it go for anyone who got shot down quickly into the 1-hour flight segment?
In past events, if I had too long a delay between when someone got shot down and when they could fly again, a lot of people just left.
Did that happen much?
What was typical flight time in TFT from takeoff until you were in a fight?
A few hours in, I took a bad one, got shot down about 2 minutes into a window. It perturbed me, but I took a break, stretched my legs, and came back ready to keep going.
The way things ebbed and flowed, that was about the only time I think I was heavily engaged right after a window closed. It might be a good idea to try to time it so major clashes happen not long before the window, but that's a pretty tall order.
I know I always felt busy during TFT, but I really don't remember what climbout times were actually like. It all kind of blurred together. I just remember every time I upped, there was someplace I had to be urgently. Not a lot of dead time I can recall.
Wiley.
-
A few hours in, I took a bad one, got shot down about 2 minutes into a window. It perturbed me, but I took a break, stretched my legs, and came back ready to keep going.
The way things ebbed and flowed, that was about the only time I think I was heavily engaged right after a window closed. It might be a good idea to try to time it so major clashes happen not long before the window, but that's a pretty tall order.
I know I always felt busy during TFT, but I really don't remember what climbout times were actually like. It all kind of blurred together. I just remember every time I upped, there was someplace I had to be urgently. Not a lot of dead time I can recall.
Wiley.
That's pretty much my experience too, we must have been wingin when we both got killed just past the takeoff window. I wasn't discouraged and futzed around a bit, got a cold brew, had a snack, visited the garage and was ready to go when the next time arrived for takeoff. That downtime also allowed me time to really focus on the war and try to anticipate what was coming next.
-
Do you think there is possibly too many objectives per phase?
Right now there is plenty of discussion in FSO about too many objectives, perhaps reducing the number of objectives to three per phase might direct the fight more and keep the action more steady in those areas.
Thoughts?
-
Here is a link to a starting point for the October North Africa Scenario:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html (http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html)
People can post suggestions and questions in this topic.
Best regards. <S>!
First suggestion - don't put me in charge of ANYTHING!
-
First suggestion - don't put me in charge of ANYTHING!
I now nominate ammo for axis CO :bolt:
-
I now nominate ammo for axis CO :bolt:
I nominate you for recruiting officer. If you do a good job, you get the position of Operations Officer.
-
I nominate you for recruiting officer. If you do a good job, you get the position of Operations Officer.
Lol...no one listens to me...and the only operations I'm good at are getting people killed
-
Do you think there is possibly too many objectives per phase?
Right now there is plenty of discussion in FSO about too many objectives, perhaps reducing the number of objectives to three per phase might direct the fight more and keep the action more steady in those areas.
Thoughts?
I would say currently yes. We need to have just enough targets for all buffs to drop.
Currently if you tried to cover all the objectives you would have about 5 fighters per area, and then not much more for your attack that is taking place at the same time..
5 per objective and 15 to cover buff (if everyone showed up to the allies) seems pretty thin...
-
For bombers, I think it is fine, but for attack planes, I'm 50/50 on it, as I'll explain below.
------------- Thoughts about areas and number of targets -------------
The general playing area (the area that bounds all of the targets) in this one is 18-20 sectors. I am assuming we will get twice as many as Dnieper (our previous scenario). Dnieper had a general playing area of about 9 sectors. So, this one has similar players per playing area as Dnieper. (See caveat on this below.)
In terms of target area, where target area is the minimum number of sector squares it takes to cover all targets, in this one it is about 8, and in Dnieper, it is about 4. So, if we have 2x the players as Dnieper, players/target area is about the same.
In terms of number of targets, level bombers have 3 best land targets (the towns) and 1 task group. In Dnieper, for level bombers, there were 3 good targets (towns and cities). So, we are less in players/(best target) for level bombers. For attack planes, we have 5-6 good land targets (the bases) and 1 task group. In Dnieper, for attack bombers, there were 6 acceptable land targets (bases, towns, city). So, we are less in players/(best target) for attack planes.
In addition, there are sector counters above 1000 ft and radar above 15k. For any attacks that are escorted with fighters higher than 1000 ft., it will show a presence on sector counters and/or radar.
Thing to keep in mind. Even though there are 5-6 good land targets for attackers, some of those 5-6 are quite near each other and so are not equivalent to 5-6 all spaced far apart and are equivalent to more like 4 attack locations instead of 5-6. Also, base warning is about 3 times larger than in Dnieper and thus 3 times longer warning. It is about 1/3 of a sector.
------------ Caveat -----------
So, I think it will work fine as long as number of players in the air is greater than for Dnieper.
However, at participation rates of Dnieper or lower -- if that occurs during some of the 12 hours (here I don't have experience what participation rates were like during the whole course of Target For Today) -- then while folks will still find fighters and will still probably be getting into fights around level bombers, the attack planes might start being able to sneak around a lot more easily.
A possible modification there is to chop out a target from the attack list.
------------ Summary ------------
For fighters and level bombers, I think it will be fine. They will encounter each other plenty, I believe.
For attackers, when the participation is above Dnieper levels, I think it will be fine. Below Dnieper levels, attackers will be harder to get. I could reduce that some by eliminating some of the attack targets.
Thoughts?
-
With regard to the previous post, I guess it largely boils down to how many players folks think we will have on average.
If we register 2x Dnieper, how many will be up on average?
In Target for Today, out of N people who registered, do folks have estimates or feelings for waht was the max, what was the min, and what was the average of number of pilots in the air?
-
Brooke, when you are comparing your hypothetical player base for this scenario to Dnieper, are you using the registered player number or actual attendance of Dnieper. Based on the actual players that showed up for Dnieper, I'd say that even for that small area there were not enough pilots.
-
I'm going by number that played in the event.
I disagree that Dnieper had too large an area. It had plenty of action. Fights and action were frequent enough that significant numbers of people were out of lives before frame end.
-
Brooke, guys found themselves quickly out of lives because they were frequently in lopsided engagements because they were stretched too thin.
-
I'm going by number that played in the event.
I disagree that Dnieper had too large an area. It had plenty of action. Fights and action were frequent enough that significant numbers of people were out of lives before frame end.
I'm going to agree with Brooke on this one, there was plenty of action in the area. Seems like we were always finding Russian fighters or attack aircraft and as soon as we'd rearm the attack was on again. I had a blast.
I recall a few engagements where my 109 Gruppe was outnumbered, but we managed to fight a way out of it. Hopefully the North Africa scenario will encompass some of the aspects of the Dniepper of keeping some if not a big part of the fighting in a small area.
-
In Target for today Phase 1 consisted of 3 airfield targets, Phase 2 was Amsterdam City Complex and Phase 3 was Paris City Complex. Phase 1 targets were allowed to be hit the entirety of the event while Phase 2 and 3 could only be hit during their respective phases.
Target for Today had Three 4 hour phases, Tunisia has 4 Three hour phases.
Tunisia does not have City Complex targets, which are very big but relatively easy to drop structures (with heavy bombers).
Some other things to think about, the first 3-4 hours had the lowest population of the event and it built up as the day went on, perhaps phase 1 should have a few targets less?
-
More TFT info...
1,541 sorties of all types were launched that day.
Here is a list of sorties per hour... It includes gunners/observers, I had trouble deciphering who actually launched during a window, So I just decided to count the entire hour. It includes multiple launches so It doesn't give and exact count, more of a rough estimate.
HOUR 1: 170
HOUR 2: 161
HOUR 3: 150
HOUR 4: 85
HOUR 5: 184
HOUR 6: 185
HOUR 7: 150
HOUR 8: 73
HOUR 9: 133
HOUR 10: 93
HOUR 11: 100
HOUR 12: 56
I didn't count any Gunners past Hour 12.
In those 12 hours, 70 Gunner/Observers were launched and 173 Field Guns were launched. So 243 Non-Aircraft sorties were launched - 1,541 = 1,298 Aircraft Sorties, of course that includes re-towers and such (wrong fuel or ammo load).
-
That is very cool Nef, thanks :aok
-
That is very cool Nef, thanks :aok
Im trying to put together an info graphic showing sorties.
-
I do not know if you can but pilots in flight per hour would be most useful to the discussion.
-
I do not know if you can but pilots in flight per hour would be most useful to the discussion.
I'll see what I can create and post in another thread as to not clutter up this thread. <S>
-
In Target for today
...
Thanks for that info and also for the participation over time -- very useful. :aok
-
Looking at the numbers, the average players up in a sortie in TFT looking at 3-hour spans was:
160 players in 1st span
151 players in 2nd
119 players in 3rd
83 players in 4th
Overall average was 128.
From registration, number of registered players was 190.
From log, number of players who participated in the event was 316.
-
A terrain map showing the playing area for various scenarios, along with (in parenthesis) the number of players per frame.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/201610Tunisia/activeAreaComparison.png)
-
Next version of the writeup is posted:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
Changes listed in the change log at the end.
-
Time to vote on an open issue.
Please choose one:
Edit .. see post below for vote options
Here are the various sides of it. In reality, the 12th AF had Spit V's. However, Spit V's are quite a bit slower than 109G's and some folks feel that it would be better for balance for the allied side to have some Spit IX's. Keep in mind that Spit IX's are still slower than 109G's at the altitudes we are using, just not as slow at Spit V's. The 109 business is just because of a suggestion to do it that way.
-
Brooke, these two issues should be kept separate. The have no tangible reason to be linked.
The 109 business is just because of a suggestion to do it that way.
This is flat out incorrect. Sorry to be so blunt, but this needs to me made perfectly clear.
This is an accuracy issue just as much as a playability one - and in either case, is satisfied by having the 109 types mixed.
Bf 109G-6 production began in February 1943 - the exact time frame this scenario is set. No unit in the Luftwaffe had exclusively G-6's until summer. The earliest reference I have seen to the definitive use of a G-6 in Tunisia is the death of Joachim Muncheburg on March 23. If any G-6's were available in February, they were in small amounts, and dispersed between units.
As for how the choice affects playability, the performance between the G-2 and G-6 is small but noticeable (similar to the difference between the P-51B and D) where one sacrifices some speed and maneuverability for improved firepower. But some prefer feel of the G-6 due to the heavier nose, making it more stable.
As for the Spit9's they were not used by the 12th AF until April '43. So their inclusion is not accurate.
The Spit9 affects playability by becoming the best overall plane in the setup. It matches the speed of the 109s and 190 above 15K, roughly matches the G-2 (best Axis climber) in climb rate over 12K and out turns and handles better than the 190 or 109 at every alt. It has twice the 20mm ammo as the SpitV. There is no meaningful weakness inherent to the Spit9, whereas every single other plane sacrifices some meaningful ability to gain an advantage somewhere else.
To be both historically accurate and playability balanced, the answer is to have no Spit 9's and mixed G-2's with G-6's.
-
Very well.
Calling for vote.
Please choose
A. 12th af has 6 spit v and 6 spit ix.
Or
B. 12th af has 12 spit v.
Please choose
C. Lw has 109 groups that use g2 or g6 as they see fit.
Or
D. Lw has 109 groups as they are currently.
-
A/D
-
B/C
-
B/C
-
B/C
-
B/C
-
B/C
-
B
C
-
Brooke, these two issues should be kept separate. The have no tangible reason to be linked.
This is flat out incorrect. Sorry to be so blunt, but this needs to me made perfectly clear.
This is an accuracy issue just as much as a playability one - and in either case, is satisfied by having the 109 types mixed.
Bf 109G-6 production began in February 1943 - the exact time frame this scenario is set. No unit in the Luftwaffe had exclusively G-6's until summer. The earliest reference I have seen to the definitive use of a G-6 in Tunisia is the death of Joachim Muncheburg on March 23. If any G-6's were available in February, they were in small amounts, and dispersed between units.
As for how the choice affects playability, the performance between the G-2 and G-6 is small but noticeable (similar to the difference between the P-51B and D) where one sacrifices some speed and maneuverability for improved firepower. But some prefer feel of the G-6 due to the heavier nose, making it more stable.
As for the Spit9's they were not used by the 12th AF until April '43. So their inclusion is not accurate.
The Spit9 affects playability by becoming the best overall plane in the setup. It matches the speed of the 109s and 190 above 15K, roughly matches the G-2 (best Axis climber) in climb rate over 12K and out turns and handles better than the 190 or 109 at every alt. It has twice the 20mm ammo as the SpitV. There is no meaningful weakness inherent to the Spit9, whereas every single other plane sacrifices some meaningful ability to gain an advantage somewhere else.
To be both historically accurate and playability balanced, the answer is to have no Spit 9's and mixed G-2's with G-6's.
I call BS. If we are going to hide behind history then can we balance the numbers historically? My suggestion was four IXs and 8 Vb. The four IXs are to balance it out a bit. RAF IXs were in theater and flying cover for US raids. So to eliminate their availability as the 31st didn't get theirs til April really doesn't address the issue. Can we eliminate the F8s since they weren't really there? Can we cut down the numbers of 190s to reflect their actual historical presence? That would be silly. I'm not flying Spits in this, but I'd like to see this reflect the conditions of the time, and that included Spit IXs that were able to fly cover for the P40s, Spit Vs etc
-
I call BS. If we are going to hide behind history then can we balance the numbers historically? My suggestion was four IXs and 8 Vb. The four IXs are to balance it out a bit. RAF IXs were in theater and flying cover for US raids. So to eliminate their availability as the 31st didn't get theirs til April really doesn't address the issue. Can we eliminate the F8s since they weren't really there? Can we cut down the numbers of 190s to reflect their actual historical presence? That would be silly. I'm not flying Spits in this, but I'd like to see this reflect the conditions of the time, and that included Spit IXs that were able to fly cover for the P40s, Spit Vs etc
The same argument over and over. Your side changes based on what benefits you the most.
-
BC!!!!!
-
The same argument over and over. Your side changes based on what benefits you the most.
I missed you :) So you are saying they didn't have Spit IXs in numbers in the MTO during that time frame?
-
B/C
-
Tell you what, the dedicated luftwhinnies always want things their way. As they are a majority on this board they will win the vote and ensure their planes will outperform anything the other side has, always hiding behind the guise of historical fact.
Historically, the axis faced 8 or 10 to 1 odds. Why not argue for that?
Many might have missed it but I saw Bruv say he was gonna fly Axis, I wonder if that has anything to do with the SpitV not being able to compete with the FW190a5 or the 109G2.
Lets keep putting up votes so the very vocal few can mold the scenario to their liking.
I don't think I will be participating in this.
-
I call BS. If we are going to hide behind history then can we balance the numbers historically? My suggestion was four IXs and 8 Vb. The four IXs are to balance it out a bit. RAF IXs were in theater and flying cover for US raids. So to eliminate their availability as the 31st didn't get theirs til April really doesn't address the issue. Can we eliminate the F8s since they weren't really there? Can we cut down the numbers of 190s to reflect their actual historical presence? That would be silly. I'm not flying Spits in this, but I'd like to see this reflect the conditions of the time, and that included Spit IXs that were able to fly cover for the P40s, Spit Vs etc
Call BS all you want, but the historical number of Spit9's operated by the 12th Air force in February 1943 is zero. It would stay at zero for another two months. That's a fact and you know this.
Also, Brooke reduced the number of 190A-5's in Jg2 for the exact reason you specified. There was 12 originally. I also recommended swapping out the F-8 for the A-5, also for the sake of accuracy. Brooke has his reasons for not wanting to do so.
If this was to be a truly proportional representation of fighters, then half the Allies would be in P-40's with half the Axis in 109G-2's, and the event will be crap. And there will still be zero Spit9's.
-
Lets keep putting up votes so the very vocal few can mold the scenario to their liking.
That's not why I called a vote.
I call votes either because I don't think it matters hugely either way and want the community to be able to say what it prefers (like this issue) or because I do think it matters hugely, but I'm not sure my view of it is what most people would think is good (like with how to deal with walkons vs. registered players).
LW fans do not outnumber allied fans in the game. In fact, if you look at scenario recruiting and attendance, I would say that it is the other way around.
Also, this topic is open to all, vocal or not. How loud you announce your preference has no bearing.
I don't think I will be participating in this.
Why not? Are there important elements of the design that you think are wrong? If so, you should speak up. If not, then what do any posts that you disagree with matter?
I hope that you fly in it. The whole point here is to develop a fun Scenario with a good, fun, balanced design in an inclusive environment where everyone can put in comments if they want.
-
Historically, the axis faced 8 or 10 to 1 odds. Why not argue for that?
For the same reason that the half of the total Allied fighters aren't P-40's - nobody will show up. But you won't show up anyway. Instead, you'll just troll the event discussions like you always do with whines about "ze luftwhinners"
Hello pot, meet kettle.
-
Between late 1942 and March/April of 1943, the axis went from outnumbering the allies in air battles to being outnumbered by the allies in air battles. Somewhere in between, the balance was even. My reason for picking Feb 1943 was that it was my best guess of when the battles in the air were even.
-
The reason to have or not have Spit 9's is about balance.
If you look at the overall plane set (fighters, attackers, and bombers) and feel that the axis has a plane-set advantage, then you should be voting for the allies to have some Spit 9's.
When I consider the entire plane set and all objectives (not just Spits and 109G's), I am not sure either way, which is why I opened it to a vote.
My feeling for a while has been that the axis has a bit of a fighter advantage, that attack planes are about a wash, and that the allies have a bit of a bomber advantage, with it being decent overall. But that involves judgement, which can be wrong.
That is why I'm asking folks for their input.
-
See Rule #4
-
Call BS all you want, but the historical number of Spit9's operated by the 12th Air force in February 1943 is zero. It would stay at zero for another two months. That's a fact and you know this.
Also, Brooke reduced the number of 190A-5's in Jg2 for the exact reason you specified. There was 12 originally. I also recommended swapping out the F-8 for the A-5, also for the sake of accuracy. Brooke has his reasons for not wanting to do so.
If this was to be a truly proportional representation of fighters, then half the Allies would be in P-40's with half the Axis in 109G-2's, and the event will be crap. And there will still be zero Spit9's.
The issue for me is that the 12th didn't operate in a vacuum. They were part of the MAAF that included the RAF and commonwealth units. I'm reading a book right now called "Desert Eagles" and time and time again they note RAF and USAAF units working together. So to eliminate the 9 because the 12th didn't get their own for another month denies that the 9 was there. Again, I'm not flying Spits, but I did have a Spit V squadron the last time we had a similar LW plane set and no matter how we flew them the LW birds performance was such that they could dictate the fight. How is that different now? How does that give guys an incentive to take a 39 or 40 or even a Spit V up? I'm asking for four Spit IX that are at least similar in performance to match up against the A5s and be around to provide high cover for the fighter bombers
-
B
C
Please, refrain from bashing each other over the head with each others opinion. It isn't good for anyone, it isn't good for the scenario, it isn't good for the game.
It isn't "inviting", nor is it inclusive.
Every action you take either adds to the game or subtracts from it. Make the game better with your conduct and others will follow and pull it up. Make it worse and others will follow and we will all sooner or later be wallowing in a cesspool.
Become the person the people you respect would be proud to associate with.
-
I was going to participate when I saw the original writeup.
Excellent! I want you to fly in it! :aok
If you look at the original writeup, you will see that the allied side has been substantially strengthened since then, thanks to feedback from this board.
original: http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules-v1.html
current: http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
Joker, please read the following. I hope to convince you to fly in this, and I hope to show my point of view more clearly.
Brooke, I did not say anything about fans of the game or side prefs for events. I said 'on this board" . . .
I only have two options, though. I can either decide unilaterally or I open it up to all equally (but I can't force people to participate -- so if they choose not to, I can't help that). When I am highly confident of something, I don't open it up to vote. When I'm uncertain, I open it up to vote because I want more input. I'm just doing the best I can, but I realize whatever is decided, there will be some group that thinks it's the wrong way to go.
Then I start reading on this board "B24's are too tough we need them out"
There were never B-24's in this. Some folks did complain about B-17's, but B-17's are still here.
, "109g6 wasn't used that much", etc ,
There likely weren't as many G-6's as G-2's -- so he might be completely correct about that -- but honestly, I don't see that it matters significantly because the G-2 and G-6 are (in the spectrum of planes used here) about the same in effect.
etc ad nauseam all from the same guy .... and he actually gets things changed in his favor.
He asked so far for these things:
-- Many fewer 190A-5's than I had originally.
-- All B-25's and no B-17's or B-26's.
-- More G-2's than G-6's.
-- Smaller active area on terrain.
-- Seafire II's and Spit V's for allies instead of all Spit V's.
-- A-20's having reduced bomb load.
-- Many fewer P-38's.
-- Replacing C.202's with Bf 109F's.
-- Using 190A-5 jabos instead of 190F's.
Of those things, I implemented one (reduction of the 190A's) and put one up to a vote (the G-2/G-6 thing). The other seven were not implemented. The one that I implemented was a change to the disadvantage of the Luftwaffe -- so you have to give him credit there for arguing for it -- and he was right about it.
Does anyone on this board really think that a side with P40's, P39's, SpitV's, and P38G's are going to be at anything other than a huge disadvantage against groups of Bf-109G2's?
The US planes aren't up against just Bf 109G's. There are as many C.202's as there are P-40's and P-39's put together. Also, there is the attack and bomber contingent to consider, bomb load, defensive capabilities of those, and lethality of axis fighters vs. those planes.
Like with many things, various people have different opinions on it. I think it's balanced. You think the US is at a significant disadvantage. ROC thinks the Axis is at a significant disadvantage (which is why he's going axis, he said).
-
Joker, what you seem to not understand is that an event often balances accuracy against playability. There are often elements which skew the event off that balance and I will argue which ever position better achieves that balance. Brooke and I share the fundamental belief that an ideal event will wind up as a draw. Strategy, decision making, and the ability of the players should be the difference between winning and losing. The counter to a balance issue based on historical accuracy will naturally be a concession based on playability - and vice versa. If you cared to see the individual issues being argued over, you would realize that I am not being hypocritical, but attempting to better balance that individual issue. And not every "fix" I propose favors the Axis either. Hence the fewer 190A-5's for Jg 2. A large amount of 190's was both unbalancing and inaccurate based on proportion. Earlier in this thread I was arguing for more P-40's based on that same idea of proportion, but realized that it tipped the scales too much to favor the Axis, and would leave a sizable player gap for the Allies because of planes not being filled. And if I were inclined to fly Allied, I'd choose the SpitV or P-39 because they best fit my flying style and would do so knowing the inherent disadvantages doing so.
The issue for me is that the 12th didn't operate in a vacuum. They were part of the MAAF that included the RAF and commonwealth units. I'm reading a book right now called "Desert Eagles" and time and time again they note RAF and USAAF units working together. So to eliminate the 9 because the 12th didn't get their own for another month denies that the 9 was there. Again, I'm not flying Spits, but I did have a Spit V squadron the last time we had a similar LW plane set and no matter how we flew them the LW birds performance was such that they could dictate the fight. How is that different now? How does that give guys an incentive to take a 39 or 40 or even a Spit V up? I'm asking for four Spit IX that are at least similar in performance to match up against the A5s and be around to provide high cover for the fighter bombers
Guppy, of course the 12th AF did not operate in a vacuum, but it was chosen by Brooke to maintain a consistent theme. He is not trying to have a proportional planeset. He is picking a selection of fighter groups from the 12th that best balances against the Axis - which has been tuned to help dial in that balance better.
But the real issue here is overall playability, and I think the scale as of now is just as Brooke says it is - A small bomber advantage for the Allies and a small fighter advantage for the Axis. I'll restate my issue with the Spit9 in the context of the fighter set balance. As it stands now, every fighter has an element of strength and at least one of weakness. Every plane requires strong pilot skill and discipline to be effective. The Spit9 has no serious drawbacks and an average pilot in one has a far greater chance of success than if he were in any other plane - especially if he were against a Spit9. And let's face it, those few Spit9's will not be filled with just average pilots. As it stands, the fighter set is balanced because each plane's strength plays off another's weakness. It's like boxing, where differences in styles make for better fights - but the Spit9 is like Muhammad Ali - the balance is lost when a fighter can do everything great and with ease.
Furthermore, the slight Axis fighter advantage is needed to balance the total event against the Allied advantage with bombers.
-
they will win the vote
Joker, you didn't vote yet.
-
None of the above.
This:
A. 12th af has 6 spit v and 6 spit ix.
C. Lw has 109 groups that use g2 or g6 as they see fit.
... But with Spit IX's and 109G-2's in pre-determined numbers/percentages to balance gameplay with Spit V's and 109G-6's as the more numerous base models.
-
A/D
-
Lets have another Dneiper or Malta;
A / D
:banana:
-
Joker, what you seem to not understand is that an event often balances accuracy against playability. There are often elements which skew the event off that balance and I will argue which ever position better achieves that balance. Brooke and I share the fundamental belief that an ideal event will wind up as a draw. Strategy, decision making, and the ability of the players should be the difference between winning and losing. The counter to a balance issue based on historical accuracy will naturally be a concession based on playability - and vice versa. If you cared to see the individual issues being argued over, you would realize that I am not being hypocritical, but attempting to better balance that individual issue. And not every "fix" I propose favors the Axis either. Hence the fewer 190A-5's for Jg 2. A large amount of 190's was both unbalancing and inaccurate based on proportion. Earlier in this thread I was arguing for more P-40's based on that same idea of proportion, but realized that it tipped the scales too much to favor the Axis, and would leave a sizable player gap for the Allies because of planes not being filled. And if I were inclined to fly Allied, I'd choose the SpitV or P-39 because they best fit my flying style and would do so knowing the inherent disadvantages doing so.
Guppy, of course the 12th AF did not operate in a vacuum, but it was chosen by Brooke to maintain a consistent theme. He is not trying to have a proportional planeset. He is picking a selection of fighter groups from the 12th that best balances against the Axis - which has been tuned to help dial in that balance better.
But the real issue here is overall playability, and I think the scale as of now is just as Brooke says it is - A small bomber advantage for the Allies and a small fighter advantage for the Axis. I'll restate my issue with the Spit9 in the context of the fighter set balance. As it stands now, every fighter has an element of strength and at least one of weakness. Every plane requires strong pilot skill and discipline to be effective. The Spit9 has no serious drawbacks and an average pilot in one has a far greater chance of success than if he were in any other plane - especially if he were against a Spit9. And let's face it, those few Spit9's will not be filled with just average pilots. As it stands, the fighter set is balanced because each plane's strength plays off another's weakness. It's like boxing, where differences in styles make for better fights - but the Spit9 is like Muhammad Ali - the balance is lost when a fighter can do everything great and with ease.
Furthermore, the slight Axis fighter advantage is needed to balance the total event against the Allied advantage with bombers.
You going to come fly Spit Vs or P40s?
-
4 spit 9s won't make that much of a difference. Maybe they will be a nuisance for a few minutes or so maybe 2 or 3 times in the frame but the majority of the time they will be re fueling or out of position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
A/D.
-
Lets have another Dneiper or Malta;
:noid :furious
-
I can't see joker showing up no matter what anyway, so just let him take his ball and go home.
Clearly reading up on things is too tough for him to do due to his busy schedule. As Brooke pointed out, only one thing has been changed to " help axis".
Also I personally fought for no alt cap to improve the 38's ability to overcome the axis speed advantage it was shot down, but he didn't seem to be backing me up during that time.
PS many things went into Bruv's decision to possibly go axis, like a private squad vote.
-
PS many things went into Bruv's decision to possibly go axis, like a private squad vote.
The real reason: secret Iron Cross tattoo on left buttocks and intense craving for sauerkraut. :noid
-
Brooke, I personally like the design as it now stands (15-Aug). But I don't yet know if I will be available to fly the event. I hope to. :aok
-
Brooke, I personally like the design as it now stands (15-Aug). But I don't yet know if I will be available to fly the event. I hope to. :aok
Thank you, Bino -- and I hope that you can fly in it.
If you are available at any point in the 12-hour period, please do join us. :aok
-
A + D
Brooke my mistake on the B24's, I was just going on memory of the B24's actual use in NA. They began missions some time in '42 so I thought they were this event.
USCH do me favor and look to see in your crystal ball what numbers are going to win mega millions this week or do you only see my future?
I have made my opinion known. Now it's up to the CM's to decide how they want this event to proceed. After they have a finished product I will decide if its worth my time and effort.
I love these events and only want the best for everyone involved.
-
A + D
Brooke my mistake on the B24's, I was just going on memory of the B24's actual use in NA. They began missions some time in '42 so I thought they were this event.
USCH do me favor and look to see in your crystal ball what numbers are going to win mega millions this week or do you only see my future?
I have made my opinion known. Now it's up to the CM's to decide how they want this event to proceed. After they have a finished product I will decide if its worth my time and effort.
I love these events and only want the best for everyone involved.
I used to love these events. They were fine when Brooke and ROC wrote them up with help from the CM Staff. Now we are getting Lobbyists involved. This hasn't always been the norm in our Scenarios but now arguing for or against is the norm. I'd fly them if Brooke or ROC listed kites to fly. But now the input from the community is mostly sarcasm and fanboi side. I've seen good people ridiculed who took the time to put a scenario together because their efforts weren't in the favor of "someones" side.
SOME PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP! Brooke and ROC....or anyone who takes their personal time to design and institute a Scenario deserves better then this.
Rule #1) With the thought Brooke puts into scenarios along with other CMs the plane sets are what they are and will be historically based as close as possible.
Historically the RAF and AAC flew together in the Med. Yes....if you read and I can give you several suggestions SpitIXs did fly in the same theater as the AAC in the Med.
Numbers however differ on how many were used.
I've given up basically on scenarios since Grosse Schlag 2. The participants are now gamers as opposed to those of us who enjoy the history and the virtual reality that can be attained. I don't care to read the logs for what I did. Many of us feel the same. The Gamers have won. I'm out. No big deal.
And Joker I'm with you Bud! You Whels and I have flown many a scenario together in the same squad. He was always my choice for XO. They will never understand and
probably don't wish to. Let those who talk the loudest and longest win. I give up after reading this. BTW I have a huge scenario patch collection. Makes me remember. Pity.
Hajo
-
Now we are getting Lobbyists involved.
MEGA SNIP
Hajo
I normally lobby intensely for a 50/50 split in every aspect for the chance of epic gameplay. But I intend on giving myself a the best chance possible of not only flying a Spit9 to numerous easy kills but also to give the Luftwaffe as little chance possible to fight back at my glorious spit9, like holding a midget at arms length, they can swing, and that's about it. Even though I will be putting myself in the aircraft that is by far the better fighter, I think that I can feel great about myself as I wipe out all before me.
Which is why I voted how I did. Stuff balance, gameplay and fun.. who needs it! Dolby for Spit9!
:banana:
-
I used to love these events. They were fine when Brooke and ROC wrote them up with help from the CM Staff. Now we are getting Lobbyists involved. This hasn't always been the norm in our Scenarios but now arguing for or against is the norm. I'd fly them if Brooke or ROC listed kites to fly. But now the input from the community is mostly sarcasm and fanboi side. I've seen good people ridiculed who took the time to put a scenario together because their efforts weren't in the favor of "someones" side.
SOME PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP! Brooke and ROC....or anyone who takes their personal time to design and institute a Scenario deserves better then this.
Rule #1) With the thought Brooke puts into scenarios along with other CMs the plane sets are what they are and will be historically based as close as possible.
Historically the RAF and AAC flew together in the Med. Yes....if you read and I can give you several suggestions SpitIXs did fly in the same theater as the AAC in the Med.
Numbers however differ on how many were used.
I've given up basically on scenarios since Grosse Schlag 2. The participants are now gamers as opposed to those of us who enjoy the history and the virtual reality that can be attained. I don't care to read the logs for what I did. Many of us feel the same. The Gamers have won. I'm out. No big deal.
And Joker I'm with you Bud! You Whels and I have flown many a scenario together in the same squad. He was always my choice for XO. They will never understand and
probably don't wish to. Let those who talk the loudest and longest win. I give up after reading this. BTW I have a huge scenario patch collection. Makes me remember. Pity.
Hajo
Hajo, I agree with you about the history and getting immersed in the scenario. When I first started flying scenarios, that's what got me hooked was the people getting immersed into the history and the fighter groups. My first full scenario was DGSII, and I've tried to make everyone since. I always get immersed, and the only thing I try to do is make ace status. :salute
-
+1 with Hajo.
This voting(or any voting) and actually this event is doing nothing to foster what was. IMO
-
Hajo.
Please join us for this scenario. I believe that losing guys like you is a loss for all of us.
-
Bug, Zoney thanks. My feelings are this. Brooke does a fine job researching for any scenario. What Brooke feels best is fine with me. The only input he should receive
is from CMs that also have researched. A good book to look at is Air War Over Italy by Andrew Brookes. It starts in Africa. The units were directed by a mix of RAF and
Army Air Corps Commanders and each force had RAF and AAC units. It also included SAAF units. So Brooke initially hit the nail on the head. He got it right first time.
Brooke you do very very well. I don't see any advantage to having others input in these matters. These things usually degenerate into something I dislike. But no matter
I'm just one player. Hold your ground Brooke. You always do a commendable job. Let the players sort it out in the air. Fighting up hill can be fun.
-
Hajo, well said. Your comments are exactly what I have tried to convey without success.
If this gets squared away it would be an honor to fly with you again.
Thankyou.
-
Hajo, well said. Your comments are exactly what I have tried to convey without success.
If this gets squared away it would be an honor to fly with you again.
Thankyou.
I've got a bird for you already Joker :)
-
Hajo Bug all put into words what I've been thinking this whole time. I'm out to have fun and try to experience some of the history that happened at the time. That being said I'm probably flying a P-39 in this event to I'm going to die anyway. But I'm going to have fun with my squad while doing it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Well said, Wayne.
<S>
-
Hajo and Joker, get on in for this one, my friends! :aok
This is just the design process, and the design process is like making sausage -- not what everyone wants to see. ;)
But . . . the end result will be great!
People can skip the making of the sausage and just partake in the delicious final result. :aok
The most-recent scenarios are just as good as the fine scenarios of old. I had a blast flying even Il-2's in Dnieper, and in Southern Conquest, flying Ju 88's was right at the top of bomber fun, second to none, right to the very last seconds of the last frame, with our Ride of the Valkyries down to the beach. It was glorious to behold! :rock
If the final setup here is to your liking -- and I hope and think it will be -- then you can join us for great fun!
Everyone needs you in it!
Yes! :aok :banana:
-
That being said I'm probably flying a P-39 in this event
Man, I would love to be in P-39's with you! That is my top-choice plane in this one.
I'm bringing in a handful of new players, though, and bombers or attack planes are best for them to start out in.
But --
Maybe we will see you charging to our rescue from time to time! :aok
It will be glorious! :banana:
-
Hajo, well said. Your comments are exactly what I have tried to convey without success.
If this gets squared away it would be an honor to fly with you again.
Thankyou.
Joker hey old friend!
I squawk a lot being old and grumpy. I'll probably fly for someone in the scenario allied. I don't wish to lead anymore after the travesty of getting 26 commitments
in a past Scenario and having only 4 show up (Grosse Schlag II). Doesn't matter what the bird is long as it gets airborne.
-
Joker hey old friend!
I squawk a lot being old and grumpy. I'll probably fly for someone in the scenario allied. I don't wish to lead anymore after the travesty of getting 26 commitments
in a past Scenario and having only 4 show up (Grosse Schlag II). Doesn't matter what the bird is long as it gets airborne.
I'm sure we can fit you in a 38G Hajo :) 14th FG that is!
-
Honestly, we have complained and begged and campaigned for some way of providing feedback before a scenario is fixed for years. Even if you don't agree, just saying "do it for me" doesn't work all the time. I applaud the intent to involve people in the process.
That's all I'll say about it. Going back to the "We can't change this because it's already set" and "we don't announce what it is until it's set" would be a bad thing. Relish this. Be part of it. Chime in, and share your opinions on the setup.
-
Hajo Bug all put into words what I've been thinking this whole time. I'm out to have fun and try to experience some of the history that happened at the time. That being said I'm probably flying a P-39 in this event to I'm going to die anyway. But I'm going to have fun with my squad while doing it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Keep in mind the 350th FG 39 skin is for this bird named for his sister.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Eloise1_zpsl7fcqqnd.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Eloise1_zpsl7fcqqnd.jpg.html)
Flown by our old Airwarrior buddy, the late Earl "Dutch" Miller
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Earlinflight_zpsn0staagh.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Earlinflight_zpsn0staagh.jpg.html)
Earl in a 350th 39
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Corsica442_zpso6f4jpdo.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Corsica442_zpso6f4jpdo.jpg.html)
Earl flew Airwarrior with us and used to laugh at us trying to talk about realism etc. He knew it was a game and he approached it as such. His favorite past time was trying to torpedo carriers in an Avenger. Keep in mind this is a guy who earned a Silver Star and DFC flying ground attack in 39s and Jugs over the MTO and up the boot of Italy. He tolerated us well and many of us were lucky to get to meet him and call him a friend. Scenarios were and are the avenue I've found to try and imagine what it was like for guys like Earl and the other vets I've met over the years. The first time the 350th was in a scenario was in Airwarrior flying that lead sled of a Jug the game had. Folks lined up to fly with Earl as we'd talked him into flying in a 350th Jug. I flew cover in Spit Vs for that one as the line for Jugs was too long. He laughed, discoed a couple times and augered. But it was huge fun pretending we knew what his war was like.
Earl Postwar next to his 51. He flew into the Vietnam era finishing up in Skyraiders as an advisor to South Vietnamese pilot. 250 combat missions in WW2 and the same amount in Vietnam dropping Iron bombs.
If for no other reason than Earl, I can never get myself to care about points or who wins or loses a scenario as long as the history is there that allows me to pretend I have a clue on that world of his.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Earl51D2_zpsrlssn794.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Earl51D2_zpsrlssn794.jpg.html)
-
Perfect
Thanks Guppy, that's what it's all about.
-
Keep in mind the 350th FG 39 skin is for this bird named for his sister.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Eloise1_zpsl7fcqqnd.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Eloise1_zpsl7fcqqnd.jpg.html)
Flown by our old Airwarrior buddy, the late Earl "Dutch" Miller
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Earlinflight_zpsn0staagh.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Earlinflight_zpsn0staagh.jpg.html)
Earl in a 350th 39
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Corsica442_zpso6f4jpdo.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Corsica442_zpso6f4jpdo.jpg.html)
Earl flew Airwarrior with us and used to laugh at us trying to talk about realism etc. He knew it was a game and he approached it as such. His favorite past time was trying to torpedo carriers in an Avenger. Keep in mind this is a guy who earned a Silver Star and DFC flying ground attack in 39s and Jugs over the MTO and up the boot of Italy. He tolerated us well and many of us were lucky to get to meet him and call him a friend. Scenarios were and are the avenue I've found to try and imagine what it was like for guys like Earl and the other vets I've met over the years. The first time the 350th was in a scenario was in Airwarrior flying that lead sled of a Jug the game had. Folks lined up to fly with Earl as we'd talked him into flying in a 350th Jug. I flew cover in Spit Vs for that one as the line for Jugs was too long. He laughed, discoed a couple times and augered. But it was huge fun pretending we knew what his war was like.
Earl Postwar next to his 51. He flew into the Vietnam era finishing up in Skyraiders as an advisor to South Vietnamese pilot. 250 combat missions in WW2 and the same amount in Vietnam dropping Iron bombs.
If for no other reason than Earl, I can never get myself to care about points or who wins or loses a scenario as long as the history is there that allows me to pretend I have a clue on that world of his.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Earl51D2_zpsrlssn794.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/12th%20Air%20Force%20Scenario/Earl51D2_zpsrlssn794.jpg.html)
Outstanding!
I believe Earl was at the 2K AW con am I correct? Along with Bud Anderson. I admired Earls "Who me?" attitude. He was a humble hero...although I don't think he would
say he was a hero. I know my father wouldn't. That's just how men of their ilk were.
-
I'm sure we can fit you in a 38G Hajo :) 14th FG that is!
Thank you Sir! Count me in! Appreciate the invite.
-
Great stuff there, Guppy. :aok
-
Krusty!
Are you going to fly in it? I hope so -- that would be great!
Here's you protecting my lone Ju 88 with one engine out on the way out of a target area in Tunisia 2009. <S>!
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/pics/frame2/018-thanksKrusy-Image-0035.jpg)
-
Nice Guppy. That IS what it is all about. :salute
-
Common tactic, bring up the real war to deflect any argument.
:rolleyes:
/endless "this is what its about guys" comments
-
Common tactic, bring up the real war to deflect any argument.
:rolleyes:
/endless "this is what its about guys" comments
Could be I did it just to get a rise out of you? :aok
-
Could be I did it just to get a rise out of you? :aok
It worked! :bolt:
And Herr Stampf! <S> to you Sir. I wish these gents experienced flying with JG/11. I think those that don't like the History would surely change their minds!
-
Common tactic, bring up the real war to deflect any argument.
:rolleyes:
/endless "this is what its about guys" comments
I'm the one that said that. I assure you sir that my intention was not to deflect from the discussions on the scenario set up.
Scenario's are special and they provide a way for many players to learn the history of the engagement. I love the immersion this game can provide and appreciate those who can give me the history, especially from a personal level from those who fought in the real war, and sometimes died during the fight.
JG11, especially because of what Stampf brings, has given me the positive experience that keeps me addicted here. I wish everyone could have that experience.
-
Krusty!
Are you going to fly in it? I hope so -- that would be great!
Here's you protecting my lone Ju 88 with one engine out on the way out of a target area in Tunisia 2009. <S>!
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/pics/frame2/018-thanksKrusy-Image-0035.jpg)
I still have screenshots and film of that (film won't play properly by now, though).
No promises, but I'm going to "try" to devote a little time to try and get back into AH once AH3 drops. I have the flight capability of a perforated brick at the moment. Will have to see how it goes.
-
I'm the one that said that. I assure you sir that my intention was not to deflect from the discussions on the scenario set up.
Scenario's are special and they provide a way for many players to learn the history of the engagement. I love the immersion this game can provide and appreciate those who can give me the history, especially from a personal level from those who fought in the real war, and sometimes died during the fight.
JG11, especially because of what Stampf brings, has given me the positive experience that keeps me addicted here. I wish everyone could have that experience.
It worked! :bolt:
And Herr Stampf! <S> to you Sir. I wish these gents experienced flying with JG/11. I think those that don't like the History would surely change their minds!
(S)
-
In 1943 the USAAFa member of Northwest African Air Forces. A consortium of RAF and USAAF Command and units. Each air force had a squad or squadrons in the same command led
by either or. As a matter of fact the entire theater was under the Command of Sid Arthur Tedder. He had under his command Generals of RAF, USAAF SAAF various air forces the led by a mix of Groups
and Squadrons listed under such units as Northwest African Air forces. Strategic Air Force, Tactical Air Force, XII Air Support Command. The list goes on. A mix of RAF, USAAF, and SAAF.
Even RAF Wellingtons were in theater. Interesting, A36s were flown also.
-
Balance.
I'm going to take one final pass at this.
Starting fields.
Allied Order of Battle.
Aircraft are enabled at a5 (Bone), a65 (Youkes les Bains), and a13 (Constantine). Also, fighters and attack aircraft are enabled at v95 -- note that takeoffs from there can be tricky.
Allies have A13, a field that is never near an active target
Axis Order of Battle.
Aircraft are enabled at a1 (Tunis), a66 (Bizerte), and a7 (Sousse)
Axis have no fields that are not targets, or in one frame A66 is a fraction of a sector away from an active target, so they are perpetually attacked and the attacking forces can instantly cap.
Balanced Field Locations?
Target areas are widely spaced, not concentrated. In a focused, targeted set up, you set the battle conditions to a limited style, forcing the teams to fight head to head, and concentrate their defense at the same time.
In a wider field of battle, you allow for several possibilities. One side can pile everything then have into a single flight, and push through like a wrecking ball. The design suggests that there is much to cover and defend, and if one side opts to go in as a single wing, it will walk over the fragmented forces it meets on the way. If both sides go for the wrecking ball approach, it is in each sides favor to avoid the fight and just race track a path of destruction over targets. Fight avoided, not much fun. If the sides were to engage, it's a great deal of fun, except when each side has the same amount of fighters and bombers, but one side has an overwhelming advantage in the guns those bombers have. Put a formation of B17s and Allied Bombers against a formation of JU88s and notice a bit of a coverage gap.
Unbalanced.
Now consider that the B17s et al are so well gunned that the Allies can afford to strip off more fighters from defense and put them on Attack. They can now put a few more out to hunt the Axis bombers, letting the Allied bombers more easily get by with fewer escorts, tipping the fights balance yet again. The Axis now have to put more fighters on the escort duty for the 88s leaving fewer fighters to defend their fields, putting the stronger 17s over the target with escorts and guns. Chances of hitting the target are greater.
Brooke, I've been harping on counting stuff like this for years, you know I do, why don't you see this?
Concentrate the fight to closer targets, force the fight to be head to head and make them fight their way through to the target without providing the ability for one side to take advantage of breaking their flights apart while breaking the flights limits the other side. Get rid of the free ride air field for the Allies and make their launch fields under attack and perpetually capped just like the Axis fields are. And don't just count bombs but count ordinance and make sure each side has the same chance to get to their targets and defend themselves. Then, if you can't make the JU88s as self sufficient at the B17s, you put more guns around them, not draft a design that effectively strips them away.
This isn't a complaint about the Axis, this is pointing out balance, I don't care which side it is. There is more to this than counting bombs and counting objects, you need to move out of the calculations and get into a full visualization of the event and fly it in your mind. It is not balanced so that each side has the same opportunity to succeed. You can have an advantage to the Allies, but there has to be a corresponding advantage the Axis also have to exploit. Each side is supposed to have an obstacle to overcome and an exploit to make it happen. One side here does not have an exploit. Each condition, wrecking ball approach, divide and conquer, heavy escort with stealthy attack runs, each plays to the strength of one side. You provided no advantage to the Axis to cause the Allies to consider that they have a problem to solve.
The Axis have every launch field capped by the target objectives. The Allies have an open field. The Allies can take advantage of an open field because the Axis must strip pilots from the target fields in order to cap 13. The Allies never have to strip fighters from the objectives because all of the Axis fields are within the target areas or targets themselves.
The Allies have a better ability to self defend their bombers by the gun configurations, meaning they have more guns on the enemy, but the bomber and fighter allocations are exactly the same. The 88s do not have the field of fire the Allied planes have, so they must place more escorts on the bombers to gain the same level of defense. In a B17 you have virtually a wall of defense around the entire plane with one person. In a JU88 you need an escort to help cover the same area. You have to consider this stuff when you design an event. You have to fly every plane, in every mission. You know this, and I know for a fact you have not done it with this one. I've seen your work for 20 years, this is not what you know how to do.
What exactly is the Axis advantage the Allies need to attempt to overcome? Now, you know me, I've already flown this event mentally from both sides, planned missions, how would I beat the Allies, how would I beat the Axis, you know I have. It's not ready.
Set the objectives up for each side so that it takes advantage of their strengths. Put objectives at locations that breaks up the advantage the Allies have in bomber defensive capability so that if they chose to capitalize on their strength, it costs them the ability to hit all of the targets, make each work for their successes, but also reward them and allow them to actually have an advantage that causes the other side to sacrifice one of their strengths to over come it.
I'm also going to ask you one more question, and you know I already know the answer. The flight time between launches and attacks. Did you look at launch, battle, return home, and does it fit into the one hour launch window? Sure would suck to get back to base an hour and 10 minutes after you launch. Would be so much better to be back, round trip, including time in fight, in say, 50 minutes so there is time to refill coffee and snack trays. You need to consider it's 12 hours, 5 minute launch window on the hour, just make sure you are giving them time to refresh each hour, some might make it 2 or 3 missions but the window for refreshing has to be there. Pace it, you have a long day ahead of you, so do they.
At this point, I know how I'd plan the Axis attack and in order to win, not simply be fodder for 12 hours and "hang in there, be tough Axis, we know you can do it", it would not be a head to head engagement and that simply wouldn't be any fun for anyone.
-
:aok
ROC
-
Allies have A13...
I have never in any scenario seen 3 fields capped at the same time and didn't think the allies would end up using a13, but it's a valid point -- no reason not to make things symmetric nonetheless.
I'll add a64 as an axis field that won't be a target. That is roughly symmetric with a13.
[discussion of focus of battle]
I agree that a large playing area can lead to diffuse fights, sneaking around, and not much fun. Because of that, the combat area in this one is 1/4 the area of most past scenarios and intended to have players/area the same as Dnieper and Southern Conquest, Frame 1. It is intended to be much higher in players/area than most past scenarios. It also has radar for planes above 1000 ft, and level bombers have only 3 best land targets. If I focused it any more, I fear it would be too tight. I would focus it slightly more for attackers (which will almost certainly be trying to sneak around -- just like in the real Tunisia), but subtracting targets for them in my opinion wouldn't change that dynamic significantly (because bases are somewhat clumped up, not evenly distributed), and removing bases runs me into problems balancing number of available attack ground objects on each side (which currently is nearly exactly equal) as well as balanced geographical availability of targets. So, either way has its issues. I went one way -- but I also increased the base flash distance significantly compared to Dnieper as a counter to that.
I think it will be decently focused -- but please see question in a 2nd post below in this topic.
[discussion of bombers]
-- The axis has a better fighter set.
-- Ju 88's aren't as bad in defense as most people think, especially compared to B-25's.
-- The axis bombers have a significant advantage in amount of ord carried.
-- The axis bombers are all the same and don't suffer the problems the allies have if they want bombers grouped together.
-- If the axis and allies had the same level-bomber set, I think it would be significantly unbalanced.
Currently, some folks think the axis has the advantage because of fighters. Some folks think the allies have the advantage because of bombers. I think it's in between. Of course, I hope I'm the one who is right. :aok
[counting, thinking, modelling the battle in one's head, etc.]
Yep, I did count lots of things, and I did my thinking about how the battle would go. If we disagree, it isn't because I didn't. It's because we have different judgements.
The flight time between launches and attacks. Did you look at launch, battle, return home, and does it fit into the one hour launch window?
Yep. Some will fit. Some won't (depending on what folks choose to do). Unless folks want this scenario to be in a 3x3 sector square, that's going to be part of people's planning and choices. It's rare that scenarios are in that small an area (Dnieper and Southern Conquest, Frame 1 being rare exceptions). The distances here are less than TFT, which folks liked, so I think it will be OK.
I know how I'd plan the Axis attack
I'm glad that you think you can win. I think that you can, too. (I also think that the allies can win, as I think it will depend on execution and plans.) I'm sorry you think it will entail a boring strategy, but I think there will be decent action.
-
Version 9 up -- refresh browser to get latest version:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
Folks involved in thinking about strategies, please check out change log for v8 and v9.
-
ROC, do you feel that any of the phase 1-4 layouts are sufficiently focused?
-
Brooke,
I am not so sure this rule should be so stringent.
In phases 1 and 4, each level-bomber group and attack group must Attempt at least one bombing mission to enemy ships if any are left.
Shouldn't this read "In phases 1 and 4, a level-bomber and attack group"?
The way the rule is written "ALL" level bombers and attack groups must attack ships. That seems a bit much when there are other targets to to consider in the same phase.
-
My intent with that was that every bomber and attack pilot would get at least two missions to ships out of the whole event.
-
Here's what I'm going to do, though.
No one has said that they think the layout of targets is too restricted, but ROC feels they are too spread out, and Red, you, too, think so once ships are included.
I'm going to rework the targets and see what you guys think.
-
I have never in any scenario seen 3 fields capped at the same time and didn't think the allies would end up using a13, but it's a valid point -- no reason not to make things symmetric nonetheless.
Umm, we did it in Dnieper :) Last event, you helped cap one of them. Had the two forward fields capped and the rear ward field monitored and caught the attack group heading out, and that was done without the fields being the actual targets.
Never underestimate the creativity of the players. If you didn't think they would use it, it shouldn't have been in, these crafty buggers will use whatever is available in ways you can't imagine :) That's why I try to push the potential to the extremes to see what can be done and ignore the intent. Intent is irrelevant, you are building the board, they are going to play the game their way. Every possible use, combination, exploitable advantage and weakness needs to be looked at and considered, as much as possible. The players will find them, and your intent will be tossed :)
If we disagree, it isn't because I didn't. It's because we have different judgements.
We do, I offered mine, it's your show :) Thanks for considering the concerns.
-
Thanks for considering the concerns.
Thanks to you, as well, ROC. I do very much appreciate all the feedback you have given. Even if I have a different opinion on something, I do not preclude the possibility that I am wrong, and I do my best to re-examine and consider. In the case of targets and focus of battle, I am going to rework things and see what you think.
-
In the case of targets and focus of battle, I am going to rework things and see what you think.
I've given you plenty to think about and re-consider, and at this point, getting my stamp of approval may be seen as swaying the design. That isn't my intention, to sway in either direction. So, I've had my say, you know your design, know what kind of balance I think is important and in your view you will balance it. I won't be commenting further on the design, you know I'm going to fly Axis, my input is over.
:salute
-
We can't preclude swaying of design unless we eliminate discussion -- but input here is valuable even so.
I hope that you will still give your opinion and not be deterred -- and thank you very much for your input so far. :aok
-
Version 10 up. Hit refresh to make sure you get it.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
See change log for the changes.
The combat area is now about 4x3 sectors, and some launch locations have been moved closer in. I am confident that this event will have plenty of action. :aok
-
I am confident you are doing everything you can to make this event fun.
-
Balance. Can we discuss this? If we are manufacturing "balance" we are fudging with History. If there was a historical imbalance why are we trying to fix it?
Aren't these supposed to be historic reenactments of what really occurred? I know I know to make it fun! Many of us can have fun fighting on the supposed under dogs' side.
For instance. In game during scenarios such as 8th air Corps missions to Europe even though the Allies eventually won, the Allied fighters and Bombers had a big disability.
Consider allied escorts. If they went down, or bailed and were captured they were out. Even with two lives it is hit and miss you could re up and be of service to the bombers.
However with two lives, or landing the LW had a distinct advantage being able to up, over their territory and engage what was left of the allied bomber streams with fewer escorts.
Playing DGS taught the allied pilots this very important fact. That is what I appreciate most. I learned what it was like to be an escort. Losing a plane made me useless
as an escort to the Bombers and escorts that were left. Maybe there was a chance to get up and rendezvous with what was left on their way home. One chance in 10 maybe.
From a historical point of view at least for a few of us leave it real. Numbers, types of aircrafts, targets etc. Screw the numbers, forget the balance in aircraft and targets. Use what was really there.
Probably said to much. My last word on the matter.
-
Balance. Can we discuss this? If we are manufacturing "balance" we are fudging with History. If there was a historical imbalance why are we trying to fix it?
Aren't these supposed to be historic reenactments of what really occurred? I know I know to make it fun! Many of us can have fun fighting on the supposed under dogs' side.
No, these are not reenactments. If they were, there would be no alteration from that of the outcome history gave us. These are supposed to be balanced fights centred around a great battle from history, in which either side has the equal opportunity of victory.
If you think about it carefully, you may realise that reenacting history in the absolute would in turn cause a forgone conclusion situation in which it would be very difficult to put pilots in the "underdog" side. Luftwaffe had a very difficult time at the Dneiper. It was only pure passion that kept pilots in it with many many slots filled up by walk ons.
-
Hajo, every event I've ever designed or oversaw since the mid 90s has been given a major amount of time to insure balance. It isn't about recreating a battle, it's always been about giving each side a chance to win with as close to historical terrain and aircraft as possible.
My focus on balance this time is seen simply because I'm not behind the CM door having this exact same discussion with the CM team when designs are proposed, each time one is proposed. These conversations occur, it's just that most of you have never seen them.
-
Brooke,
Version 10 of the write up encourages the high altitude fights that we were seeking to avoid. Launching fighters first with more time to climb to the more advantageous altitude for attacking other fighters.
In addition the Luftwaffe has much less time to recover in defense of it targets than the Allies do. That is not closer to balance that is farther away.
This is easily seen as US bases are spread between two sections of latitude lines where the Axis bases are set between one set of latitude lines. There should be some kind of adjustment for the base spread. I understand that you have activated some fighters and V47, but that doesn't get it. There is no rearm pad there.
-
Brooke,
Version 10 of the write up encourages the high altitude fights that we were seeking to avoid. Launching fighters first with more time to climb to the more advantageous altitude for attacking other fighters.
In addition the Luftwaffe has much less time to recover in defense of it targets than the Allies do. That is not closer to balance that is farther away.
This is easily seen as US bases are spread between two sections of latitude lines where the Axis bases are set between one set of latitude lines. There should be some kind of adjustment for the base spread. I understand that you have activated some fighters and V47, but that doesn't get it. There is no rearm pad there.
I'm not sure about your first point, he have a 22K downdraft and a bomber cap of 15K (although wasn't the downdraft set for 20K in earlier drafts? If so, I recommend changing it back)
I see what you mean about V47 being isolated, but the Allies have A6 to rearm at from their offensive ops, which gives them a huge advantage in a quick turn-around with attackers. Axis attackers have to go all the way back to their starting areas to rearm. Maybe outlawing rearms from A-6 and A-12 can bring a better balance?
Also, the distances in the southern V-base targets in Phase 3 is problematic for the Allies. V105 is much closer to A8 for the Axis to defend and V104 is also much closer to A8 for the Axis target than the V104 defense and V105 attack is to A65 for the Allies.
Here's a map with colored rings scales with a A65 center and distances out to V45 (blue), V104 (yellow), and V105 (red). These same distances are also shown with a center point of A8 to illustrate the disparity.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Frame%203%20target%20map_zps0egyi2cf.jpg~original) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/Frame%203%20target%20map_zps0egyi2cf.jpg.html)
I propose changing V104 to an Axis held base and make it the attack target target for the Allies and change the Axis target to V45. The distances involved would be much more balanced here.
-
Guys, you have points, but because of a larger issue that requires changes, the things you mention will be different as well.
I have the AH3 version of Tunisia, and while it is nearly the same as the AH2 version (although even more beautiful! Woohoooo! :aok ), a6 is too close to the axis positions to use the way it was planned before. It is closer to axis launch positions than allied launch positions. If I kept it the way it was, it would be impossible to defend; and I can't make it a launch base for the allies or the whole fight would become a battle in a teacup, which is totally ahistorical for North Africa.
So, I am altering things and will post a new version soon.
-
Swareiam, Devil505, it's good to see others looking at the balance concerns on more than simply the plane match up. 12 hours is a long time, 5 to 10 minutes farther away from targets, over the course of hours, can mean the difference between an additional sortie occurring for one side. This is the balance I've been asking to be looked at, these things matter, greatly. Swareiam, these are the things I was trying to point you to when I was being so hard on you about your designs, I am so glad you noticed the distances as a factor.
Not for nothing, Nef did measure, with incredible detail, field locations, and factored speed of the planes into the balance of the distance to targets. Brooke, it's a great deal of work, trust me, I know, and I think you are starting to see the implications of choices. Keep it up, you got this. Make sure the same amount of sorties can be achieved by both sides in the same time frame. If one side has faster planes, the targets are farther. You're on the right course in my opinion, but that's simply my opinion of course.
-
Version 11 is now up. Please make sure to hit refresh in your browser to see it:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
This is an important change. It is now (in rough terms) three clusters of target locations on each side. All of this stems from a seemingly small change that set off a chain of needed modifications. (See below if you are interested in what that was.)
Anyway, after a lot of looking at different arrangements, thinking about the balance of it, and calculation of different choices, I picked what is in v11.
Please take a look, folks. :aok
---- for those interested in what the chain of events was ----
In the AH3 terrain, airfield (a6) became closer to axis launch points than to allied launch points, and there was no way for me to give allies a closer launch point without putting it right on top of the axis positions (which is not how North Africa generally was). That meant removing a6 as a target. But a6 was only one of 3 town locations for the allies, leaving 2. Only 2 land targets for level bombers for 12 hours would be boring, so I had to add non-town targets for level bombers (hangars and bunkers). That then required a new balancing of target numbers and availability side to side, which entailed some target location changes. This is all complicated by the fact that the terrain does not provide the same numbers and distribution of bases on each side. For example, the allied side has only two airfields (large and med) and lots of vbases. The axis side has no large or med airfields, lots of small airfields, one port, and many fewer vbases. All of these have different numbers of hangars and bunkers. And they aren't arranged symmetrically one side to the other either, as this is a real-world map, not a made-up arena. You have to then pick what you think is the most-balance mix from what's available.
-
Version 11 is now up. Please make sure to hit refresh in your browser to see it:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
This is an important change. It is now (in rough terms) three clusters of target locations on each side. All of this stems from a seemingly small change that set off a chain of needed modifications. (See below if you are interested in what that was.)
Anyway, after a lot of looking at different arrangements, thinking about the balance of it, and calculation of different choices, I picked what is in v11.
Please take a look, folks. :aok
---- for those interested in what the chain of events was ----
In the AH3 terrain, airfield (a6) became closer to axis launch points than to allied launch points, and there was no way for me to give allies a closer launch point without putting it right on top of the axis positions (which is not how North Africa generally was). That meant removing a6 as a target. But a6 was only one of 3 town locations for the allies, leaving 2. Only 2 land targets for level bombers for 12 hours would be boring, so I had to add non-town targets for level bombers (hangars and bunkers). That then required a new balancing of target numbers and availability side to side, which entailed some target location changes. This is all complicated by the fact that the terrain does not provide the same numbers and distribution of bases on each side. For example, the allied side has only two airfields (large and med) and lots of vbases. The axis side has no large or med airfields, lots of small airfields, one port, and many fewer vbases. All of these have different numbers of hangars and bunkers. And they aren't arranged symmetrically one side to the other either, as this is a real-world map, not a made-up arena. You have to then pick what you think is the most-balance mix from what's available.
Brooke,
Why V47 and not V95? The Allies can up from V47 but then must leave the airspace to rearm. Can we do V95 which aligns with the latitude of the other bases and is adjacent to quicker rearm potential?
-
Having v95 instead of v47 would be a significant disadvantage to the allies. You would lose a useful forward launch position (especially with regard to Kasserine) to gain a rear position that is not the closest field to anything. I think that v95 would be used only if a5 were capped, and in that event, v95 is a little close to the cap for comfort -- I would think v47 or a13 would be a better choice to launch from if a5 were capped.
Rearm potential only matters relative to where you are fighting, not your launch position. If you were fighting over a12, say, then it only matters where the closest open rearm pad is, not whether you launched from v47 or v95.
-
By the way, folks, rearm distribution is significantly different side to side.
Unfortunately, I can't disable rearm as a way to make it more equal.
I could put in rules allowing rearm at only certain locations. I've been tempted to do that. My hesitancy is that player-enforced rules like this one have significant risk of generating a lot of acrimony.
Still, I'm considering it.
-
All true, but V47 is target in three phases without the Allies having close rearm capability. To continuously defend it, you would need to die and relaunch from V47 after it is already being attacked.
If a pilot is putting up a good kill streak but also wants to keep the defense up at the Vbase, he needs to fly 15-20 miles NW or SW to rearm and of course the trip back to V47. A clear disadvantage for the Allies.
-
By the way, folks, rearm distribution is significantly different side to side.
Unfortunately, I can't disable rearm as a way to make it more equal.
I could put in rules allowing rearm at only certain locations. I've been tempted to do that. My hesitancy is that player-enforced rules like this one have significant risk of generating a lot of acrimony.
Still, I'm considering it.
Brooke, the biggest problem with unrestricted rearms is the proximity of A6 to the Axis fields - it's way too close. It frees up Allied assets to cap Axis fields for a longer duration when the Axis has no potential of matching this ability. All take-offs and rearms must take place in the rear areas for overall balance.
All true, but V47 is target in three phases without the Allies having close rearm capability. To continuously defend it, you would need to die and relaunch from V47 after it is already being attacked.
If a pilot is putting up a good kill streak but also wants to keep the defense up at the Vbase, he needs to fly 15-20 miles NW or SW to rearm and of course the trip back to V47. A clear disadvantage for the Allies.
I agree. V47 is utilized too often as an Axis target. Maintaining an adequate defense of a forward base so often is unreasonable to ask from the Allies considering the general proximity of the Axis fields to their defensive objectives.
-
All true, but V47 is target in three phases without the Allies having close rearm capability. To continuously defend it, you would need to die and relaunch from V47 after it is already being attacked.
If a pilot is putting up a good kill streak but also wants to keep the defense up at the Vbase, he needs to fly 15-20 miles NW or SW to rearm and of course the trip back to V47. A clear disadvantage for the Allies.
If v47 is under attack, you don't want to be launching from it while it is under attack. v47 is closer to allied launch points and allied rearm points than it is from axis launch points and axis rearm points. So, that is OK -- but . . .
I do think it will be best to specify rearm points to even this up.
Details coming soon.
-
Brooke, the biggest problem with unrestricted rearms is the proximity of A6 to the Axis fields
That's one of them, too.
I am going to specify rearm fields to make it more alike side to side.
Details coming soon.
-
Here is the only way I see to make it equal. If we don't do this, a6 remains an enormous advantage in the north, a12 remains an enormous advantage in the middle, and a8 remains a moderate advantage in the south.
Allies can rearm at only a5 and a65 (and a69 as a backup).
Axis can rearm at only a66 and a7 (and a64 as a backup).
If I do that, each side's rearms are:
-- Equal in number.
-- About the same distance from their targets that they have to defend.
-- a66 to a12/v106 approximately equals a5 to v47/v99.
-- a7 to v105 approximately equals a65 to v104.
-- About the same distance from their targets that they need to attack.
-- a66 to v47/v99 approx. equals a5 to a12/v106.
-- a7 to v104 approx. equals a65 to v105.
These rearms are a ways out, but there aren't alternatives I see. Also, if a launch window is coming up, folks can land somewhere, exit, and launch in the next launch window.
-
Would it just be easier to make it so that rearms are only allowed at active airfields?
I say this because that is effectively the case for the Allies but not the Axis based on your proposal. The Axis can launch from A108 or 107 but only rearm at 107. This leads to disproportionally long flight times to rearm after an attack to A95.
-
Here is the only way I see to make it equal. If we don't do this, a6 remains an enormous advantage in the north, a12 remains an enormous advantage in the middle, and a8 remains a moderate advantage in the south.
Allies can rearm at only a5 and a65 (and a69 as a backup).
Axis can rearm at only a66 and a7 (and a64 as a backup).
If I do that, each side's rearms are:
-- Equal in number.
-- About the same distance from their targets that they have to defend.
-- a66 to a12/v106 approximately equals a5 to v47/v99.
-- a7 to v105 approximately equals a65 to v104.
-- About the same distance from their targets that they need to attack.
-- a66 to v47/v99 approx. equals a5 to a12/v106.
-- a7 to v104 approx. equals a65 to v105.
These rearms are a ways out, but there aren't alternatives I see. Also, if a launch window is coming up, folks can land somewhere, exit, and launch in the next launch window.
This suggestion probably won't be appreciated but here goes anyway.
We've anticipated this problem in the AvA. You can block the offending rearm pads with factory building #23 installed by your terrain team. It actually looks very believable but I can't post an image in here. Set the building as barrier to keep anyone from blowing it up and getting through.
When your event is over, remove them. No log based penalties or player enforced rule.
:cheers:
-
Would it just be easier to make it so that rearms are only allowed at active airfields?
I say this because that is effectively the case for the Allies but not the Axis based on your proposal. The Axis can launch from A108 or 107 but only rearm at 107. This leads to disproportionally long flight times to rearm after an attack to A95.
You mean a7 and a8, correct?
I can't have a8 be the rearm or it is closer to Kasserine than a65.
For the Kasserine battle, I figure that it will be the allies launching from v47 and the allies launching from a8 -- both similar in distance to Kasserine. Then, the allies can't rearm at v47 -- they have to go back to a65 to rearm. To make it even, the axis rearm needs to be a7, not a8. a8 for launch, a7 for rearm = v47 for launch and a65 for rearm.
-
You mean a7 and a8, correct?
I can't have a8 be the rearm or it is closer to Kasserine than a65.
For the Kasserine battle, I figure that it will be the allies launching from v47 and the allies launching from a8 -- both similar in distance to Kasserine. Then, the allies can't rearm at v47 -- they have to go back to a65 to rearm. To make it even, the axis rearm needs to be a7, not a8. a8 for launch, a7 for rearm = v47 for launch and a65 for rearm.
Yes I means A7 and A8. I also meant A65 and not 95. :bhead
Brooke, Kasserine is just one phase of 4 and A65 and A8 are targets for every phase. The relative travel distance discrepancy is almost 20 miles less for the Allies. No single phase exists in a vacuum. You can't set up a focus on one aspect of balance and ignore all the other imbalances it created and call it even - it's not. The only way to balance the Kasserine targets and maintain the overall balance is to ensure that the flight times/ distances are as close to even as possible. The map I made illustrates how far off the Kasserine battle is - and those distances did not change in AH3. It is clear that your choice to have 4 total Vbase targets down south will not work. You need to pick 2: V45 for the Axis to hit and either V104 or V46 for the Allies, while having A8 being available to the Axis to launch and rearm.
-
pick 2: V45 for the Axis to hit and either V104 or V46 for the Allies, while having A8 being available to the Axis to launch and rearm.
That's a pretty good idea, and it gets me thinking.
I want to do what I can to make the Kasserine phase be attractive to fighting at Kasserine, especially for attack planes because they did a lot of sorties at Kasserine -- to make that phase fun and historical.
I think we can accomplish that by this method. Keep the maps as they are for phases 1, 2, and 4 with axis having a8 and a66 as rearm pads (i.e., the closer rearm). For phase 3, make the closer a8 a launch point, but the farther a7 as the rearm pad and the allied target (no longer having a8 as the allied target). That balances everything for all phases, I think.
-
Why not keep it simple and allow no rearms. This would solve a balance issue and make it less complicated to control.
-
We need rearms, but how are you going to enforce rearms at some bases and not at others?
-
Re-arms at active bases yet let us tower out at any friendly field....
-
We need rearms
Why?
-
Why?
Dolby,
Essentially, because there are some players that like the challenge of staying alive as long as they can in the same plane. It adds a more immersive feel to these events. You don't really want to take that away from players. We shouldn't want an event design where there is no possibility of not allowing flight in the same plane for the full event, if possible.
Towering to transition to another mission or sub-campaign is one thing, but killing the ability to rearm and reengage the enemy should persist throughout the event where we can allow .
Yes, it is certainly one of those areas that doesn't get much thought or attention by designers. But now that we are considering it, we should certainly keep this ability in play if it will not detract from the theme of the event.
What do you think?
-
Just to add on, IIRC some players in TFT flew the same plane 6-7 hours into the event. I remember one pilot said he flew to a rear field and taxied to a hanger and went to eat dinner just leaving his plane there.
As a bomber pilot I sometimes see this rearm thing as silly but whatever floats the boat.
-
I'm not sure some will use rearms all that much, actually, like Dolby brings up.
But it doesn't hurt to have them in that case. Also, bombers and attack aircraft and some fighters might welcome the ability for reasons I talk about below.
The reason I don't think some will use them is that the extra waiting for launch window and the extra time to get all the way back to a rearm will in a lot of cases be similar. Consider if launching, climbing to alt, flying out to a combat area takes 20 minutes, patrolling 10 more, and getting in some fights for maybe 10 more minutes -- that all ads up to 40 minutes. You can land quickly, wait a little, and relaunch with a fresh plane in 20 more minutes. Or, you can fly farther back to a rearm pad, rearm (maybe 15 minutes to get there and rearm) and maybe be farther away from the action than one of the relaunch bases (maybe another 5 minutes out in comparison). In that case, it's a wash.
However, there might be folks who go past the 1 hour mark -- longer bomber escorts, longer bomber missions, longer attack missions, what have you. For those folks, getting back to anything they can land at might not be T+40 to T+60. If it's, say, T+1 or T+20, they would likely want to rearm.
So, while I think not everyone will be using rearms, it doesn't hurt, and there might be some folks (depending on mission profile) who would welcome rearm ability.
-
We need rearms, but how are you going to enforce rearms at some bases and not at others?
It will have to be player enforced -- I have no way to turn off rearm ability at bases.
-
It will require checking the logs I image to ensure any infractions are seen.
-
It will require checking the logs I image to ensure any infractions are seen.
At which point, in my honest opinion means we're getting way....way to nit-picky with the rules.
-
At which point, in my honest opinion means we're getting way....way to nit-picky with the rules.
Generally, I'd agree, but not in this case. Unrestricted rearming poses some major balance issues and the complete elimination of rearming creates a serious overall problem to the event. A rule for restricted rearm fields is needed, but the only way to enforce it is to examine the logs and doc points for any violations - so we bite the bullet and put in a rule that brings the balance.
-
At which point, in my honest opinion means we're getting way....way to nit-picky with the rules.
I like the way this man thinks! :aok
I am in your camp on that, Beefcake. I *really* prefer setups where whatever rules you have are enforced by the settings, so people don't even have to keep them in mind (like the 22k downwind, no bombs on this or that type of plane, etc.).
But I think Devil's reasoning is right on this one, and we should still do it (even though it has the downside of potential hassles).
My hope is that folks will be fine with it since they are used to landing and rearm restrictions in various events in the past.
-
Dolby,
Essentially, because there are some players that like the challenge of staying alive as long as they can in the same plane. It adds a more immersive feel to these events. You don't really want to take that away from players. We shouldn't want an event design where there is no possibility of not allowing flight in the same plane for the full event, if possible.
Towering to transition to another mission or sub-campaign is one thing, but killing the ability to rearm and reengage the enemy should persist throughout the event where we can allow .
Yes, it is certainly one of those areas that doesn't get much thought or attention by designers. But now that we are considering it, we should certainly keep this ability in play if it will not detract from the theme of the event.
What do you think?
Rearming adds no immersion. In fact, without having an animated crew come out and take a good look around, fill her up, and open all the hatches to fully rearm, it's a pretty crappy game experience. If you wanted me to put a better name or names on rearming in AcesHigh I'd call it arcadey and unrealistic. As such you wont find me often on the rearm pad, because I crave immersion, our rearm pads take away any and all immersion of rearming an aircraft. That is what I think.
-
Re-arms at active bases yet let us tower out at any friendly field....
This is a good solution so long as the aircraft is lost landing at an inactive field.
-
I guess this is my reasoning, first of all I don't want the guys who have to score the event to spend a week combing over the logs for every single time someone rearms at the wrong base. Granted I could/am usually wrong but I see this as a minor issue compared the event as a whole. As a bomber GL the rearms don't concern me as I have to RTB to replane anyway, but if it causes a great imbalance then I agree something might have to be done.
What worries me is every time we have nit-picky rules it almost always leads to arguments which can mar an event in the end.
Unless something happens I expect to be GLing the B25's in the event. While everyone is worrying about upgrading to G6s or Spit 9s, and where to rearm, I'm worried about how badly my squadron might get slaughtered during the event and how many pilots I might lose. I worry about how I as a GL can ensure the pilots under my command have a good time and don't leave out of frustration. I do want to win, but I want to have fun overall.
-
Brooke, you have requirements for 2 bomber sorties or missions to be flown against a target. If a bomber rearms, they lose drones. You are not requiring formations in your write up.
If you are requiring formations, rearming will lose the drones and can't count as a required mission. If you are not requiring formations, then it doesn't matter.
Which way are you going with this?
-
Rearming adds no immersion. In fact, without having an animated crew come out and take a good look around, fill her up, and open all the hatches to fully rearm, it's a pretty crappy game experience. If you wanted me to put a better name or names on rearming in AcesHigh I'd call it arcadey and unrealistic. As such you wont find me often on the rearm pad, because I crave immersion, our rearm pads take away any and all immersion of rearming an aircraft. That is what I think.
Okay...
Your opinion has been registered.
-
Brooke, ...
Level bombers must take off whenever possible with formations and not intentionally lose drones. (If they rearm, they can't take back off with drones, although I wish rearming gave a person drones, too. That is not a violation of this rule.)
In each phase, each level-bomber group must Attempt at least two bombing missions. (This is so that every bomber pilot is doing at least two missions per phase. Having drones or not doesn't have any bearing on this rule being satisfied or not.)
-
Thanks for the clarification. :aok
-
I've never used a re-arm pad in my entire life. I'm going to have to practice that I guess.
:D
-
The quickest method is to come into the airfield at speed, put your gunsight pipper right in the middle of the rearm circle, and hold it there until contact. ;)
-
On the topic of immersion: each player has their own particular aspect that will give them maximum immersion. Some people like to think of themselves as an actual pilot with his one plane and want's to keep it going for the duration of an event. I had to disappoint a couple of guys during Dnieper by forcing them to tower and to take a new plane for purely tactical reasons one frame. There are some who get immersed by taking on the life of a historical pilot and try to experience this game as close to how it was probably lived. Some people enjoy the after action reports. There are those, like myself, who are immersed most by the aesthetics. I love seeing planes wearing the skins from the squads and areas of operation that are being represented - and nothing irks me more than seeing one which is totally incorrect: IE: if I see some plane wearing a winter scheme or D-Day stripes in Tunisia.
The point is this: no factor of immersion is more important than any other and we should be encouraging all of them as much as possible as long as they don'y interfere with the event's balance.
-
I have been following this thread and I believe it is becoming so realistic that I will need a team of lawyers to figure it out. It reminds me of the ROE's imposed by the politicians during Vietnam Nam.
That was no fun for those involved in the fight.
Sorry guys, I know you all believe your helping but IMO ........
-
I have been following this thread and I believe it is becoming so realistic that I will need a team of lawyers to figure it out. It reminds me of the ROE's imposed by the politicians during Vietnam Nam.
That was no fun for those involved in the fight.
Sorry guys, I know you all believe your helping but IMO ........
I really think you are overthinking it, Joker. The final rules should be very easy to follow. Take off from X bases and rearms allowed at Y bases.
Even checking the logs will be relatively simple after the fact - just Ctrl-F the off limit base names in the logs and count the hits.
-
The quickest method is to come into the airfield at speed, put your gunsight pipper right in the middle of the rearm circle, and hold it there until contact. ;)
:rofl
-
I have been following this thread and I believe it is becoming so realistic that I will need a team of lawyers to figure it out. It reminds me of the ROE's imposed by the politicians during Vietnam Nam.
It comes from the design. If it's an event based on accumulating score, and there are vague conditions to get to that score, then questions need to be asked.
If the event is "There's stuff to blow up, here's the stuff to blow it up, if you blow it up you win" then much of the rules and conditions go out the window. If the design of the event places launch fields and target fields at equal distances, then no rules about rearm and formations need to be considered or questioned. Clearly, if a bomber prefers to rearm instead of launching a new formation, that reduces his effectiveness by 2/3, that's his problem to consider. If the spacing is not balanced, and rearming allows one side to get in faster than the other, then conditions like rearming over waiting for the next launch window matter. If I can get a fast JU88 to a closer target in 4 times and the B17 has to wait for a launch window because he wants his formations, the JU88 can do more damage than a formation of 17s in the same time frame and these things add up, dramatically, over 12 hours.
We always beat these events up like this, but normally, I'm behind the scenes and you don't see the conversation, but it happens, every time, and events mid design have been utterly scrapped because they just would not balance. It's good to see the conversation occurring out here, but that doesn't mean the conversation is new ;) The rules will actually begin to drop once the design starts to put the conditions on the setup as this thing evolves.
-
On the topic of immersion: each player has their own particular aspect that will give them maximum immersion. Some people like to think of themselves as an actual pilot with his one plane and want's to keep it going for the duration of an event. I had to disappoint a couple of guys during Dnieper by forcing them to tower and to take a new plane for purely tactical reasons one frame. There are some who get immersed by taking on the life of a historical pilot and try to experience this game as close to how it was probably lived. Some people enjoy the after action reports. There are those, like myself, who are immersed most by the aesthetics. I love seeing planes wearing the skins from the squads and areas of operation that are being represented - and nothing irks me more than seeing one which is totally incorrect: IE: if I see some plane wearing a winter scheme or D-Day stripes in Tunisia.
The point is this: no factor of immersion is more important than any other and we should be encouraging all of them as much as possible as long as they don'y interfere with the event's balance.
Hear! hear!
-
I have been following this thread and I believe it is becoming so realistic that I will need a team of lawyers to figure it out.
While this discussion is complicated, the rules are simple.
As an analogy, your new carpeting being beige or gray is simple -- it's either beige or gray. Your discussion with your spouse on whether it should be beige or gray and why can be way more complicated.
If you were an axis fighter pilot, the rules are only:
Please follow instructions from command, or you can be ejected from the arena.
Axis players may rearm at a66, a7, and -- except for phase 3 -- a8.
If you don't remember where you can rearm, please ask on country channel.
-
Version 12 now up. Please hit refresh on your browser to get it.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
Main change is to restrict rearms to only a certain set of bases.
Also, target for phase 3 was moved from a8 to a7.
Next up, I have to test ships to make sure no bugs in AH3. We have some testing going on Saturday for that.
-
Brooke, you changing the Phase 3 Axis rearm base to A7 does not fix the problem it just changes which side has the rearm advantage. Sorry to be blunt - having all 4 V bases as targets does not work and it can't be made to work.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Map3_zpstthitbv5.jpg~original) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/Map3_zpstthitbv5.jpg.html)
Look how much farther the Axis attackers have to fly to rearm than the Allies do. This is much worse than before considerring that the Axis has 110C's
I know you want lots of action in this area, but the solution is not in the number of Vbase targets, because it only works with 2. If you're worried about providing enough target objects, then you should adjust the object down time lower and raise the hardness. Treat the base objects like ships where no single plane can easily destroy one.
-
Devil, thanks for looking into it. I have thought a lot about your points (with particulars that follow).
I think that, as a scenario on a historical terrain, we aren't going to get everything 100% equal at every point. There will be some advantage to a side at one point and a disadvantage somewhere else, and once we get it close enough, it will be good.
Here, you are looking at one part of phase 3 and distance from rearm to targets. There, things are tied for the closest target, but the axis is at a disadvantage on the 2nd target. OK. But, like Dolby, I don't think rearms are going to be the largest determiner of success, with the following being a bunch of my thoughts in no particular order of importance:
-- I think fighters will more likely be used up in combat, not constrained by rearming.
-- The axis fighter set is faster than the allied fighter set.
-- Attack planes can run out of bombs, but they have a gigantic surplus of ammo. Every single attack plane has enough to take out 3 vbases worth of ack (the FW 190F might have enough for 4 vbase worth), and they can use surplus ammo to strafe barracks, too. If they live, they will kill the targets without needing rearm, and if they die they can't rearm.
-- For bombers, the allies don't have a closer bomber launch point than a65 and so have longer to travel to closest target.
-- I think time from launch to closest target might be a lot more important than rearm distances.
-- The allies' closest fighter/attack launch point is a vbase, not an airfield. It will take longer to get a bunch of planes up from a vbase than an airfield -- very especially A-20's, which can only spawn in the hangar.
-- Nothing is forcing a side to go after both vbases. It can go after the easiest one.
-- Bombers will see no difference in points hitting the easiest one twice vs. hitting one and then the other.
-- Attackers have enough ammo and fuel, so they could engage the easiest target, the living ones could egress to wherever and come back at any time at the harder one if they want, no rearm needed.
So, I think of it as a set of issues, some with advantages to axis and some with advantage to allies, but I think we are now close enough for decent balance.
-
Version 13 up. Please refresh browser to get latest:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201610_TunisiaFeb43/rules.html
Only change is -- instead of giving points to the enemy only if he gets a kill on you -- you give points to the enemy if you are shot down, bail, ditch, or crash. I.e., you have to get a "landed safely" to avoid generating points for the enemy.
-
I guess I missed it somewhere in the last 27 pages of this thread, but was a final decision reached regarding the 109 G2/G6 and Spit V/IX/Seafire questions?
-
Yep...
The Luftwaffe can take their choice of G2s or G5s for either Jagdgruppe.
No Spit IXs...
That's it.
-
The Luftwaffe can take their choice of G2s or G5s for either Jagdgruppe.
Not quite,
Jg 53 has only G-2's while Jg 77 has both the G-2 and G-6.
-
I've stayed out of planeset discussion... But why would the Allies need spit 9s when the Axis get 6 190A5s against 25 bomber/attack planes...just kinda throwing that out there...scanned through thread and didn't find an answer...
-
I've stayed out of planeset discussion... But why would the Allies need spit 9s when the Axis get 6 190A5s against 25 bomber/attack planes...just kinda throwing that out there...scanned through thread and didn't find an answer...
The issue is over. Why mention it.
-
I've stayed out of planeset discussion... But why would the Allies need spit 9s when the Axis get 6 190A5s against 25 bomber/attack planes...just kinda throwing that out there...scanned through thread and didn't find an answer...
I think Axis need at least 20 190A5s to balance, but trying to point that out is like.. well this is a visual representation; :bhead
-
doesn't the 109 G6 have 3x cannon and the 190's 4x cannon and both can easily outrun all allied fighters??
shooting buffs is easy.
-
doesn't the 109 G6 have 3x cannon and the 190's 4x cannon and both can easily outrun all allied fighters??
shooting buffs is easy.
Ju88s will be very easy
-
The A5s aren't good for anything but killing bombers...what are we going to turn fight them with the spits or the 38s....6 dedicated bomber killers against 25 attack planes per hour...and no one in their right mind is going to take gondies in the 109s...that's just begging to be killed by Allied fighters... But odds are probably half of the 109s will be taking gondies by hour six because the bombers are going to roam freely because what...the 202s ain't gonna be worth nothing...the 109s are gonna be tied up...but those 6 A5s....
Some allied talking head will be along shortly to tell us how outgunned they are again..."109g6s are the best fighter in the scenario.... They have a 10mph advantage over the 30 p38s we have"
But that's OK... We all know how these types of things turn out ...
Cause I'm gonna find every Luftwaffe ringer I can...and I'm gonna get them in a 109...and we are gonna find and kill every Allied fighter, every hour, for 12 hours....
-
The A5s aren't good for anything but ...
I've flown 190A-5's in scenarios and flown against 190A-5's in scenarios -- they are awesome against their historical fighter adversaries. We had no trouble in A-5's even against Spit IX's. The last three scenarios with 190A-5's in them, the A-5's were the highest scoring group (sometimes by multiples of the kills of the 2nd-highest-scoring group), and in ECA, which had two 190A-5 groups, one was #1 and the other was #2. I think Stampf, Ditto, Charge, and (were they still around) DrBone and IrishOne would all disagree with your opinion of the A-5 in scenarios.
what are we going to ...
I think that the axis has better fighters and that the allies have better bombers, and that in total it balances out. Regardless, these are the plane types that were there.
In particular regarding bombers, I have flown the Ju 88 in scenarios more than any other player. They are a lot better than people think, and (except for Mediterranean Maelstrom) I've done well in them. I like them just fine. They are not as good as B-17's or B-26's in defense, of course, but they carry as much ord as B-17's, and they are better than B-25's in both defense and way better in ord.
"109g6s are the best fighter in the scenario.... They have a 10mph advantage ..."
Having flown scenarios in 190A-5's (against Spit IX's, Spit V's, and Typhoons), 109G's (against P-51's, P-47's, P-38's), and P-38's (against 109G's and 190A-5's), my feeling is that the 190A-5 is best, followed by the 109G, followed by the P-38.
We all know how these types of things turn out ...
Here are the results of all scenarios back to 2004 that had the Luftwaffe as a side. As you can see, it's quite even.
Battle of the Dnieper -- draw
Southern Conquest -- draw
Target for Today -- missed this one
Battle Over the Winter Line -- allies won
Battle of Britain 2013 -- axis won
Mediterranean Maelstrom -- allies won
Der Grosse Schlag II -- axis won
Winter Sky - Death Ground -- axis won
Enemy Coast Ahead -- axis won
Battle Over Germany -- axis won
The Final Battle -- allies won
Red Storm / Krupp Steel -- allies won
Tunisia: Dawn of Battle -- allies won
Battle of Britain 2008 -- axis won
Der Grosse Schlag -- axis won
Operation Husky -- allies won
Battle of Britain 2006 -- axis won
Fire Over Malta -- allies won
Battle of Britain 2004 -- allies won
Cause I'm gonna find every Luftwaffe ringer I can...and I'm gonna get them in a 109...and we are gonna find and kill every Allied fighter, every hour, for 12 hours....
That's the spirit! :aok
-
Havent read all 29 pages but i think the plane sets its not too bad, LW had better fighters but were outnumbered. Sides will be more equal in the scenario but by adding more spits/38:s instead of P-40s it should offset. 109 and 190 is better in a pure A2A fight but this is also about killing bombers and B-17 and 26 is much harder to kill than the Ju-88 so we can assume that the LW will suffer much bigger losses to bombers than the allies (even a PW or a smoked engine will be a loss since you are out until next launch window).