Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on March 23, 2017, 06:58:18 PM
-
Hello, folks. :aok
We have been going for 3 scenarios per year: February, June, and October.
For June, we are going for DGS/BOG-style setup (8th AF strategic bombing vs. Luftwaffe).
Please cast your vote for which of the following you want.
A.
Early 1944, with:
B-17's, P-47D-11's, P-38J's, and small number of P-51B's
vs.
Bf 109G-2's, Bf 109G-6's, and FW 190A-8's.
B.
Mid 1944, with:
B-17's, P-51B's, P-47D-25's, and P-38J's
vs.
Bf 109G-6's, Bf 109G-14's, and FW 190A-8's.
or
C.
Mid 1945, with:
B-17's, P-51D's, and a small number of P-47M's
vs.
Bf 109K-4's and FW 190D-9's (maybe some 190A-8's -- tbd -- depends on axis desires and discussion in design topic)
Please pick A, B, or C.
Thank you, all! :aok
-
C!
Requesting either the 355th, or 352nd FG :salute
-
"A" sounds a lot like it could be Big Week. I vote "A".
Me410 was used here, wasn't it?
-
C
-
Me 410's would be present throughout, and limited numbers of A5's could be present in early 44, depending on what "Early" is, and would make a better representation of the A6.
-
But since if we do A, B, or C it's 3 ETOs in a row, how about east front I,e Karelia, or Japan vs Soviet Union. You know, maybe something different, especially since the Finns came out of hibernation.
-
"A" sounds a lot like it could be Big Week. I vote "A".
Me410 was used here, wasn't it?
Howdy, Oboe.
8th AF action, depending on time period, had some Bf 110's or Me 410's (maybe not many compared to 190A's, though). They are good bomber killers if they get in firing range, of course, but in these scenarios, they have been unpopular and tended to get annihilated. Folks seem to prefer the 190A, but . . .
We can open it up to discussion in the design forum, though, to see if the axis wants a little of them in place of some 190A's.
-
But since if we do A, B, or C it's 3 ETOs in a row, how about east front I,e Karelia, or Japan vs Soviet Union. You know, maybe something different, especially since the Finns came out of hibernation.
I hear you.
We were thinking of Pacific Theater, but --
Lots of axis fliers didn't like the last scenario, and we wanted to give them something that historically they have liked a lot.
Also, the bomber folks have been really wanting a strategic-bombing scenario, especially with B-17's, and we haven't done a strategic-bombing scenario since 2015.
Maybe Pacific Theater for the one in October, but that's not locked in stone.
Karelia map isn't available in AH3 currently, and it wouldn't surprise me if that doesn't change any time soon. We did Eastern Front with Dnieper in June, 2016.
-
I have flown 110G's against the US set in Southern Conquest. I thought flying the 110 would be horrible. It wasn't -- but the alts were a bit less than they'll be in this one. I don't like the handling of the 410, though.
-
A
-
Howdy, Oboe.
8th AF action, depending on time period, had some Bf 110's or Me 410's (maybe not many compared to 190A's, though). They are good bomber killers if they get in firing range, of course, but in these scenarios, they have been unpopular and tended to get annihilated. Folks seem to prefer the 190A, but . . .
We can open it up to discussion in the design forum, though, to see if the axis wants a little of them in place of some 190A's.
Hi Brooke,
Would it be possible to have a flexible planeset in the scenario design? The way it works now is the scenario design is fixed (plane types, #slots, etc) and then we go about registering and filling available slots. I'm wondering if it would be possible to include 110s and 410s as available in the design, and if people sign up to fly them, great- they'll be in, and if they don't, that's also fine, they just won't be there?
Does that make designing balance too difficult? The 110 and 410 hit hard if they get through, but also have a lower chance if surviving to get through. I think it'd be interesting as an option for the Axis each frame - maybe 110s or 410s in each frame, maybe not - all up to Axis command staff and whether pilots willing to fly them.
Might be a more realistic situation for Allied planners too - G2 can't provide full intel on what the bombers might face.
Same goes for Allies and the B-24. It was operational with the 8th during this time frame, can it be included in the design as an option for the Allied Command staff and pilots to decide whether to deploy or not, each frame?
-
A
-
C and add some TA152s to the setup
-
Oboe... You can't have extra planes in waiting like that...you have to go off a set number and extrapolate a bunch of numbers to make sure each side has a equal chance of winning for l equal effort...
You can't have extra planes in the setup that may or may not be used...this would create unbalance... By axis having x number of 110s and allied x number of buffs you have equal out damage and effort between both...if one shows up or is decided to be used and other doesn't instant unbalance...
I might be wrong but I don't think so...
-
Thanks Puller, you are probably right. It might be analogous to allowing an opposing chess player to choose at game time whether he wants to play with 2 knights and 2 bishops or 3 knights and 1 bishop, or 4 bishops and 0 knights, etc. Its asymmetric and introduces fog of war, perhaps more realistic in that sense, but it may be too difficult to ensure balance if its dynamic like that.
<S>
-
B
-
A.
Why?) Need more early warbird events. You will atract more axis pilots to give you a fight.
Also - Why always bombers for allied side and no representation for Axis? The scoring garentees an axis loss if ANY bombers hit target. Unless axis get bonus for killing bombers
Event will need 110s and/or 410s at least if you are tossing in b17s.
:salute
-
a
-
Howdy, Owlblink.
In some of the historical battles we take as themes for scenarios, one side had bombers and the other didn't, or one side had carriers and the other did not. If we want them to have a historical feel, that's how they were. In the case of 8th AF strategic bombing, the whole heart of the battle is US fighters trying to get US bombers to target, and the Luftwaffe fighting to stop them. Even if we wanted to give the German side bombers, the Ju 88 couldn't be it. It would get annihilated compared to B-17's.
Now, figuring out the right balance is less certain than if the sides are symmetrical, but it can be done.
Here is a simplified case just for illustration. Let's say you have 2 P-51's and 2 B-17 formations against 2 109K-4's and one FW 190A. Let's say the scoring is such that a kill is one point and a formation hitting its target is worth 3 points. Now, in the battle, the two K-4's tie up the two 51's in a fight. Meanwhile, the 190 attacks the bombers, shooting down one of the formations while the other one hits its target. The points are 3 for the allies and 3 for the axis for that particular result.
There are more complications in a real scenario setup, but the balance can be there we know because the historical running of them came out close, or one side won some frames, and the other side won other frames, or it was run more than once with the ultimate victor being axis in some runnings and allies in others.
In this case, we are basing the setup on past scenarios that worked out OK, using their plane sets, their relative numbers, etc.
-
A
-
All have Jugs. I simply can't lose no matter which one.
-
All have Jugs. I simply can't lose no matter which one.
Howdy, LilMak. C won't have a lot of them, though -- maybe just one flight of P-47M's.
-
Also, C perhaps would have a small number of Ta 152's -- that would be tbd in design discussion as well.
-
A
-
C, with the request to reform the DGS II 364th FG 51s :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/CorkyJr364th-3.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/CorkyJr364th-3.jpg.html)
-
Oh to put up 10 fighter groups again like we did in DGS II.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/FighterCommand_zpsi5jeraf5.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/FighterCommand_zpsi5jeraf5.jpg.html)
-
For a history Junky the DGS Scenarios were the most fun for me. During DGS II I started piecing together all the gear of a WW2 ETO fighter pilot. Only recently did I add the final piece when I got a B-8 backpack parachute. Needless to say it appears just in time for an ETO scenario. CorkyJr is most ready to get back in a 51 for that :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Corky_zpsrscxocmi.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/Corky_zpsrscxocmi.jpg.html)
-
Howdy, LilMak. C won't have a lot of them, though -- maybe just one flight of P-47M's.
And if I showed up and asked the CO for an M you think that guy wouldn't hold a slot for me?
Honestly, "A" is the most favorable for a Jug pilot. I flew a D-11 under similar circumstances and didn't lose a single airframe for 12 hours.
-
Im sure youd get one. To do otherwise would be a crime against nature. :aok I just wasnt sure how many you would want to command.
-
I thought the next one was going to be a one-day, 12-hour Battle of Britain. Is that going to be a format other than a Scenario?
-
Also, I vote A.
-
I thought the next one was going to be a one-day, 12-hour Battle of Britain. Is that going to be a format other than a Scenario?
see the other thread the battle of britain 12hr one is scheduled for august.
-
see the other thread the battle of britain 12hr one is scheduled for august.
Just saw, that, thanks.
-
A
-
Nefarious is running a 12-hour BoB in August.
I'm hoping we get multiple 4-frame events and multiple 12-hour events during the year.
-
I'll take
A
(http://www.332ndfg.org/TizaHRedtail7TFT.png)
OR
C
(http://www.332ndfg.org/GDSII355Ride.png)
Fine job on these Dan. :salute
-
We just had an ETO 1945 scenario, so option C is out.
My preference is A.
Options A and B are nearly the same, so I'll happily take both.
btw, mid 1944 most jugs in the 8th AF were razorbacks (represented by our D11) but with the paddle blade props, so performance-wise closer to our D25. The 56FG and likelt others operated razorbacks and bubble tops together for an extended period. The performance difference is not critical, so how about allowing a free choice of D11 and D25 to jug squadrons in option B?
-
I might come back if a recce P38 opened up. No guns, just there to shoot pictures. It was fun last time and I think it added immersion to the scenario.
edit: We already have the F5 skin, it would not create additional workloads on the designers.
-
A or maybe B, but not C. Too many 1945 late war setups. Dial it back a bit, mid or late 1944 IMO.
-
btw, mid 1944 most jugs in the 8th AF were razorbacks (represented by our D11) but with the paddle blade props, so performance-wise closer to our D25.
I'll take a D-11 with a paddle blade and a crew chief who over boosted the R-2800 to M levels please.
-
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff14/DeliriumP38/a43obliquedone.png)
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff14/DeliriumP38/a33overheaddone-1.png)
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff14/DeliriumP38/DelKite.jpg)
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff14/DeliriumP38/warmingup.png)
(ok, I am done)
-
That was a nice walk down memory lane, Del.
-
Even I don't really care for them, there are quite a few people that like the PTO scenario's. Next next time for one of those how about a late war PTO, the bombing of Japan, they sent B29s at low alt and dropped incineraries (sorry for the spelling). That would each side a chance.
B29s, P51d's, P47n's vs N1K1's, Ki84's, A6M5's. I think that would be a awesome fight, especially since in RL they came in under 10k to drop bombs!!! What a fight that would be!!! Just my thoughts on a PTO scenario. :cheers: :salute :salute :salute
-
Even I don't really care for them, there are quite a few people that like the PTO scenario's. Next next time for one of those how about a late war PTO, the bombing of Japan, they sent B29s at low alt and dropped incineraries (sorry for the spelling). That would each side a chance.
B29s, P51d's, P47n's vs N1K1's, Ki84's, A6M5's. I think that would be a awesome fight, especially since in RL they came in under 10k to drop bombs!!! What a fight that would be!!! Just my thoughts on a PTO scenario. :cheers: :salute :salute :salute
Do you not remember the FSO's that have this setup? They're awful. Worst events in AH, period.
-
Brooke, I will fly in A, B,or C :salute
-
Do you not remember the FSO's that have this setup? They're awful. Worst events in AH, period.
Late War Pacific is the only part of the war that I think is heavily lopsided just because the Japs don't have a counter to the P51D....KI84 and N1k can't keep up....Early and Mid are good though.
-
We just had an ETO 1945 scenario, so option C is out.
My preference is A.
Options A and B are nearly the same, so I'll happily take both.
btw, mid 1944 most jugs in the 8th AF were razorbacks (represented by our D11) but with the paddle blade props, so performance-wise closer to our D25. The 56FG and likelt others operated razorbacks and bubble tops together for an extended period. The performance difference is not critical, so how about allowing a free choice of D11 and D25 to jug squadrons in option B?
D-23 would be nice. D-11 just really doesn't cut it for mid 44
-
C!
Requesting either the 355th, or 352nd FG :salute
Change my vote to B, I'd like to fly a bravo this go around.
-
I would think A or B, with a March 1944 time frame being ideal. 354th, 357th and 4th only had 51Bs then.
Care will have to taken during the design to ensure that the D11s and 109s have sufficient range and adequate basing. A set of targets in NW Germany, Holland, Belgium and NW France would work.
B24s were limited in speed by association with the 17s IRL. They should be ŗestricted from operating alone.
Those proposing scenarios must be aware that the terrain set has been reduced with AH3's release.
-
If we go with A, I want one of these 4th birds. Would be fun to get into that history a bit. I'd just end up a ball of wreckage in a Jug. Probably in a Mustang too, but it might take longer :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/guppy35016/OD4thCorky_zps4x5b4z4r.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/guppy35016/OD4thCorky_zps4x5b4z4r.jpg.html)
-
If we go with A, I want one of these 4th birds. Would be fun to get into that history a bit. I'd just end up a ball of wreckage in a Jug. Probably in a Mustang too, but it might take longer :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/guppy35016/OD4thCorky_zps4x5b4z4r.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/guppy35016/OD4thCorky_zps4x5b4z4r.jpg.html)
I wouldn't mind flying with the Debden boys either, it'd be nice to be in a group with all of us enthusiasts together.
-
First profile I ever did for a scenario bird was a 4th Mustang after walking on with Fencer's 4th FG birds in Battle over Germany :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/PitzMay44_zpsoui682tq.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/PitzMay44_zpsoui682tq.jpg.html)
-
I vote for A.
It allows for the best balance in plane set with small adjustments for better balance and accuracy.
There would be few 109G-2's by 1944 - have as an optional plane for one G-6 squad (Jg 26).
There would be a mix of190A-5 and A-8's in early 1944.
The Bf 109G-6 A/S also entered service in early '44 - should be represented by the 109 G-14 in equal(and low) numbers as the P-51 for balance purposes.
-
There would be few 109G-2's by 1944 - have as an optional plane for one G-6 squad (Jg 26).
There would be a mix of190A-5 and A-8's in early 1944.
The Bf 109G-6 A/S also entered service in early '44 - should be represented by the 109 G-14 in equal(and low) numbers as the P-51 for balance purposes.
The A-5s could fill a bit of a gap, especially since our A-8 has 250kg too much weight but no extra armor to show for it. I think they should be allowed interchangeably as the unit desires -- you get the extra firepower or the slightly better high-alt performance with a lighter loadout.
However, the G-6 and the G-14 are the same plane with MW50 added to the latter. The G-6 A/S was a high alt variant with a higher FTH like the G10 or K4, but without MW50.
Currently the G-6 and G-14 have the same off-wep speed curve in AH. with a FTH around 21k instead of closer to 26k like the A/S probably had.
Also, as a general rule MW50 was very scarce to begin with. It really wasn't until mid-1944 that it started showing up with some regularity, and then it took a while longer to become commonplace. Early 190Ds, for example, were "Dry" and did't have MW50 to boost their power. The systems just weren't available. Thus, if the A option is chosen then the G-14s really wouldn't fit much. Depending on the rest as well, they probably wouldn't fit much in the B option either.
Edit: Regardless, the G-2s were long replaced by early 1944. As you say.
-
The G-14 is a substitution for the G-6A/S. I am well aware of the historical scarcity of MW-50, but the speed boost at altitude with WEP makes it at least closer to the performance gained by the A/S then a standard G-6. There is also a playability issue here with the P-51's that the G-14 helps to close by a small margin. If the proposed design had no P-51's then I'd be happy to leave the G-14 in the hangar as well. As it stands though, I'd say that the G-14 is a necessary inclusion. I'd limit the Ponies and G-14's to single small squad each with a slight numerical advantage to the G-14 (such as 6 P-51's and 8 G-14's)
As for how the 190A-5's are incorporated, I have no opinion - only that they are included in some capacity.
Edit:
Edit: Regardless, the G-2s were long replaced by early 1944. As you say.
According to the Jg 26 War Diary, two 109G-4's (essentially a G-2) were lost between February and March 1944, so they were still in limited use at this point.
-
I get what you're saying. I think (maybe) that instead of substitute, that limiting the P-51 use would be more appropriate. The P-51Bs still blow the G-14 we have out of the water with regards to overall speed and high alt performance. Especially with bombers in use, the balance will have to give the German side more fighters to devote to attack and more to dogfighting. Maybe option A would be best in this case -- with P-51Bs being limited in numbers.
That aside, I have another soapbox item: the P-47 loadouts should disable the "overload" ammo loadout. This was never used in combat that anybody can satisfactorily prove, doesn't approach even the remote realm of reality with regards to flight loads and limitations that are documented in myriad dozens of places. I did some fairly extensive research taking dozens of official AARs counting bullets expended, every reference to ammo count in every published report and even using estimated or ballasted weights did the math to find how much ammo it was accounting for. None of it came close to the overload option we have in this game. Even with 8 guns, the P-47s over Europe did so with 267-ish rounds per gun. Look at it this way: What if the game had an option for 200 rounds of 30mm on the Bf109s, when historically they only ever used the "normal" load? You'd disable that for scenarios, right? Right.
-
....Look at it this way: What if the game had an option for 200 rounds of 30mm on the Bf109s, when historically they only ever used the "normal" load? You'd disable that for scenarios, right? Right.
Yeah but the way ammo works in this game, 1-30mm round is about the equivalent to 267-ish .50cal rounds. The cannons/tators are so OP! Might as well be a spy strapping remote bombs on allied aircraft for remote detonation when it comes to axis cannons.
Plus those darn Luftwaffe planes are sooooo small! We need all the ammo we can get! You guys have a freeeeeeeking flying elephant to shoot at... just call me Dumbo.
-
Since if I get to play I'll be flying a B17 anyway I choose either A or B as we just finished a late war scenario.
-
Yeah but the way ammo works in this game, 1-30mm round is about the equivalent to 267-ish .50cal rounds. The cannons/tators are so OP! Might as well be a spy strapping remote bombs on allied aircraft for remote detonation when it comes to axis cannons.
Plus those darn Luftwaffe planes are sooooo small! We need all the ammo we can get! You guys have a freeeeeeeking flying elephant to shoot at... just call me Dumbo.
That's not a counter-argument for sticking with historic loadouts. The P-47s have a volume of fire, a rate of fire, and a lazer-flat trajectory allowing for some of the easiest killing in the game. They also have fire equivelant to 3x 20mm cannons (think: La-7) with 3400 rounds of ammo. They didn't carry more than 267-300 rpg, depending on the weapons setup. Most times they kept 8x .50cals so they had rounds per gun in the 260 area, give or take 10 depending on your source. They only went up to 300 or so sometimes when they dropped the gun count down to 6x .50cal, and even those could be statistcal outliers or rounding (people in WW2 made mistakes too) up to an even number.
[edit: corrected total in-game ammo]
-
hmmm back to gunnery practice for me then... cause the .50 cals to me seem week-sauce. Must be just me.
-
hmmm back to gunnery practice for me then... cause the .50 cals to me seem week-sauce. Must be just me.
Not just you. I'd rather have a single 20mm than 8 .50s in AH. Mostly a damage model issue.
-
I get what you're saying. I think (maybe) that instead of substitute, that limiting the P-51 use would be more appropriate. The P-51Bs still blow the G-14 we have out of the water with regards to overall speed and high alt performance. Especially with bombers in use, the balance will have to give the German side more fighters to devote to attack and more to dogfighting. Maybe option A would be best in this case -- with P-51Bs being limited in numbers.
That aside, I have another soapbox item: the P-47 loadouts should disable the "overload" ammo loadout. This was never used in combat that anybody can satisfactorily prove, doesn't approach even the remote realm of reality with regards to flight loads and limitations that are documented in myriad dozens of places. I did some fairly extensive research taking dozens of official AARs counting bullets expended, every reference to ammo count in every published report and even using estimated or ballasted weights did the math to find how much ammo it was accounting for. None of it came close to the overload option we have in this game. Even with 8 guns, the P-47s over Europe did so with 267-ish rounds per gun. Look at it this way: What if the game had an option for 200 rounds of 30mm on the Bf109s, when historically they only ever used the "normal" load? You'd disable that for scenarios, right? Right.
Probably not as the LW flyers wouldn't be happy about it. Same goes for the Jug guys. It's still just a game. If we're going to go to the history argument then we can go to numbers on each side and all that fun. We're already talking about 'limited numbers" of 51s. Lets be honest, the LW guys have never had much trouble in these set ups being over their own turf with equal numbers.
Let Brooke figure it out.
-
That doesn't always work. It is a game, but it's also a game based on historic capabilities. We don't have postwar racer engines in our P-51s (for example). We have weapons that accurately model many aspects of WW2 weapons on these planes as-modeled. This ammo loadout is unhistorical and has a major impact on frame playability whenever it's in use (and it's almost ALWAYS in use). Look at the fuss people put up about how small a % of La7s used the 3 gun package, or how few 109Fs had gondolas -- both actually existed though. The P-47 "overload" options never did.
-
Krusty, the jug overload ammo did exist. However, it may have been used only in strafing missions. I don't really know.
-
Hmmmm looks full to me.
(http://www.354thpmfg.com/images/img/portfolio/single/wwlouie/wwl-image-48.jpg)
-
With the full ammo load, the Jugs have a competitive level of damage over the total firing time with the 190's. The 267 round ammo load comes up very short.
-
I can't wait for another BoG typeish event, I just wish we had the numbers the old BoG had. :(
Excuses to post pictures and make my $2 a month fee worth it.
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-2ndBDbeforewealldied.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-190CloudText.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-SweetMotherofMercy.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action4.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action3.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action1.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action15.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action11.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action8.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action6.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action5.png)
NOTE: I survived this battle. ;)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action30.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action29.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action14.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action33.png)
(http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq278/GenBeef/BOG%20-%20Frame%201/BOGF1-Action34.png)
These screenshots are just from frame one....of seven. In frame one only 2 B24s survived and somehow I ended up being one of them. IMO BoG is still one of the best scenarios we ever ran, and the Allies lost that one. I just wish we had the numbers.
-
DGS had the numbers too :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Flak.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/Flak.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Alposboys.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/Alposboys.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Snap1-1.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/Snap1-1.jpg.html)
-
YES it DID!
(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/AcesHighDitto/Battle%20Over%20Germany%20Frame%205/FormationFlight.jpg)
Was a very fun and exciting scenario
(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/AcesHighDitto/Battle%20Over%20Germany%20Frame%205/Pilotwound.jpg)
Going through these old pics
(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/AcesHighDitto/Battle%20Over%20Germany%20Frame%205/Luftwaffeasfarastheeyecansee.jpg)
Back when I used to caption them
-
B.
-
We'll tally up the votes this weekend.
For those of you who haven't gotten in your votes -- get 'em on in there. :aok
-
i vote for A myself.
-
YES it DID!
(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/AcesHighDitto/Battle%20Over%20Germany%20Frame%205/FormationFlight.jpg)
Was a very fun and exciting scenario
(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/AcesHighDitto/Battle%20Over%20Germany%20Frame%205/Pilotwound.jpg)
Going through these old pics
(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/AcesHighDitto/Battle%20Over%20Germany%20Frame%205/Luftwaffeasfarastheeyecansee.jpg)
Back when I used to caption them
I'm zeroing in my .50's as we speak Ditto :D
-
A is my choice
-
Choice 1 - B
Choice 2 - A
Choice 3 - C
You say you're shooting for a two scenarios in June and October - how does this schedule coincide with planning for the August BoB 12 hour event? Is this BoG event going to be four 3-hour frames or a 12 hour event?
For the record (and not to beat a dead horse), what I did not like about the Hell over Hinterland scenario was that the Allies had more scoring opportunities - I liked the time period and setting just fine.
-
You say you're shooting for a two scenarios in June and October - how does this schedule coincide with planning for the August BoB 12 hour event? Is this BoG event going to be four 3-hour frames or a 12 hour event?
Howdy.
June and October are 4-frame scenarios.
The August events is a single-frame 12-hour Battle of Britain.
-
B
-
Krusty, the jug overload ammo did exist. However, it may have been used only in strafing missions. I don't really know.
Hmmmm looks full to me.
It didn't exist. Ever. Look it up. Look up actual records and accounts. Look at primary sources. The ONLY instance, ever, where they claim this "overload" ammo was used was on a ferry trip where a group of pilots were attacked and engaged in a fight -- and ONE single pilot claimed that they "must have" loaded twice the ammo because he saw his "end-of-belt" tracers and then had more ammo after it. That's the entirety of the argument for them. Every other source in every instance and even the documents and records recording actual loadouts during combat missions, the math of ammo expended after a plane returned, etc, ALL of it is for the 267-round loadout -- or only slightly higher than that in a small enough percentage of reports that it may have been an unusual loadout or possibly a reporting error. Even the small couple of reports that listed 300 actual rounds are statistically insignificant to the rest of the reports, and most of them are pre-combat P-47C "estimate" reports of what "might" be used. Nothing ever lists more than 300, and the majority of all reports you can ever find are 250-267 rpg.
Fencer: That looks pretty full, yes... Full of 267 RPG. You can see identical images loaded exactly the same way but with the number of rounds notated. The doors on the wings themselves even state the limits of loading 267 RPG and no more. It looks like a lot because 267 RPG is a butt-load of ammo when you have 4 guns per wing. That image, nice as it is, only serves to prove my point along with every other reference.
I mean this literally: it's a fantasy loadout based on a subjective and unreliable account from a single pilot during a ferry flight and ignores other plausible possibilities like -- it was a ferry flight so belting the ammo in the right order didn't matter -- the tracer belts could have been coupled in the middle just to store them for the flight because they were never intended for combat use.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/p47nwing-1.png)
-
if actual.50s were as anemic as AH .50s then there would be plenty of documentation of them overloading Jugs.
-
Mak, I'm no expert on all the nuances of all the difference guns in this game, but I do enjoy flying a lot of different planes to varrying levels of proficiency. 6x50cal are brutal in this game. Be it on the P-40, the P-51, or the light-loaded P-47s. Even 4x50cal are quite lethal and my favorite P-51B loadout and F4F-4 loadouts are the 4x50cal options.
They're not anemic unless you spray and pray or fight just for split-second snapshots. You saddle up for a burst at convergence and they'll pop any fighter, even a tough P-47, in half a second.
-
I'm not an expert either. But I've fired and seen the results of the ma deuce and what we have is in no way indicative of the hell the weapon unleashes.
The problem in AH is mostly a function of the damage model which assumes airplanes are hollow. The Jug should be capable of landing 25 rounds in a 1/4 of a second at convergence. That, in no way, should require you to "saddle up." Heck, even if they're inside convergence and strike from a single wing it should land 12 rounds in the same amount of time. I submit that if you hit ANY plane with 12 rounds of .50 that it might still be flying but it sure as heck is not going to be functioning at 100% which happen way too often in AH.
-
A or c. As long as I can take a jug
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
-
Please let it go Krusty. If Brooke wants to debate it during the design, that would be the time. Just vote and be done with it. It's these never ending conversation that drive folks away as they get tired of the minutia. Scenarios have been dying for a while. Right now we need to get folks fired up to fly them again, not argue about load outs.
If folks aren't going to fly because the other guys have too many bullets, chances are they weren't interested to begin with, just looking for an out.
-
I have Pilots notes on the P47B to D models. It lists 425 rounds of .50 cal as a selectable loadout. And yes they are authentic dash 1s'.
-
And the winner is . . .
A
The June Scenario is:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fa/cd/5e/facd5e8b6a0333e1a58645314b3e0041.jpg)
Big Week! :aok
-
Thank you to everyone who voted.
Next up is to open the design discussion.
I will open that up shortly.
-
Design discussion is open here:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,386439.msg5136569.html#msg5136569