Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on April 08, 2017, 11:03:45 PM
-
The initial writeup for the June Scenario:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201706_BigWeek/rules.html
-
Any chance of adding the 4th FG, and increasing squadron numbers?
-
Any chance of adding the 4th FG, and increasing squadron numbers?
I think we could probably change the 352nd or the 355th to the 4th. Do you know if either of those has an AH contingent?
We will definitely increase the squadron numbers if registration fills up, but I am hesitant to increase it right now because we are averaging (over last 3 scenarios) 75 players and had to go to extreme lengths to fill even to those levels. This one is already set for 94, a substantial increase. It's probably best to make sure it fills before we increase anything.
-
I think we could probably change the 352nd or the 355th to the 4th. Do you know if either of those has an AH contingent?
We will definitely increase the squadron numbers if registration fills up, but I am hesitant to increase it right now because we are averaging (over last 3 scenarios) 75 players and had to go to extreme lengths to fill even to those levels. This one is already set for 94, a substantial increase. It's probably best to make sure it fills before we increase anything.
You might be better off reducing the P-47 and 109G-6 squads by one each and raising the pilot count for the remainder of those specific types.
-
Just to appease the history junkies on the Allied side. Can we make it either the 354th for the 51s or the 4th FG? It will drive me nuts to see the 357th default with the D-Day stripes flying in February 44 :)
I'll get you a dozen 51B pilots if we can have more than just the measly 6 :)
Give the 56th 12 Jugs too since I would imagine the AH 56th guys could make a good showing.
-
Come to think of it, I'd think the LW guys would probably prefer less units but more guys in each too. Something about having a squadron vs a flight :)
JG 11 12 109
JG 26 12 190A
JG301 12 109
JG 3 8 109
Maybe the LW guys wouldn't care, but I figured it can't hurt to suggest it.
-
We already have in this writeup 70% more P-51's and 70% more P-38's than were there historically in the proportion of allied fighters. (In Big Week, only 10% of the escorting fighters were P-51B's, and 10% were P-38's -- 80% were P-47's.)
For the 190's vs. 109's, I'm not sure what the historical proportion was in Big Week. I used the proportion from Battle Over Germany.
For group sizes, I know they seem small. However, I have to plan for what we really get in scenarios these days. Folks have in the past said that they will get their whole MA squad to join and want 15 planes in a group. Then registration opens, and they get three guys who sign up, and it takes them four weeks even to get to 3. We have been getting 70 people per scenario. This one currently is sized for 94 (expecting 8th AF action to be more popular).
Let's see if we can fill this one early enough in registration. If we fill it, then we can expand -- no problem at all. That way, we don't build it for 150 players, then find that only the P-51's and 190's fill up, or find that the allies have 20 more players than the axis, or things like that.
-
Fair enough :)
And forget the 4th in Mustangs. They were transitioning but flew their Bigweek missions in Jugs. Had to double check. Does seem like the 4th ought to be in there anyway with Jugs. :)
There is a correct 354th FG 51B skin for the time, but not 357th. For us immersion types, that does make a difference :)
-
Just to appease the history junkies on the Allied side. Can we make it either the 354th for the 51s or the 4th FG? It will drive me nuts to see the 357th default with the D-Day stripes flying in February 44 :)
I'll change the 357th to the 354th.
I'll probably change one of the P-47 groups to the 4th as per Bfoot's request.
-
We already have in this writeup 70% more P-51's and 70% more P-38's than were there historically in the proportion of allied fighters. (In Big Week, only 10% of the escorting fighters were P-51B's, and 10% were P-38's -- 80% were P-47's.)
For the 190's vs. 109's, I'm not sure what the historical proportion was in Big Week. I used the proportion from Battle Over Germany.
For group sizes, I know they seem small. However, I have to plan for what we really get in scenarios these days. Folks have in the past said that they will get their whole MA squad to join and want 15 planes in a group. Then registration opens, and they get three guys who sign up, and it takes them four weeks even to get to 3. We have been getting 70 people per scenario. This one currently is sized for 94 (expecting 8th AF action to be more popular).
Let's see if we can fill this one early enough in registration. If we fill it, then we can expand -- no problem at all. That way, we don't build it for 150 players, then find that only the P-51's and 190's fill up, or find that the allies have 20 more players than the axis, or things like that.
Brooke, remember that they didn't fight in percentages, but in groups of aircraft. It was possible that one portion of the bomber train would not see any of a particular aircraft type. Yet it was possible that they might only see a single aircraft type. Worry less about the percentages/proportions and more about the fight and enjoyment.
-
Good point. Choice A was small number of P-51's, though, and choice B was more P-51's. Folks voted for A over B, so I figure they want it this way. I'm hesitant to take what people voted for then turn it into one of the choices that didn't win the voting. Also, I think that all choices, including A, would have good fights and enjoyment.
Basically, choice A was BOG frame 1 period and aircraft mix (except that I increased P-51's by 50% compared to BOG frame 1 mix), choice B was BOG frame 3 mix, and choice C was BOG frame 6 mix.
Folks, let's see if this thing fills in a week once registration is open. If so, we'll all be happy, happy, happy to increase things.
-
I think the alt caps should be lowered for playablity reasons. Set the fighter max to 30K and the bomber cap to 23K. This will help close the high alt performance gap a bit and allow for a fair chance of bomber intercept
Also, I'd like to see a proper 50/50 split on players. The overall trend seen in single side attacker events over the last couple of years has shown that the defending side has had little success in making an even fight based on kills made vs losses suffered. Increase Jg26 to 8 190A's and add four 110G-2's from Zg76.
-
I just wanted to note that it's currently 78 Allies to 44 Axis. Due to formations.
-
I'd also like to see a third of the bombers be b24s like it was in big week. Instead of all b17s.
-
I'd also like to see a third of the bombers be b24s like it was in big week. Instead of all b17s.
+1 for this idea.
-
I would be interested in knowing exactly how many objects there are in total that the allied can get points for and if just the bombers can destroy those objects.
Below is a wild swing as i believe the allied have many more objects than 150 per Factory. Besides the plane numbers being grossly in the allied favor the points generation appears to be that way as well.......
Max Points AXIS can clear if all 14 bomber pilots are put in the air and everything shot down twice = 177
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Allied
.2 per object
Not sure of the exact number say 150 objects per Factory ( i believe the object per factory is much higher)
30 points 4 factories
120 points possible from bombers using my light numbers
88 points if they shoot down every axis twice
208 Possible points
-
I think the alt caps should be lowered for playablity reasons. Set the fighter max to 30K and the bomber cap to 23K. This will help close the high alt performance gap a bit and allow for a fair chance of bomber intercept
Also, I'd like to see a proper 50/50 split on players. The overall trend seen in single side attacker events over the last couple of years has shown that the defending side has had little success in making an even fight based on kills made vs losses suffered. Increase Jg26 to 8 190A's and add four 110G-2's from Zg76.
How do you pull that off when you consider the bombers included? That many more fighters for the LW makes it that much tougher for the smaller number of Allied fighters to protect and give the bombers any chance of getting to the target. Scenario history does seem to tell us that the bombers have a tendency to get slaughtered no matter what the escorts do. The number of guys willing to fly bombers has dwindled down and down due to this. Can't see how even more LW fighters would help reverse that trend.
-
If folks want, we can probably rejigger it to have 8 pilots per group instead of 6. Making it larger, though, is impractical when you don't have 100 people on a side like in the olden days. We'd have too few groups.
Does anyone *not* want me to rejigger it into 8-pilot groups?
Speak up now, please, before I put in the work to change it.
-
....
-
Regarding ratio allied:axis, fighters:bombers, etc., this design takes the same ratios as Battle Over Germany, which worked out just fine, and everyone was happy. There wasn't a bunch of complaining after it was over, and if you go back and look at the logs, you see that it worked out OK.
The ratios are also similar in DGS and DGSII, and those worked out OK as well.
I think the best way is to use what worked well in the past.
-
For scoring, anyone who wants to put forth some different idea of a scoring system has the ability to go back through frames of BOG and DGS II and show what their scoring system would do.
For example, if a suggested scoring system results in one side or the other in BOG winning all of the frames, it isn't a scoring system we would want to go with.
-
How do you pull that off when you consider the bombers included? That many more fighters for the LW makes it that much tougher for the smaller number of Allied fighters to protect and give the bombers any chance of getting to the target. Scenario history does seem to tell us that the bombers have a tendency to get slaughtered no matter what the escorts do. The number of guys willing to fly bombers has dwindled down and down due to this. Can't see how even more LW fighters would help reverse that trend.
Because of this: I just wanted to note that it's currently 78 Allies to 44 Axis. Due to formations.
And and how that relates to this: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,383331.0.html
The current proportion is too close a 45/55 player split favoring the attacker and I believe that this scenario will fall into a similar pattern with the defending side suffering a vast majority of total losses. This side split does not work in low number events.
-
Here's how I applied the scoring system in the current version of the writeup to BOG and DGSII.
I can look at every frame of those and see:
-- The number of allied kills
-- The obj destroyed by allies
-- The number of allied bombers
-- The number of axis kills
Now, one thing in BOG and DGSII is that the bombers did one sortie. So, to translate into our world of two bomber sorties per frame, I actually doubled the obj destroyed and then used it in my calculations. Also, I wanted to make sure that a bomb run on targets in BOG and DGSII are comparable to what we would get here, so I did practice bomb runs myself through every target factory type to see what I get vs. what the top-experienced bomber pilots in BOG and DGSII got to see if I needed a further adjustment to obj destroyed to make them comparable. They are comparable, though, so I didn't feel that there was any adjustment needed.
What I found is that a pts/object of 0.2 would result in allies winning 2 of 6 frames for BOG and 3 of 6 frames of DGSII.
If I picked 0.24 pts/object, it would have been 3 of 6 for BOG and 3 of 6 for DGSII, but one of the axis wins in DGSII would have been by an infinitesimal margin.
I picked 0.2 instead of something higher to be conservative on the axis side because of the outcome of the previous scenario.
-
If folks want, we can probably rejigger it to have 8 pilots per group instead of 6. Making it larger, though, is impractical when you don't have 100 people on a side like in the olden days. We'd have too few groups.
Does anyone *not* want me to rejigger it into 8-pilot groups?
Speak up now, please, before I put in the work to change it.
Not every squad should to be expanded to 8, just the 109G's, 190's, P-38's and P-47's.
Regarding ratio allied:axis, fighters:bombers, etc., this design takes the same ratios as Battle Over Germany, which worked out just fine, and everyone was happy. There wasn't a bunch of complaining after it was over, and if you go back and look at the logs, you see that it worked out OK.
The ratios are also similar in DGS and DGSII, and those worked out OK as well.
I think the best way is to use what worked well in the past.
If you really want to recreate the opening frames Battle Over Germany, then just make it exactly that and end the discussion. Of course you already made changes that messed up the balance - higher bomber cap, replacing the 190A-8 with the A-5, and a higher proportion pf P-51's.
If you want a better balanced version then lets stop using BoG as the benchmark and actually fix the problems.
For scoring, anyone who wants to put forth some different idea of a scoring system has the ability to go back through frames of BOG and DGS II and show what their scoring system would do.
For example, if a suggested scoring system results in one side or the other in BOG winning all of the frames, it isn't a scoring system we would want to go with.
Let's ensure the playability is balanced first then make a fair points system after.
-
So, that is how I did the scoring.
If you want to promote a different scoring system, please show what your scoring system would do at least for the frames of BOG.
That way, we can see how it would have worked in the past.
A scoring system that results in, for example, axis or allies winning all frames of BOG is not one we'd want to use.
-
Count up the total number of objects in play: each object destroyed is a point for the allies, each one saved is a point for the axis (destroyed objects stay down for the duration of the frame). I don't know if the allies will have a different designated target each time or if they can freely hit whatever they choose each frame. Depending on how close potential targets are to the front lines, objects destroyed could stay down for the entire event to prod the allies to go deeper into axis airpsace to find unhindered enemy industry. Are the allies expected to make one long raid or two comparably shorter runs per frame?
Manual calibration for bombers. They'll be area bombing strats so no need for pin-point auto calibration, this will throw in a little bit of potential error as well to incentivize them into knowing their craft/skill.
-
Not every squad should to be expanded to 8, just the 109G's, 190's and P-47's.
OK -- anyone object to me modding group sizes?
If you ...
Are you saying you want 190A-8's instead of A-5's?
I don't think allies having 2 less P-51's or bombers at 23k instead of 25k would be significant.
What problems are you talking about?
-
Up them to 8 old boy :old:
-
Because of this:
And and how that relates to this: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,383331.0.html
The current proportion is too close a 45/55 player split favoring the attacker and I believe that this scenario will fall into a similar pattern with the defending side suffering a vast majority of total losses. This side split does not work in low number events.
I guess I'm looking for an example from past scenarios built around 17s and 24s where the Axis has struggled? Generally the bomber guys are the ones who don't make it through the entire scenario because they get tired of dying.
I don't recall any where the LW got pounded but am more than willing to hear if that has been the case. I'm looking at DGS, DGS II, BoG as my examples. I'm not sure how counting drones adds up to more pilots. From a LW perspective, it seems like that just means more targets :)
-
OK -- anyone object to me modding group sizes?
Are you saying you want 190A-8's instead of A-5's?
I don't think allies having 2 less P-51's or bombers at 23k instead of 25k would be significant.
What problems are you talking about?
What I'm pointing out is that you have made 3 changes from BoG. Each one negatively affects the Axis to some degree. Given the low player base likely to attend the event, these changes are not - as you claim - insignificant.
The A-8 is a much bigger threat to the bombers than the A-5 because of the 30mm cannon. There was also the small number of 110's in BoG, also a bigger threat to the bombers.
That 2k difference in altitude makes a difference in the difficulty of intercepting the bombers because of their increased speed and poorer performance of the 109's and 190's.
The 2 extra P-51's may be a small advantage but it's still 2 more Allied pilots that are essentially untouchable in combat.
It's not about what I want, but what you are trying to achieve. If you want an exact small scale BoG then just set up the plane set and proportions exactly to what was seen in BoG. But don't make changes and think that the balance is maintained - because it's not. Why did you feel the need to tweak the design?
You made it easier for the Allies to accolmplish their mission, but reduced the capability of the Axis to accomplish theirs.
And, as I pointed out to Guppy, the side split is also a problem with low population events.
-
OK,
A couple points here.
My books show that I II III / JG11 were flying FW190s during this time period, or transitioning to them. There were a couple of pilots who flew 109s as a matter of choice but the units had 190s.
You know this is a favorite set up, why do you have 6 seats? All air forces were flying the finger four formation by this time. That would call for 8 or 4? 6 is just an odd number :D
I know if you set JG11 in 190s I can fill 8 None of my guys are interested in G-6 vs P-51s and P-38s
So give JG26 8 and have a JG11 with 4 190s, your numbers are still balanced and I can fill that group for sure. I would rather fly with 3 of MY GUYS then 5 walk-ons
Thanks
Ditto
-
I guess I'm looking for an example from past scenarios built around 17s and 24s where the Axis has struggled? Generally the bomber guys are the ones who don't make it through the entire scenario because they get tired of dying.
I don't recall any where the LW got pounded but am more than willing to hear if that has been the case. I'm looking at DGS, DGS II, BoG as my examples. I'm not sure how counting drones adds up to more pilots. From a LW perspective, it seems like that just means more targets :)
For a proper AH Scenario(TM) look at BOWL. Overall, the Axis struggled to compete with the Allies. Yes the bombers were hit, sometimes very hard, but that event was FAR from balanced - and the scoring system was FUBAR to boot.
The data I collected was for FSO but the larger sample size provides a clearer picture of the problem. There was also another FSO run this past February that fits what you are looking for - and the results there also fit the pattern in my link.
-
For a proper AH Scenario(TM) look at BOWL. Overall, the Axis struggled to compete with the Allies. Yes the bombers were hit, sometimes very hard, but ...
Here are ratios of the scenarios that are appropriate for what we are doing, where DF:AF = (defending fighters, i.e., Luftwaffe)/(attacking fighters, i.e., allied); B:F = (num bomber pilots)/(num fighters); E/B = (excess defending fighters)/(bomber pilots) = (DF - AF)/(AB).
BOG, AB = 54, AF = 144; DF = 176; DF:AF = 1.22; B:F = 0.38; E/B = 0.60
DGS II, AF = 160, AB = 54; DF = 200; DF:AF = 1.25; B:F = 0.34; E/B = 0.74
DGS, AF = 164, AB = 57; DF = 192; DF:AF = 1.17; B:F = 0.35; E/B = 0.49
BOWL, AF = 74, AB = 36; DF = 80; DF:AF = 1.08; B:F = 0.49; E/B = 0.17
It is clear why BOWL was harder on the axis, and BOWL ratios are not what we have in Big Week.
-
For a proper AH Scenario(TM) look at BOWL. Overall, the Axis struggled to compete with the Allies. Yes the bombers were hit, sometimes very hard, but that event was FAR from balanced - and the scoring system was FUBAR to boot.
The data I collected was for FSO but the larger sample size provides a clearer picture of the problem. There was also another FSO run this past February that fits what you are looking for - and the results there also fit the pattern in my link.
That would hardly be one I'd compare to BoG or either DGS II with 17s and 24s. And I was flying an F8 in that one. 26s are a different animal than 17s and 24s. Also the LW had an offensive part they had to deal with, not just getting fighters in position to stop bombers. No Spits, Tempests etc in any of the 8th AF runs as well.
\
I understand what you are suggesting. I just don't see it as applicable to a higher alt 8th AF vs the LW fight. The bombers have always tended to get clobbered
-
OK, next version is up (v3).
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201706_BigWeek/rules.html
Tried to get groups to be size 8 when possible. Let me know if you want me to rename any of the groups as long as the renaming is appropriate.
Gave axis 40% more FW 190's than BOG frame 1.
The ratios for Big Week are those of BOG.
-
Allied pilots that are essentially untouchable in combat.
Bah humbug. ;)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame3/009-hit51-Image-0014.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame3/010-51dead-Image-0016.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame3/013-on38-Image-0020.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame3/022-wingOff-Image-0043.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame4/011-down47-Image-0017.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame4/012-down38-Image-0021.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame4/019-kill47-Image-0030.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame5/004-1stAttack-Image-0010.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame5/006-attack-Image-0012.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame5/019-down-Image-0051.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame2/024-kill-Image-0038.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/028-hitp47-Image-0047.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/026-flame38-Image-0045.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/025-blast47-Image-0042.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/004-p47kill-Image-0007.jpg)
-
Bah humbug. ;)
I was referring specifically to the P-51. Also still pictures are not that great without context. What was that Pony doing when you popped on his six? I bet you did not get there 1v1 or his squad only vs your squad only. Also, nice G-14.
Any insight as to the real content of my full post you quoted a single remark from? Seems to me you cherry-picked the least important item.
-
Also in frame 1 of BOG, the P-51B's got a 0.66 K:D.
In frame 2, the P-51B's got a 2:1 K:D (pretty good) -- but that qualified only as an average Luftwaffe group, where there were several at 2:1 and some at 3:1.
In frame 3, the P-51B's got a 1.5:1 K:D (decent) -- but average Luftwaffe was 1.8:1 K:D.
So, I do not think P-51B's are untouchable.
-
Again, context is everything. If a pony driver got killed by a G-6 that pilot messed up somewhere or was very unlucky. Also, I'm sure that many of those kills by the Luftwaffe were bombers.
But like I said before the P-51 is the least pressing concern. What about the alt caps and swapping out the 190A-8?
-
What was that Pony doing when you popped on his six? I bet you did not get there 1v1 or his squad only vs your squad only. Also, nice G-14.
Come on -- I had to poke some fun at you, you know? ;)
It was a scrum over the top of bombers during a Luftwaffe attack on the bomber stream, and you know that a G-14 isn't better than a G-6 at higher alts.
The way I feel about it is this: I don't fear fighting P-51's in my 109G. If he is a better pilot than I am, he will probably kill me -- but I don't feel that it is the plane.
Any insight as to the real content of my full post
Yes, it is in other posts above. See revision 3, info on performance of P-51B's vs. Luftwaffe in BOG, and the main design ratios for comparison of various past strategic-bombing scenarios.
-
Doubt there will be 14 bomber pilots. so doubt there will be 42 bombers. Seems like each scenario bombers get taken down pretty well, so there are fewer and fewer people wanting to fly them. At some point it will get down to no one wants to fly them, which will then end the whines about bombers.
-
Yes, it is in other posts above. See revision 3, info on performance of P-51B's vs. Luftwaffe in BOG, and the main design ratios for comparison of various past strategic-bombing scenarios.
None of this pertains to alt caps, 190A-8's, or 110's.
-
What about the alt caps and swapping out the 190A-8?
The typical alt in Big Week seemed to be 25k, which is why I increased it a measly 2k. 23k was quite low for Big Week, it seems.
Let's compromise at 24k.
As for 190A-8's, there were two reasons to making them 190A-5's. First is that 190A-8's weren't around until after Big Week. Second is that all I hear from axis guys is wanting A-5's instead of A-8's. I thought they'd be happy to get A-5's instead of A-8's, but I get the lethality aspect.
The A-8 is so slow and climbs so poorly at alt, I worry about them. The A-5 is nearly 40 mph faster and has about twice the climb rate at 30k. That is significant.
I understand the firepower issue, but if you really want firepower, the axis could have some 110G's with higher firepower still, way more 30 mm ammo (not just 55 rpg), no convergence issue, the same speed as the A-8 at alt, and climbs better than the A-8 at alt.
I also don't mind fighting P-51's in the 110G: ;)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201602_SouthernConquest/pics/frame4-05-killp51-SNAG-0018.jpg)
I'm going to fly axis in this one. I will likely be in a 109. If there are 110G's, I might fly one of those, though.
-
an 8/8 cloud layer at 34 will look bad I think. Let us see some blue when looking up!
Perhaps a down-wind layer above 34k is a better solution?
-
Doubt there will be 14 bomber pilots. so doubt there will be 42 bombers. Seems like each scenario bombers get taken down pretty well, so there are fewer and fewer people wanting to fly them. At some point it will get down to no one wants to fly them, which will then end the whines about bombers.
Chin up, my friend! :aok
It's only a small number of guys who every time want more advantages over bombers, and they never fly bombers, so you can't expect them to know what it is like.
Getting annihilated (like A-20's in Tunisia, Ju 88's in MM, for example) is certainly no fun.
But the last several years of scenarios have been OK for bombers other than that. Bombers did fine in Hinterland, Dnieper (at least Tu-2's did), Southern Conquest (my Ju 88 group had a rocking time), BOWL, and BoB 2013 (at least I did in He 111's).
Keep in mind this one is modelled on Battle Over Germany frame 1, where bombers did OK. It wasn't a cakewalk, and they didn't all die short of target. Also, we are having 2 missions for bombers, not just one.
This is *the* bomber setup -- 8th AF strategic bombing.
If bomber pilots can't get into this one, they aren't really bomber pilots! :aok
-
an 8/8 cloud layer at 34 will look bad I think. Let us see some blue when looking up!
Perhaps a down-wind layer above 34k is a better solution?
Nice spot, my friend! :aok And good suggestion, too.
It's a thin layer of cirrus that looks like this from below, but you notice it if you fly through it. We can't do downwind at 34k, or I would absolutely do that.
Flying close to it:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame2/003-bombers-SNAG-0002.jpg)
When a bit below it:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame2/007-escort-SNAG-0008.jpg)
-
The A-8 is so slow and climbs so poorly at alt, I worry about them. The A-5 is nearly 40 mph faster and has about twice the climb rate at 30k. That is significant.
Another way to look at this.
The FW 190D-9 and FW 190A-5 have similar climb at high alts. Also, when you think about how much faster a D-9 is -- the D-9 is the same speed improvement over the A-5 as the A-5 is over the A-8.
-
A reminder that the LW gets two lives and can immediately re-up after being shot down and climb back to the fight. Any allied fighter must proceed 100+ miles
to the west and to air spawn and then they have the long tail chase to attempt to close back on the bombers. Not to mention the ability of the LW to drop down and rearm at any convenient base. If anything the player split should be 55US/45LW, but that is not going to happen.
Brooke,
Better take a look at your terrain. A57 is non operational.
Also you need to ensure that friendly fire is off. (IE does no damage)
You had best look at giving 3 lives to the fighter pilots of both sides or your second required mission may be sparsely attended by anything less than 4 engines. The LW will almost certainly launch again if they get shot down while the bombers are inbound. If they don't then you are going to have a bunch of unhappy HQ warriors sitting and waiting for the second inbound bomber wave at T+90. And if they do launch a good chance that they will loose about half of those pilots once again. As for the Allies they too have a choice, rather to sit in the briefing rooms discussing the latest news or re-up to escort the bombers back home. Again you can probably figure on loosing 33% to 50% of those second flight fliers as well. It may end up looking like February 45 by the time this all comes around.
-
Fencer, thanks! :aok
Yep, going to need to get 57 fixed for bombers.
I'm not aware that there is an option for turning off friendly fire -- or at least I don't remember using it in scenarios (could be brain degeneration on my part, though). We can turn killshooter on or off. If it is on, friendly A shooting friendly B means A takes the damage. If it is off, B takes the damage. Either way, if a friendly shoots a friendly, someone is taking damage.
As for 3 lives, it's a good discussion to have.
It's always a balance between motivating folks to fly with a care to their virtual lives but not have it so restrictive that no one is left after T+1.5 hours. Two lives has seemed a good balance of that for a lot of scenarios, including ones with longer travel times to target. DGS, BOG, DGSII had 2 lives for fighters and one for bombers, but BoB 2008, RtR, Philippine Phandango, Tunisia Dawn of Battle, Red Storm, and more all had 2 lives for everyone, and I think fighting and bombing seemed to go the distance.
3 lives have been very rare. There are a bunch of scenarios that had only one life (Rangoon 2004 and 2008, BoB 2004 and 2006). Dnieper had 3 lives, but it was a meat grinder of a battle, with 1 sector to combat, an alt cap of about 20k, and fights starting in the first 10 minutes of the frame and being nearly continuous until the end. Hinterland was also much more a meat grinder with similar dynamics to that, but it had 2 lives and except for frame 1 fighting lasted the distance.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea to do 3 lives -- just that we should all talk about it and see what everyone thinks.
It would be good that 3 lives isn't equivalent to the feel of unlimited lives, and we need to careful that the 3rd life isn't way more valuable to one side than the other, such as axis being able to utilize that 3rd life way more effectively than the allies.
-
I just wanted to note that it's currently 78 Allies to 44 Axis. Due to formations.
This is just silly. If you think a formation of bombers is anything remotely like an equal game asset to 3 fighters, either you've been hitting the schnapps way too hard or you've never actually played Aces High.
Luftwaffles always start lobbying the second the design discussion is opened for a 3:1 numerical advantage with them in perk planes and the Allies in P-40s and Boston IIIs to make the scenario "fair". I wish you guys would fly just one scenario as Allies, preferably in B-24s, to get a little perspective. Even numbers with one side having some bombers and the other all in fighters is not even, and even numbers counting bomber formations as 3 planes is just laughable. :rofl And I bet none of you are in the BoB thread lobbying for the RAF to have 50% more fighters than the LW for that one.
Edit: I should add, it's not by any means everyone who flies Axis or even everyone who prefers Axis who does this, it's the same small group of people. I've flown Axis several times and had a blast. I'd be glad to fly this one as Axis myself as the numbers now stand.
-
I hope you do.
I'd be glad to fly this one as Axis myself as the numbers now stand.
-
That cloud layer is the same we use in KOTH.....barely has any effect on what you see unless you are crossing it.
Going to register in a G6.
-
The typical alt in Big Week seemed to be 25k, which is why I increased it a measly 2k. 23k was quite low for Big Week, it seems.
Let's compromise at 24k.
As for 190A-8's, there were two reasons to making them 190A-5's. First is that 190A-8's weren't around until after Big Week. Second is that all I hear from axis guys is wanting A-5's instead of A-8's. I thought they'd be happy to get A-5's instead of A-8's, but I get the lethality aspect.
The A-8 is so slow and climbs so poorly at alt, I worry about them. The A-5 is nearly 40 mph faster and has about twice the climb rate at 30k. That is significant.
I understand the firepower issue, but if you really want firepower, the axis could have some 110G's with higher firepower still, way more 30 mm ammo (not just 55 rpg), no convergence issue, the same speed as the A-8 at alt, and climbs better than the A-8 at alt.
I also don't mind fighting P-51's in the 110G: ;)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201602_SouthernConquest/pics/frame4-05-killp51-SNAG-0018.jpg)
I'm going to fly axis in this one. I will likely be in a 109. If there are 110G's, I might fly one of those, though.
That 2K of alt is important because the Axis fighter performance falls off over 20K and the Allies keep gaining as alt increases. From 23 to 25K, the Axis lose 10-15mph and a B-17 gains that much - and so do their fighters. The performance gap only widens further from there. That is why I recommended the total alt cap comes down to 30K as well as putting the B-17's at 23K. You have put them in very little danger after the first pass by the Axis. Since the whole event is based on bomber escort, then the bombers should be the focal point of the action. I still think 23K is better for total event balance. Every little bit helps keep pressure on the bombers and making sure the escorts concentrate on protecting them.
I can't say I disagree with you on the performance merits of the A-5 over the A-8, but the matchup model was balanced with the A-8 and it's ability to hammer away at bombers with the 30mm's. If you feel that the balance is still maintained with A-5's then give one 190 squad the option of either the A-5 or A-8.
As for the historical use of the A-8, remember that the A-7, near identical to the A-8, had been in use with Jg 1 and Jg 26 since January '44.
Also, you did mention this:
Folks voted for A over B, so I figure they want it this way. I'm hesitant to take what people voted for then turn it into one of the choices that didn't win the voting.
and this:
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.
Seems only fair to have the option open for those that want the A-8.
Now with the 110's, I think you should give the Axis 4 of them to make up for the firepower shortcoming.
I'm going to fly axis in this one. I will likely be in a 109. If there are 110G's, I might fly one of those, though.
Looking forward to flying with you for a change. Pencil me in to lead III/Jg 54.
-
I'm flying axis in this one -- likely in a 109G-6 unless there are 110G's, in which case maybe I'd register for one of those.
However, I've flown bombers and fighters, escort and intercept, on axis and allied sides many times. So when folks talk about what it is like to fly bombers, or to escort bombers -- or to intercept bombers (including massed groups of B-17's) -- I get it.
I try my best for scenarios to be fun for everyone -- both fighter and bomber pilots.
I can't guarantee outcomes, as it depends on sides' plans, how well the sides execute, and the skill level on each side, which varies scenario to scenario and even frame to frame.
However, decent bomber missions are generally how things worked out in DGS (where I flew B-17's), BOG (where I flew 109's), the BoB's (where I flew Ju 88's, He 111's, 109's, Stukas, and Hurricanes, depending on which running it was), Southern Conquest (flew Ju 88's), Stalin's Fourth (flew Boston III's), Philippine Phandango (flew Ki-67's), and Tunisia Dawn of Battle (flew Ju 88's).
My favorites have been DGS, BoB 2013, and Southern Conquest. We had to fight our way to and from targets, it wasn't easy and we didn't always survive, but we got our share of targets, and when we did, it was a real sense of accomplishment.
That's what I'm hoping it's like here. :aok
-
Now with the 110's, I think you should give the Axis 4 of them to make up for the firepower shortcoming.
The axis CO will definitely get to decide if he wants some 110G's instead of all 190's.
Looking forward to flying with you for a change. Pencil me in to lead III/Jg 54.
Likewise. :aok
-
I'm really looking forward to this one!!! I'm really torn between flying with my CO (Devil5o5) or flying my favorite ride the 190A8!!! :cheers: :devil :salute
-
I think that having the alt cap be so high really sucks some fun out of the event. A P38 can barely cruise at that altitude, I can only imagine how the 190s and 109s must feel. Being at such high altitude limits how the fight turns out, basically the axis get one attempt at a pass on the bomber stream and after that all bets are off.
Im also worried about how the axis are supposed to kill the bombers with their plantset. B17s are VERY tanky and its gonna be really hard for axis fighters to get any meaningful damage off while allied escorts are gunning for them.
In BoG the axis had 190A8s which they used effectivly to HO pass the bomber stream and it worked well for them. I just dont see how the axis are going to be able to put a dent in the 17s while they have an equal amount of allied fighters chasing them down. How can the axis put up a defense against the bombers without draining all their resources to deal with the escorts.
The allies get to dictate the engagement, where and when they engage. The axis dont have enough forces to be PROACTIVE, only REACTIVE to what the allies do.
-
Some issues have been raised already and I'd like to add a couple of comments to them.
Regarding the allied planes vs axis planes ratio: It's high. The comments include that bombers got hit hard in past scenarios -- but this was with a LOT more players so axis could devote squadrons to sweeping attacks to draw off fighters, so that bomber-hunter groups could specifically be employed. Neither of those is likely in light of our last scenario. We'll have enemy fighters in close proximity to each other, and we won't be able to separate "escorts" from "attacker" on the axis because those lines are blurred or gone. This is compounded by the fact that US escorts will have 2x historical ammo (most of the P-47s will be using an unhistorical overload ammo) and will be able to remain on-station far longer than they should when realistically they'd have to break off after expending ammo. I know Guppy doesn't want to address that and thinks it's not an issue but it is. [edit: no offense guppy, that's the take I got from your comments in other thread] When you have P-47s loitering for an hour because they can it changes an entire battlefield dynamic. Because of these and other aspects, the ratio is a tad high in favor of the allied team at the moment.
Regarding the 190A8s: Our A-8 is modeled after the Sturm variant but without the additional armor to help it out. Further, the weights are all jacked up so that the MG151/20 loadout is heavier than it should be and the Mk108 possibly lighter than it should be. Regardless, the comment was made about 190A8s and the extra firepower needed to hunt down the bombers. Well... I can see that, but on the other hand at the alts the axis are forced to fight at the A-5 would better represent the lighter loadouts that our A8 can't quite match, even with only the 2-gun package. The A8 with 4x20mm should weigh the same as a dora. It's heavier than that and with less performance. So... I can see allowing the option to use either A5s of A8s at squadron CO choice (tailored to mission objective). I think that the option to swap 190s for 110s is probably just going to doom the 110s based on the balance issues above (comment #1). The firepower would be good but the planes would have a prolonged chase to use those guns and would be more vulnerable than 190s.
Regarding bomber alt cap: 24k is... well here's the thing with alt caps: You set a cap, guess where the bombers will be? At the cap. So, I really can't comment TOO much about this because whatever I'd suggest would just be the new "look for bombers here" alt. While bombers could be found at this alt they could also be found much lower, many as low as 16k in the massive 100s-of-bombers streams, the small rare percentage might be up at 28k and the low percentage were at 16k and the rest in between around 20-22k. I think 22k (going with the assumption that any set cap is the "find me here" alt for bomers) would be representative of the most common bomber level engaged by LW defensive fighters. 24k is a little high, but ... again, it's within a realm the axis side can reach (which is good) but above all their best altitudes by quite a bit (which isn't so good, but still managable)
TL;DR:
1) allied numbers a tad high
2) allied P-47s most common fighter and all will use unhistoric overload ammo. Disable that or lose all balance.
3) 190A5 option bridges gap, our A8 version too heavy. 110s probably dogmeat in this setup.
4) 22k would be better for bombers. 24 is... "eeeehhh... doable" but 22 or 23 would be more representative.
-
So lower alt for the bombers so the LW fighters can operate better, lower ammo for the Jugs so the LW gets less lead thrown at them, and lower number of Allied Fighters so the LW fighters have less to contend with......Do I detect a slant here? :)
-
Thinking about it and the numbers of players scenarios seem to draw now. Why not simplify this thing a bit? We basically with the numbers Brooke has for each side, have one Bomb Group and 1 Fighter Group for the Allies and one JG for the Luftwaffe.
So you set it up where the idea is the scenario is just one part of a larger raid. That US Fighter Group is covering it's Box of 17s to the target and back. The Luftwaffe is out to kill it.
So the 354th FG 51Bs are escorting the 91st BG 17s and are intercepted by the 109s and 190s of JG26. Lets face it, Bigweek isn't run without the Mustangs. It also kills the concerns of too much ammo for the Allied fighters.
One Fighter Group CO with three Squadron Leaders. One Bomber Group CO and 2 Squadron Leaders. And the JG with 1 JG CO and 3 Gruppe commanders.
It might feel a bit more historical that way instead of these small flights representing different groups.
Nothing changes in terms of objectives.
-
I kinda like your idea Guppy, I'd still add P-47's to allied side, since it's pretty popular as well.
-
Why not limit the fuel of escort fighters since they get an air start. Figure how much fuel they would burn from the point of historical take off to the air start point, and subtract that from the aggregate total fuel load out.
-
Thanks for all the work you're doing Brooke and for soliciting input from us during the design phase. I'm sure it'll be a great time.
When I look at this plane set depicting Big Week though, I feel it's too constricted. It seems right to me that the design should include 110s, the 410s, 190A-8s, and B-24s. The 110s and 410s would equipped with rockets, I believe? Is it possible to put them in, employable at the CO's discretion? With enough flexibility in the design that mauled units may be withdrawn from subsequent frames?
I think scenarios are more exciting if uncertainty remains as far as what opposing aircraft you may run across as a pilot. And it would add options (and perhaps some constraints too) for the COs when developing tactical plans.
It's historical. It adds variety and uncertainty. HTC went to a lot of work to build these models and include them in the game and if they turned out to be hangar queens in th MA, scenarios are where they find their purpose. Let's use them, or at least give COs the option?
-
Howdy, Oboe.
A-8's weren't around until well after Big Week.
I'm not sure about 410's, if they were much in Big Week or not, but as a guy who has occasionally flown 410's in the MA and has flown 110's in a scenario, I would not fly a 410 in a scenario because it is such a horrible dog. But I would fly a 110. They can at least dogfight if they have to.
I would also not fly anything with the air-to-air rockets for three reasons. First is that not many aircraft attacked with rockets compared to the usual way with cannon. Say a few percent of fighters historically attacked with rockets (probably a vast over-representation compared to history) -- that would be one fighter when we have 40 fighters. Second is that anything loading those rockets will fly like a complete dog and end up being cannon fodder. Third is that folks wouldn't practice the rockets enough to hit well with them. Folks often don't even practice stuff that is vastly easier to practice than that. So, if we did it, what we'd get is some folks being ordered to fly with rockets, would tend to get annihilated (because the aircraft are such dogs) and not kill much of anything because they aren't well practiced with rockets -- and we'd have a bunch of people complaining and unhappy and arguing that the axis needs 50 more fighters.
B-24's were in Big Week at about 1/3 proportion of bombers.
The big problem with putting in all plane types, though, is that we have only 40-ish people per side. If we have B-24's, you have a group of B-24's with 4 planes in it. That isn't very workable, because a lot of the defense of bombers is that there are a bunch of them together. If we have only a few together, they will be sitting ducks. Also, it isn't really workable to fly B-17's and B-24's together in a mixed group, as we have to take into account not all pilots are equally expert. For folks who haven't flown as B-17 or B-24 GL's in DGS, DGSII, or BOG, this probably wouldn't come immediately to mind, but that's a thing that has to be considered when we think about how to structure groups.
When we have 100 pilots per side, we can start putting in everything. When we have 40 per side, we have to start leaving out low-proportion aspects and going for the stuff that was typically there so that we don't get a group that is too tiny, or blow out our proportions such that the fight is no longer representative of what was going on in the historical battle, or have folks doing things as a major part of the scenario that were minor parts at most of the real battle.
-
I think it would be simpler to determine the total number of viable industrial objects and award "X" points per object destroyed to the Allies (and the same per object saved to the Axis) rather than justifying a computed 21 point "headstart" for the Axis. Whatever works in regards to placing an emphasis on attacking/defending German industry over simply tallying up air-to-air victories.
And count me in for a shiny set of B-17s on this one. I'd vote for manual bomb sights as well, but from what I've been reading here we expect to be hard pressed for buff pilots as is!
-
I think it would be simpler to determine the total number of viable industrial objects and award "X" points per object destroyed to the Allies (and the same per object saved to the Axis) rather than justifying a computed 21 point "headstart" for the Axis. Whatever works in regards to placing an emphasis on attacking/defending German industry over simply tallying up air-to-air victories.
And count me in for a shiny set of B-17s on this one. I'd vote for manual bomb sights as well, but from what I've been reading here we expect to be hard pressed for buff pilots as is!
Nevermind to the score part, I was simply assuming Allies would win the bombing campaign if they destroyed 50% or more of the industrial objects.
Still gonna fly B-17s
-
The current scoring system would tend to work out approximately that way, but there are mitigating cases. For example, under the current scoring system, if the 8th AF did that much bombing but lost the entire air force in the process, while the Luftwaffe didn't suffer large losses, the Luftwaffe would tend to win.
-
Hiya Brooke,
Here's a thought - you could pencil in a B-24 group with the same number of pilots as the B-17 groups. Then stipulate in the design that the B-24 group must replace each of the B-17 groups one time, in any of the 4 frames (CO's discretion). That way, 25% of the sorties flown in our "Big Week" will be flown by B-24s (much closer to the 30% historical figure). It gets the B-24s into the action, preserves some diversity in the plane set and addresses your concern about an undermanned bomber group getting mauled.
The same type of thing could be done with 410s and 110s. The 190A-7 was present since late 1943, and had the up-gunned cowl guns to 13mm - so couldn't the A-8 substitute for the A-7?
As far as rockets, if they are at least available as an option - perhaps most LW pilots would share your dim view of them, and agree with you as to their drawbacks - and so not take them. But a few might try it - and that might end up making the proper historical ratio of pilots who flew with them. That way, film of the event's action might end up displaying rocket attacks by Me110s - just like in Big Week. Or, it may not. But the option and uncertainty would be there.
<S>, and Happy Easter, and safe travels!
-
We will definitely increase the squadron numbers if registration fills up, but I am hesitant to increase it right now because we are averaging (over last 3 scenarios) 75 players and had to go to extreme lengths to fill even to those levels. This one is already set for 94, a substantial increase. It's probably best to make sure it fills before we increase anything.
I skipped the last scenario because, by the time I ended up deciding to fly in it, there were only a handful of slots open on each side and there was nothing open that I wanted to fly in (on either side). I saw this same discussion before that scenario but when it got down to 3ish spots open on a side there were no new spots opened. I know because I kept checking back.
I think whatever you've "designed" is the best that you'll get, particularly if you're going to wait to completely "fill" each initial open slot.
I see a lot of discussion about percent if aircraft present, etc. Here's an idea... with every plane shot down those percentages change (and did change).
If you want to attract players then you have to be at least somewhat less rigid. I get that you want a historic representation but you're not going to get it without people.
-
Registration was open for over 1 month for the last scenario, and there open spots in all types of aircraft for weeks. If anyone wanted a particular plane type, all they had to do was not wait weeks to register.
Also, opening more spots when spots are still open, or having way more spots than what you actually will fill, doesn't work well. All you end up doing is incentivizing people not to register and creating imbalances.
-
Howdy, Oboe. I think the setup is pretty decent, and I'd rather skip complications in player-enforced rules of manning planes.
There was no 190A-8 in Big Week. If Big Week was mostly A-7's (I don't know if that was the case), the 190A-5 is a much better match to it than is a 190A-8 anyway.
For rockets, maybe 1% of attacks in Big Week were rocket attacks. If so, we're talking about less than one plane with rockets here.
I looked up the Me 410 vs. Bf 110. The large majority of twin-engine fighters in Big Week (which were still a much smaller proportion than 109's and 190's) were 110's. So, again, if you have a small proportion of an already small proportion, it's a thing that needs to be skipped when you are talking about 40-ish folks on a side. The axis can opt for four 110G's in place of four 190's if they want -- but I will leave that to the axis to decide if they want them, but we should do it one way or the other prior to registration opening so that folks know what they are signing up for.
Oboe, what are you going to fly in this one?
-
If Big Week was mostly A-7's (I don't know if that was the case), the 190A-5 is a much better match to it than is a 190A-8 anyway.
No Brooke, it A-7 was the first model to be equipped with the 13mm cowl Mg's and half of the 70 plane production run were built with the 30mm cannon and the rest were had Mg151 cannons in the outer bays. For all practical purposes an A-7 is an A-8.
Also according to the Jg 26 War Diary, Jg 27 suffered 11 total 190 pilot casualties during Big Week, 4 were in A-7's. Given an estimated Geschwader strength of 70 total 190's split between the Stab and First and Second Gruppen. Knowing that only Jg 1 and 26 received the A-7, if one assumes they were split evenly then half of each Gescheader would be in the A-7.
-
For what it's worth, Gruppen I and II of JG26 in February 1944
I / JG26
2.44
At start Added Lost End of month strength
3 Fw 190A-4 1 2 2
2 Fw 190A-5 0 2
22 Fw 190A-6 7 11 18
0 Fw 190A-7 2 2
0 Fw 190A-6 / R6 12 12
7 Fw 190A-7 / R6 6 4 9
II / JG26
2.44
2 Fw 190A-5 1 2 1
25 Fw 190A-6 6 20 11
11 Fw 190A-7 9 10 10
-
Winner. ^
-
According to the sources for the Wiki article on 190 variants, the A-7 didn't have 30 mm cannon in wings. Devil, where are you finding the data that half of A-7's had 30 mm cannon in the wings (as opposed to rarer 190 underwing gun pods)?
I'm getting The Luftwaffe Data Book -- I'm hoping it will have more data on such things, but I won't know until it arrives. Also, just ordered The FW 190 in Action book to see if it covers such things.
Anyway, using Fencer's data and assuming that it is representative of all of Big Week 190's and using Devil's assertion that half of A-7's had 30 mm cannon, 16% of 190's have 30 mm cannon, which comes out to 2.6 aircraft for us.
If that is a decent analysis (I'll see if we can get more data on any of this), maybe we could have one group of 4 aircraft that is 190A-8's or Bf 110G's or 190A-5's (at Luftwaffe's choice -- although would prefer it to be made prior to us opening registration if possible), one group that is 4 190A-5's, and another group that is 8 190A-5's.
Swareiam, any thoughts on this?
-
According to the sources for the Wiki article on 190 variants, the A-7 didn't have 30 mm cannon in wings. Devil, where are you finding the data that half of A-7's had 30 mm cannon in the wings (as opposed to rarer 190 underwing gun pods)?
I'm getting The Luftwaffe Data Book -- I'm hoping it will have more data on such things, but I won't know until it arrives. Also, just ordered The FW 190 in Action book to see if it covers such things.
Anyway, using Fencer's data and assuming that it is representative of all of Big Week 190's and using Devil's assertion that half of A-7's had 30 mm cannon, 16% of 190's have 30 mm cannon, which comes out to 2.6 aircraft for us.
If that is a decent analysis (I'll see if we can get more data on any of this), maybe we could have one group of 4 aircraft that is 190A-8's or Bf 110G's or 190A-5's (at Luftwaffe's choice -- although would prefer it to be made prior to us opening registration if possible), one group that is 4 190A-5's, and another group that is 8 190A-5's.
Swareiam, any thoughts on this?
Jg 26 War Diary: Vol 2, pg. 207 by Donald Caldwell.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/190A-7_zps5ckiqhk8.png~original) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/190A-7_zps5ckiqhk8.png.html)
Note that Caldwell states the other Geschwader to receive A-7's was Jg 2 when in fact it was Jg 1.
-
Devil is my friend :)
-
Devil is my friend :)
:cheers:
-
Not sure where this is headed. Does this mean there should be more A-8s or not? Thought there was concern about performance? Personally they can all be A-8s if that's what folks prefer or A-5s or a mix! :)
-
Not sure where this is headed. Does this mean there should be more A-8s or not? Thought there was concern about performance? Personally they can all be A-8s if that's what folks prefer or A-5s or a mix! :)
To me it ties in to the expected combat conditions given the rule set. The bombers are higher than in BoG, which means it will be even more difficult to engage the bomber stream regardless of aircraft type. That places an emphasis on ensuring kill shots on bombers with a single pass.
What I have been trying to show Brooke, is that his model of using the BoG planes set balance does not work without the A-8. It works even less because of the raised bomber cap. 23K was fine for BoG when every 190 was an A-8. With the A-5, attacks on the bomber stream will need to be protracted to maintain the kill ratio, hence the need to lower the cap even further. But I figure it would be easier to prove Brooke's claims and insistence on no A-8's as incorrect than convincing him to bring the bombers lower than in BoG.
-
To me it ties in to the expected combat conditions given the rule set. The bombers are higher than in BoG, which means it will be even more difficult to engage the bomber stream regardless of aircraft type. That places an emphasis on ensuring kill shots on bombers with a single pass.
What I have been trying to show Brooke, is that his model of using the BoG planes set balance does not work without the A-8. It works even less because of the raised bomber cap. 23K was fine for BoG when every 190 was an A-8. With the A-5, attacks on the bomber stream will need to be protracted to maintain the kill ratio, hence the need to lower the cap even further. But I figure it would be easier to prove Brooke's claims and insistence on no A-8's as incorrect than convincing him to bring the bombers lower than in BoG.
Got ya.
So A-8s in the main, and BoG alt caps is the goal
-
More or less, Dan.
I understand Brooke's reluctance to go full A-8's. With only 14 sets of buffs there could be missions wiped out well before the drop zone. My feeling though is that too many bombers will survive contact with A-5's as the likelihood of a first pass kill is so much less. Given the huge alt and energy advantage the Allied fighters have, I feel that any 190 would be driven off in most cases before making a second pass. That is why I also recommended lowering the overall alt cap as well. If the fighter energy gap is closer, the Luft fighters have a better chance of keeping pressure on the buffs long enough to keep kill rates proportional to what was seen with full A-8's in BoG.
-
More or less, Dan.
I understand Brooke's reluctance to go full A-8's. With only 14 sets of buffs there could be missions wiped out well before the drop zone. My feeling though is that too many bombers will survive contact with A-5's as the likelihood of a first pass kill is so much less. Given the huge alt and energy advantage the Allied fighters have, I feel that any 190 would be driven off in most cases before making a second pass. That is why I also recommended lowering the overall alt cap as well. If the fighter energy gap is closer, the Luft fighters have a better chance of keeping pressure on the buffs long enough to keep kill rates proportional to what was seen with full A-8's in BoG.
Personally it doesn't matter to me other than I want as many folks interested in flying and increasing the crowd instead of the steady drop we've seen for a while now. I'd rather tangle with 100 A-8s at a lower altitude than 20 A-5s at a higher one :)
-
Howdy, Oboe. I think the setup is pretty decent, and I'd rather skip complications in player-enforced rules of manning planes.
There was no 190A-8 in Big Week. If Big Week was mostly A-7's (I don't know if that was the case), the 190A-5 is a much better match to it than is a 190A-8 anyway.
For rockets, maybe 1% of attacks in Big Week were rocket attacks. If so, we're talking about less than one plane with rockets here.
I looked up the Me 410 vs. Bf 110. The large majority of twin-engine fighters in Big Week (which were still a much smaller proportion than 109's and 190's) were 110's. So, again, if you have a small proportion of an already small proportion, it's a thing that needs to be skipped when you are talking about 40-ish folks on a side. The axis can opt for four 110G's in place of four 190's if they want -- but I will leave that to the axis to decide if they want them, but we should do it one way or the other prior to registration opening so that folks know what they are signing up for.
Oboe, what are you going to fly in this one?
Thanks Brooke. I don't have a strong feeling which side or what in particular I'd like to fly in this one - plus I think I should wait until the final design is done to see what my options are. Actually I think I should fly wherever and whatever will help everyone else's experience the most - you know, fill in for whatever unit seems to be coming up shorthanded.
I pitched pretty hard for more variety in the plane set - if one of the planes I suggested should make the final cut I would be happy to drive one of those.
-
Not sure where this is headed. Does this mean there should be more A-8s or not? Thought there was concern about performance? Personally they can all be A-8s if that's what folks prefer or A-5s or a mix! :)
It is true, the A-8 is a dog at alt compared to the A-5. Folks who want the A-8 want it because of the 30 mm.
Regardless, I'm in favor of representative aircraft of the battle. If it is true that 16% of the 190's were essentially A-8's, then I'm 100% fine with some A-8's in there if the Luftwaffe wants them. I'm also OK with none if they don't want them, though, as we are only talking about a few planes.
Basically, what I'm thinking is:
JG X has 4 190A-8's (or Bf 110's, whichever the Luftwaffe prefers)
JG Y has 4 190A-5's
JG Z has 8 190A-5's
The total is still 16 planes, it's just that 4 of them are now A-8's or 110's.
-
It is true, the A-8 is a dog at alt compared to the A-5. Folks who want the A-8 want it because of the 30 mm.
Regardless, I'm in favor of representative aircraft of the battle. If it is true that 16% of the 190's were essentially A-8's, then I'm 100% fine with some A-8's in there if the Luftwaffe wants them. I'm also OK with none if they don't want them, though, as we are only talking about a few planes.
Basically, what I'm thinking is:
JG X has 4 190A-8's (or Bf 110's, whichever the Luftwaffe prefers)
JG Y has 4 190A-5's
JG Z has 8 190A-5's
The total is still 16 planes, it's just that 4 of them are now A-8's or 110's.
This is fine if the alt caps come down.
If you insist on keeping it at 23K or above, we're going to need more than just 4 A-8's.
Something like...
Jg X has 8 190 A-8's
Jg Y has 8 190 A-5's
OR
JG X has 4 190A-8's
JG Y has 4 190A-5's
JG Z has 8 190A-5's
Zg R has 4 110G-2's
and the number of 109's remains unchanged as well.
-
The bombers are higher than in BoG,
A whole 1k higher, but that is irrelevant because . . .
which means it will be even more difficult to engage the bomber stream regardless of aircraft type.
What matters is the height of the escort, not the height of the bombers. You have to climb to the level of the escort before you go in, or you won't make it to the bombers; and once you are at escort height, specific bomber alt doesn't matter as you are way higher than they are regardless. This is unless the bombers are unescorted, in which case it's moot anyway.
I (in my 109G) could not care less whether the bombers are at 23k or 24k.
I'm not picking 23k or 24k for convenience of the Luftwaffe or 8th AF. I'm picking what seemed (in references I looked through) to have been typical historical bomber alt.
But I figure it would be easier to prove Brooke's claims and insistence on no A-8's as incorrect than convincing him to bring the bombers lower than in BoG.
Yes, that is absolutely the way to do it. I am in favor of putting in planes that were there when possible.
So, what alt should we use? The historical one.
What aircraft should we have? The historical ones.
You want one plane or the other because you like it better or because you think it's an advantage to your side? That doesn't influence me as much -- but . . .
If you find that the one you like happens to be the historical one, I'm usually in favor of that. :aok
-
we're going to need
Don't worry so much, Devil -- it isn't our aircraft that will win or lose the battle for us -- it is we pilots who will determine that based on how well we fly and execute. :aok
It's not like we're flying P-40's here or have bad pilots. We've got some great German aircraft and some great pilots. :aok
-
Thanks Brooke. I don't have a strong feeling which side or what in particular I'd like to fly in this one - plus I think I should wait until the final design is done to see what my options are. Actually I think I should fly wherever and whatever will help everyone else's experience the most - you know, fill in for whatever unit seems to be coming up shorthanded.
I pitched pretty hard for more variety in the plane set - if one of the planes I suggested should make the final cut I would be happy to drive one of those.
You are a good egg, Oboe. :aok
That's exactly what I do from time to time, too -- see what will be the least-favored plane of the least-favored side and fly that.
This one, all of the planes are pretty popular. The P-47's, B-17's, and 109G's will take longest to fill just based on relative abundance, I think.
-
190 pilots out there, do you also want some A-8's in place of A-5's?
I want to make sure the Luftwaffe in general (including pilots who will be flying them) want it this way.
-
A-8 or A-5...both taste like chicken to my Razorback. :bolt:
-
A-8 or A-5...both taste like chicken to my Razorback. :bolt:
Some one who doesn't suffer from fockewulfphobia...How refreshing.
<S> LilMak.
-
A-8 or A-5...both taste like chicken to my Razorback. :bolt:
Above 25k D11 is 20-30 mph faster than the 190A5 and climbs as well (no paddle blade prop on D11) - and that is with a full fuel load that affects the P47 more than the 190.
The comparison to 190A8 at these altitutes is just funny....
Jugs rule the upper atmosphere and the LW will taste the true power of 8 fifties attached to a supercharger. Who's the fat plane now, eh? :D
It's a Razorback or bust for me!
:airplane:
-
Above 25k D11 is 20-30 mph faster than the 190A5 and climbs as well (no paddle blade prop on D11) - and that is with a full fuel load that affects the P47 more than the 190.
The comparison to 190A8 at these altitutes is just funny....
Jugs rule the upper atmosphere and the LW will taste the true power of 8 fifties attached to a supercharger. Who's the fat plane now, eh? :D
It's a Razorback or bust for me!
:airplane:
The A5 vs 11 is fantastic fight even if it devolves to a low level scrum. Two well matched airframes.
-
The A5 vs 11 is fantastic fight even if it devolves to a low level scrum. Two well matched airframes.
One of the best in the game
-
I tried to tell you Devil...a terminator.
-
I tried to tell you Devil...a terminator.
Rubber baby buggy bumpers.
-
I tried to tell you Devil...a terminator.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSK2Dkz7ZQ-5rKnTz693sl5JKsYccRvn1mv6YPMmflIvLanTL-1Hw)
-
A5 or A8 is still a good match up for me--unless it's Lil-mak in the D11 then it's a no win situation for me anyway lol <S> Lil-Mak!!! Anyway I can't wait!!! :cheers: :salute
-
OK Devil, what are we flying in this one!!! :cheers: :salute :salute :salute
-
Jg X has 8 190 A-8's
Jg Y has 8 190 A-5's
Zg Z has 4 110G-2's
:aok
-
Jg X has 8 190 A-8's
Jg Y has 8 190 A-5's
Zg Z has 4 110G-2's
:aok
Slight correction.
See here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,386632.msg5139020.html#msg5139020)...
-
The options were:
16 FW 190A-5's
or
4 FW 190A-8's
12 FW 190A-5's.
I've put in option B into the rules already, as having some A-8's is what axis folks have been arguing for and no axis folks have said they don't want that.
-
I got a copy of The Luftwaffe Data Book, by Price.
It lists all the aircraft in the Luftwaffe every year. The closest to the period of Big Week was May, 1944; and for the Reich region (the region we are dealing with in Big Week), the proportion of 190's to 109's was 23% 190's, 77% 109's. The setup currently has 27% 190's, 73% 109's -- so a decent correspondence.
-
Looking forward to flying with you for a change. Pencil me in to lead III/Jg 54.
Devil, was III/JG 54 in 190's or 109's during Big Week? Some of the things I'm looking at indicate 190's, but I'm not sure.
JG 26 wasn't there, so I'll be renaming the group that is currently named JG 26 (could be II/JG 1 or III/JG 11 perhaps).
-
III/Jg 54 was in G-6's
Jg 26 was definitely there.
In fact, III/Jg 54 was attached to Jg 26 as a pseudo fourth Gruppe.
-
III/Jg 54 was in G-6's
Jg 26 was definitely there.
In fact, III/Jg 54 was attached to Jg 26 as a pseudo fourth Gruppe.
Roger that. I will keep it as is then. Thanks. :aok
-
Note, I'm trying to keep open registration. ahevents.net isn't working for registration as of the last hour or so. I'm asking for help to get that fixed.
When it is open, it will be here:
http://www.ahevents.net/index.php/scenario-registration
I'm announcing only in this topic first for a couple of days, and then I will announce it in the more-visited public areas.
-
Note: registration isn't workign as of the last hour or so. I've asked the ahevents.net folks if they can take a look.
-
responded to your PM. :cheers:
http://ahevents.net/index.php/scenario-registration (http://ahevents.net/index.php/scenario-registration)
-
Thanks, Kanth. That still gives the same issue for me.
I'm just going to go with a manual process this time around.
-
Folks, registration is open here:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201706_BigWeek/registration/registration.html