This topic is for discussion, comments, and suggestions (as long as they can be made in a reasonably civilized manner). :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: ROC on September 11, 2017, 11:57:10 AM
Quote
as long as they can be made in a reasonably civilized manner)
Oh you and your conditions! :rofl :neener: :cheers:
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: ROC on September 11, 2017, 12:07:48 PM
Interesting scoring approach. Personally, it's a bit convoluted but you are counting it, so it's ok. The downside is, it may be difficult for the players to track in game to see how they are progressing, which is how they adapt their missions and plans during the frame.
Quick question regarding this;
Quote
Points in a frame:
Axis starts with 6 points (or 1 point per number of allied B-24 pilots, if allies don't have 6 B-24 pilots). Allies start with 0 points. Each side gets additionally 1 point per kill, or 1 point per Total Enemy Loss, whichever is greater. Each B-24 pilot gets 2 points per bomber hangar and vehicle hangar destroyed -- plus 1 point in any Mission where he destroys any town buildings or any objects on a ship. Each B-25 pilot gets 0.66 points per barracks, ammo bunker, and ship destroyed -- plus 0.33 points in any Mission where he destroys any town buildings or any objects on a ship.
"Any" object on a ship, so a single small gun can be taken out and it counts? You can strafe a ship and take out the machine guns. Was it the objective to reach the target and hit anything to show the pilot got there or to do actual damage? Either works, but again, the intention helps define the mission plan, it changes how the ships are attacked. It's a bit lopsided to require a building to go down on a town, not counting ground guns, but for the small guns to count on the ships.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 11, 2017, 01:12:50 PM
Black Sheep slots ..... no Jolly Roger slots. :(
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: TequilaChaser on September 11, 2017, 01:26:20 PM
No CVs being used.... This is just AAFC and USMC for allied, looks like
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 11, 2017, 01:36:23 PM
Jolly Rogers were land based.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 11, 2017, 01:59:18 PM
Even though Blackburn proved that the Corsair was carrier capable from the very beginning.
Overridden by Naval Logistics. At least until April 1944. Ironically, the first F4U squadron to be cleared for CV ops at that time was a Marine squadron, VMF-124 (on the Essex).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AirNorSols' first strike on Rabaul came on December 17, and soon the (Japanese) stripped other areas of 300 fighters to deploy in the five airfields around Rabual.
Jan. 26 - VF-17's First Raid on Rabaul
Fighting-17 re-joined the fray with a 32-plane escort mission against Rabaul's Lakunai airfield. As the SBD's recovered from their run, a lone Zero came out and Blackburn splashed it. He was VF-17's first ace. That day Fighting-17 downed 8 (Japanese) planes and prevented any losses to the SBDs in their care, but lost two Hog pilots and totalled a third plane. While such results were favorable; they were unsustainable. Losing two per day would wipe out the squadron in less than three weeks.
Jan. 27 - Sixteen for Seventeen
The next day, they ran a similar mission, this time with 24 F4Us. After the B-25s dropped their bombs, about 70 Zeros hit Thad Bell's division. No one ever saw Thad again. Ike Kepford, leading a division, and his number 3, Danny Cunningham both scored twice. Bobby Mims got 2.5 kills. A Zero shot up "Teeth" Burriss' plane badly. His wingman, Ensign "Andy Gump" Jagger, was able to get behind the Zero and smoked it; Teeth saw it go in. Shortly, Teeth's engine cut out and he ditched successfully. Blackburn and three others circled over him until a Dumbo picked him up. Again, the squadron had done its job: none of the B-25s were hit, sixteen Zeros were downed, but another Corsair pilot had been lost. (There's a famous photo of Andy Jagger exulting after a hot mission. The Newsday article dates the photo to 1944, perhaps it was this mission.)
Jan. 28 - Roving High Cover
Following the loss of three pilots in 2 days, Blackburn and his officers devised a new tactic. Six extra planes (made available by the superior maintenance of their Marine plane crews) would fly well above the assigned fighters escorting the bombers and get the jump on any Zeros that approached. Of course VF-17 would still have to meet its primary escort responsibilities, and the six planes would essentially be all alone. Cols. Brice and Bryan at Fighter Command approved the scheme. On the morning of the 28th, Blackburn led 20 Corsairs, part of an escort for 17 TBFs that were "glide bombing" Tobera airfield. Rog Hedrick led the RHC (Roving High Cover), 6 planes at 32,000 feet. They made 4 kills and disrupted the (Japanese) fighter response. The 14 remaining fighters, that stayed close to the bombers, scored another 10.5 kills. Again, all of the bombers came through unscathed. And so did VF-17. On the 29th, two of the four aircraft planned for the RHC aborted, but Kepford and Burriss pressed on, and got four Zeros apiece. At that night's pilots' meeting, Blackburn chewed them out (!?) for recklessness and over-confidence, and then announced that separate pairs would not go in below 30,000 feet.
Jan. 30 - Collision at Torokina
In the morning, Hedrick led a routine escort mission of twenty F4Us over Tobera and shot down a Zero. In the afternoon, ComAirSols got word of a Jap carrier in Rabaul, and scrambled every available fighter and TBF to go after. VF-17 sent up every plane it could. At Rabaul, there was no carrier, but the Hogs made 10 confirmed kills: Kepford got 2, Davenport got 2, Chenoweth 1, etc. But one pilot disappeared; a second ditched and was recovered. Tragically, Doug Gutenkunst, Blackburn's frequent wingman and close friend, collided with a damaged Marine Corsair as they came in for a dusk landing at nearby Piva Uncle.
The next day, Teeth Burriss went down. In sum, January (or its last six days) was impressive: 60.5 enemy planes destroyed, at a cost of 6 men and 13 Corsairs.
Feb. 6 - Big Hog Gets Four
Blackburn led twenty fighters up, finding forty Zeros defending the airspace over Lakunai. The mission was one twisting, exploding, zooming dogfight after another. Blackburn had a new wingman, who stuck with: through flaming fireballs of exploding Zeros, through high-G pullouts, and through twisting chandelles. Blackburn got 4 and Bobby Mims got 3, making ace. Back on the ground, the new wingman who had performed so well approached Blackburn and shocked him. He wanted out! Blackburn and the Jolly Rogers were nuts!
Feb. 7 - The Statue of Liberty Play
Blackburn, Henning, and Hedrick were always trying to come up with a better idea. They noticed that the Zeros never pursued the U.S. bombers after a certain distance. Presumably the (Japanese) had orders to stay within a certain radius. Beyond that point, on the return trip, the bombers were safe. Thus, they proposed to take eight F4Us (with plenty of fuel and seasoned pilots) back north, over New Ireland, and come streaking over Rabaul at wave-top level. In the best case, they hoped to catch a bunch of Zeros unsuspectingly coming back to base. In the worst case, they'd be caught on the deck, with nowhere to dive away to.
The morning of the 7th started with a standard escort to Vunakunau. Some 40 Zeros came up and offered battle, but no Corsairs or bombers were lost. The (Japanese) chased a little farther than usual, but did turn back in time for Blackburn to run his play. He and five others turned again to the north, came around, and strafed the Rabaul airport. They did some damage, but nothing like they had hoped for.
They completed several missions in the next ten days, but encountered very little opposition. On the 17th, the (Japanese) opposition stiffened, and they shot down 2 VF-17 pilots (its last casualties). The following day, Fighting-17 added 7 more to their scoreboard. February 19 was "one for the books": the squadron scored 16 kills, including 3 by Ike Kepford, in one of the war's most famous missions. Finally convinced of the futility of Rabaul's air defense, the Japanese pulled all their planes out on February 20, 1944.
http://acepilots.com/usn_blackburn.html
(VF-17 scored most of their kills over Rabaul)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: TequilaChaser on September 11, 2017, 02:28:49 PM
I didn't bother to go diving into my books, Arlo... I was just going by Brooke's write-up of the Scenario
kind of too busy making multiple phone calls for my Daughter & her Mom down in florida, to get things a rolling fast as possible..... just using the AH BBS to fight off the madness, lol
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 02:35:44 PM
I didn't bother to go diving into my books, Arlo... I was just going by Brooke's write-up of the Scenario
kind of too busy making multiple phone calls for my Daughter & her Mom down in florida, to get things a rolling fast as possible..... just using the AH BBS to fight off the madness, lol
I wasn't challenging you, brother. It's understood, you have very important things to attend to. I have a slight advantage of having gathered sources since 1997 as the unofficial squadron 'historian.' This just seems like one (of two) scenario setups where VF-17 deserves a possible spotlight (the second being "Battle of the Solomon Sea" which would actually require CVs to fly out to and protect).
(If no JR slots materialize, so be it. I've the entire cd set of 'Baa Baa Black Sheep/Black Sheep Squadron' to console me.)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 02:42:52 PM
kind of too busy making multiple phone calls for my Daughter & her Mom down in florida
My best wishes to your family, TC.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Fencer51 on September 11, 2017, 02:56:06 PM
1. May I suggest a revision to the P-38 squadrons with the 80th FS being put in in lieu of another. Just saving you guys from the wraith of the bomber pilots.
2. VF-17 would be a better choice IMHO.
3. Why the H model B-25 in lieu of the B/C with the straffer package? If you do not want flights of 3, then disable that for the B/C models.
4. Also, would it not make more sense to swap A66 for A61? This would allow the bombers time and space to get up and forum up before entering enemy airspace.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 03:11:13 PM
I would like players' preferred squadrons in there. If folks prefer, we could make it the Jolly Rogers instead of the Black Sheep. There were many groups there, the Black Sheep, the Jolly Rogers, the Fighting Corsairs, etc., but when we have 40 people on a side, I can't fit them all in.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 11, 2017, 03:13:54 PM
1. May I suggest a revision to the P-38 squadrons with the 80th FS being put in in lieu of another. Just saving you guys from the wraith of the bomber pilots.
2. VF-17 would be a better choice IMHO.
3. Why the H model B-25 in lieu of the B/C with the straffer package? If you do not want flights of 3, then disable that for the B/C models.
4. Also, would it not make more sense to swap A66 for A61? This would allow the bombers time and space to get up and forum up before entering enemy airspace.
:cheers: (I was hoping the design slots might increase giving Black Sheep fans and Jolly Rogers both some slots - increasing the Japanese slots, in turn .... 60 or even 80 to a side wasn't unheard of and this would be a prime opportunity to grab some STEAM players and hook them on events)
P.S. Are The Black Sheep still active in AH? I would relish a VF-17 - VMF-214 competition of sorts within this event. :D
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 03:39:26 PM
There were (roughly speaking) four types of action at Rabaul in this time period: 1. NOE B-25's, escorted by P-38's, out of Dobodura direction. 2. High-alt B-24's, escorted by Corsairs and Hellcats, out of Munda direction. 3. High-alt B-24's, escorted by P-38's, out of Port Moresby. 4. SBD's and TBM's off CV's, escorted by Corsairs and Hellcats.
We don't have enough players to cover all of these.
To start with, I picked option 2 to cover a lot of the Black Sheep action, and most (although certainly not all) bomber folks would prefer B-24's over SBD's and TBM's.
But that action would be then be a majority of escort of highish-alt B-24's. It would be in action a lot like Big Week, which we recently completed, only without even the diversity of target location. If we put B-25's in there, it would add a lot of diversity to the type of action, and things for sure would range from higher right down to the deck. Then it requires P-38's, too, which several players very much wanted. So, that enables options 1 and 2. With the slight modification of allowing the B-24 group to take off from either Munda direction or Port Moresby direction, it also enables option 3.
The two drawbacks are: 1. With only about 40 players on a side, we now have fewer Corsairs than if we were doing just option 2. 2. It's a little cumbersome on the allies to coordinate two widely separated forces (but they can handle it :aok).
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 03:46:54 PM
:cheers: (I was hoping the design slots might increase giving Black Sheep fans and Jolly Rogers both some slots - increasing the Japanese slots, in turn .... 60 or even 80 to a side wasn't unheard of and this would be a prime opportunity to grab some STEAM players and hook them on events)
I haven't seen uptick in This Day events, for example, so I can't count on an increase here.
If registration fills up early enough, then we can increase things in proportion (which would need bomber increase as well).
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 03:57:19 PM
1. May I suggest a revision to the P-38 squadrons with the 80th FS being put in in lieu of another. Just saving you guys from the wraith of the bomber pilots.
2. VF-17 would be a better choice IMHO.
I'm totally happy to have the groups be the ones the players prefer (as long as they were there, of course).
Quote
3. Why the H model B-25 in lieu of the B/C with the straffer package? If you do not want flights of 3, then disable that for the B/C models.
B-25C strafers were the ones there, not B-25H's. However, H's have a tail gun, which C's lack, and I already envision B-25's having a tough role for various reasons, and the Japanese are upgraded significantly in their plane set. Redtail suggested we use H's instead to give them at least a little improvement in defense, and I think that's a good idea.
Quote
4. Also, would it not make more sense to swap A66 for A61? This would allow the bombers time and space to get up and forum up before entering enemy airspace.
I'll give them a66 in addition to a61. They do also already have a63, but no harm in adding another farther base if the allies want it.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Fencer51 on September 11, 2017, 04:26:41 PM
Quote
B-25C strafers were the ones there, not B-25H's. However, H's have a tail gun, which C's lack, and I already envision B-25's having a tough role for various reasons, and the Japanese are upgraded significantly in their plane set. Redtail suggested we use H's instead to give them at least a little improvement in defense, and I think that's a good idea.
How about a nice compromise where the option is there for the B-25C strafers with 3 plane formations but then the player only gets 2 lives. I just think that single plane B-25s are going to go down quick without much enjoyment, while formations increase targets for the Japanese and are more realistic.
For the record I am leaning toward B-25s or the Axis this one.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 11, 2017, 04:43:28 PM
... it may be difficult for the players to track in game to see how they are progressing, which is how they adapt their missions and plans during the frame.
Quick question
For tracking, I think it will be OK. A B-24 pilot will know if he destroyed a hangar or not (so knows if he got 2 pts or not), and if he got any objects destroyed on a town (so knows if he got the 1 point or not). Likewise for the B-25 pilot.
As a bomber guy (well, at least half the time), I'm not worried about guns not counting at towns, as there aren't a lot of guns compared to the large number of buildings, and for a B-24, the odds of hitting just a gun and not a building are a lot lower than hitting buildings regardless of whether a gun is in the mix. For a B-25, allowing town guns makes it easier than strafing out a building, and I wanted them to have to work a little at it. On a ship, though, guns make up the majority of what is destroyable, so you need to keep them in there.
To give a view of what I imagine, assuming a B-24 pilot makes it to target, I'd think he'll go for a hangar (and if not a new guy, get 2 points) and then drop a bomb or two on a town (and new guy or not, likely get a point). If he's down to 2 aircraft, though, given hardness of the hangars, he'll have to decide if he can hit with all bombs (and none left for town), or just go to town for the surer 1 point -- will depend on the skill of the bomber pilot. If he's down to 1 plane, then he'll go for town.
Assuming a B-25 pilot makes it to target, he has a choice -- go for bunker (which is harder and more dangerous, and more points) then town, or go for town 1st then bunker (but you maybe have less surprise over field, depending on how you do it), or if field is too dangerous, just go for town and bug out (and leave some points but don't die).
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: ROC on September 11, 2017, 05:57:27 PM
Quote
On a ship, though, guns make up the majority of what is destroyable, so you need to keep them in there.
Was it your intention to allow the bomber to fly low over the ship, fire off some tail guns and take out the small guns, and that counts? I would think the guns that a bomb would be needed to destroy, not unlike a town building, would be the desired objective, cause them to actually have to drop. It doesn't matter to me, just want to make sure I am clear on the intent.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 07:26:16 PM
Was it your intention to allow the bomber to fly low over the ship, fire off some tail guns and take out the small guns, and that counts? I would think the guns that a bomb would be needed to destroy, not unlike a town building, would be the desired objective, cause them to actually have to drop. It doesn't matter to me, just want to make sure I am clear on the intent.
That's OK, but I wouldn't think it worth it for B-24's to go low for ships when they don't get any extra points if they sink one (at least not as things are currently written).
For B-25's it's different, but I want to give them high probability of getting that 0.33 points if they live to strafing position.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 07:37:24 PM
How about a nice compromise where the option is there for the B-25C strafers with 3 plane formations but then the player only gets 2 lives. I just think that single plane B-25s are going to go down quick without much enjoyment, while formations increase targets for the Japanese and are more realistic.
For the record I am leaning toward B-25s or the Axis this one.
My thought is that it would degrade the flying experience of being a ground attack/strafer, as you would fly in a manner to keep your drones rather than the style you'd probably otherwise fly.
If I were flying B-25's (same for me -- I might be in B-25's or axis), I would probably prefer a single plane but more lives, as long as my takeoff base is close enough to give me a chance to utilize those extra lives.
The way I was trying to give the B-25's more chance is (other than B-25H) getting things a bit more spread out than is historical, with ships at a different location than Simpson Harbor.
It's a good thought, though, and I'll try it out some to see what it's like flying ground attack with formations.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 07:41:35 PM
A thought about B-25's.
They are faster than Il-2's (and only about 30 mph slower than 190F's), and we did OK in Il-2's in Dnieper.
Dnieper had more spread-out targets, though, but I was trying to put some of that in this one with ship placement.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 11, 2017, 07:51:03 PM
Will a detailed map of ship placement be put on the scenario page?
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 11, 2017, 10:28:33 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Blw7NtZ.png)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 10:50:45 PM
Sweet, Arlo! :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2017, 11:22:05 PM
Brooke from what I've read SBDs' aren't going to be in the scenario. Am I correct in that assumption?
Yes Hajo. Sorry, i know you like them. But we have about 40 spots per side, so i had to pick a part of the battle to do and estimate which would have most draw. We will have sbds in any coral sea or midway battle though, and those will happen at some point.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: branch37 on September 12, 2017, 06:37:35 AM
Can we add VF-17 to the lineup? Hint Hint.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 12, 2017, 05:11:57 PM
OK, here is v2. Have the Jolly Rogers in there, as well as the Headhunters.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 12, 2017, 07:39:48 PM
Beautiful, excellent. I have to make sure I'm first in line on registration day! :D
On a side note, I fully support the Axis players in this event. I know flying for Imperial Japan is a challenge against F4Us, F6Fs, P-38s and such but I think a good showing will be made by all IJ units. This'll be a challenging and fun event for all. :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 12, 2017, 07:43:54 PM
Folks, as you think of the design, please ponder if you think B-25's will have an OK time in the event.
Downsides: -- They are singles. -- Targets are not distributed all over the map. -- Some targets are on airfields, so manned guns can be deadly.
Upsides: -- No sector counters below 1000 ft. -- Towns are also possible target. -- Ships and Rabaul are not same dot on map (and we could put ships farther out for more separation). -- Il-2's in Dnieper did fine, and B-25's are much faster and more robust. -- B-25's have 4 lives and takeoff points that is not that far out, so they can do more sorties.
I don't think we can go to trios of B-25's. Doing ground attack with trios really restricts your flying and ruins the correct feel of attack mission flying.
My feeling is that, if we need a tweak, it will be to disperse possible targets more by spreading the ships out even more.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 12, 2017, 07:58:13 PM
I think this axis plane set is a strong matchup vs. the US set.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 12, 2017, 08:22:39 PM
I think this axis plane set is a strong matchup vs. the US set.
I agree. The sell comes with some old biases that may resurface (though I hope not). I remember AvA (CT) match-ups that suffered from, basically, player opinion sabotage that resulted in VF-17ers switching sides to challenge said opinions and the IJ planes fared well. The later IJ line-up features fighters that were designed from lessons learned fighting U.S. built planes. However, even the A6M5s should do well against players who don't follow strict U.S.N. discipline (most players .... um .... even me).
It can not be overstated, though, that this is a classic 'Allies on the offence/Axis on the defense' later war setting. The Japanese win by holding their ground and destroying Allied aircraft (obviously). The Allies are expected to earn a win by making it to legit targets and scoring bomb points. This isn't an 'equal footing event' but it is a balanced and fair one. The Japanese aren't going to push the Allies back to Pearl. :)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: KCDitto on September 12, 2017, 08:37:11 PM
Beautiful, excellent. I have to make sure I'm first in line on registration day! :D
On a side note, I fully support the Axis players in this event. I know flying for Imperial Japan is a challenge against F4Us, F6Fs, P-38s and such but I think a good showing will be made by all IJ units. This'll be a challenging and fun event for all. :aok
In other words........... PLEASE FLY AXIS WE NEED PLANES TO SET ON FIRE! :rofl
But fear not... I will be flying a meatball for you to burn.
I will even sign up as a GL if needed.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 12, 2017, 08:53:00 PM
In other words........... PLEASE FLY AXIS WE NEED PLANES TO SET ON FIRE! :rofl
But fear not... I will be flying a meatball for you to burn.
I will even sign up as a GL if needed.
Sell it, KCD. :rofl
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 13, 2017, 11:17:28 AM
Brooke, how about selecting units that participated in the Rabaul battle that have skins in game? That or perhaps making an appeal to skinners to add skins of the units in the write-up (the latter may be easier - I think there are skins that should work for this already made). Just an additional immersion suggestion. :)
(Example: I couldn't find a 5th BG B-24 skin in game - I've DL'd the entire package of skins.)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: ROC on September 13, 2017, 11:38:32 AM
Quote
The Japanese aren't going to push the Allies back to Pearl.
I'll take that bet.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 13, 2017, 11:44:12 AM
Brooke, how about selecting units that participated in the Rabaul battle that have skins in game? That or perhaps making an appeal to skinners to add skins of the units in the write-up (the latter may be easier - I think there are skins that should work for this already made). Just an additional immersion suggestion. :)
(Example: I couldn't find a 5th BG B-24 skin in game - I've DL'd the entire package of skins.)
What did you have in mind to change it to?
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 13, 2017, 01:22:09 PM
If the idea is to make the plane set more equal by adding N1Ks and KI84s, why even bother adding token A6M5s at the strength of 4 pilots?
I might suggest replacing the 4 A6Ms with another group of 4 KI61s.
Howdy.
Making it more equal was part of reason for the particular plane set, but I was also desiring, since the large majority of Japanese fighters in this battle were Zeros, to have at least some of them in the battle.
I figured this would not be a problem, because: -- The Zero is not a horrible plane if it isn't the majority of your fighters and if you have plenty of faster fighters as well. Your faster fighters can get the enemy turning, and a Zero here and there can cause big problems for anything stuck turning. So, a few Zeros in the mix can at times be nice. -- For many alt ranges, the A6M5 isn't that much slower than the Ki-61. -- The Japanese have an excess of fighters over the US fighters, so a few Zeros should be OK.
If I fly axis, I will gladly fly a Zero. If on the allied side, I will probably fly a B-25.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 13, 2017, 04:43:41 PM
Making it more equal was part of reason for the particular plane set, but I was also desiring, since the large majority of Japanese fighters in this battle were Zeros, to have at least some of them in the battle.
I figured this would not be a problem, because: -- The Zero is not a horrible plane if it isn't the majority of your fighters and if you have plenty of faster fighters as well. Your faster fighters can get the enemy turning, and a Zero here and there can cause big problems for anything stuck turning. So, a few Zeros in the mix can at times be nice. -- For many alt ranges, the A6M5 isn't that much slower than the Ki-61. -- The Japanese have an excess of fighters over the US fighters, so a few Zeros should be OK.
If I fly axis, I will gladly fly a Zero. If on the allied side, I will probably fly a B-25.
I think your IJ line-up is pretty well thought-out, imo.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 13, 2017, 10:39:24 PM
Understood. Would be nice to have a skin. I'm surprised none of the 38 skinners have given this a shot but with my 'skinning' days behind me (in AW) I suppose asking another player for this so close to the event isn't fair.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Nefarious on September 14, 2017, 04:23:18 PM
Years upon years of discussion here has led to me believe scenarios are the crown jewel of Special Events with every detail picked over and backed up with top notch historical realism, more so than any other event in Aces High.
If this is the case, I would try to fit scenario time frame to the AH plane set, and not the AH plane set to the time frame. I understand the voting process has already ended and the event is being hammered out but I figured I would try to explain my comments above.
Just my 2 cents. <S>
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 14, 2017, 04:32:11 PM
I'm just suggesting skins be available to match the battle. The plane set isn't too bad (for a small event). I'm still surprised nobody's done a Bong skin yet.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 14, 2017, 04:38:43 PM
Years upon years of discussion here has led to me believe scenarios are the crown jewel of Special Events with every detail picked over and backed up with top notch historical realism, more so than any other event in Aces High.
If this is the case, I would try to fit scenario time frame to the AH plane set, and not the AH plane set to the time frame. I understand the voting process has already ended and the event is being hammered out but I figured I would try to explain my comments above.
Just my 2 cents. <S>
I agree Nef.
This is not Rabaul '43 or even '44, but some total fiction. Might as well call it "Battle of Gilligan's Island 1944" If this was a Philippine event there'd be no problem. But the way to balance Rabaul would be to strictly limit the P-38's and corsair numbers and have many more P-40's P-39's and F-4F's for the Allies, while keeping the Axis in the Ki-61's and A6M's that were actually there.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 14, 2017, 04:47:54 PM
But the way to balance Rabaul would be to strictly limit the P-38's and corsair numbers and have many more P-40's P-39's and F-4F's for the Allies, while keeping the Axis in the Ki-61's and A6M's that were actually there.
And there it is. Been expecting this.
P.S. F4Fs in this battle are as fictional as anything else. http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Rabaul-Raids.php
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 14, 2017, 04:52:01 PM
Got anything that covers the land based Marine air units other than the Black Sheep and their corsairs?
Brooke's designed this small enough that the land based F4Us need nothing more than the Black Sheep and Jolly Rogers (the Navy ground based unit) that participated. 6 whole planes each. 12 total. Are you asking for more? I can research this for you. :D
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 14, 2017, 05:04:50 PM
Yes, I'm curious to know what other air assets were in striking distance of Rabaul at this time. Since the Corsairs and Hellcats were so new, I'm sure there must have been some Wildcats still in the area - but I don't have the reference material to verify it.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 14, 2017, 05:14:13 PM
Historical feeling versus balance and fun being the issue, I suppose since the Allied plane set is actually quite accurate (with some examples missing entirely) Brooke could simply wipe the IJ planes that weren't actually there completely from the board and just give the Axis a large numerical advantage with nothing but A6M5s. But I don't see how that makes a 'better' historical accuracy argument. We all know that it's about both immersion and a battle setup that's not strictly a 'side A shooter/side B target' thing. That's tricky to pull off in late 43/44/45 Pacific scenarios. Us Pac/USN players really do appreciate the complexity and this is a rare treat for us, as is. I bet Bong fans and Pac (in general) fans feel the same.
I have faith in the Axis players to make this a competitive and challenging event and hope to see the effort to poke holes in it not gain momentum ... like .... every .... single .... pac .... event .... in the past (except PH and Midway).
But since this is a design discussion and criticism is part of it - how about some suggestions that don't try to make this yet another F4F battle (which Rabaul wasn't)? What would you do to 'fix' this to be a fun battle for all? The Allies have a limited but accurate plane set. the Axis have a modified (for balance .... in their favor) plane set. As I said before, would numbers in favor of the Axis (1.25 to 1, 1.4 to 1, 1.5 to 1, 1.75 to 1) with a more historically accurate plane set be acceptable? As I said, that's just one other historical tweaking instead of another .... but I'd be good with it. Maybe something not yet tried in twenty years or so will come up. :)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 14, 2017, 07:24:50 PM
There were (roughly speaking) four types of action at Rabaul in this time period: 1. NOE B-25's, escorted by P-38's, out of Dobodura direction. 2. High-alt B-24's, escorted by Corsairs and Hellcats, out of Munda direction. 3. High-alt B-24's, escorted by P-38's, out of Port Moresby. 4. SBD's and TBM's off CV's, escorted by Corsairs and Hellcats.
(As a smaller contingent, the allies also had some P-47's and occasionally some RAAF P-40's, and some missions by Beaufighters on the deck.)
Obviously, using the fully historical plane set would never get enough players to run it. So to run Rabaul during this time period, you must change the plane set.
Two thoughts related to that:
1. Plane types are only one historical parameter among many historical parameters that are just as important. Almost all scenarios (Coral Sea being maybe the one exception, in my view) have significant changes relative to history. To me, high realism is: When I fly in it, does the action I experience feel like what I read about for the actual battle. Yes? Great -- that is realism. No -- alas, that is not realism, even if the plane types were the same.
2. Regardless, the plane set vs. history was made completely clear in the description in the voting topic. There were two other choices. Now, people have voted; this is what they picked (by a wide margin); and we are working on the rule set.
So, this is what folks wanted. Let's get on with the rule set. :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 14, 2017, 07:25:49 PM
By the way:
Want to have an event about when Boyington, the Black Sheep, Blackburn, the Jolly Rogers, Dick Bong, Tommy McGuire, Marion Carl, Neel Kearby, Robert Hanson, Gerald Johnson, the Fighting Corsairs, etc. were *all* flying in the *same* skies? (How amazing is that?) This is the time and place.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 14, 2017, 07:35:00 PM
Want to have an event about when Boyington, the Black Sheep, Blackburn, the Jolly Rogers, Dick Bong, Tommy McGuire, Marion Carl, Neel Kearby, Robert Hanson, Gerald Johnson, the Fighting Corsairs, etc. were *all* flying in the *same* skies? (How amazing is that?) This is the time and place.
There were notable Japanese aces, as well:
(https://i.imgur.com/zzU5KiD.png)
:) :salute
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 14, 2017, 08:49:15 PM
But since this is a design discussion and criticism is part of it - how about some suggestions that don't try to make this yet another F4F battle (which Rabaul wasn't)? What would you do to 'fix' this to be a fun battle for all? The Allies have a limited but accurate plane set. the Axis have a modified (for balance .... in their favor) plane set. As I said before, would numbers in favor of the Axis (1.25 to 1, 1.4 to 1, 1.5 to 1, 1.75 to 1) with a more historically accurate plane set be acceptable? As I said, that's just one other historical tweaking instead of another .... but I'd be good with it. Maybe something not yet tried in twenty years or so will come up. :)
I only mention the Wildcat because it was actually in this theater at some time, whereas the George and Frank never were. Also, given the low expected turnout, there should be only one squadron - hardly "another F4F battle". I also figure the Wildcat would be preferable to most Allied pilots over the P-40 or P-39.
Even if every Wildcat squadron had either been withdrawn or upgraded to a Corsairs and Hellcats historically, it is still far less a stretch from reality to include F4F's over Ki-84's and N1k2's.
Rabaul may not have been "another F4F battle" but it was an A6M battle and with the existing planeset they are relegated to being the most useless of any plane on either side.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 14, 2017, 09:09:49 PM
As Brooke mentioned, this plane set and the rationale behind it was not kept secret before the vote. Never-the-less, if we were to neuter the IJ set from the standing design what's your next suggestion to re-attain balance without a replacement of one of the U.S. FGs with F4Fs (again, a contradictory move in the face of demanding plane set purity)? Is it a ration adjustment of more overall players on the IJ side? Right now Brooke has 34 IJ fighters to 30 Allied. He's dealing with reduced scenario participation already. But maybe an adjustment will draw more interest. 40 IJ fighters? 30 A6M5s and 10 Ki-61s? That's 1.3 to 1 (or so). 50 IJ fighters 36 A6M5s and 14 Ki-61s? That's a little over 1.6 to 1. With the IJ fighters needing to shoot down bombers then the ava fighter match-up is kinda shifted, as well.
Or would you still want to replace one (or more) allied fighter groups with ahistorical F4Fs alongside that, as well?
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: KCDitto on September 14, 2017, 09:13:21 PM
I like the 2:1 idea with Zeros :D
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 14, 2017, 09:14:32 PM
As Brooke mentioned, this plane set and the rationale behind it was not kept secret before the vote. Never-the-less, if we were to neuter the IJ set from the standing design what's your next suggestion to re-attain balance without a replacement of one of the U.S. FGs with F4Fs (again, a contradictory move in the face of demanding plane set purity)? Is it a ration adjustment of more overall players on the IJ side? Right now Brooke has 34 IJ fighters to 30 Allied. He's dealing with reduced scenario participation already. But maybe an adjustment will draw more interest. 40 IJ fighters? 30 A6M5s and 10 Ki-61s? That's 1.3 to 1 (or so). 50 IJ fighters 36 A6M5s and 14 Ki-61s? That's a little over 1.6 to 1. With the IJ fighters needing to shoot down bombers then the ava fighter match-up is kinda shifted, as well.
Or would you still want to replace one (or more) allied fighter groups with ahistorical F4Fs alongside that, as well?
Having F4F's would still be more accurate than designing the event to have Ki-84's and N1K2's. What Brooke should have done is written a Philippine event around the plane set he wanted and it would have been fine.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 14, 2017, 11:10:36 PM
Hello, guys. We can work on adjustments to the given plane set, but drastic changes are not in the cards because that's not what the players picked.
Let's stay on track. :aok
One of the main things: is this setup and scoring system reasonably balanced? I think so, but I might not see some angles on how it will play out. More eyes on it is good.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 15, 2017, 12:33:52 AM
One of the main things: is this setup and scoring system reasonably balanced? I think so, but I might not see some angles on how it will play out. More eyes on it is good.
The big problem I see along these lines is the B-25's having more than 2 lives. Shades of "Hell Over the Hinterland."
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 15, 2017, 12:36:39 AM
To be fair, you did not give an opportunity to discuss
That,s what the voting topic was for. It was available for over a month. Folks in there talked about which choice they wanted and why, and they can talk about why they don,t want this or that other choice.
Once folks pick what they want, it,s time to move ahead with it.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 15, 2017, 01:30:44 AM
The big problem I see along these lines is the B-25's having more than 2 lives. Shades of "Hell Over the Hinterland."
b25 singles on the deck are not like b26 formations at 15k. They are more like the a20s in tunisia and il2s in dnieper, only here their targets are not as spread out.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 15, 2017, 01:34:23 AM
A20s in tunisia got slaughtered always. The il2s in dnieper did ok, got hammered sometimes, and sometimes made it to and back from target.
Having it like dnieper il2s is the goal and not like the a20s in tunisia.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: puller on September 15, 2017, 09:03:11 PM
I want the niki squad and I have it filled :rock :joystick: :airplane:
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 15, 2017, 09:08:32 PM
I want the niki squad and I have it filled :rock :joystick: :airplane:
You are a great man, a gentleman, and an aviator! :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 16, 2017, 01:55:24 AM
Just save me the 80th Headhunters is all I ask :)
And P-38Gs, at least one for me :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Vudu15 on September 16, 2017, 04:07:37 AM
Why don't you try to do what Nef brought up next time...draw your hardcore dedicated fans in and not worry as much about the later war a/c you think will draw people. I would rather fly this event with all Zeros against the mixed bag the allies had even if that meant flying allied against it vs what you have now.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: StokesAk on September 16, 2017, 10:20:49 AM
Any chance of setting an altitude cap or at least a small downdraft above 25k? I feel that the Axis planes will just get outperformed by the masses of 30k allied fighters. Not that the planeset cant fly at that altitude, but I feel like it may have an impact on the frequency and excitement of the operations.
This is just my opinion. I remember flying in Philippine Phandango where the Axis had a rough time against 30k P38s and I think that it may have tilted the scale in favor of the allies.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 16, 2017, 12:36:15 PM
Any chance of setting an altitude cap or at least a small downdraft above 25k? I feel that the Axis planes will just get outperformed by the masses of 30k allied fighters. Not that the planeset cant fly at that altitude, but I feel like it may have an impact on the frequency and excitement of the operations.
This is just my opinion. I remember flying in Philippine Phandango where the Axis had a rough time against 30k P38s and I think that it may have tilted the scale in favor of the allies.
Bomber max alt is 18k according to the scenario write-up.
The entire Axis Fighter set in this event can hit 30k as fast or faster than any of the Allied set (and 22 to 24k a lot faster). The P38 damn near compresses at level flight at 30k.
And .... what about the historical argument? Yes, later Japanese aircraft were added for balance. However ... 'High cover' is a huge historical element of damn near every Pac historical book out there.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 16, 2017, 12:45:17 PM
b25 singles on the deck are not like b26 formations at 15k. They are more like the a20s in tunisia and il2s in dnieper, only here their targets are not as spread out.
Seems you fail to remember the problem. Fighters get killed off piecemeal and the bombers run unopposed on their 3rd lives until the clock runs out.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 16, 2017, 03:36:29 PM
Eliminate the 24s, make the 25H's C strafers as they were. Make it more Zekes and Tonies. Make the 38's 38G's as they weren't flying Js during the major fights over Rabaul.
Figure out a way to keep the fight in the mid alt to low alt realm that it was fought at as most of us get tired of trying to out climb the other guy to 35K.
With the numbers we've been having, I'd think you'd want to compress the fight anyway instead of spreading it from 30K down.
Instead of 24s, add more 25s, with maybe the addition being the Marine Mitchells that fought over Rabaul. Maybe those can be Hs since there is that nice Navy scheme skin for the H?
Maybe include the RAAF P40s that fought over Rabaul?
Any consideration of a single carrier? Rabaul had Kate's and they did try and use them against Allied targets, and there were some carrier aircraft attacking Rabaul. Might give the Japanese a way to do some extra damage if they could put the carrier out of the war.
I'd suggest changing the 9th FS 38s to 475th if for no other reason than some really nice skins. Again if you use the G, it would be closer to the truth.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Fencer51 on September 16, 2017, 03:40:15 PM
It is sort of ironic that the long anticipated/desired Mission Rabaul scenario is nothing like the actual fight.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Fencer51 on September 16, 2017, 04:19:33 PM
A couple things.
From the Southern Flank: First of all this scenario is centered around Rabaul. Not New Guinea. RAAF P-40s and USAAF P-39s and P-47s did not have the legs to get all the way up to Rabaul and back. So the main/only aircraft "escorting" bombers from down south were P-38s.
From the Solomons: When Ondonga and points west were taken AIRSOLS was able to reach Rabaul. F4Fs are no longer in the game with F4Us and F6F-3s taking over for Navy and Marine squadrons. BTW VF-33 was the F6F squadron. RNZAF P-40s are capable of escorts to Bougainville but not Rabaul. November 5th and November 11th of 1943 were very interesting dates, perhaps for a future event.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 16, 2017, 05:34:08 PM
Could be I'm remembering it wrong and it's the RNZAF P-40s. At work at the moment so the books aren't in reach :) I just recall they were in some of the same fights as the Corsairs. Some of the P40 pilots who were downed were executed on Rabaul
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Fencer51 on September 16, 2017, 06:26:58 PM
Whoops... December 17th 1943 they opened up a base on Bougainville at Torokina. They did use RNZAF P-40s from there to reach Rabaul.
HOH is a different setup with way different scoring and aircraft, but
If a side,s fighters get dominated, that side is going to lose. That isnt going to change even if b25s have zero lives.
The comcern here isnt that b25s will be too dominant but if they will get annihilated evey single mission.
Different setup, same mistake.
The defense does not have enough planes to counter both the attacking fighters and bombers. Over the course of a frame, the Allies will have 30 more planes than the Axis if every slot is filled on both sides. It is not reasonable to expect enough bombers to die in their first two lives to negate the loss of defending fighters and points scored by the B-25's on their 3rd lives. No point's system can bring this into balance. Every pilot should only have 2 bites at the apple - no exceptions.
Over the course of a frame, the Allies will have 30 more planes than the Axis if every slot is filled on both sides.
That's kinda misleading. A true disparity would be if the Allied could field 30 more planes all at once. With multiple bomber lives you're looking at waves of bombers reorganizing for runs on the fly and likely flying in partial groups if survivors are left to RTB. Without the additional lives you are likely looking at a majority of the bombers suffering attrition on their first run and the rest of the frame only having air to air superiority match-ups (only, as Guppy said and you supported, the Allied fighters are mainly in this to protect the Allied bombers and the Allies score frame points by bombing targets so there really won't be anything left of the frame).
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 17, 2017, 01:55:31 AM
Since we have a contingent of dedicated, enthusiastic scenario players who are level bomber pilots, I like whenever possible to have some level bombers. Also, level bombers are a great way to integrate new players into scenarios. (I've done that with about 5 people so far and am hoping to get a couple more in that way this scenario or next.)
Quote
Make the 38's 38G's as they weren't flying Js during the major fights over Rabaul.
I'm happy to do that. I tried to figure out if the 9th was in J's or not during this time. I think they were, but I'm not positive. Not sure about the 80th. If they were in G's in late 43 early 44, let's use G's.
Quote
Figure out a way to keep the fight in the mid alt to low alt realm that it was fought at as most of us get tired of trying to out climb the other guy to 35K.
The fights will be from 24k on down, with bombers maxed at 18k, and B-25's on the deck (so you know there will be fighting on the deck). In the real action, the B-24's were mostly at 20-22k and the US fighters above that, and the intercepting Zeros up there, too, so not all of it was down low -- but it often degenerated into lower fights as panes got into it (as will probably be the case here).
Quote
Maybe include the RAAF P40s that fought over Rabaul?
They did some, but were a much smaller contingent than the US stuff.
To do that, we would need to subtract some p38's and f4u's to add the p40's. Then, I'm skeptical that the allies could fill them and fly them every frame, instead of them being mostly empty. My thought is that players like the idea of p40's among p38's, corsairs, etc., but generally want someone else to fly them.
Quote
Any consideration of a single carrier?
We have about 40 guys on a side (or slightly less who actually show per frame). Not enough people to have SBD's, TBM's, F6F's, F4U's, P-38's, B-25's, and B-24's, so the voting was for the land-based part of the battle.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 17, 2017, 02:37:59 AM
It is sort of ironic that the long anticipated/desired Mission Rabaul scenario is nothing like the actual fight.
Now Fencer, no need to get all curmudgeonly. :aok
I don't remember it being either long anticipated or long desired here in Aces High. Among us scenario folks, I think we all have long realized that you can't run a battle of Zeros vs. Corsairs, Hellcats, and P-38's. You would never get enough players, and even if you did, the Japanese would get massacred.
So, we have two choices: don't ever run it, or run it with an upgraded Japanese plane set.
When we did voting, there were two choices with plane sets that had little or no alteration, and this choice, which listed that the Japanese plane set had to be altered.
Players chose this.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 17, 2017, 03:07:06 AM
The defense does not have enough planes to counter both the attacking fighters and bombers.
One way to look at these things is (excess fighters)/(bomber aircraft). In this one, the allies have 30 fighters and 12 bombers (6 of which are singlet b25's on the deck). The axis has 34 fighters. (excess fighters)/(bomber aircraft) = 4 / (6*3 + 6) = 0.17. In Big Week, it was 0.23. In HOH, it was 0.08. In BOWL, it was 0.06. As some examples.
Big Week worked out fine. HOH and BOWL, the side opposing the bombers lost. This one has excess/bomberAircraft significantly greater than BOWL and HOH. It is not as high as Big Week -- but keep in mind that B-17's at 24k are much tougher than B-24's at 18k and certainly tougher than B-25's at 0k.
I am not concerned that B-25's are too tough for the Japanese. I'm concerned the other way.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: StokesAk on September 17, 2017, 01:39:04 PM
I know a group of P-38 lovers who have been wanting this ran going 10 years back.. I think that covers it. Heck it's why I have so much research material on it and had all the airfield info for the terrain.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: branch37 on September 18, 2017, 07:03:49 AM
I know a group of P-38 lovers who have been wanting this ran going 10 years back.. I think that covers it. Heck it's why I have so much research material on it and had all the airfield info for the terrain.
Same here, except our planes are blue and the wings bent. :devil
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: TequilaChaser on September 18, 2017, 07:50:33 AM
I haven't had much time to join in on the discussion...
I appreciate the fact that Brooke is putting in an enormous amount of time and effort to please everyone...simple fact is that no matter how hard you try to, Brooke, there is always going to be people who just want to complain that "it's inaccurate" or "it's not exactly historical"....not realizing that if you were to take out the Niki's and Frank's and only used A6m's and some Ki-61s that it would cause the actual Scenario event see players quit, stop showing up as each frame moves forward...
I applaud you for thinking of the axis and allowing the Niki and Ki84s to participate, in an effort to give the axis side a better chance of being able to put up a respectable defense and ability to have fun and entertaining enjoyment....instead of just not showing up at all....
Where the hell was everyone's complaints back when Brooke put this thread up for discussion?
Brooke, ROC, Fencer and some others have been designing, creating, researching, etc... and building/hosting these scenarios for well over 25 years or more....
Is Greatly appreciated!
I know that they know exactly what it takes to make it where both sides of the scenario have a fighting chance to win each frame...
Please save me a F4U slot.... Not sure where I will be when registration opens with all these trips from NC to FL and back....( Thank you Brooke, for your post regarding my family )
TC / Johnny
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: branch37 on September 18, 2017, 10:05:37 AM
I think we could be closer to historical accuracy with just A6m and Ki-61s. The tony is an equal match and more for the hellcats and corsairs. Maybe keep the one squad of zeros and just have 3 squads of Ki-61s. Not only were the 84s and N1Ks not there, they're not needed to balance the setup imo. Either way it will work out fine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Krusty on September 18, 2017, 11:01:10 AM
The Tony is in no way an equal match for corsairs or hellcats. It's not harmless, but it is outclassed severely in every regard compared to the F4U-1A, and most ways to the F6F-5.
EDIT: To add to that, I hesitate to add the Ki-84, because it is leaps and bounds beyond the A6Ms and Ki-61s that it's filling in for. IMO the Ki-84 will be the uber plane to beat in the matchup, and that doesn't fit. The N1k2 I can see -- its performance and handling are more in-line with the Ki-61. I also think that the A6M5b, while slower, is quite capable and a lethal enemy due to its cannon setup and its maneuverability. I think it's really undrerepresented in the setup and should play more of a role.
In the spirit of balancing the gameplay, I understand certain compromises must be made. However, I think you've pushed the Japanese side too far to "end of war" and left all the actual planes out of it that were there. Might I suggest that the compromise goes both ways? Push the US planes backwards a little and ease off on how many Ki-84s are in the list? Bring those Ki-61 and A6M5b numbers up, but drop the P-38Js down to P-38Gs perhaps. Drop those F4U-1As down to F4U-1s, and maybe only have one squadron of them. Swap in a second squadron of the slower F6F-5s. I'm not saying to swap them out for FM-2s or anything, but we can ease back on the US side rather than ramping everything up on the Japanese side.
What do folks think of that? Because I love the Ki-84. I really do. It's just the best end-war plane in the Japanese planeset. I really don't think it belongs in a Rabaul lineup unless in limited numbers. Currently? It's the majority of the roster.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 18, 2017, 12:59:54 PM
I first saw this image as a teenager, so it's been 40 years. It's captioned "Headhunter Lightnings bracket a 345th B-25 on the way to Rabaul."
I've wanted the chance to do this off and on ever since. The cartoon Headhunters were born in an AW Scenario "Operation Cartwheel" way back when, and in the transition to AH I brought them with me.
Give me the chance to do this and I'll be happy :)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Krusty on September 18, 2017, 02:50:06 PM
You realize the -1A is nearly 20mph faster than the -1, right? The problem is balance for evenly-sided matchups. The -1A breaks that balance. So, drop it down to the -1, and it evens things out quite a bit.
And yes, it still has a significant advantage at all alts to the Ki-61 and A6M5b, but not by nearly as much as the -1A. The -1 and the -1A fly very similar. Same as the P-38G and -Js. The Js have the same milpower speed curve, just no WEP. What we're doing is balancing things. It's far better to ease back on the -1A and the -Js than it is to put in the late war uber monsters in such major numbers.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: FBDragon on September 18, 2017, 03:30:31 PM
Krusty, Brooke, no matter what you do someone is just gonna complain. I not a fan of flying jap planes but being a axis flyer I'll fly whatever you give us!!!! :salute :salute :salute :cheers:
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 18, 2017, 04:20:35 PM
You realize the -1A is nearly 20mph faster than the -1, right? The problem is balance for evenly-sided matchups. The -1A breaks that balance. So, drop it down to the -1, and it evens things out quite a bit.
And yes, it still has a significant advantage at all alts to the Ki-61 and A6M5b, but not by nearly as much as the -1A. The -1 and the -1A fly very similar. Same as the P-38G and -Js. The Js have the same milpower speed curve, just no WEP. What we're doing is balancing things. It's far better to ease back on the -1A and the -Js than it is to put in the late war uber monsters in such major numbers.
So far we're talking about downgrading Allied birds. Thoughts on Axis? Again I'm all for using 38Gs and 25Cs so don't misunderstand me as I want it more accurate. And no the 38G and J are not the same bird, speaking as a P38G fan :)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Krusty on September 18, 2017, 04:34:43 PM
I've love it to be accurate, too, but there's only so much you can do. We're not matching real levels of force, or situations as much. We're not flying to one side's strengths and against another's weaknesses like in the real war (where the short range of F4Us was a greater problem, for one example).
It's just a thought. A way to tone down the Ki-84 use. Much as I love that plane it's a real tough swallow that it's going to be the primary ride in a 1943 Rabaul setup. It's like subbing a P-51 for a P-40.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 18, 2017, 04:41:06 PM
So far we're talking about downgrading Allied birds. Thoughts on Axis? Again I'm all for using 38Gs and 25Cs so don't misunderstand me as I want it more accurate. And no the 38G and J are not the same bird, speaking as a P38G fan :)
Guppy, I'm seeing a double standard from the axis leaning side. In the claim of historical accuracy they want the late war planes on the IJ side eliminated. But they don't actually want the historical Allied planes. If historical accuracy is the issue then they can't have it both ways. If balance is the issue then cutting both plane sets to earlier war planes doesn't make any more sense than beefing up the IJ plane set so all players can enjoy a Pac scenario with their favorite rides. I'm not aware of an AH Japanese historical squadron, at this time. VF-17ers may see a Pac event like this come around once every couple of years (surely as rare as the Headhunters might). To start seeing the Axis players first complain that their plane set is too unrealistic/beefy/non-historic just to then complain that the Allied set is too beefy/realistic/historic and complain that the F4U-1A needs to be changed to the -1 because the 1A is too uber is just starting to sound like rules lawyering the JRs out of their ride for spoiler purpose.
If I'm wrong and there's an Axis squadron that wants to participate in this event with their historical ride .... then, by COD, let them. Let the Allied AH squadrons do the same. I've suggested a balancing answer that allows for such.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Krusty on September 18, 2017, 04:50:12 PM
Arlo, it's not a double standard. That's not the issue. The issue is that neither is ideal, but based on how AH scenarios play out, based on the typical player experience, the allies will trounce the axis in this setup if implemented as a typical AH scenario. They just will. 6 ways from Sunday. We're not recreating the actual type of combat here. We're not simulating the same problems real pilots had, the exact situations they went into, that balanced the scales and made it a much closer fight. We're not simulating any of that, because with the players we'll get and the way scenarios are set up, that just can't happen. What we're replicating is just the feel of it, and that "feel" won't be true to the real thing if you've got nobody showing up on the axis side for the allies to dominate.
I want you to take a good look at this. This is the most common Japanese plane in 1943 against the plane you pointed a virtual gun at me to stop me from even suggesting I remove it from the lineup:
I know you have your favorite ride, but let's be honest... You're the one that doesn't want a fair fight in this setup. Hell I don't even demand a fair fight, just a fair setup.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 18, 2017, 04:54:01 PM
Historical feeling versus balance and fun being the issue, I suppose since the Allied plane set is actually quite accurate (with some examples missing entirely) Brooke could simply wipe the IJ planes that weren't actually there completely from the board and just give the Axis a large numerical advantage with nothing but A6M5s. But I don't see how that makes a 'better' historical accuracy argument. We all know that it's about both immersion and a battle setup that's not strictly a 'side A shooter/side B target' thing. That's tricky to pull off in late 43/44/45 Pacific scenarios. Us Pac/USN players really do appreciate the complexity and this is a rare treat for us, as is. I bet Bong fans and Pac (in general) fans feel the same.
I have faith in the Axis players to make this a competitive and challenging event and hope to see the effort to poke holes in it not gain momentum ... like .... every .... single .... pac .... event .... in the past (except PH and Midway).
But since this is a design discussion and criticism is part of it - how about some suggestions that don't try to make this yet another F4F battle (which Rabaul wasn't)? What would you do to 'fix' this to be a fun battle for all? The Allies have a limited but accurate plane set. the Axis have a modified (for balance .... in their favor) plane set. As I said before, would numbers in favor of the Axis (1.25 to 1, 1.4 to 1, 1.5 to 1, 1.75 to 1) with a more historically accurate plane set be acceptable? As I said, that's just one other historical tweaking instead of another .... but I'd be good with it. Maybe something not yet tried in twenty years or so will come up. :)
As Brooke mentioned, this plane set and the rationale behind it was not kept secret before the vote. Never-the-less, if we were to neuter the IJ set from the standing design what's your next suggestion to re-attain balance without a replacement of one of the U.S. FGs with F4Fs (again, a contradictory move in the face of demanding plane set purity)? Is it a ration adjustment of more overall players on the IJ side? Right now Brooke has 34 IJ fighters to 30 Allied. He's dealing with reduced scenario participation already. But maybe an adjustment will draw more interest. 40 IJ fighters? 30 A6M5s and 10 Ki-61s? That's 1.3 to 1 (or so). 50 IJ fighters 36 A6M5s and 14 Ki-61s? That's a little over 1.6 to 1. With the IJ fighters needing to shoot down bombers then the ava fighter match-up is kinda shifted, as well.
Or would you still want to replace one (or more) allied fighter groups with ahistorical F4Fs alongside that, as well?
What part of my being unfair is in any of that?
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 18, 2017, 05:06:55 PM
I think Arlo believes that I was suggesting total removal of the Corsiar in favor of the Wildcat - which I'm not. Same for the P-38's. I would just reduce those aircraft to single squadrons and make up the difference with P-39's, F4F's, and especially P-40's. At the same time I'd totally remove the Frank and George and spilt the Axis evenly between A6m5's and Ki-61's.
BTW Arlo, VF-17 used the F4U-1 in combat - and you know this.
Stop claiming that I'm somehow trying to remove your squadron from the event.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: TequilaChaser on September 18, 2017, 05:37:54 PM
I really don't want to get in to it, about uber F4U1A or Uber Ki84s(which is considered late war, right?)
I am probably the only player, that is really wanting to participate in this "Rabual Scenario" that actually would rather fly the F4U-1 over any other F4U series model....
1 fact is the F4U-1 and F4U-1A do not fly the same and have very significant differences regarding turning and turnrate (especially when flaps are deployed)..... The -1A is quicker acceleration and climbing...the -1 whips the -1A, 1C, 1D and -4 F4U models once you get to the 2nd notch of flaps deployed all the way through full(all) flaps deployed
If you think the Ki84 is TOO UBER, why not drop it but replace it with more NIKIs and Tony's... All of the Axis planes are capable to put up a respectable defense with their cannon mounted armament
If Brooke is willing, let him rework it (or just go and do it Brooke) to where the ki84 groups will be replaced by Niki's and Tony's (or The best model of the A6m series)
I think everyone will be happy if we (if Brooke) can keep the scenario as close to history as possible, but at the same time making it to where people will register, get involved and show up every frame to play....because the event offers either side a solid chance to win or at least a draw, like we just had in the "Big Week scenario"
TC
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 18, 2017, 05:46:43 PM
BTW Arlo, VF-17 used the F4U-1 in combat - and you know this.
VF-17s initial complement of Corsairs were -1s and they carrier qualed with them. Based on their experience with the -1 members of VF-17 recommended changes that Chance-Vought implemented into the -1A (and shipped field modification kits to VF-17 which arrived simultaneously with their arrival at New Georgia). (Best I can remember from Blackburn's book I lent out but never got back.)
VF-17s Corsairs were all either replacement F4U-1As or field modified to such. There were no VF-17 F4U-1s at Rabaul.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: TequilaChaser on September 18, 2017, 05:53:04 PM
VF-17s initial complement of Corsairs were -1s and they carrier qualed with them. Based on their experience with the -1 members of VF-17 recommended changes that Chance-Vought implemented into the -1A (and shipped field modification kits to VF-17 which arrived simultaneously with their arrival at New Georgia). (Best I can remember from Blackburn's book I lent out but never got back.)
VF-17s Corsairs were all either replacement F4U-1As or field modified to such. There were no VF-17 F4U-1s at Rabaul.
Correct
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 18, 2017, 06:08:12 PM
VF-17s initial complement of Corsairs were -1s and they carrier qualed with them. Based on their experience with the -1 members of VF-17 recommended changes that Chance-Vought implemented into the -1A (and shipped field modification kits to VF-17 which arrived simultaneously with their arrival at New Georgia). (Best I can remember from Blackburn's book I lent out but never got back.)
VF-17s Corsairs were all either replacement F4U-1As or field modified to such. There were no VF-17 F4U-1s at Rabaul.
I could have sworn that they originally deployed to land bases with the -1's and later received the -1A's. I have Blackburns' book so I can review the sequence of events tonight.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 18, 2017, 06:13:04 PM
I could have sworn that they originally deployed to land bases with the -1's and later received the -1A's. I have Blackburns' book so I can review the sequence of events tonight.
The planes were -1s when the went through the canal and they received orders that they were to be put ashore in the Solomons while they were on their way to Pearl. Chance-Vought shipped upgrade kits.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Fencer51 on September 18, 2017, 07:09:41 PM
I think Arlo believes that I was suggesting total removal of the Corsiar in favor of the Wildcat - which I'm not. Same for the P-38's. I would just reduce those aircraft to single squadrons and make up the difference with P-39's, F4F's, and especially P-40's. At the same time I'd totally remove the Frank and George and spilt the Axis evenly between A6m5's and Ki-61's.
Yet P-39s and F4Fs were not used over Rabaul ever. Some P-40s were used in late December 43.
I would suggest that the actual allied aircraft be used as the most people who have 'units' are on that side. This includes btw the B-25C in lieu of the H. To balance a substitution of aircraft on the Axis side would be needed or else its going to be lonely over Rabaul. The mix that Brooke has now is probably the best at first glance, and I have not spent my normal amount of time playing with the design, as it is not my job anymore, to have any opinion other than that.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 18, 2017, 07:11:05 PM
The planes were -1s when the went through the canal and they received orders that they were to be put ashore in the Solomons while they were on their way to Pearl. Chance-Vought shipped upgrade kits.
I stand corrected. I found in Blackburn's book where Vf-17 arrived on Espiritu Santo on October 25th, and the pilots of Vf-12 (who had just transitioned from the F4U-1 to the F-6F) were "on our flight line drooling over our new 1A's."
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 18, 2017, 07:16:14 PM
I stand corrected. I found in Blackburn's book where Vf-17 arrived on Espiritu Santo on October 25th, and the pilots of Vf-12 (who had just transitioned from the F4U-1 to the F-6F) were "on our flight line drooling over our new 1A's."
:) (I've quite a bit of time researching VF-17 .... there's a reason for that.) :D :salute
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Delirium on September 18, 2017, 07:18:44 PM
As much as a Rabaul scenario would be great, it fails to replicate the experienced Axis flyers that may have been present. Much like an Eastern Front scenario, it is almost impossible to balance a scenario using historical match ups that cannot reflect experience.
The answer? Promoting attendance from mature virtual flyers that have a love of history, rather than just a love of winning.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 18, 2017, 07:23:11 PM
You may be onto something there, Del.
I, alone, am a balancing factor (being the absolute worst stick in VF-17 - if not in AH).
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: branch37 on September 18, 2017, 07:24:07 PM
From what I can remember there were RNZAF P-40s in the theatre but I can't remember if they were at Rabaul specifically. Blackburn talks about flying high cover in F4Us for B-25s and TBMs. The P-40s flew close escort.
20 mph less in the F4U-1 won't make a difference at high alt. Even against the Ki-84. Unless they sucker the corsairs into a close in turning fight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 18, 2017, 07:25:44 PM
Unless they sucker the corsairs into a close in turning fight.
I'm your man, skipper! :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 18, 2017, 08:13:09 PM
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 18, 2017, 08:29:30 PM
Well, where are the rest of the parts? :devil
I want to watch the whole thing now.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 18, 2017, 09:00:56 PM
F4U-1's and F4U-1A's have almost exactly the same speed.
I'd have been happy to make them F4U-1's, but they were mostly 1A's by this time, as folks have stated; but it doesn't matter much since they are same speed.
Similarly for P-38's, I'm happy to make them G's instead of J's if G's were there. I looked and concluded (but it was sort of hard to be sure for me) that they were mostly J's. Anyone have a good reference on this?
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 18, 2017, 09:55:04 PM
As we've talked about, there is no way to run Rabaul for this time period with the actual plane set. No players are going to show up for a bunch of Zeros fighting a bunch of F4U's, F6F's, and P-38's.
So, we must alter the plane set. We can:
1. Keep a realistic allied set (F4U's, F6F's, P-38's) and give the Japanese an unrealistic set that is competitive. This is the approach voted on and won.
or
2. Keep a realistic Japanese set and give the US an unrealistic set that is degraded to make it even (i.e., removing most F4U's, F6F's, and P-38's and unrealistically boosting the proportion of P-40's to make it mostly a Zero vs. P-40 battle). This is not what was voted on, and it didn't win the vote. (#2, by the way, is mainly just Rabaul '42, not the heyday of Boyington, Blackburn, Bong, McGuire, Hanson, Carl, Johnson, etc. in their Corsairs, Hellcats, and P-38's.)
or
3. Make both sides unrealistic by giving each side a high proportion of the planes people don't prefer and a small proportion of the planes they do prefer. This, to me, is the worst of both 1 and 2 put together. But regardless, it also is not what was voted on, and it didn't win.
So, where do you want your unrealism? Mostly on one side or the other or smeared over both?
Let's do #1 which is what the player base already picked. :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 18, 2017, 10:04:05 PM
By the way, with regard to N1K2's:
Swareiam and I talked about that and decided that it would probably work best with more Ki-84's and fewer N1K2's (rather than vice versa) because 4-cannon N1K2's we think would obliterate the B-24's and B-25's and make flying those planes miserable.
We need everyone to have a balanced and fun time -- not just the fighter guys.
Also, for the Japanese plane set to be competitive, it needs to not be significantly slower than the allied set (which the N1K2 is). In this one, the N1K2 is sort of like how the FW 190 is in Big Week (only the bombers are way more vulnerable here than in Big Week).
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 18, 2017, 10:51:32 PM
Mentioning it again, but: Because the voting is done, all this debate on what the player base should have picked, or how we can make this into something drastically different than what the player base picked, stuff like that is moot.
Instead, we need to decide things like: -- Is B-25 survivability OK? If not, do we need to disperse ships more? -- Is the scoring OK? -- Will one side's fighter set dominate the other side's? If so, what tweaks to numbers?
We've got at least another week for folks to weigh in on things like this, but can't wait forever -- let's get on with it. :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: kilo2 on September 18, 2017, 11:39:16 PM
As much as a Rabaul scenario would be great, it fails to replicate the experienced Axis flyers that may have been present. Much like an Eastern Front scenario, it is almost impossible to balance a scenario using historical match ups that cannot reflect experience.
The answer? Promoting attendance from mature virtual flyers that have a love of history, rather than just a love of winning.
Such a meh statement. Fly axis in Rabaul. Put your money where your mouth is.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: puller on September 19, 2017, 07:40:48 AM
I promise the bombers aren't going to have a good time with my nikis around... :aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: TequilaChaser on September 19, 2017, 07:44:27 AM
Such a meh statement. Fly axis in Rabaul. Put your money where your mouth is.
Kilo2, that is an unfair challenge asking Delirium to fly Axis (which he would most absolutely would do if it came to it and the CM Host asked him to).... But challenging him to put his money where his mouth is, is just wrong....
He deserves the chance to be able to fly in the scenario in historical squadron that was at Rabual, since that is the same squadron that he is a member of here in AH, imulating....
If the seasoned longtime players really want to see another glorious wonderful scenario with better numbers, then everyone that is committed to flying the scenario should work hard at getting at 1 if not 2 others to join in on the excitement...
TC
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Hajo on September 19, 2017, 08:18:38 AM
When this scenario comes up I am going to register to fly the B25 strafer. It will be torn up by the N1K. So............plans of attack will have to be formulated. Strategy. Who'd a thunk?
Even though they will more then likely be escorted most will go down. So what? It will be exciting to say the least. Some, not all will get through. And who knows all may get in to do some damage.
That's the fun and excitement of the scenario. I prefer the actual planeset if possible. It's historical. Immersion is the key. If needed I'll fly the Zeke instead. Just make it as close to reality as we can.
I realize most do not have the same opinion as I do. I could care less about winning. Immersion and fun are the key for me.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: ROC on September 19, 2017, 12:08:55 PM
Sigh I'm going to take the Zekes, aren't I :bhead
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 19, 2017, 12:54:07 PM
If you do, then I will find a way to swing one Saturday off and fly with you mate!
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: ROC on September 19, 2017, 02:03:09 PM
Quote
Up to you. It'll be what you make of it.
It always is. That's why I took the Stukas for the 12 hour event. It's always what I make of it, I try and take the tough ones when I do get a chance to fly. Did I ever tell you about the time I led the Pearl Harbor side switch scenario? Started as IJN, explained to the team that we owned the event, no way the Allies could win, all of the good stuff that inspires the team. Then, after shutting down the Allies, we side switched. The cries of We Are Doomed were overwhelming, until I explained that I lied. We should have gotten slaughtered as the IJN, there should have been no way we should have won. And, here's why...chatter chatter chatter. We went on to win that side also.
Of course it's what you make of it.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 19, 2017, 05:07:54 PM
It looks like the 80th started flying Js late 1943, but the vast majority were Gs and Hs.
Roger that.
Dick Bong got his P-38 "Marge" (which was a J) in Jan/Feb, 1944, according to this and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bong http://acepilots.com/usaaf_bong.html
So, guys, maybe the 80th is G's and the 9th is J's?
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: kilo2 on September 19, 2017, 08:55:51 PM
Kilo2, that is an unfair challenge asking Delirium to fly Axis (which he would most absolutely would do if it came to it and the CM Host asked him to).... But challenging him to put his money where his mouth is, is just wrong....
He deserves the chance to be able to fly in the scenario in historical squadron that was at Rabual, since that is the same squadron that he is a member of here in AH, imulating....
If the seasoned longtime players really want to see another glorious wonderful scenario with better numbers, then everyone that is committed to flying the scenario should work hard at getting at 1 if not 2 others to join in on the excitement...
TC
His love for History and desire for the event to work should out weigh his squadron loyalty.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 19, 2017, 11:29:50 PM
Dick Bong got his P-38 "Marge" (which was a J) in Jan/Feb, 1944, according to this and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bong http://acepilots.com/usaaf_bong.html
So, guys, maybe the 80th is G's and the 9th is J's?
Not sure why you are sticking with the 9th Brooke. They got Jugs in November 43 and Bong went home. Still think just for the available skins you should go with the 475th. They got the 9th Lightnings to go with the ones they had already as attrition replacements.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 19, 2017, 11:50:01 PM
Corky Smith got his 5th kill in "CorkyJr" over Rabaul on October 24, 1943. The image shows him landing after that mission. The 5th AF flew their last missions over Rabaul on November 7th. Carrier strikes followed that and then Marines and 13th AF coming from the Solomons.
I really would like to be in "CorkyJr" over cartoon Rabaul. The single engine part I have down pat! :)
Dick Bong got his P-38 "Marge" (which was a J) in Jan/Feb, 1944, according to this and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bong http://acepilots.com/usaaf_bong.html
So, guys, maybe the 80th is G's and the 9th is J's?
Why limit squadrons to a single model? Its more realistic to have a mix of Gs and Js within a group, isn't it?
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: BFOOT1 on September 20, 2017, 08:25:23 AM
Hmmm to fly Corsairs or 38's, very tough decision. :bhead
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Delirium on September 20, 2017, 09:22:32 AM
So, guys, maybe the 80th is G's and the 9th is J's?
I would recommend that all the 38s are Gs, especially since you're concerned about plane performance and balance. With altitude the 38s will still dominate the Japanese planeset, but at least there will be a bit less horsepower for the Zeros to contend with. I'd rather see the Allies with early models than the Japanese with mid to late 1944 models to maintain balance and hopefully maintain the historical integrity of the event.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Delirium on September 20, 2017, 09:25:05 AM
His love for History and desire for the event to work should out weigh his squadron loyalty.
The only reason I'm posting here at all is to help the event be as realistic and fun as possible. I'm not flying in the scenario as my love for my family and career have taken center stage, far above Aces High. The best I can hope for is to have the best of both worlds and experience the event vicariously through videos and screenshots.
I'm not your enemy, but feel free to treat me that way as I have broad shoulders. :cheers:
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 20, 2017, 10:34:40 AM
My wife fully supports my AH hobby. It's the university I attend that doesn't care. :D
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 20, 2017, 04:52:49 PM
Why limit squadrons to a single model? Its more realistic to have a mix of Gs and Js within a group, isn't it?
It's much easier on GL's in scenarios to manage his guys (including walkons) if the group is all one aircraft type. It's easier to brief guys on skins and loadouts, easier to manage them, easier to have them stay with you in formation, etc. And folks know which type they will certainly have before the scenario so that they can practice in it prior to the scenario. I very much like to practice in the plane I'll be flying prior to the scenario.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 20, 2017, 05:02:34 PM
P-38G's and J's are nearly identical in military speed at all alts. A main difference is that the J has WEP, but the G doesn't.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Delirium on September 20, 2017, 08:18:00 PM
I would still put them all in Gs, it will make side balancing at least a little easier. Considering you can't create settings which accounts for experience, you may want to give the Axis as much of an advantage as you can.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Spikes on September 20, 2017, 10:01:22 PM
I would still put them all in Gs, it will make side balancing at least a little easier. Considering you can't create settings which accounts for experience, you may want to give the Axis as much of an advantage as you can.
Generally speaking, players who fly Axis have more experience in the planes that they are flying than the Allies do.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 21, 2017, 12:03:46 AM
OK, 475th FG it is, specifically McGuire's 431st FS, which got P-38J's in March.
We'll have the 80th as G's.
You P-38 aficionados want the 431st be G's or J's?
Make em G models. Gs and Hs were in the main over Rabaul. The 38s were over Rabaul in late 43. If you were talking 44, then the move to Js was really happening.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 21, 2017, 08:04:09 PM
431st FS/475th FG is now in there. All P-38's are now G's. Made small adjustment to proportion of Ki-61's.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 21, 2017, 08:37:33 PM
Questions I have for all of you:
-- Do you think the Japanese fighters (with all those Ki-84's) will dominate the US fighters? Ki-84's are very, very good planes. They are faster than F6F's and P-38G's, and they handily outturn the US planes. It is tough when your opponent is faster and outturns you. Or will the Ki-84's lower robustness serve as enough of a balancing factor?
-- Do you think the B-25's will be able to get to and from targets at times and not be all shot down every time. Targets are not widely spread; the B-25's are singles; and they are doing attacks on the deck. Or will the ship separation be good enough?
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 21, 2017, 08:48:06 PM
-- Do you think the Japanese fighters (with all those Ki-84's) will dominate the US fighters? Ki-84's are very, very good planes. They are faster than F6F's and P-38G's, and they handily outturn the US planes. It is tough when your opponent is faster and outturns you. Or will the Ki-84's lower robustness serve as enough of a balancing factor?
I think they'll rule the scenario. I also think that's fine. I don't wanna see any post-frame debriefing crying about the F4U-1A. :)
-- Do you think the B-25's will be able to get to and from targets at times and not be all shot down every time. Targets are not widely spread; the B-25's are singles; and they are doing attacks on the deck. Or will the ship separation be good enough?
I think they'll die gloriously over and over. Gloriously. I picture Kirk Douglas flying every single BM.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 21, 2017, 11:28:34 PM
-- Do you think the Japanese fighters (with all those Ki-84's) will dominate the US fighters? Ki-84's are very, very good planes. They are faster than F6F's and P-38G's, and they handily outturn the US planes. It is tough when your opponent is faster and outturns you. Or will the Ki-84's lower robustness serve as enough of a balancing factor?
-- Do you think the B-25's will be able to get to and from targets at times and not be all shot down every time. Targets are not widely spread; the B-25's are singles; and they are doing attacks on the deck. Or will the ship separation be good enough?
Seems like 18 Ki-84s might be a bit much. Not even remotely a historic feel with them being the main Japanese bird. 4 Zekes? What's the point of calling it Rabaul :)
Might as well make it a late war somewhere else scenario as this isn't Rabaul even remotely. Skip G model 38s, make it Js and Ls, take it to the Philippines and make it at least look like a historical match up. Then the F4U-1As etc all work. Then the 25Hs make sense and it's all good.
Nothing about this is Rabaul sad to say
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on September 21, 2017, 11:38:23 PM
Seems like 18 Ki-84s might be a bit much. Not even remotely a historic feel with them being the main Japanese bird. 4 Zekes? What's the point of calling it Rabaul :)
Might as well make it a late war somewhere else scenario as this isn't Rabaul even remotely. Skip G model 38s, make it Js and Ls, take it to the Philippines and make it at least look like a historical match up. Then the F4U-1As etc all work. Then the 25Hs make sense and it's all good.
Nothing about this is Rabaul sad to say
:aok
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: oboe on September 22, 2017, 12:43:16 AM
Seems like 18 Ki-84s might be a bit much. Not even remotely a historic feel with them being the main Japanese bird. 4 Zekes? What's the point of calling it Rabaul :)
Might as well make it a late war somewhere else scenario as this isn't Rabaul even remotely. Skip G model 38s, make it Js and Ls, take it to the Philippines and make it at least look like a historical match up. Then the F4U-1As etc all work. Then the 25Hs make sense and it's all good.
Nothing about this is Rabaul sad to say
This.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 22, 2017, 06:17:43 AM
I respect Dan's opinion as much as I appreciate Brooke's work.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: WxMan on September 22, 2017, 07:47:26 AM
Seems like 18 Ki-84s might be a bit much. Not even remotely a historic feel with them being the main Japanese bird. 4 Zekes? What's the point of calling it Rabaul :)
Might as well make it a late war somewhere else scenario as this isn't Rabaul even remotely. Skip G model 38s, make it Js and Ls, take it to the Philippines and make it at least look like a historical match up. Then the F4U-1As etc all work. Then the 25Hs make sense and it's all good.
Nothing about this is Rabaul sad to say
If you're basing your argument on the B-25H, please remember that the point of including the "H" was to give the pilots a tail gun. My father-in-law who was a pilot in-theatre at the time, flew 26's and 25's. During 1943/early 1944 he participated in the Battle of Rabaul. He mainly flew "B-25D's" which had a tail gun. He occasionally flew a "C" early in-theatre, and "G's" and a "H" (which both had the canon) in the last 2 months he was there early in 1944.
There is not much difference in the C's and H's other than armament. If you think it would be more historical, then the H's could pickle the canon rounds so they would be effectively a D model. Then you would be justified in making the argument for returning to the other historical aircraft.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Delirium on September 22, 2017, 09:00:44 AM
Seems like 18 Ki-84s might be a bit much. Not even remotely a historic feel with them being the main Japanese bird. 4 Zekes? What's the point of calling it Rabaul :)
Might as well make it a late war somewhere else scenario as this isn't Rabaul even remotely. Skip G model 38s, make it Js and Ls, take it to the Philippines and make it at least look like a historical match up. Then the F4U-1As etc all work. Then the 25Hs make sense and it's all good.
Nothing about this is Rabaul sad to say
Agreed. :aok
I'd rather see Ki61s than Ki84s over Rabaul, unless you're planning on a 'what if' type scenario.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: branch37 on September 22, 2017, 11:14:21 AM
Make them Ki-61s and it will work. They weren't at Rabaul in large numbers but they were there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on September 22, 2017, 11:28:59 AM
If you're basing your argument on the B-25H, please remember that the point of including the "H" was to give the pilots a tail gun. My father-in-law who was a pilot in-theatre at the time, flew 26's and 25's. During 1943/early 1944 he participated in the Battle of Rabaul. He mainly flew "B-25D's" which had a tail gun. He occasionally flew a "C" early in-theatre, and "G's" and a "H" (which both had the canon) in the last 2 months he was there early in 1944.
There is not much difference in the C's and H's other than armament. If you think it would be more historical, then the H's could pickle the canon rounds so they would be effectively a D model. Then you would be justified in making the argument for returning to the other historical aircraft.
My wish for the C/D Strafer is for the skins and that they are modified 5th AF strafers which were over Rabaul. Yes over time they got single 50 cals in the tail but they were still early birds. They didn't have two in the tail and a cannon :)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: BFOOT1 on September 22, 2017, 12:38:44 PM
When is registration? I'm ready to claim a F4U :joystick:
Ditto, it's time to take our conflict back to the PTO! See ya over Rabaul :salute
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 22, 2017, 01:22:16 PM
Looks like we've gotten what relevant input we're going to get.
My thanks to all those who gave helpful information.
Swareiam and I will post the final version when we are done with final adjustments, and I'll announce here when registration will open once we pick the time.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 22, 2017, 01:44:33 PM
:salute
Here's to reduced inter-frame melt-downs by participants.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: oboe on September 23, 2017, 10:54:55 AM
:salute
I think the P-38Gs will have their hands full with the Ki.84s (under 20K the Hayate has better speed, acceleration, climb rate & roll rate).
I'm sure it'll be a good scenario; it just looks to me more like a Philippines late '44 setting rather than Rabaul 1943. Its quite similar to the plane set used in the Philippine Phandango (where interestingly, P-38 squadron pilots were apparently given their choice of "J" or "L" subtypes, according to the event write up. It says "P-38J or L" for the 475th FG squads listed.)
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 25, 2017, 03:20:24 PM
Hello, all.
Latest version here: http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201710_TargetRabaul/rules.html
Dates of the scenario (note that daylight saving time is changing during this event, and it changes on different days for different countries -- if you aren't the US, please check your local time vs. GMT to be sure for each frame):
October 28: 3 pm Eastern, noon Pacific, 7 pm GMT. <-- First two frames are 7 pm GMT November 4: 3 pm Eastern, noon Pacific, 7 pm GMT. November 11: 3 pm Eastern, noon Pacific, 8 pm GMT. <-- Last two frames are 8 pm GMT. November 18: 3 pm Eastern, noon Pacific, 8 pm GMT.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Arlo on September 25, 2017, 03:30:53 PM
Looks good.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: bgoldy on September 25, 2017, 10:36:50 PM
So I take it the reason the 25s have 4 lives is cause they are noe only and are prone to death more?
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 26, 2017, 02:03:12 AM
So I take it the reason the 25s have 4 lives is cause they are noe only and are prone to death more?
Yes. In particular, i think all of these things might give b25s a more difficult time: Will be at ground level when attacking No formations Their targets are not much separated
For those reasons, i want to make sure they have enough lives to have fun.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on September 26, 2017, 07:39:36 PM
I'll open registration for participants here now and for rest of folks as announced here:
If members of the AKs wish to fly together in the B25 strafer during the Scenario I will gladly vacate my seat so that the squad can participate together. Just PM me. I'll register for another aircraft.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: swareiam on September 27, 2017, 09:06:34 PM
If members of the AKs wish to fly together in the B25 strafer during the Scenario I will gladly vacate my seat so that the squad can participate together. Just PM me. I'll register for another aircraft.
Hajo,
Not necessary... We are looking forward to flying with you sir.
:salute
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Hajo on September 28, 2017, 10:08:52 AM
I am hoping a friend of mine and former squaddie Toad participates in the strafer. His father I believe flew a strafer during the war. As a matter of fact Guppy posted about the B25 Toads' Dad flew.
It would be fitting to say the least. Flew one of the most difficult missions of the war.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: WxMan on September 28, 2017, 02:32:35 PM
I am hoping a friend of mine and former squaddie Toad participates in the strafer. His father I believe flew a strafer during the war. As a matter of fact Guppy posted about the B25 Toads' Dad flew.
It would be fitting to say the least. Flew one of the most difficult missions of the war.
Hajo,
We are more than happy to have both of you guys along with us.
Welcome to the 42nd. :salute
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: ROC on October 03, 2017, 12:12:11 PM
Can't participate in this one. Sorry gang, got out of the hospital last night, home about 11pm. Massive clots in my leg. Good news, not deep vein. Bad News, severe enough so that I'm doing lovenox injections in my stomach, coumadin regimine and sitting for long periods is a nono as well as extremely painful. Catch you on the next one.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: FBDragon on October 03, 2017, 12:33:34 PM
Can't participate in this one. Sorry gang, got out of the hospital last night, home about 11pm. Massive clots in my leg. Good news, not deep vein. Bad News, severe enough so that I'm doing lovenox injections in my stomach, coumadin regimine and sitting for long periods is a nono as well as extremely painful. Catch you on the next one.
Take care of yourself, your life is more important than this!!! :cheers: :salute
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on October 03, 2017, 12:51:28 PM
Oh, no! :(
Roc, my very best wishes to you and for your health. My brother in law had something similar. He recovered well, but it definitely is serious, and i,m glad that you are on top of things.
I hope for the fastest of recoveries for you, my friend. <S>
Can't participate in this one. Sorry gang, got out of the hospital last night, home about 11pm. Massive clots in my leg. Good news, not deep vein. Bad News, severe enough so that I'm doing lovenox injections in my stomach, coumadin regimine and sitting for long periods is a nono as well as extremely painful. Catch you on the next one.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: TequilaChaser on October 03, 2017, 01:21:38 PM
Damn ROC, I hate to hear this news.... I'm glad though that you/your doctors caught it early and will keep you and your family in my thoughts and prayers for a quick and healthy recovery....
Not really sure what is up with this year of 2017, but damn if it hasn't taken a toll on a lot of us that plays this game and have known each other for decades....
We're here for you, ROC!
~S~
TC / Johnny
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Zoney on October 03, 2017, 01:50:22 PM
Darn it ROC! You have got to take care of yourself. I suggest leg massages by your wife:
"is this where the clots were honey?"
"no, higher"
"here?"
"no, higher"
"here?"
"no, higher"
"the clot wasn't that high"
"yes it was, look, I'm all swollen there"
:x
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: oboe on October 03, 2017, 02:45:34 PM
Sorry to hear, ROC. Like others have stated though- very glad they caught this early.
Take care of yourself, see you in the next one. (Scenario, that is.) :salute
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Devil 505 on October 03, 2017, 04:00:20 PM
Get well soon ROC.
:salute
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Brooke on October 03, 2017, 04:29:20 PM
Folks, the side forums are open.
"Target Rabaul General" is open to all. Post in the appropriate topic there if you are registered and can't see your side forum.
"Target Rabaul Allies" is the allied private forum.
"Target Rabaul Axis" is the axis private forum.
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: puller on October 03, 2017, 06:50:56 PM
Can't participate in this one. Sorry gang, got out of the hospital last night, home about 11pm. Massive clots in my leg. Good news, not deep vein. Bad News, severe enough so that I'm doing lovenox injections in my stomach, coumadin regimine and sitting for long periods is a nono as well as extremely painful. Catch you on the next one.
:salute get well
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Hajo on October 03, 2017, 07:02:52 PM
Can't participate in this one. Sorry gang, got out of the hospital last night, home about 11pm. Massive clots in my leg. Good news, not deep vein. Bad News, severe enough so that I'm doing lovenox injections in my stomach, coumadin regimine and sitting for long periods is a nono as well as extremely painful. Catch you on the next one.
ROC take care of yourself first. We all wish you to be in good health. There will be other opportunities as you know. Pay attention to your doctor, don't do anything stupid (like me) and get healthy fast!
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Guppy35 on October 03, 2017, 07:10:17 PM
Can't participate in this one. Sorry gang, got out of the hospital last night, home about 11pm. Massive clots in my leg. Good news, not deep vein. Bad News, severe enough so that I'm doing lovenox injections in my stomach, coumadin regimine and sitting for long periods is a nono as well as extremely painful. Catch you on the next one.
Damn! Get well soon. No disappearing on us!
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Kanth on October 03, 2017, 07:30:38 PM
take care of yourself, ROC :cheers:
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: KCDitto on October 03, 2017, 09:10:01 PM
WOW
Sorry to hear ROC Take care
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: ROC on October 03, 2017, 11:18:50 PM
Thanks guys, back on track, go register! :)
Quote
I suggest leg massages by your wife:
I don't think my ex would be up to that at the moment lol
Title: Re: Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)
Post by: Delirium on October 04, 2017, 09:19:16 AM
Roc, you could always ask your doctor for some compression boots, you can even imagine them as part of a G suit!