Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on November 20, 2017, 04:35:11 PM
-
Please rate Target Rabaul.
If you played in it, please rate this scenario by giving it a number in the range of -5 (absolutely hated it), to 0 (could take it or leave it), to +5 (absolutely loved it).
-
+4
-1 for extra hard targets.. ;)
-
I would definitely rate this a 5, just from the perspective of the changing tactics on both sides between frames to try and thwart the other side. So often you end up with people trying to do the same thing repeatedly hoping that it will eventually work and ending up in disaster. The allies really tried to mix things up, especially in Frame 3 that made it a lot more fun and difficult to keep up with.
-
+2 only because of the Japanese plane set. It was just too early in the war to have that many 61's and 84's involved. It was a lose lose every week for the Allies. We were at a disadvantage every frame in numbers and performance. Had there been a limited number of 61's and 84's maybe 5 of each, with the zero being the prime fighter, then the sides may have bee more balanced, and more historically accurate. Disabling the DAR bar would have made the Japanese use more aircraft in the scouting roll. The way it was set up with a 5 minute delay, still was a major advantage. They knew as soon as the big DAR bar showed up where we were coming from. Please realize this is not a flame post. I'm just adding some input that may be of use in later scenarios. Thank you to all that put this together, and that flew this event. :salute
-
Definitely +5! :D
-
DmdJJ the N1K2J also didn't show up until the last year of the war also. This is what unfortunately now has to be done to get 60 to 70 people to play.
I did have fun I'll give it a 2. Reason..........we were flying strafers for no reason to do so. What we could strafe with our guns gave us so little it wasn't feasible to strafe targets.
We were a push as far as scores go. If we could actually strafe objects and get a reasonable amount of points it would have been more fun. We had to glide bomb moving targets. Also difficult to do on moving vessels with a B25 with no bomb site. Jabo instead of bomber.
Again I did have fun but before I sign up for another scenario I'll check more thoroughly on plane sets and scoring.
Again, because so few actually participate in Scenarios this is the result.
-
+2
I must confess this one was a disappointment. I had high hopes for a Rabaul Scenario. It was hard to get into the mood when I was seeing mostly 84s and N1Ks with just a small number of Zekes and Tonies. Those were Rabaul birds. I understand the reasoning for them, but it kills any resemblance to the fights that really took place over Rabaul.
Should it get redone, name it something else with an appropriate historical setting and time frame for that plane set and lose the 38Gs and make it Js and Ls. It was my mistake to push for the Gs. If we are going to fight a 44-45 war, find a spot where that plane set fits so the history makes a bit more sense.
-
+5
Joined in as a walkon and had a blast in a Ki61. Axis ground ack seemed too strong for B25 to me. I would have been happy with a browning on a Jeep or some other machine gun GV on base and LVT guns near ships.
-
+3
Just a reminder that there were 6 nikis and that we were destroyed every frame except frame 2...even then there were only like 3 of us left
-
Should it get redone, name it something else with an appropriate historical setting and time frame for that plane set and lose the 38Gs and make it Js and Ls. It was my mistake to push for the Gs. If we are going to fight a 44-45 war, find a spot where that plane set fits so the history makes a bit more sense.
It was my mistake as well. When Brooke asked me what was more common, the 38G or the 38J, I informed him it was the G. Had I known they would have given the Axis later war aircraft, I would have raised some objections but the design matter was already closed.
I agree with Guppy and Hajo on this. If you want to run a "what if" event, promote it that way. Don't attempt to recreate history while rewriting it, it makes the amateur historians in here cringe even if it does draw more people to the event.
-
Overall as a week-to-week experience: +4. Room for improvement but good!.
However, looking at it as a scenario, I too have major qualms with voting for Rabaul then having 1944 late-war planes. +2 final vote.
Too much of a what-if. I'd rather have had A6M5bs, Ki-61s, less B-24s, F4u-1s, P-38Gs, and F6Fs in different ratios so that while the Japanese planes weren't quite as capable they would have a slight numbers advantage and be more of a threat. To be honest, that's what I imagined when we originally voted in the "vote for the next scenario!" thread.
-
+4
My squad had lots of fun during the event. A good mix of action and searching for the best spots to patrol. For me it was not as good as the Battle of Britain but certainly more fun than FSO. I really enjoyed the the 2 lives. Also the time of day was excellent for a European player like me.
Once more. Thanks everyone for the event and looking forward to the next one <S>.
DutchVII
-
+4.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
The only thing missing was the marching bands and confetti after landing successfully. :D
-
+5
-
I am going to rate this one a +4
for the same reason those allied guys are rating it poorly.
I want to say that I do not look forward to PTO scenarios or FSOs. I actually hate them....usually.
This scenario was a real blast. I had a lot of fun and flew with some great guys.
The Ki-84 is a very capable plane and I enjoyed flying it and I did not turn into a torch, not even once! I did die a couple times to 38s, loosing sight of 15:27:35 Was shot down by Soulyss (exploded).can prove to be a frame ending mistake. :o
I am sure the allied guys would like nothing but zeros to face in a big barrel and sling those .50s at them setting them on fire. :D
I am sorry that you allied guys did not enjoy it, I do understand the concerns about "what if" aspects of it.
I always say that the score does not matter to me, and even though the axis won, I still feel that way. The score is irrelevant to me. Nobody is going to remember the score. I hope you are going to remember the fights and the fun and maybe even the narrow escapes by overwhelming numbers.
:salute
Hope to see you all in the next one
Ditto
-
From a Historical point of view. I, and probably many others would probably fly with an outclassed Axis/Allied side in a REAL Scenario just for the challenge AND the History.
Unfortunately societies change. Everyone wants to win. Gets a Trophy. If I would search these posts to see what side the majority of 4 or above points would all be Axis and one Allied Pilot.
Unfortunately I signed on before everything was settled. When we found out we were just an add on to the so called scenario because B25s were there I was disappointed to say the least.
Before I sign on for another scenario I will check the scoring, how much "what if" is designed into it. Scenarios titled with an actual battle best have the actual vehicles and aircraft in it.
This scenario had no historical basis anywhere in it but for the map. If we have to "balance" it to the side of fictitious I'll pass. You do know that most conflagrations in actuality were unbalanced. Whats wrong with that? I and many like me who enjoy and know the history of these battles would probably fly with the underdog! Why you may ask? Because that is what was real and a fact. Not about scoring but realizing the heroism and the up hill battle that they faced everyday in the face of adversity was real. They fought knowing the odds but showed up everyday to do the best they could to defend their country and their brothers in arms. Times don't change, people do. The historic values now have to be manipulated so that we can attract people with an advantage mind you, to get them to consider participating. For many of us this has detracted from our participation in so called historic scenarios that are not based on historic fact. I took 6 months off this year from this game. We Old Coots who are into the history are far fewer then we used to be even 5 years ago. I came back hoping things might improve. I registered therefore I had an obligation to participate. I chose a B25 to fly knowing that low and slow we would be targets. We did well albeit handcuffed by scoring. I did not know this from registering early. I did have some fun, I flew with a bunch of great guys. But my further participation in "Fairy Tale" what ifs' is going to be questionable. This is my opinion. Others do not have to agree.
Brooke and the designers have an unenviable job not to mention thankless, to try and appease everyone. It's very difficult to get a CO now! We used to have many volunteers to CO. As far as the history of these events, it is long gone. If the History leaves I'm afraid others including my self just may leave with it. It's not a threat. One player means nothing. I'm afraid I am beating a dead horse here. I am only one person. The masses have to be appeased. People of like mindedness on the History of Air to Air Combat have left the game or no longer participate. We used to get 200 or more to participate. Now we have to twist arms to get a side CO or change the actual history to get someone to play. Pity. That's just the way it is today.
-
+2 For many of the reasons mentioned above by Allied pilots and I also do not like setups with multiple lives where the fight location is biased very much to one side. Malta being another example. Although thank you for setting it up and running it Brooke. :salute
-
3+
Target Rabaul was a good design. The unfortunate part is that scoring left it hard for the Allies to win a frame. It will be adjusted for future runs.
:salute
-
4.9 and 5 because i attended :banana:
-
I should expanded the system to include the rating of +zack.
-
+5
-
Target Rabaul was a good design
+2
+2 simply because it was fun to fly, I did not like the design at all. I didn't participate in the discussion as after the voting was done, the concept changed and debates were repeatedly dismissed as "the players voted for it". The players did not vote for it, the players voted for Rabaul.
The event was predictable. There was no need for radar, we found the Allies all too easy. The objectives, time from target and target locations made the routes obvious.
This was another snapshot, tossed together with no effort made to balance the planeset other than switch plane types around. A good design can account for a near historical set up with one side getting beat but still winning by not getting beat as badly as the real war, or a number of other factors that can make a scenario more than simply a quickly thrown together effort just to get one on the books. I am not guessing here, I know what it takes to build one, how long it takes. Look at how much time was spent between the selection and running the event. No time to team build, no time to recruit, no time to even find a CO. No need at all to train, the Axis did no real mission planning, there was no need.
I've beat my last horse to death on this subject.
Devil505 has a concept a few of us are going to take a run at, we'll see what shakes out, but I won't be in another one of these.
-
3+........ I had four good afternoons spent flying around and shooting at planes. Thanks to those who put it all together so we others could show up for some enjoyment.
one-eye
-
I'm thinking of the Journey song "Don't Stop Believin'" but with the lyrics:
Some will love it
Some will hate it
Some are born to be complained at
(No, I won't give up my day job.)
This is what players voted for:
Time to vote on what our next scenario will be.
A. Rabaul with Marine Corsairs, Navy Hellcats, USAAF B-24's, and B-25H's, and maybe some RAAF P-40N's and maybe P-38's vs. Imperial Japan's Ki-84's, N1K2's, Ki-61's, and Zeros. Many famous US and Japanese aces fought at Rabaul. For good playability, most of the Japanese planes will be the later-war types, even though historically at that time it was mainly Zeros and some Ki-61's. B-24's will be hitting land targets. B-25H's (straffer/75 mm cannon) will be for antishipping and possibly some ground attack. Setup will be influenced by action described in [the book "Target: Rabaul"].
It was clear about those Ki-84's and N1K2's, and that's what we ran. Once people pick that, we can't reverse it on them after the fact. No way.
Also, we finally have a PTO event that Ditto liked! Ditto for the win! :aok
ROC, you voted for Choice A. Then I asked you in late September what you thought of the design, and you told me the scenario is fine. :headscratch:
I'm sorry to hear otherwise. :( But I was glad that you flew in it, and I had a blast flying with you in it. :aok
Anyway, on with the ratings. :aok
-
Brooke, some of us hang around on the forums sparingly and fly even less. I didn't notice any mention of the late war Japanese planeset until after the settings were finalized, I had just popped into the forum to answer a P38/Rabaul question. You actually asked for advice considering the balancing issues after we discussed using P38Gs;
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?
Literally one day later you posted;
Looks like we've gotten what relevant input we're going to get.
That said, don't take any criticism personally. It has spelled the doom of many a scenario designer in the past and does not usually end well. I can say I appreciate the time and effort you put in. Heck, you added me to the Allied forum even though I could not fly in the event, and it was greatly appreciated.
Speaking of criticism, I am of the opinion that some of the grumbling is directly tied to the overall numbers in events and the game itself. Some of us yearn for a day when we had 300 aircraft fighting in a 100 mile area with more comm chatter than the game could support at one time. Now, we struggle to even have enough bodies to fill the events. It is frustrating for everyone in the community without a doubt.
-
+5
-
Then I asked you in late September what you thought of the design, and you told me the scenario is fine.
I know I voted for A, was the best option and I felt like a PTO event. Voting for it and liking it are two different things.
The least input you ever got from me. It was fine. I didn't care to go into it. There was no point. Look at the results, most of us saw that outcome from the start, it was not an inspired design and I know you know this. It was fun to play, I got to fly, no big deal, but it's time to put some energy into the designs again. You know this is an old debate we have had for years, and you know full well what designs have been rejected in the past and why, now that they have been run it's time to get serious with them again. Put some effort into it please. You know I count bullets, you need to start. You can't design an event off theory, you need to test your runs, timing, and verify things. I know it's hard work, but I can assure you, the players are putting in exactly as much effort into their missions, planning and interest as you are.
Back to topic, rating. It was fun to fly with the gang, always is. There was no time to team build, no real need to mission plan, no excitement to recruit, and if you don't think those elements are as much or more to a scenario than launch time, you forgot what a scenario is.
-
I'd give it a +3. Got to fly with people, had a fair bit of fun. I'm not qualified to comment on historicitycaliness.
If I'm hearing right though the Allies are essentially saying it was a turkey shoot IRL so it should've been a turkey shoot here. That I've seen from most people in the game over the years I've been here the line to be the turkeys in the turkey shoot is not tremendously long.
How do you propose to bring in people to essentially be target drones?
Perhaps the only scenarios that should be run are the ones where both sides had a decent chance rather than bending lopsided fights to be balanced? It would keep the history grognards happier and would be more attractive to people who want things fairsies.
Wiley.
-
I know I voted for A, was the best option and I felt like a PTO event. Voting for it and liking it are two different things.
The least input you ever got from me. It was fine. I didn't care to go into it. There was no point. Look at the results, most of us saw that outcome from the start, it was not an inspired design and I know you know this. It was fun to play, I got to fly, no big deal, but it's time to put some energy into the designs again. You know this is an old debate we have had for years, and you know full well what designs have been rejected in the past and why, now that they have been run it's time to get serious with them again. Put some effort into it please. You know I count bullets, you need to start. You can't design an event off theory, you need to test your runs, timing, and verify things. I know it's hard work, but I can assure you, the players are putting in exactly as much effort into their missions, planning and interest as you are.
Back to topic, rating. It was fun to fly with the gang, always is. There was no time to team build, no real need to mission plan, no excitement to recruit, and if you don't think those elements are as much or more to a scenario than launch time, you forgot what a scenario is.
I agree it was fun to fly in (I basically flew as a walk-on) but the result was expected as is any late war PTO setup.
What killed the "mood" or "vibe" for me was the 15 page thread of mud-slinging and bickering, beating the thing to death. I feel that the people participating in that thread were tired of the event before it even began.
-
Quoting the real "Guppy" Lt. Hamilton "Tadpole" Salmon III, 39th FG P38 Pilot, from the Book "Nanette"
"The Nips put up about a hundred fighters the first day and chewed us all up, and MacArthur issued a communique saying Rabaul was as good as wiped out. And the next day they flung about three times as much at us., and afterwards MacArthur said Rabaul was completely neutralized. And the next day the sky was so black with Nips, you couldn't see the sun."
I didn't mind the numbers, but Guppy was up against Zekes and Tonies. If there had been 50 Zekes I could have bought in that I was over Rabaul in my cartoon 38, but it was Ki 84s and N1Ks I saw.
I guess that's just the history nut in me wanting to see what I've read so much about. Put me in a J or L over the Phillipines against Ki-84s or N1Ks and I'll feel the part.
I want the fight, and I would expect the Japanese knew where we were coming from. And I don't care if we get enough points, as long as for those moments I can feel a bit like I think it might have been for the real life Guppy's over Rabaul.
-
As I have only been in a couple of scenarios and a bit of FSO this is my limited thoughts.
+3 .... I had fun as I do when I play AH... I did think it was a bit unfair that we had Dar...like we did... as in we had soooo much time to get in place...to be fair it was good work by the scouts also...but I think they too had a small advantage in finding general direction due to the dar.... I think perhaps the fact that it was all carried out in such a small area we could have possibly had less of a dar influence for this one.
let me tell you...when I encountered red...I felt we were the out numbered guys.... hahaha...
Plane choices..Unsure on this side as I didn't even look at the history behind this... I just hoped I had an 84 handy when the F6F and F4U's arrived hahaha....
overall....+3 .... good time.... felt bad for allies in a way.... organised <S>
-
Guppy, I completely understand your desire to fly a cartoon battle that represents historical events. I think a lot of us here have some connection with history.
The problem is finding 50 guys who want to fly Zeros against P-38s roping and HO ing them for two lives then the bombers dropping unopposed for the rest of the frame.
I did not fly the Ki84 against J or L models, so I can't say if it would be good contest. But I can say that even though 38s got me twice, I never felt completely out planed as I do in a Zero. For that made it challenging and fun.
Those are my thoughts, I want to have fun, I don't mind a challenge but being completely outclassed is not fun.
-
I don't mind a challenge but being completely outclassed is not fun.
This is the part right here that gets me. So many go into an event "knowing" they were outclassed when far more often than not it's the pilot, not the plane, that makes the difference.
From the Allies point of view, specifically frame 4, how'd you like those big old fully loaded B25s getting chewed by Zeros more often than not? On paper, that shouldn't have happened. When we were able to fill my zero squad with Dantoo's group, it got ugly. As Guppy stated, 50 people in a squad of Zeros like we assembled in frame 4 might not have changed the outcome of the event, it would have or could have been just as bad for the Allies, but it would have been a radically different event simply because of the response time the Zeros had. Every single element of a design must be considered and flown to prove the design, not just rely on statistics.
That is why you need time to properly design, test, verify and prove your battlefield, we need the time to recruit, to explain to people what can be done, not what should be done. That is why we need time to train the newer players, not on what they think they know, but what they never considered. That is why we need a design that will invest the time to make sure that the planes can reach targets with enough options to not be so predictable.
It's just a matter of investing the energy into laying out a fight that can be won, then letting the teams have the time to make it happen. Then, if it goes sideways, it's on the COs and they lost the war, because those things are going to happen.
If you all don't have the February event mostly designed and ready for discussion, you see what is going to happen again, don't you? Look, it might as well be December. We are in our Recruit and Train time frame already. If you haven't got an event yet, you have an April time slot.
-
Guppy, I completely understand your desire to fly a cartoon battle that represents historical events. I think a lot of us here have some connection with history.
The problem is finding 50 guys who want to fly Zeros against P-38s roping and HO ing them for two lives then the bombers dropping unopposed for the rest of the frame.
I did not fly the Ki84 against J or L models, so I can't say if it would be good contest. But I can say that even though 38s got me twice, I never felt completely out planed as I do in a Zero. For that made it challenging and fun.
Those are my thoughts, I want to have fun, I don't mind a challenge but being completely outclassed is not fun.
The problem with that is it becomes "History" vs "Outclassed"
If the idea is to get as many folks in the seats then quit calling it anything historical. Call it the "Fall Match up". Pick the map. Give each side evenly matched rides and have at it.
I've flown a 39 in a scenario against clearly superior birds. I was outclassed in performance. How do we not have that? No point in having P40s in a North Africa Scenario. They're outclassed. I'd love to fly a 109E Fighter bomber in a Eastern Front scenario. It got the job because it was outclassed as a fighter. No point in using Betties ever again or He111s as they are outclassed by other birds. You get the idea?
It's been said already. The Japanese side knew where the targets were and where the Allies were coming from. With DAR is was easy. So the idea that Zekes were going to get BnZ'd isn't legit unless they gave up the alt they would have had being in position to bounce the Allied Raids. That's what they did for real. Read any of the Allied accounts and they were having to deal with Zekes falling on them, not the other way around. We were covering 25s down low. We got bounced by Ki-84s. Not much chance of getting out of that one as the 38Gs were 'outclassed"
Somehow we need to be able to save some semblance of the history and still be able to balance it out. Sometimes the Allies will have to deal with outclassed in some of their birds and some times the Axis will. That's kinda how it really was :)
-
I am with you on that.
I fly em all... and always axis.... I was talking about get others to do it. I would of flown Zeros in this match up, as a mtater of fact I think I mentioned it in the design thread.
I think that is why BOB is so popular. Bombers make it to target and the fighters are pretty even.
I also think the 12 hour with a start every hour is popular as you get more then 2 damn should not of done thats. :rofl
I don't have all the answers and am not sure there are any.
As ROC said, it would be nice to start working on the next one now
-
Ditto BOB works also because the game has the accurate plane set for it. The designers are handcuffed by such things as plane sets and the amount of space relegated on the map to do an actual battle.
Because of the lack of participation in these events everything has to be shrunk down to accommodate the low amount of participants. Wonder why bombers are a detriment instead of an asset in this
situation? And I'm not criticizing our bomber pilots. They had a distinct disadvantage in this event. They did very very well considering.
Way back in Der Grosse Schlag (the first one) Squadron sizes were set at 12. We actually had to expand squadron sizes on both sides to accommodate the amount of players that wanted to participate. Final tally for the squadron I led was 20 registered to fly with the 56th. The P51 squadrons and 38 squadrons also did increase their sizes as did the Axis JGs' and Allied BGs'.. Now squadrons are 6 aircraft. Notice a difference? I wish I knew what changed. I wish I knew how to fix it. I had a fantastic Squadron with me at that time. I don't know if you were around then but my XO was Whels, TC I believe flew with me, Joker1, Rob53, Shamus, EDO,and many more then I can't remember at the moment. These were veterans of MMOGs for a long time. The Axis had the same. It was truly an Epic scenario and everyone who participated in it said the same. No air Spawns. Everyone of us had to climb out and rendezvous with other fighter squadrons and the BG stream we were assigned to escort. We had a large map, Targets were many and the axis scouted to find us. We sent some FGs out to scout nme fighters and break them up before they could get to the bombers. The chatter was fantastic. You may have been escorting "The Bloody 100th" or the" 91st." Imagine looking down on about 40 to 50 B24s or B17s and looking around and four full fighter squadrons surrounding the Bombers. The sight was fantastic. The fights were white knuckle to say the least. Alas I know some of the problem is that many of the old timers left the game. A few of us are still here. Ask Stampf about this scenario or anyone else still here from JG11 at that time who participated.
I wish I knew what happened to cause such a low turnout now. There were more players in the game at that time though. Most being veterans of WarBirds and Air Warrior. Mostly people 30 or over in age I would hazard a guess. So maybe we had more players then and now with fewer players now the percentages participating of the total base are the same? Fewer participants? Less involved with the actual history? I wish I knew. I'd love again to see 40 to 50 bombers below me and seeing 30 to 40 other escorts flying along with my squadron escorting them.
With my love of the History of Air Combat in WWII,I wish I had a magic wand. I wish I could use it. Alas I don't have the magic. Pity. We need more players involved. The numbers are in game.
How do we get them here? <shrugz>
-
You actually asked for advice considering the balancing issues after we discussed using P38Gs;
Literally one day later you posted;
I hear you, Del. I was trying to get input on how many Ki-84's there should be, though, such as should there be 20 of them, or 16, or 12 or what. Folks kept not talking about that and instead continuing to belabor things that weren't choices. Having none of them wasn't a choice.
I wanted to get some input on it, asked several times, got no input, and so Swareiam and I decided without feedback to reduce the number of Ki-84's by 30%.
I can say I appreciate the time and effort you put in. Heck, you added me to the Allied forum even though I could not fly in the event, and it was greatly appreciated.
Many thanks, Del. I do appreciate that from you, and you are most welcome to be in the forums. I hope that you can fly in the next one. <S>!
-
Happy Thanksgiving, all! :aok
-
+4 overall... I had a great time, got to know and fly with some top grade new (for me) folks, and was motivated to learn a plane better. My reason for deducting 1, is that I prefer more historically accurate plane matchups. This being said I support Brooke and CM staff to make the call on setting up a great experience, and you all did that as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks to all!
Happy Thanksgiving!
-
+4 I thought we could have had done without a dar bar with the scouts we had, but over all fun. After being out of the game for a few years it made me miss scenarios and i cant wait for the next one!
-
Somehow we need to be able to save some semblance of the history and still be able to balance it out. Sometimes the Allies will have to deal with outclassed in some of their birds and some times the Axis will. That's kinda how it really was :)
You can give inferior side more aircraft, have single bombers instead of bomber formations on some occasions, darbar, altitude constraints...
-
+ 3. I would have preferred a 1943 plane set. I have also found it more enjoyable to have targets more spread out with multiple lines of approach available so the defenders have to do some work to concentrate their fighters on the bombers - I felt Big Week and Hell over the Hinterland did better in this respect.
-
+4 B25's and Zekes going head-on ftw! Had a great time going noe to strike the fleets. Only complaint I have is we couldn't score more than a max 1 point on the ground per sortie. Minor thing in my eyes as I do these events to have fun and I think this scenario brought the fun. This was my 3rd scenario and I'm looking forward to the 4th!
:salute
-
+1
I had fun as always but am not a fan of N1Ks and Ki.84s at Rabaul in 1943. The lopsided Axis victory is probably an indicator of a balance problem in the design, either in scoring or planeset or both. I was a walkon for this one, so wasn't privy to the mission planning discussions but it felt to me like there wasn't much variety in the missions or targets.
I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the scenario team and all the guys who step up to lead. Can't sing you guys' praises enough for the work you do and effort you put in for our enjoyment, and can't wait for the next one!
-
While I think the Ki-84 definitely changed the face of this battle, Oboe, I was flying a Ki-61 the entire time and can say I think the reason we won by a landslide was that we caught the bombers unprotected way too many times. In the last frame, however, I couldn't get within 4K of the bombers during the first strike because of their escort. Why weren't they doing that from the start?!
I don't blame the planeset and scoring for the landslide victories. I think that was more a tactical problem.
-
Just my impressions, Krusty, that's all - to be taken with a grain of salt. I was a low-level participant so I can't really speak to Allied planning and tactics. In fact there really hasn't been much of a post mortem discussion that I've seen - though I don't have access to the planning forums so I may be missing any discussion going on right now.
I think tactics can definitely be an issue, but as Wil3ur pointed out in an earlier post, even changing tactics and mixing things up didn't help the Allies scorewise. And as you yourself noted - there were times when the bombers were well-protected and you couldn't get near them. But the Allies still lost every frame. <shrug> that just seems like that might indicate a balance (planeset, numbers) or scoring problem.
Was very cool to see a gaggle of Ki.61s screaming in on us by the way!
-
:aok
-
+4
being on losing side did not make it less fun, but did add to realistic stress, the overly hardened bomber targets did make it hard to hit without all surviving remaining drones though.
all scenarios cannot be the same layout , countries and themes, so you have to rate it based on what it is. It was realistic enough evidently.
fun times.
-
even changing tactics and mixing things up didn't help the Allies scorewise.
I would say strategy had a large impact. There was a big difference between frames 1-2 and frame 3. In combat terms, the allies won frame 3, where they had a large amount of close escort for the B-24's and executed the escort role very well.
-
I would say strategy had a large impact. There was a big difference between frames 1-2 and frame 3. In combat terms, the allies won frame 3, where they had a large amount of close escort for the B-24's and executed the escort role very well.
Hiya Brooke,
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But if in combat terms, the Allies won Frame 3, why did they have a lower score than the Axis? That suggests something was at least slightly "off" in scoring, doesn't it?
-
Hiya Brooke,
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But if in combat terms, the Allies won Frame 3, why did they have a lower score than the Axis? That suggests something was at least slightly "off" in scoring, doesn't it?
In frame 3, the allies did great, but they had a very unfortunate situation. They took off in bombers very late in the frame, then just went back and landed shortly after takeoff. None of those planes got within 50 miles of an enemy icon. Usually, that is no big deal. But on this map, most of the allied coastal fields are weird. They are small airfields with only one strip, have a cliff at one end, and a mountain planted right at the other end of the runway. For fighters, it's weird and maybe a little dangerous, but it is much worse for formations of B-24's. When the bombers went back to land, there were several formations lost in landing.
The scoring system counts ditches, crashes, bails, and deaths as losses, but it doesn't have a statement like "ditches and crashes, unless they happen when landing an aborted mission where no aircraft involved is ever within 50 miles of an enemy". So, in this instance, it ended up counting something akin to transport losses. It was unfortunate for the allies, and I wanted very much for them to get the win they deserved in that frame.
-
You can give inferior side more aircraft, have single bombers instead of bomber formations on some occasions, darbar, altitude constraints...
What generally happens is the defending side gets more fighters, and often upgrades to what they'd really have had, to get guys to fly. So the attackers have less fighters to defend and are fighting better aircraft in numbers, and the bombers often get mauled no matter what the escorts do. I don't have an answer, but there was a reason bombers went down in droves without adequate escort for real and we clearly mimic that. Problem is the attacking crowd, regardless if Allied or Axis, has to do more with less to get the defenders to play, or at least that's how it often seems
-
In frame 3, the allies did great, but they had a very unfortunate situation. They took off in bombers very late in the frame, then just went back and landed shortly after takeoff. None of those planes got within 50 miles of an enemy icon. Usually, that is no big deal. But on this map, most of the allied coastal fields are weird. They are small airfields with only one strip, have a cliff at one end, and a mountain planted right at the other end of the runway. For fighters, it's weird and maybe a little dangerous, but it is much worse for formations of B-24's. When the bombers went back to land, there were several formations lost in landing.
The scoring system counts ditches, crashes, bails, and deaths as losses, but it doesn't have a statement like "ditches and crashes, unless they happen when landing an aborted mission where no aircraft involved is ever within 50 miles of an enemy". So, in this instance, it ended up counting something akin to transport losses. It was unfortunate for the allies, and I wanted very much for them to get the win they deserved in that frame.
Thanks for that explanation - I recall that incident but didn't realize it occurred at such a high rate to cost the Allies the frame in score. Those are operational losses and add to the realism of the scenario IMO. It was tough luck for sure but I don't disagree with how that was scored. I had trouble with that airfield too.
<S>
-
By the way, I give a big <S> to the B-24 pilots in this one. They were enormously valiant and dedicated and had high morale the whole way through. When I fly bombers in scenarios, I feel privileged and happy to fly with that group of folks.