Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on April 13, 2018, 01:29:14 AM
-
Here is the starter document for Fjord Fury.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQsSNeYBqsg5Eh_tyKJtUG3uaT-87AlRQxGgagu2r5QWtpmNoGk1yQHJLU3kM0iBcUNk-f4fmImmxyB/pub
-
GAAAAAAAA!!!!!! :bhead :bhead :bhead
I want the 152 squad so bad... :cry
What a drag... :cry
Hopefully after this baby comes I'll have more time...still have lots of work to do on the house...
-
What units were in Norway in 1945?
-
What units were in Norway in 1945?
Spikes there were no 152s there or K4s for that matter, and while the RAF claimed to have run into D9s in late 45, it's not clear if they were there either. Spit XIVs didn't have the range, nor did the Tempests, so this is a partial suspend your disbelief design to include more plane types.
The reality is RAF Mustang IIIs and IVs based at Peterhead flew escorts to Mossie's and Beaus. They didn't escort Lancs.
The LW had 109Gs and 190As. It was seen as a place that was as close to a rest unit as a LW pilot could get. Consequently the units there had a lot of veteran pilots on 'rest' and there were some wicked brawls fought on occasion down low between the RAF Mustangs and the LW 109Gs and 190As.
-
Luftwaffe Fighter Unit in Norway was III/JG5. They had a mix of G14s and 190A8s in 9/JG5, 10/JG5, 12/JG5, 13/JG5, 14/JG5 and 16/JG5
There was also a unit of 110s, 12/ZG 26 used as long range interceptors of the Beaus and Mossies
RAF Mustang units that flew escort from Peterhead were:
315 Squadron (Polish) in Mustang III
19 Squadron Mustang III and IV
65 Squadron Mustang III and IV
-
I've adopted Piterko's P-51B (Mustang III) from 315 Sqdn and should have it submitted well in advance of the scenario date. The 109G-14 has a fine JG5 skin but JG 5's K-4 skin doesn't carry German markings - it has Russian Liberation Army markings. Prolly some other K4 skin could be used though.
Perhaps the design could include a mix of '51Ds and B's for the RAF, and a mix of K4s and G14s for the Luftwaffe? Seems like its always a plus for a scenario to include historically-correct models skinned for actual groups involved, if we have have the right models and skins available...
-
The Norway runs have been a fascination for a long time, having first read about them way back in high school. This is from "Mustang at War" by Roger Freeman. It gives a good account of the battles between JG5 and the Mustangs covering the Beaus and Mossies. The following us shared purely for the history. It has no connection to the actual design. Just sharing it Brooke :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW1_zpsuquhtkqb.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW1_zpsuquhtkqb.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW2_zpsf2qoc71z.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW2_zpsf2qoc71z.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW3_zpsr4hjlv1t.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW3_zpsr4hjlv1t.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW4_zpsettmxvgd.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW4_zpsettmxvgd.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW5_zps4ha1yiws.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW5_zps4ha1yiws.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW6_zpsigrabnjb.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/4th%20Fighter%20Group/SLW6_zpsigrabnjb.jpg.html)
-
The terrain and altitude the airwar over Norway was fought.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Cliffs1_zps3q4br3ke.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Cliffs1_zps3q4br3ke.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Rockets_zpsj5gkltk3.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Rockets_zpsj5gkltk3.jpg.html)
Banff Wing Mossie in on the shipping
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Mossie_zps7q8kz3qo.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Mossie_zps7q8kz3qo.jpg.html)
Beau's at work
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Rockets3_zpsyq6cysrm.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Rockets3_zpsyq6cysrm.jpg.html)
Now imagine having 109s and 190s dropping in on them with cliffs on each side and no where to dive away.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Rockets2_zps01yeuw45.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/Rockets2_zps01yeuw45.jpg.html)
-
Brooke,
I'm in and will take command of the spits, and help when I can on the event.
<S>
weiser
co/162FG
-
Brooke,
Looking at my work schedule June 1,8,15 I could make 22nd is a maybe because I work that night, last one.
I would be good on May 25th but that may br rushing it.
<S>
weiser
-
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201003_finalBattle/pics/frame1/013-sturdy51-Image-0036.jpg)
-
Brooke,
I'm in
Sweet!
-
I want my 190A8 please!!!!!
-
I've adopted Piterko's P-51B (Mustang III) from 315 Sqdn and should have it submitted well in advance of the scenario date. The 109G-14 has a fine JG5 skin but JG 5's K-4 skin doesn't carry German markings - it has Russian Liberation Army markings. Prolly some other K4 skin could be used though.
Perhaps the design could include a mix of '51Ds and B's for the RAF, and a mix of K4s and G14s for the Luftwaffe? Seems like its always a plus for a scenario to include historically-correct models skinned for actual groups involved, if we have have the right models and skins available...
Can you sneak in time for a 19 or 65 Squadron Mustang IV oboe?
-
Brooke, since oboe already has a 315 skin for the 51B, how bout changing the group of 6 Mustangs to Mustang IIIs. I want em if they can be 315 :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III_zpsi9tuxdjy.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III_zpsi9tuxdjy.jpg.html)
-
Can you sneak in time for a 19 or 65 Squadron Mustang IV oboe?
Probably, but it doesn't work like that. There are no open slots for P-51D skins and no P-51D skins up for adoption. The 51D is totally locked up.
Even if there were some orphaned '51D skins, it wouldn't help. The adopting skinner is obliged to re-do the exact same aircraft skin. The P-51D skins we have now are it. That's all we are going to have until the Mustang's 3D model is updated, which may be a very long time from now. Skinners (Vraciu et al) have suggested adding a P-51K or bumping the skin limit up from 32 but haven't been able to convince HTC. I've advocated for an early block D (w/o tail fillet) and a bird cage P-51B as a means to increase slots and improve historical accuracy of the skins we have, but that hasn't gone anywhere either.
Cactus did a natural metal RAF '51D skin, from 303 Sqdn I think - that might be the best stand-in for the Mustang IV in this scenario.
PS Thanks for the pages on the Norway air combat. Good stuff!
-
Looking at dates, looks like we'll make it June 2, 9, 16, and 23. That way, we don't stray into 4th of July weekend.
-
Brooke, since oboe already has a 315 skin for the 51B, how bout changing the group of 6 Mustangs to Mustang IIIs. I want em if they can be 315 :)
Guppy, would it work to let individual pilots pick the B or D, so there might be a mix of B's and D's in that group?
B's are faster at 30k, but I'm a little concerned about their lower firepower.
Swareiam and Ditto, what do you think?
-
Guppy, would it work to let individual pilots pick the B or D, so there might be a mix of B's and D's in that group?
B's are faster at 30k, but I'm a little concerned about their lower firepower.
Swareiam eand Ditto, what do you think?
Better that it looks the part, and it was the version 315 was flying over Norway.
-
Better that it looks the part, and it was the version 315 was flying over Norway.
The same argument can be made for trading in an equal number of K4s for G14s. The G14 is closer to the actual version of 109 flying with JG5 over Norway at the time, and we have a historically correct skin for it. If both the 51B and G14 are considered a reduction in capability, wouldn't it be fair to sub in the lower-capability aircraft to both sides in small but equal numbers?
Btw, I downloaded the NorthSea terrain and it looks really sharp. Flew in and around some fjords and the rugged terrain was quite cool. I wish there was an MA-compatible version of that terrain. Not sure who created it, but kudos and great job!
Other thoughts for discussion:
1) A question about the scoring - Why are Tirpitz and Lutzow both worth 21 pts? The Tirpitz was far more dangerous of the two, shouldn't its destruction be worth more to the Allies? Would it be worth shaving a few points off the Lutzow and adding them to the Tirpitz? Or would that be unbalancing in some other way?
2) Any chance of shaving some of the Lancaster numbers down to create a Mosquito unit? The Mossies were also actually there, and their presence would make the scenario a more interesting problem, both in attack and defense.
-
Ditto wanted a group of G14's instead of one of the K4 groups.
The problem is that the G14 with gondolas gives the axis three groups that are bomber killer monsters then: the Ta 152 (with 1 30 and 2 20 mm cannon), the 190A-8, and the G-14 with gondolas.
Lancs are not all the well defended compared to B-17's and B-24's, and some folks think Lancs catch on fire easily. I'm worried if we have too many bomber-killer monsters in there, it is a wipeout of the bombers every frame, which is not fun balance for bomber guys.
What do folks think?
-
Lose the 152s since they were never there and replace them with G-14s.
Oboe's suggestion in losing some Lancs and adding Mossies would be helpful too as then there is the potential for both the higher alt and lower alt runs. Defenders can't just perch at 30K waiting to pounce if there might be Mossies on the deck racing in to attack the shipping
-
Lutzow and Tirpitz are scored the same for convenience. They are near each other, so it is no problem to go for one over the other, and it wouldn't change the action to make the scoring asymmetric.
I'd rather not to try to make this into a scenario that has a strategic element and a tactical element. We don't have a lot of players to cover both those modalities as well as we'd like, and we wanted to focus on strategic bombing in this one to mix is up from Kuban that was completely tactical.
-
A large motivation for putting this design in the voting mix was (like The Final Battle of 8 years ago) to give folks the chance (if they wanted it enough to win the voting) to fly some latest-war prop planes that they almost never get to fly in scenarios and to put in matchups that are rare in scenarios. We specifically wanted Spit 14's, Tempests, and 152's.
-
Here are the things we need to nail down.
-- Is 42,000 lbs hardness on the ships appropriate? Some folks think it is too high.
-- Lancs are not gunned as well as B-17's or B-24's, and some folks feel Lancs catch fire easily. Do folks think with this setup we will average out to about 50% of bombers getting back to base (which is my idea of good balance)?
-- Is it OK for allies to get +1 vp if they destroy all hangars at Bergen in each of two frames, or should it be each of 3 frames? I.e., is 2 frames too easy?
-- Should the axis have more than 50 miles of radar radius?
-
Are you able to use the Cruiser object for the Lutzow, and the BB object for the Tirpitz? (i.e. will Allies be able to tell which ship they are attacking?)
Are you able to have the ships anchored in the fjords? Or will they be in port, or underway at sea with destroyer escorts, etc?
The standard displacement of the Tirpitz was 42,900t; the Lutzow was 12,630t. I have to defer to bomber guys on the question of absolute hardness and whether or not it makes a difference if they are trying to hit a moving or stationary target. But really, they should have relatively different hardnesses, with the Tirpitz about 3x tougher than Lutzow.
I think the Lancs are in trouble if caught by a sizable force of LW fighters, even with escorts. Its very tough to stop a determined attack on a bomber force - we saw that in Kuban. Even if the Allies sweep out front of the bombers, the D9s and Ta 152s would most likely be able to blow through the fighter screen and outrace the escorts to the bombers. I think one of the best ways to help the Lancs is to split the LWs defences - force them to be concerned about Mosquito attacks.
Is it possible to effectively prohibit gondolas on the G14?
-
Are you able to use the Cruiser object for the Lutzow, and the BB object for the Tirpitz? (i.e. will Allies be able to tell which ship they are attacking?)
Are you able to have the ships anchored in the fjords? Or will they be in port, or underway at sea with destroyer escorts, etc?
The standard displacement of the Tirpitz was 42,900t; the Lutzow was 12,630t. I have to defer to bomber guys on the question of absolute hardness and whether or not it makes a difference if they are trying to hit a moving or stationary target. But really, they should have relatively different hardnesses, with the Tirpitz about 3x tougher than Lutzow.
I think the Lancs are in trouble if caught by a sizable force of LW fighters, even with escorts. Its very tough to stop a determined attack on a bomber force - we saw that in Kuban. Even if the Allies sweep out front of the bombers, the D9s and Ta 152s would most likely be able to blow through the fighter screen and outrace the escorts to the bombers. I think one of the best ways to help the Lancs is to split the LWs defences - force them to be concerned about Mosquito attacks.
Is it possible to effectively prohibit gondolas on the G14?
MAP not compatible with the BB.
-
One group of Lancasters for the level bombing and the one group of Mossies for dive bombing would be OK with me.
-
A large motivation for putting this design in the voting mix was (like The Final Battle of 8 years ago) to give folks the chance (if they wanted it enough to win the voting) to fly some latest-war prop planes that they almost never get to fly in scenarios and to put in matchups that are rare in scenarios. We specifically wanted Spit 14's, Tempests, and 152's.
Being a bit of a 41 Squadron history buff, what you are describing with that match up is more of the 2 TAF vs the LW. That's a historical match up as the 152s did mix it up a bit with Tempests. The Temps were 'rat catching' 262s as were the Spit XIVs of 41 and the rest of 125 Wing. Throw in the Spit XVIs that were flying ground attack and you have that fight over Germany
-
MAP not compatible with the BB.
That's disappointing, but you have to work with what you have I guess. So if I understand correctly, the Cruiser shape will be used as a stand-in for both the battleship Tirpitz and the Lutzow. And unless the Allies are given location of each unit, they will not be able to tell which ship they are hitting; further, both ships will have the same hardness. If that's the case it probably doesn't make sense to have Tirpitz worth more points than Lutzow...
Being a bit of a 41 Squadron history buff, what you are describing with that match up is more of the 2 TAF vs the LW. That's a historical match up as the 152s did mix it up a bit with Tempests. The Temps were 'rat catching' 262s as were the Spit XIVs of 41 and the rest of 125 Wing. Throw in the Spit XVIs that were flying ground attack and you have that fight over Germany
Might be a good idea to keep this setting in mind for a scenario design at some point down the road. I don't recall Spit XVIs in a scenario before, bet a lot of pilots would appreciate that one included. Maybe as a 12 hour event specifically focused on getting players from the MA to come in and give scenario play a try?
-
Guppy, would it work to let individual pilots pick the B or D, so there might be a mix of B's and D's in that group?
B's are faster at 30k, but I'm a little concerned about their lower firepower.
Swareiam and Ditto, what do you think?
I say stay as close to historical a possible, always. This especially if it will pull in more pilots that want to fly that aircraft.
-
I'm assuming P-51D's will be easier to fill than B's, but there might be a group of guys who want B's.
Guppy, if we make a group of P-51B's, do you feel you can fill the group?
-
-- Lancs are not gunned as well as B-17's or B-24's, and some folks feel Lancs catch fire easily. Do folks think with this setup we will average out to about 50% of bombers getting back to base (which is my idea of good balance)?
With all that fire power on the axis side, I think the lancs are sitting ducks. I believe your estimation of 50% is high.
one-eye
-
I'm assuming P-51D's will be easier to fill than B's, but there might be a group of guys who want B's.
Guppy, if we make a group of P-51B's, do you feel you can fill the group?
Yes. Oboe? Red? BFOOT1? Willing to fly 315 Squadron Mustang III in Oboe’s updated 315 skin? :)
They did actually escort Lancs over Norway on one occasion in November 44
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III_zpsi9tuxdjy.jpg)[/URL]
-
OK,
a couple of interesting things here.
1. losing one squad of LANCS in favor of a squad of MOSSIES? Dive bombing? that would mean the single planes not the MOSSIE formations? That would reduce the bomb capacity. The idea here being the TALLBOY raids. Not sure I agree with that, but if there is a big demand for the MOSSIE then I am OK with it.
As far as mixed units, has that ever been done in a scenario before? I am sure historically there were mixed plane formations as newer planes came available or pilot preference?
SO 1 unit of P-51 B and D mix with 1 unit if Bf-109 G and K mix?
Also with the DAR settings out only 2 sectors, it gives allies plenty of options for trickeration and a need for axis scouts
-
:cheers:
OK,
a couple of interesting things here.
1. losing one squad of LANCS in favor of a squad of MOSSIES? Dive bombing? that would mean the single planes not the MOSSIE formations? That would reduce the bomb capacity. The idea here being the TALLBOY raids. Not sure I agree with that, but if there is a big demand for the MOSSIE then I am OK with it.
As far as mixed units, has that ever been done in a scenario before? I am sure historically there were mixed plane formations as newer planes came available or pilot preference?
SO 1 unit of P-51 B and D mix with 1 unit if Bf-109 G and K mix?
Also with the DAR settings out only 2 sectors, it gives allies plenty of options for trickeration and a need for axis scouts
The Mossies would be the Fighter bomber version, so singles. The ones going to Norway carried rockets and bombs to attack shipping. There would be one group of 6 Mustang III which would be 315 as that is what they flew over Norway and another group of 8 51D Mustang IV which 19 and 65 Squadrons flew over Norway
I think Oboes point was by having attacks possible both from higher alt Lancs and low level Mossies means the LW can’t just mass up high for the Lancs as they have to be ready for Mossies also.
-
Brooke, I doubt any Lancasters will survive against anything later than 43 Luftwaffe. To put it simply, they are food.
-
In order for the Lancs at high altitude level to have a possibility of survival, there must be another bomber group that can dive bomb to force the LW in deciding both high altitude patrol and low altitude cover of both targets simultaneously.
Tactics and thinking one's opponent tactics will be and dumb luck decides the fate of the battle outcome.
-
I was surprised to read the suggestion about Mossies dive bombing but I suppose there's not much that plane can't or didn't do.
Dan can count on me to fly alongside him in anything with wings and a prop, so '51Bs, sure. I think 315 Sqd operated Mustang III exclusively through the end of the War after switching over from Spitfires. So it probably shouldn't be a mixed group of Ds and Bs, they just had all Mk IIIs (in general I do like the idea of mixed groups as being more historic.)
Think the LW can field a full group of 6 109G-14s?
-
Guys, just to be clear, here is what we're deciding (not whether or not we have Mossies or get rid of Ta 152's):
-- Is the number of planes sufficient for balance? If not, how should the numbers be tweaked and why? I think balance is OK, but more opinions are welcome.
-- Is the scoring OK? If not, suggestions with explanation of what a typical frame will score like (not just "I think scoring should be X" without any analysis of how a typical frame will go).
-- Do we turn one squad of P-51D's into P-51B's?
-- Do we let the Luftwaffe have a squad of gondola 109G-14's instead of non-gondola 109K's? I'm not too keen on that.
-- Should the Luftwaffe have more than 50 miles of radar? I think a bit more would be good.
Please focus on these things, as these are what need to be decided. They will get decided within the next couple of weeks one way or the other. If you want to weigh in on it, now is the time.
-
Yes a squadron of Mustang III, 315 Squadron RAF (Polish)
-
-- Do we let the Luftwaffe have a squad of gondola 109G-14's instead of non-gondola 109K's? I'm not too keen on that.
Yes, let the G-14's keep the gondolas. The plane is a toilet compared to the Allied fighters. Don't handicap their pilots any more my forcing them to make skill shot kills only.
-
Yes, let the G-14's keep the gondolas. The plane is a toilet compared to the Allied fighters. Don't handicap their pilots any more my forcing them to make skill shot kills only.
So give em K4s then
-
Yep, it is basically:
-- Do we let the Luftwaffe have a squad of gondola 109G-14's instead of non-gondola 109K's? I'm not too keen on that.
6 109G-14 with gondolas -or- 6 109K-4's.
-
Brooke, I doubt any Lancasters will survive against anything later than 43 Luftwaffe.
I think it can depend on the ratio of things.
To take two extreme examples, let's say there were 20 P-51's and 5 Lanc formations vs. 40 FW 190A-9's. In that case, all of the Lancs would die every time short of target. Let's say there were 20 P-51's and 40 Lanc formations vs. 20 FW 190D-9's. In that case, a bunch of Lancs would survive to target.
What I try to do in bombing scenarios is choose the number of attacking fighters, number of attacking bombers, and number of defending fighters so that the defenders aren't overwhelmed and have their chance to kill a fair amount of stuff, but the bombers won't be totally wiped out all the time. I try for middle ground.
The problem is that you can't calculate that perfectly and guarantee it. The best I can figure is to look at past strategic bombing scenarios (Big Week, DGS, DGSII, BOG, BOWL, Final Battle, etc.) and look at various ratios of things that worked out OK, tweak it some for circumstances (like you might make them more accommodating to the bombers if you have Lancs instead of B-17's).
-
Yep, it is basically:
6 109G-14 with gondolas -or- 6 109K-4's.
Go with the K-4. Your going to have a hard time filling G-14 slots.
-
Go with the K-4. Your going to have a hard time filling G-14 slots.
Especially if you force them to take performance killing gondolas.
-
I think it can depend on the ratio of things.
To take two extreme examples, let's say there were 20 P-51's and 5 Lanc formations vs. 40 FW 190A-9's. In that case, all of the Lancs would die every time short of target. Let's say there were 20 P-51's and 40 Lanc formations vs. 20 FW 190D-9's. In that case, a bunch of Lancs would survive to target.
What I try to do in bombing scenarios is choose the number of attacking fighters, number of attacking bombers, and number of defending fighters so that the defenders aren't overwhelmed and have their chance to kill a fair amount of stuff, but the bombers won't be totally wiped out all the time. I try for middle ground.
The problem is that you can't calculate that perfectly and guarantee it. The best I can figure is to look at past strategic bombing scenarios (Big Week, DGS, DGSII, BOG, BOWL, Final Battle, etc.) and look at various ratios of things that worked out OK, tweak it some for circumstances (like you might make them more accommodating to the bombers if you have Lancs instead of B-17's).
As long as the defenders have more attacking cannon armed fighters than the bombers have escorts, the bombers will die, in particular with the smaller numbers we have now. It's not like any of the regulars don't know exactly how it will play out. And with the Lancs having fewer guns to defend themselves, it will make it easier for the defenders. The LW guys are telling us that. The tactics are always the same cause they work :)
Keep in mind the past scenarios mentioned involved a lot more players as a whole and even then the bombers more often then not got clobbered. And this was when we had more targets, and the ability to have more than one raid going at a time. I'm not trying to be such a downer on this, but i worry about the bomber guys getting discouraged quickly. Not like we haven't seen that before too.
-
I think of this one as being similar to Big Week.
The bombers in this one have lower defensive firepower and are, perhaps, less robust than in Big Week.
However, the German defenders have, I think, less bomber-killing power here than in Big Week because in Big Week, 40% of the aircraft were 190A's, and the 109's could all carry gondolas. It depends a little on how accurate folks are with 30 mm here. Those can be nice, but for a lot of people, the bad ballistics and low fire rate means they aren't as deadly as 3-4 20 mm cannons.
Big Week worked out OK.
This one is like that, but has the ratios tweaked a bit in favor of the Lancasters.
However, if a lot of folks think Lancs are still going to get wiped out most of the time, the next step would be increasing the number of allied fighters some -- by two (if folks think that's enough), or four (if they think the current setup really is not balanced well).
I think the current numbers are OK as long as Lancs are at least as sturdy as Ju 88's.
-
Swareiam and Ditto, you two good with changing one group of P-51's to P-51B's?
-
Yes. Oboe? Red? BFOOT1? Willing to fly 315 Squadron Mustang III in Oboe’s updated 315 skin? :)
They did actually escort Lancs over Norway on one occasion in November 44
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III_zpsi9tuxdjy.jpg)[/URL]
Since you asked so nicely, I’ll fly with you in 315 if you’re leading :salute
-
I think we should add one more ground target for the Lancs. This makes it more sure Lancs won't run out of bases to go after in the case that the Lanc groups are going after different targets.
Ditto, Swareiam, you guys OK with that?
I recommend any one of a63, a67, or a69.
-
Especially if you force them to take performance killing gondolas.
I disagree. The G-14 is so wildly outclassed in this setup that the gondolas really don't hurt it that much in the grand scheme of things. With them, a G-14 it least has a reasonably good chance to score a kill if they can get a shot. Single hub cannon only kills are either high skill or dumb luck with the G-14's here.
-
I disagree. The G-14 is so wildly outclassed in this setup that the gondolas really don't hurt it that much in the grand scheme of things. With them, a G-14 it least has a reasonably good chance to score a kill if they can get a shot. Single hub cannon only kills are either high skill or dumb luck with the G-14's here.
This
-
Since you asked so nicely, I’ll fly with you in 315 if you’re leading :salute
OK Brooke, I'm halfway there with 51B/Mustang III drivers :)
-
OK Brooke, I'm halfway there with 51B/Mustang III drivers :)
I'm up for it if Ditto and Swareiam are OK with it. :aok
-
Guys, again, don't worry about gondola-less 109G-14's.
This was all just a discussion that started between me and Ditto, with Ditto wanting to switch one of the K4 groups to G-14's with gondolas, and me being hesitant about that and wanting them to stay as K4's.
We weren't talking about changing a group of K4's into G-14's with no gondolas.
Given that folks aren't clamoring for G-14's with or without gondolas, I think we should keep them K4's that are a highly desirable plane to fly.
One of the points of this scenario is so that folks can fly latest-war prop planes that they rarely get in scenarios.
-
Mossie XVI's would fit better than Lancasters this late in the war.
-
Guys, again, don't worry about gondola-less 109G-14's.
This was all just a discussion that started between me and Ditto, with Ditto wanting to switch one of the K4 groups to G-14's with gondolas, and me being hesitant about that and wanting them to stay as K4's.
We weren't talking about changing a group of K4's into G-14's with no gondolas.
Given that folks aren't clamoring for G-14's with or without gondolas, I think we should keep them K4's that are a highly desirable plane to fly.
One of the points of this scenario is so that folks can fly latest-war prop planes that they rarely get in scenarios.
The historian in says we must have G-14's considering there were no K-4's. But, the Aces High player says K-4 for balance reasons. In the end, it just all depends on if you (designers) side with balance or accuracy. I am happy either way, but then again, I will likely make 0 frames of this one.
-
Let's use our limited time on the list of things to decide:
-- Is the number/ratio of planes sufficient for balance and, if not, what should it be?
-- Is the scoring OK for balance and, if not, what should it be?
-- Should the Luftwaffe have more than 50 miles of radar?
-- One more land target?
And leave off things we're not working to decide: Mossies, G-14's, things other than what is in the list above.
-
Yes, one more land target - it adds some flexiblity for the RAF and uncertainty for the LW. NO the LW should not have more than 50 mi of radar range.
It is so tough to answer the other questions- so much depends on the situation. But as a starting point, I'll guess that in an engagement against an escorted Lancaster bomber force, 1/2 the intercepting force will be engaged and tied up by the escorts, while the other half gets through. And each of those late-War LW fighters that gets through will down an average of 2 Lancs, one before the bomb drop and one after.
So with an attacking force of 48 Lancasters and 32 defending fighters - 16 intercepting fighters get through and down 32 of the 48 Lancs, but 24 Lancs are able to drop on target.
If you want 50% of the bomber force to survive, I recommend increasing the size of the Lancaster force to 22 from 16, or reducing the size of the LW fighter force from 32 to 24, or some combination of the two.
Just a starting estimate for discussion. I am not sure how reasonable my assumptions are but you have to start somewhere.
-
Swareiam and Ditto, you two good with changing one group of P-51's to P-51B's?
Yes... That is good Brooke :aok
-
I think we should add one more ground target for the Lancs. This makes it more sure Lancs won't run out of bases to go after in the case that the Lanc groups are going after different targets.
Ditto, Swareiam, you guys OK with that?
I recommend any one of a63, a67, or a69.
Good on additional targets :aok
-
Yep, it is basically:
6 109G-14 with gondolas -or- 6 109K-4's.
G-14s
-
Sorry for not OPINE ing here but I have been very busy with real life crap.
If you are going to say one way or the other then I want K-4 for dealing with D ponies
I will use the FWAs for LANC killing and TAs for scouting and if you add MOSSIES I will have the DORAS turn that plywood into splinters.
But I am OK so far with this set up, historical or not
lets have some fun
-
OK, did the following:
-- Kept the 109 group as K's.
-- Changed one group of P-51's to P-51B's.
-- Added one more land target.
Writeup:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQsSNeYBqsg5Eh_tyKJtUG3uaT-87AlRQxGgagu2r5QWtpmNoGk1yQHJLU3kM0iBcUNk-f4fmImmxyB/pub
-
Some items remaining:
-- Numbers/ratios OK?
-- Scoring OK?
-- Max setting for SectorCounterRange is 64 miles. Ditto and Swareiam, you guys OK with 64 miles instead of 50?
-
How about these for group designations?
P-51B's -- 315 Sq.
P-51D's -- 65 Sq.
Lancs -- 9 Sq.
Lancs -- 617 Sq.
Spit 14's -- 41 Sq.
Tempests -- 3 or 33 Sq.
109K's -- 10/JG5
109K's -- 13/JG5
190D's -- IV/JG5
190A's -- V/JG5
152's -- JG301
Or we could have one of the LW groups be JG102.
-
109K's -- 10/JG5
109K's -- 13/JG5
190D's -- IV/JG5
190A's -- V/JG5
I'm sure you mean 5./Jg5. as "V" would mean 5th Gruppe, which never existed. Remember to never swap between Roman and Arabic numeral when talking about Luftwaffe units as each has a specific purpose. Roman=Gruppe and Arabic=Staffel(squadron).
Here's a sample breakdown:
First Gruppe Jg 5 - I/Jg5
in First Gruppe you have the following staffeln
1./Jg5
2./Jg5
3./Jg5
4./Jg5
-
How about these for group designations?
P-51B's -- 315 Sq.
P-51D's -- 65 Sq.
Lancs -- 9 Sq.
Lancs -- 617 Sq.
Spit 14's -- 41 Sq.
Tempests -- 3 or 33 Sq.
.
Please don't use 41 for the Spit XIVs. They were never anywhere near Norway and I've spent way too much time with their history and the actual pilots to not have that drive me crazy :)
-
Please don't use 41 for the Spit XIVs. They were never anywhere near Norway and I've spent way too much time with their history and the actual pilots to not have that drive me crazy :)
41 was at least near Denmark or something and did some high-alt escort of Lancs, but OK -- as long as you pick a number for me.
-
For the LW groups, I was just going by what was written in the material Guppy posted where it says "The principal German fighter organizations were IV and V JG5". Then it goes on to describe particular engagements with 10/JG5 and 13/JG5.
I know the roman numerals vs. arabic numerals mean different levels of the group, but they didn't give any roman numbered ones for the 190's, so I just picked group level.
How about this:
10/JG5 -- K4's
13/JG5 -- K4's
14/JG5 -- D9's
JG102 -- A8's
JG301 -- 152's
-
For the LW groups, I was just going by what was written in the material Guppy posted where it says "The principal German fighter organizations were IV and V JG5". Then it goes on to describe particular engagements with 10/JG5 and 13/JG5.
I know the roman numerals vs. arabic numerals mean different levels of the group, but they didn't give any roman numbered ones for the 190's, so I just picked group level.
How about this:
10/JG5 -- K4's
13/JG5 -- K4's
14/JG5 -- D9's
JG102 -- A8's
JG301 -- 152's
Jg 102 was a training unit based in Central Germany. Simply changing the A-8's to 5./Jg 5 would be correct.
-
Jg 102 was a training unit based in Central Germany.
Yes, but later, according to what Guppy posted "Norway was, comparatively, a quite backwater of the European war, and Lister received many battle-weary but highly experienced Luftwaffe fighter pilots for short periods. . . . Additionally, JG102, an operational training wing, had training field for pilots in Norway, and towards the end of hostilities this organization was often involved in interception. So the calibre of German pilots encountered might range from the novice to the very proficient."
Simply changing the A-8's to 5./Jg 5 would be correct.
I'll do that, though, if you like instead.
-
Yes, but later, according to what Guppy posted "Norway was, comparatively, a quite backwater of the European war, and Lister received many battle-weary but highly experienced Luftwaffe fighter pilots for short periods. . . . Additionally, JG102, an operational training wing, had training field for pilots in Norway, and towards the end of hostilities this organization was often involved in interception. So the calibre of German pilots encountered might range from the novice to the very proficient."
I'll do that, though, if you like instead.
Yes that would be better.
I did more digging on Jg 102 and they were mostly based in Denmark, with occasional detachments to central Germany. I have yet to see any mentions of detachments to Norway. Any engagements with the RAF over Norway would have been in the southern portion of the country. Given that the author of the magazine article provided by Guppy does not understand the Luftwaffe unit naming nomenclature, I'd take anything else pertaining to the Luftwaffe in that piece with a large grain of salt.
-
A personal pet peeve of mine which could easily be ignored: Using whole Gruppen for a squad in scenario. The designer should always use a specific Staffel or leave the Staffel number up to the GL. In this case you have 13/JG 5 (part of IV/JG 5) and IV/JG 5. This is confusing and makes little sense. Just assign a staffel to IV/ JG 5. As we know, no 152s were here, and so the problem is what "historical" squad do you give them to? You either make something up or make something up. I suppose JG 301 is one of those two options.
All is fine with me except the suggestion regarding staffeln versus gruppen. With 8 pilot squads in the event, it just makes more sense to call them a staffel.
-
41 was at least near Denmark or something and did some high-alt escort of Lancs, but OK -- as long as you pick a number for me.
Let the Canadians have the job. 402 Squadron. They had XIVs near the end of the war.
-
Yes that would be better.
I did more digging on Jg 102 and they were mostly based in Denmark, with occasional detachments to central Germany. I have yet to see any mentions of detachments to Norway. Any engagements with the RAF over Norway would have been in the southern portion of the country. Given that the author of the magazine article provided by Guppy does not understand the Luftwaffe unit naming nomenclature, I'd take anything else pertaining to the Luftwaffe in that piece with a large grain of salt.
Don't blame the author. I'm the one who doesn't always put the dots in the right spot on LW designations. I wasn't using the article I posted for the info, but I took it from a book that is specific to the Norway battles. Good book as it covers both sides well.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/BanffWing_zpssfgnjdf6.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/BanffWing_zpssfgnjdf6.jpg.html)
-
Don't blame the author. I'm the one who doesn't always put the dots in the right spot on LW designations. I wasn't using the article I posted for the info, but I took it from a book that is specific to the Norway battles. Good book as it covers both sides well.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/BanffWing_zpssfgnjdf6.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/BanffWing_zpssfgnjdf6.jpg.html)
Does that book mention Jg 102 specifically?
There is next to nothing about Jg 102 on the internet, as it was a short lived training unit. So any concrete details about it would be great to see.
My criticism basically it comes down to the blurb in the article contradicting a trusted source on Luftwaffe unit locations, while simultaneously having incorrect details about unit names.
-
All is fine with me except
What is your specific naming recommendation?
-
What is your specific naming recommendation?
Rename IV/Jg5 to either 14./Jg5 or 15./Jg5 as you already have 13 Staffel. Those 3 staffeln comprised IV Gruppe.
-
Rename IV/Jg5 to either 14./Jg5 or 15./Jg5 as you already have 13 Staffel. Those 3 staffeln comprised IV Gruppe.
This.
A Staffel (13 for example) is a small squadron, similar to the numbers represented in one Scenario squadron. A Gruppe (IV for example) is 3-4 of those Staffeln, so 3-4 scenario squadrons. That was my point. As to naming it, pick a number between 13-15.
-
Does that book mention Jg 102 specifically?
There is next to nothing about Jg 102 on the internet, as it was a short lived training unit. So any concrete details about it would be great to see.
My criticism basically it comes down to the blurb in the article contradicting a trusted source on Luftwaffe unit locations, while simultaneously having incorrect details about unit names.
Nope no mention. Just the JG 5 units I typed wrong. My bad. Freeman is good but I don’t know where he got that info.
-
Let the Canadians have the job. 402 Squadron. They had XIVs near the end of the war.
I think this would make weiser very happy......
-
I rest my case your honor :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315Kite_zpsqimfd2zw.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315Kite_zpsqimfd2zw.jpg.html)
-
Group names updated.
-
So:
-- More discussion on ratios. Several people think Lancs are doomed with current numbers. Should we increase ratio of alliedFighters:axisFighters? Keep in mind, though, that bombers were not doomed in Big Week and BOWL and at least not always doomed in The Final Battle, DGS, DGSII, BOG, etc.
-- Scoring OK?
-- Increase axis radar range to 64 miles (the max I can set)?
-
Dan, I'd like to join your group of Mustang III's if you need a slot filled..... I've always preferred the Bravo over the Delta model....
I can most likely get 2 or 3 others to join, if you need any help....
As for the Radar range, you started off with a setting of 50 and now have it at 64..... Why not basically split the difference of the 14 extra miles range it jumped to.... So set it at either 56 or 58 miles range? Just a suggestion/thought....
TC
-
Dan, I'd like to join your group of Mustang III's if you need a slot filled..... I've always preferred the Bravo over the Delta model....
I can most likely get 2 or 3 others to join, if you need any help....
As for the Radar range, you started off with a setting of 50 and now have it at 64..... Why not basically split the difference of the 14 extra miles range it jumped to.... So set it at either 56 or 58 miles range? Just a suggestion/thought....
TC
Welcome to 315 :aok
-
OK four so far Brooke. I think 315 will be ok. TC any other Mustang III guys you can gather are welcome
Lets fly now :aok
Corky
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III-Cork_zpswxdamawa.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III-Cork_zpswxdamawa.jpg.html)
BFOOT1
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III-BF1-_zpsdzdksxvp.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III-BF1-_zpsdzdksxvp.jpg.html)
Oboe
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III-Oboe_zpsg49ebqjg.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III-Oboe_zpsg49ebqjg.jpg.html)
TC
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III-TC-_zps1p43bmyl.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/315%20Squadron%20RAF/315SquadronMustang-III-TC-_zps1p43bmyl.jpg.html)
-
I thought some more about radar range.
I think the axis should have more. They had a lot more in Big Week and all the other Germany-related ones (because of flying over Germany). Also, here, because there aren't axis fields in the sea, they don't have as much opportunity to up on the bombers' return from target, to hit them on the way back, compared to Big Week and those others.
For those reasons, I'd like to give the Germans max sector range -- 64 miles.
As for numbers, I think we are OK. The ratios of things are all adjusted to be more friendly to bombers than they were in most strategic bombing scenarios with B-17's.
Which leaves:
-- Scoring seem OK?
-- Ship hardness seem OK?
-
Guys to explain myself. I'm not the kind of Old Guy who says Get Off my Lawn! I've posted in The Flying Circus Bulletin Board about events in the past. I posted info about the first Bomber Mission we had about a month ago also in our Forum. Asked them to participate if they would. I know Shamus is involved with FSO so that gives him good reason to forgo other events MA or otherwise. In his case it is time investment. The CMs' do a great job considering what they have for player numbers we now have in events. Brooke, Nef, et al. have to be concerned about arena size, targets, map and the number of participants plus scoring. I've seen many ideas about how we get more to participate. If we could get most of them in a Scenario one time I think numbers would increase in the future. Oboe and others have great ideas. So, consider that FSO participants have limited time, or at least half of them to play the game. Family time and other obligations have to be considered. So for an event many FSO participants, FSO on weekends takes up the majority of their game time, which may leave out Scenario participation by them. I'm searching for an answer. I wish I had one. So, rightly or wrongly never should a CM be blamed or criticized if a participant did not have fun. The prime cause in my humble estimation is the lack of participation. The lack of participants determines how they design, and it is limited by numbers. The scope of a Scenario is limited now by lower numbers playing.
In my case I'm a History Junky. It's my fault. But please don't hold that against me. I like accuracy. That's just me. Part of my, or should I say the major reason I participate is the history. I'm not a fan of adding aircraft that weren't there to balance. I'd rather see an increase of the aircraft that were there. If it were accurate I would participate on the perceived weak planeset. That's fun for me. With a good leading CO the perceived weak "ride" could do just as well as the better planeset. I'm not a fan of air spawns. But I do understand it in this situation.
Get the word out for the next Scenario. I'll bet some of the new players would enjoy it. The 'Gamers" won't. It's just not their style. Announcing an upcoming Scenario as Oboe posted would be a start. Maybe players that have not participated will start asking questions. Who knows. Summer participation on my part will be zero in Scenarios. I've things to do that I can only enjoy during the warm months. I wish I had an answer. I'll keep thinking. Problem is that makes my head hurt.
-
I, too, think the best way to boost participation is getting the word out.
Most players do not visit the message board, and most of them don't know anything about special events.
Someone has to talk to them in the melee arena and convince them to give a scenario a try for them to find out about it.
-
Is it right to have 109 K4's??
Ok just read the whole thread, guess we will just have to bring it. As always.
-
I, too, think the best way to boost participation is getting the word out.
Most players do not visit the message board, and most of them don't know anything about special events.
Someone has to talk to them in the melee arena and convince them to give a scenario a try for them to find out about it.
Maybe if you had more time...like not doing 3 per year like I said before. I'm also for the historical aspect and fairness across the sides. A blind man can see why this one wont be very entertaining to some, the regular joe won't notice the difference. but you do you you.
Should be 51Bs and Ds with F4us escorting Lancs and Mossies as stand ins for Beaufighters ditch the Temps and Spits
Axis should be in 109G14s and 190A8s maybe some 110s IF they were in the area and D9s IF they were in the area no K4s or TA152s.
You have a very simple Axis fight. lift, scout, swarm. With no low alt targets you have only this silly bash your head against the wall fight where the bombers will be shredded.
Another issue I have is as the CM for the event you should not be a CO or GL as any and all decisions you make can appear biased/not make good tactical decisions because of your knowledge of the rule set. But again you write an event then GL a plane that you wrote in then between you and Redtail you guys will have a side setup and filled out even if that wouldn't be the choices of the CO of the side. You only see numbers per side and not the actual event. The Axis might cry a bit about not getting K4s but they get to know where the bad guys are coming from and what the targets are so WTH man. Then you say yeah well its getting the word out....really? really? If you took some more time drummed up people over time and formed good crews and gave people time to ask off from work and PLAN for the event, you would have a better event. Even if it was still just 30 to a side you would have a better time you would still have folks that have a bad time and folks that had the time of their life but its so important to run 3 per year that you forget the reason you're running these event THE HISTORY!
But this will not go anywhere but I wanted to put it out there.
You will air spawn form up and proceed in with no parameters to hold the Axis until an alert has been sounded they will have you scouted and shadowed this should be followed with a piecemeal attack to draw off fighters and bleed the bomber force then as you are closing to target the main force will attack and you will have serious losses then the fighters you fought piecemeal will trickle in to strike you on the way to the safe zone...with G14s you have a better chance of making it to target due to performance to even the fight make more B ponys vs D ponys due to the gun loadouts....but again you just see things your way I see the axis complaint has been a group name...anyway yall have fun storming the castle.
-
Another issue I have is as the CM for the event you should not be a CO or GL as any and all decisions you make can appear biased/not make good tactical decisions because of your knowledge of the rule set. But again you write an event then GL a plane that you wrote in then between you and Redtail you guys will have a side setup and filled out even if that wouldn't be the choices of the CO of the side.
I've been saying this since the 12hr Tunisia was being set up. It's also the main reason I am not participating in this event. This has been a problem for far too long.
-
I've been saying this since the 12hr Tunisia was being set up. It's also the main reason I am not participating in this event. This has been a problem for far too long.
If no one else steps up, what other option is there?
I don't have an answer, just asking.
I think it's a no win situation overall with scenarios right now. When I was part of the design team we designed it, put it out and flew it. We got ripped every which way about this that and the other thing when we did it that way. Truth be told, it wasn't worth the pain, and I'm just an old cartoon pilot now.
Brooke is doing it a different way, and he's getting ripped for it too. I know I've grumbled about it, as it's not accurate enough historically for me. So be it. I'm going to pretend as best I can in a 315 Mustang III.
Again I don't have an answer
-
If no one else steps up, what other option is there?
I don't have an answer, just asking.
That's why I've kept more or less quiet the Bbs about this specific issue until now.
Brooke is a good guy, but I have grown very disgruntled over how he manages his events. There have been too many below board decisions that he had made during his events and I can no longer support scenarios which are not held to maintaining transparency regarding decision making and design changes.
And this is not a problem exclusive to Brooke either. There are other event designers, past and present, that I have called out over similar shenanigans.
This is all I will say in public on this subject, as I do not want it to appear like I am attacking Brooke or trying to undermine the current scenario.
-
As the AXIS CM, it was decided that I be CO for axis due to the complaints about the short time frame.... Can't make everyone happy around here.
I am sorry if anyone does not want to fly in my first design as a CM, and I hope you change your mind and make a frame or 2. The balance between History and play-ability is a tough one. We had all these same points during our discussions.
-
The bad part of this Scenario is 1.) limited targets, easy to defend if you know where the enemy is going. 2.) On top of that the radar range has been extended. So now you have a finite amount of targets, radar and you're defending a fjord! Not to many ways anyone can get into that fjord to put eggs on ships nestled against a fjord wall. That route will be limited. This is a tough scenario for the attackers. Axis CO will easily be able to defend. I can't see any way that the loss of Lancasters won't be catastrophic in nature. The Lancaster is the easiest Bomber to destroy in the game. I hope my vision is wrong. Otherwise you may have trouble finding Lancaster Pilots for the second frame.
-
Maybe if you had more time...
3 events per year leaves plenty of time. It is not a stretch, and has worked fine many times in history.
Should be
What you describe is a different battle. You like it better, but it's not what this one is.
You have a very simple Axis fight.
It is the same as Big Week, DGS, DGS II, BOG, and BOWL and most other strategic-bombing setups. Lots of those were popular. Complication doesn't greatly determine fun or even on how historical an event is.
Another issue I have is as the CM for the event you should not be
CM's generally are reliable, are good players, and treat people decently. That's why they were picked to be CM's. Because of that, when they are GL's or CO's (which has been the case frequently in history), on average other players are well satisfied with it.
Specifically regarding GL's, CO's have complete freedom to pick whomever they want as GL's. CO's pick GL's whom they think will do a good job for their side -- that's all.
Specifically regarding CO's, Ditto is LW CO, and I am RAF CO. Both of us are scenario CM's. Both of us have been good CO's multiple times in the past. We'll be doing our best, and I think we'll be good CO's here as well.
Then you say yeah well its getting the word out....really? really?
People have to get the word out because most players don't visit the message board and don't know what a special event is. The only way they learn of it and try it out is for other players to talk to them about it.
you forget the reason you're running these event THE HISTORY!
Scenarios are about history -- but not just history. They have to be balanced and fun (which is why almost no scenario is fully historical), and you need to make them available to people. 1-2 scenarios per year is fewer than what many people desire.
...with G14s you have a better chance of making it to target due to performance to even the fight make more B ponys vs D ponys due to the gun loadouts....
OK -- design recommendations finally.
You are recommending that we replace one group of K-4's with G-14's with gondolas, right? I'd rather face K-4's than G-14's with gondolas. Ditto wanted to turn one group of K-4's into G-14's with gondolas. He was OK with my request to keep them K-4's.
You are recommending more P-51D's be turned into P-51B's due to gun loadouts? That's goofy, so I suspect that's not it. Or are you recommending that we add additional P-51B's, increasing the allied side size?
I'm hesitant to add more allied planes. I'm concerned that if we have too many, the axis will have a very hard time because I've already adjusted the ratios of planes to be more friendly to the bombers than most of the past strategic-bombing scenarios.
Regardless, I would still do it if Ditto also thinks it's best.
Ditto, what do you think?
-
When I was part of the design team we designed it, put it out and flew it. We got ripped every which way about this that and the other thing when we did it that way. Truth be told, it wasn't worth the pain, and I'm just an old cartoon pilot now.
Brooke is doing it a different way, and he's getting ripped for it too.
:aok
Yep.
No matter what you do.
-- "OK, so we'll make this thing red."
-- Person A: "Red! Red? Are you crazy?! Everyone knows it'll be a disaster unless it is blue! I hate you and your red!"
-- "OK, let's change it to blue."
-- Person B: "Blue! Blue? Are you crazy?! It's got to be red! Everyone knows it should be red! Way to cave in to the whiners who always want blue! You s*ck and I hate you!"
Designing a scenario involves judgement, and not everyone has the same judgement.
All scenario players are my brothers because they love a thing I love.
I would like it if we brothers got along better, though. :aok
-
Brooke is a good guy,
Yay! :banana:
but
Awwww. :(
There have been too many below board decisions that he had made during his events and I can no longer support scenarios which are not held to maintaining transparency regarding decision making and design changes.
I'm baffled. I've increased transparency by infinity percent.
It used to be that the whole process was done in private by the CM's. The public got to see what would run next once the final, unalterable design was revealed to them, and that was that.
I changed it so that players get to decide what the next scenario is.
I changed it so that players get to participate in the design process. (Not all CM's were in favor of this because they thought it would devolve into a mess of argument. They weren't completely wrong.)
I go to the trouble of doing surveys after scenarios, to let all players rate the scenario. I compile the data and keep a record of it, so we have transparency on what players actually thought of every scenario.
I just want good scenarios, that people like, and a good scenario process.
Please let me know more specifics, because right now, I have no idea what you are talking about.
-
You are recommending more P-51D's be turned into P-51B's due to gun loadouts? That's goofy, so I suspect that's not it. Or are you recommending that we add additional P-51B's, increasing the allied side size?
I'm hesitant to add more allied planes. I'm concerned that if we have too many, the axis will have a very hard time because I've already adjusted the ratios of planes to be more friendly to the bombers than most of the past strategic-bombing scenarios.
Regardless, I would still do it if Ditto also thinks it's best.
Ditto, what do you think?
Ditto, can you give your opinion on this?
-
The Lancaster is the easiest Bomber to destroy in the game.
Here's the only thing that worries me. I've done lots of flying in scenarios in just about every bomber *except* the Lanc, so I don't have a great feel for Lancs.
Is the Lanc really that weak? Is it easier to shoot down than a Ju 88, for example?
I flew 109K-4's against Lancs (and against P-51's, Spit 14's, and Tempests, among others) in The Final Battle, and Lancs didn't seem all that easy to shoot down.
If folks really think the allies have too weak a setup in this one, we can add some more allied fighters -- but I wouldn't get too crazy on it.
Compared to BW, DGS, DGSII, BOG, and BOWL, I did already alter the ratios of forces more strongly in favor of the bombers.
-
If the Lanc makes it to target against the K4, A8, and 152, someone should be fired.
-
If the Lanc makes it to target against the K4, A8, and 152, someone should be fired.
Agreed.
-
Actually, Devil, you are right -- this is not the topic for discussions of transparency.
I thought about it more and I suspect such a topic would just end up being arguing about stuff that has nothing to do with this topic.
This topic is about the design of Fjord Fury -- best to keep it about that, as you suggested.
-
So, back onto the topic at hand.
-- Should the allies have more fighters and if so, how many more? (Lots of axis-oriented guys are arguing that it should.)
-- Is the scoring system OK?
-- Ship hardness seem OK?
For folks who think the Lancs can't make it, are you taking into account The Final Battle scenario?
The Final Battle, among other things, had Lancs, Spit 14's, Tempests, P-51's, 109K's, 190D's, and Ta 152's. The allies won that scenario soundly, but it's scoring system was different than what we have here. Also, Lancs did at times make it to target and back. It wasn't easy for them, but it wasn't a total wipeout on each mission either.
-
Compared to The Final Battle, Fjord Fury so far has similar alliedFighters:axisFighters, but much higher alliedTotalAircraft:axisTotalAircraft and much higher bomberAircraft:axisFighters.
-
So, back onto the topic at hand.
-- Should the allies have more fighters and if so, how many more? (Lots of axis-oriented guys are arguing that it should.)
-- Is the scoring system OK?
-- Ship hardness seem OK?
For folks who think the Lancs can't make it, are you taking into account The Final Battle scenario?
The Final Battle, among other things, had Lancs, Spit 14's, Tempests, P-51's, 109K's, 190D's, and Ta 152's. The allies won that scenario soundly, but it's scoring system was different than what we have here. Also, Lancs did at times make it to target and back. It wasn't easy for them, but it wasn't a total wipeout on each mission either.
It would be better to ask Dantoo, considering his position in the Final Battle. But, the Lancasters flew some very odd sorties mostly NOE. We lowly G-14s in the north did nothing but obliterate RN fighters and cap air spawns the entire scenario (to great success). The Allies did not win simply because of the Lancaster's success. That being said, the one time Jonah and I found Lancasters in our G-14's, all of them died. In this setup, Lancasters will be forced above 15k.
-
With regards to scoring:
It says that 9 points are awared for 20-39 objects, 9 for 40+, and 12 for sinking. Does that mean that the Allies get (9+9+12) 30 points for sinking the Tirpitz or 12? Also, the hangar VP is odd. It says "each of two frames," will there not be four frames? Or will Bergen only be target for 2 frames?
Let us assume that the Allies get 30 points for sinking a ship. If the Axis kill ALL Lancs, they will get 48 points. So, if the Allies kill both ships (60 pts) the Axis cannot negate this by killing bombers alone. To me, that seems to swing in favor of the Allies. But, this is under the assumption that one ship = 30 points.
-
But, the Lancasters flew some very odd sorties mostly NOE.
They did that in frame 4. They were high alt in frames 1-3. I attacked high-alt Lancs in frames 1-3 in my K-4.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201003_finalBattle/pics/frame2/010-leaving-Image-0018.jpg)
That being said, the one time Jonah and I found Lancasters in our G-14's, all of them died. In this setup, Lancasters will be forced above 15k.
That's why I prefer facing K-4's than G-14's.
As a bomber pilot, I am way happier at high alt.
-
That's why I prefer facing K-4's than G-14's.
We didn't take gondolas. I am not sure if any die hard G-14 sticks would take Gondolas. If I could commit to this event, I would be leading the G-14's, but I would never take gondolas. Like I said, we were not tasked with killing Lancasters and Dan would be the better person to ask regarding their flight paths and strategies.
-
With regards to scoring:
Currently, yes, if the allies kill Tirpitz, they would get 9 points for 20-39 objects, 9 points for 40+, 12 points for sinking = 30.
So, if they sink Tirpitz and Lutzow, they would get 60 points.
Yes, if the axis kill all Lancs up in one sortie, they get 48 pts.
However, it currently takes 42,000 lbs to sink Tirpitz and 42,000 lbs to sink Lutzow. I think it will take more than 16 bomber pilots worth to sink both Tirpitz and Lutzow. I don't think they would sink both in one sortie of 16 aircraft. I think it would take two sorties. In that case, if axis shot down two sorties worth, they would get 96 points.
Also, the hangar VP is odd. It says "each of two frames," will there not be four frames? Or will Bergen only be target for 2 frames?
There are 4 frames, and the allies get extra goodies if they destroy all hangars at Bergen in two of the four frames. They have to do it twice.
-
Maybe I did take Gondies.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/211907999973900288/438058134385328128/facebook_1524511575053.jpg?width=694&height=434)
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/211907999973900288/438058279147667458/facebook_1524511610878.jpg?width=694&height=434)
-
We didn't take gondolas. I am not sure if any die hard G-14 sticks would take Gondolas. If I could commit to this event, I would be leading the G-14's, but I would never take gondolas. Like I said, we were not tasked with killing Lancasters and Dan would be the better person to ask regarding their flight paths and strategies.
I'm OK with axis taking G-14's without gondolas instead of K-4's.
However, several people said that they would not like G-14's, and that it would be hard to recruit people into G-14's as opposed to K-4's.
This scenario is in part about letting people fly late-war prop planes that they don't get to fly in scenarios much.
I would rather let people fly what they want and, if that's too powerful, give the allies more aircraft as opposed to restricting the monster planes.
-
Currently, yes, if the allies kill Tirpitz, they would get 9 points for 20-39 objects, 9 points for 40+, 12 points for sinking = 30.
So, if they sink Tirpitz and Lutzow, they would get 60 points.
Yes, if the axis kill all Lancs up in one sortie, they get 48 pts.
However, it currently takes 42,000 lbs to sink Tirpitz and 42,000 lbs to sink Lutzow. I think it will take more than 16 bomber pilots worth to sink both Tirpitz and Lutzow. I don't think they would sink both in one sortie of 16 aircraft. I think it would take two sorties. In that case, if axis shot down two sorties worth, they would get 96 points.
There are 4 frames, and the allies get extra goodies if they destroy all hangars at Bergen in two of the four frames. They have to do it twice.
1 set of Lancs can carry 39k (I think?) so it would only take four individual bombers to kill one ship. So, you have an efficiency rating 1/6. That being said, it will be easy killing for the Axis, but I find that 1/6 is a bit too low. Get some Allies to weigh in on this.
EDIT: A set of Lancasters can carry 42k max. That changes the efficiency rating to 1/8, even lower.
-
1 set of Lancs can carry 39k (I think?) so it would only take four individual bombers to kill one ship. So, you have an efficiency rating 1/6. That being said, it will be easy killing for the Axis, but I find that 1/6 is a bit too low.
Even folks who are right on target will get only a portion of their bombs causing damage (as the spread of bombs means some will not cause damage, and bombing from 20k or so in scenario combat conditions means folks are not generally pinpoint accurate). Then there will be folks who completely miss because we have a wide range of experience in bomber pilots in scenarios. And there will be folks in between.
If 16 bomber pilots head to a base and half make it, they generate 8x3 = 24 points. If 16 bomber pilots head to Tirpitz/Lutzow, half make it, and they sink Tirpitz, they generate 30 points. I figure hitting Tirpitz is harder for some of the guys than getting a ground object (because if you are off target at a base, there is the chance that you take out something else instead and still get points, but that is not the case with Tirpitz).
So, I think it's OK.
But if more folks think it's off, and Ditto's OK with it, I'd be OK with reducing total points for ship to 24 from 30.
-
Even folks who are right on target will get only a portion of their bombs causing damage (as the spread of bombs means some will not cause damage, and bombing from 20k or so in scenario combat conditions means folks are not generally pinpoint accurate). Then there will be folks who completely miss because we have a wide range of experience in bomber pilots in scenarios. And there will be folks in between.
If 16 bomber pilots head to a base and half make it, they generate 8x3 = 24 points. If 16 bomber pilots head to Tirpitz/Lutzow, half make it, and they sink Tirpitz, they generate 30 points. I figure hitting Tirpitz is harder for some of the guys than getting a ground object (because if you are off target at a base, there is the chance that you take out something else instead and still get points, but that is not the case with Tirpitz).
So, I think it's OK.
But if more folks think it's off, and Ditto's OK with it, I'd be OK with reducing total points for ship to 24 from 30.
All of this makes sense and will likely be fine.
The point I was making is that if the Allies achieve maximum bombing points AND the Axis destroy every Lancaster, the points should cancel each other out (be even). At current, it will not as the Allies can achieve (60+48) 108 while the Axis can achieve (48+48) 96. This, of course, is theoretical with many factors removed which is where you must begin when deciding on a scoring system.
To be fair, the people flying the event will not worry with these numbers or scoring at all. That is only for the Command Staff, and the top of the Command Staff at that. So, honestly, it is not something that really needs discussing in public as it will not weigh heavily on anyone's decision to fly the event or not.
-
Brooke concerning the Lancaster. Anyone flying a fighter with a good gun package salivates in the MA when it sees a form of Lancasters. It's easier to even attack from the rear then a B17 , B26, or B24.
It is larger then Ju88s and is easy to hit. It is not a very fast bomber. It's defensive firepower is the weakest of the four engine bombers. Even in my old age when I see Lancasters I see three kills if I'm in a P47. If I'm in a cannon bird it makes it more difficult for the set of 3 Lancasters to survive. Something that may wish to be considered. Also........and I hate to say this maybe some historical events can't be portrayed with the limited map, limited amount of targets. We haven't solved the number of participants being so low question. So, imho this event has provided a road map for the Axis to defend, designated what will be hit, a very difficult target set in a narrow fjord with a limited path to get to the target. This is how they will get there, this is what they must bomb. Axis CO has a cakewalk in this instance. OK Boys.......go here and wait. As I said this may just be an event that we shouldn't do because of the limitations and the obvious advantage the Axis will have in defending a well defined target with limited access and egress , they know where the attacking force will be with extended Radar, because this is where they HAVE to go and have limited areas and paths in which to attack. I hate to say this, this event has a chance to be the worst ever. I have no idea how this could be planned to make both sides happy. Maybe something else could be planned. Again this is just my opinion. For what little it may be worth.
-
The Final Battle had N allied fighters, 0.68N allied bomber aircraft, and 1.59N axis fighters.
Right now, we have N allied fighters, 1.84N allied bomber aircraft, and 1.23N axis fighters.
In other words, if we ran The Final Battle again (where Lancs did at times make it to target and where they didn't get all destroyed every mission) and increased the number of Lancs by a factor of two, and reduced the number of axis fighters by 22%, how would it go? Wouldn't the Lancs do better? Well, that's what we have in Fjord Fury right now compared to The Final Battle.
If you have a scenario with N allied fighters, 2N Lancs, and 100N axis fighters, all the Lancs will die every time. If you have a scenario with N allied fighters, 2N Lancs, and 0.1N axis fighters, all of the Lancs will live every time. Somewhere in between lies balance.
We want a balanced scenario, where it's not a cakewalk for the Lancs, and it isn't 100% loss every mission.
So, what do we put in, and how do you estimate that is the appropriate number? I am just going by past scenarios and tweaking from there.
-
Brooke you and the designing CMs have an unenviable task of trying to make the majority happy. I applaud each and every one of your efforts collectively. Trying to even out this Scenario is going to be very very tough. I don't know what to do about scoring. I don't know if it actually matters that much. All I'm saying, and again this is just my feeble opinion. This design because of the constraints may not be suitable at this time. Again, it's just my opinion. I think in this rare case no matter what you and the designing team do it will not be satisfactory to at least half. Again, just my opinion for what it's worth.
I won't be participating in the event as I posted before because of other obligations, so just maybe I ought to keep my big mouth shut. I think I will.
-
Thanks, Hajo. I hope you can make it for October-ish scenario, though. :aok
-
Thanks, Hajo. I hope you can make it for October-ish scenario, though. :aok
I'll be there! :aok
-
1.You are recommending that we replace one group of K-4's with G-14's with gondolas, right? I'd rather face K-4's than G-14's with gondolas. Ditto wanted to turn one group of K-4's into G-14's with gondolas. He was OK with my request to keep them K-4's.
2.You are recommending more P-51D's be turned into P-51B's due to gun loadouts? That's goofy, so I suspect that's not it. Or are you recommending that we add additional P-51B's, increasing the allied side size?
I'm hesitant to add more allied planes. I'm concerned that if we have too many, the axis will have a very hard time because I've already adjusted the ratios of planes to be more friendly to the bombers than most of the past strategic-bombing scenarios.
Regardless, I would still do it if Ditto also thinks it's best.
Ditto, what do you think?
1. No, ALL K4s should be dropped and ONLY G14s should be used. See this is where your lack of knowledge when the dogfights start comes to light. A bad shot is a bad shot, K4s or G14s both have issues. 1-3 30mms are enough to tag a LANC but you need SEVERAL seconds on target with 20mms even with gondolas(leave that option with the GL not forced) This gives the bomber force even unescorted a chance to fight and even kill attackers. PLUS escorts have a better chance fending off attacks due to disparity in performance. You need more 20mms than 30mms to kill LANCs and if they take gondies they will suffer in the fighter role which as someone for the allies you would want. key point is if you cant shoot it still wont matter 30 vs 20.
2. Yes drop most of the D ponys in favor of Bs this gives the 109s better surviveability against the escort and still have increased performance while give the best balance to both sides.
But at this point in this farce of an FSO yall do whatever it is you want as you always have. I just don't think you understand how the average fighter vs fighter in this setup really breaks down. I'm not talking squad vs squad I mean man to man. Thats where you should look...but I'm afraid you just dont and never will understand what I'm talking about. You need to bring these event write ups to a panel of 3 to 5 people and let them look them over and adjust them BEFORE the general public, then make slight adjustments to tweak a month form gameday. The group should focus on historical accuracy AND balance and IF you take the time you CAN achieve both. But I'm done you cats do what you want, this crap will continue so long as people continue to play and not ask, Hey couldn't this be better?
-
Compared to The Final Battle...
The Final Battle was THE worst event I think by far and should be taken out back and shot post haste. and to your point shouldn't be used as reference unless its to showcase just how far fetched and ridiculous rules and plane sets can be.
-
There you go, folks -- a lesson for us all on how to keep it classy. :aok
-
Classy or not, he's correct.
-
Let's take a quick summary and move on to what we need to determine.
Summary:
-- The event that players voted in has P-51's, Spit 14's, Tempests, and Lancs vs. 109k's, 190d's, Ta 152's, and FW 190A-8's.
-- We will be running that.
What remains to decide:
-- Some folks are concerned about Lancs being weak.
-- If so, how many allied fighters do the allies need to make it balanced, and why that number?
This isn't complicated. At some point, allies have enough fighters and bombers so that bombers aren't all lost every mission. That's what we want. How many fighters is that and what is your reasoning on why that number?
-
I really don't think you can solve a weak bomber issue by throwing more fighters in. That seems like the wrong way to approach the problem. The solution is found in scoring. However hostile Vudu may be, he has a good point regarding the Final Battle. But, as you said, we are not discussing that.
-
We do that all the time in scenarios.
If the balance is off, even if they are B-17's, they get wiped out. If the balance is OK, even if they are Ju 88's, they do OK.
Also, although I wasn't that fond of The Final Battle either, players did rate it a +3, so people overall liked it OK. And we aren't comparing stats to The Final Battle (and BOG, DGSII, Rabaul, BOWL, BW) to make this one more similar to The Final Battle (or BOG, DGSII, Rabaul, BOWL, BW). We are looking at stats in those past scenarios to glean what ratios tend to result in good balance. It is data mining.
Lancs aren't horrible.
We will be fine if we get the numbers in the right ballpark.
-
You may need to look at more than just ratios to get an accurate picture. For example, the hitting power and speed of the intercepting fighters (early War vs late War), the bombing altitude restrictions in place, how many and how predictable were the targets, were there other attack forces present that may have split the defending fighters - things like that.
It IS an interesting problem to look at though. And after this one is in the books we'll have that much more data to mine...
-
The solution is found in scoring.
Oh, and scoring is important, too -- you are right.
It is possible, though, to have balanced scoring and a scenario that isn't balanced in its fun, though.
For example, let's say you have a scenario where only one bomber out of 16 is going to make it to target, and you compensate for that by having very high points for that one bomber that gets through. That might result in balanced scoring, but it would be no fun for bomber folks.
We want to design for balanced play, and then put balanced scoring on top of that.
-
You may need to look at more than just ratios to get an accurate picture.
Very true -- there is high variability in the data based on what you point out and based on the execution of sides. For example, some scenarios have frames where one side wins by a lot then the other side wins by a lot when the design and ratios have not changed.
We have to keep that in mind in the data mining. For example, if you found that a/d = 1.8 always results in great balance for strategic-bombing scenarios with B-17's. Now you have Lancs. You probably will need a/d higher than 1.8. What if 1.8 was great for Lancs and Spit 9's vs. Bf109G's, now you have 109K's and Spit 14's?
There's a lot of judgement in it however you go, but data does give at least some starting points -- some ballparks to work in.
-
Oh, and scoring is important, too -- you are right.
It is possible, though, to have balanced scoring and a scenario that isn't balanced in its fun, though.
For example, let's say you have a scenario where only one bomber out of 16 is going to make it to target, and you compensate for that by having very high points for that one bomber that gets through. That might result in balanced scoring, but it would be no fun for bomber folks.
We want to design for balanced play, and then put balanced scoring on top of that.
You don't base scoring off of how many bombers make it or don't make it. That would lead to an extremely high amount of variables that is impossible to predict or compute. You figure out what is reasonable for something to destroy and use that as your baseline for the rest of the stuff.
-
You don't base scoring off of how many bombers make it or don't make it. . . .You figure out what is reasonable for something to destroy and use that as your baseline for the rest of the stuff.
Figuring out what is reasonable involves estimating how many bombers will typically make it.
At some point, you have to make a judgement on how it will go.
For example, you make a design with P-47's, B-17's, and 109G's for 80 people. Do you make it (a) 20 p47's, 15 b17 formations, 45 109's? Or (b) 30 p47's, 10 b17 formations, 40 109's? Or (c) 35 p47's, 10 b17 formations, 35 109's? Or (d) 35 p47's, 15 b17's, 30 109's? Or . . . ?
What is reasonable scoring for (a) is not necessarily reasonable scoring for (d), and so on.
They are inter-related and subject to judgement.
-
After reading through several of the questions up for discussion, I believe that the Allies should be issued four more fighters based on the current design.
+2 - P-51Bs
+2 - Spitfire XIVs
I think this will add a bit more balance based on a couple factors.
1) The Axis DAR range is quite extensive. Fighting back early attacks will require more hardware for the Allies to operate with in order to get bombers to targets.
2) The Axis is operating aircraft with an enormous amount of firepower. In order for the Allies to keep pace without "Gunning Up"... It makes sense to add a few more airframes to cope with the more high performance canon birds of the Axis.
Again, I believe this action will add more balance to the event.
Best Regards,
-
After reading through several of the questions up for discussion, I believe that the Allies should be issued four more fighters based on the current design.
+2 - P-51Bs
+2 - Spitfire XIVs
I think this will add a bit more balance based on a couple factors.
1) The Axis DAR range is quite extensive. Fighting back early attacks will require more hardware for the Allies to operate with in order to get bombers to targets.
2) The Axis is operating aircraft with an enormous amount of firepower. In order for the Allies to keep pace without "Gunning Up"... It makes sense to add a few more airframes to cope with the more high performance canon birds of the Axis.
Again, I believe this action will add more balance to the event.
Best Regards,
Good observation and reasonable adjustments
TC
-
After reading through several of the questions up for discussion, I believe that the Allies should be issued four more fighters based on the current design.
+2 - P-51Bs
+2 - Spitfire XIVs
I think this will add a bit more balance based on a couple factors.
1) The Axis DAR range is quite extensive. Fighting back early attacks will require more hardware for the Allies to operate with in order to get bombers to targets.
2) The Axis is operating aircraft with an enormous amount of firepower. In order for the Allies to keep pace without "Gunning Up"... It makes sense to add a few more airframes to cope with the more high performance canon birds of the Axis.
Again, I believe this action will add more balance to the event.
Best Regards,
109K-4's will struggle to kill bombers and quite frankly, they should not be tasked with that to begin with. So, you are looking at A-8's (pigs at alt) and Dora's. I am not so sure if adding more fighters, especially the Spit XIV is a solution. Plus, the cannons are for bomber killing. The Allies have no bombers to kill, so equalizing firepower is not an issue. Just my opinion, though. At least it is only 2.
-
Summary of numbers suggestions so far:
100% of comments so far are that Lancs will get annihilated with current numbers. I am 100% heeding that and am OK with increasing relative strength of allies to solve it.
Folks who gave concrete number suggestions are as follows.
Oboe
Recommendation: +6 Lancs; or -8 LW fighters; or a combination.
Reason: Figuring that half of LW force will tie up allied escort and other half will each shoot down 2 Lancs, aiming for 50% of lancs to return to base.
Swareiam
Recommendation: +2 P-51B's, +2 Spit 14's.
Reason: Axis radar range is large and feels that allies will need more fighters. Also, axis firepower is large and feels that a little bit more allied firepower would be good to balance.
I will also offer a recommendation.
Brooke
Recommendation: +2 P-51B's, -2 109K's.
Reason: Less swing than Oboe, similar to Swareiam, doesn't add more cannon power to allies, keeps registration total the same.
-
What do folks think?
-
That seems fair enough Brooke
-
Summary of numbers suggestions so far:
100% of comments so far are that Lancs will get annihilated with current numbers. I am 100% heeding that and am OK with increasing relative strength of allies to solve it.
Folks who gave concrete number suggestions are as follows.
Oboe
Recommendation: +6 Lancs; or -8 LW fighters; or a combination.
Reason: Figuring that half of LW force will tie up allied escort and other half will each shoot down 2 Lancs, aiming for 50% of lancs to return to base.
Swareiam
Recommendation: +2 P-51B's, +2 Spit 14's.
Reason: Axis radar range is large and feels that allies will need more fighters. Also, axis firepower is large and feels that a little bit more allied firepower would be good to balance.
I will also offer a recommendation.
Brooke
Recommendation: +2 P-51B's, -2 109K's.
Reason: Less swing than Oboe, similar to Swareiam, doesn't add more cannon power to allies, keeps registration total the same.
Taking fighters away from the Axis is also not a solution, in my opinion. Of those three, Redtail's is the best. Personally, I feel the Allies should be fine fighter vs. fighter. Lancasters will be easy to kill regardless of how many Allied fighters there are. The only thing more fighters will do is limit how many Axis fighters survive. If that is the plan, then add more Allied fighters. If you are looking for a way to make the Lancaster more durable and increase its survivability, I suggest replacing the Ta 152 with either 190A-8 or 109G-14.
-
I think Perdue's suggestion is a good one, and if you combine it with Red's you'd have:
Allies: +2 P-51Bs, +2 Spit XIVs
Axis: remove/replace Ta-152s with 109G-14s or 190A8s.
Its a little bit more historical, but I understand one of the goals of the scenario was to bring out the late-late War birds for use in a scenario, so people might not be keen to lose the Ta-152s.
-
You don't base scoring off of how many bombers make it or don't make it. That would lead to an extremely high amount of variables that is impossible to predict or compute. You figure out what is reasonable for something to destroy and use that as your baseline for the rest of the stuff.
Interesting, that would make victory based on how well the escorts do at protecting the Lancs.
-
Interesting, that would make victory based on how well the escorts do at protecting the Lancs.
Personally, I do not think that's a very swell idea. Having too many points for survival tends to alter gameplay in ways I'm not tremendously fond of.
It's the Allies job to blow stuff up. It is the Axis' job to try to stop that from happening. With bullets.
Wiley.
-
Personally, I do not think that's a very swell idea. Having too many points for survival tends to alter gameplay in ways I'm not tremendously fond of.
It's the Allies job to blow stuff up. It is the Axis' job to try to stop that from happening. With bullets.
Wiley.
This :aok
-
Personally, I do not think that's a very swell idea. Having too many points for survival tends to alter gameplay in ways I'm not tremendously fond of.
It's the Allies job to blow stuff up. It is the Axis' job to try to stop that from happening. With bullets.
Wiley.
And that is exactly how that scoring system works. Allies get points for bombing things. Axis get points for killing bombers.
-
You cannot account for escort kills. Always treat fighter vs. fighter as equal. There must be a point that the designer feels is reasonable where dead bombers = dead objects.
-
We're trying to nail down numbers of aircraft.
I would really like the axis not to be deprived of all 152's.
Ideas that fit into this so far:
A. -8 axis fighters.
B. +2 P-51B's, +2 Spit 14's.
C. +2 P-51B's, -2 109K's.
D. reduce 152's, increase (190A's or 109G-14's).
I prefer solutions that don't increase the current total size of registration.
-
Also, I'd like to have attackingFighters/defendingFighters be > 0.8. Since Lancs are considered especially weak in this mix of aircraft, maybe about 0.9 is a good pick. This is based on statistical analysis of all past strategic-bombing scenarios.
A, B, and C above accomplish that.
D would accomplish it only if more 152's were subtracted than 190A's or G-14's added.
So, how about (see following post).
-
How about one of these (all give A/D > 0.85) then:
A. -8 axis fighters
B. +2 P-51B's, +2 Spit 14's
C. +2 P-51B's, -2 109K's
D. -6 152's, +4 G-14's <--- I really hope folks don't want this one so axis can have some 152's
E. -2 152's, +2 P-51B's
-
D! :devil :bolt:
-
How about one of these (all give A/D > 0.85) then:
A. -8 axis fighters
B. +2 P-51B's, +2 Spit 14's
C. +2 P-51B's, -2 109K's
D. -6 152's, +4 G-14's <--- I really hope folks don't want this one so axis can have some 152's
E. -2 152's, +2 P-51B's
How do you figure that all these options equate the same?
Option A is an 8 plane swing, whereas B,C and E are each 4 plane swings. Option D is a 2 plane swing, but you don't want that one anyway.
-
How do you figure that all these options equate the same?
I don't. They are all different. If they were all the same, there would be no point in looking at various options.
-
All we are doing is this:
-- Several people all say they think Lancs will get massacred under current numbers.
-- OK, let's adjust plane numbers, making allies stronger and/or LW weaker.
How much is open to interpretation. Do we need an 8 plane change? 6 planes? 4? 2? Different people have different ideas.
-
I think the removal of the TAs would be the best option. after that my thoughts of a mulligan being in order will persist.
-
Should the Allies severely outnumber the Axis only because they have Lancasters?
-
Should the Allies severely outnumber the Axis only because they have Lancasters?
Only in a world run by bad ideas...but no they shouldn't. The firepower issue is easy enough to fix but the honcho has tied himself in a sack as clean as can be.
The removal of the TAs should be replaced with an equal number of 109s or maybe a mixed bag of 109/190s. I think another issue we have here is no real presence from the allies, where are our regular bomber guys to see what they think of this issue as it pertains to them?
-
I don't think the allied fighters should outnumber the axis fighters.
If you mean should the allies in total outnumber the axis, then, yes, of course.
All we are doing here is going from:
26 allied fighters, 16x3 allied bombers vs. 32 axis fighters <----- folks all say Lancs are doomed
To this:
26+N allied fighters, 16x3 allied bombers vs. 32-M axis fighters <--- determine N and M so that Lancs aren't doomed
Yes, I want axis to have some 152's. They almost never get them. We can adjust things to make it OK, I firmly believe.
However, if Swareiam and Ditto both want to get rid of 152's completely and I don't, we will do it even though I don't. I'm part of the team, not all of the team.
-
I just don't see why adding Allied fighters and/or removing Axis pilots is an option. I know what you are trying to accomplish, but I feel this is the incorrect approach. My point was, if Axis are allowed 6-8 152's, the Allies could outnumber them 2:1 and the Lancs will die. You must keep in mind what the 152 can do and who will be flying them. Throw in some Doras and A-8s in the back, lots of dead Lancasters. The amount of escorts will not change that fact, it will only change how many Axis fighters survive.
-
I know they are great planes and that they'll have great pilots.
But I really want the axis pilots to be able to fly some Ta 152's if they want because the opportunity to do so is so rare -- even just 4 of them. And I think that at some point, as you add allied aircraft and/or lower axis aircraft, Lancs go from doomed to OK even if there are 4 Ta 152's in the scenario.
However, I'll forgo that wish if Ditto (as axis CO) also believes all Ta 152's must go.
One thing to consider. If you have N allied fighters, 16x3 Lancs, and 58-N axis fighters, and you define f(N) as the fraction of Lancs that survive, because you know f(0) = 0 and f(58) = 1, by math, you know there exists an N such that f(N) crosses through 0.5.
-
I know they are great planes and that they'll have great pilots.
But I really want the axis pilots to be able to fly some Ta 152's if they want because the opportunity to do so is so rare -- even just 4 of them. And I think that at some point, as you add allied aircraft and/or lower axis aircraft, Lancs go from doomed to OK even if there are 4 Ta 152's in the scenario.
However, I'll forgo that wish if Ditto (as axis CO) also believes all Ta 152's must go.
One thing to consider. If you have N allied fighters, 16x3 Lancs, and 58-N axis fighters, and you define f(N) as the fraction of Lancs that survive, because you know f(0) = 0 and f(58) = 1, by math, you know there exists an N such that f(N) crosses through 0.5.
I understand all of that, but I still believe it is the wrong approach. Fighters that want to kill bombers will have 1 guaranteed run on the buffs. Even if they are outnumbered 2:1. That means that however many Axis fighters attack buffs, that many buffs will die. Now, the Axis fighters may die immediately after considering the advantage given to the Allies, but many Lancasters will be dead. It is not like running against B-17s, where some Axis may die or some B-17s will live because of durability, the Lancasters will die.
My point is, if your goal is to increase the survivability of Lancasters, you are achieving nothing by adding or subtracting the number of pilots. You will, however, increase or decrease the survival percentages of said fighters. In the end, no one seems to care. So, I would make a decision and move on.
-
Here goes.
I think the best move would be to go back to the drawing board. This one seems to be pushing away the scenario regulars who are in smaller and smaller numbers to begin with.
I think you take the two COs, hash out the design with them, post it, and restart the run up to the event so there is time to get people involved and invested.
I hate to say it, but scenarios are why I still play and I’m doing what i can to talk myself into caring about this one, but it feels flawed and rushed and I’m worried about the impact on what I see as an already struggling scenario community in AH
-
I think you take the two COs, hash out the design with them, post it
This is about to happen imminently. The two CO's like this one -- we are just figuring out how to tweak a couple of numbers given the feedback that folks think the Lancs are too weak.
-
Perd, I hear you. I feel similarly, it's just that I think a lot of planes can nearly as easily get one pass and then kill a lanc in that pass. So, while I do think the 152 is the best plane at 30k in this setup, I don't think that having a small number of them will be ruinous if the other numbers are set OK.
-
OK, folks.
The Scenario Team just finished conferring on the numbers.
We unanimously -- including Ditto, CO of the axis side -- picked E. Adding two P-51B's and subtracting two 152's is how we'll do it.
Thank you, everyone, for your input on Lancs and numbers.
-
Here goes.
I think the best move would be to go back to the drawing board. This one seems to be pushing away the scenario regulars who are in smaller and smaller numbers to begin with.
I think you take the two COs, hash out the design with them, post it, and restart the run up to the event so there is time to get people involved and invested.
I hate to say it, but scenarios are why I still play and I’m doing what i can to talk myself into caring about this one, but it feels flawed and rushed and I’m worried about the impact on what I see as an already struggling scenario community in AH
:salute
-
OK, folks.
The Scenario Team just finished conferring on the numbers.
We unanimously -- including Ditto, CO of the axis side -- picked E. Adding two P-51B's and subtracting two 152's is how we'll do it.
Thank you, everyone, for your input on Lancs and numbers.
That makes it 44 vs. 30. Ouch. We are good, but maybe not that good.
I wish I could help the Axis in this one, but I am afraid summer Saturday evenings are not well spent behind a computer screen. I wish you all the best Ditto :salute
-
That makes it 44 vs. 30.
:huh :O :rofl
Right.
Wiley.
-
This one has 28 attacking (RAF) fighters vs. 30 defending (LW) fighters.
Our ratio of (attacking fighters)/(defending fighters) -- call it "A/D" -- is comfortably within the range of past scenarios and, in fact, is lower than some past frames.
We have A/D = 0.93. Here is an assortment of actual A/D's from the past:
Der Grosse Schlag II, frame 2: 1.04
Battle Over the Winter Line, frame 3: 1.03
Target Rabaul, frame 3: 1.04
Med. Maelstrom, frame 3: 0.83
Battle Over Germany, frame 2: 0.87
Final Battle, frame 2: 0.88
Battle of Britain 2013, frame 2: 1.03
Battle of Britain 2008, frame 3: 1.33
Road to Rangoon, frame 2: 0.89
So, A/D seems in the range of typical.
Now, if you guys want the allies to reduce the number of Lancasters -- even though we just got done talking about how they were doomed -- let me know.
However, we probably will not end up with all 16 lanc positions filled every frame.
-
I wish I could help the Axis in this one, but I am afraid summer Saturday evenings are not well spent behind a computer screen. I wish you all the best Ditto :salute
Thank you, Perd.
Even though you can't fly in it (although maybe there is a rainy day on one of the Saturdays), if you want to participate in the axis forum, that's fine with me. It's Ditto's call as CO, but if it were me, I'd welcome you to participate on the side forum.
-
Here goes.
I think the best move would be to go back to the drawing board. This one seems to be pushing away the scenario regulars who are in smaller and smaller numbers to begin with.
I think you take the two COs, hash out the design with them, post it, and restart the run up to the event so there is time to get people involved and invested.
I hate to say it, but scenarios are why I still play and I’m doing what i can to talk myself into caring about this one, but it feels flawed and rushed and I’m worried about the impact on what I see as an already struggling scenario community in AH
QFT
-
The Lancs are DOOMED and yet they are the first unit to get completely filled :headscratch: :aok
Hey,
I know it is not historical, I know it has planes that were not there, But there it is.
NOW
Recruit, Plan
-
Ditto,
Had it not been in June for four Saturdays, I could have probably mustered up some über 152 and K$ sticks. Most of KN cannot participate, though. However, June 2 looks promising (no plans yet) for a walk-on slot for an hour. Maybe someone could use a K$ stick in their ranks.
-
Sweet! :aok
-
I am missing the attack mossies though.
-
:aok
-
Ditto,
Had it not been in June for four Saturdays, I could have probably mustered up some über 152 and K$ sticks. Most of KN cannot participate, though. However, June 2 looks promising (no plans yet) for a walk-on slot for an hour. Maybe someone could use a K$ stick in their ranks.
Suck it up and fly or the pride of the Kreigsmarine will be a very expensive coral reef. Very few K$ pilots registered so far, guessing ya'll think this will be easy huh. Got to be in it to win it.
-
Suck it up and fly or the pride of the Kreigsmarine will be a very expensive coral reef. Very few K$ pilots registered so far, guessing ya'll think this will be easy huh. Got to be in it to win it.
I have 2 vacations planned in June and I like to do outdoors stuff in the summer. I may can make a frame as a walk-on. Sorry I can't be there to pad your K/D Bruv:(
-
Pad??? You do yourself a mis-service. :D
All kills in a scenario are hard fought! I'd much rather go down fighting than to not have fought at all. <-- someone must have said that.
More players we have on both sides the better. :aok
-
The LW guys should love it, all their best high alt fighters are in, no more chasing ponys with a G-6. And Lancs are free kills if found unescorted so the allies will have some work to do to get the bombers in. And there are no 'sneaking' so there will be some good fights. I would say that this is the most even matchup in a long time so i see no reason to not join.
-
I would say that this is the most even matchup in a long time
The Allies have Tempests, therefore it is not balanced.
-
[full post is below]
-
The Tempest is a very good fighter, but so are 109K's, 190D's, and Ta 152's. Also, Tempests are not the best above about 20k.
For example:
(http://hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=1&p2=38&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
and
(http://hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=40&p2=38&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
In past scenarios, Tempests are often flown by some very good pilots, not average pilots, so that helps the K:D of Tempests. Still, there are other groups that do well also.
For example:
-- In The Final Battle, one group of Tempests got an overall K:D of 2.4 and another got 3.8 (which is great). However, I/JG53 got 1.8 in its 109K's; and Stab/JG301 got 3.7 in its Ta 152's.
-- In Winter Sky, Tempests got a K/D of 1.2. I/JG27 in its 109K's got 1.5. I/JG26 in its 190D's got 2.0. III/JG11 got 2.0 in its 190A-8's.
Tempests are good, but not overpowering in scenarios, especially if the other side has 109K's, 190D's, and Ta 152's.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201204_winterSkyDeathGround/pics/frame4/015-killTempest-SNAG-0023.jpg)
-
In this scenario the Tempest would be the worst allied fighter, most of the fighting would occur above 20k and all axis fighter except the A8 will perform better than the Tempest so no - the tempest will not unbalance anything.
-
Just because it has a heavy perk in the MA doesn't mean its un-balancing.
When your all flying 30k it will suffer badly. Both myself and Thrila (arguably the 2 best scenario fighter pilots in the history of AH in terms of kills scored and all around awesomeness) in "Hell over the hinterland" learned not to underestimate the Late war Luftwaffe rides. It took sectors to out run players diving after us, even when the fight got low the seemlessly endless WEP cycles, meant we were getting caught and hard to say it, shot down! :eek:. Most of our kills scored were scraps we were fed by more inexperienced pilots that tried to play into our strengths.
Because there are no attack aircraft I expect the fight to stay high in this one so Zimme is right the Tempest is the Allies worst fighter in this setup.
-
Four frames of 152 action will be fun.
-
What does "Luftwaffe forward fields unrestricted at 12:45 pm Pacific" mean in the writeup? What restrictions are there before this time? Could not find anything myself.
-
What does "Luftwaffe forward fields unrestricted at 12:45 pm Pacific" mean in the writeup? What restrictions are there before this time? Could not find anything myself.
Apologies -- that is a holdover from Big Week, which isn't relevant in this one. I removed it.
-
Very few K$ pilots registered so far
I have 2 vacations planned in June and I like to do outdoors stuff in the summer. I may can make a frame as a walk-on. Sorry I can't be there to pad your K/D Bruv:(
Same here, cant possibly commit to all 4 frames otherwise i would have taken a whole squad for myself and beat the crap out of all of you :old: #misteryroundhitsbruv :neener: :cheers:
DutchVII
-
Couple of changes.
After testing, we (as approved by RAF CO and LW CO) are greatly increasing ship hardness.
There were comments above on how ship hardness was too low. Now that we have the ships and workings of damage finalized in the terrain build, I tested it, and hardness does need to be a lot higher. So, above comments saying it was too small were correct, and my previous thought that it was OK was not correct. Ship hardness is now 256,000 lbs instead of 41,000 lbs.
Also moved down the VP bonuses from 1.0 to 0.5 so that the bonuses are not so overpowering to outcome.