Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Wotan on September 11, 2002, 11:56:04 PM
-
I am finally back in rotation as a ct cm. I was away while serving as Axis co for the Battle of Britain.
I am thinking of trying something Different for my week as CT cm (1 week from this friday, Brady has the Next set up then will be me).
Heres my thoughts.
I wish to run a set up similiar to what we ran in the "Bigweek Scenario"
Allies
Us Iron
p47d11
p38
p51b
B17
B26
A20s
Raf
Spit 9
Typh
Mossie
Bostons
Lanc
Axis
109g6
190a5
190a8
110g2
I would be using the Big Week map as well:
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/Screens/map.jpg)
As you can see there are not a lot of airfields so I would disable field capture. Bases could still be attacked and "closed" pushing the lw back. This concerns me that most folks would jabo all the lw fields making the set up no fun for the lw.
The 38 carries enough bombs on its own to shut down a field. If I would run this set up I would increase ack lethality quite a bit to keep field rapes to a minimum. I may also adjust structure hardness and downtimes to ensure that the axis have fields to fly from.
The "object" this set up is for the bombers to be used as attack/strat bombers and for the allied fighters to run sweeps and escort. Theres lots of "strat" targets in this map. I am also concerned that these strat objects will be raped by jabos. There no aa at the strat objects all though there is plenty of 88.
To solve this I will adjust the fuel mod to to force the allies to carry dts to make to the strat objects and home.
However this also effects the lw. These maps are condensed in the horizontal. The use of fuel mods shortens and extends he range you can traval horizontally. However in the verticle we are still 1 to 1. This means that the poor climbing lw burn more fuel getting to alt. The lw planes carry less fuel then the allied planes so the effect is greater in terms of time in the air.
I am also cocerned that mossies and a20s and b26s will be the bombers of choice for the allies. They could fly noe to the strat objects and level them. Short of eliminating these planes theres very little I can do with this map to limit this.
I may allow the lw to use ju88s as a way to strike af in england.
I am also concerned about the number of bomber pilots and sorties we will see. Most ct'rs are fight jocks and the bomber community in ah as a whole is limited.
Please offer your suggestions. Do you think a set up like this is viable? Is it worth a shot?
Give me a nice clean debate. Any suggestion or input is appreciated.
-
Nice, but could you do it in a 1941-42 set up?
-
I like it, its a very fair matchup, with interesting types.
-
<-- Occasional CT pilot only.
I'm wondering about the fuel burn settings, most of us are "used" to this/that time of flight in a particular aircraft. I personaly seldom look at my fuel gauge, especially while fighting per-se... How about reducing bomb effectiveness? Can you maybe force certain loadouts ? (500Lbs max instead of 1000lbs on the fighters?) Just a wild thought.
-
Yes! Yes! I can not wait till this setup will comes! :rolleyes: (Heh-heh-heh :) )
But I do not think what I will bomb these "strat targets"... ;)
-
Fuel modifier for the main in 1.5
Most ct set ups are 1.5 as well. For this map I was thinking 1.7 or 1.8. No I cant limit ord loadouts.
This is what I can do.
I can max out "field flashing range" or extend dot radar to the deck. Either of these will let the lw see if the allies are coming Noe.
I could make airfields unkillable but that just doesnt seem right. I could up the Structure Hardness and aaa lethality. This will make fighter bomber raids more dangerous and a bit harder to get
results.
Heres a fuel usage chart for fighters this chart is at 2.0. I may set the fuel mod as high as 1.8.
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/Screens/FuelFigMA.bmp)
However the concern with fighter bombers flying all the way from england and strafing and rocketing what are in effect "factory buildings" is a concern. At these factory complexes theres no aaa (was an oversight during the map design). There is a large number of 88 batterries. It is a thrill to fly over these factories.
Heres an image of the 88
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/Screens/bwack.jpg)
The factories are shown on the map as "fuel depos"
Brunswick
Ochersleben
Magdeburg
Bernburg
Leipzig
Gotha
Schweinfurt
Regensburg
Augsburg
Stuttgart
Heres an image of Augsburg
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/Screens/augsburg.jpg)
These factorie complexes are huge and are nothing like you have seen in the main. # complexes make up 1 target. On the uppr right side of each complex theres 2 fighter hangers. This will give you an idea of their size.
They are large but unprotected from lo jabos.
-
Looks good Wotan, although I guess you will have to rely on player's sportsmanship if those factories are protected by 88's alone(sp?)
Would be a nice thing if CM's would be able to set ordonance loads (hint hint Hitech :))
Give a shout wheen it's up, will give it a try! (Saw the original "Memphis Belle" documentary yesterday... might want to look at it again before I step in those B17's :D )
-
It looks like a fine setup, we in the 27th Sentai discovered the fun of bomber hunting last week with the Channel Front 1944 setup.
Personally, I'm ready for a PTO setup. Been the LW two weeks in a row now and I'm anxious to see the Rising Sun again.
Remember the largest CT squad is a USN group. They are probably anxious to get into their Hellcats again.
-
Yes it does look good, I would just toss the jabos. We are used to limited planesets in here, and I dont think a20gs or bostons or b26s are appropriate for egging germany.
And again, I was kinda under the impression we would be getting a usn map after this next setup....
-
Ya the abality to limit ordance load outs would be awsome!:)
-
yup looks good to me I missed the big week run this will give me a chance to fly the B17 and B26 some (I rarely get to) those factories look cool cant wait to rearange them some.
During squad nights I will hunt them down we had a good time last set up trying to hunt down and enguage VF27's bomber mission last week.
Someone suggested we get rid of the B26 and A20 but as I recall these planes regularly bombed and straffed aerodomes in France and Holland which looking at this map the axis front line fields are in those locations besides b26 carries a light load of bombs u would quite a few of em to do serious damage to those factories posted above.
Giving the axis the ju88 for there own bombing is ok although I doubt it will be used much ju88 is easy meat aginst those allied fighters with the exception of the p38.
But all in all this looks to be a very interesting week I will be playing both sides of the fence on this one.
-
Yep same here. Maybe the vf27 and the sentai can swap sides for our squad nights, getting a chance to try it from both angles.....
erg
-
My $.02...
- I've no real problem with the A20, packs a punch as JABO but is just a free kill once spotted by a 190. (IMHO of course!)
- Enable the allied bombers and fighters at *different* fields
- Disable bomb and rocket loadouts at the fighter fields to prevent waves of P38s and Jugs plastering the factories.
I'll be there in a 190A8 with my leather undies and the speed showing nothing under 300!
-
Great idea! That would do it wouldnt it? This could be a real good setup.
-
erg,
that would be interesting to say the least we'll see what we can do when the time comes.
-
Looks like a great setup Wotan.
If this does become the setup a week from this Friday, how about we get the ball rolling for some CT squad/pilots coordination?? How about the tuesday night(9-10pm EDT) of this setup?? Seems to be the most popular night. We could kinda setup our own mini scenario in the CT. With some squads/pilots flying an escorted B17 raid and the other forming the intercepting LW forces.
Just an idea. Anybody interested?
-
Mudd... smart dude :D (Ok, smarter than me...but that's an easy task :p)
-
a setup with the P-51B? I'm happy. :)
I thnk Mu'ds idea is a right good one, my only question is... if you have bombs and rockets disabled at a "fighter" base will that disable drop tanks too?
-
Guys keep the feedback coming but jarbo will be after brady. I have volunteered to be bumped back a week.
I will have more details I will post later as to where I am going with this.
Yes I would love to co-ordinate this set up with guys who are interested in it.
Direct folks to this thread and let your squaddies know. We will try to work it out together.
-
DT's depend of fuel Soulyss (field fuel needs to be at 125% I think)
-
ahh ok... I wondered what that "extra" 25% was for at fields
-
I'll pass this thread on to my squad and see if they are interested. MA is becomming very stale.
-
thanks revvin any suggestions you or your guys have please post umm.
-
Looks good to me Woton. Then again I'm a closet Luftwobble in the service of the IJAAF.:D
-
Originally posted by HFMudd
My $.02...
- Enable the allied bombers and fighters at *different* fields
- Disable bomb and rocket loadouts at the fighter fields to prevent waves of P38s and Jugs plastering the factories.
I like these ideas!
Still waiting out the CTD bug.
:(
eskimo
-
Originally posted by HFMudd
- Enable the allied bombers and fighters at *different* fields
- Disable bomb and rocket loadouts at the fighter fields to prevent waves of P38s and Jugs plastering the factories.
Only problem is that the Mosquito and A-20 are kinda useless without their bombs / rockets. If we had a Mosquito NF.XIX or XXX it would work, but the FB.VI is a poor fighter.
(P-47D-11s only get a single 500lb bomb, but the P-38s, ooh la la....)
-
we cant limit rockets or bombs or any ord loadout.
I want the moosie and in game it only has 50min of fuel with a modifier of 2.0. Like the a20 it wont make a dent in the factory complexes alone. If I make any fuel mod changes it will need to allow for the p47, spit , mossie and typhoon (if heavy) to get to the the forward axis fields but not allow them to get to the factory complexes. These are just ideas nothing is set yet.
I would like to have some period of nightime so the lancs and mossie guys can get some sort of immersion out of this setup.
Without hvy bombers getting deep into axis territory then this setup will mostly be a channel furball with a few allied raid against epinoy, Florennes, Rheine, and Monchen-Gladbach.
I would like to station the 110g2s and 190a8s at fields around the factories and have the g6s and a5s at the front line fields.
I could tweak the airfield structure hardness, ack lethality and downtimes then they can be used against airfields but it will be harder to shut a field down then it is in the main.
All the allied fields in england are within a sector. So even at different fields it really wont add much.
Anyway gimme your suggestions, ideas.
-
Sounds like fun and I think Mudd's on to something there. Fuel load out at the fighter bases might also help limit areas of operation for some aircraft but it wouldn't stop the one way mission guys.
Hope this helps.
snefens has done the fuel burn rate work already.
snefens Fuel burn rates:
http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/index2.htm
The Main Arena burn rate is 2x.
Minutes in the air for this plane set in the MA is as follows but different airspeeds mean completely different penetration into enemy territory! Then there's the problem of climb rate dropping the maximum speed by... half?... affecting range. Looks like a math problem, where's mathman? :)
Us Iron
p47d11 -- 38min/+9 with drop tanks=47min.
p38 ----- 37/+26=64
p51b ---- 54/+30=84
B17 ----- 151
B26 ----- 144
A20s ---- 84
Raf
Spit_9 -- 35/+21=56
Typh ---- 27/+13=40
Mossie -- 34/+16=50
Bostons - 46
Lanc ---- 141
Axis
109g6 --- 25/+18=43
190a5 --- 26/+14=40
190a8 --- 31/+14=46
110g2 --- 38/+17=56
-
main is at 1.5 and the chart I posted above is snefens and is at 2.0
-
Oh, right.
Chart didn't show in Netscape.
-
looks awesome@!
-
Something seems screwy here, and its not Wotan's proposal:
Spit_9 -- 35/+21=56
Mossie -- 34/+16=50
The Spitfire Mk IX had a max range of 434 miles on internal fuel. The Mosquito Mk VI had a max range on internal fuel of 1,220 miles and 1,860 miles with drop tanks. Yet in AH the Spitfire Mk IX has a greater time endurance than does the Mosquito. I know the Mossie had a higher cruising speed, but not THAT much higher.
The amount of fuel was originally too little, but Pyro fixed that. Now I'm thinking that Pyro may have looked at the fuel consumption rate and thought it was for one engine when it was for both, then doubled it to account for both engines.
The Spitfire Mk IX has 137 gallons of internal fuel and is powered by one 1,565hp Merlin 61.
The Mosquito Mk VI has 543 gallons of internal fuel and is powered by two 1,635hp Merlin 25s.
Could Merlin 25s really drink that much faster?
(sorry about hijacking your thread Wotan)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
main is at 1.5 and the chart I posted above is snefens and is at 2.0
I litlebit lost here...
Snefens chart clearly say "Fuel Multiplier = x2 (Main Arena) (Fighters)"
Chart is dated 3rd July 2002 (v.1.10)
:confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Wotan, I'd remove the P-38L from the setup. We're handcuffed by only having a mid '44 P-38L, but in this setup, I think it's a bit too much.
A P-38L in the setup means you've got a later plane than the P-47D-25, P-51D, the Spitfire XIV, the Tempest, the 109G-10, and the 190F-8, not to mention the JABO capabilities of the P-38L. It really looks like you're trying for a 1943 flavor, and I think the P-38L is a bit too much for that time period. Like I said in Jarbo's thread, it sucks we only have a '44 P-38L, but I don't think we should use it everywhere there was an earlier P-38. (much like I'm against using the Ki-67 as a Betty substitute just because they are both Japanese.)
A lotta people forget that the P-38L hit the lines about the same time that the Me262 did (mid 1944). The only planes that came after the P-38L in our planeset are the Dora and Ta152, CHog and 4Hog, the P-47D-30, the George, the Ki-67 and the Ar234. (The me262 and F6F-5 came out the same month as the P-38L). I'm using the list Funkedup made given posters' inputs awhile back.
Anyways, if the P-38L stays, I'd recommend at least adding the 190F-8 and possibly the 109G-10 as well.
-
yup i thought about this the other day. the 38s impact of the eto was relatively minor compared to the other planes.
Is ord loadout would ensure its "overusage" in this setup.
The other questions I am debating is the b26.
It will be 2 weeks before I am up so keep the comments coming.
-
that (ordnance issue) and the fact I think the P-38L is the best fighter in the setup (tho a good 109/190 stick can deal with it fairly well.) Could always perk it I guess?
The B-26 was used for tactical strikes along the French and Dutch coast during big week. The B-17s and B-24s did the bombing deep into Germany. I think the B-26 should be active in the setup as it was intended to strike at airfields in France and Holland during Big Week (tho weather cancelled most of the attacks). Not sure about the Havoc. It wasn't mentioned for the European Theater in Feb 1944 in the chronology I've got, Combat Chronology of the US Army Air Forces. I pulled it off of ftp.rutgers.edu in directory pub/wwii/usaf awhile back. It's pretty good for finding out USAAF activities on any given day in WWII.
Day 1 recap of Big Week (Feb 20, 1944). You can see the P-47 did by far most of the escort duty.
STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 226: The Eighth Air Force begins "Big Week," attacks on German aircraft plants and airfields. For the first time, over 1,000 bombers are dispatched; 21 bombers and 4 fighters are lost hitting 3 areas in Germany, i.e.:
1. 417 B-17s are dispatched to Leipzig/Mockau Airfield, and aviation industry targets at Heiterblick and Abnaundorf; 239 hit the primary targets, 37 hit Bernburg, 44 hit Oschersleben and 20 hit other targets of opportunity; they claim 14-5-6 Luftwaffe aircraft; 7 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair and 161 damaged; casualties are 7 KIA, 17 WIA and 72 MIA.
2. 314 B-17s are dispatched to the Tutow Airfield; 105 hit the primary and immediate area, 76 hit Rostock and 115 hit other targets of opportunity; they claim 15-15-10 Luftwaffe aircraft; 6 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair and 37 damaged; casualties are 3 KIA and 60 MIA.
3. 272 B-24s are dispatched to aviation industry targets at Brunswick, Wilhelmtor and Neupetritor; 76 hit the primary, 87 hit Gotha, 13 hit Oschersleben, 58 hit Helmstedt and 10 hit other targets of opportunity; they claim 36-13-13 Luftwaffe aircraft; 8 B-24s are lost, 3 damaged beyond repair and 37 damaged; casualties are 10 KIA, 10 WIA and 77 MIA.
Missions 1 and 3 above are escorted by 94 P-38s, 668 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 73 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; they claim 61-7-37 Luftwaffe aircraft; 1 P-38, 2 P-47s and 1 P-51 is lost, 2 P-47s are damaged beyond repair and 4 aircraft are damaged; casualties are 4 MIA.
Mission 227: 4 of 5 B-17s drop 200 bundles of leaflets on Tours, Nantes, Brest and Lorient, France at 2123-2200 hours without loss.
TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): 35 B-26s bomb Haamstede Airfield, The Netherlands, as a target of opportunity, after about 100 B-26s abort attacks on other airfields because of weather.
-
If we did maybe a 1941/42 setup there wouldnt be many jabo aircraft.... And I would be able to fly my hurri Mk1 :D
-
Set up sounds great. Looking forward to it. With all due respect to Cajun, I could care less about being stuck with a Hurri I or Spit I right now.:D
-
cajun after last week, I dont want to see another hurri for a year.
;)
-
No.9 will support this format, the only concerns are numbers making it hard to get fighter escort for our bombers. What dates are you running from and to I'd like to mark them on our squad calendar.
-
revvin, if you are in on normal times eg est 7-11pm, you can always ask the vf27. We have been working with the raf 880th on escorted bomber missions for several weeks now. Our squad nights, and really the biggest night in the CT is tuesdays and thursdays at 10pm est.
erg
-
ERG!!!
5 lashes for calling us RAF, and another 5 for 880"th".
Hehe.
-
Geez ERG!
Calling 880 FAA RAF??
Don't you know you guys are Brothers in Rust Picking??
-
Sept 27 - Oct 3 should be the setup.
-
dude, I thought you guys were raf! sorry.
erg
-
Thanks Wotan
ergRTC> No.9's squad nights are Sunday's starting around 8PM GMT but I have guys from the US who fly in the week so I'll get them to look out for you guys I'd be interested to hear from any other allied CO's who'd be interested in linking up.
-
Revvin, I know a guy who will always be ready to shoot some 30mm at you guys with joy :D
Sunday evenings heh... I'll try to remember that :)
-
punt
-
going up
-
Any allied squad that would either like escorts for their bombing missions or would like to escort a bombing mission get in touch with VF27Hellcats. We would prefer escort duty as we are a USN squad, but we do have some very capable bombaer pilots. Our squad nights are Tues and Thurs at 9PM Cst,(10pm east) (7PM west), we really enjoy organized missions and have flown joint squad missions with the 880 and the Buccaneers. We usually have between 10 and 15 pilots on during squad night, so is you are interested just drop us a line, we will be glad to help out.
LCDR HiJacker
CO VF27Hellcats
-
By the way Wotan sounds like a good map to me, think you could drop the 38, no big deal, we would still have plenty of good planes to fly. When is someone going to do Midway? Now that would be a scenario!
-
Will this be the standard setup, or will it be listed under special events? I think it sounds cool
-
its open to any one
It will be up before I go to work tomorrow.
-
I remember being treated alot better then Jester when I similiar set up to his.....
The good 'ole days ........:p
-
Don't worry. It's gettin' better. It's all good. Just more wolves than sheep now. ;)
-
If you give the allies the spit 9, I think you have to give the axis either a 109F4 or a 109G2.
-
hmm, no need to whine over the plane set a year after it ran :p
There was plenty of wolves back then, better skilled ones at that. Theres mostly just a lot more "mouth" these days.
-
Theres mostly just a lot more "mouth" these days.
Funny coming from you.
-
mine is directed at allied farmboys and whiners not cms. Theres a difference.
No one contemplated quitting over that.
Look at this thread then look at the crap around Jester's set up. That is whats wrong with the "new ct" group of players.
-
Neh ... it's all in your head. People like the way things are done or they don't. If they don't they either speak up or walk away. Which do you think is preferable? Now if you wanna go on about the method of complaint, I'm sure we can find some common ground. Just be aware that the method usually reflects the amount of frustration the player feels in regards to the reaction they've recieved in the past (I'm not just talking the manner but the overall indifference .... perceived or not).
Professionalism and courtesy is a two-way street. Even when volunteers are concerned. Face it, even though CT staffers are volunteering their time, they are vested with both power (authority) and responsibility. The first part is a tool to accomplish the last part. And the responsibility is to the entire CT community ... as well as HTC (who is the source of the power and who entrusted the CT staff to mind the store).
Even though you're no longer a "keeper of the keys" and this piece of advice is too late to help you, I'll say it for the benefit of any who may appreciate it:
When the community/customer base/club/population, at large or in part, starts expressing it's lack of confidence in the staff (in whole or in part) .... then blaming the community/customer base/ club/population isn't going to fix anything.
And if you wanna get away with anything (even for the "good of the community") then the subtle art of politicing may be in order.
The whole deal with Jester's setup is more indicative of the frustration players have felt with the relationship between them and the CT staff over a long period of time than it was about the actual setup. It could have been anyone with any setup. It was just a timebomb waiting to explode. And all that's happened since has been a slight release of pressure. It will eventually happen again unless that relationship is improved.
That's not saying there would never again be another disgruntled player venting their frustrations at the staff. But more than likely, under better circumstances, more of the CT community would support the staff and not the dissident .. that is if the staff fostered a better realtionship overall (and I've seen a staffer working really hard at it lately ... but it takes a group effort ... staff and community alike). But if/when players reach a point where they think civil comment is a waste of time on their part ... they'll either drop the civil or comment part (and generally if the comment part is dropped, so is their participation). Wait ... before you say "good riddance" ... just remember that phrase has it's limits too.
Anyways ... just the flip side of it, Wotan. Make of it what you will (which you will). I've already become less of a militant and more of a philosopher about it all lately. So don't let get all bent outa shape over an honest opinion and suggestion.
Thanks for the trip down "memory lane", though. :D
-
I made a reply but deleted it, my point with this punt just to show the difference in then and now.
No level of frustration justifies attacking one of the guys voluntering his time in an attempt to bring some fun to the rest of yas.
Theres many other things you can do if you dont like a set up. Dont fly it, make your own and sell it to a ct cm. You can even call ht and ask that the ct cms be rotated quarterly so some new blood gets a chance at running a few setups.
You have a group guys entertaining the idea of making there own set ups why not email skuzzy or ht and ask that the cts cms rotate. You would need a few experienced guys to show the new guys the ropes so you couldnt rotate an entire new crew but 2 or so a quarter may work.
Theres lotsa stuff a frustrated malcontent can do besides berate an insult the cms.
YMMV
-
I understand your point in punting this thread and I never said verbal abuse as a means to handle frustration was justified. I simply gave my pov as to why things have changed and how, possibly, things can be improved. And it's not all "the player's fault." I don't think taking the stance that the CT community has degraded over time and lacks the character the staff has ... and repeating it here in the forum ... is going to fix anything (even if you believe it).
The thought of regular CT staff rotation isn't a bad one in my pov. It does bring up the question of how it is orchestrated (would it be the staff hand-picking it's successors? Would the rotation still be limited to a select few? Would the community be allowed to vote in anyone who expresses an interest?).
Another way to create a closer bond between the staff volunteers and the rest of the CT community is to encourage the non-staff players to group together and develop their own setups (as is being attempted witht he "island hopping" project). This whould have a two-fold effect of taking some of the workload off of the staff and empowering the community .... making them responsible for their own choices in the setups which also takes some heat off of the staff. I hope the "Island Hopping" project progresses and is a success that sets the course for more "community projects" to come.
As for me ... I'm just as tired of the crap as you are. I just don't share in your pov as to where all the blame needs to go. Hell, I don't think the blame game needs to be played at all. We all have the ability to learn from the mistakes and go forward .... or dwell on the failures and point fingers. The choices we make between the two sets the course.