Pacific War?

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by lazs:
marco... in my squad are some of the most histoically savy guys you will run into including a famous author and Historian on the Pacific war.  None of us participate in scenarios.   We have all read the book.   We know how it came out and are not interested in the pale imitation that a scenario is.   Nor, are we interested in recreating lopsided battles.

Oh, and nothing wrong with an honest opinon IMHO but them stupid smiley faces?????  
lazs

Now is that an honest opinion of an honest opinion or an honest opinion of a humble opinion.        
   

[Torgo]

No Nikis were encountered in combat (at least the ones that weren't floatplanes) until the Phillipines and Formosa in the fall of 1944.

Given that, I can't see how you can balance Phillipine Sea.

However, I'm all for a realistic simulation of Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, or Santa Cruz :-)

2-3 CVs on a side can be close to realistically manned.

And with the steerable CVs, we have whole new avenues open to us.

I don't seriously expect the massive devotion of art resources to creating different kinds of CVs, but perhaps NATEDOG could be prevailed on to slap "meatballs" on the decks of the ones we have for scenarios.

And maybe CM tools to edit the "hardness" of CVs...so, keeping the Essex CV art, but being able to make a Ryuho or Shoho or whatever light carrier that's easier to sink. And also making it possible to close down flight operations on a CV short of sinking it.

Also include transport fleets heading to Port Moresby or Guadalcanal to sink..etc. etc. etc.

One HUGE playbalance issue is the fact that, though, in those scenarios the US gets the Dauntless, with 1,000 lbs, but the Vals can only carry 500 lbers.

However, back in the WB scenarios I remember, the Japanese didn't get their corresponding advantage in torpedos....it took a while to get rid of the Devastators and replace them with Avengers...however, in WB the US always had the Avengers.

And, as with submarines and surface ships, in 1942 the Japanese had a huge air torpedo advantage. People tend to  mistakenly believe all Japanese torpedoes were "Long Lances" (they weren't, the air dropped ones were much smaller) but they were bigger and FAR more reliable than US air dropped torps...we had the similar problems with them being duds as US subs did.

I doubt the Devastator would ever be modeled. I do hope that the torpedoes can be tinkered with, and both sides don't have an equally capable "generic torpedo."

One scenario problem is that a lot of people get slapped into Zeros who aren't used to aircraft like that..but transitioning to a Wildcat from normal arena fare is easier.

Combine that with less general enthusiasm for Japanese aircraft, in a scenario where the Japanese don't do well the first few frames, they REALLY stop showing up for the last few.

I think scenarios where the US is outnumbered 3-2 in CV hulls, where the Japanese have a real torp advantage, is crucial to play balance.

[Torgo]

 

Originally posted by AKSeaWulfe:
You think late war is bad.. try fighting a Ki43 or A6M2 against P40s or F4Fs.
-SW

Yep...it's still a Japanese problem.

AH doesn't have any of those aircraft yet, but all of those aircraft were done by the same person for WB..

And my experience was that the P40s and F4Fs cleaned up, in large groups in scenarios.

You get a furball of 12 Wildcats or 12 P40s against 12 A6M2s in a scenario, with pilots of equal skill, and I bet the Wildcats or P40s win 7-8 times out of 10, due to durability and firepower. And the fact that most people don't spend much MA time in Zeros.

In the real war, Wildcats and P40s had a positive kill ratio vs. those aircraft, despite the idea a lot of people get that both planes were "overmatched."

Early in the war you had some of the best trained and most experienced pilots in the world, against guys who weren't (in the USAAF.)

Navy pilots were far better trained, and they were never particularly overwhelmingly dominated by the A6M2.

Heck, I remember the P-39 squadron back in Solomons in WB (and that's going back a LOONG ways) cleaned up :-). Massive positive kill ratio. I think that squadron was comprised of the best pilots of the Flying Pigs, though.

I was XO of the US in that scenario, and a decidedly mediocre pilot, and I killed 5 Zeros in a Wildcat and landed without a ping, one sortie.

[lazs]

good points torgo.  For me, scenarios take on a false front.   Play balance that never existed is needed in order to make a game of it.   To many factors are missing to recreate anything except FM's and gunnery.  Any nod to "history" simply creates imbalance and as a by product, limits the variety of planes. hence, my devotion to the MA and whatever parity and variety I can get.

marcof is very narrowly focused on a euro centric BOB scenario.  Understandable... It's/was important to his countries history and.... it really was one of the few times historically that parity of ac existed.   You can have some good fights in a BOB theme but... they will be limited in variety.   sooner or latter a Spit one or 109e get's old.   scenarios do or die based on how enthusiastic the players are and the fact that they are over before they become tiresome.  And... they need to be put together with some real thought towards parity.   Sometimes this is near impossible or very complex... either way, not fare for the average simmer.
lazs

[SKurj]

Now if we could create a naval scenario that would permit the IJN to take advantage of their aircraft's superior range...


SKurj