Post January FSO Discussion HERE

[Motherland]

Originally posted by trax1
The Yak9T is being used.

In place of the 9U I meant. Not as a complement.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by forHIM
A couple of questions:


How will this be determined?  If all the GVs in the area are wiped out due to close air cover and/or GV to GV kills, is it a draw?  5 pts each side?

Ok, from the orders, I will determine which squads are assigned to each EA.  From the event logs, I will determine the kills for both sides and then determine the winner of that EA.  The winner of that EA receives 10 points.  There will be no partial credit, unless there is an exact tie, and then a draw will be declared for that EA.  In that case, both sides will be awarded 5 points each.

So is this to say that the Air to Ground kills will only impact the 10 pts possible for each EA?[/b]

Yes.  The close air support is intended to be a manner through which a side can impact the decision in the EA's.  So, the more effective the close air support is, the more of a combat multiplier it is for the friendly GV's on the ground.

Total aircraft shot down is equivalent to the number of aircraft my side launched, but that did not land successfully, correct?  Or is it the number of enemy planes I 'kill" or get a proxy on?  To further develop this, if my side launches 100 planes and 10 land successfully, 50 are scored killed, and 20 ditched and 20 captured, the formula would be 90/100*60, correct?  And this would be the score my opponent gets.  Or would it be 50/100*60?

As kills of the enemy and deaths of my sides planes usually do not equal out since bails, captures, ditches count towards enemy kill counts, but not deaths on my side.[/b]

An air-to-air kill will be credited exactly as it is during a typical FSO--everything but a "ditched" or "landed successfully".  I will determine the total number of kills (from the logs) and the total number of aircraft that launch (both at the beginning of the frame and at the T+45 mark).  Kills divided by total number launched = %.  That % will be multiplied by 60 to determine the total number of air-to-air points awarded.

An example:  

The Soviets launch a total of 200 aircraft during the frame.  Total Soviets killed = 100 (meaning 100 either ditched or landed).  So, the Germans would score 100/200*60, or 30 points.  While the potential score is 60, it will be very rare for either side to score 60.  So, you can see that the EA victories are going to be very (but not more) important to the overall score.

Now onto planes:

1. every German plane is capable of carrying ordinance (at least one 250kg bomb or better per plane) and only the la5 (100kg bomb) and the il2 are capable on the Russian side.  If this is a GV hunt, then the germans are way ahead in capability to execute a ground assualt using their planes.[/b]

The YAK-9T has some soft vehicle capability, but otherwise, you're correct.  Done purposefully.  

2. With a 1.5 fuel burn, the 3 russian fighters will have very short legs.  To last the full 2 hours, I'm estimating at least 2 refuels versus at most 1 for the axis birds.[/b]

I actually considered a 2.0 for balance purposes.  But, yes, they will have short legs, and that is also on purpose.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Stampf
I just can't understand this one Stoney.  Why do the allies always get an advantage in the plane set, when we have European theatre set ups? Never fails.  No one posting here suggests the Yak 9 U should be in the set up, yet it is staying?

Tell you what, I will entertain a list from you to me, via PM or email, broken down by year from 1939 to 1945 that uses (1)the aircraft available to both the Germans and Allies for each year and (2) the aircraft in AH2 available to me as an Admin.  You tell me what which aircraft during each year is a balanced match up.  Fair enough?  Perhaps no one else suggests that the Yak-9U should be in the setup...but its staying because, as the Admin, I believe it needs to be here.  Its my decision, and if its a bad one, I'll man up and admit it.

JG11 may sit this one out.  No interest in yet another axis slaughter.  We went from months of events so close we were calling them "ties", to the last two being the most one sided affairs yet.[/b]

Personally, I would be disappointed if you did--I like flying with you guys.  FSO is and has been a success because of squads like yours.  Regardless, if you do choose to sit out, make sure you update your squad information on http://www.AHEvents.org

It's bad enough the Axis have outdated tanks to face off against the T34 with.  Substuitute Tigers for the absent Panther then, same logic.  Panther was the main battle tank of the German Army.[/b]

I've already received comments from others stating that the T-34 is outclassed by the Panzer IV.

To me this is yet another operation designed for an allied victory.  We really need someone with some Axis "interest" in the "powers that be" group, really.[/b]

Obviously I disagree with you.  My only interest is in providing a fun event for you guys.  Don't forget, I fly them as well as design 'em.  And my squad flies Axis every other frame.  

What a bummer to have this kind of set up after the break. [/B]

Again, sorry you feel that way.  After 15 hours of my personal time to admin an event, I'd hoped I'd do better.

[humble]

Stoney I think the combined arms approach is a good one to try...

Didnt see a comment on the A-20 (no formations) vs the 9u from you yet. I understand its a major change but I honestly think its a potentially good (and historically correct) plane. The 9T as a ground attack plane is very limited and only 1 russian bird would have ords vs all 4 german birds (potentially){unless la-5s carry bombs}. The russians operated more A-20G's then any other nation and used the plane extensively during the timeframe in question.

[splitatom]

the yak9t can take out panzers with like 5 hits from the 37mm

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by humble
I think its a great idea stoney and a good setup. I do have a couple of questions however on how it'll play out. We have a 45 min "GV" segment and then a 45 min "air only" segment...hope I have that right.

I think you meant 45min GV segment and a 1 hour 15 min "air only" segment.  There will be air for all 2 hours though.

1) when a GVer is killed does he wait till 45 min are up or can he launch sooner.[/b]

GV'ers all launch at T+45.  I figured that the ground fight would take 10 mins or so to develop.  So, perhaps the GV players spend 15-30 mins in the tower waiting to take off if they get killed earlier in the GV fight.  This was the only way I could determine to make the mechanics of including GV's work.  I realize that a 30 minute seat in the tower may not be someone's idea of a fun event, but as this is a fairly different way to set up an event, we're breaking some new ground here.  If it doesn't work out, so be it.  I'll not make the same mistakes twice.

2) After 45 min there are no ground targets so do any remaining attack planes just land or can they respawn to fighters like there GV countrymen.

The playability of the mechanics are really my only concern...you can have a guy who flies an attack plane well either forced to sit out since he has no targets or be cannon fodder...meanwhile the GVers are upping fighters vs the other GVers and the leftovers who only had 1 life to start.[/b]

Good point, and one I hadn't thought about.  My original concept was to have GV'ers stay in GV's for the duration of the FSO.  Ultimately I changed my mind and did not think about the attack pilots.  I'll get back to everyone in a day or two and update the setup accordingly.

My other question in on plane set....

The russian planeset is admitedly inadequate however your missing a couple of lendlease planes that would fit...If we look at the 109/la-5 and 9T/A5 matchups they almost exactly flipflop...IL-2 [has] (IMO) an edge vs GV's while the F8 and 110 have an air to air edge (that will be variable based on the IL-2/A-20 pilot capabilities). So the "2 on 2" airwar will be almost a dead heat and the "2 on 2" GV attack "war" will have a great match up of GV ability vs air to air ability...The A-20 has a great russian skin done by Greebo and was used in exactly the role you envision...it was a ground attack plane for armored colume interdiction and the russians used it extensively in that role...its really the perfect role for it in an FSO. [/B]

When I made the previous statement about lend-lease aircraft, I was referring to the Hurri II and Spit V as they were suggested as subs for the Yak-9U.  I was not talking about the A-20, but I did originally consider the A-20.  I'm fairly confident that based on all the strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft in the planeset counteract each other to some degree given the entire setup.  I could be wrong, but I guess we'll know after next Friday.

[Husky01]

Just because one side may have a "superior" plane set does not always result in a win "Look at DGS for instance the 190 A8 where extremely out match but every thing worked out for the best in the end).

Out comes of FSO are largely based on the frame CiCs planning and leader ship ability along with the squads them self. Obviously there are large gaps in the plane sets for both sides but until HTC fills the plane set there is nothing that can be done about it.

Few other points.

I believe that due to the Yaks short legs during the frame you will start to see a large swing in air superiority and momentum from Allies to Axis. Short legs not only effect how long you fly but how you fly. Due to the short legs the yaks will not be able to climb as high, stay in the fight as long, and maintain air superiority.  When the yaks are forced to rearm this will cause many things the major one being, that by rearming you have to take your planes out of the air it more often then not causes confusion. Squads get split up people bend props rip off wings etc. The key to air superiority is being in the air and due to the yaks short legs I believe it will be very difficult to do this obviously this is something the allies will have to plan around.

Substituting the Tiger in for the missing panzer at the time would completely  unbalance the ground game. The panzer in game is perfectly capable of killing a T34 with no problems. IMO the GV set is pretty balanced.

Stampf I would honestly hate to see you guys sit out. JG11 is a great addition to which ever side they are on. If you do not decide to fly in this one, all of you guys that are welcome to fly with AoM if we get to be Axis.

[Bino]

Originally posted by Stampf
I probably would not participate in a side switch event, especially one "framed" around a "prove a point" origin.  No interest here in flying the red star planes, nor proving any points.  We will just have to endeavor to persevere...as the saying goes.

Nice to see ya Bino.

Sir, as always, I'll fly as I'm ordered to, sir!

[Stampf]

Good news Bino.

Well we can't pass on the opportunity to fly the nicest skin in the game, the JG11 G-6.



Stoney, never did dismissing the effort put into the Operation, enter my intentions and appologize if that residue of this text medium settled on you.  That was not in my thoughts.  We'll be there, and glad to be.

Up the Irons.

[ROC]

Interesting discussion so far.

I'd like to remind everyone that may be viewing this who does not know the full depth of the contributing posters that we are all Pro's here.

Even though there is a discussion about the desire or disgust of a certain plane or planes available, the FSO group that has evolved is clearly capable of handling any and all conditions that they may be faced with.

As any scout or patrol group that flew a mission was well aware of, there were no certainties when it came to what might be found.  They may have ran into a group that demanded they high tail it for home, they might have had an advantage, they might have been the underdog but maybe, just maybe, they could turn the tables.

The only thing relevant was preparation.  This were a time when you expected the worst and hoped for the best, and were never surprised.  You could and would deal with whatever was thrust upon you.

Now, I know the discussion here is based on a CM who wants to engage the players, and the players want to get the best they can out of this event.   But we all know, at the end of the day, that no matter what the battle conditions end up being, you will all remember the theme I've sworn by, and shown, time after time.

It ain't the planes guys.  You know this.

You design an event with 3 squadrons of Yaks against the entire US, and you know I'll be in, and have a blast with, those Yaks.  I also know a great many of you in this discussion would be in the Yaks with me  Just remember what we are all trying to do here.  Nothings fair, every battle had a winner and loser, historically it's irrelevant.  What can You do with the resources given, is there really no strategy that can overcome a perceived imbalance?

Is it Really the plane?  I wonder, how much time spent debating plane sets might be used on researching how to overcome the other side.

Well, that's just me sticking my nose in  Carry on.

[humble]

I dont think any comments on either thread are ment to be derogatory. I think the concept is great and obviously alot of work is involved. The limitations of the soviet plane set create obvious gaps. My only ongoing point of concern is the significant imbalance in "ground attack capability" inherent in the russian plane set. Both the 110 and F8 will make short work of the IL-2's IMO. I'd venture to say that IL-2 survivabilty will be zilch

[Krusty]

ROC, unit v. unit warfare doesn't ultimately come down to pilot skill alone. Even 1v1 the plane plays a big part.

I dislike when folks say "it's the pilot not the plane" and I'm not exactly saying the opposite. I'm saying whatever the pilot brings, the plane can bring even more or take some away.

There have been some FSO missions where one side gets totally slaughtered by the side with a better plane. It COULD have gone the other way, but frankly, when one side has a plane 30mph+ faster than the other, climbs better than or just as good as, turns tighter than, and zooms far better than the other size, it doesn't matter if you've got the average bottom-skilled FSO unit in that super plane, it will probably do much better than if they were in the worst plane in the set.

So, basically what I'm saying is the pilot plays a big role. Less so in unit v. unit, where teamwork and chance play a big part. However, the plane you GIVE that unit, and the planes you come up against, really do have an impact on the outcome.

Send F4Fs against Ki84s. F4Fs might get some kills, sure, but in general it will be a slaughter-fest for the Kis. Even if there are hot-shot pilots in that lesser-planed squad, they only need to be ganged or overwhelmed, or just to be caught looking the wrong way and all of a sudden the "hotshot" is in the tower, and as the sortie drags on it gets worse, less and less of the "lesser" unit to help cover itself, more and more numbers of enemies against them.


It's all academic, and I think the discussion has been fairly civil about the matter, but the yak's gonna own this one is my bet

[Bino]

Originally posted by ROC
...
every battle had a winner and loser, historically it's irrelevant.  What can You do with the resources given, is there really no strategy that can overcome a perceived imbalance?
...

Good post, sir, but I have to ask this about scenario design:

What is the objective of the scenario design?  Does the design simply try to model an "historically accurate" rout?  Or does each side have an even chance to "win", as defined in the scenario?

For example, let's say you choose to model the famous "Marianas Turkey Shoot".  Do you set up point values and/or victory conditions in the scenario so the players will likely achieve a "draw"?  Or do you leave all the victory point values and victory conditions "even", and so reward a huge mob of Corsairs for feasting on the outnumbered Vals?

[daddog]

What is the objective of the scenario design? Does the design simply try to model an "historically accurate" rout? Or does each side have an even chance to "win", as defined in the scenario?

For example, let's say you choose to model the famous "Marianas Turkey Shoot". Do you set up point values and/or victory conditions in the scenario so the players will likely achieve a "draw"? Or do you leave all the victory point values and victory conditions "even", and so reward a huge mob of Corsairs for feasting on the outnumbered Vals?

Hi Bino. By “scenario” I am assuming you mean Squad Operations design, because there is a significant difference between a Scenario design and a Squad Operations design.

In FSO we would never setup a Marianas Turkey Shoot because it would be fun for one side and not much fun for another. In FSO the Admin CM’s (the guys that design the event) aim for historical game play, but not at the sacrifice of the fun factor. It is important that both Allied and Axis sides have a reasonable chance of winning the tour. For the average player winning the tour is not a priority, but simply engaging the enemy with his squadies and having some success. Success for the average player might be an assist or two, maybe a kill, or even just landing at the end of the frame with most of his squadies. The points and victory conditions we use in FSO are there just to give structure toward the end result which is a victory for the Allied or Axis side. If we did not have an ultimate goal (achieving victory by points or objectives met) then FSO would be nothing more than the MA with historical match up’s.

Could we design an FSO in the Pacific that was at the time period of the Marianas Turkey Shoot? You bet, but we would add more fighters (less Val’s and Kate’s) to the IJN side so both sides could have a chance of winning the tour. Both sides would have fun and both sides would enjoy some historical match up’s in the Pacific.

[humble]

I greatly appreciate the somewhat "out of the box" thinking on this one. I'd venture that the vast majority of fighting in the east was exactly this type of "mutual ground interdiction" over a fluid front which is what kept the air war so low. Obviously this will be a learning experience for all involved (although I think its not the 1st "combined arms" FSO or am I wrong on that).

Not knowing what restrictions (if any) the axis will have on ords I do think the allies might be at a serious disadvantage in that regard while the allies will have a significant edge in the "tactical air to air" with the 9T being a good match for the F8 under 10k. As already stated by stoney only time will tell...