Simple comment to Back to Tokyo.

[Imoutfishing]

I have to say this was an agresive set of FSO's well done.

The only thing that may have made this frame a bit better for a select few squads would have been something to shoot at   I do belive the Allied targets happen to be a bit far spread as well there was no reason to defend any Allied target's.

What this did was simply set up a basic strategy of lamb basting one side of the map by the Allies while just tickling the the other target's they "had to hit".

As it happens the Nightmare's happen to be in a position to see the tolken attack's by the Allies.  That ended up being ment a lot of flying around with no reason to be there.  I let my squadies land and head to the MA with no question asked due to the narrow chance they might see something to shoot at



I'm not going to pass judgement on any FSO (thank god you guys put these up for us to enjoy) but the Allied side won from where I sit.  They bored 63 pilots to death

I would like to point out that this is a personal account of the Back To Tokyo FSO and is in no means intended to infuse a debate.

MGD 

[Arlo]

I'm taking it you weren't the 63 pilots that cost us dearly this frame.

<S> Imperial Japanese Army and Navy pilots.

Herder ... I let you down, man.

http://s257.photobucket.com/albums/hh204/arlogu3/?action=view&current=6c54f70f.pbr

[Saxman]

The biggest problem with the setup was, as has been previously stated, the Japanese were entirely on defense. They had 200 pure fighters they could put in the air, while the Allies had to have a minimum of 60 TBMs, and a sizable portion of the fighter force was needed to roll heavy in order to provide enough striking power to get the job done. This made it very easy for the Axis to put a MASSIVE CAP at high altitude and just plain overwhelm any Allied escorts through weight of numbers.

[Joker312]

It seems that every time we do a "US attacks Japan" FSO or scenerio that the US side gets beat very badly.

A few things that lead to this are:

1) "Overall numbers". I would think that 200 defenders against 200 attackers is not the way it would have been planned way back in 1944-1945. The ratio should be 2.5 to 3 to 1 in favor of attackers.

2) "The fact that the targets are known prior to the attack". There should be 9 or so targets, 2 of which must be attacked and bonus points given for additional targets each frame. This would be more realistic. It would force the defenders to spread out and search for incomming attacks and not just sit and wait for the attack they know must come. It would also enable the attackers to do a fighter sweep or 2 because all fighters would not have to be heavy.

3) "The Plane Mix". During 1944 there just wasnt that many KI-61's, KI-84's and N1K2's available. The Air Forces of Japan were decimated by this time and the pilots were not the elite that flew from 1939 to 1943, they were mostly low time pilots flying aircraft that suffered from unreliable engines in aircraft that were built without "Quality Control" being given even a second thought. During the war there were almost 11000 Zekes built and only 2600-2700 Tony's, 3400-3500 Franks, 400 N1K2's. Given these numbers it would seem that 60-70% of the Japanese fighter force would be a mix of A6M-2's, A6M-3's, and A6M-5's, 10-15% KI-61-I's, 15-20% KI-84's, and 5% N1K2's.  The US mix is fine as there were almost 10000 F4U's and TBM/TBF's built and more than 12000 F6F's completed during the war. Given these facts there should be no more than 10 N1K2's for instance and at least 100 Zeke's ( including MANY A6M-2's) in a force of 200.

4) "All aircraft of both sides takeoff at T-00". The Japanese just didnt have the gas necessary to train let alone have all their fighters up at the same time. THIS WAY OF RUNNING AN EVENT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. Only 5-10% of the defenders a/c should be allowed to be airborne prior to detecting an attack. Alot of effort is put into achieving surprise. No CO in his right mind would commit to an attack where the enemy had advance warning and was waiting.

These are just my observations and not meant as anything other than constructive in nature.

If any CM would like to hear more I would be glad to design a FSO with all these things taken into account and submit that to him/her. I also understand the "fun factor" and the need for all participants to see action. But I also believe that most here enjoy the realism of an FSO/Scenerio and really wouldnt mind revamping the rules if said realism was enhanced.

Please let me know if any CM or Designer would like to exchange ideas.

[Sled]

I would be happy to talk with you.

I would rather talk by VOX, what times are you available to meet in the MA?

[Nefarious]

It seems that every time we do a "US attacks Japan" FSO or scenerio that the US side gets beat very badly.

This is only the second time we have ever ran "US Attacks Japan" Scenario, the first one we ran was called Ketsu-Go. And it ended in marginal Allied Victory.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,197296.0.html

[Valkyrie]

We have never done it in an FSO, but there have been instances in scenarios where radar and controllers were given to one side(BOB) or and idea like the Ruhr scenario. Also maybe a request to hitech could be made to allow a person to only up once thereby allowing departures at anytime after T+0 for aircraft that remained on the ground until detection. I am a big fan of reality in these FSO and not schedualed engagments. I love FSO in all of its forms, these are just some of my thoughts on the subject.


Vlkyrie1

[Nefarious]

How long are you guys willing to sit in the tower on Friday Nights? 15, 30, 45 minutes?

[Krusty]

Joker: The Ki-61 is a 1942 design. The Ki-84 is a 1944 design. The N1k2 is the latest design the game has in the planeset, I think.

So you don't think they'd have 1944 designed planes in a 1944 setup? They built 3500 Ki-84s in about a year and a half (less maybe, I don't know exact dates).

While there were quality standards dropping, some of these are modeled in (note we don't have the super-boosted Ki-84 like UbiSoft does? We have modeled the IJA fuel quality rather than US fuel quality).

As for fuel, they had so much fuel they could test jet engines, they could develop and produce many thousands of late-war fighters, put them into action, and STILL field countless kamikaze planes (which still need fuel) as well as nonstop home defense sorties against the incoming US bombers. Fuel wasn't an issue.

You may feel the planeset is unbalanced. I disagree. Given the choice, the US rides are better than Japanese ones. Don't get me wrong I love the Ki-84, but when an F6F dives past it at 500mph (from 20k to the deck) there's no way a Ki84 can follow. Also the Ki61 is exceedingly slow at all alts and sucks above 15k. The Ki84 has a terrible drop in power (and speed/climb) between 8k and 18k (that's a pretty huge band, I tellyawhut). While the N1k2 holds up in a dive better it has an even worse power dip on this same band.

On the other hand, the US planes have magical flaps (in the F4u), speed brake gears, heavy ord capabilities, much better high alt performance, almost as good climb rate (F6F is only 500fpm behind Ki84 climb rate), turn amazingly well at high speeds, dive superbly at very high speeds, can sustain many solid hits with no damage, can get a lot more kills for the ammunition supplied, and when flown right have a bit of an edge over the axis planes: speed.

I don't disagree that perhaps the setup needs to be changed. However it's not because of the planes used.


P.S. We had many folks in A6M5s, which are obsolete compared to Hellcats and Corsairs. Ki61s are nice to fly but slow as molasses and have very small ammo levels. We had our fair share of handicaps.

[Stoney]

It seems that every time we do a "US attacks Japan" FSO or scenerio that the US side gets beat very badly.

A few things that lead to this are:

1) "Overall numbers". I would think that 200 defenders against 200 attackers is not the way it would have been planned way back in 1944-1945. The ratio should be 2.5 to 3 to 1 in favor of attackers.

After frame 1, the sides were set at 60% USN, 40% IJA/IJN.  Turnout in frame 2 allowed us to approach those numbers.  Strong Japanese turnout and weak Allied turnout in Frame 3 made it more like 55%/45%.  Ultimately, the adjustments made after Frame 1 were designed to give the USN approx. 60 more pilots a frame.  Ultimately, we look to balance the engagements.  While 30 versus 10 may be tactically sound, it makes for poor play, as those that get gang-banged are not going to either be thrilled or interested in coming back.

3) "The Plane Mix". During 1944 there just wasnt that many KI-61's, KI-84's and N1K2's available.

While it may be an accurate historical representation, it would be completely frustrating for those on the Japanese side.  We're looking for balanced engagements here, where either side has the ability to win depending on their tactics, skill, and luck.  We're not going to run a Turkey Shoot.  You'll run out of players to fly against if you try and replicate history this way.

4) "All aircraft of both sides takeoff at T-00". The Japanese just didnt have the gas necessary to train let alone have all their fighters up at the same time. THIS WAY OF RUNNING AN EVENT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. Only 5-10% of the defenders a/c should be allowed to be airborne prior to detecting an attack. Alot of effort is put into achieving surprise. No CO in his right mind would commit to an attack where the enemy had advance warning and was waiting.

First, 8th AF launched missions daily knowing the Germans had advanced warning, and would have interceptors waiting.  Second, the Japanese had radar in real life, and would detect U.S. bombing raids some time in advance. 

[Joker312]

This is only the second time we have ever ran "US Attacks Japan" Scenario, the first one we ran was called Ketsu-Go. And it ended in marginal Allied Victory.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,197296.0.html

Nef,

   Over the years I seem to remember a few more, one was a Scenerio and I seem to remember a few FSO's where the Allies were tasked with attacking the Japanese home islands. In any event I may or may not be correct but it just seems like the frames always end up badly for Allied forces.

How long are you guys willing to sit in the tower on Friday Nights? 15, 30, 45 minutes?

    I am not sure that people would be willing to wait very long but in the past we have used staggered departure times. A wait of 45 mins would be too large but having 25% depart at T=0, then 50% at T+5, and the rest at T+10 (% is subject to change as needed) would not be that long a wait and might do the trick. The frame could be extended 10 mins to allow all to get the full 2 hours of fun if this was done.

    And please dont take anything I typed as a whine. As always I appreciate all the effort put into these events by everyone involved. I made the post in an effort to try and improve our fun. I very much enjoy the events and still consider FSO and Scenerios the best part of AH.

[Sled]

    And please dont take anything I typed as a whine. As always I appreciate all the effort put into these events by everyone involved. I made the post in an effort to try and improve our fun. I very much enjoy the events and still consider FSO and Scenerios the best part of AH.

Not at all, your comments are appreciated.

[Stoney]

...In any event I may or may not be correct but it just seems like the frames always end up badly for Allied forces.

If we're merely comparing opinions here, I'll tell you that I believe the USN late-war plane set should dominate even the late-war Japanese fighters.  However, the F6F and F4U aren't planes that the typical MA AH2 pilot are comfortable in, and the tactics and strategy necessary to win in FSO certainly aren't simple MA-type techniques.  On the other hand, the same techniques that prove successful in the heavier, faster, U.S. aircraft in the MA (patience, preparation, and good situational awareness) will make them successful in FSO.  I was a defender at A87 Friday night, and we were pummeled quickly, even though there were roughly 30-40 defenders there.  Stampf's post in the other thread was a great example:  a good plan, great execution, and some very effective tactics.  From the receiving end, it was one of the best planned and executed attacks against a fixed target I've seen in two years of flying FSO's.  As a result, without an overall numerical advantage (even though they created a localized one) they destroyed the objective, shot down a lot of defenders, and still managed to take a lot of aircraft home with them.  Just an example of effective use of the late-war USN plane set.

I am not sure that people would be willing to wait very long but in the past we have used staggered departure times. A wait of 45 mins would be too large but having 25% depart at T=0, then 50% at T+5, and the rest at T+10 (% is subject to change as needed) would not be that long a wait and might do the trick. The frame could be extended 10 mins to allow all to get the full 2 hours of fun if this was done.

Given the climb speed of the Japanese aircraft, and the distance the USN aircraft needed to fly to target (I planned for T+45 minutes to be over the target during design), even a T+10 launch would not have mattered.  Even a T+30 would have allowed the Ki-84 and N1K2 to climb to 25K and still have 5-10 minutes to sort themselves out before action started.

And please dont take anything I typed as a whine. As always I appreciate all the effort put into these events by everyone involved. I made the post in an effort to try and improve our fun. I very much enjoy the events and still consider FSO and Scenerios the best part of AH.

Received in the same manner as you intended.  

[Nefarious]

And please dont take anything I typed as a whine. As always I appreciate all the effort put into these events by everyone involved. I made the post in an effort to try and improve our fun. I very much enjoy the events and still consider FSO and Scenerios the best part of AH.

I am not, I am just trying to understand and/or analyze every opinion, angle, truth, false, misconception or any other item posted on this FSO BBS.

As for previous FSOs using the Japan map, There has only been two FSOs. But... there has been a Scenario and a couple snapshots possibly. As for Pacific FSOs, there has been numerous of course, maybe your thinking about one of those?

As for delayed launches, I'm not quite sure that would work, After all 5 and 10 minutes is not very long, not long enough to make any difference in the last FSO, not enough in the next FSO either. The fields or targets would have to be really close to feel that time difference.

[Joker312]

Stoney,

   You are probably right, the delayed takeoff of 10 mins would not have mattered. I was just brainstorming at a way to recreate the fact that the entire defending airforce would in reality not have been airborne at the same time. I am looking for a way to avoid the "all aircraft launch at T+0" way that we kick off each frame. The playabliity aspect and the time constraints need to be ironed out. A great point is that we still cant limit persons to 1 life in the arena setup and having staggered takeoff times would make it impossible for CM's to police those who may want to reup after a death.

   Your point about late war is a very good one. I also believe that the US aircraft are more capable. Maybe it was the strategy used in my sector during this FSO that was faulty. I flew with the Japanese in a N1K2. At A7 a few of us intercepted the Allied strike and decimated them in less than 8 mins. It seemed that each of the 5 planes I killed fell apart very quickly with very few hits. 1 F6, 2 each F4 and TBM, less than 5 mins, around 200 rounds. I am not a great shot, they just dont seem that durable that it makes a great difference. In all 3 frames it seemed like the USN was wiped from the arena before endframe.

   I know you tried to get a 60-40 split but from the numbers I saw on AHevents we never approached a 60/40 split. The closest we came was frame 2 where the Allies had 53% and the Japanese had 47% (216-245). The other frames were 1: IJN 50.55 to USN 49.5% and 3: IJN 49% to USN 51%. A 60-40 split might have made for a better FSO.

   I guess I can just wait for the next USN/IJN FSO and see how that one goes. I have a few ideas I am going to run by Sled for Pacific FSO's that havent been done yet.

   Thanks again for your replies.