No BoB without He-111

[Anaxogoras]

On top of that bombers in AH run full throttle anyways, exacerbating the top speed issue.

But so do the fighters.

[Roscoroo]

Just a couple idea's to ponder .
We could adjust hardness on objectives alittle more, and maybe (just an idea ) add Spit v's   1 or 2 squads only for intercept as balance against the ju-88's that were built in '41 .    Remember a spit v only has around 6 good shots now with its cannon amount at 120 per . after that its just a injected spit 1 .
 

Remember our main Goal is giving events players enjoy , and it was discussed years ago .the balance vs the actual numbers in the Real event.   a closer Balance won out for making events enjoyable for all.

[Anaxogoras]

Just a couple idea's to ponder .
We could adjust hardness on objectives alittle more, and maybe (just an idea ) add Spit v's   1 or 2 squads only for intercept as balance against the ju-88's that were built in '41 .    Remember a spit v only has around 6 good shots now with its cannon amount at 120 per . after that its just a injected spit 1 .
 

Remember our main Goal is giving events players enjoy , and it was discussed years ago .the balance vs the actual numbers in the Real event.   a closer Balance won out for making events enjoyable for all.

I think it's almost always a better idea to leave an aircraft absent if necessary than to make a dubious substitution, but that seems to be the big difference between the way I think and the way the CM's think.

[Krusty]

But so do the fighters.

Fighters flew at full throttle. Bombers did not. Bombers didn't even climb at full throttle. Wrap yer mind around that one. They didn't climb at full throttle, they climbed at reduced. Fighters did attack bombers and other fighters while at full power, but bombers remained at cruise even while being attacked. They just did NOT fly like they do in AH. However fighters flew a lot more like they do in AH than the bombers.

In summary: It's a non-issue for fighters, but for bombers it makes all the difference in the world.

[Krusty]

Just a couple idea's to ponder .
We could adjust hardness on objectives alittle more, and maybe (just an idea ) add Spit v's   1 or 2 squads only for intercept as balance against the ju-88's that were built in '41 .    Remember a spit v only has around 6 good shots now with its cannon amount at 120 per . after that its just a injected spit 1 .
 

Remember our main Goal is giving events players enjoy , and it was discussed years ago .the balance vs the actual numbers in the Real event.   a closer Balance won out for making events enjoyable for all.

I don't think it's that great an idea... The 109E is out climbed, out sped, out turned, by the spit1 as-is. The SpitV isn't much faster but the cannon and the WEP and the handling simply make the 109E dogmeat.

You have an even worse problem adding hurr2cs, because of the current way hurricanes and 110cs are better than spit1s/109es... Then the hurricane 2cs and spitvs decimate escorts and have free run at the bombers.

Then you have to add 109Fs and/or 190s to counter the spitVs, and ... well...

I think the BOB scenario is just one of those few scenarios that has to remain traditional to the original event. It just loses its essence if you add later planes.

I don't know what to suggest if you want changes, but I would like to request not adding spitVs.

[Hajo]

Why push things?  Why run Bob for the 4th or 5th time?  There are plenty of dates in actual History that we don't have to substitute aircraft.

In the ETO we have it just about covered....in North Afrika again we just about have it covered.  We have early 109s and the P40 series.
along with the 202.  We have Bostons and B25s.  We have ground vehicles also for that date in time.

Just my imho that sometimes we put on a Scenario just to put one on.  Again....no fault of the CMs.  CMs can't be responsible for everything.
I like waiting for an anticipated well designed and a well thought out Scenario with people involved on both sides as well as CMs and CO's.

I can wait longer for those types of events....the event could be shaped, planned, and advertised and the Community kept abreast of the design and any snags.  Heck.....the Community might want to get involved in making a map.....research etc.  Research could be varified....sources listed and quoted etc.

Let's not put all of the responsibility on the CM Staff.  As I've stated many times CMs give up a lot of their free time and imho should enjoy the game more and be given the chance to do so.  I don't get to see Brooke, Roo, and ROC up much anymore.  I think they deserve some time to play also.  I would like the CM Staff help guide as well as create.  But I would also like to see some of the Community getting deeper into the design with suggestions, research etc. and not make the CM carry the complete load.  More involvement by the Community may or may not occurr.  But we don't know if we don't ask.  Making skins for an event, maps, design etc. the more involved the more that will participate in Scenarios.

Just of course mho.

[Brooke]

I think that BoB, based on popularity and requests, is a scenario that will probably run once every 2-3 years.  (Some folks would like it to be an annual event, which could happen if we run a lot more scenarios per year, but is too often when we are at 3-4/year.)

My feeling is that, for scenarios, we should run at least 3-4 per year.  (More would be better, but let's make sure we can achieve 3-4/year and go from there.)  Rather than have N/year of new designs, I'd rather have N+M/year, where N are new and M are designs that ran before.  Also, there are definitely ones from the past (even other than Battle of Britain) that I, as a player, want to play in again.

[Hajo]

Ya know....the more I think about it ....the more I feel new aircraft should be added at this point to fill out the planeset for scenarios and other events not just for the MA players (who of course will benefit also).

Aircraft such as the Ki-43, A6M2-N, D4Y Suisei Dive Bomber as well as the "Sally"  Bomber all Japanese.

LW-Hs129, Ju52, He111, Do17.

Aussie- The Boomerang.

US- F2A (Brewster Buffalo) for the Finns also and the early China Burma Theater

there are numerous aircraft that can be listed and all will take time to produce.

If we wished to do a Guadalcanal type scenario we have the F4F, the P40 Series as well as the P39. B17s were used widely also.
The A6M2 is in the stable but we are missing an early Japanese bomber methinks in this timeframe.
The Zero Floatplane was used in the South Pacific also.  Ki43 would be a great addition also. Although I'm not sure the Oscar was based at
Rabaul along with the zero.  Long flight for the IJN or IJA but they made it almost on a daily basis.

Nothing like flying from the mud and high humdity at Henderson field.  The Japanese Navy coming down the slot.
LVTs being launched.....W00T!  Lots of targets and potential fun there.

[Anaxogoras]

Ya know....the more I think about it ....the more I feel new aircraft should be added at this point to fill out the planeset for scenarios and other events not just for the MA players (who of course will benefit also).

  I'm new to AH, but from what I can see that transition should have happened years ago.

[Noir]

I have 2 ideas for BOB.

Do the usual setup and force the JU88's to load full fuel and full ord to slow them down.

Do something more mid war style, with 109F's and spit5's with London as target for all frames.

[Krusty]

Do the usual setup and force the JU88's to load full fuel and full ord to slow them down.

We already do this, and they already need full fuel, and it doesn't really slow them down that much because they're still full throttle and full speed well before they're near the target.

[Anaxogoras]

We already do this, and they already need full fuel, and it doesn't really slow them down that much because they're still full throttle and full speed well before they're near the target.

Fwiw, I read that the Ju 88A-4 was actually slower than the Ju 88A-1.  The whole point of the Ju 88 was to be fast; there's no justification for artificially tampering with the scenario to make it easier to catch.  On the other hand, the Ju 88 was a minority of the of the Luftwfaffe bomber fleet.  The He 111 and Do 17 were both able to be overtaken by RAF fighters, and that's what we're missing.

About the A-1 vs. the A-4, Wikipedia cites: Dressel, Joachim and Manfred Griehl. Bombers of the Luftwaffe. London: Arms and Armour (DAG Publications), 1994. ISBN 1-85409-140-9

[Krusty]

Fwiw, I read that the Ju 88A-4 was actually slower than the Ju 88A-1.  The whole point of the Ju 88 was to be fast; there's no justification for artificially tampering with the scenario to make it easier to catch.

There's no justification for falsifying the historical events and having Ju88s flying a mere 30mph slower than the hurricanes and spitfires chasing them. There's no justification for NOT having these bombers flying at 180mph like they normally cruised.



Also, the Ju88A-1 had less defensive guns, was less armored, had weaker engines, and longer wings. This translates into slower climb (less horsepower) and acceleration, and easier to kill when caught.

Even though the Ju88 was in the minority, it still lost more than the He111s and Do17s did, so its loss rate was astronomical. Not the case in AH.

Frame 4 of last BOB we just had a big raid "for fun" and the hurricanes knew we were coming. 90% of all the Ju88s made it out of there and back to base. After the initial pass the hurricanes could not catch us to attack us.


Hardly historical in any way, shape, or form. So don't say "artifically tampering" when all we're trying to do is RESTORE equilibrium to a messed-up system.

[Anaxogoras]

There's no justification for NOT having these bombers flying at 180mph like they normally cruised.

What's your evidence to back up this claim?  I'm a little incredulous when a 295mph bomber cruises at 180mph, but if you can cite a good source I'll believe it.  When I fly the Ju88, I can do more than 200mph when not at full power in level flight with a full bombload.

Actually, the A-4 had "long span wings," which implies longer than the A-1 which preceded it (same source as above).

Lastly, your complaint about bombers not flying at cruise speed in scenarios goes the same way for B-17s and B-24s.  Did you make the same complaint for DGS?  Just curious.

[Fencer51]

Lastly, your complaint about bombers not flying at cruise speed in scenarios goes the same way for B-17s and B-24s.  Did you make the same complaint for DGS?  Just curious.

Yep he did.    But the bombers in DGS didn't run full out, they ran at reduced throttle to maintain formation better.