Turnout was bad for both sides. Was from the start. Probably not a great time to run a scenario, something to consider in the future.
I hope everyone understands that we have to design a scenario around a certain expectation of turnout. This was designed around average numbers, and actually on the low side of that average.
Based on that, let's talk ship hardness.
Main Arena, 1 formation of JU88s carries enough ordinance to sink a CV. Obviously, that isn't a good idea for a scenario that rewards people for successfully attacking a target not simply getting a plane or two through. Scenarios have obstacles.
The Axis had 3 full squadrons of 8 JU-88s with the ability to launch at least twice each on the fleet. This still allows for the Axis to hit Malta with the other bomber flights. That is 3 full squadrons, a grand total of 72 planes, 9 of them have to hit one CV to sink it, 3 pilots with their formations, or up to 9 singles. 9 planes out of 72, leaving the rest to pick the fleet apart. Counting for attrition and missing, the objectives need about half of the planes to survive in order to gain ground each frame. Turnout dictated that there simply weren't enough planes to hit the targets and escort the bombers in. Nobody did anything wrong, it was simply a hard fought battle. Honestly, an event that hopes half the bombers survive to advance the frame isn't asking a lot. Time and time again, it was shown that if we had the bodies, the Axis could have done the job. Of course, it's easy to focus on what didn't happen instead of what could have happened.
We were over Malta in frame 1 long before the Spits arrived. Had we the bodies, the hangers could have been capped and the spits couldn't have launched. There were 2 fields to cover, and the Axis knew which ones they were. Not rocket science, just one of those things that could have happened. In each frame, people made it to the fleets with plenty of time to do damage had they actually been bomber groups. No cap to speak of, again, simply not enough people.
Anyone can second guess what should have happened, but the fact is, no one knows what would have happened if the rosters were full on Both Sides, only what could have happened.
We design scenarios so that things can happen, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Command on both sides did the best they could with what they had. In every frame, the Axis had to mount an attack, and simply did not have the resources to pull it off. The Allies suffered the same in numbers, however it's far easier to defend with lower numbers than invade.
I'm sure everyone has an idea about what could have been designed differently, but the reality is, it's mere speculation, numbers absolutely could have, not necessarily would have, but could have changed everything. Any design changes, again, are simply speculation as there is no way to prove how things would have turned out had we only done it differently.
Now consider some of the changes proposed, with the turnout as expected. Already, only 9 out of 72 bombers can take out a CV, so we lower the hardness? We were having debates about hardness after a frame where not one single bomber made it to the target, and THAT was the conversation we were having? Hardness could have been set to spit on the ships and they would sink and the ships would have still been floating.
Radar. We had it. And Yes DGS had it also. Changes nothing. The objective is not to hide from the enemy but come up with a plan to beat them. Radar can be used against someone who is seeing it as much as it can be used against them.
Not enough targets or targets too compact. Midway is going to suck it that logic holds true. So is Pearl Harbor. I can also absolutely assure you that had we had double or triple the targets and had the same turnout we would be arguing that there are too many and you were spread too thin. You know it would happen
Guys, there is no perfect scenario. There is only a game board and the ability to do the best you can with what you have, that is the real game, and both sides did the best they could with a less than stellar convergence of conditions.
I do enjoy reading your ideas, whether or not they are integrated into the next version of this event is something we'll consider if we chose to run this one again. Don't mistake what I posted above as suggesting this was a flawlessly designed event, it was not, but then again, which ones are? Of course there are some modifications to be made so by all means, keep the ideas coming, but please also try to base the ideas on possible design modifications, as there are still strategic elements that are not a design problem to solve.
