November FSO

[Joker312]

We go from a max number to take all the 109s you want. How did that happen?

This pretty much unbalances what was a nice setup. Forget about the butcher job it does to the actual historical matchup. I know "PLAYABILITY ".

[Devil 505]

How about the fact that the 109 was the single most prolific German fighter.

The heavy restriction on the 109 in the original write-up actually was imbalanced against the Axis and the revision helps to balance it because the 190A-8s and F-8s are overweight pigs that do not perform well against a majority of the Allies fighters here. Even then, the Spit 8s and Bravo Ponies are going to run circles around the G-14s - and that's the best the Axis has.

So, the event is now better balanced and more historically accurate than before.

[LilMak]

I thought the fix would be to eliminate the restriction on the G6. Let them have their G14s...D-25 owns their whole set anyway.

We definitely need some earlier high altitude tuned 109s.

[Squire]

We go from a max number to take all the 109s you want.

36 players on the Axis side must be in Ju 88s and Fw 190A-8s at an absolute minimum and that's in a setup where they need cannon armed Fw 190 bomber killers. The ratio of Fw 190s and Bf 109s should be reasonably good. They can't have all the 109s they want and the ones they do have will not all be Bf 109G-14s.

What is being altered for playability? I am not seeing it. Its an accurate OOB for mid 1944. We do the min-max to ensure the ratios are good...they are there to prevent one side from just grabbing a pile of one or two types. They are there to ensure a good historical mix.

Regards.

[Shrike]

The AK's are updated.

[Joker312]

36 players on the Axis side must be in Ju 88s and Fw 190A-8s at an absolute minimum and that's in a setup where they need cannon armed Fw 190 bomber killers. The ratio of Fw 190s and Bf 109s should be reasonably good. They can't have all the 109s they want and the ones they do have will not all be Bf 109G-14s.

What is being altered for playability? I am not seeing it. Its an accurate OOB for mid 1944. We do the min-max to ensure the ratios are good...they are there to prevent one side from just grabbing a pile of one or two types. They are there to ensure a good historical mix.

Regards.

Warloc,

    I did not wish to comment on anything other than the fact that the initial planeset placed a max on the 109 types. There must have been a reason the designer included that. One person
asked for reconsideration and instead of the max number being raised it was removed. That seems odd to me.

    To address your other comments.......the Allies also have 36 players in B26, B25, and Mossie type aircraft, equal numbers on both sides. And, last time I checked the 190a8 was designed to kill bombers not to be used as an attack aircraft. I am guessing you meant to include the 190f8, which is also a capable counter air fighter, in your reply. The 190f8 does not have a Min number BTW.

   As far as OOB goes a 50/50 split 109's to 190's would be OK but the Allies had around a 10 or 20 to 1 advantage in aircraft during June 44 in that Area of Operations. (No shortage of Spits, P51's, or P38's that would make it necessary to limit them to 12 to my knowledge) I will not argue that this historical fact would be no fun for any of the participants, therefore we have Playability issues that need to be dealt with and that is how we come to design a FSO that is a 50/50 split for Allies and Axis.

   Now that I have explained myself to you, I would appreciate you explaining how we went from x Max 109G6 and x Max 109G14 to Min 24 and Unlimited respectively.

    Thankyou for your time.

[Squire]

We try and get away with as little complication as we can regarding the assigned min and maxs. If we can see a more straight forward way that's the route we try for. We redid the min-max with the Bf 109s to essentially get the same result or close without adding more complication to a CiCs task. That's it and nothing more.

Regards. 

[Joker312]

Warloc,

     I honestly have no idea how going from max 12 to unlimited has anything to do with your answer to my question. It is totally unreasonable to expect me to believe that change uncomplicates  the CIC's task or leads to the same result. The absolute only thing it does is enable the Axis to use more 109's, end of story.

     This discussion has run its course. Thankyou for your responses to my query. There is no need to explain to me any further.

[j500ss]

We see this every once in a while, and usually the results are the same, and that is ok.

 Allies can expect to see "0" F-8's.   A-8's heavily escorted by 109's,  and a dozen ( give or take real bombers)  All in all it kinda makes planning easier from both side if you choose to look at it that way.

Fighter vs fighter gives Axis a 24 plane advantage, water over the dam..

I think putting a Min # on the F-8 would have been a right thing to do, but again it's water over the dam now. 

First frame will tell the tale if the adjustment was good , bad,  or indifferent.

Should be fun   


 
jdog

[Devil 505]

We see this every once in a while, and usually the results are the same, and that is ok.

 Allies can expect to see "0" F-8's.   A-8's heavily escorted by 109's,  and a dozen ( give or take real bombers)  All in all it kinda makes planning easier from both side if you choose to look at it that way.

Fighter vs fighter gives Axis a 24 plane advantage, water over the dam..

I think putting a Min # on the F-8 would have been a right thing to do, but again it's water over the dam now. 

First frame will tell the tale if the adjustment was good , bad,  or indifferent.

Should be fun   


 
jdog

All very true.

Regarding the F-8 in particular, it is the lack of rockets that will prompt a competent CiC to use few if any of the type. There is simply not an advantage to using it over the A-8. So a minimum should probably have been used on the type.
 

[Joker312]

Jdog, giving the Axis a 24 fighter advantage is not what most of us would call "water over the dam".

We usually have around 250 or so players close to evenly split between the 2 sides. Take out the 36 buffs the Allied side must use and that leaves 89 fighters against 113. When you take into account that each side usually has to split resources among 2 or 3 objectives you create a situation where those 24 extra fighters that the axis has can overwhelm an allied group over 1 of the objectives then move to the next and do the same thing. This is not only contrary to the historical facts surrounding this battle ( the axis rarely had local air superiority but exactly the opposite) but is not very enjoyable for either side in our game.

I have enjoyed many FSO's and will enjoy this one regardless of the rules and plane sets. My only intent is to avoid a preventable mismatch that is no fun for any of us.

I have no idea what side I will be assigned to yet but if I do end up On the Axis team and we mass 109's to destroy the under escorted 36 allied bombers, I will surely not revel in our accomplishment. We all know we have seen that before.

[puller]

Give me 6 190f8s and I'll give u at least that many kills in return. ..my squad eats em up in the MA when we do anything with F8s     

[LilMak]

Give me 6 190f8s and I'll give u at least that many kills in return. ..my squad eats em up in the MA when we do anything with F8s     

The 56th would love to help you test that theory if we get some Jugs. 

[j500ss]

Jdog, giving the Axis a 24 fighter advantage is not what most of us would call "water over the dam".

We usually have around 250 or so players close to evenly split between the 2 sides. Take out the 36 buffs the Allied side must use and that leaves 89 fighters against 113. When you take into account that each side usually has to split resources among 2 or 3 objectives you create a situation where those 24 extra fighters that the axis has can overwhelm an allied group over 1 of the objectives then move to the next and do the same thing. This is not only contrary to the historical facts surrounding this battle ( the axis rarely had local air superiority but exactly the opposite) but is not very enjoyable for either side in our game.

I have enjoyed many FSO's and will enjoy this one regardless of the rules and plane sets. My only intent is to avoid a preventable mismatch that is no fun for any of us.

I have no idea what side I will be assigned to yet but if I do end up On the Axis team and we mass 109's to destroy the under escorted 36 allied bombers, I will surely not revel in our accomplishment. We all know we have seen that before.

Joker,

I totally hear what you are saying, but the decisions are made.   

Yes in all likely hood there will be some really ugly losses somewhere on the map.

I understand your intent, and I do not disagree with it, but the CM's have set the plane set in stone.  It may take a frame, but allies will adjust hopefully.

 

[Doc4]

Unforgiven updated