Vote on what will be the June, 2017 Scenario

[Brooke]

Hello, folks. 

We have been going for 3 scenarios per year:  February, June, and October.

For June, we are going for DGS/BOG-style setup (8th AF strategic bombing vs. Luftwaffe).

Please cast your vote for which of the following you want.

A. 
Early 1944, with:
B-17's, P-47D-11's, P-38J's, and small number of P-51B's
vs.
Bf 109G-2's, Bf 109G-6's, and FW 190A-8's.

B. 
Mid 1944, with:
B-17's, P-51B's, P-47D-25's, and P-38J's
vs.
Bf 109G-6's, Bf 109G-14's, and FW 190A-8's.

or

C. 
Mid 1945, with:
B-17's, P-51D's, and a small number of P-47M's
vs.
Bf 109K-4's and FW 190D-9's (maybe some 190A-8's -- tbd -- depends on axis desires and discussion in design topic)

Please pick A, B, or C.

Thank you, all! 

[BFOOT1]

C!
Requesting either the 355th, or 352nd FG

[oboe]

"A" sounds a lot like it could be Big Week.   I vote "A".

Me410 was used here, wasn't it?

[Chris79]

C

[FBKampfer]

Me 410's would be present throughout, and limited numbers of A5's could be present in early 44, depending on what "Early" is, and would make a better representation of the A6.

[Chris79]

But since if we do A, B, or C it's 3 ETOs in a row, how about east front I,e Karelia, or Japan vs Soviet Union. You know, maybe something different, especially since the Finns came out of hibernation.

[Brooke]

"A" sounds a lot like it could be Big Week.   I vote "A".

Me410 was used here, wasn't it?

Howdy, Oboe.

8th AF action, depending on time period, had some Bf 110's or Me 410's (maybe not many compared to 190A's, though).  They are good bomber killers if they get in firing range, of course, but in these scenarios, they have been unpopular and tended to get annihilated.  Folks seem to prefer the 190A, but . . .

We can open it up to discussion in the design forum, though, to see if the axis wants a little of them in place of some 190A's.

[Brooke]

But since if we do A, B, or C it's 3 ETOs in a row, how about east front I,e Karelia, or Japan vs Soviet Union. You know, maybe something different, especially since the Finns came out of hibernation.

I hear you.

We were thinking of Pacific Theater, but --

Lots of axis fliers didn't like the last scenario, and we wanted to give them something that historically they have liked a lot.

Also, the bomber folks have been really wanting a strategic-bombing scenario, especially with B-17's, and we haven't done a strategic-bombing scenario since 2015.

Maybe Pacific Theater for the one in October, but that's not locked in stone.

Karelia map isn't available in AH3 currently, and it wouldn't surprise me if that doesn't change any time soon.  We did Eastern Front with Dnieper in June, 2016.

[Brooke]

I have flown 110G's against the US set in Southern Conquest.  I thought flying the 110 would be horrible.  It wasn't -- but the alts were a bit less than they'll be in this one.  I don't like the handling of the 410, though.

[Zimme83]

A

[oboe]

Howdy, Oboe.

8th AF action, depending on time period, had some Bf 110's or Me 410's (maybe not many compared to 190A's, though).  They are good bomber killers if they get in firing range, of course, but in these scenarios, they have been unpopular and tended to get annihilated.  Folks seem to prefer the 190A, but . . .

We can open it up to discussion in the design forum, though, to see if the axis wants a little of them in place of some 190A's.

Hi Brooke,

Would it be possible to have a flexible planeset in the scenario design?  The way it works now is the scenario design is fixed (plane types, #slots, etc) and then we go about registering and filling available slots.   I'm wondering if it would be possible to include 110s and 410s as available in the design, and if people sign up to fly them, great- they'll be in, and if they don't, that's also fine, they just won't be there?

Does that make designing balance too difficult?   The 110 and 410 hit hard if they get through, but also have a lower chance if surviving to get through.   I think it'd be interesting as an option for the Axis each frame - maybe 110s or 410s in each frame, maybe not - all up to Axis command staff and whether pilots willing to fly them.

Might be a more realistic situation for Allied planners too - G2 can't provide full intel on what the bombers might face.

Same goes for Allies and the B-24.  It was operational with the 8th during this time frame, can it be included in the design as an option for the Allied Command staff and pilots to decide whether to deploy or not, each frame?

[jskibo]

A

[JunkyII]

C and add some TA152s to the setup

[puller]

Oboe... You can't have extra planes in waiting like that...you have to go off a set number and extrapolate a bunch of numbers to make sure each side has a equal chance of winning for l equal effort...

You can't have extra planes in the setup that may or may not be used...this would create unbalance... By axis having x number of 110s and allied x number of buffs you have equal out damage and effort between both...if one shows up or is decided to be used and other doesn't instant unbalance...

I might be wrong but I don't think so...

[oboe]

Thanks Puller, you are probably right.   It might be analogous to allowing an opposing chess player to choose at game time whether he wants to play with 2 knights and 2 bishops or 3 knights and 1 bishop, or 4 bishops and 0 knights, etc.   Its asymmetric and introduces fog of war, perhaps more realistic in that sense, but it may be too difficult to ensure balance if its dynamic like that.   

<S>