Design discussion for October Scenario (Target Rabaul)

[Guppy35]

Eliminate the 24s, make the 25H's C strafers as they were.  Make it more Zekes and Tonies.  Make the 38's 38G's as they weren't flying Js during the major fights over Rabaul. 

Figure out a way to keep the fight in the mid alt to low alt realm that it was fought at as most of us get tired of trying to out climb the other guy to 35K.

With the numbers we've been having, I'd think you'd want to compress the fight anyway instead of spreading it from 30K down. 

Instead of 24s, add more 25s, with maybe the addition being the Marine Mitchells that fought over Rabaul.  Maybe those can be Hs since there is that nice Navy scheme skin for the H?

Maybe include the RAAF P40s that fought over Rabaul?

Any consideration of a single carrier?  Rabaul had Kate's and they did try and use them against Allied targets, and there were some carrier aircraft attacking Rabaul.  Might give the Japanese a way to do some extra damage if they could put the carrier out of the war.

I'd suggest changing the 9th FS 38s to 475th if for no other reason than some really nice skins.  Again if you use the G, it would be closer to the truth. 

[Fencer51]

It is sort of ironic that the long anticipated/desired Mission Rabaul scenario is nothing like the actual fight.

[Fencer51]

A couple things. 

From the Southern Flank:  First of all this scenario is centered around Rabaul.  Not New Guinea.  RAAF P-40s and USAAF P-39s and P-47s did not have the legs to get all the way up to Rabaul and back.  So the main/only aircraft "escorting" bombers from down south were P-38s.

From the Solomons:  When Ondonga and points west were taken AIRSOLS was able to reach Rabaul.  F4Fs are no longer in the game with F4Us and F6F-3s taking over for Navy and Marine squadrons.  BTW VF-33 was the F6F squadron.  RNZAF P-40s are capable of escorts to Bougainville but not Rabaul.  November 5th and November 11th of 1943 were very interesting dates, perhaps for a future event.

[Guppy35]

Could be I'm remembering it wrong and it's the RNZAF P-40s. At work at the moment so the books aren't in reach    I just recall they were in some of the same fights as the Corsairs.  Some of the P40 pilots who were downed were executed on Rabaul

[Fencer51]

Whoops... December 17th 1943 they opened up a base on Bougainville at Torokina.  They did use RNZAF P-40s from there to reach Rabaul.

[Devil 505]

It is sort of ironic that the long anticipated/desired Mission Rabaul scenario is nothing like the actual fight.

BINGO!

[Brooke]

Why don't you

For reasons already listed above a few times.

[Brooke]

Any chance of setting an altitude cap or at least a small downdraft above 25k?

The writeup lists alt cap for bombers and downwind at 24k.

[Brooke]

Seems you fail to remember the problem. Fighters get killed off piecemeal and the bombers run unopposed on their 3rd lives until the clock runs out.

HOH is a different setup with way different scoring and aircraft, but

If a side,s fighters get dominated, that side is going to lose. That isnt going to change even if b25s have zero lives.

The comcern here isnt that b25s will be too dominant but if they will get annihilated evey single mission.

[Guppy35]

HOH is a different setup with way different scoring and aircraft, but

If a side,s fighters get dominated, that side is going to lose. That isnt going to change even if b25s have zero lives.

The comcern here isnt that b25s will be too dominant but if they will get annihilated evey single mission.

That's what the 38s are for, to keep them safe

[Devil 505]

HOH is a different setup with way different scoring and aircraft, but

If a side,s fighters get dominated, that side is going to lose. That isnt going to change even if b25s have zero lives.

The comcern here isnt that b25s will be too dominant but if they will get annihilated evey single mission.

Different setup, same mistake.

The defense does not have enough planes to counter both the attacking fighters and bombers. Over the course of a frame, the Allies will have 30 more planes than the Axis if every slot is filled on both sides. It is not reasonable to expect enough bombers to die in their first two lives to negate the loss of defending fighters and points scored by the B-25's on their 3rd lives. No point's system can bring this into balance. Every pilot should only have 2 bites at the apple - no exceptions.

That's what the 38s are for, to keep them safe

Guppy get's it. Make the escorts escort.

[Arlo]

Over the course of a frame, the Allies will have 30 more planes than the Axis if every slot is filled on both sides.

That's kinda misleading. A true disparity would be if the Allied could field 30 more planes all at once. With multiple bomber lives you're looking at waves of bombers reorganizing for runs on the fly and likely flying in partial groups if survivors are left to RTB. Without the additional lives you are likely looking at a majority of the bombers suffering attrition on their first run and the rest of the frame only having air to air superiority match-ups (only, as Guppy said and you supported, the Allied fighters are mainly in this to protect the Allied bombers and the Allies score frame points by bombing targets so there really won't be anything left of the frame).

[Brooke]

Eliminate the 24s,

Since we have a contingent of dedicated, enthusiastic scenario players who are level bomber pilots, I like whenever possible to have some level bombers.  Also, level bombers are a great way to integrate new players into scenarios.  (I've done that with about 5 people so far and am hoping to get a couple more in that way this scenario or next.)

Make the 38's 38G's as they weren't flying Js during the major fights over Rabaul.

I'm happy to do that.  I tried to figure out if the 9th was in J's or not during this time.  I think they were, but I'm not positive.  Not sure about the 80th.  If they were in G's in late 43 early 44, let's use G's.

Figure out a way to keep the fight in the mid alt to low alt realm that it was fought at as most of us get tired of trying to out climb the other guy to 35K.

The fights will be from 24k on down, with bombers maxed at 18k, and B-25's on the deck (so you know there will be fighting on the deck).  In the real action, the B-24's were mostly at 20-22k and the US fighters above that, and the intercepting Zeros up there, too, so not all of it was down low -- but it often degenerated into lower fights as panes got into it (as will probably be the case here).

Maybe include the RAAF P40s that fought over Rabaul?

They did some, but were a much smaller contingent than the US stuff.

To do that, we would need to subtract some p38's and f4u's to add the p40's.  Then, I'm skeptical that the allies could fill them and fly them every frame, instead of them being mostly empty.  My thought is that players like the idea of p40's among p38's, corsairs, etc., but generally want someone else to fly them.

Any consideration of a single carrier?

We have about 40 guys on a side (or slightly less who actually show per frame).  Not enough people to have SBD's, TBM's, F6F's, F4U's, P-38's, B-25's, and B-24's, so the voting was for the land-based part of the battle.

[Brooke]

It is sort of ironic that the long anticipated/desired Mission Rabaul scenario is nothing like the actual fight.

Now Fencer, no need to get all curmudgeonly.

I don't remember it being either long anticipated or long desired here in Aces High.  Among us scenario folks, I think we all have long realized that you can't run a battle of Zeros vs. Corsairs, Hellcats, and P-38's.  You would never get enough players, and even if you did, the Japanese would get massacred.

So, we have two choices:  don't ever run it, or run it with an upgraded Japanese plane set.

When we did voting, there were two choices with plane sets that had little or no alteration, and this choice, which listed that the Japanese plane set had to be altered.

Players chose this.

[Brooke]

The defense does not have enough planes to counter both the attacking fighters and bombers.

One way to look at these things is (excess fighters)/(bomber aircraft).  In this one, the allies have 30 fighters and 12 bombers (6 of which are singlet b25's on the deck).  The axis has 34 fighters.  (excess fighters)/(bomber aircraft) = 4 / (6*3 + 6) = 0.17.  In Big Week, it was 0.23.  In HOH, it was 0.08.  In BOWL, it was 0.06.  As some examples.

Big Week worked out fine.  HOH and BOWL, the side opposing the bombers lost.  This one has excess/bomberAircraft significantly greater than BOWL and HOH.  It is not as high as Big Week -- but keep in mind that B-17's at 24k are much tougher than B-24's at 18k and certainly tougher than B-25's at 0k.

I am not concerned that B-25's are too tough for the Japanese.  I'm concerned the other way.