"Pantelleria, 1943" scenario-design topic

[Vudu15]

Weiser has asked if we can put in another Spitfire group into the design.

To add another Spitfire group, we would need to add another group to the Luftwaffe of course.  Also, we should increase the number of bombers a little to keep their ratio.

Thus registration would go from 68 to 84.  84 is higher than what registrations have been running, so I'm not sure it's a good idea.

But we are opening it up to discussion here to see what folks think.

I would say no. The axis are already going to be hard pressed to cover all targets with the ammo they have also hindered by 6 of your fighters being 202s Id say if wanting extras Stick to the write up and add them to 38s or 40s and I thought y'all had this sorted thats why they were talking directly with the CM team?

And what the heck do you mean you dont care what spits are in the event? I mean how are you supposed to balance an event if you dont care which model was really fighting in the area plus the range on the 8 alone makes it that much more dangerous.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

[TWCAxew]

31st had a mix of Vs and IXs from April of 43.  They got the VIIIs in August 43

Weiser has asked if we can put in another Spitfire group into the design.

What if we trade 1 group of p38 for spit 5s and trade the spit 8 for the 9?

DutchVII

[Devil 505]

I figured they must have run escort missions if their bombs have been disabled. I just wanted clarification. P.S. do you have that book? If so is it a good read? I need to add more to my bookshelf and since my birthday is coming up I can get away with spending a few hundred on books with the wife.

I do not have the book, but based on the selections in that preview it seems very good.

Here is an in depth review, with the same conclusion: http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2010/10/focke-wulf-190-in-battle-for-sicily.html

[Devil 505]

They had a mix of G-4s and G-6s. We don't have G-4s, so I requested a group of G-2s.

I'm sure the Luftwaffe experts will correct me if I'm wrong, but it also appears JG 53 was in G6s by the time of the Pantellaria operations in June of 43

I have a G-6 skin for 7./Jg  53  from this exact period, June '43 in Sicily.

I also have a II/Jg 27 skin for the G-2 from May '43 in Sicily.

I recommend switching the 109 types between these groups.

[Devil 505]

"No sector counters below 1000 ft.  Pantelleria and ships have no radar.  Sector counters only, no “dot” radar for land bases."
Will sector counters only work in areas with radar coverage?

[Larry]

I have a question. In the writeup it says Pantelleria will start out as an axis base but it says it will be an allied base after capture. Will the allies have to actually capture it or will the CMs simulate its capture in between or during a frame?

[TWCAxew]

I have a question. In the writeup it says Pantelleria will start out as an axis base but it says it will be an allied base after capture. Will the allies have to actually capture it or will the CMs simulate its capture in between or during a frame?

No sir,

If the allies score enough points they will gain control over the base.

So if they score by frame 2 enough points, than from frame 3 and on it will be there base. If the allies do not score enough points than the base remains axis for frame 3. If the points are gathered in frame 3 than the base will become allied in frame 4.

I hope this clears it up and pretty cool if you ask me

DutchVII

[Krusty]

31st had a mix of Vs and IXs from April of 43.  They got the VIIIs in August 43

F Mk.IXs or LF Mk.IXs? Because in this 1943 time slot the LFs were a little more common with the higher boost levels than our 1942-era F Mk.IX. In the past we've often subbed the 8 or the 16 in-game for the LF Mk.IXs as they better match its era-accurate performance. I'm not sure about this setup, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.

[asterix]

Maybe leave out the spread out axis task groups and concentrate on the island (including having some ships around it). Maybe leave out the JU88 as well and give allied more bombers. Have Luftwaffe trying to inflict heavy losses to allied aircraft before they bomb their target, instead of ships. Maybe make it more about the surrender of Pantelleria rather than capture. The combat area seems kind of spread out IMHO.

[perdue3]

I will add that the Spit IX would be better, but the 308th did have Spit VIII's in May. 31st FG would have had 2 full squads with IX's and 1  with VIII's. As far as how much service the VIII saw during Corkscrew, I do not know.

I would recommend renaming the units in the OOB. It just bothers me to see an entire FG or Gruppe be comprised of 6 pilots. I would bring it to the Squadron/Staffel level. I.e., rather than have 31st FG in Spitfire Mk. VIII's, have 31st FG/308th FS in Spit VIII's. If you change it to Mk. IX's, it would be either 307th or 309th. I will also second Devil's recommendation of placing the G-6's in JG 53 and the G-2's in JG 27. I would rename III./JG 53 to 7./JG 53 and II./JG 27 to 6./JG 27.

I also saw that bunkers and hangars are worth 3 points each. If 9 are destroyed (27 points) before Frame 3, the Allies receive .5 Victory points (please correct me if I am wrong). No problem here except that a hangar does not equal a bunker. You have hardness of bunkers at 2k lbs, where a hangar in 2,781 lbs. Considering that there are many more bunkers than there are hangars, I would either eliminate bunkers (barracks maybe?) or make them equal to hangars in terms of hardness. Thus, the hardness of bunkers would be 2.7812 in the arena settings. I say this because I would definitely tell my bombers to focus bunkers. You can effectively miss the bunkers and still achieve three points because of hardness settings versus a hangar.

Lastly, a tie is possible. If both sides win 2 frames and each side gain .5 Victory Points, it becomes a draw. It would be a draw even if one side dominated 2 frames and the other side barely won 2 frames. I would build in a VP system that disallows ties. You could  also apply a tiebreaker rule.

Overall, it looks pretty good for a preliminary write up. Looking forward to it 

[perdue3]

F Mk.IXs or LF Mk.IXs? Because in this 1943 time slot the LFs were a little more common with the higher boost levels than our 1942-era F Mk.IX. In the past we've often subbed the 8 or the 16 in-game for the LF Mk.IXs as they better match its era-accurate performance. I'm not sure about this setup, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.

If they sub a 16 for the 9, we will take some K-4's for our G-4's 

[perdue3]

One more note, sorry. I am not sure how I missed this initially, but SG 10 was not in existence during June, 1943. I will assume you mean SKG 10? It should also be II./SKG 10 or III./SKG 10 as I./SKG 10 was in France and Amsterdam during all of 1943. Going back to what I said in my earlier post regarding names, I would rename the 190's to 9./SKG 10 (which is a part of III Gruppe).

[Brooke]

Speaking for my squadron, it will be composed out of guys who will fly for the first time a scenario or don't fly in it regularly. So that should bumb numbers up a touch. They will fly in it because I asked them to.

DutchVII

Good work, Dutch! 

[bgoldy]

Maybe leave out the spread out axis task groups and concentrate on the island (including having some ships around it). Maybe leave out the JU88 as well and give allied more bombers. Have Luftwaffe trying to inflict heavy losses to allied aircraft before they bomb their target, instead of ships. Maybe make it more about the surrender of Pantelleria rather than capture. The combat area seems kind of spread out IMHO.

So basically the last scenario again?

[Brooke]

And what the heck do you mean ...

This is the main point:  I'm not an expert on whether 8's or 9's were there, so I'm leaving that determination to people with expertise; and I'm OK with whichever one they determine is most appropriate.