PDA

View Full Version : Pearl Harbour Map



charliechap
15-08-2006, 12:12
Played this map last night.

It is a great map and a lot of fun.... HOWEVER-

As BLUE we had 4-6 Val and Kate bombers in big formations attacking around the clock....and despite frequent hits failed to sink anything RED at all.
Not terrible bombing, but because the Vals 250lb bombs are very ineffective against warships (historical !), whilst only the most skilfull players can take a Kate torpedo bomber of stationary carriers.

Historically the IJN CCG (Central Carrier Group) launched two waves of over 150 attack bombers and only sunk permanently ONE battleship (another settled on the bottom but was later raised) and damaged several others.
And then the US airforce was caught on the ground mostly as well. (Xcept for Ben Afflick of course, and whats his name ?)

I think you will find that BLUE have never won this map ever as it stands (by sinking allied ships as opposed to Red running out of planes), It really is outright impossible for them.

(n.b- there where many hundreds of US planes in Pearl and hundreds of IJN planes on the carriers so plane limits perhaps not relevant for this one.)

If the BLUES had to only sink maybe 20% - (40%) (not sure if there are light and merchant ships in the harbour ? the obvious target is the battleships) of ships in Pearl harbour this map would become more balanced and competative.....instead of the 100% that they cannot possibly achieve.

At the moment for Blue this Pearl Harbour is:-
:wall: :mp5:

Algorex
15-08-2006, 12:44
It has been won by the blue, usually by skip bombing zeros and vals. Last night as the mission ended reds had only 1 plane left so if anyone would've been shot down reds would've lost.

On a sidenote i do think that there's something fishy going on with the deck armour on cruisers and smaller ships. IRL an armour-piercing 250kg bomb could penetrate all but BB class deck armour.

charliechap
15-08-2006, 14:22
After enjoying many months flying on UKded2 I thought I would join,

Thank you all for your work and dedication, it really shows !

I did some brief research, perhaps these statistics may help:-

Ships In Pearl Harbour on December 7th:-

8 Battleships, 2 Cruisers, 6 Light Cruisers, 39 Destroyers, 4 subs, 7 Minesweepers, 22 fleet auxillary and merchant ships...plus PT boats in area.

Impossible to model all in this game but many ships could be light and merchant ships.

US Airpower at Pearl harbour on Dec 7th:-

18th FG- 90 P40B's
45th FS- 39 P36's
46th FS- 18 P40B's
47th FS- 3 P-26A
78th FS- 10 P-26A (these are US biplane fighters, i153 or cr42 could make a good substitute and slow manouverable biplanes would be interesting against Zeros don't you think ?)

VMF 211- 10 F4F3's
VMSB- 22 SBD Dauntless

+ 2 understrength B17 (early B's caught on ground !) Bomber groups PLUS 50 + Catallinas.

About 20-30% of these planes were unservicable and of course in RL the majority of them got hit on the ground.

The IJN CCG - 6 Fleet carriers-

150+ Zeros
150 Vals
120 Kates.

Really should be no shortage of Pilots on either side.

Hope this helps. I realize that a good dogfight map need not adhere rigidly to History if it detracts from gameplay, however in this case a bit of tweaking and close adherance to history might actually work better ?.

Anyhow Hope this is of some help and I have not been too much of an 'Anorak, trainspotter...etc...etc...'

Charlie :)

Zorin
15-08-2006, 15:22
Ok, so there should be only P40Bs, F4F3s and SBD3s on red side, right? A limit of 30 P40Bs and 10 F4F3s seems to be reasonable in this case, don't you agree?

charliechap
15-08-2006, 15:50
I know that you have done a lot of this kind of balancing recently Zorin so would imagine you have a far better grasp of the kind of figures that work ingame than I do.

I suppose if you scale the IJN and the US planes so that they are proportional to their historical numbers you would get a fair representation.

So if 30 P40b's equates to about 100 historic plane. (but you could perhaps increase this a little to account for the P36's and 26's that are not flyable.)

that would give you about 4 F3F's and about 8 SBD's

and 45 Zeros would equate to about 150 historic planes I suppose ? (although again this could be increased because all IJN planes where in top line fighting condition.

I read the dogfightmap design brief on this forum recently and am very interested in learning about it.

History is a primary interest as you can possibly tell.

( I designed a couple of Offline campaigns earlier this year so am fairly familiar with offline scenario design:- Two 50+ mission campaigns called:- The Battle of Malta 1940-42 (GB) and (IT). ) (n.b. have read a LOT about the early war in the med if you need info on planesets and numbers for this theatre, obviously Malta especially, but Cyrenaica and Greece/Crete are very interesting also)

Gordano
15-08-2006, 16:10
Ok, so there should be only P40Bs, F4F3s and SBD3s on red side, right? A limit of 30 P40Bs and 10 F4F3s seems to be reasonable in this case, don't you agree?

I rather confused,

Are you saying we should limit the reds to a total of 40 fighter aircraft and then only allow them SBDs once they have run out?

Or are there other fighters available for the reds, because last time I played this map the P40s and F4Fs were the only red fighter options.

I have to say this sounds like limiting things simply for the sake of limiting things. There is always going to be a percieved historical imbalance on this map because the Japanese achieved their successes on the back of a surprise attack and the Americans having breakfast rather than being airborne. Not as our scenario depicts two evenly balanced teams, with Japanese attack aircraft coming up against a similar number of US fighters.

I don't see how restricting aircraft is going to do anything, maybe we should restrict the spawn size at the US base....

I do however like Charliechap's idea of using the CR42 to mimic the p26 bi-planes.

charliechap
15-08-2006, 16:23
You can limit Base size ?.

Now that would provide a great solution to this I would think.

No need to restrict the number of pilots or planes for IJN or for P40b's but restrict F4F3 and possibly P26 (cr42 substitute ?) to historical.

BLUE perhaps should not be able to win by destroying a certain number of Red planes , this was one of the objectives of the Pearl Raid, to destroy the US airpower...but after all Pearl is famous as a naval attack and not for Zero's dogfighting)

Then if you had a max of 10 allied planes (representing surprise and the underdog)...you could have 22 IJN

BUT then balance it up by making the BLUE victory conditions require that they sink a LOT of US ships although not ALL asthis was never the intention or a real possibility at Pearl harbour anyhow.

With more transports, Destroyers, a few subs ets added or substituted the harbour would also fill with smoking and sinking ships a la the movie....

In the Brief you would have to explain the side ratio. But players would almost certainly go along with this if they understood it.

Many scenarios would benefit from this approach I think...eg BOB, Malta etc etc...the great defences...the victory conditions provide balance not simply equality of numbers of players.

Gordano
15-08-2006, 16:53
You can limit Base size ?

Theoretically yes, but it is rather tricky to do and happens and is more likely to happen by accident.

My comment was more tongue in cheek than anything.

It would not be wise to try to force a limit on the size of one team, the map would simply turn into a huge mass of zeros launching fighter bomber strikes on the harbour and then dominating the red fighters trying to defend. I could quite easily see a mass exodus of those who are unable to fly blue from the server.

The scenario that you invisage would probably be more suited to a coop than a dogfight map. We have to accept that a good proportion of those who join the server do so to have dogfights and the like and we have to design our maps around this, I would imagine even if we had a bombers only map you would soon see JU88s and B25s trying to out turn each other!

Zorin
15-08-2006, 16:57
I rather confused,

Are you saying we should limit the reds to a total of 40 fighter aircraft and then only allow them SBDs once they have run out?

Or are there other fighters available for the reds, because last time I played this map the P40s and F4Fs were the only red fighter options.

I have to say this sounds like limiting things simply for the sake of limiting things. There is always going to be a percieved historical imbalance on this map because the Japanese achieved their successes on the back of a surprise attack and the Americans having breakfast rather than being airborne. Not as our scenario depicts two evenly balanced teams, with Japanese attack aircraft coming up against a similar number of US fighters.

I don't see how restricting aircraft is going to do anything, maybe we should restrict the spawn size at the US base....

I do however like Charliechap's idea of using the CR42 to mimic the p26 bi-planes.

There are P40Es present for the red side as of now, completely wrong IMO. And yes, we should limit the numbers of red planes to a rather low amount of around 40 fighters and make the only objective to protect the harbour. Otherwise there would be no point in having a Pearl Harbour scenario when it could be any other pacific air raid cause of the present setup.


In the Brief you would have to explain the side ratio. But players would almost certainly go along with this if they understood it.

BIG MISTAKE! Belive it or not, the majority of people are too dumb or to ignorant to get the idea. I mean, they fail at something simple like correct markings... :wall: Treat them like three year olds and you migh get things working.

Zorin
15-08-2006, 17:04
Charlie, might you take a look at this and tell us if we got it right: Malta mission (http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=10926&page=1&pp=20)

charliechap
15-08-2006, 17:24
The behaviour of people on dogfight servers is quite new to me and I am sure that all you say is true. :(

A great shame, You must find a lot of my optimism very naive in lieu of your experiences.

I hope you don't object to my flurry of thoughts, I am happy if my ideas provoke thoughtful discussion, which they seem to have done.

Yes Zorin, I will look at the Malta thread, make some notes and compose a reply.

Zorin
15-08-2006, 17:31
The behaviour of people on dogfight servers is quite new to me and I am sure that all you say is true. :(

A great shame, You must find a lot of my optimism very naive in lieu of your experiences.

I hope you don't object to my flurry of thoughts, I am happy if my ideas provoke thoughtful discussion, which they seem to have done.

Yes Zorin, I will look at the Malta thread, make some notes and compose a reply.

Don't be ashamed, I started the whole thing with the same optimism and learned it the hard way that there is more stupidity out there than you'd ever expected..but it is the sad truth...

But every idea a worth a discussion so your input is highly appreciated :)

And thans for taking on the review of the Malta mission :)

System-M-
15-08-2006, 18:25
Even tho the P-40E was there it didnt last very long, i got more kills in the B than E i think i got 2 flights in an E and they were gone adn only 4 or 5 of us flew them.

Algorex
15-08-2006, 19:23
On that note why not delete the SBDs from the flyable list, it's kinda sad seeing players taking off in them and trying to attack the carriers (only to give the blues even bigger alt advantage). P-40E isn't such a big issue performance wise since red are underdogs over the harbour if the zeros have any sense in them (alt advantage again) although historically they are out of the question. The ships in the harbour could be changed so that instead of BB we'd have CAs/CLs which in turn would be replaced by DDs with some extra mechants to bring up the numbers.

In my book playablity ALWAYS goes infront of historical properties, looks and other details.

Playablity = competive planeset, achievable objectives on both sides, clear map lay out (very small change of accidental FF) and smooth performance.

ForkTailedDevil
15-08-2006, 19:25
The P-26 would be more like a I16 with fixed landing gear maybe a P.11c or G.50 would be better. P-26 wasn't a biplane.
P26 pic (http://www.warbirdcentral.com/images/warbirds/p26_monumental.jpg)

charliechap
15-08-2006, 19:44
My mistake about the P26....I am happy to be corrected. :)

This opens up future possibility, it really looks like a G50 or mc200 doesn't it !

Firelok
15-08-2006, 20:21
Some interesting thoughts about Pearl here, I think a good starting point for considering our Pearl harbour scenario is it's a 'what if' the US Forces acted on the intel and radar info they had rather than what actually occurred.
My thoughts are this....
Our scenarios are two-fold; function 1 to provide an interesting background for the Dogfighting; function 2 to provide adequate and interesting targets for those more objective/bomber minded.
Limiting the overall amount of planes for one side to a lesser number (in this case Reds) is what balances the difficulties of killing large capital ships with low yeild bombs for blue.
This scenario regardless of the completion/difficulty of function2 above provides a very good background in a function 1 (above) sense. Flying red here is challenging and gives a feeling of being on the 'back-foot'

Firelok
20-08-2006, 10:30
Trying to sum up the recent discussions about Pearl, it's this....
Blues have got a problem blowing up the Battleships which are their objective.
because it's impossible to take off with the required ordinance on a B5N2.
Val's and Zeros' have effectively the same bombload (250kg) so to really make an impact blues need the B5N2 'Kate' to attack the ships.
How would it affect things if we gave the 'Kates' a helping hand? airstarting them over the IJN fleet?

stanford
20-08-2006, 11:59
I think it depends on just how fast they can get to the ships with an airstart. If reds can have a fair chance of getting to their approach altitude as they get there I see no problem. If their first wave is simply untouchable then I'd avoid it.

Saying that, if their first wave was untouchable it would be a bit more realistic, eh?

Firelok
20-08-2006, 13:41
I think it depends on just how fast they can get to the ships with an airstart. If reds can have a fair chance of getting to their approach altitude as they get there I see no problem. If their first wave is simply untouchable then I'd avoid it.

Saying that, if their first wave was untouchable it would be a bit more realistic, eh?
The Kate has it's own problems even when in the air,it's slow (347kmh at sea level), unmanouverable and has poor defensive armament. It's only advantages are it carries torps or an 800kg bomb and has a lvl stabilizer option.

Zorin
20-08-2006, 14:21
I guess an airstarted Kate wouldn't unbalance the map at all. Chances to arrive at Pearl in one piece will be rare, getting back quite unlikely. So we should give it a try and change the BBs for CAs and the same with the other ship classes.

Firelok
20-08-2006, 20:07
If we downgrade the size of ship to Cruisers etc then why bother helping the Kates??

Zorin
20-08-2006, 21:25
Cause they won't make it anyway. The Kate has no protection for the crew or fuel tanks. They'll be up in flames or spinning down to earth with dead crew aboard.

Gordano
21-08-2006, 10:18
Cause they won't make it anyway. The Kate has no protection for the crew or fuel tanks. They'll be up in flames or spinning down to earth with dead crew aboard.

Such an incentive to fly one...... :D

Firelok
08-12-2006, 06:27
Made some alterations in the same vein as Midway. In an attempt to get more bomber action vs the Battleships I've added an airstart for the B5N and D3A1 and de-restricted most of the planes on both side.