Pacific Solo Campaign (Over the Trenches Style)

[Marechallannes]

Pacific Solo Campaign - Over the Trenches Style.



Location:

New Guinea
Solomon Islands

Time:

Starting point early '42.

Mid 1942 to mid 1943

Planes:

F4F Wildcat (Ares/Nexus)
P-40 (Ares/Nexus)
B-25 Mitchell (Ares/Nexus)
Boeing B-17F (Monogram)
C-47 (Zvezda)
P-39 Aircobra (AIM)
Dauntless (AIM)
Avenger (AIM)

Zero (Ares/Nexus)
Val (Ares/Nexus)
Tony (Ares/Nexus)
Kate (AIM)
Betty (AIM)

Spitfire

Nations:

China - Flying Tigers

UK, USA, Japan, China, URSS

US Navy, USAAF, USMC, RAF, RAAF, IJN, IJAF

Missions:

1) Jap attack on a town/harbour (Port Moresby/Java/Midway etc)
2) Shipping attack on a Supply Ship
3) Recon Mission--- spot the Enemy
4) Stop the Troops Landing from Barges
5) Carrier plane Battles
6) Attack on Carriers/ Cruisers/Destroyers
7) Bomb Rabaul/Truk etc
8) Sink the Yamato

Bomber escort
Bomber interception

Players:

Roster:

Spreadsheet
Thread roster

Rules:

Solo charts - Some of the Midway Rising rules?

1. One mission a month,
2. A rather individual, than a squadron based campaign,
3. Fewer planes in a mission...it can be sometimes painful and annoying to run lots of AI aircraft across the table...

Standart Missions usable for all theaters

Individual designed missions

Different goals for each side per mission

Units:

VF-8 (Marechallannes)

[Marechallannes]

This should be a little brainstorming thread what we can use for a Pacific Solo Campaign (Over the Trenches Style) with 5 - 10 missions.

Campaign start is April/May next year.

The XXX above are for our results.

First questions are:

Where to fight?

When to fight?

What planes do we have?

What nations can be involved?

What kind of missions?

Who desing what?

What general rules?

etc...

[7eat51]

O.K. Seeing that picture, I'm playing for the Allies in this one.

I am more than happy designing scenarios.

I wouldn't mind seeing something coming out of China - Flying Tigers.

As for planes, I have all the Nexus/Ares Japanese and Allied planes. If we move beyond what has been offered officially, I will need Shapeways, etc.

[Marechallannes]

Do you want take part in the Pacific section, Eric?

[7eat51]

If acceptable to the group, I would like to play in the Pacific, BoB, and Malta. Basically, Sven, I would like to participate in all the theaters we settle on. If we have to choose one and only one theater, I'll play wherever someone is needed; let the others choose first, and I'll fill in accordingly.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Across the world, everywhere. An excell spreadsheet has already been developed covering this. Don't restrict missions, let all who aply come up with their own for whatever theatre and those who have mini's fight in whatever theatre they can, for which ever side. A truely epic scale WW2 campaign. Scenario's need not be restricted to a specific time but misions can be flown early, mid or late depending again on mini's.

Just my thoughts.

But I'm in for whatever is decided if that is ok.

[Brambo]

I would love to fight in all areas but I only have limited minis atm, until Ares releases more. So being able to jump from area to area and do the missions I have minis for would be great fun. Mine could be the reserve Squadron helping out as the industrial machine churns out replacements.

[Marechallannes]

Across the world, everywhere. An excell spreadsheet has already been developed covering this. Don't restrict missions, let all who aply come up with their own for whatever theatre and those who have mini's fight in whatever theatre they can, for which ever side. A truely epic scale WW2 campaign. Scenario's need not be restricted to a specific time but misions can be flown early, mid or late depending again on mini's.

Just my thoughts.

But I'm in for whatever is decided if that is ok.

Do we have already a spreadsheet?

I see massive problems for common missions for all theaters. Some will fit for shure.

Most of the briefings need to be individal, sticking to historical backgrounds and the theater.

A dive bomber mission versus British costal installaitions need pictures with Stukas and British radar towers, or not?

I think we can't compare a mission with heavy German fighters over the Channel with an Aussi Beaufighter attack near the coast of New Guinea.

So we need a minimum of separation.

[fast.git]

I'm throwing my hat in the ring... I'll fly for the Allies or Japanese, just let me know what's needed. I've got all of the Ares/Nexus planes for the Pacific, plus a couple of SBDs.

[fast.git]

I think we can't compare a mission with heavy German fighters over the Channel with an Aussi Beaufighter attack near the coast of New Guinea.

So we need a minimum of separation.

I don't disagree that there will be challenges... and I certainly share the opinion that each mission briefing needs to be personalized to some extent (images, location, etc.), but is it possible to identify mission type in a general sense (bomber escort, fighter sweep, interception, recon, etc.), and then have someone flesh out the specifics for each region?

[Blackronin]

I always like a squadron based campaign. It gives a natural link between missions and adds character and humanity to the process. So my two cents to Sven questions is:

Where to fight?
We should start a Pacific campaign and use some of the scenarios in other campaigns and vice-versa.

When to fight?
1942 and going up from there.

What planes do we have?
F4F Wildcat (Ares/Nexus)
P-40 (Ares/Nexus)
B-25 Mitchell (Ares/Nexus)
Boeing B-17F (Monogram)
C-47 (Zvezda)
P-39 Aircobra (AIM)
Dauntless (AIM)
Avenger (AIM)

Zero (Ares/Nexus)
Val (Ares/Nexus)
Tony (Ares/Nexus)
Kate (AIM)
Betty (AIM)

What nations can be involved?
UK, USA, Japan, China, URSS (Although I prefer USA vs. Japan)

What kind of missions?
We can got into the pool of the missions we already designed (even WW1) and redo some.

Who design what?
Everyone gets to design missions.

What general rules?
Solo charts - Some of the Midway Rising rules?

[fast.git]

So my two cents to Sven questions is:

I'll play in that campaign.

[fast.git]

I always like a squadron based campaign.

I like the squadron-based campaigns as well, but I think the nature of the war in the Pacific might challenge that approach. I've got AVG, USAAF, USN, USMC, RAF, RNAS, RAAF, IJN, IJA, and Dutch, aircraft that could, conceivably find their way into a scenario. So far as I understand, they rarely flew together... so limiting choices to a single squadron potentially keeps a significant number of my models off the table.

I don't have a solution for this... but hope we can brainstorm something.

[Nightbomber]

I will join the Japanese side this time, if you do not mind chaps
Some thoughts:
1. One mission a month,
2. A rather individual, than a squadron based campaign,
3. Fewer planes in a mission...it can be sometimes painful and annoying to run lots of AI aircraft across the table... just my two cents...

[fast.git]

2. A rather individual, than a squadron based campaign,
3. Fewer planes in a mission...it can be sometimes painful and annoying to run lots of AI aircraft across the table... just my two cents...

To start, I agree with #3. At least, for most of the missions. Lots of AI can bog down games dramatically. As for #2, how would you approach this Andrzej? I'm not against the idea, but what would link the players of the campaign together if not flying for the same squadron?

Perhaps each participant has a pilot in each squadron (the rest being NPCs)... and they could choose which squadron to represent for each mission?

[Nightbomber]

Agreed Chris. I ment there is a kind of headache to run numbers of AI driven planes, especially when one of your own planes is out of action. My goal is to reduce the number of ai driven crafts in a mission

[gully_raker]

G'day Chaps!
Yes I agree its very difficult to play a solo mission with more that 4 aircraft (2 AI & 2 player controlled.
You can do 3 a side but need more time.

My choice mainly because of my interest & Aircraft availability is a Pacific Campaign.

Below are some suggestions but I am sure others can come up with some "quirky" missions.

Starting point early '42.
1) Jap attack on a town/harbour (Port Moresby/Java/Midway etc)
2) Shipping attack on a Supply Ship
3) Recon Mission--- spot the Enemy
4) Stop the Troops Landing from Barges
5) Carrier plane Battles
6) Attack on Carriers/ Cruisers/Destroyers
7) Bomb Rabaul/Truk etc
8) Sink the Yamato

[7eat51]

I'm inclined that each theater has missions written specific to the theater, otherwise we might be simply swapping one nation's planes for another. I think that might lose some of the feel for the different theaters.

In the Pacific theater, it seems that the Japanese players could have rosters of pilots fairly easy, grouped n a fictitious squadron that provides ample space for different planes, battles, types of missions, etc. This would be similar to OTT. The Allied players have a little more challenge given the national orientation of some of the planes. I would be more than open, however, to have a roster comprised of different nationalities, and think in terms of joint operations, almost like a specially formed unit with access to a variety of planes - stretches historical accurateness, but conducive to game play.

One thing I would suggest is that we outline the generic type of mission in a calendar so that players have time to secure the requisite types of planes. So if we appropriate a list like Barry's, we know when a type of mission will occur, without having to have the actual mission developed long beforehand. If I know that in August, we'll be playing a mission in which the Japanese will intercept a group of bombers, I know I will need bombers.

One issue I see that is very different from OTT is that the Japanese and Allied players could be playing different games to some degree. In OTT, everyone plays the same mission, say bombing a target. With this campaign. the Allies could be trying to sink the Yamato while the Japanese are trying to defend her; both sides would not be trying to sink a ship. This could change if the Japanese are trying to sink a specific Allied ship while the Allies are trying to sink the Yamato. Any preference for how we play this?

[fast.git]

One issue I see that is very different from OTT is that the Japanese and Allied players could be playing different games to some degree. In OTT, everyone plays the same mission, say bombing a target. With this campaign. the Allies could be trying to sink the Yamato while the Japanese are trying to defend her; both sides would not be trying to sink a ship. This could change if the Japanese are trying to sink a specific Allied ship while the Allies are trying to sink the Yamato. Any preference for how we play this?

I'm not sure how I feel about this. My initial response is that I don't think we should be targeting specific ships... rather than trying to sink the Yamato (weren't more than 300 aircraft involved in sinking her!?), why not focus a mission on interdicting shipping or striking at generic warships? That way we're not tied down to a specific chronology.

Additionally, I would struggle with late war sorties as most of my Pacific theater aircraft are 1941-1943...

[Marechallannes]

Barry, that is a great first mission propposal!

That's something we can work with.

I played a mission with six AI controlled WW II planes, it's a lot of work. There are possibilities to skip some parts, if you let fly enemy bombers in formation, etc...



Eric, you see it's not difficult to develop a bunch of individual mission, even if they are similar to other theaters. What all missions have in commen are the basic rules, dice rolls for pilots, etc.

How to play a "Sink the Yamato" mission vice versa. That easy, the Allies try to sink/damage the ship in their mission and the Axis defend it.

That's one difference to the original OTT missions. Same briefing but different mission goals.

To keep the balance there should be a bombing mission whith Jap bombers, that try tho sink/damage an Allied CV/BB or bomb a harbour. Then the Allies are the defender.



Christopher, the Yamato saw service from december 41 - mid 45. We need a few VIP targets for a nice final mission or run vs. a CV.

A quick view on Barry's proposal and I think this missions are 100% covered with 1942 planes. ...and we have the the possibility to intergrate the Kawasaki Ki-61.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Sven not all players have planes for specific theatres. The idea to throw it open world wide gives a player to post a mission scenario for a theatre he has planes in. Anyone else can take it up and fly it. I'm not saying generic scenario's for all theatres but theater specific scenario's. Players join in when and where they can. The spreadsheet is done, I have it. It was developed for Tikkifirends idea of a world wide conflict run on the OTT campaign idea. We called it 'Out of The Trenches'.

Players could fly for both sides if they so wished. I could maintain the spreadsheet like Flash does for the OTT WW1.
Obviously pilots would have to be restricted to say two per player, a pilot and his trusty wingman.
Casualty replacements as and when required.
The campaign can be played at any time during the conflict so is not restricted to say 1940 France or 1943 Pacific.
Players play when they can with what they have in the time line of the war and post their results.
Players can post missions, which can be time specific, into a thread pool, others can play them and post results.
So the entire campaign is not restricted to 'x' missions before it ends its just a rolling on going campaign that expands as more and more aircraft are released or non Ares aircraft are used by those who have them.
It is not complicated only sounds complicated.

Do we have already a spreadsheet?

I see massive problems for common missions for all theaters. Some will fit for shure.

Most of the briefings need to be individal, sticking to historical backgrounds and the theater.

A dive bomber mission versus British costal installaitions need pictures with Stukas and British radar towers, or not?

I think we can't compare a mission with heavy German fighters over the Channel with an Aussi Beaufighter attack near the coast of New Guinea.

So we need a minimum of separation.

[Marechallannes]

Sound like a little bit huge project and I have my reasonable doubts if we can hold the gamers with this kind of campaign.

Play a scenario here, play a scenario there, once Axis next time Allies.

For shure there are volunteers for all theaters and missions at the moment, but I don't believe it works this way.

The core thread should be one like you described it. But without clear defined subsections, like Pacific (New Guinea), BOB and Malta, etc. the chances for a identification with this campaign are low.



The roster work is a point that's very important to me. To be restricted to only two pilots is unimagenable.

I can image two big rosters per theater like this one:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...echallannes%29

For the Pacific campaign I would propose one big Allied roster with US-Navy, USMC, RAAF, RAF and USAAF pilots and one Japanese roster
.

[Blackronin]

I tend to agree with Sven.
The only thing I would add is that we could revise some missions to use them in the other war theatres.

[Marechallannes]

Shure.

Combat air patrols, escort missions, etc... No problem.

[Jager]

One problem I can see is the lack of an official allied divebomber and Japanese 2 engine bomber.
This means people without time or skill to paint AIM/Shapeways planes won't be able to fully participate, or
missions become fighter sweeps.
For my thoughts, I would favor a New Guinea or Guadalcanal campaign.
Karl

[Marechallannes]

Absoltely right Karl.

Another reason to limit the numbers of mission.

Fortunately I have two AIM Dauntless bombers, but official Miniatures we have only the Val dive bomber and the B-25. Fighter-bombers not included.

[Jager]

For Fighter-bombers, I think only the P-40 was used with any regularity; that would give us wildcats covering P-40s (or other P-40s).
Karl

[fast.git]

We could probably, in a pinch, use Hurricanes...

Although the official minis are I's, they bear a striking resemblance to the II's that were fitted with bomb racks...

[Jager]

We could probably, in a pinch, use Hurricanes...

Although the official minis are I's, they bear a striking resemblance to the II's that were fitted with bomb racks...

Quite true; however, were they used outside of the CBI theater? Maybe in the Darwin area, but not otherwise.
Karl

[fast.git]

Quite true; however, were they used outside of the CBI theater? Maybe in the Darwin area, but not otherwise.
Karl

Fair point. In addition to C-B-I, they were used in the defense of Singapore, and the Netherlands East Indies... but did not fly out of Australia. They would be stretch.

Too bad, really. Lovely aircraft. Workhorse of the RAF in the early years and a stable gun platform.

[gully_raker]

Fair point. In addition to C-B-I, they were used in the defense of Singapore, and the Netherlands East Indies... but did not fly out of Australia. They would be stretch.

Too bad, really. Lovely aircraft. Workhorse of the RAF in the early years and a stable gun platform.

Yeah no "Hurries" in Australia only Spits & P-40s.
The Hurricane did sterling work in the Desert though!

[fast.git]

Yeah no "Hurries" in Australia only Spits & P-40s.
The Hurricane did sterling work in the Desert though!

Totally. I can certainly wrap my mind around P-40s in Australia service... it's my modeling skills that need to be put on notice!

[gully_raker]

Totally. I can certainly wrap my mind around P-40s in Australia service... it's my modeling skills that need to be put on notice!

If you check out my WW2 Album you will see a simple conversion of the P-40 & Beaufighters by either just adding Aussie decals or painting out the Red dot on British ones.
On the Gaming table looks AOK!

[Marechallannes]

The KI-61 was able to carry a 500 kg bombload and reached the front in Summer 1942.

[fast.git]

If you check out my WW2 Album you will see a simple conversion of the P-40 & Beaufighters by either just adding Aussie decals or painting out the Red dot on British ones.
On the Gaming table looks AOK!

Excellent! I'll have to wander over and take a look. Thanks.

[Marechallannes]

I plan to generate an Allied thread based roster for the Pacific campaign.

My core pilots are from VF-8 (Midway campaign) US Navy, but I would add a few USAAF, RAF pilots and one RAAF Beaufighter crew, too.

So if the participants have choose their main squadrons (I think Barry would choose an Aussie Squadron) there will be the possibility to generate and integrate needed crews (for example USN), too.



The result will be something like the Bulldog's Short Roster:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...n-The-Bulldogs


(Besides an official spreadsheet.)



I added the point : UNITS to the top thread, so please post your wishes.

[7eat51]

I prefer to fly for the Allies in the Pacific, but am willing to fly for Japan if needed. As for specific units, I don't have a preference; I am willing to fill in the gaps after those who have specific desires have chosen. This, of course, is dependent upon how strict things will be as far as aligning rosters with specific planes. I am unclear as to plane requirements.

[Blackronin]

I'll play with the Japanese.

[gully_raker]

Just a suggestion Chaps!

How about allowing 2 Squadron Rosters.
One for Fighters & one for Bombers.

Example: Aussie Squadrons of P-40's & Beaufighters (the Beaus can carry Bombs, Torpedos & even rockets although I will not use the last option!)

I have some AIM, Lilly's & Kates plus Dauntless & Avengers to paint but probably wont get them done until end February due to holidays away & then Cancon in Jan.

Of course I can also play a US force if it fits the overall campaign better as I am well equipped with Wildcats, Lightnings etc & the Aussies could supply Beaus when necessary such as they did for combined ops around New Guinea, Solomans, Rabaul etc.

Anyway let everyone put in their suggestions & then see what we all think.
I suggest we let Sven make the final decision as its really his idea.

[gully_raker]

[QUOTE=Marechallannes;260355]

I played a mission with six AI controlled WW II planes, it's a lot of work. There are possibilities to skip some parts, if you let fly enemy bombers in formation, etc...

*That's a good idea Sven! Bombers could fly as a "flight" with one manouver card controlling all aircraft.




How to play a "Sink the Yamato" mission vice versa. That easy, the Allies try to sink/damage the ship in their mission and the Axis defend it.

That's one difference to the original OTT missions. Same briefing but different mission goals.

To keep the balance there should be a bombing mission with Jap bombers, that try to sink/damage an Allied CV/BB. Then the Allies are the defender.

* Another good idea Sven. Instead of Yamato we could choose an Jap carrier & the Jap forces could either fly to protect or could chose to try bomb a US Carrier.

[Marechallannes]

Just a suggestion Chaps!

How about allowing 2 Squadron Rosters.
One for Fighters & one for Bombers....

For shure we'll have an Australian Squadron and separate bomber squads.

No problem to handle this in one thread.

..and that's the idea: To intergrate the Aussi pilots I need into another player's Australian roster.

For example in the roster thread is FV-8, 30rd RAAF squadron, a USN bomber squadron, a USAAF bomber Squadron, etc...

The fighter squadrons will be bigger then the bomber squadrons.

[Jager]

On due consideration, given the way OTT ran, I think the New Guinea option is the way to go. Both American and Australian squadrons could fly, and it was relatively static compared to the rest of the Pacific theater. I wouldn't be so hung up on "Sinking the Yamato"; any heavy cruiser or old BB will do.
Karl

[fast.git]

On due consideration, given the way OTT ran, I think the New Guinea option is the way to go. Both American and Australian squadrons could fly, and it was relatively static compared to the rest of the Pacific theater. I wouldn't be so hung up on "Sinking the Yamato"; any heavy cruiser or old BB will do.
Karl

I can certainly live with that. Could easily take us from January '42 until '45. US Navy could be involved as well, re: battles of Coral Sea & Bismarck Sea. Wouldn't be an undue stretch to include the Solomon Islands campaign, either. Guadalcanal and the defense of Henderson Field, the Tokyo Express, and the battles in and around "Iron Bottom Sound," etc. could provide plenty of missions and storylines.
I like it.

[gully_raker]

I can certainly live with that. Could easily take us from January '42 until '45. US Navy could be involved as well, re: battles of Coral Sea & Bismarck Sea. Wouldn't be an undue stretch to include the Solomon Islands campaign, either. Guadalcanal and the defense of Henderson Field, the Tokyo Express, and the battles in and around "Iron Bottom Sound," etc. could provide plenty of missions and storylines.
I like it.

Yes a very rich vein of battle options to mine there!.