Yes, it would be interesting. I haven't run many theorycrafted combats lately because I'm too busy working on tools for running them. (You have noticed in this thread that trying to keep track of action declarations/resolutions/stats for 8 or 10 creatures and share them over the Internet with an audience is extremely time-consuming, and adding an extra 16 summons would just make that problem exponentially worse. So I've been distracted for the past month and a half trying to make a web app that will solve that problem.)
I know we've had our differences in the past but I've really enjoyed reading your thoughts on this thread. Hiding behind hypnotized wolves for cover is pure gold.
Anyway, my notional party for this challenge would probably depend upon what stats I rolled, but a quick sketch of a party that would be fun to play is:
Paladin of Devotion 9/Wild Sorc 3/Warlock 1 with Extended/Quicken metamagics (for super-healing), Cha 20, and Lucky. Warhorse's name is Claudius.
Cthulock 2/Lore Bard 11 with Cha 20, Inspiring Leader, Agonizing Repelling Blast, and Magical Secrets: Aura of Vitality/Conjure Animals/Death Ward/Counterspell.
Necromancer 12/Life Cleric 1 with Str 15, Int 20, Warcaster, and Mobile.
Death Monk 13 with Mobile, Lucky, and Dex 18/Wis 18.
Fifth PC, if any, is likely to be a Mobile Sentinel Moon Druid because somebody usually rolls low, and Moon Druids are fun no matter how low your stats are. Also, that adds some more summoning power and Pass Without Trace. If not a Moon Druid then probably some kind of Sharpshooter fighter.
Ideal prep beforehand would include at least a couple of bound Air or Earth Elementals, but it depends upon how much money the party has.
That would be a helpful app.
I just love intense debate, a little too much for many tastes. I never dislike anyone or hold any grudges against the people I'm in discussions with. I always enjoyed your tactical viewpoint, though I still want to use the necromancer idea in some campaign where it would be role-play appropriate. The idea of skeleton squad following me about is amusing.
I enjoy seeing the different way people do things. I enjoy reading Iserith and Flamestrike's encounter design because it is different from mine. I know you have your ideas about encounter design that are different from all of ours. Even Iserith and Flamestrike who agree about the 6-8 encounter day being sufficient have different ways of building the encounters and running them. That's what makes coming to a board so interesting. You get to see all these different ideas that all seem to accomplish the same task: having fun playing D&D. Rarely are two tables alike. It shows how creative D&D players are and how much the game inspires creative thinking in so many. As geeky as some think this game is, I'd bet money if you ran tests on the creativity of D&D players, you would find a much higher level of creative thinking in the group as a whole because the game requires it. Then you would likely get sample bias because the game in general attracts creative thinkers with highly active imaginations because that is the target audience. If you can't imagine the scenes in your mind's eye, even if they're more scenes from a video game, then D&D is hard to enjoy.
Keep on theory-crafting, Hemlock. It's generally interesting to read.