<F> the VVS

[skernsk]

Good attitude squiggly.  Park the ego for a second and let me point out the 'flaw' in your plan that got me upset.

You did not send a concentrated attack at the 'little V base' and a squad spent the night flying over it.  Put yourself in the postion of those players and tell me how you would feel.

It is in the rules that you must attack all objectives and defend all objectives.  You did that - sort of but not the way I feel you should have.  I am not going to tell you or anyone how to play but that (to me) was dissapointing.

Congrats on your win............I think that what transpired here is definately going to put some 'emotion' into this event.  There is going to be some good hunting and squiggly you may have some players looking for you:noid

[ramzey]

sqwiglly, be so kinde and drop it, arrogance does not help solve any problems

FSO its not about win/loose, but about fun

You did exploiting orders but as expirienced CiC you should know to not do it.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by skernsk
You did that - sort of but not the way I feel you should have.  

First, I didn't fly Friday (personal business), but I was privy to Sqwigs plan in advance as a ranking member of his squad.

Skernsk, I won't claim that anyone did the right thing here, or for that matter that I would have planned the mission the way that sqwig did... But what I will say is that if you have a way you FEEL the mission should be organized then you should probably spell it out.  I think its unfair of you to expect your commaders to be mind readers... Your thoughts?

I think sqwig did his job as a team commander.  He lead them to victory.

What is all this about 'intent' and your 'feelings'?  Is it not supposed to be a war?  How many times did the Axis or Allies feel really bad if the other side got their feelings hurt?

If you have explicit expectations in your plan you should spell them out.   I feel it is entirely wrong of you to say that sqwig broke a law that was never written or make criticism of a plan that worked within the rules as drawn.

Sqwig is an agressive commander, I've flown with him for nearly 3 years.  I don't always agree with his approach (in fact often I do not), but he does deliver results.  He does not fly to come in second place and he does not make apologies for winning.   Frankly I think a lot of cry-babies could learn a lot from him.

Those who want fair and balanced should probably play Care Bears online... AH carries a risk of getting shot by someone who outsmarts the enemy.  Thats the point.

Was the Atom Bomb Fair?  Was the ME-262 fair?  No.  War is won by the man with the plan that surprises and astonishes the enemy.  Plain and simple.  And, like it or not... Call it fair or not, Sqwig did just that and the Axis commander had the option to do the same.

I say lets move on, no rules were broken and everyone learned to stop expecting the expected moves.

[skernsk]

Originally posted by skernsk


You did that - sort of but not the way I feel you should have.  I am not going to tell you or anyone how to play but that (to me) was dissapointing.

 

You a reporter Kurt?  Use the whole quote in context and you have your answer.  We do not want to tell anyone how to play - and the fact that the loophole was there is my fault ... as I have written.  I can have an opinion and express it.

I also am not sure where I wrote that a rule was broken.  Had a rule been broken the frame would go to the Axis.  The rules were followed, but like I said, and you can quote me.....

All objectives need to be attacked and defended.  1 plane attacking or defending does not (in my mind) come close to an attack.  However, I cannot say a rule was broken because I did not say how many planes were needed to be considered an attack.  

Likewise, I asked for 4 of the 5 planes to be used.  I did not say use 'x' amount of planes.  So, as stated it is ultimately my fault for leaving the loopholes there to be exploited and 100 La-5's take off and fly around the Karelian Isthumus.

That is why I said, CiC's are going to need lawyers to read the future objectives.  The last thing I or any CM wants to do is micro-manage the CO's.  The best part is throwing out the objectives and letting you guys run with them.  But if we are expected to close every loophole - how much planning room do you think will be left?  NONE.  

Personally, I have no interest in being a lawyer or worrying about loopholes.  I don't look forward to the next set of objectives I might have to write up.

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by Kurt
If you have explicit expectations in your plan you should spell them out.   I feel it is entirely wrong of you to say that sqwig broke a law that was never written or make criticism of a plan that worked within the rules as drawn.

Wait, Kurt, skernsk never said that.  What is being pointed out here is how to interpret what is written.  Everyone is learning from this experience already.  So, you are right, let's just move on.

[sqwiglly]

i agree that its no fun to show for tods,circle a base and then land after 2 hours and im sorry for anyones bordom. but i was lookin out for my side,not yours.

i sent an enitre squad (4-6 )to hit 49.unfortunatly they showed with 3 and died fast.i planned to come to 49 with everyone,so you wouldnt be bored,but my cm called it off.so ask him why he called us off.

[sqwiglly]

lol,and no i wont let it rest i just got here.

anyone remember last time i ran tods?

[sqwiglly]

hey jb42698245

dont be a sore loser
If you can't get into the spirit of what FSO is about, then please do not participate.
if it helps ill send you a copy of the rules,if you read them youll know what to expect


crybabys

1570 - allied
650 - axis:aok

oooo feels like a rugburn huh?

[Dace]

Originally posted by sqwiglly
but i was lookin out for my side,not yours

I believe it is the responsibilty of all squad COs to look out for the community as a whole. I think u've put way to much emphasis on winning and not enough emphasis of "FSO".

[Casper1]

sqwiggly -

thats just a dumb attitude man - good job and all for your stomping of us axis weenies, but drop the heroic "i am t3h l33t winner" attitude.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by skernsk


I also am not sure where I wrote that a rule was broken.  Had a rule been broken the frame would go to the Axis.  The rules were followed, but like I said, and you can quote me.....
 

Sorry Skernsk, that part of my remarks was not directed at you, more at everyone who was upset about it, and making sound as if there was a whole unwritten rule book.

I'd like to say again, I'm not condoning sqwigs plan, and I wouldn't have made the same plan if it was left to me.

I simply believed that he was given a framework and put together a plan that would win within that framework.  And to that end I am on his side.

[Furious]

Why not in the future require all orders and mission plans to be preapproved by a CM?

[Kurt]

Why does there need to be a change?

I think that the CM staff is forgetting one critical component of FSO... As follows...

The intent of rotating the commanders is to ensure variety... Correct?  Can I list for you all of the times I've been stuck flying an impossible mission of nothing but frustration because the frame commander had no vision?  Then there are days where the frame commander holds together a flight against very challenging conditions...

Sometimes you're going to get a 'sqwigly'.  Nothing needs to change because of that.  If you wanted every single mission to go off precisely according to the CM vision then the CM team would be the commanders.  

I know that the CM guys put enormous effort into designing these flights.  but they are going to release it to the masses and every commander is going to have a different take on how to acheive the goal.

Some of those commanders are going to be into 'historical missions' and some of those commanders are going to be 'gamers'... And some will be incompetent regardless of their intent.  That is the beauty of FSO.  

Lets not let a few cries of 'FOUL' (how few are in here complaining compared to the total number who flew?  maybe 5%?) get in the way of what is really being done...  Which is that the CM team, are presenting a plan to a wide cross-section of players and leaving the implimentation open to interpretation of the commander.  You can't reasonably expect everyone to be happy every time.

[TracerX]

Originally posted by sqwiglly
i sent an enitre squad (4-6 )to hit 49.unfortunatly they showed with 3 and died fast.i planned to come to 49 with everyone,so you wouldnt be bored,but my cm called it off.so ask him why he called us off.

Sqwiglly, I only mention this to give the CM's ideas on how to instruct the CIC's when giving out the objectives.  I hope you realize I am not trying to add any fuel to the already burning inferno.  In response to the above however, I would never have made the above assignment.  I have made it a point to not have sacrifical lambs anywhere in my orders.  Everyone should have a reasonable chance to fulfill their objective.  

I think that the spirit of the FSO should include a reasonable chance for everyone to accomplish their orders.  Unescorted bombers is definately off my list of operations, as is small squads in unsupported attack roles.  I use small squads to do reconisance, supplemental escort (not primary), and of course bombing with assigned escorts.  I don't want to be responsible for someone having a short and unexciting night.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by TracerX
Sqwiglly, I only mention this to give the CM's ideas on how to instruct the CIC's when giving out the objectives.  I hope you realize I am not trying to add any fuel to the already burning inferno.  In response to the above however, I would never have made the above assignment.  I have made it a point to not have sacrifical lambs anywhere in my orders.  Everyone should have a reasonable chance to fulfill their objective.  

I think that the spirit of the FSO should include a reasonable chance for everyone to accomplish their orders.  Unescorted bombers is definately off my list of operations, as is small squads in unsupported attack roles.  I use small squads to do reconisance, supplemental escort (not primary), and of course bombing with assigned escorts.  I don't want to be responsible for someone having a short and unexciting night. [/QUOTE

The russians would never use troops or aircraft as fodder to gain a victory.




Bronk