history or skill?

[sqwiglly]

just wondering.after seeing all the different replys in here,id like to know the consensus on tods.

does your squad play for the historical aspect,with fairness and ballance and chivalry?

or do you come to see how good your squad does against others?to fly with a purpose against the best in the game and see if you can beat them?

no attitudes,just a simple question

history or the fight?

[Casper1]

You should add an option:

3.  To get away from the gamey, whiny, anti-team-sentiment of the MA for an organized multi-squad operation.

[ghostdancer]

Sort of hard for me to answer that for my squad since I can't really speak for 20-30 guys. But as for me .. its a mix.

I like historical match ups, even if they are more fantasy and by that I mean not exactly happening. Such as some of the ops in Burma .. yes those planes were in use but the particulars a more of well this would be typical of the type of action and forces available at this time and in this region.

And truthfully at times I don't mind bending the historical aspect a bit to product a more balances FSO.

I like balance. By this I mean that both sides have a reasonable shot of achieving victory.

I play to win, to test my skills against another valid opponent. But is tempered because it is a game. I don't want to win if it doesn't start as a fair fight or to push the envelope so much to go into a gray area. Usually if I have questions going him is this valid or going to come across as a sucker punch I usually ask if I am interpreting something wrong.

Once I figure out if something is fine or not then I really like trying to out think and out fox my opponent.

Not sure if that answers your question.

[ghostdancer]

A caveat here .. I also try to look at things from my opponents side. I do this because once I figure out what he might likely to do I can counter it and plan around it.

It also makes me think from his shoes and I look at my plans that way. I consider my plan and ask myself .. if I had somebody run this on me would it leave a bad taste in my mouth or would I think I just got outwitted and out fought?

I personally always strive for generating a feeling that I outwitted and out fought them and not that feeling of sucker punched.

So as I said a mix of testing myself against somebody else but also some chivalric restraint.

[skernsk]

Both Squiggly.  I play to win, but not to the point where my fun is ruined worrying about it.  I will try my hardest to shoot down the enemy, but that is about it.  I let the points sort themselves out.  

Finding the balance between the two is where we try to be when we make up the FSO and send out your objectives.  

It is real difficult to get a balance where it is fair and both sides can win.  Then send off the objectives and leave as much planning room for the Frame CO as to allow him to enjoy that aspect.

The perfect frame is tie IMHO.

[ghostdancer]

skernsk I disagree.

The perfect frame is the one where -I- shoot down Daddog and get to pay the bounty on him to myself.

[Dux]

Can't say I've ever even checked the final score... even the frames that I've CO'd. I'm in it for the semi-historic matching of planes, targets, and objectives. Live or die, I like having half a chance to get my assignment done... to not just be thrown to the wolves, so that some larger, better-equipped squad can gloat about how they "won".

I agree with Skernsk... a perfect FSO frame is darn near a tie.

[Dace]

Its all about the "history" for me. THE MAIN THING that I hate about the MA is that only about 10% of the planes available get used. In FSO we fly em all at one point or another. I just dont feel right shootin a spitfire when im in a pony....makes no sense. Puts ur frame of mind closer to what a "real" combat pilot's was.

[68falcon]

Have to agree with Dace. Flying and fighting as a squad in the historical sense. We fly to complete the mission, if we score well, all the better. This event is once a week for 3 weeks so we look forward to the change from the everyday MA and AvA.

[Joker312]

I feel that the 1 life aspect adds realism to my online experience.

The history and planesets is also a plus. Its great to have accurate objectives and the same planes that took part in the actual battles.

The biggest draw is the ability to get away from the mindless up, alt, dive, furball, die, reup, repeat ad infinitum that currently takes place in the MA.

FSO's and scenerios are the best the game has to offer.

Just my $0.02.

[daddog]

I am on the same page as Dace, and like Joker, the one life gives someone a different perspective for the 2 hours you want to fly with your squadies.

As a CM's the perfect Squad Ops for me are those that are a tie or nearly so.  Couple that with shooting down a few CM's, Ghosthdancer for example, life could not be better in the world of Aces High.

[knuckels]

For me its being able to grow as a player......I am still new to the game and being a part of FSO and only having one life seems to force me to be a better pilot making smarter choices so I can live longer. And also watching the squad come together after all the hours of training we put in and pulling off the impossible mission. Doesnt always happen that way but makes all the training worth while for when it does work out that way....knuckels

[FiLtH]

I prefer battles that Team1 has a bomb group with escort to target. Team2 has intercepters over the target.  Interception occurs, the surviving buffs drop, the hits are counted, and then everyone tries to rtb to re-arm.

   This is happening at the same time, all over the map with squad sized units having their own target areas, faced by squad sized opposition.

   I greatly dislike scoring rules, that allow certain things to happen, that seem out of place in history. Sacrificing whole squads just to make sure the base is 100% flat because 20 planes added up to 100 lost points...but the dead base was worth 300 points. So it was worth it. Dont like that much.

  So Id say...Im history.