Allied from an Axis perspective.

[Odee]

I love it.  We got the phsyco pup running to and fro chasing his tail, not sure weather to suck TK's nuggets or bust mine.  Hehe.  You are just lost odee, but keep it up, I am laughing alot today. 

Gosh, and to think you started this dance too. 

Well if you don't want your nuggets busted, you should cease busting others. 

And what is so wrong with agreeing with somebody else when they are right?

[Rebel]

Rebel I dont need your life story. BTW you called me a "lil' punk". So what, you think all people younger then you are good for nothing pot smokers. You brought nothing to the AvA. You would switch sides more times I could think of. You droped in on a few  fights I was having with out even asking. Other times you were killing goons that you knew were otw to a base right after switching. You arent that good unles you come in with alt, but even then you die very fast. I really dont care what you think of me because you are some one I couldnt care less about playing a cartoon video game. So say what you want because you are judging someone you dont even know because I like to talk trash.

And you *still* don't get it.  This is exactly what I was talking about!  

You don't know me, I don't know you, I only know what I see on here, and all I'm saying is you're hurting the cause.  That's IT.

Trash talking is one thing, dude.  A little spirited competition never hurt anyone.

I was trying and trying and trying to get it through to you that it's HURTING the game, what you're doing.  You obviously could care less, and all your supposed desire for a "quality opponent" is one of total and utter hogwash.  Every time we bring new people in the arena, you're one of the first reasons they leave and never come back- both for reasons here and in the arena.

**edit**And, for the record, no, i don't think all the 21 year olds in this world are pot smoking losers- only the ones who talk and rant on like you do (or you want me to believe you do, whichever).  You may be a Harvard grad with honors, and may be the finest young man on the face of the planet, but all you portray on here is something that most people despise.  On the other side of the curtain it's most likely different for your compatriots- you're obviously very good at the game and know the ins and outs (my brother has this talent as well), and can coordinate your squad with other squadrons with relative ease because of who they are.  I commend you for that- you're a fine pilot, and no doubt a strong team oriented player, but if you're fighting against TrueKill, you either just leave and choose not to deal with him, or you hate his living guts. **edit**

Regarding your accusations- I switched sides during my first few days to help the axis during a numbers problem.  I even said that I would be open to switching to either side as numbers dictated.  Then I learned that switching was considered "bad",  and chose to stick to the Allied side.  Ever since I've flown allied.

I didn't know that it was bad to "drop in" on a fight you were involved in- if that was wrong, I apologize.

Yeah, I need Alt.  Yeah, I can die pretty quick- I get too aggressive and wind up putting myself in bad positions.  I'm trying to fix that.

  

 

[Stampf]

^{Gosh, and to think you started this dance too}

You'll get as many people to believe that as you did with your "JG11 slings crap" BS.

You are one of those "victims" aren't you?

[Krusty]

No, it means they don't cooperate with one another.  I'd go into detail but, no one cares at this point.  For the next few days it's just going to be a rhetoric war on the forums.

Your comments started this topic. I scanned through the three pages before posting a reply, to make sure nobody had pointed out what I was about to.

Ganging, flying en masse is not the same as "coordination" -- not in regards to a side-v-side war-waging event. There's wingman coordination, and then there's the "coordination" being used in gripes about "losing the war." This is a different level of coordination. It's the right word to use, yes, but it's not the right word to pin on the squads that like to fly in large numbers.

There's coordination, then there's coordination if you see what I mean.

A squad likes to fly in numbers, because they have more fun that way. They like winging with each other, whatever the reason. On a SQUAD-LEVEL they are more coordinated than OTHER SQUDS, but that doesn't equate to tactical battlefield coordination. It's all relative.

Hypothetical situation:
The allies, with smaller units, might coordinate a lot more because they need to to get an attack plan running (takes more coordination to get 7 loose players than it does to get 7 players already together). The allies coordinate, set up, and execute a mission, but the uncoordinated axis, that just happen to be flying as a group on a fighter sweep, run into this mission and disrupt/kill it. The axis have prevailed, but not due to any additional planning or effort. So you see, there's different levels of coordination.

Superior numbers, positions, and comfort levels, are the reason the side with larger squads does better. Not because they stay up all night planning sneak attacks timed down to the milisecond (or some other example).




P.S. <sidetrack> Switching sides to even things out has ALWAYS been one of the staples of the AvA. This new discouragement is BS, telling folks to stay on their side. </sidetrack>

[republic]

I don't understand what you are saying

I don't mean flying en masse.  I mean my few nights in the Allies I experienced hardly any chk6's, no one wanted to deal with a pesky gv, everyone concentrated on a few targets.

Granted, the nights that I was allies were nights that no large allied squads were on.  Until last night, that was usually the case, a large assortment of squadless players.

The goal of my post, which is now long since lost in bickering, was to encourage the allies to work in pairs, and then squads to help each other...not to gang.

To me, and I'm probably in the minority, it's not about kills landed, or even winning the war...it's about flying with a group of like minded individuals working together to accomplish a goal.

[TheBug]

I'm thinking booze and pot would be a good thing for TK. 

[captain1ma]

Your comments started this topic. I scanned through the three pages before posting a reply, to make sure nobody had pointed out what I was about to.

Ganging, flying en masse is not the same as "coordination" -- not in regards to a side-v-side war-waging event. There's wingman coordination, and then there's the "coordination" being used in gripes about "losing the war." This is a different level of coordination. It's the right word to use, yes, but it's not the right word to pin on the squads that like to fly in large numbers.

There's coordination, then there's coordination if you see what I mean.

A squad likes to fly in numbers, because they have more fun that way. They like winging with each other, whatever the reason. On a SQUAD-LEVEL they are more coordinated than OTHER SQUDS, but that doesn't equate to tactical battlefield coordination. It's all relative.

Hypothetical situation:
The allies, with smaller units, might coordinate a lot more because they need to to get an attack plan running (takes more coordination to get 7 loose players than it does to get 7 players already together). The allies coordinate, set up, and execute a mission, but the uncoordinated axis, that just happen to be flying as a group on a fighter sweep, run into this mission and disrupt/kill it. The axis have prevailed, but not due to any additional planning or effort. So you see, there's different levels of coordination.

Superior numbers, positions, and comfort levels, are the reason the side with larger squads does better. Not because they stay up all night planning sneak attacks timed down to the milisecond (or some other example).




P.S. <sidetrack> Switching sides to even things out has ALWAYS been one of the staples of the AvA. This new discouragement is BS, telling folks to stay on their side. </sidetrack>

so if we fly as a group, are we ganging, hording or co-ordinating??? IM soo confused!!!

also is this a good thing or a bad thing?? is it good if we lose and bad if we win?? or is it bad if we win and good if we dont.

hmmmm ......... someone please help!!!

[Krusty]

Check6's mean very little. There are so many reasons not to give them. The AvA has a 'tude for griping at folks that interrupt 1v1 fights (no matter how poorly they go), folks don't know you, don't see you (if you're separated), don't know you didn't already see the really obvious guy diving on you, whatever.

That alone isn't an indication of lack of coordination. Lack of communication perhaps.

I've flown with some folks that were so on-the-ball they never needed a check6, and they pretty much knew this about each other. Then I've also flown with some verbose folks that give 'em freely on vox.

I chose to reply to your thread because it was related, but my comments about "coordination" gripes are not focused only on your topic. It seems they are the most common complaint on the forums in recent weeks.


Captain1ma: It just means you're flying as you are flying. Folks are placing more meaning on it than it deserves, and I'm trying to point this out. The current mentality is flawed, when blaming side effectiveness on the "war leadership."

EDIT: I put my P.S. in the wrong place, fixed!

[justguess]

I'm thinking booze and pot would be a good thing for TK. 

hey Tom, why are you stirring this pot?   

[Stampf]

Krusty,

I suggest that you go look at Smokey's last post in the "led to believe" thread.  There is something to say for "organization" no matter how you slice it.

[TheBug]

Personally I love booze and pot.

[Krusty]

Krusty,

I suggest that you go look at Smokey's last post in the "led to believe" thread.  There is something to say for "organization" no matter how you slice it.

Overall, the organized missions in the AvA take a back seat to the general "flying to fight" that happens most of the time. Sort of like MA base taking. Sometimes you don't need an organized mission. Sometimes you just go looking for a fight, and then somebody says "Hey, we can get this, let's do it!" -- it can still work. I wouldn't call it an organized mission. It's more of a collaborative effort. I agree that organization can be helpful and/or fun at times, but as an median or mean, it's usually done against undefended fields with very little defense required to disrupt it.

Smokey's post just makes me not want to follow TheBug into combat 

Personally I love booze and pot.

Maybe this explains Smokey's other post 

[Platano]

*Dont Tune to 200 if it bother so Much*

*im also 21, i dont see anything wrong with it*

*a lil weed never hurt anyone   *

[Stampf]

   

K,

Well, again, I hear ya. BUT I can count on one hand the times I have logged in and asked, "What are we doing", to have the reply be, "Oh, just fighting." 

It's more often, "Taking this base", "Sinking this carrier", or "Mission up".

Just saying.

[Krusty]

Fair 'nuff.