A/C penalties?: 07 August FSO

[vonKrimm]

Will penalties be assessed for fielding less than the Min. # of a/c listed in the guidelines listed in http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,269744.msg3372351.html#msg3372351 ?  I ask as I noticed the Axis side was short 27 Ki-61s and the Allied side was short 6 B25C & 1 B25H.  I also noted that while the Axis was short 27 Ki-61s, that they were over the Min. in Ki-84s by 35 a/c; the Allies best over Min. was by 7 in the F4U-1a.

[Stoney]

Part of my weekly responsibilities is investigating this type of thing, figuring out why it happened, and then assessing penalties if there was a violation.

[Hajo]

VonKrimm it is not proper form imho for either side to point out indiscretions that may or may have not been taken.

It could have been for many reasons.

The CMs do a great job going over the logs.  Any violations will be dealt with at their discretion.


Hajo

[Stoney]

I don't mind players pointing out rule violations as long as they understand that what they perceived may have occured for less than nefarious reasons.  It gives me 500 extra sets of eyes to help me regulate the event.

Thanks to both of you...

 

[vonKrimm]

1st:

Part of my weekly responsibilities is investigating this type of thing, figuring out why it happened, and then assessing penalties if there was a violation.

Thank-you Stoney for replying so promptly to my query.  I think many of us that fly FSO forget that you and the others CMs continue to pull duty long after a given frame is concluded.
 

2nd:

VonKrimm it is not proper form imho for either side to point out indiscretions that may or may have not been taken.

It could have been for many reasons.

The CMs do a great job going over the logs.  Any violations will be dealt with at their discretion.


Hajo

I'm sorry that you feel that I was pointing a finger at one side or the others 'indiscretions' in with my question.  I presented facts in evidence for both sides; no where did I insert a : ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , or  .  I do admit that by bolding the '35' I perhaps introduced a bias factor.

IMHO, you sir, were out of line in attempting to take me to task for asking a question regarding the potential scoring of the Frame.  I'm sure that if you reply you will out wordsmith me (much as SHawk out flies me; I just plane suck on both counts) as you sit there typing away in order to justify your POV.  I do not really have an interest one way or another as I feel that my question was sufficiently answered by Stoney with his (paraphrased) "I'm looking into that & other stuff" reply.

I don't mind players pointing out rule violations as long as they understand that what they perceived may have occured for less than nefarious reasons.  It gives me 500 extra sets of eyes to help me regulate the event.

Thanks to both of you...

 

You sir are much more levelheaded & generous than I am.  Again a big  on your hard work and generosity.

[Stoney]

I don't think Hajo was trying to poke you in the chest here.  I've got it handled from here--let's drop it.

[RSLQK186]

I don't mind players pointing out rule violations as long as they understand that what they perceived may have occured for less than nefarious reasons.

I did things for nefarious reasons only when he was running a Snapshot. All my screw ups in FSO have been for my own reasons I assure you

Sorry. Just could't resist.

[vonKrimm]

I don't think Hajo was trying to poke you in the chest here.  I've got it handled from here--let's drop it.

Orders received and understood.

[Nefarious]

Why do they have to be Nefarious?

Wicked? Evil? Underhanded?

 

[Saxman]

vonKrimm,

While it's been addressed I wanted to give you an idea of what I had to work with in planning the Allied frame:

The minimum numbers required for each aircraft outlined in the campaign setup would have been impossible for me to achieve unless most squads were at 100% strength once the side assignments were issued. The minimum number of aircraft dictated by the setup was 224. The Allied side was capable of fielding 254 (excluding the +2 per squad) at maximum. Allied minimum was 187 (again, no -2 included). when was the last time EVERY squad in FSO was there at full strength?

As it stood, the number of B-25s (both models) I planned for SHOULD have met the minimum requirement if all the squads involved were at their minimum commitment levels. The A-20s would have been very close as well. I then tried to maintain the ratio of F4Us to P-38s to P-47s to P-40s as closely as I could, but there was no way I could completely guarantee minimums of every aircraft.

I'd already discussed this with Stoney prior to issuing the Allied warning orders, so proceeded as best as I could based on that conversation.

[Stoney]

Just a note:

6 B-25C and 1 B-25H means that the B-25C's were short two players, and the B-25H's were short 1 player.

Being short 27 Ki-61's is completely different.  That's being short 27 players.  However, I haven't finished investigating what the reason was.  But, like I said, I have it for action and will make an announcement in the next few days.  If anyone can forward me a copy of the Axis orders, I'd appreciate it.

[Jackraid]

I just sent them.

[daddog]

Why do they have to be Nefarious?

Wicked? Evil? Underhanded?

I think it fits.