« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: october fso - t-60 issue  (Read 2194 times)

Offline Bino

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5937
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2011, 04:51:59 PM »
So long as there is no deliberate or intentional delay, no large penalties will be imposed for attacks that are just a few minutes late.  I intend to be reasonable when scoring this event.

On the other hand, this is a PTO event with long over-water flights, and I did want pilots to think about navigation, fuel, speed, and range.  Seems to me that's at the core of Naval Aviation.

I do want to thank you all for posting your thoughts about this design, both the positive and the negative comments!   :salute
Logged


"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'." - Randy Pausch

PC Specs

Offline Dantoo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 965
      • http://www.9giap.com
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2011, 09:39:30 PM »
Bino I'm not sure if one of us isn't getting the whole message.  The truth is unless you clearly communicate that the 1 hour limit is "flexible" then your hopes of encouraging fuel management just go out the window.

Without change in that limit or at least the distances required to be flown, squads will just face a repeat of last week.  To make the 1 hour limit then it becomes a suicide mission.  You simply can't back off power and make those distances in those times.  At full power we couldn't do it.  At lower power you definitely can't do it.  If you don't have fuel to get there and back anyway at even reduced power then what's the point of trying?

Logically you have another problem.  If it takes you more than an hour to fly to your target, then you can't logically get home in under 2 hours.  Suicide mission again.  A small change is necessary.

I respect what you're trying to do.  I don't think you will achieve it though unless you adjust something.
Logged
I get really really tired of selective realism disguised as a desire to make bombers easier to kill.

HiTech

Matthew 24:28 For wherever the carcass is, there is where the vultures gather together.

Offline Drano

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4129
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2011, 10:00:34 PM »
Quote from: Dantoo on October 09, 2011, 09:39:30 PM

Logically you have another problem.  If it takes you more than an hour to fly to your target, then you can't logically get home in under 2 hours.  Suicide mission again.  A small change is necessary.

I respect what you're trying to do.  I don't think you will achieve it though unless you adjust something.

Agreed. Seems like a no-brainer. The planes will fly only so fast regardless of fuel burn. Nothing to tweak there. Tweak the fuel burn a smidge so they can get to the target with a reasonable reserve in order to get home. Doubt you'll hear any objections to that. Secondly, move the targets a bit closer together. It was close to being right this frame but it needs tweaking just a bit closer. Make those two small changes in the distance and fuel burn and the next frames will end up much better from the planning and playabilty angle.
Logged
"Drano"
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)
FSO flying with the 412th Friday Night Volunteer Group

Offline Reschke

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7724
      • VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2011, 12:32:07 AM »
Fuel burn should be 1.0 regardless of setup.
Logged
Buckshot
Reschke from March 2001 till tour 146
Founder and CO VF-17 Jolly Rogers September 2002 - December 2006
"I'm baaaaccccckkk!"

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9897
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2011, 03:13:23 AM »
I'm kind of missing the point of having everything so far away? Why not have the targets within 30-40 mins of each other? All we seem to be doing is filling the time in picking our noses and scratching our nuts on the long flight in while the cap guys circle endlessly.
Logged

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2011, 01:05:49 PM »
so, should we assume the the fuel burn rate won't be set to 1.0 and the possibility of a 400+ mile round trip will happen in frame 2 and plan accordingly?
Logged
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline AKP

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2011, 02:22:51 PM »
Quote from: gyrene81 on October 10, 2011, 01:05:49 PM
so, should we assume the the fuel burn rate won't be set to 1.0 and the possibility of a 400+ mile round trip will happen in frame 2 and plan accordingly?

Seeing as how the objectives are out, and there is no change in them... you are correct it seems. 
Logged

***G3-MF***

Offline Big Rat

  • AH Training Corps
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2011, 06:02:03 PM »
Just a small change in fuel burn would make this so much better for most :frown:

 :salute
BigRat
Logged
When you think the fight might be going bad, it already has.
Becoming one with the Hog, is to become one with Greatness, VF-17 XO & training officer BigRat

Offline Bannor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2011, 06:26:20 PM »
 If I do not return home, then that is my FATE! My life for the Emporer. BANZAI!  :airplane:
Logged
Destiny brought you here, now FATE will deal with your six!

Damn, we're in a tight spot!

Offline UncleKurt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2011, 07:34:05 PM »
Well, rule this and rule that. I see that there are planning challenges, and we should derive alternatives to meet those challenges, should we not? The objective should be attainable, just not always easy. <S>
 :aok
Logged
I Like pizza!
I Hate red airplanes!
Leave my sheep alone!
What an axle!<br/Do Not Impose to Bully Around Me!

Offline AKP

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2011, 07:40:38 PM »
Quote from: Bino on October 09, 2011, 04:51:59 PM
So long as there is no deliberate or intentional delay, no large penalties will be imposed for attacks that are just a few minutes late.  I intend to be reasonable when scoring this event.

As long as this is the case... diligent fuel management "should" allow for most strikes to plan on getting home.  Dont get me wrong...I had fun in frame 1... and I am sure I will again in frames 2 & 3.
Logged

***G3-MF***

Offline j500ss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2011, 01:32:52 PM »
Now it's a non issue.   Everybody should be happy now!

    :salute
Logged

Offline Molsman

  • Aces High CM Retired
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5340
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2011, 12:43:24 AM »
yes Fuel Changes have been made and the CV's will be set in a specific area until the Sides take over. So now if the CV's are to far to fly to and rtb and fly to and attack it will fall back on the CiC's of the frames. Setup CM is only responsible for jumping the Task force groups in a Specific area we were Told to place them. Other then that it is not our Fault if they were moved to somewhere else as long as they stay in the containment area.

That is all  :salute

Crayz8s
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 01:00:20 AM by Molsman »
Logged
JG11, DerWanderZirkus, -The Flying Clowns-
               Wait n Bleed

Offline Reschke

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7724
      • VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2011, 02:06:38 PM »
Quote from: Molsman on October 12, 2011, 12:43:24 AM
yes Fuel Changes have been made and the CV's will be set in a specific area until the Sides take over. So now if the CV's are to far to fly to and rtb and fly to and attack it will fall back on the CiC's of the frames. Setup CM is only responsible for jumping the Task force groups in a Specific area we were Told to place them. Other then that it is not our Fault if they were moved to somewhere else as long as they stay in the containment area.

That is all  :salute

Crayz8s

Now the devil is going to be in the details and the execution as it should be!
Logged
Buckshot
Reschke from March 2001 till tour 146
Founder and CO VF-17 Jolly Rogers September 2002 - December 2006
"I'm baaaaccccckkk!"

Offline akbmzawy

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
Re: october fso - t-60 issue
« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2011, 04:25:52 PM »
Frame 1 also did not state that any friendly base could be used for rearming to replinish fuel then proceed to the recovery base. Is this option availiable for Frame 2 & 3?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »