March FSO: The Last Battle of Kharkov - August 1943

[morfiend]

Needlessly carry mk108s , morf, go kill yourself right now.   

  I'm not sure what you mean by this but if you have disabled guns why would you want to carry the extra weight needlessly?

  That was my point not that the Mk108's are needless,personally I'd like to see the option to mount the MK 101 on the 110C and the BK 3.7 mounted on the 110G.


   As for killing myself,I'll leave that to others,thx!



   

[STXAce8]

Oh, I read that wrong, I thought you said you just wouldn't want to take the mk 108s. 

[Krusty]

Just as an FYI to the folks planning these, the CM tool only allows the disabling of certain weapons options. Just that entire option.

So, theoretically on a C205 you could disable the 20mm cannons and leave the 7mm wing guns, but you could NOT disable the 12.7mm cowl guns, because these are present on both (all) loadouts.

So you cannot disable a specific gun. You CAN disable a hangar loadout selection. If the gun you want to disable shows up in only one of those, yes you can disable it by not allowing those hangar choices, but if that gun is present in all selections you cannot remove all hangar options.

[Poppy]

Read this statement:

This is just a game that is based on reality. The "friendly fire penalty" adds realism to the game. The points deducted is the game's way of penalizing those who partake in fratricide.



Does that not sound incredibly ridiculous and negating? Every aspect negates another. Just so you guys are not confused, in real life I am sure they tried hard not to kill each other, my squad (as I am sure all of the others do) tries hard not to kill each other. In real life, a man dies and an aircraft is lost. In this game a squaddies night ends early and we lose an aircraft. Again, this is just a game therefore we are already somewhat "historically accurate." I don't see why the rule is needed. I have tried to make my point three different ways and all the CM Team has to say is "your assumption is wrong, no points are given to the enemy...".

So please Cm's, get involved in this. Explain to all of us how and why this will make FSO so much better than it already is. What kind of thought process went into this decision? Thanks.

OhhhKayyy, so what point do you understand in such a derogatory and demeaning manner? Was a simple statement having no negating factors considering each support the other to do with this subject. Can ya show a bit of class to others giving you the benefit of respect up front, I believe I did. So your not for it and I am, we can still be civil about it. I think the individuals doing the shooting can only improve their gunnery skills with this rule being kept in mind. I'm no lover of regulation for sure but like setbelt rules producing a mindset of a penalty instead of exercising safety applies in a relative manner. As in real life we don't simply walk away from these kind of happenings, hence a little more realism through being penalized for an improper action. Alt cap is pretty unrealistic to me yet it's here for some reason. Enforcement of it is another. I don't know where this will be by Friday but individuals being forced to better themselves at this particular skill has to make flying FSO better, yes? Kill shooter on wouldn't be realistic but the penalty would be immediate and final. A side note: I'm guilty of "helped shoot down" a friendly and have been shot down by the same, if this rule was in place back then I would've thought twice before taking that shot and the friendly that got me would've done likewise I believe. Sometimes it just can't be avoided and was truly an accident but most of the time a bit of enforced discipline makes the difference. If I shoot down a friendly or visa verse it is only fair to penalize them for that act of incompetence. Only my opinion, not a duel of wits Perdue...

[Bino]

President Merkin Muffley: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."   

Back in September there was a fair bit of discussion in here about a friendly fire penalty in FSO when I posted the final scores for "Leaning Into France".  (I suppose I brought that down upon myself by posting the spreadsheets that I had used for calculating the total scores. )  Afterwards, we tossed the idea around among the FSO Admin CM team, and I concluded that it was worth a try.  Honestly, I do *not* expect it to make a huge dent in any of the final scores, because we rarely see so many as three friendly fire deaths on each side.  One or two FF deaths per side seems to be the norm.  Please think of this as an experiment.  Obviously, if there are lots and lots of people who object strongly, I won't include it again in my FSO setups.  I invite you all to give it a try.

Thanks.   

[Poppy]

President Merkin Muffley: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."   

Back in September there was a fair bit of discussion in here about a friendly fire penalty in FSO when I posted the final scores for "Leaning Into France".  (I suppose I brought that down upon myself by posting the spreadsheets that I had used for calculating the total scores. )  Afterwards, we tossed the idea around among the FSO Admin CM team, and I concluded that it was worth a try.  Honestly, I do *not* expect it to make a huge dent in any of the final scores, because we rarely see so many as three friendly fire deaths on each side.  One or two FF deaths per side seems to be the norm.  Please think of this as an experiment.  Obviously, if there are lots and lots of people who object strongly, I won't include it again in my FSO setups.  I invite you all to give it a try.

Thanks.   

More power too you and those helpen ya out, it's a lot to do and I appreciate it.  I don't know how you guys actually get to the bottom line from all that data and I'm curious wether kills awarded to friendlies for kills on friendlies has any other value or benefit to do with the final tally other than simply listing the parties involved. There are no points given to anyone in this situation is what I understand. From what I see this is the same for late incidents after fields are closed like disco's, accidental ejections or crashes and so on, they are just listed for what they are or do they have a value? How does an accidental shoot down late in a frame tally when an enemy aircraft scores hits first? Is there a posibility that if a friendly is damaged by an enemies fire and isn't going to make it back to land and that if another friendly shoots em down it would negate that kill to the enemy? I'll bet you guy's already discussed this and is why your experimenting with it, just realized this so I'll post it anyway just incase asked something not already thought of . . 

[Bino]

FYI:

I went back and checked all three frames of the January FSO, and counted all the friendly fire incidents.  Here is what i found:

Frame		Allied		Axis
1		1		0
2		1		1
3		1		1

President Merkin Muffley: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."   

Back in September there was a fair bit of discussion in here about a friendly fire penalty in FSO when I posted the final scores for "Leaning Into France".  (I suppose I brought that down upon myself by posting the spreadsheets that I had used for calculating the total scores. )  Afterwards, we tossed the idea around among the FSO Admin CM team, and I concluded that it was worth a try.  Honestly, I do *not* expect it to make a huge dent in any of the final scores, because we rarely see so many as three friendly fire deaths on each side.  One or two FF deaths per side seems to be the norm.  Please think of this as an experiment.  Obviously, if there are lots and lots of people who object strongly, I won't include it again in my FSO setups.  I invite you all to give it a try.

Thanks.   

[viking73]

It seems one factor has been left out. That is a person killing friendlies on purpose. Seems like the new rule would award them more as more points are subtracted from the side. It's the individual causing the problem yet the whole side is penalized. A person like this would be more than happy to see this new rule. Say for example someone who changed sides just to do this. I understand this would probably be their last FSO but damage done.

I think the best way to handle this is not to subtract points. Isn't there a way to establish that a friendly did indeed do a direct kill and not just damage? If there is then I would say no points subtracted just because you shot some holes in someone. After all that's not what brings him down. For the ones you can find out that it was a direct kill, they don't get to fly the next Frame. That way you penalize the individual and not the side. After all, subtracting points is suppose to be a fine for action against the other country like going into the no fly zone for example, aghm.....  Looking at Bino's stats it doesn't affect hardly any at all. So two guys don't fly next Frame. For you realism folks seems like this is what would happen in real life. A grounded pilot. You wouldn't fine all the pilots of the entire country. Having someone needlessly shot down, not landing and adding points is a big enough penalty for the country.   

Well unless it's Ace8, then it's a plus. 

[Bino]

It seems one factor has been left out. That is a person killing friendlies on purpose...

FSO squads have taken care of that as a matter of internal discipline.  And swiftly, too.  It never seems to recur. 

[Stampf]

FSO squads have taken care of that as a matter of internal discipline.  And swiftly, too.  It never seems to recur. 

 

[perdue3]

I get it. LOL