Frame 01 observation

[Viper61]

I'm on the ALLIED side this scenario and it looks to me like the ALLIES got soundly trashed.  Of course no points to back this statement up but just looking at the logs and kill ratio's.  And the fact that by H+60 the AXIS had a 50 plane advantage in the air.  When you see that and your primary mission is accomplished you tend to look quickly for a good air field to land and tower before its to late.

The scenario needs a tweak before Frame 2.  Doesn't mean its not fun, just means it needs a good kick in the side to make it more better  .

[Ten60]

Axis started the frame +38 in numbers FYI.

[Shrike]

The spread would have been greater if axis escort for the V154 attack participated.

[Bino]

One of the biggest effects on any FSO setup is squad turnout.  We've seen this time after time.  

The numbers for this month, based on the currently registered squad numbers, are:

Allies Total Commitments Min: 138 Max: 192
Axis Total Commitments Min: 140 Max: 193

In Frame 1, the number who attended:   Alies 128 / Axis 160

[MachNix]

I think us Allies where too focused on building T-34s in preparation for dominance in Frame 3, and are now a little embarrassed to find that there are no tanks in this setup.  If we can move those people from the production line back to the front line, we will be in good shape for frames 2 and 3.  Other than that, I don't see what tweaks need to be made.   

[Big Rat]

Can't really make a judgement on frame balance, when participation is lopsided.  Lets see what happens in frame 2 if the sides are closer in numbers.  I did notice as I expected, the Tu-2s did hold their own fairly well as fighters

 
BigRat

[morfiend]

I think us Allies where too focused on building T-34s in preparation for dominance in Frame 3, and are now a little embarrassed to find that there are no tanks in this setup.  If we can move those people from the production line back to the front line, we will be in good shape for frames 2 and 3.  Other than that, I don't see what tweaks need to be made.   

   This I like!      We need more of this attitude around here!



   

[Dantoo]

The biggest problem for me is the strange, bordering on ridiculous, attempt to equate distance and fuel burn for no playable benefit.  They are not tradeable variables.  FSO's rules are framed around meeting goals in respect of time not distance.  You have to attack a target or indeed defend a target until H+60.  Distance flown has nothing to do with it.

If you fully tank up a Soviet fighter like the Yak you take off with about 37 minutes of fuel with these settings.  WTF?  How are you supposed to escort a bomber to a target when you can't even get there with enough fuel to fight?  You can't pull the power back because the bombers are as fast as the fighters and they aren't going to wait for an escort because speed is just about all the defence they have. Borders on a joke.  How can you defend a field if you have keep landing aircraft for fuel all the time?

If the strange concept of limiting flight time to half the real endurance of the aircraft because of a peculiar notion of defining flight time by map scale can't be done away with; then do away with the Soviet aircraft altogether, use lend-lease, and set this up in North Africa or somewhere else with a really big map.

Rant over.  (Well the public one anyway).

Best regards.

[Drano]

Have to agree with you, Dantoo. This problem persists from event to event when this theatre is used. It's not rocket science and needs to be tweaked. I seem to recall making a similar post a couple of years back when I had CIC duty in one of these where the only bird I had capable of covering any distance was the p-39 and I only had a few of those. If we can't tweak the time, as that's apparently etched in stone, then tweak the fuel burn so that the short legged fighters on both sides can be used effectively in order to carry out the missions prescribed in the objectives. It is what it is. I recall the rebuttal to my question before was that the intent was to simulate the RL problems of the theatre. Get it. But if this problem is impacting the ability to complete a mission, AND THAT IS HAPPENING EVERY TIME WE DO THESE EASTERN FRONT EVENTS, let's erase the rubber stamp setup and tweak the fuel. This doesn't need a ham handed approach as it can be bumped incrementally. How about just enough to get the fighters in sync with the bombers? If you need to escort bombers you need to be able to do it. That so much to ask?

[Big Rat]

I agree with the fuel burn should be adjusted some.  The Yak7 which should be a major player in this setup is severly handicapped.  Possibly a 1.25 for next frame, should put them closer to being able to defend a base till T+60 even if they have to loiter at low fuel burn for quite a bit to be effective. This should help the balance as well.

 
BigRat

[Dantoo]

Thanks for the thoughful support guys.

A couple of previous examples that happened to me:

I was given a task of sweeping with La5s a couple of Eastern Front FSO's back.  We never made it to the target area.  Because we had to divert from track to avoid an entanglement with opposition traffic we no longer had the fuel to get to the target and back.  I had to divert, re-arm at a frontline flashing base and race to the target area to be met with the "we're all down" message.  It's a gut-wrench.

Same FSO, different frame, I was defending against Ju88s and they were defended by my friend 'dweebs bunch.  We caught the Ju88s just in time to have to rtb for fuel.
KN did the right thing and shot the crap out of us as were forced to refuel right in front of them. <S>

Last time I was CIC we were supposed to concentrate on hitting the Stalingrad pocket.  Because of the fuel issue and the requirement for coordinated moves I had to ask lots of people to sit aimlessly on the ground and do nothing at all.  Not the height of fun in an FSO.  Once they got to the pocket they had to fight for the few minutes they had left and then try to rearm at the only nearby base which become Vulch Wunder Land.  Not much fun for those with 30 minute max flight time also up against equal or better performing opposing aircraft.  They just had to wait a couple minutes and the VVS were out of it.  Lots just towered.

This last frame I was frustrated about not being able to do my job, keep my people engaged, get to a fight and stay there.  In the end, I just threw us into a ridiculous melee.  By all miracles I survived and then ran like a scared kitten with cannon and mg streaming past to encourage me to remember the skills involved with flying fast amongst the branches.  Of course I ran out of fuel within minutes and had to land at vbase where Biggamer mercifully put me out of my misery as I rolled to a stop <S>.

Now my main point.  If one side can't stay in the air and/or do their job, then the other side also loses.  They have nobody to fight with if everybody gives up and goes home or doesn't bother to show up in the first place. Give me some fuel and time in the air and I'll roll up and fight.

There is absolutely no positive playability reason to have fuel burn at 1.5 or even higher as it has been in the past.

[Devil 505]

I agree with Dantoo. The 1.5 fuel burn has a negative effect on the events on this map. Also a problem with this specific setup is having to land at your takeoff base to receive a landing bonus. It's no fun having 45 minutes left in the event, wanting to re arm and go hunting but there being only 20 enemy still flying. I had my guys tower out after the first sortie to bank the points. These restrictions are essentially making this a single mission event. It's real hard telling my guys that they can't get their 2 hours worth of fun, which is a real shame.

If one side can't stay in the air and/or do their job, then the other side also loses. 

You hit the nail right on the head there, Bud. 

[perdue3]

Thanks for the thoughful support guys.

A couple of previous examples that happened to me:

I was given a task of sweeping with La5s a couple of Eastern Front FSO's back.  We never made it to the target area.  Because we had to divert from track to avoid an entanglement with opposition traffic we no longer had the fuel to get to the target and back.  I had to divert, re-arm at a frontline flashing base and race to the target area to be met with the "we're all down" message.  It's a gut-wrench.

Same FSO, different frame, I was defending against Ju88s and they were defended by my friend 'dweebs bunch.  We caught the Ju88s just in time to have to rtb for fuel.
KN did the right thing and shot the crap out of us as were forced to refuel right in front of them. <S>

Last time I was CIC we were supposed to concentrate on hitting the Stalingrad pocket.  Because of the fuel issue and the requirement for coordinated moves I had to ask lots of people to sit aimlessly on the ground and do nothing at all.  Not the height of fun in an FSO.  Once they got to the pocket they had to fight for the few minutes they had left and then try to rearm at the only nearby base which become Vulch Wunder Land.  Not much fun for those with 30 minute max flight time also up against equal or better performing opposing aircraft.  They just had to wait a couple minutes and the VVS were out of it.  Lots just towered.

This last frame I was frustrated about not being able to do my job, keep my people engaged, get to a fight and stay there.  In the end, I just threw us into a ridiculous melee.  By all miracles I survived and then ran like a scared kitten with cannon and mg streaming past to encourage me to remember the skills involved with flying fast amongst the branches.  Of course I ran out of fuel within minutes and had to land at vbase where Biggamer mercifully put me out of my misery as I rolled to a stop <S>.

Now my main point.  If one side can't stay in the air and/or do their job, then the other side also loses.  They have nobody to fight with if everybody gives up and goes home or doesn't bother to show up in the first place. Give me some fuel and time in the air and I'll roll up and fight.

There is absolutely no positive playability reason to have fuel burn at 1.5 or even higher as it has been in the past.

I remember that event and I also remember strategically planning for short leg Soviet birds. Making sure that we can go 1 hr 10 mins knowing that they can not go longer than 50 mins. Oh the memories, I miss it. Maybe Ill be allowed back one day. Few people have the passion that I have for this event.

[Dantoo]

   Actually we kind of fooled you that day.  We had a quick comparison of fuel levels around the squad.  2 guys had less than 2 mins and the max was 5 with the prop wound way back.
The 2 outta fuel guys counter-attacked at the field you were at and tried to hold on til their engines quit.  The rest struggled to the next field (which was almost within sight) and we landed.  One guy landed short but the others got down "safe".  Pyrrhic victory but we are claiming it.   Would've been a good battle if we'd been able to stay in the sky.

[Nefarious]

Last time I was CIC we were supposed to concentrate on hitting the Stalingrad pocket.  Because of the fuel issue and the requirement for coordinated moves I had to ask lots of people to sit aimlessly on the ground and do nothing at all.  Not the height of fun in an FSO.

The Fuel Burn in the Stalingrad event was 1.0 and I have never used a higher Fuel Burn than 1.0 in any FSO I have EVER designed. FYI.

Sometimes base placement effects the nature of the event, perhaps that is an issue with the Black Sea Terrain, combined with FB higher than 1.0 it can have a negative effect.