November FSO

[Bino]

...
When you take into account that each side usually has to split resources among 2 or 3 objectives you create a situation where those 24 extra fighters that the axis has can overwhelm an allied group over 1 of the objectives then move to the next and do the same thing
...

This sort of thing is expressly forbidden by rule #6 of the regular FSO rules (for which, link here) :

"...
CiCs shall not organize a mission with orders to attack more than one objective in succession.  More simply stated, one objective, one mission.  If there are 8 offensive objectives for one side during a frame, the CIC shall ensure that there are eight attack missions, each assigned to attack a single objective.  This rule is intended to prevent CIC's from overwhelming the defenders of a single target.
..."

[Joker312]

Bino, I am sure that rule pertains to strike missions and has nothing to do with fighter sweeps.Unless you are saying that once a group of fighters assigned to sweep ahead of a strike must RTB after they complete their first mission and are not allowed to move to contact other enemy aircraft.

If that is the intent of the rule then it's not enforced because it is broken on just about every occasion we get together for an FSO.

It seems that no one on the CM team is seeing this as I am. That's OK guys. Maybe the Axis CIC will not take advantage of his surplus of 109's, maybe I am just wrong.

We shall see after the FSO is run. Then, if necessary we will make adjustments to the setup.

Thankyou for your replies and as always I appreciate the work the members of the CM team put in.

[swareiam]

Joker,

The simple truth of this matter is this. When designing these events some designers take into account historical perspectives that happened before and during the period. Which is all well and good. But the CM staff reviews each new and existing event for fairness and balance. Sometimes we overlook these particulars and upon further review take action to balance events for fun game play.

If we look at this in as much reality as is available, it is possible for the Axis to have a total number of 138 pilots each frame. The Allies can have a total number of 136 pilots each frame.

We know that the Axis WILL HAVE 48 seats or more filled with BF109G-6s and FW190A-8s. The Allies will or may fill their maximum requirements with 64 pilots in Mustangs, Lightnings, Spitfire VIIIs and IXs. In addition to this fighter support, the Allies are supplemented with P-47s and Typhoons that can fill these roles as well.

So, I don't see where there is a big disadvantage to the Allies with the modifications that we recently made. All in All the changes are likely to enhance game play and make the event more exciting for all players.

This event was designed to have every player engaged in a fight of some sort. I believe that it will still yield that product by frame and event end.

If we are just discussing the maximums and the minimums, it is apparent to me that the Allies will still have a very slight advantage in airframe types. The rest will be up to the clever planning of each side's CICs and the hard fighting of its pilots.

It seems that no one on the CM team is seeing this as I am.

At the end of the day CMs are people as well. We make mistakes and scramble to get things right and in order like everyone else. Another character or quality of most CMs is discernment. We are not attempting to alienate you or your comments. It may be that the team members feel that the changes are fair and balanced.

So no harm no foul... We have to think of everyone's enjoyment of these events, yours included.

Cheers...
 

 

Bino, I am sure that rule pertains to strike missions and has nothing to do with fighter sweeps.Unless you are saying that once a group of fighters assigned to sweep ahead of a strike must RTB after they complete their first mission and are not allowed to move to contact other enemy aircraft.

If that is the intent of the rule then it's not enforced because it is broken on just about every occasion we get together for an FSO.

It seems that no one on the CM team is seeing this as I am. That's OK guys. Maybe the Axis CIC will not take advantage of his surplus of 109's, maybe I am just wrong.

We shall see after the FSO is run. Then, if necessary we will make adjustments to the setup.

Thankyou for your replies and as always I appreciate the work the members of the CM team put in.

[LilMak]

IMO this setup is more balanced than other Western front setups where the Allies have to mount an attack with no attack perameters for the Luft. Since they have to commit some of their assets to offensive objectives, it spreads them out more without having to run into wave after wave of enemy fighters just waiting to pounce. Plus, with the ability of allied fighters to actually haul Ord, the Axsis can't afford to just ignore them. They will at least have to identify them before they write them off.

Good job CMs!

[Joker312]

Swareiam,

   I appreciate you taking the time to reply to this thread. I understand your points perfectly.

   What I don't understand is anyone not seeing that the numbers add up to an Allied disadvantage. I shall attempt again to explain it as clearly as I can.

    A low end Axis/Allied comparison: Axis - 98 players. 12 in JU-88's the other 86 in assorted fighters not to include FW-190F8's.

    Allies - 97 players. 36 in twin engine bombers and 61 in fighters. Axis advantage 25 fighters. ( 40% )

    At the high end........Axis 12 JU-88's 126 fighters. Allied 36 twin engine bombers and 100 fighters. ( 26% Axis advantage )

   If the low end Allied number meets the high end Axis number of players it would become 126 Axis fighters to 61 Allied. (106% Axis advantage )

    Conversely if the high end Allied number meets the low end Axis player number it would be
86 Axis to 103 Allied or a 20% Allied advantage.

    As you can see in the majority of possible turnout examples the Axis enjoys the advantage, contrary to whatever the CM team wishes to believe.

    In closing I am not in search of any adjustment to the numbers at this time. All I seek is that the CM team acknowledges the fact that this FSO is not as evenly matched as they would like me to believe.

    As always, thank you for the effort that the entire CM team puts into these events.

[Devil 505]

What you're forgetting is that the Axis has to attack targets than just 12 sets Ju88's can handle. And lets be real, here 12 sets might be enough for one target. The Axis must use the F-8's as part of their attack plans. (Here is where I'll mention that I was incorrect in my assessment of the F-8, sans rockets. I forgot the about the four 50Kg bombs. The F-8 is superior in ground attack. ) Given that the Axis will be required to attack at least two total targets, a significant number of F-8's should be factored out of your "Axis fighter advantage."

[Joker312]

Chance Vought F8...........The Last Gunfighter!

Don't factor out the F8..... I know of a guy had 9 kills in one of those in a scenerio....after doing a strike mission!

[j500ss]

The Axis must use the F-8's as part of their attack plans. (Here is where I'll mention that I was incorrect in my assessment of the F-8, sans rockets. I forgot the about the four 50Kg bombs. The F-8 is superior in ground attack. ) Given that the Axis will be required to attack at least two total targets, a significant number of F-8's should be factored out of your "Axis fighter advantage."

I think I said the F-8 will be a non-factor in this set-up.  2 Frames in, and the Allies have yet to see one.   Not surprised by this at all.  I like the set-up, but the sheer variety of airframes, combined with (especially minimums ) and maximums need some tweaking next time around for sure.
It's just simply how it is.  In frame 1 the score was close..... Frame 2 scores have yet to be released, but I think they may be close as well.
Now as for the unlimited 109 numbers.....  Yea, that adjustment had an effect, was it that overwhelming?  I don't think so personally, but you have to admit,  that factors ( maybe heavily even ) as reason the F-8 a hanger queen in this set-up.