feb FSO

[alpini13]

  im not sure i am understanding what this scenario is all about.....wasnt catch 22 a fictional comedic novel that was turned into a movie?  are we now doing fictional scenarios? cant the cm teams find a scenario for us to fly based somewhat on reality? 
   as for the current scenario i noticed that the FW-190 was left off the axis side.  the FW-190 flew in north africa and throughout italy and scicily from late 1942 onwards from its fw-190 a-4  to a-8 models.  the scenario should include a few fw 190- a5 models ...or is that too much reality for the scenario?  oh wait. if this online game is now trending toward just fiction, maybe we should have a scenario where the allies get 1944/45 aircraft and the axis as many fiesler storches as they want...with unlimited lives for axis.  it could be alot of fun for an fso event.

[APDrone]

I hear the 190s might be available if the axis can prove Milo Minderbinder's profit margins on eggs are accurate...

I like the writeup..  good to tie in the story with what actually was going on at the time.

Anybody up for standing on a diving raft during a flyby?

[Dantoo]

My squad will be happy to strafe their own base after we bomb it.

[Kingpin]

After reading the entire event write-up, it seems to me this IS a historical match-up that the scenario designer simply decided to give the title Catch-22, which doesn't make it a "fictional" event setting.  "This historical period will be the backdrop for this Aces High II FSO event.  As Allied forces fought their way up the boot of Italy, Operation Strangle began on March 24, 1943..." (From the 2nd paragraph of the write-up)

It goes on to explain (under the sections titled Regia Aeronautica and Luftlotte 2) that the bulk of units are meant to represent Regia Aeronautica units left to defend Italy while many Luftwaffe units were tasked with fighting on the Russian front.

I think those sections of the write-up should answer your concerns.

<S>
Kingpin

[alpini13]

either way. fw-190 units were still left in italy to fight and in the med theatre from 1942(late) till way after the time frame of this event....if you would like to know the details the fw 190 units were active over scicily from may til september 1943, after that,they were over the mainland of italia.  book reference Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in the Battle for Sicily Hardcover – August 19, 2015
by Morten Jessen (Author), Andrew Arthy (Author
 additionaly. the italian airforce had g-55 fiat,re-2005 and c-205 fighters all in service at the time.   and i believe the allies also had p-47 c-5 at this time in this local as well.  so historically...NOT that accurate.   i hope a few p-47's can be added as well as more c-205's and a few fw-190's.....not asking for many,  just a few, maybe 4-6.  it would make a big difference.

[Squire]

the scenario designer simply decided to give the title Catch-22

Correct.

The P-38 and the Spitfire VIII and Spitfire IX have been left off the Allied side. OOBs are not set in stone.

The Italian Air Force ceased to exist after 9-43. The scattered remnants that would become the ANR (fascist) did not fly their 1st sorties until December 1943 with a few squadrons. They were a rare sight in the skies during this timeline.

oh wait. if this online game is now trending toward just fiction

If you ever had anything constructive to say about FSO? Im just curious.

The setups stands as it is.

Have a nice day.

[Bannor]

If you ever had anything constructive to say about FSO? Im just curious.

The setups stands as it is.

Have a nice day.

  I think someone need to switch from the grape juice to 

[alpini13]

    ok. then here i am being honest and trying to ask the cm team for what i think would be a accurate AND fun FSO setup.......would it be possible to have an event based on the sept-dec 1944 western europe with the scenario having small amount of me-262 and ar 234 being covered by fw 190d"s   scenario would be something like p-47's ,tempest, typhoon and spitfire IX+16 fighter bombers(jabos at low alt going after tagets) spit 14 as low alt escort ,very limited numbers), fw-190d(at low alt  under 9000 ft) defending. b-17's bombing at higher alt, with p-51-d fighter escort against fw-190 a-8 and bf 109k at higher alt.   p-51d would be free to defend b-17 and /or bounce fw-190's...........give each side 3 possible targets to bomb, with allies only having to bomb two(thier choice) or three is they want....i deal would be fighter bombers into one(their chice) and b-17 with primary and seconday target if they choose....at least one target for the jabos and one for the b-17's, axis would have three possible targets but only need to to choose one to bomb with small number of ar 234.  me 262 would have to up near the front and would be possible bounced by allied fighters....but can only engage allied fighter for first two frames..   frame 2 would add one small flight of low flying b-24s that would have to bomb one of the three targets assigned, but would still require only two total being bomed, they could hit a target that has already ben bombed as clean up,or the fighter bombers could be their clean up on same target for frame 2 only.(b-24 flight of 3-5 sets of 3 max)  this would  be accurate for the period leading upto bodenplatte(jan 1945)    units included  wings from jg-54,kommando nowotny and kg-76,jg-26 jg-300/301....334 fighter sgn,20th fg, 359th fighter squdron ,486 sgn,,439 sgn,,331 sgn,401 sgn.

[Joker312]

Warloc,

Why not just be honest with Alpini? Tell him that this is NOT an entirely accurate OOB But it is the OOB that the design team intended. Also the intention is not to accurately recreate the historical battle.

Alpini,

This IS a game and the intention is to have fun. The people who design these for our enjoyment do so with many factors in mind. The most important of which is NOT historical accuracy, it's playability. They want a balanced plane set so either side has the ability to win.
It would be absolutely NO fun for the Axis side if we used historical numbers for instance as the Allies probably had a numerical advantage many times what the side splits will be in this FSO.

Warloc, although I do appreciate your dedication to the game but I cannot respect your flippant answers to players who ask valid questions. Example.. " have you ever had anything constructive....." That's not the way to handle customers and even though you are not a paid employee of HTC, you do represent them in your capacity as a CM.

Answering players questions respectfully is not that hard and if you find you can't do that when someone asks what you perceive to be a stupid question then it's time to step aside.

[SNO]

Answering players questions respectfully is not that hard and if you find you can't do that when someone asks what you perceive to be a stupid question then it's time to step aside.

Players,
Asking CMs questions respectfully without attitude and sarcasm is not that hard and if players can't do that when addressing something they perceive as stupid then it's time to stfu.

[Joker312]

Sno,

  I see it differently. Alpini was a little sarcastic but hardly disrespectful. He seems to be just a very passionate player.

  In regard to my post, this is not the first time I have seen a flippant type response by a CM to a question about the FSO setup. I have seen it happen to Alpini and it has also happened to me personally.

   My only wish is that we can discuss things about the FSO set ups without the need to mock or in your words to tell others to stfu. This is no place for that type response. If the person is being truly combative and rude on these boards, there are other ways to deal with them.

   You ever hear the phrases " there's no such thing as a stupid question" or " treat others as you would like to be treated"? There's so few of us left to enjoy FSO' anymore, let's not push people away just because they have a different opinion.

[SNO]

Joker, just making the point of the two way street. People can say be silent in various ways, but there is no doubt in the meaning of stfu. <S>

[ImADot]

As has been said, a totally historic setup would tend to be one-sided and not a lot of fun for one side. I could see the situation where if it was done, even for one three-frame event, the BBS rage would be epic and/or we'd lose a lot of players because "that sucked...fix it or I'm never coming back"...or just as bad - have whole squads refuse to show up on game night because they got put on the "losing" side and now that side is minus half it's designed strength.

It is easy to write paragraphs on the BBS with all the historical facts as a passionate player with a great interest in certain theaters or air forces, but it's another matter to use that information to make something fun for all and give each side a "fighting chance" to beat history and maybe win the battle. I myself don't design the events; I merely take my turn setting up the arena and running them. But I have a solid appreciation for the Admin CMs that spend a significant amount their time digging through books and trying to balance history with fun game play.

[alpini13]

   thank you for all replies.....going back to the scenario suggestion i wrote about on here....it is a historic scenario....and it would be NO fun if you used historic numbers....so dont use historic numbers.... balance the sides and numbers of aircraft and make it fun.  would that be possible?     what i see now is some of the same old scenarios that we have year in and year out....battle of britian, mto, several of the pacific ones....i think there are many time periods and situations that can be altered to freshen them up and maybe add new ones.    when i first started playing i tried to play the weekend scenarios...but when only three people would show up(total of 3 for both sides combined)  i stopped.    the  big scenaio we had a while back that lasted all day long  was some of the most fun i ever had on here.  thanks for listening

[Squire]

Why not just be honest with Alpini?

I take issue with the assumption on your part that I wasn't.

Asking CMs questions respectfully without attitude and sarcasm is not that hard

Indeed. It's not.