Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: oneway on January 01, 2010, 06:19:48 PM
-
Was running / cross referencing "Order of Battle" listings on published rules ON prior events for back testing the machine language and this little gem popped up in the filter...
Funny?...Clever?...or What?
:salute
Oneway
Edit: Being the mean and cold hearted guy I am...I would smash the "Nullify" button for this squad for this event...and ignore anything they achieved...but that's just me...ruthless and pedantic...good thing I don't get to decide...
(http://www.cadframers.com/ah/cute.jpg)
-
Just one of many "different" squad names I have seen over the years.
-
This coming from the guy that says I attack and ruin threads.....
:rofl
(Other than to stir up trouble, whats the point of having this on a public forum?)
Strip
-
This is a dead topic. It was noted during the event and it did cause confusion. A rule has been added, which should have never been necessary, that squadron names will reflect the units they are protraying.
Yet another one of the baby sitting rules which we are constantly being forced to add.
-
This is a dead topic. It was noted during the event and it did cause confusion. A rule has been added, which should have never been necessary, that squadron names will reflect the units they are protraying.
Yet another one of the baby sitting rules which we are constantly being forced to add.
I don't think its a dead topic at all....rules without consequence are meaningless....whats the point of a stated rule that has no precipitate or effect on outcome? Simply waving ones hand and stating a rule, has no meaning on its face...experience tells us that we cannot legislate away undesirable behavior...their must be a penalty to extract the intent of the rule...
Thankfully...'rules' such as this will have an opportunity to have a consequence...by simply "smashing" a button...or instead checking a check box that says this squad "name" is close enough....even though it does not fit the letter of the law...the attempt of the squad leader to be correct is obvious enough...
Manual override ... to the brutality of Rule...we have the ability to decide what is an honest attempt..and what is a pointed and poignant slap in the face...
Action has consequence...when it doesn't...the action is meaningless, the effort is null...the game suffers...
I look forward to the day...
:aok
-
Did I call it?
-
Did I call it?
:aok
-
The rule was added last scenario and will be carried forth from now on.
-
Yet another one of the baby sitting rules which we are constantly being forced to add.
CM sig material, yo...
-
CM sig material, yo...
Amen by whatever mechanism...make it happen...make it stick....
But it has to have a consequence...and the discussion is now re-directed to:
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE?
Welcome to the NEXT can of worms...
Strike that...defer that...that is a discussion that will occur soon enough in a Scenario or two...
But Ponder IT....
The question of consequences is near upon us...
Oneway
-
haha wow this is a riot!
In Rangoon, none of the squad names where tittled correctly, IIRC they all had code names such as Hawkeye or Panada Red or Blue. Is that ridiculous? Did you have to baby sit us then? Nope the old veteren CM's didnt care, actually at least one of the experianced scenario CMs thought it was neat and added immersion to the event.
As far as this particular squad name "Insert Squad Name Here" IIRC the squad name was changed to the correct name shortly after the frame began as soon as we figured out what our squad was actually called.
(Cell phone post my appologies for spelling)
-
Frankly one could argue that having structured preplanned names gives too much info away anyway. Knowing exactly how many people are in a certain ride during the battle could be used effectively. For some things in Krupp/Steel we used it to our advantage, a little unrealistic in my view.
Strip
-
Frankly one could argue that having structured preplanned names gives too much info away anyway. Knowing exactly how many people are in a certain ride during the battle could be used effectively. For some things in Krupp/Steel we used it to our advantage, a little unrealistic in my view.
Strip
QFT
-
I like the idea of code names like BK said. Hawkeye, Badger, Cougar, etc.
-
This thread shouldn't exist, but since it does and I was there, allow me to add context.
Firstly Rangoon:
In some scenarios there is a requirement for active control of inflight formations. It's not a case of simply putting lines and times on a map a week before and saying "have at it". Rangoon and Der Grosse Schlag are examples of scenarios where one side's sole responsibility is manouvering large groups of fighters in defensive response to incoming raiders. Since you don't know the opponent's timings and routes you must exercise highly advanced command and control, in game. If you don't do this, then the players do not have a very good time and the designers dreams cannot ever come to fruition. This is the hardest of all scenario types to CIC for.
It reflects real life. Callsigns are issued for a number of reasons, some of them restricted. One of the most obvious is ease of control. It is much easier to say "Bear vector North maintain 210" than "9th Guards Aviation Regiment Military Air Forces Red Army vector North maintain 210". In real life callsigns may be changed frequently to obscure units and taskings. Since intercept of communications is not undertaken in AH it has no role here.
I recommended in the Rangoon scenario that for command and control purposes that the squads be issued with their their genuine historical radio callsigns where available. This was done. It achieved its purpose and added immersion. The extra step of having the squads rename themselves in text was to reinforce to them the role communications would play in game. It worked. It removed hardship, not caused it.
The other matter raised here is a classic case of mountains and molehills. The rules of Coral Sea required in one frame that a new land based squadron appear ashore at Port Moresby. The CIC allocated a group of people to make up this squad some weeks before the first frame. It is important to note that this squad didn't exist at all in the previous frame and it's members would be plucked from all over. For one reason or another, a squad which had flown in the first frame thought that it's role in the second frame would be to simply convert ashore in the second. They did this. At the start of the event there was confusion and two squads were ashore assuming the same name and role. It took time to sort this out. Both COs and the CIC were stressed by the mixup and a lot of briefing and re-briefing was required. The logs were started before the situation was resolved and there was a failure initially to "claim the name" by using the .sqdname command. For that terrible lapse the penalty was wholly and completely a naming error on the logs. Oh the humanity!
To disingenuously raise the issue here and make out that it was a flagrant violation of some high standard and an attempt to undermine the holiest of conventions is the most childish of behaviour. All it does is reignite tensions and piddle on the efforts of a CIC who struggled mightily against inexperience and an overflow of information. CIC's need support, not constant and continuing harassment. This is clearly an attempt at a cheap shot by the OP but one which causes greater collateral damage. "Funny, clever or what?" No it's not.
-
:noid
-
Maybe the OP needs to stop over-analyzing every facet of the game (see all the editor forums), realize it is just a game, and maybe try to have a little fun. :rolleyes: