No, Brooke, it won't be. And even if I did have fun, it would be in spite of this design and not because of it. Unlike most players, I can separate how much fun I personally have from how well the event is designed. The Axis players have a very low potential for fun gameplay. I'm not sure the Allies will fare too much better in this regard, but they will at least have all the advantages of plane matchups, target selection, available bases/spawns, freedom of movement, and scoring. The Allies will dominate this event in every regard and consequently, have more fun.
I do not understand how you fail to recognize the serious faults in this design - especially since you have made many of these same mistakes before and have been told by myself and other players about these kind of problems.
Here are my main problems:
1. Everything about the targets is chosen poorly. They are too spread out and the relative distances to the airspawns and bases favors the Allies. This is especially egregious with the air spawns since you chose where they are placed. The allies have a greater freedom of movement because of the fact that one air spawn is nearly equally distant from the main Allied target cluster and the outlaying target while having the luxury of a second air spawn farther west. The Axis air spawn is 2/3 of a sector farther away from their targets then the allies are with their nearest air spawn. Not only are the Axis forced to travel longer distances, but they have fewer direct routes to target areas. Regardless of radar settings and minimum bomber altitudes, this is unbalanced.
I added some circles to your map to illustrate this point. Each ring is the same, with the radius equaling the distance from center of 9,12,9(airspawn) to A109. This is the shortest distance from an air spawn to a target.
For balance, either the 9,12,9 spawn should be moved to 9,12,3; or the Axis spawn should be moved to 10,14,5.
Furthermore, The target areas are far too large for the player numbers you will have. I does not matter if you say that the "battle area is the same as Dnieper". It did not work then and it won't work now. You don't have the numbers to make defense a viable strategy with 2 target areas per side.
2. How exactly does 6 190F-8's equal the potential damage of 7 B-26's and 6 P-40F's? You tried this obviously imbalanced strike force in "Hell Over the Hinterland" and it was a colossal failure then. I expect Anzio to be no different.
Now I understand the historical limitations you are dealing with as any Axis bomber would be purely fiction. But having over double the number of attackers available to the Allies is not the solution. You can claim(correctly) that the P-40 is a lesser fighterbomber than a 190F, but it would take a ridiculous amount of 190's to balance the B-26's. The ability to score points on the offense severely favors the Allies based on pure numbers alone.
Maybe 7 B-25C's and 6 P-40F's would be balanced? But the Allied players hold such an unreasonable stigma over the B-25C that you won't entertain the thought of including that plane even if does make more sense for balance.
Another solution would be to change the event to an Allied only attack design.
3. The B-26 itself presents a problem. I believe you underestimate how strong it is against a mid-war Luftwaffe plane set.
These are the B-26 loss rate numbers from Pantelleria.
Frame 1 63 B-26's(21 sets) 0 shot down (not intercepted at all?)
Frame 2-4 Averages. 43 B-26's. 8.3 Shot down. 18% average loss rate.
Even if we assume as a worst case scenario that the Frame 2 numbers will be typical in this event, the scoring dictates that the Allies will turn a profit every single sortie if just four B-26 pilots drop successfully.
Let's look at another factor from Pantelleria Frame 2. Of the 13 sets taken, 6 resulted in either a totally missed drop or total destruction of the set before the target. The other 7 sets dropped successfully. They earned 17.5 bombing points over the frame using this points system while only losing 17 for planes lost. That is not even factoring in the 2 kills they also achieved. That's 19.5 total points gained for a loss of only 17 in a worst case scenario for the B-26's.
You cannot realistically expect the Axis to shoot down 50% of the B-26 every mission. That simply will not happen and that is what will be required for them to achieve a points advantage in this aspect.
Defending against the B-26's is a losing proposition as is not defending against them. The Axis cannot win under any circumstances.
If you can not or will not create a balanced event, why should I or anyone else participate in it?
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: hazmatt on August 26, 2019, 02:23:07 AM
I looked at the plane set and my personal opinion is that if the axis gonna have a fighting chance they would need at least the g14 with the spit 8 involved. Also, I'd rather have the G2 then the G6 vs that allied plane set.
I'm betting on an axis slaughter with very low turnout on the axis side. Let me know how it goes :)
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on August 26, 2019, 02:35:46 AM
Hello, Devil.
I don't think the 9.12 spawn difference is significant, but if so, it doesn't matter to move the spawn farther back then either -- so I'm fine with that. I'll bring it up with the other CM's, and if no one objects, I'll move it back a bit.
One thing to keep in mind is that scenarios with attack missions need at least two target areas, at least a couple sectors apart, and need to allow attackers to go NOE if there is radar. That way, a side typically cannot defend all targets all the time and must instead choose what to prioritize on defense. The goal is a setup where attackers end up sometimes getting intercepted prior to target and sometimes not, depending on what they and the opponent do. If we designed it with all targets covered all the time, attackers would get intercepted every time and fail every time, which is both miserable for attack pilots and not historical for most of the tactical battles we are themed on.
All scenarios to date with attack missions have these features, including: Nuisance Raids, Pantelleria, Kuban, Rabaul, Hinterland, Tunisia, Dnieper, Southern Conquest, The Pacific War, Battle of Britain 2013, Med. Maelstrom, Winter Sky, Enemy Coast Ahead, Philippine Phandango, Red Storm, Coral Sea, Dawn of Battle, BoB 2008, Husky, BoB 2006, Downfall, Stalin's Fourth, Coral Sea, and BoB 2004.
1.
Once we put together historical bases, historical target locations, using the AH terrain we have, balance it as best we figure, and put in the above design elements, the sides are not going to be the same. Here, assuming 9.12 is moved back, access to defense areas and target areas looks similar enough. Axis has more bases to land at than the allies, outside the presumed main battle areas of a95 and Anzio to land at, but that is historical. Axis has p106 and a108 for flashing and throwing up ack, including lots of puffy ack, in between the allied bases, but that is just how the layout must be.
Dnieper, by the way, was one of the most-popular scenarios, and was one of the most-active scenarios of all time. I would say it did work.
2.
The points are not made so that 6 190F's equals 6 P-40's plus 7 B-26's. The design is made so that 6 190F's equal 6 P-40's (yes, 190's are better, but we are focusing more on attack here, and allies are less picky about every particle of how their planes match up) and 7 B-26's are worth on average zero.
How is that? As you point out, the general idea is that if a B-26 formation gets to target, hits it, and lands, it gets +3 points for its side. If a B-26 formation goes up and is shot down short of target, it gets -3 points for its side (+3 for the other side). If it goes up, hits its target, and is shot down, it gets +0 points. If half the B-26's make it to target and get back, that is +0 points. Half of bombers getting to target and back is very approximately about what happens on average in scenarios. You can find some scenarios where it is more, and some where it is less. See below for what is probably the best analog to this setup, and how that stacked up.
Actually here, we have cut down the points for level bombers to +2.5, but the general idea is the same.
B-25C's aren't in for two reasons. One is that they don't fill, and the bomber pilots who flew them last (who are core bomber pilots in scenarios, and who are fine with flying Ju 88's, not sissies who need only the best things to fly) all told me afterwards that they didn't want to fly B-25C's again. The second reason is that the B-25's flown in Operations Shingle and Strangle were, apparently, B-25J's. And B-25J's are about the same as B-26's -- about the same speed, same defensive gunnery. So, you can think of the B-26's in Anzio as B-25J's if you want.
3.
B-26's are good bombers. But B-26's at 14k are not as difficult as B-17's at 25k under a cloud of US speedsters at 35k, yet these same axis planes do fine there. My best ever was seven B-17's in my 109G-6 with gondolas in a frame of Big Week. I think folks can do fine in the excellent 190A's and 190G's.
I don't think Pantelleria is a good Anzio analog, for several significant reasons. I think Hinterland frames 1 and 4 are better for that (but not frames 2 and 3, as the bombers were completely ignored in those frames). Frame 1 had 21 bomber aircraft shot down and 8 Successful Drops (out of 20 pilot-sorties), for a net score of 3 points. Frame 4 had 40 bomber aircraft shot down and 13 Successful Drops (out of 24 pilot-sorties), for a net score of -1 points. That is basically a wash for bombers, most of which were shot down by 109G's.
I think the Luftwaffe can do fine.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on August 26, 2019, 03:18:10 AM
190A-5's in scenarios are better than Spit 9's. We 190A's dominated Spit 9's in Enemy Coast Ahead. 190A-5's and 109G's are both better in low-alt scenarios than P-47D-11's. In my 109G-6, I licked my chops when meeting P-47's below 20k. 190A-5's, 109G's, and 190F's are all vastly better in scenarios than P-40F's. P-40's? Come on.
The Luftwaffe can handle six Spit 8's added to that mix.
Ye gods, where is Stampf?
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: hazmatt on August 26, 2019, 03:29:01 AM
Why not add 6 g14s? or 6 g2s? I'd feel like I had a better chance against an 8 with either of those :)
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on August 26, 2019, 04:05:51 AM
Why not add 6 g14s? or 6 g2s? I'd feel like I had a better chance against an 8 with either of those :)
I'll ask if they were there in any significant numbers, but we probably have what was correctly there.
Keep in mind, though: You aren't going to be fighting only Spit 8's, as there are only six of them in the battle. Your 109G is better than all the other allied planes, and you're as fast on wep on the deck as a Spit 8. Also, just because Spit 9's, P-47D-11's, and P-40F's are not as good as LW planes in this setup, we aren't going give those guys Spit 16's, P-47M's, and P-51B's.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Devil 505 on August 26, 2019, 05:32:04 PM
Why not add 6 g14s? or 6 g2s? I'd feel like I had a better chance against an 8 with either of those :)
The G-2/G-4 is long gone by 1944. The MTO units that had them were completely in G-6's by August 1943.
Even if you were to make the case that a G-14 was a stand in for a late production G-6, there is no evidence of any G-6's in Italy having any of the late equipment at the time of the Anzio battles. These were bog standard G-6's.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on August 26, 2019, 09:00:44 PM
Brooke, just to clarify on the B25C. It was the primary bird for Shingle and still much involved in Strangle. They were still going strong when Vesuvius blew in March of 44. Many of the early 25s were wrecked by the ash from the volcano and replaced by 25Js. The first J's started arriving in early 44 but were mixed in with the 25C/Ds that were still in operation.
As an aside, consider that our old Buddy Earl Miller was still flying 39s with the 350th during that time. They didn't transition to Jugs until August of 44!
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on August 26, 2019, 10:50:25 PM
According to "B-25 Mitchell Units of the MTO", by Pace, squadrons of XII Bomber Command started getting B-25J's while still in North Africa. A couple examples: "Truly a combat veteran, B-25J The Early Bird III saw much action with the 487th BS/340th BG in 1943." "B-25J-1 43-27747/PEGGY LOU of 1Lt Michael Murphy, 445th BS/321st BG, Soliman, Tunisia, 27 August 1943." Also, from what I read therein, while not all squadrons got B-25J's at the same time, and while groups continued to have C's, D's, G's, and H's, it seems like J's were more prevalent than C's by Jan-June, 1944.
However, even if that is not the case, given that half the groups in XII Bomber Command were B-26 units, and given that bomber pilots will not fill B-25C's regardless, we went with B-26's.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Arlo on August 27, 2019, 12:01:02 AM
According to "B-25 Mitchell Units of the MTO", by Pace, squadrons of XII Bomber Command started getting B-25J's while still in North Africa. A couple examples: "Truly a combat veteran, B-25J The Early Bird III saw much action with the 487th BS/340th BG in 1943." "B-25J-1 43-27747/PEGGY LOU of 1Lt Michael Murphy, 445th BS/321st BG, Soliman, Tunisia, 27 August 1943." Also, from what I read therein, while not all squadrons got B-25J's at the same time, and while groups continued to have C's, D's, G's, and H's, it seems like J's were more prevalent than C's by Jan-June, 1944.
However, even if that is not the case, given that half the groups in XII Bomber Command were B-26 units, and given that bomber pilots will not fill B-25C's regardless, we went with B-26's.
Don't believe everything you read :) Picture worth a thousand words and all that. Sure look like C/Ds. These would have been taken March 23,1944 and after. Not complaining btw, just want to get the history a bit closer to the truth. No problem with 26s as they were sure there too.
Don't believe everything you read :) Picture worth a thousand words and all that.
There are plenty of pictures of B-25J's in that time period.
---- Pictures -----
Photographic plates in "B-25 Mitchell Units of the MTO", by Pace:
B-25J-1 43-27498/SUNDAY PUNCH of Capt Richard Robinson, 82nd BS/12th BG, Foggia, Italy, 24 October 1943
B-25J-10 43-36099 of 1Lt John Marlow, 440th BS/319th BG, Djedeida, Tunisia, 7 July 1944
B-25J-1 43-27747/PEGGY LOU of 1Lt Michael Murphy, 445th BS/321st BG, Soliman, Tunisia, 27 August 1943
B-25J-15 44-29090/WHO CARES? of 1Lt Billy McVee, 486th BS/340th BG, Rimini, Italy, 13 May 1944
B-25J-5 43-27900/BOTTOMS-UP II of 1Lt Clarence Morton, 486th BS/340th BG, Gaudo, Italy, 12 March 1944
Battle-weary B-25J-1 43-27700 was assigned to the 486th BS at Rimini, in Italy in mid 1944 (USAF)
The rear gunner’s position of 488th BS B-25J-10 43-36230 is prepared for a combat mission by squadron armourers at Gaudo, in Italy, in the spring of 1944 (Boeing via Peter M Bowers).
486th BS B-25J-1 43-27784 approaches Alesan airfield, on Corsica in early 1944 (Boeing via Peter M Bowers)
486th BS B-25J-5 43-27900/BOTTOMS-UP II, flown by 1Lt Clarence Morton, approaches the airfield at Gaudo in March 1944. Note the yellow-primered engine fairings and tailplane centre section (Boeing via Peter M Bowers)
B-25J-25 44-30092 of the 12th BG is seen overflying Italy for the last time in March 1944. Just visible on its wing centre-section, painted in red, is the message FIN TO BENITO NEXT HIROHITO. The 12th BG left the MTO to fight the Japanese from bases in India in the early spring of 1944 (USAF)
---- Tail guns on B-25C's -----
Apparently, there were B-25C/D's that had tail guns, making them (for scenario purposes) much more similar to J's than to C's we get to use. See leftmost B-25 in your first pic and B-25 in your last pic.
Also, of the five B-25C pics dated Jan-June, 1944 in the aforementioned book, several have tail guns.
---- Other ----
There are things like this, too:
"The first ten days of May saw the group going after railway bridges between Chiusi and Orvieto, in Italy. With the 310th now devoting its attention to targets on land, all of its remaining B-25G/Hs were phased out of squadron service. The group now operated B-25C/D/Js, with the C- and D-models being somewhat war-weary."
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on August 29, 2019, 11:50:51 PM
From "The B-25 over the Mediterranean" in the section covering the 310th BG and the Month of May 1944 "During the month all B-25G and H aircraft had been phased out of the several squadrons and now the Group's aircraft complement comprised only C's, D's and J's. The silver unpainted J's had come into the squadrons in late April had to be covered on the ground with camouflage netting, much to the distress of the ground crews who would rather have seen them painted like the rest of the aircraft, even if they had to do it themselves" Which in fact they ended up doing.
Same book regarding the 340th BG (Joseph Heller's Catch 22 group) "After the disastrous German air raid in May 1944 improved dispersal was pushed for the aircraft. Before the raid the planes were lined up in a row because the area for wider dispersal of the aircraft was not completed. Another result of the raid is we were almost completely re-equipped with new B-25J aircraft."
From "North American B-25 Mitchell the ultimate look" by William Wolf. "The first USAAF acceptance (of the B-25J) took place in March of 44". The 12th AF 25s were all on Corsica at that time so 25Js in Tunisia or North Africa with them, is not accurate.
From "The Saga of 54 and More-The Story of the 310th Bombardment Group (M)" by Charles Hair. "In April 1944 Transfer of C and D model began as replacement J models started arriving."
So the earliest you'd have 25Js is late April 44 as the USAAF only accepted the first J in March of 44. To get them out to the units wasn't an overnight thing and all the documentation confirms that.
Again, just to be clear, I'm not advocating change, just wanting to clear up the use of the J model in the MTO. I'd also suggest the book "USS Corsica" by Dominique Taddei. Massive and expensive but if you want a great history of the 25s of the 12th AF during the time of the scenario, it's the one :)
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on August 30, 2019, 12:55:50 AM
Getting more B-25J's in April and March is OK for an event that spans Jan-June.
Quote
"The first USAAF acceptance (of the B-25J) took place in March of 44".
Or that sentence is less accurate, and these pictures and their detailed descriptions are more accurate:
B-25J-1 43-27498/SUNDAY PUNCH of Capt Richard Robinson, 82nd BS/12th BG, Foggia, Italy, 24 October 1943 SUNDAY PUNCH was one of only a handful of ‘solid-nosed’ B-25Js to see service with the 12th BG. It was one of 24 Mitchells (six from each squadron) that the 12th BG sortied on 24 October 1943 to bomb the town of Formia, in Italy. Three aircraft, including SUNDAY PUNCH, were flak holed on this mission, but all returned safely to base.
B-25J-1 43-27747/PEGGY LOU of 1Lt Michael Murphy, 445th BS/321st BG, Soliman, Tunisia, 27 August 1943 On 27 August 1943, this B-25J ran into heavy flak whilst dropping six 500-lb bombs on the Benevento railroad yards near Naples, in southern Italy. It was holed more than 80 times, but still returned safely across the Mediterranean to Soliman. Three other B-25s in this 18-aeroplane formation were not so lucky, being shot down over the target.
Truly a combat veteran, B-25J The Early Bird III saw much action with the 487th BS/340th BG in 1943. Thankfully, the significance of its nose-art remains a mystery! The Early Bird III survived rather longer in the frontline than the group’s original CO, Col Mills, who was shot down and killed over Furney, in Algeria, on 6 May 1943 while leading one of the group’s early missions (Harry D George Jr Collection).
To be clear, I'm not saying that the XII Bomber Command didn't have C's and D's during Jan-June, 1944 -- it did.
I'm saying that it had a significant number of J's at some point during Jan-June, 1944 according to the reference I cited.
I'm also saying that, based on pictures (yours and mine), some C's/D's had tail guns, which makes them more like J's to us.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on August 30, 2019, 12:26:49 PM
Brooke the dates on those Js is wrong. It’s as simple as that. The solid nose Js were later than the glass nose version that arrived in April 44. I’ll get the specifics on them later at home just to clarify the correct dates
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on August 30, 2019, 03:59:34 PM
If you want some fun Brooke, go to this link on the 340th BG website:
It's their mission index and each is a link that gives the detail of each mission, the crews and the serial numbers of the B-25s flown. First 25J I could find was in May 44.
For the scenario stuff those missions might be some inspiration :)
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on August 30, 2019, 11:09:07 PM
If you want some fun Brooke, go to this link on the 340th BG website:
That is a good reference, thanks.
All I'm saying is this: there was a significant number of B-25J's at some point between Jan-June, 1944 in XII Bomber Command. So, May is fine.
With regard to your reference, mostly they don't refer to what type of B-25 they were flying. So, seeing the first mention of a B-25 variant doesn't mean that's the first time it was ever used. Also, they say, "The missions listed below are only those for which we have photos of the target." I noticed that when I saw there were missions listed in December 2, 1943 but then next is March 10, 1944.
Here is another site of many pictures of B-25's, specifically of the 340th BG. "B-25 Photos from Charles Cook’s Photo Collection, Edited by his son Doug Cook. . . . These B-25 Bombers were primarily B-25 J Models." Charles Cook was a B-25 pilot in the 340th BG. https://www.reddog1944.com/340th%20BG%20487th%20BS%20PLANES.htm
Some of the B-25J pictures, with mission # and date: 340th BG 487th BS - SN 43-32704 - 7A “MY NAKED ASS”, mission 6, April 13 340th BG 487th BS - SN 43-27656 - 7C "McKinley Jr. High", mission 19, May 19 340th BG 487th BS - SN 43-27556 - 7D, mission 4, April 3 340th BG 487th BS - SN 43-27540 - 7E WATCH COPIER, mission 32, June 6 340th BG 487th BS - SN 43-27510 - 7F WILLIE, mission 1, April 3 340th BG 487th BS - SN 43-27478 - 7J YAHOUDI, mission 29, June 3
and others
So, B-25J's were there in enough numbers that most of the B-25's in a 340th BG pilot's photo collection, that spans from April onward, were J's.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on August 31, 2019, 11:10:19 PM
And on that we can agree. From April onward. Again I'm not telling you to change the scenario, just clarifying when the Js got there.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 01, 2019, 01:44:42 AM
Rgr that, Corky. Thanks for the additional info, details, thoughts, and references.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 01, 2019, 08:16:44 AM
:D
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Vudu15 on September 07, 2019, 04:24:54 PM
Brooke has stated he doesn't care what planes are used and that's for the COs and the players to fight over....COs being also on the CM team so I can take a guess at how far that will go. You've burned and continue to burn the last remnant of veteran players you have with moves like this, and this is the primary reason I have all but left the game as well. It has been an obvious fact that in plane performance comparisons the CM team has been lackluster in decisions and implementation of what is comparable and somewhat fair.
Devil if you will recall my command decision on B26s during Tunisia was to completely ignore them as they were not worth the effort to chase and waste ammo on and are the IMO #1 issue bomber for the axis to deal with. I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the event but they should be weighted correctly against a "realistic" amount of ammo that the axis can drag into the sky.
You keep shooting ourselves in the feet with decisions like this and that will be the end of my comments on this.
Vudu15/Roen Mitchell
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 08, 2019, 02:18:24 AM
Now, now -- don't get all curmudgeonly. We've got the various plane types that were there (other than the A-36 Apache). Grab one of those excellent 109's or 190's and join the fun! :aok
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: perdue3 on September 08, 2019, 08:30:21 AM
CMs are COs this time because no one volunteered to be CO. Speaking from the Axis point of view, none of the very few players that have signed up volunteered to be the CO. Because a side needs a CO, the responsibility falls on the CMs. I did not want to be CO as I would prefer the player base lead itself. But, since no one wanted the job, it fell to my feet.
Your strategic assessment of the B-26 is spot on. In this scenario, I am afraid the Luftwaffe will be forced to take a very similar approach. The problem is, the Luftwaffe will certainly lose if we do not face the B-26's. Quite a difficult predicament. We could use some help.
:salute
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 08, 2019, 01:27:49 PM
Your strategic assessment of the B-26 is spot on. In this scenario, I am afraid the Luftwaffe will be forced to take a very similar approach. The problem is, the Luftwaffe will certainly lose if we do not face the B-26's. Quite a difficult predicament. We could use some help.
:salute
This is player to player...
You're speaking to this instance as if FSO didn't just happen. The scenario bomber choices were the B-25C or the B-26B. As we saw from this past Friday night, the B-25s were slaughtered. They were laid upon the altar and sacrificed. How do I know this? Because I was there helping to slaughter that poor formation of bombers. The B-25s were all but defenseless as they ran headlong into the meat grinder that was the base CAP. The fighter escort striped away with BF110s baring down on them as they prepped to drop their bombs. There were 12 formations of B-25s that yielded a radar, one hangar, and 56 town objects. There was 1 in 12 formations that made it back to base. What bomber pilot wants to do that for three hours? :confused:
So now what I am continuing to hear is that the most lethal bomber killer(s) ever built are likely not to be able to hammer away at the B-26s until there all dead. I think I am hearing that no casualties should be taken even attempting to get at the bombers. The eight bomber pilots should be solely relying on the fighter escort for their protection. The bomber pilots don't have to do any work to be successful, just show up... A bunch of Hot Luftwaffe sticks with thousands of simulated combat flying hours in these same aircraft that already know how to intercept bombers through much trial and error, can't get the job done? I am hearing that the Luftwaffe can't win this thing. :headscratch:
I think I am hearing this all wrong. I think what I am hearing is that, "NO MATTER WHAT THE ALLIES PUT UP, WE'RE KNOCKING IT DOWN".
Yeah, that's what I heard. I am pretty sure of it...
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 08, 2019, 01:45:47 PM
You guys will do fine against the bombers. They are easier than B-17's at 25k with a cloud of P-51's, P-47's, and P-38's over them at 34k, where 190's and 109's do just fine. Heck, you guys are better pilots than I am, and I shot down seven B-17's in one frame of Big Week in my 109G-6. You'll do fine. :aok
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Devil 505 on September 08, 2019, 07:04:53 PM
You're speaking to this instance as if FSO didn't just happen. The scenario bomber choices were the B-25C or the B-26B. As we saw from this past Friday night, the B-25s were slaughtered. They were laid upon the altar and sacrificed. How do I know this? Because I was there helping to slaughter that poor formation of bombers. The B-25s were all but defenseless as they ran headlong into the meat grinder that was the base CAP. The fighter escort striped away with BF110s baring down on them as they prepped to drop their bombs. There were 12 formations of B-25s that yielded a radar, one hangar, and 56 town objects. There was 1 in 12 formations that made it back to base. What bomber pilot wants to do that for three hours? :confused:
So now what I am continuing to hear is that the most lethal bomber killer(s) ever built are likely not to be able to hammer away at the B-26s until there all dead. I think I am hearing that no casualties should be taken even attempting to get at the bombers. The eight bomber pilots should be solely relying on the fighter escort for their protection. The bomber pilots don't have to do any work to be successful, just show up... A bunch of Hot Luftwaffe sticks with thousands of simulated combat flying hours in these same aircraft that already know how to intercept bombers through much trial and error, can't get the job done? I am hearing that the Luftwaffe can't win this thing. :headscratch:
I think I am hearing this all wrong. I think what I am hearing is that, "NO MATTER WHAT THE ALLIES PUT UP, WE'RE KNOCKING IT DOWN".
Yeah, that's what I heard. I am pretty sure of it...
Maybe you should also look at the B-25 frame from the Anzio FSO run 2 months ago.
10 B-25 pilots for 30 total planes. The Axis shot down just 18 and was awarded another kill for a crash. 19 out of 30 is not exactly a slaughter, and the plane set in the Anzio FSO is much better representative of what the Anzio scenario will be.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 08, 2019, 07:36:13 PM
Maybe you should also look at the B-25 frame from the Anzio FSO run 2 months ago.
10 B-25 pilots for 30 total planes. The Axis shot down just 18 and was awarded another kill for a crash. 19 out of 30 is not exactly a slaughter, and the plane set in the Anzio FSO is much better representative of what the Anzio scenario will be.
How many escorting Allied fighters were there in that FSO frame??
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Devil 505 on September 08, 2019, 08:18:43 PM
How many escorting Allied fighters were there in that FSO frame??
20 Jugs at 17-21K escorting all 10 sets of B-25's at 14K. Defense was four 190's and six 109G-6's
How was the B-25 attack last Friday organized?
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 08, 2019, 08:58:26 PM
There are three reasons why B-25C's are not in the scenario.
First is that bomber pilots don't want to fly B-25C's anymore in scenarios. That's a major issue because you guys who want B-25C's in scenarios will never fly them, fill them, or keep them full for the whole event. I understand. I've flown B-25C's a lot in events. They suck. Totally. Even against Ki-43's they suck, let alone against 190's and 109's with gondolas. B-25H's (and B-25J's, if we had them) are a very different matter, however.
Second is that, after about April-March, according to references I have, the B-25's were majority J's; and B-25J's and B-26's are about the same (about the same speed, same defensive armament).
Third is that half the medium bombers in XII Tactical Air Force were B-26's anyway.
Anyway, the good news is that you can consider all the bombers in this event to be B-25J's if you want. :aok
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Devil 505 on September 08, 2019, 09:04:56 PM
You still don't get it, Brooke.
All this discussion of B-25 this and B-25 that is just silly. I only mentioned the B-25 in my original post because in the context of THIS scenario, the scenario would suck less with the B-25 replacing the B-26.
But make no mistake, this scenario sucks with ANY bomber.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Spikes on September 08, 2019, 09:05:25 PM
You're speaking to this instance as if FSO didn't just happen. The scenario bomber choices were the B-25C or the B-26B. As we saw from this past Friday night, the B-25s were slaughtered. They were laid upon the altar and sacrificed. How do I know this? Because I was there helping to slaughter that poor formation of bombers. The B-25s were all but defenseless as they ran headlong into the meat grinder that was the base CAP. The fighter escort striped away with BF110s baring down on them as they prepped to drop their bombs. There were 12 formations of B-25s that yielded a radar, one hangar, and 56 town objects. There was 1 in 12 formations that made it back to base. What bomber pilot wants to do that for three hours? :confused:
So now what I am continuing to hear is that the most lethal bomber killer(s) ever built are likely not to be able to hammer away at the B-26s until there all dead. I think I am hearing that no casualties should be taken even attempting to get at the bombers. The eight bomber pilots should be solely relying on the fighter escort for their protection. The bomber pilots don't have to do any work to be successful, just show up... A bunch of Hot Luftwaffe sticks with thousands of simulated combat flying hours in these same aircraft that already know how to intercept bombers through much trial and error, can't get the job done? I am hearing that the Luftwaffe can't win this thing. :headscratch:
I think I am hearing this all wrong. I think what I am hearing is that, "NO MATTER WHAT THE ALLIES PUT UP, WE'RE KNOCKING IT DOWN".
Yeah, that's what I heard. I am pretty sure of it...
To be fair...in FSO the target is known and it has to be attacked by a certain time by a certain amount of force. These rules aren't the same in Scenarios and there are many more possible targets spread over a much wider area. To directly compare the two may have skewed results in terms of bomber deaths.
Also I imagine the most lethal bomber killer(s) ever weren't operational yet. But we should not be taking into account who is flying said airplanes, only what each airplane is capable of versus its counterpart.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 08, 2019, 09:17:52 PM
20 Jugs at 17-21K escorting all 10 sets of B-25's at 14K. Defense was four 190's and six 109G-6's
Your odds are vastly better in Anzio.
Now, I've shot down a lot of B-17's in my 109G-6 in a scenario. And I've shot down a lot of Spits in my 190A-5 in a scenario. But I have never before flown a P-40 in a scenario. People tell me that P-40's totally dominate 109G-6's and 190A-5's. So while your odds are vastly better in Anzio, beware those P-40's! :aok
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 08, 2019, 09:32:15 PM
But make no mistake, this scenario sucks with ANY bomber.
Nah -- it will be great fun. :aok
All scenarios have bombers, and the battles we theme on had bombers. Yet scenarios have plenty of fighter-on-fighter combat, too. Something for everyone.
By the way, in looking back at some bomber action, I was looking at my 109G-6 in Big Week. I was using a skin you made for that. Thanks for the skin! :aok
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Devil 505 on September 08, 2019, 09:33:13 PM
Now, I've shot down a lot of B-17's in my 109G-6 in a scenario. And I've shot down a lot of Spits in my 190A-5 in a scenario. But I have never before flown a P-40 in a scenario. People tell me that P-40's totally dominate 109G-6's and 190A-5's. So while your odds are vastly better in Anzio, beware those P-40's! :aok
I doubt that. Check out the revised numbers.
I've also killed sets of bombers with G-6's and Spits with Fw 190's in scenarios. My point is not what any individual pilot has done before but what is likely to happen based on data gained by many pilots.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Devil 505 on September 08, 2019, 09:48:48 PM
All scenarios have bombers, and the battles we theme on had bombers. Yet scenarios have plenty of fighter-on-fighter combat, too. Something for everyone.
You still fail to see the fundamental problem that this scenario presents. It should have been obvious without even having any plane models named. It is the most basic of design failures.
One side has an entire squad of bombers capable of scoring points while the other does not. You have not provided any assets for the side without bombers to account for the bombers their opponent has. There are no extra fighter to kill the bombers. There are no extra fighterbombers to gain attack points. There is not even a points consideration to attempt to balance the event via scoring.
This should have failed a basic logic test at the outset.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 08, 2019, 10:14:25 PM
Your revised numbers, then, are same as what we'll have in Anzio, only we have 30% fewer bombers than you did.
I'm guessing your fighter pilots arriving after the drop didn't care as much about bombers compared to before drop because bombers in scenarios are not too hard to shoot down when you have fighter parity. Well, unless 999000 is one of the bomber pilots. :aok
Quote
My point is not what any individual pilot has done before but what is likely to happen based on data gained by many pilots.
Excellent -- then you'll love Anzio because I'm a very data-driven guy! :aok
My Ph.D. involved lots of data analysis and modelling, and then I did it professionally in the finance industry (as a "quant" in industry lingo). So, to come up with scenario numbers and scoring, I go back through many past scenarios (and thus data gained by many hundreds of pilots over decades) and crunch the numbers to figure out what the data tells me on what works and what doesn't. I pull out things like what seems OK as rules of thumb for (number of bombers):(number of attacking fighters), (number of defending fighters):(number of attacking fighters), points per drop, whether or not a particular plane type is too dominant, etc. That way, it is data driven and not developed only by personal opinion and anecdotal evidence, which is notoriously unreliable and variable.
Come on in, fellow data aficionado! Anzio is for you! :aok
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 08, 2019, 10:32:27 PM
You still fail to see the fundamental problem that this scenario presents.
Actually, you can go back and look at all scenarios to see what ratios work, and you can run the scoring system on every frame of past scenarios to see how it would have turned out.
The goal is system where half the frames are won by one side and half by the other. This is complicated by the fact that sometimes one side has much better plans and execution than the other -- so you need enough data for a statistical analysis, not one scenario.
Bombers these days are scored to be sort of a neutral asset. Roughly speaking, they generate -3 points (i.e., +3 points to the enemy) if they are all shot down and +3 points if they all live, drop on target, and all make it back to base. If half of them get shot down, it is net zero points. If all of them drop on target but all get shot down in the process, it is net zero points. And so on.
Now, maybe you need it to be +2.5 points per successful drop instead of +3, or +3.5 instead of +3, etc. +3 was used as a rough ballpark of what you'd expect to work, but data can tell you. You can go back and run this scoring system on every frame of every scenario where one side had bombers and the other didn't, and see how it does.
Our current system of bomber scoring is vastly more balanced than the past ad hoc scoring systems people made up because it worked in their heads without crunching the data on past scenarios to model it.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 08, 2019, 11:26:40 PM
By the way, even though we try for perfect balance, no matter how we do scoring -- data driven or not -- it is never going to be perfect.
You can refuse to play in any scenario that isn't scored the way you want.
Or, you can contribute, help your friends by flying with them, and decide that a formula isn't the keeper of your fun.
Come on in, Devil! Perd and the axis folks want to fly with you! I'd like to fly with you, too. :aok
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Shuffler on September 08, 2019, 11:30:17 PM
Devil.... sounds like you should grab a bomber.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 08, 2019, 11:33:43 PM
We'll call the group Devil's Destroyers! :aok (Sort of like George Thoroughgood and the Delaware Destroyers, but in bombers!)
One of these days, I would love to get Perd, Spikes, Devil, and Ditto in bombers, and we can have a grand ol' time!
Maybe in torpedo bombers! :O
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 09, 2019, 07:34:13 AM
To be fair...in FSO the target is known and it has to be attacked by a certain time by a certain amount of force. These rules aren't the same in Scenarios and there are many more possible targets spread over a much wider area. To directly compare the two may have skewed results in terms of bomber deaths.
Also I imagine the most lethal bomber killer(s) ever weren't operational yet. But we should not be taking into account who is flying said airplanes, only what each airplane is capable of versus its counterpart.
Not in this case. A much smaller operations area for both sides, very close targets with good adjacency to spawn points and bases. As far as the comment about who's flying the hardware; contrar contrar... Only one of you needs to know how to intercept the bombers and I see who is registered. So throwing that one out.
Can we all take one other thing into account? This is a game that we are not staking our lives on. We are not really defending our own territory or our homes or our loved ones. The most we are getting is a historical perspective into what it may have been like for each side. In addition to that, we are getting an awesome virtual CHALLENGE. Clearly we all see the challenges. Because we are still talking about them.
In the true history of this event, did the Luftwaffe negotiate the terms of the battle before it started? The designers worked together to present the best balance that was possible for both sides. All or most historical information was taken into account. So now, let's play ball and laugh about it afterward.
:aok
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 09, 2019, 12:52:35 PM
There are three reasons why B-25C's are not in the scenario.
First is that bomber pilots don't want to fly B-25C's anymore in scenarios. That's a major issue because you guys who want B-25C's in scenarios will never fly them, fill them, or keep them full for the whole event. I understand. I've flown B-25C's a lot in events. They suck. Totally. Even against Ki-43's they suck, let alone against 190's and 109's with gondolas. B-25H's (and B-25J's, if we had them) are a very different matter, however.
Second is that, after about April-March, according to references I have, the B-25's were majority J's; and B-25J's and B-26's are about the same (about the same speed, same defensive armament).
Third is that half the medium bombers in XII Tactical Air Force were B-26's anyway.
Anyway, the good news is that you can consider all the bombers in this event to be B-25J's if you want. :aok
Brooke, you do understand that the 12th AF B25 Groups had B25Gs & Hs during that time frame before Js right? Just saying. Maybe the Luftwaffe would prefer 75mm cannons :)
As an example, the 310th BG fired 1,100 75mm shells in February 44 alone.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: FBKampfer on September 09, 2019, 11:32:07 PM
Is Devil from New York? I think he said he's from New York, or at least somewhere out east.
Devil, I'll buy you a New York-style pizza at your favorite pizza place if you play! :aok
No joke -- pizza on me if you join up. :aok
Massachusetts. However I doubt pizza will be a deciding factor.
In your defense, gone are the days of 25k B-17's. After years, you have at least acknowledged that suck a setup is simply unfun to play, especially with our smaller numbers.
But to be frank the scenario looks rather unfun to me, and I would not be playing even if I'd finished building my tower. For me there's no specific scoring issue on this one in principle (I would argue that you must factor average bomber kill ratio against their scoring, they may frequently get slaughtered, but it still comes at a cost to us, and thus they are not quite a net 0). No the problem is simply that I don't enjoy event after event of bomber interception.
However I think one of the core problems (greatly exacerbated by our limited plane set) is that most events we run are mid-late war with the Axis historically getting absolutely hammered. It was February 2017 in Hinterland that the Axis were nominally last on the offensive (more in spirit than anything else, a constraint of our plane sets and circumstances of the event), or Feb 2016 in (only the first frame) of Southern Conquest that the Axis was on the offensive.
Prior to that, it was 2013.
Broadly speaking we are almost always on defense (which I know you will protest gives an advantage, but outside of situational cases this simply does not pan out in the actual combat)
I know we really don't have the plane set to do Battle of France, 1940/41 N. Africa, etc. But hell, run a Kursk battle instead Dnepier, run a Backhand Blow, do Operation Watchtower and Gualcanal.
Hell, with the battleships, we have a LOT more options for naval battles. You can set up Kirishima (and Hiei if she survives the first frame) vs Washington and SoDak.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 10, 2019, 01:21:17 AM
but it still comes at a cost to us, and thus they are not quite a net 0).
That's where applying the scoring system to past scenarios comes in -- to see how it all works out really.
Quote
I don't enjoy event after event of bomber interception.
I hear you. I like variety very much, myself.
Because we have players who are fighter only *and* players who are bomber only, we put both in. Bombers could be on either side, though, or both. Even though there are bombers in every scenario, many tactical-oriented scenarios don't have everyone doing bomber intercept. There are some I've flown in where I didn't even see enemy bombers much, let alone attack them. Other fighter groups were the bomber interceptors.
Quote
most events we run are mid-late war with the Axis historically getting absolutely hammered.
Even if axis side historically was way outnumbered, we of course don't do it that way in the event.
Still, out of the past 15 scenarios, 1/3 were these, where the axis was historically not way outnumbered:
Nuisance Raids, 1942 Tunisia Feb. 1943 Southern Conquest starting 1942 Battle of Britain, 1940 Med Maelstrom, 1942
Quote
we are almost always on defense
Out of past 15 scenarios, LW was on offense 60% of the time.
Nuisance Raids Pantelleria Kuban (if you count attack, then Hinterland also) Tunisia Dnieper Southern Conquest The Pacific War BoB 2013 Med. Maelstrom
Quote
run a Kursk battle instead Dnepier, run a Backhand Blow, do Operation Watchtower and Gualcanal.
Sounds good! Let's get some of those in the mix for voting for the February Scenario! :aok
Quote
Hell, with the battleships, we have a LOT more options for naval battles. You can set up Kirishima (and Hiei if she survives the first frame) vs Washington and SoDak.
The problem with things other than airplanes is getting players who will register for it, show up every week, and take it seriously. (That's why we don't have any tanks in scenarios anymore.) If that were certain, though, I'd be all for it.
In fact, I've thought about how awesome it would be to have "Neptune's Inferno" event:
1: Battle of Savo Island Night ship battle. allies work to protect transport areas of tulagi and guadalcanal axis can come in however it wants
2. battle of the eastern solomons Carriers plus battleships, cruisers, etc.; Cactus Air Force
3. Air battles around Henderson Cactus Air Force vs. IJ from Rabaul.
4. battle of cape esperance Ship-ship battle.
5. Battle for Henderson Field ij has 2 cv's vs. cactus
6. Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands carrier battle
7. Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
8. Battle of Tassafaronga ship-ship battle
Some of the stages are ship-ship with no aircraft, so those could be fought between the folks doing the naval part of it (2-3 guys per battleship, 2-3 guys per cruiser, 1 guy per DD). Stages with lots of air combat could be run like a scenario frame. So, even though it is 8 stages, it wouldn't be like 8 frames of a scenario, with the pilots flying 8 frames.
I'm not sure we could get people to fill such a thing up and run it these days. So, it's more of a fond idea at this point.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Devil 505 on September 10, 2019, 07:36:03 PM
One of these days, I would love to get Perd, Spikes, Devil, and Ditto in bombers, and we can have a grand ol' time!
Here's my offer to you, Brooke.
If you lead the Axis and bring your crew of toadies with you, I'll fly a B-26 in this setup and bring Perd and Spikes with me.
Since you believe that your design is fair and balanced, you should have no issue with this arrangement.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: ROC on September 11, 2019, 12:43:27 AM
Quote
Here's my offer to you, Brooke.
If you lead the Axis and bring your crew of toadies with you, I'll fly a B-26 in this setup and bring Perd and Spikes with me.
Since you believe that your design is fair and balanced, you should have no issue with this arrangement.
Locked in, this setup, no changes? I'll even come back and fly with Devil and company. I've been having a very hard time keeping quiet over this stuff lately.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Shuffler on September 11, 2019, 12:57:22 AM
I didn't hear anyone complain when spit 1s were going against 111s, 110s, 109s, and 190s.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 11, 2019, 03:43:12 AM
You're going to need to ante up a lot more than pizza to get me to join.
Here's my offer to you, Brooke.
If you lead the Axis and bring your crew of toadies with you, I'll fly a B-26 in this setup and bring Perd and Spikes with me.
Since you believe that your design is fair and balanced, you should have no issue with this arrangement.
Well, a couple of things; and at the end, what I will do.
---- The Couples of Things ----
First, I assume you are talking about the guys who agreed to fly P-40's with me: Popsman (who is my father), Killyjim (best man at my wedding), TheKenzr (my nephew), Tudza (my college buddy and co worker), and 1ijac (long-time AH pal, awesome AH pilot, and all around excellent human being).
Not only are these guys all fine human beings outside the game, they are fine assets to scenarios, because they are always willing to contribute and help out. Many historical setups are not composed of only highly favored planes. These guys are willing to fly those P-40's, Stukas, Il-2's, He 111's, B5N's, 110's vs. P-51's, etc. so that we have those historical yet unfavored planes filled and so that others can fly the highly preferred planes. Then, they show up every frame and never quit, even if we are getting annihilated. They never complain. They don't badmouth anyone. They maintain high, positive morale no matter what. Those are high-quality guys.
Second, I already offered to be axis CO. I wasn't taken up on it. We long since moved on. Now I'm done with my recruiting (after lots of PM's personally inviting my contacts to fly specifically with me in specific roles) and have built my command team.
I like the axis side just fine in this scenario and in general. In the past 34 scenarios, I flew axis 56% of the time, a lot of the time as a GL. I've been axis CO in Rangoon '42 and Big Week; and allied CO in Fjord Fury and Nuisance Raids. I would have been happy to be axis CO in this one.
Here is how it works. I give all other scenario CM's their choices first. Then I fill in where needed. Currently, we have four scenario CM's: me, Swareiam, Ditto, and Perd. Perd has a strong axis preference. I asked him about this before. He says he'd go allied if he must to help out but not by choice. Ditto seems to prefer axis, but I'm not sure if it's an enormously strong preference. Swareiam likes both sides but still, like most people, has preferences from time to time. I like all of those folks to get their choices first, and I'll take what's left.
---- What I will do ----
However, I will do this for you, Devil. Next time I'm needed to fill in as a CO, and if there is flexibility on which side that is, you choose which side I go.
I'll do that whether or not you fly in Anzio.
I wanted you to fly in Anzio for two reasons. One is to help a good guy (Perd) who might also be an AH pal of yours. That's independent of what you think of the setup -- that's helping someone out. Second is that I think you'd end up having fun. But you are very certain that you won't, and under those circumstances (as in Henry Ford's saying "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right"), you will be right.
So, we'll see how it goes, and I hope that you join us in the next scenario that is more to your liking. :aok
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 11, 2019, 08:01:21 AM
Ahem...
I luv Devil just as much as the rest of you guys, he is an AWESOME dude. But why are we even entertaining the thoughts of making changes now to accommodate his patronage? :headscratch:
The basics of "scenario" are still the same.
Kill or be Killed in glory and with honor.
There are some warriors here that just want to feel the quickening of the kill.
If you are on the lower end of the food chain, then stay away or maybe there is just a tinge of fear. I don't know...
All I know is that if your warrior spirit is calling out for battle, then sign up. Pick up your sword and shield or stick and throttle and GETSUM!
Somebodies going to bleed, somebody going to blow up, and someone is going to die a glorious "Virtual" death.
Could be you or you or you or me. But this happens every scenario regardless of design. I love it! :t
Let's stop talkin about this and go blow some stuff up! :furious
C'mon let's fight!
:salute
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: TWCAxew on September 11, 2019, 10:09:06 AM
Locked in, this setup, no changes? I'll even come back and fly with Devil and company. I've been having a very hard time keeping quiet over this stuff lately.
We need all the help we can get.
We have to convince Devil to fly somehow, can't leave an events guy like him out of them. If the Luftwaffe pilots who are committed to flying are to have any semblance of fun, we need more pilots. If we do not get them I am not sure if anyone on our side will actually stay for very long in the event.
Please sign up or tell us what you would like to see implemented that would convince you to sign up.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 11, 2019, 11:37:11 AM
Well, I've already committed to a Spit, but then again, I guess it depends on how you meant that. ;) I'm sure there will be several F8 waiting for us. :D
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: perdue3 on September 11, 2019, 02:20:16 PM
Well, I've already committed to a Spit, but then again, I guess it depends on how you meant that. ;) I'm sure there will be several F8 waiting for us. :D
Several? Try 3. Not quite enough to go around to the 14 Spitfires.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: CptTrips on September 11, 2019, 02:27:51 PM
Several? Try 3. Not quite enough to go around to the 12 Spitfires.
We're officers and gentlemen, We'll share. 4 on each. Get in line gents.
LoL. I'm pretty certain that's how many spits I had on my butt every second of the BoB combat (for 12 freakin hour!). Except when there were 5. :D
If it came down to not being able to run the scenario, I would switch, but I have already been on the Allied board. So I wouldn't want to freak anyone out.
I'll go where ever you need me, though I'm probably a liability to who ever you stick me with. So maybe it's more fair to just make the Allies keep me. :rofl
:salute
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: perdue3 on September 11, 2019, 02:34:02 PM
We're officers and gentlemen, We'll share. 4 on each. Get in line gents.
LoL. I'm pretty certain that's how many spits I had on my butt every second of the BoB combat (for 12 freakin hour!). Except when there were 5. :D
If it came down to not being able to run the scenario, I would switch, but I have already been on the Allied board. So I wouldn't want to freak anyone out.
I'll go where ever you need me, though I'm probably a liability to who ever you stick me with. So maybe it's more fair to just make the Allies keep me. :rofl
:salute
Stay there, it is fine. I completely understand that people want to fly Allied and Spitfires. Most English speaking people do. It is we Luftwhiners that are the weirdos. We have better planes, better pilots and still complain!
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Chris79 on September 11, 2019, 02:39:14 PM
The spits don’t concern me the least. It’s EZ mode hence people that fly them develop bad habits and F8s are faster and can outlive them. I have greater concerns about the Jugs. They tend to attract better sticks and they dive extremely well.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: perdue3 on September 11, 2019, 02:43:01 PM
The spits don’t concern me the least. It’s EZ mode hence people that fly them develop bad habits and F8s are faster and can outlive them. I have greater concerns about the Jugs. They tend to attract better sticks and they dive extremely well.
Not a bad point, the UL's and Dutch will be looking for easy meat in those Jugs. Hopefully, they will escort the B-26s and leave you 3 F-8s alone. Although, a few of the 14 Spitfires are very scary sticks plus they are in a Spitfire which makes them nightmarish. Rud3boi in a Spit 8? With 13 other Spitfires with him? Yikes.
I remember the 56th FG in Battle Over Germany. Oh my God were they scary. Bone, Rud, Lepape, front, Zach, phatzo, Spikes, and Dantoo. Rough stuff.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Chris79 on September 11, 2019, 02:49:08 PM
Not a bad point, the UL's and Dutch will be looking for easy meat in those Jugs. Hopefully, they will escort the B-26s and leave you 3 F-8s alone. Although, a few of the 14 Spitfires are very scary sticks plus they are in a Spitfire which makes them nightmarish. Rud3boi in a Spit 8? With 13 other Spitfires with him? Yikes.
I remember the 56th FG in Battle Over Germany. Oh my God were they scary. Bone, Rud, Lepape, front, Zach, phatzo, Spikes, and Dantoo. Rough stuff.
Hell let them chase us, if half the allies fighter force is chasing the F8s, then the A5s and G6s ought to decimate the bombers.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: CptTrips on September 11, 2019, 02:49:43 PM
Stay there, it is fine. I completely understand that people want to fly Allied and Spitfires. Most English speaking people do. It is we Luftwhiners that are the weirdos. We have better planes, better pilots and still complain!
HEh. Well I wanted to try a Spit IX. I hadn't flown it in ages. Honestly, I'm already missing my Emil. :D
The big problem I've had though with all the German iron is the right-offset gun site. I fly VR which means things work like in real life. However, I'm left eye dominant, so it feels really unnatural for me. I tried re-centering so my left eye is looking through, but then my face is being smushed up on the right side of the cockpit glass which is a silly way to fly. :rofl
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: CptTrips on September 11, 2019, 02:51:03 PM
The spits don’t concern me the least. It’s EZ mode hence people that fly them develop bad habits and F8s are faster and can outlive them. I have greater concerns about the Jugs. They tend to attract better sticks and they dive extremely well.
Well my advice then, as always, is to keep your eyes on the Jugs.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: perdue3 on September 11, 2019, 02:55:22 PM
HEh. Well I wanted to try a Spit IX. I hadn't flown it in ages. Honestly, I'm already missing my Emil. :D
The big problem I've had though with all the German iron is the right-offset gun site. I fly VR which means things work like in real life. However, I'm left eye dominant, so it feels really unnatural for me. I tried re-centering so my left eye is looking through, but then my face is being smushed up on the right side of the cockpit glass which is a silly way to fly. :rofl
We have 190's as well.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 11, 2019, 03:37:11 PM
The spits don’t concern me the least. It’s EZ mode hence people that fly them develop bad habits and F8s are faster and can outlive them. I have greater concerns about the Jugs. They tend to attract better sticks and they dive extremely well.
I usually fly a 38J. I have to ease off the stick and rudders.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Devil 505 on September 11, 2019, 05:30:45 PM
First, I assume you are talking about the guys who agreed to fly P-40's with me: Popsman (who is my father), Killyjim (best man at my wedding), TheKenzr (my nephew), Tudza (my college buddy and co worker), and 1ijac (long-time AH pal, awesome AH pilot, and all around excellent human being).
Not only are these guys all fine human beings outside the game, they are fine assets to scenarios, because they are always willing to contribute and help out. Many historical setups are not composed of only highly favored planes. These guys are willing to fly those P-40's, Stukas, Il-2's, He 111's, B5N's, 110's vs. P-51's, etc. so that we have those historical yet unfavored planes filled and so that others can fly the highly preferred planes. Then, they show up every frame and never quit, even if we are getting annihilated. They never complain. They don't badmouth anyone. They maintain high, positive morale no matter what. Those are high-quality guys.
Yeah, those guys are who I am referring to. I agree, they are stand-up guys. And they follow along happily wherever you go.
Seems to me you have an Axis recruitment problem and your guys heading to the Axis would help remedy that situation.
Quote
Second, I already offered to be axis CO. I wasn't taken up on it. We long since moved on. Now I'm done with my recruiting (after lots of PM's personally inviting my contacts to fly specifically with me in specific roles) and have built my command team.
Did you? Looks to me like you appointed Perdweeb without him agreeing to do the job and then announcing that he was Axis CO to the public.
Quote
However, I will do this for you, Devil. Next time I'm needed to fill in as a CO, and if there is flexibility on which side that is, you choose which side I go.
I'll do that whether or not you fly in Anzio.
I wanted you to fly in Anzio for two reasons. One is to help a good guy (Perd) who might also be an AH pal of yours. That's independent of what you think of the setup -- that's helping someone out. Second is that I think you'd end up having fun. But you are very certain that you won't, and under those circumstances (as in Henry Ford's saying "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right"), you will be right.
So, we'll see how it goes, and I hope that you join us in the next scenario that is more to your liking. :aok
No, Brooke. I don't care about the next scenario.
What I want, is for you to make this one playable for both sides. Or if you are so sure that it is playable - despite me and the low number of Axis registered pilots telling you otherwise - that you put your money where your mouth is and lead the Axis in this scenario.
And for that I am willing to dedicate a four Saturdays of my time to a task that I don't enjoy just to prove a point to you. Because I believe that you will remain ignorant to the fact that this design is unwinnable for the Axis unless you are forced to attempt to design a winning plan for that side.
To make you eat that humble pie will make all those bomber sorties that I fly worthwhile.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: CptTrips on September 11, 2019, 05:45:49 PM
Well, like I said, the offer is open if you need people to switch. Just give me a little heads-up before so I can do a little practice in what ever I'll be dying in.
:neener:
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 11, 2019, 05:59:34 PM
That's right... Keep talkin boyz. :aok You don't need an enigma machine.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: perdue3 on September 11, 2019, 06:03:40 PM
Yes. Specifically: "By the way, I have volunteered to be allied CO if we don't get some other volunteer soon. However, if folks think we can fill P-40's without me and my guys in them, I would be very pleased to volunteer to be axis CO".
What it looks like to you can't be the whole picture because you don't see the CM forums and my PM's. Also, I don't determine everything. The scenario team goes by majority vote, of which I am one vote.
Quote
What I want, is for you to make this one playable for both sides.
I'm with you. I want that, too. Very much. I do think it is playable for both sides.
BUT --
That doesn't mean it's perfect. I've been talking to Perd a lot about things from his perspective, and I think we've got some changes that will make it a lot better. We'll have that out soon.
Quote
you put your money where your mouth is
I understand, and I like that concept, too.
I've done it at times. I argued for Ta 152's in Fjord Fury. Folks said that would doom the Lancs. I flew Lancs and took the allied side and put my money where my mouth is. I argued for Bf 110C/Ki-45's in Leyte. Folks said they'd be doomed. I flew those and put my money where my mouth is.
And flying P-40's in Anzio -- because I thought P-40's would be by far the least-favored spot of anything on either side.
I would be up for changing sides instead, but not at this stage.
Quote
To make you eat that humble pie
I completely understand that sentiment. It's totally natural, and I feel that way myself sometimes, too. When we run a scenario, whenever I'm on the winning side and if there are any complaints on the other side, I always wish we could re-run it with the sides swapped.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 12, 2019, 01:10:19 AM
Sorta. Officially, yes. But, during this event's design, no. I am now, wasn't then. So, the next Scenario will be the first Scenario with my name on it.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Shuffler on September 12, 2019, 04:26:17 PM
Sorta. Officially, yes. But, during this event's design, no. I am now, wasn't then. So, the next Scenario will be the first Scenario with my name on it.
Awesome. We always appreciate all the hard work you fellas put in for all of our enjoyment.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: puller on September 12, 2019, 05:42:05 PM
Most excellent....KN FSOs are very interesting and enjoyable...so I can only assume KN scenarios will be the same :rock :rock :rock
Brooke...I have enjoyed some of yours too...but PLEASE PLEASE stop unbalancing them...your plane choices are consistently and "statistically" bunk...I don't care what happened when in what scenarios in the past...how can you call even half of these scenarios even??? How?
I can't even draw a fighter squad to these things anymore...I can't...I try....I threaten and browbeat constantly....you have now turned Devil away...do you not remember the discussions we have all had on comms during the events where you were Axis with us??? I do...and I remember a very valuable post from Roc to you about this very thing...
Rant over...I'm sorry
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 12, 2019, 05:49:00 PM
Sorta. Officially, yes. But, during this event's design, no. I am now, wasn't then. So, the next Scenario will be the first Scenario with my name on it.
Dude, with a noncommittal answer like that maybe we should rethink that. :headscratch:
Teams work together and cover each other. They agree to disagree if necessary but find an acceptable solution. That is the nature of a team. Your answer doesn't make me want to trust and believe in you as a teammember. You commit fully or walk, your choice.
This is not employment. This is team work. Just like marriage and other so profound institutions. If your not ready to buyin maybe you should back out.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: ROC on September 12, 2019, 06:24:03 PM
Quote
If your not ready to buyin maybe you should back out. Your answer doesn't make me want to trust and believe in you as a teammember. You commit fully or walk, your choice.
Read his reply again and really rethink the chip on your shoulder. Perd was getting questioned about something he should have known due to his participation on the design. He clarified, simply, didn't design this one, will design the next one. Where did your left hook come from? Publically calling out a CM Team Member to walk, perhaps you might reconsider your role if you can't do better than that.
That was uncalled for Swareiam. Do you really want to show people like me that I might have made a terrible mistake offering to jump in and fly this, when your numbers are in the toilet and you refuse to listen to why? This is why. Confidence in a design is one thing, arrogance and condescension are another, guess which one kept me away.
Congratulations, you caused me to rethink my very recent decision to try again. We'll see how you handle the mistake you just made.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: swareiam on September 12, 2019, 06:50:49 PM
Read his reply again and really rethink the chip on your shoulder. Perd was getting questioned about something he should have known due to his participation on the design. He clarified, simply, didn't design this one, will design the next one. Where did your left hook come from? Publically calling out a CM Team Member to walk, perhaps you might reconsider your role if you can't do better than that.
That was uncalled for Swareiam. Do you really want to show people like me that I might have made a terrible mistake offering to jump in and fly this, when your numbers are in the toilet and you refuse to listen to why? This is why. Confidence in a design is one thing, arrogance and condescension are another, guess which one kept me away.
Congratulations, you caused me to rethink my very recent decision to try again. We'll see how you handle the mistake you just made.
ROC,
Your principles are based on escalation, not buying into it. You are unhelpful to a situation that doesn't exist within your space. If you want to fly, awesome we'll see you on game day. If not, we are sorry that you decided not to join us.
It has always been your choice. The only power I have over you is to completely ignore you, partially ignore you, or give you some quality time.
Other than that this doesn't concern you.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Arlo on September 12, 2019, 07:41:54 PM
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on September 12, 2019, 09:42:22 PM
I must confess to finding a bit of silliness in all this. When I was part of the scenario design team I got ripped every way possible about the damage I caused to scenarios and how unfair they were etc. the numbers drop, Allied bias, unfair plane sets,you name it. It’s a no win deal. I also find it ironic some of those who complained the loudest are now on that team. How’s the view from over there?
At this point I think the best thing to do is shut up and fly or shut up and don’t fly.
Just my opinion of course :)
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: ROC on September 12, 2019, 11:59:53 PM
Quote
Your principles are based on escalation, not buying into it. You are unhelpful to a situation that doesn't exist within your space.
Fair enough. Cya :) Perd, sorry, not interested.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 13, 2019, 12:40:34 AM
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: SIM on September 13, 2019, 08:15:14 AM
Quote
That is the nature of a team. Your answer doesn't make me want to trust and believe in you as a teammember. You commit fully or walk, your choice.
The nature of a team is based off the leadership ability of the team leader. Your comments are more of a threat than any sort of team discussion. Especially in a public post.......
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: FBKampfer on September 13, 2019, 11:41:51 AM
I'm very unclear how Perdweeb's answer was noncommittal.
He's part of the team, but was not on the team when this was designed. Aside from pending alterations Brooke mentioned (that at time of his posting he may or may not have known were going to be implemented), he's not touched this one.
Pretty cut and dried.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: bangsbox on September 13, 2019, 12:49:15 PM
I heard that BangsBox guy is going to ho explode all the allied birds :devil
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 13, 2019, 01:47:29 PM
This is quite deflating. I was very enthused about the fact that you agreed to fly. A chance for me to reconcile, right some wrongs. Hopefully next time :salute
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on September 13, 2019, 07:13:10 PM
This is quite deflating. I was very enthused about the fact that you agreed to fly. A chance for me to reconcile, right some wrongs. Hopefully next time :salute
If you are serious about the change, then more power to you. Considering your actions in the past towards those of us on the scenario team at the time, it will take some convincing. What I can say is you won’t get from me the same treatment I and others on the team got from you at the time.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: perdue3 on September 13, 2019, 07:15:52 PM
If you are serious about the change, then more power to you. Considering your actions in the past towards those of us on the scenario team at the time, it will take some convincing. What I can say is you won’t get from me the same treatment I and others on the team got from you at the time.
:salute
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 13, 2019, 10:30:53 PM
Dude, with a noncommittal answer like that maybe we should rethink that. :headscratch:
Teams work together and cover each other. They agree to disagree if necessary but find an acceptable solution. That is the nature of a team. Your answer doesn't make me want to trust and believe in you as a teammember. You commit fully or walk, your choice.
This is not employment. This is team work. Just like marriage and other so profound institutions. If your not ready to buyin maybe you should back out.
You know over the years I've had issues with Perdweeb but reading through here I believe he has seen what several of us have being saying for quite a while now.
Sware between you and Brooke you have come up with THE worst setups and scoring systems and bashed anyone who thought otherwise about it, you've strong armed, coerced and talked over anyone else who actually can fly in this game and has the knowledge of the planesets in reality and not Brooke made up number land. I have laughed for years about your P40 comments after killing you and forcing your wingman to auger P40Fs vs a 110C4 on the deck.
I WILL NOT sit here and watch you put some BS like this on one of your own CM guys, Perdweeb seems to be trying to bring some actual competency to the scenarios that you and your goons have run out of the events thus far. You have truly lost your mind with this comment...So because he doesn't want to get drug through the mud with you and the rest on this junk you've slapped on the wall you'll kick him out. That showcased just what the CM to some degree has been lowered to...
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on September 15, 2019, 09:09:26 PM
You know over the years I've had issues with Perdweeb but reading through here I believe he has seen what several of us have being saying for quite a while now.
Sware between you and Brooke you have come up with THE worst setups and scoring systems and bashed anyone who thought otherwise about it, you've strong armed, coerced and talked over anyone else who actually can fly in this game and has the knowledge of the planesets in reality and not Brooke made up number land. I have laughed for years about your P40 comments after killing you and forcing your wingman to auger P40Fs vs a 110C4 on the deck.
I WILL NOT sit here and watch you put some BS like this on one of your own CM guys, Perdweeb seems to be trying to bring some actual competency to the scenarios that you and your goons have run out of the events thus far. You have truly lost your mind with this comment...So because he doesn't want to get drug through the mud with you and the rest on this junk you've slapped on the wall you'll kick him out. That showcased just what the CM to some degree has been lowered to...
Vudu have you been on the CM team? I don't remember. Brooke and Warhawk don't set the rules anymore than Perdweeb can. The expectations are set by Hitech on how things get handled. What you are doing is exactly what Perdweeb did to me and others when he was on the outside looking in and claiming to know all. He's now on the inside and has to play by the same set of rules I had to when he was giving us all kinds of crap both on the boards and privately.
Get yourself on the CM team if you want to make it better in your eyes. Unless you are on the team and have had to abide by the HTC expectations, you don't know what you are talking about. Not trying to pick a fight btw. I just remember how it was when I wanted to let fly at those giving me all kinds of garbage and I couldn't. It's why I said I won't throw at Perdweeb the same crap he threw at me. He's now in a better position to understand it and he has to abide by the rules as well unless he chooses to leave. Clearly he's playing by those rules, so more power to him.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: bangsbox on September 16, 2019, 10:11:11 AM
Vudu have you been on the CM team? I don't remember. Brooke and Warhawk don't set the rules anymore than Perdweeb can. The expectations are set by Hitech on how things get handled. What you are doing is exactly what Perdweeb did to me and others when he was on the outside looking in and claiming to know all. He's now on the inside and has to play by the same set of rules I had to when he was giving us all kinds of crap both on the boards and privately.
Get yourself on the CM team if you want to make it better in your eyes. Unless you are on the team and have had to abide by the HTC expectations, you don't know what you are talking about. Not trying to pick a fight btw. I just remember how it was when I wanted to let fly at those giving me all kinds of garbage and I couldn't. It's why I said I won't throw at Perdweeb the same crap he threw at me. He's now in a better position to understand it and he has to abide by the rules as well unless he chooses to leave. Clearly he's playing by those rules, so more power to him.
:rofl
You let fly in your own CM way. "Fights down here guys!"
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on September 17, 2019, 04:49:15 PM
I can always count on you to hump my ankle. How are ya Sukov? :)
You were above the "hump ankle" nonsense. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Vudu15 on September 17, 2019, 09:24:22 PM
Guppy they have never wanted me on the CM team and I highly doubt HT has any hand in the scenarios outside of maybe some ground rules he may have set years ago. (But I'd like to know more)
Picking fights has not what I've been about. It has always been a fair event OR as fair as it can be. I have always known that no event will ever remotely be perfect. But you could at least get the missions straight so that one side vs the other has a fighting chance. You continue to hemorrhage players for some reason and Im not talking about average folks who always play I'm talking about COs and GLs the positions that make or break events. So tell me I'm just crazy and that nothing is wrong with the events that are being cobbled together like dead things found on the side of the road. One side typically has an uphill fight that is always known, but what the CM team has failed to take into account on almost every event I've seen is the ability of the average pilot, the folks that make up the event....i always get to a point in my comment where I realize it doesn't matter what I say. I liked a challenge when I flew but I'm not suicidal.
IF I was a 109 GL in this event Id be happy to have at least 2 other competent 109 guys and 3 average pilots and I know ANY fighter I run into will match me numbers or be greater (the spit 9s) are easier to fly and better armed AND I have the stupid choice of gondolas which MAY BE handy IF I catch the 26s right and will screw me if I meet any fighters or dont carry gondolas and Im useless against 26s overall and I can fight fairly well against fighters.
Odds are in this event the 109s alone will fight fighters so that's 12 vs 26(yes I've counted the vaunted P40s as the odds are they will be on fighter support after they have dropped ords) the A5s will be held for bombers since you set your scoring so that you cant ignore them because immersion i guess...and over all the Axis will get outran outgunned and out fought due to a poor plane/rule set up. because mr numbers and his sidekick the P40man just love love love em some stats or whatever it is they do.
The rules/mission sets are not balanced they do not allow for the limitations of the axis numbers or ammo limits. It should be an overwhelming allied victory with a rousing please rate me 5 stars at the end. But what do I know I've never been on the CM team I know not the rigors placed upon such holy peoples...
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Guppy35 on September 18, 2019, 12:51:48 AM
The spits don’t concern me the least. It’s EZ mode hence people that fly them develop bad habits and F8s are faster and can outlive them. I have greater concerns about the Jugs. They tend to attract better sticks and they dive extremely well.
I originally registered for P47D11 slot, because I love to dogfight in them....but after seeing who all was where on allies side, I requested to be switched over to the spitfire IX 307th squad, even though I could have taken a spitfire VIII, which I prefer over all spitfire models....oh btw, I love flying P40s but instead of flying my preference I decided to give others a chance at getting a shot to fly their preference
See ya in the skies hopefully
~S~
TC
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: hazmatt on September 21, 2019, 04:05:22 PM
I figured it had been modified but I was curious what was the base plane. Thanks.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Arlo on September 21, 2019, 07:10:06 PM
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: FLOOB on September 22, 2019, 10:13:44 PM
As a former CM, I have to chuckle. Things never change, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. There's always going to be people who are going to put a lot of effort in hating what CMs do. And their weird obsession will get personal (as seen in this thread), verging on cyber stalking. Word of advice for any soon to be CMs, don't give out your real email or phone number, even within the CM corps. Because you will get harassed. Brooke has two important qualities that make him a good CM. Professional comportment and shed loads of patience. Did I mention the job doesn't pay well?
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 23, 2019, 01:39:35 AM
Thanks, Floob! :aok
I got fifteen quatloos, though! That's as much as was wagered that Captain Kirk would be untrainable.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Arlo on September 23, 2019, 05:10:02 AM
I'm not aware of this happening, care to elaborate?
Lonely gay men at all hours and horrible spam, players who had access to CM forums who shouldn’t have.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: FLOOB on September 25, 2019, 12:38:55 AM
That sounded weird so let me clarify, I was getting calls from horny dudes at all hours on that phone number because somebody in this community obviously put it on craigslist or something. Has nothing to do with my lifestyle, which is none of your business. So stop laughing!
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on September 25, 2019, 03:04:03 AM
It was Zack. He was lonely.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Spikes on September 25, 2019, 10:34:00 AM
That sounded weird so let me clarify, I was getting calls from horny dudes at all hours on that phone number because somebody in this community obviously put it on craigslist or something. Has nothing to do with my lifestyle, which is none of your business. So stop laughing!
I suppose this must have been well before my time. I have never heard of this happening to anyone.
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: alskahawk on October 06, 2019, 01:43:01 PM
I enjoyed the first day of the scenario. Wish I had more time on Saturday's but football takes a significant portion of my day. Still very enjoyable. See you next Saturday
Title: Re: Devil comments
Post by: Brooke on October 06, 2019, 02:35:02 PM
Thanks for flying, AlskaHawk! :aok
Yeah, I know what you mean about football. I watch every Michigan football game and want to be watching it live instead of recorded whenever possible.