Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: JB42 on February 18, 2006, 11:12:25 AM
-
What a joke. Now FSO has truley gone MA. Approx. 112 pilots, 6 IL2s, 1 yak, 2 P40s. that leaves about 103 La5s. WTG on totally abusing the "you must use "X" amount of planes, not to mention V49 was undamaged and Helsinki was barely touched. I think the Axis deserves frame 3 by default and I demand that the VVS CO should be banned from making orders for a very long time. If people can't get into the spirit of what FSO is about, then please do not participate. :mad: :mad: :furious :furious :mad: :mad:
-
This was my first FSO....and I must say I really enjoyed it. I did not know how many planes/types the axis/allies said were required.
This frame our squad was dictated to have only LA5's....not sure how the plane numbers are determined.
If there were set numbers and plane types required and they were not followed....
FOUL!!!!
The rules should be followed.....if they were not then that is 100% wrong.
I feel your frustration and your reasons for being upset if the spirit of the FSO was not followed.
Regards,
Mike
-
Tried to read the logs in a different light from several angles. But the picture stays as dark as JB42 painted it. I think making attacking targets optional (by making the points no worth the effort) was a good experiment, but now that we know the results we don't have to try that again.
-
Had problems last night, but I saw the orders and have to admit, they were not really in the spirit of FSO. However, it was a well thought out and devastating plan.
We need to make sure that FSO CiC's understand that they have a duty to fairness and fun for all, not just a duty to win.
That being said, might be better to contact the CM team via email about these situations.
-
Helsinki was barely touched? What were the 192 structures the Allied Force destroyed? When my group bombed Helsinki, I had trouble finding standing buildings to bomb. After I dropped, the city appeared to be 90% down and the town next to it was about 80% down.
-
Magic, there are 4 large town sections for a City. You guys damaged it 25%. That's hardly touched.
-
I am looking into the logs and scoring. I have screenshots of the objectives.
I am not going to comment on anything specific at this point. Please be patient, I'll have the scores out by Sunday night. The CM team is reviewing SEVERAL issues that have occurred throughout this event.
All squad CO's please update your e-mail address and be prepared to check for incoming mail in the near future.
-
well that explains deth7's 9 kills, he is nothinbut a score potato.
he couldn't shoot his way out of an ant farm with an m16:rolleyes:
-
I gotta say..when we attacked the city..not only was the large city, but also the town beside it were cratered and not many bldgs were seen.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
I gotta say..when we attacked the city..not only was the large city, but also the town beside it were cratered and not many bldgs were seen.
I donno, but my film showed only two sections... one was completely destroyed.
-
and noone even try to defend it, all what i saw except bombers , was single 109 crusing at high alt 20 miles east of Helsinki
-
(http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/842/helsinki5ss.jpg)
The bomb damage to Helsinki looks pretty extensive in this screen shot.
-
Gentlemen, what happened was a disconnect among the two sides based on interpretation of the objectives of the frame.
The allies interpretted that the true objective was to killed Axis planes. So they concentratred on using fighters and dual purpose fighters over everything else. Hense a massive swarm of LA5Ns.
The axis interpretted that the true objective was to bomb targets. So the concentrated their forces around JU88s and escorts to get them to target. Which magnified the fighter advantage the VVS had over them.
I was not there do to a real life crisis this friday night. So I don't have first hand experience of what went down besides from AARs and the logs.
The CMs are discussing things, why this FSO behaved the way it did, etc.
The results and the way it played out are being discussed very seriously by them along with what tweaks need to be made and not made and what to do and not do for the next FSO.
-
And then I see this 109 trailing a banner "I'm Doobs I dare ya to shoot me Down" Btw you're therapist asked me to lay off ya for a couple of FSO's
hehe Doobs!!!
-
lol,too funny.wheres the "spirit of tods"instructions?sorry we stomped you guys so hard.i could have sent a few more bombers to hit the little v base if i thought yall were gonna cry.
its a game
its based on points and leadership
its not some jabo run to see how good you drop bombs under stress?
i saw the weakness in the stratagy of my enemy and exploited it.
we win
didnt have fun?great .change the rules.do whatever you want.i will still find the flaw next time and stomp ya again.wanna take your ball and go home?then go.dont ask me to run it if your gonna complain that i broke some unwritten code?
i was told to kick some bellybutton and bring them home alive
whats wrong?
did i do it too well?:rofl
-
Good attitude squiggly. Park the ego for a second and let me point out the 'flaw' in your plan that got me upset.
You did not send a concentrated attack at the 'little V base' and a squad spent the night flying over it. Put yourself in the postion of those players and tell me how you would feel.
It is in the rules that you must attack all objectives and defend all objectives. You did that - sort of but not the way I feel you should have. I am not going to tell you or anyone how to play but that (to me) was dissapointing.
Congrats on your win............I think that what transpired here is definately going to put some 'emotion' into this event. There is going to be some good hunting and squiggly you may have some players looking for you:noid
-
sqwiglly, be so kinde and drop it, arrogance does not help solve any problems
FSO its not about win/loose, but about fun
You did exploiting orders but as expirienced CiC you should know to not do it.
-
Originally posted by skernsk
You did that - sort of but not the way I feel you should have.
First, I didn't fly Friday (personal business), but I was privy to Sqwigs plan in advance as a ranking member of his squad.
Skernsk, I won't claim that anyone did the right thing here, or for that matter that I would have planned the mission the way that sqwig did... But what I will say is that if you have a way you FEEL the mission should be organized then you should probably spell it out. I think its unfair of you to expect your commaders to be mind readers... Your thoughts?
I think sqwig did his job as a team commander. He lead them to victory.
What is all this about 'intent' and your 'feelings'? Is it not supposed to be a war? How many times did the Axis or Allies feel really bad if the other side got their feelings hurt?
If you have explicit expectations in your plan you should spell them out. I feel it is entirely wrong of you to say that sqwig broke a law that was never written or make criticism of a plan that worked within the rules as drawn.
Sqwig is an agressive commander, I've flown with him for nearly 3 years. I don't always agree with his approach (in fact often I do not), but he does deliver results. He does not fly to come in second place and he does not make apologies for winning. Frankly I think a lot of cry-babies could learn a lot from him.
Those who want fair and balanced should probably play Care Bears online... AH carries a risk of getting shot by someone who outsmarts the enemy. Thats the point.
Was the Atom Bomb Fair? Was the ME-262 fair? No. War is won by the man with the plan that surprises and astonishes the enemy. Plain and simple. And, like it or not... Call it fair or not, Sqwig did just that and the Axis commander had the option to do the same.
I say lets move on, no rules were broken and everyone learned to stop expecting the expected moves.
-
Originally posted by skernsk
You did that - sort of but not the way I feel you should have. I am not going to tell you or anyone how to play but that (to me) was dissapointing.
You a reporter Kurt? Use the whole quote in context and you have your answer. We do not want to tell anyone how to play - and the fact that the loophole was there is my fault ... as I have written. I can have an opinion and express it.
I also am not sure where I wrote that a rule was broken. Had a rule been broken the frame would go to the Axis. The rules were followed, but like I said, and you can quote me.....
All objectives need to be attacked and defended. 1 plane attacking or defending does not (in my mind) come close to an attack. However, I cannot say a rule was broken because I did not say how many planes were needed to be considered an attack.
Likewise, I asked for 4 of the 5 planes to be used. I did not say use 'x' amount of planes. So, as stated it is ultimately my fault for leaving the loopholes there to be exploited and 100 La-5's take off and fly around the Karelian Isthumus.
That is why I said, CiC's are going to need lawyers to read the future objectives. The last thing I or any CM wants to do is micro-manage the CO's. The best part is throwing out the objectives and letting you guys run with them. But if we are expected to close every loophole - how much planning room do you think will be left? NONE.
Personally, I have no interest in being a lawyer or worrying about loopholes. I don't look forward to the next set of objectives I might have to write up.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
If you have explicit expectations in your plan you should spell them out. I feel it is entirely wrong of you to say that sqwig broke a law that was never written or make criticism of a plan that worked within the rules as drawn.
Wait, Kurt, skernsk never said that. What is being pointed out here is how to interpret what is written. Everyone is learning from this experience already. So, you are right, let's just move on.
-
i agree that its no fun to show for tods,circle a base and then land after 2 hours and im sorry for anyones bordom. but i was lookin out for my side,not yours.
i sent an enitre squad (4-6 )to hit 49.unfortunatly they showed with 3 and died fast.i planned to come to 49 with everyone,so you wouldnt be bored,but my cm called it off.so ask him why he called us off.
-
lol,and no i wont let it rest i just got here.
anyone remember last time i ran tods?:rofl
-
hey jb42698245
dont be a sore loser
If you can't get into the spirit of what FSO is about, then please do not participate.
if it helps ill send you a copy of the rules,if you read them youll know what to expect
crybabys
1570 - allied
650 - axis:aok
oooo feels like a rugburn huh?
-
Originally posted by sqwiglly
but i was lookin out for my side,not yours
I believe it is the responsibilty of all squad COs to look out for the community as a whole. I think u've put way to much emphasis on winning and not enough emphasis of "FSO".
-
sqwiggly -
thats just a dumb attitude man - good job and all for your stomping of us axis weenies, but drop the heroic "i am t3h l33t winner" attitude.
-
Originally posted by skernsk
I also am not sure where I wrote that a rule was broken. Had a rule been broken the frame would go to the Axis. The rules were followed, but like I said, and you can quote me.....
Sorry Skernsk, that part of my remarks was not directed at you, more at everyone who was upset about it, and making sound as if there was a whole unwritten rule book.
I'd like to say again, I'm not condoning sqwigs plan, and I wouldn't have made the same plan if it was left to me.
I simply believed that he was given a framework and put together a plan that would win within that framework. And to that end I am on his side.
-
Why not in the future require all orders and mission plans to be preapproved by a CM?
-
Why does there need to be a change?
I think that the CM staff is forgetting one critical component of FSO... As follows...
The intent of rotating the commanders is to ensure variety... Correct? Can I list for you all of the times I've been stuck flying an impossible mission of nothing but frustration because the frame commander had no vision? Then there are days where the frame commander holds together a flight against very challenging conditions...
Sometimes you're going to get a 'sqwigly'. Nothing needs to change because of that. If you wanted every single mission to go off precisely according to the CM vision then the CM team would be the commanders.
I know that the CM guys put enormous effort into designing these flights. but they are going to release it to the masses and every commander is going to have a different take on how to acheive the goal.
Some of those commanders are going to be into 'historical missions' and some of those commanders are going to be 'gamers'... And some will be incompetent regardless of their intent. That is the beauty of FSO.
Lets not let a few cries of 'FOUL' (how few are in here complaining compared to the total number who flew? maybe 5%?) get in the way of what is really being done... Which is that the CM team, are presenting a plan to a wide cross-section of players and leaving the implimentation open to interpretation of the commander. You can't reasonably expect everyone to be happy every time.
-
Originally posted by sqwiglly
i sent an enitre squad (4-6 )to hit 49.unfortunatly they showed with 3 and died fast.i planned to come to 49 with everyone,so you wouldnt be bored,but my cm called it off.so ask him why he called us off.
Sqwiglly, I only mention this to give the CM's ideas on how to instruct the CIC's when giving out the objectives. I hope you realize I am not trying to add any fuel to the already burning inferno. In response to the above however, I would never have made the above assignment. I have made it a point to not have sacrifical lambs anywhere in my orders. Everyone should have a reasonable chance to fulfill their objective.
I think that the spirit of the FSO should include a reasonable chance for everyone to accomplish their orders. Unescorted bombers is definately off my list of operations, as is small squads in unsupported attack roles. I use small squads to do reconisance, supplemental escort (not primary), and of course bombing with assigned escorts. I don't want to be responsible for someone having a short and unexciting night.
-
Originally posted by TracerX
Sqwiglly, I only mention this to give the CM's ideas on how to instruct the CIC's when giving out the objectives. I hope you realize I am not trying to add any fuel to the already burning inferno. In response to the above however, I would never have made the above assignment. I have made it a point to not have sacrifical lambs anywhere in my orders. Everyone should have a reasonable chance to fulfill their objective.
I think that the spirit of the FSO should include a reasonable chance for everyone to accomplish their orders. Unescorted bombers is definately off my list of operations, as is small squads in unsupported attack roles. I use small squads to do reconisance, supplemental escort (not primary), and of course bombing with assigned escorts. I don't want to be responsible for someone having a short and unexciting night. [/QUOTE
The russians would never use troops or aircraft as fodder to gain a victory.
Bronk
-
ok,so everyone seems to care that everyone has fun and the fights are ballanced.great.i thought we were supposed to win,my bad.
hey one of my guys broke his gear on rearm and had to miss out on the fun,can we make it so landings are easier?it would be more fun.it will also ballance out the differace between the new guys and the experianced ones
-
Originally posted by sqwiglly
hey one of my guys broke his gear on rearm and had to miss out on the fun,can we make it so landings are easier?it would be more fun.it will also ballance out the differace between the new guys and the experianced ones
Basic takeoff and landing skills has always been a minimum requirement for participation. We live with the dammage we sustain. It happens equally to both sides anyway, and is not a balance issue.
-
Ramzey had it.
FSO its not about win/loose, but about fun
The problem is some can’t equate lose and fun together.
Dace also hit the nail on the head.
I believe it is the responsibilty of all squad COs to look out for the community as a whole.
Why not in the future require all orders and mission plans to be preapproved by a CM?
Furious that would work, but it just takes time from the CM’s. I don’t know, maybe they will do that from now on. Also we have a LOT of CM’s in Squad Ops anyway. His plan which was still within the rules did not catch anyone’s attention.
Why does there need to be a change?
Why Kurt? Let me give you an example.
Say we have the following plane sets.
Allied
F4U1D
TBM
SBD
Axis
A6M5
Kate
Val
We tell them they must use 2 of the 3 Aircraft listed. Allies use 99 F4U’s and 1 TBM. Do you think that will even be remotely fun/reasonable/fair to the Axis side?
Or how about this plane set?
Allied
P-51
B-17
P-47
Axis
Fw190D
Me109k
Me262
The Axis up 99 Me-262 and one 109k. Is that going to be fun for everyone?
This is a loop hole we need to look and an consider for future events.
We put in rules to help balance the game play. So as many as possible will have a fun and exciting engagement and want to come back to Friday Squad Ops. Some of you may think it is restricting inventiveness, resourcefulness, creativity and your right, but at what cost. I can tell you with little doubt that after nearly 5 years of being on the design end of Squad Ops if these rules were not in place we would not have the most popular event in Aces High.
Nor is this the first time we dealt with it. Something like this took place a couple years ago and for several months we put in... "You must put at least 20 pilots in x aircraft"... and so forth. That finally sliped away till this took place.
The intent of rotating the commanders is to ensure variety... Correct? Can I list for you all of the times I've been stuck flying an impossible mission of nothing but frustration because the frame commander had no vision?
No so much that but to spread the burden of responsibility to the C.O.’s in Squad Ops.
-
Originally posted by daddog
No so much that but to spread the burden of responsibility to the C.O.’s in Squad Ops.
You're the one on the other side daddog, so you probably know better than I do, but if 1 case like this happens in a year, is it really such a big problem that you need to redesign the system?
A certain failure rate is to be expected.
Every major turning point in military history is defined by a case like this... The red coats certainly weren't happy when the colonial rebels took to the trees and camouflage to snipe the brits... In war in those days it was cheating to hide, you were supposed to wear a bright colored uniform and stand in a line and die.
Tactics are always evolving.
-
Tactics are always evolving.
As is this event and for the better IMHO. :)
Every major turning point in military history is defined by a case like this... The red coats certainly weren't happy when the colonial rebels took to the trees and camouflage to snipe the brits... In war in those days it was cheating to hide, you were supposed to wear a bright colored uniform and stand in a line and die.
Oh I agree. Or when they used the machine gun in WWI. Some wanted to outlaw it. But unlike real life this is a game where we want as many as possible to have fun, not allow one side to dominate and slaughter the other, yet at the same time allow creativity. It is a fine balancing act to be sure. :) Only time will tell how it all pans out. :)
-
Originally posted by Kurt
The intent of rotating the commanders is to ensure variety... Correct?
I think this has more to do with sharing the workload.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Why not in the future require all orders and mission plans to be preapproved by a CM?
The way I see it, this is already done in the form that targets are assigned. This is to ensure that certain battle is going to take place. In addition, we have the 60min time limit for the target to be attacked.
These are all learned from experience from the past, as we are doing now. As for pre-approval, I am not sure if this is the way to go. Having another cycle of approval will add work and time to the process for both the CMs and the COs, as daddog mentioned. Given the time that people have to work with, CMs can give directives and it is up to the COs to digest them. If it is not approved, the cycle has to be repeated...
-
huh?
-
My problem with the whole thing was simple... and it was all 3 frames..... we tried to cover areas that was SUPPOSED to be attacked .. and we get 1 -3 planes flying around the area.... then we decide to advance, and get swarmed by lots of LA's..... and when people try to discuss it on this board, out comes the attitudes that is so rampant in the MA... MOST of us fly in the SEA to get away from the furballs, attitudes, etc in the MA.... guys who are constatnly fighting eachother in the MA come together in the SEA and actually act civilized.... (for the most part). There always seems to be good natured ribbing, but thats to be expected. The main complaint from the Axis side, and yes.. I was cic for the first frame, is the tap dancing in the grey area...... YES...... you made an ATTEMPT at attacking bases..... but mainly it was a massive furball, then during the last few minutes of the frame, thats when the attacks on the areas that needed were hit...... THAT is the main complaint...... and if you all would put ego's in check for 5 minutes...... you would see that is all that is being said.....nothing more..... thats all I have to say on this..... :noid
-
well,being that this is in a thread called vvs,theres a little more being said than that,but anyway,ive been flying in here for a while,and i never knew we were here to get away from anything.as a squad leader ive allways enjoyed tods.i love to see what our orders are and pass them on.its allways different.all ive ever known is we were supposed to follow our orders and kill?and at the end of it all my squad allways asks"so howed we do?"what do you tell your guys?"well we fought with honor and both sides enjoyed themselves"....?.....huh?i duno?maybee i missed it somwehere along the 4 years ive been in it but im just not seeing tods the way ....,most do.if its not about how well your squad does,why do we have a list of top kills?
-
It is about how well your squad does, no problem with that at all. But as Frame C.O.'s when we build orders we have a duty to the community as well as our squad and team.
The Duty is to provide orders that will allow our team to win the frame while at the same time provide an opportunity for all squads "Including Enemy" to engage in battle in a timely manner.
To exclude any squad from a frame is just not acceptable. As a frame C.O. this should be understood and ego should be set aside for a moment while planning. By all means crush your advisary but do It by keeping all squads in the game not just your own side.