Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: AKKaz on January 25, 2008, 11:38:11 PM
-
Just finished frame 2 of this current FSO series. Had read the post regarding the setup before it started and decided to wait till a frame or 2 before posting.
Ground war incorporation was fun, would have like to seen it have more of an objective in mind. But can see this as another test phase in the incorporation of gv's into the action.
But the air war is as usual as it has been for years. So in other words, no real "test phase" type setup. Was fun and made the best of it, after flying this one I have to ask what was already brought up and answered as no problem:
Plane set competitive? 190A-5's are outclassed massively by the yaks. Been flyin for more than awhile, gave it a shot to be fair, but to think that A-5's and the yaks come close? No matter what the charts say I would have to disagree on this wholeheartedly. Will fly em, will fight em, but to be fair I saved my objection to this till after a few frames.
Things will go on, but I reserve my right to voice my objection in FSO matters as a CO of one of the original squads in this event.
Am curious as to the tallies of aircraft type and kills after the event is over with. True some has to do with piloting skills (in which I am the worst in the game), but not all is on the pilot.
-
I did fine against the yaks in a 190a5 till the very end. took 4 or 5 of them taking turns as I made them overshoot one by one till they finally put me down after multiple reversals. before that i claimed at least 2 kills possibily another 2 that might be assists. Me pulling that many low for one kill allowed 2 squadies to escape so I guess it was worth it.
-
Looks like the Allies agree with you:
# of yak-9u used = 121
# of La-5 used = 2
-
I would have rather had the LA5 ! My squad ran into about 30 190A5s we were very outnumberd!! I think the balance in our sector was way in favor of the germans! no matter what planes were involved! BTW all but 5 in my squad flew the yak9T. I think overall it was quite fair and balanced, the roster #s showed it thru out the evening. Besides with the 190s HOing all before them and better fuel endurance I think the plane vs plane advantage in this frame was clearly with the 190s! my $.02:aok
-
That and the widespread violations of the max altitude cap certainly helped. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Virage
Looks like the Allies agree with you:
# of yak-9u used = 121
# of La-5 used = 2
I know we don't have the 'hard' numbers rules on airplanes anymore, but isn't there supposed to be some 'soft' rule that bascially says 'Don't just fly one kind of plane?'
I hate to see the CM guys have to spoon feed us the numbers for planning... I hate to see CIC's disregard reason.
If the CiC's can't be counted on to assign planes responsibly, then we have a future of bad fights coming.
That number, 121 Yaks and 2 LA5's is just proof that some folks have no interest in presenting a realistic scenario.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Looks like the Allies agree with you:
# of yak-9u used = 121
# of La-5 used = 2
I'm going to look into it guys.
-
I can't help but smile ;) when I see a complaint about a lack of La5s .... You know what I mean. I'm sure Doobs would've been fine with it! :aok
I would've preferred an La5 and asked for them. Much better for hunting 190s in than Yaks for me. I might have even been able to find this guy:
# of Fw 190F-8 used 1
-
The battle S of of A42 and N of A1 over the water was quite the furball for about 10 minutes before superior German #'s decimated the Yaks in the area.
Co-ALT initial engagement at 15k+ was interesting and challenging.
-
For that matter, Dantoo, I don't recall seeing ANY 110s, either. Just a TON of 109s above max altitude and 190A-5s.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Looks like the Allies agree with you:
# of yak-9u used = 121
# of La-5 used = 2
if that is true i was on of the only la-5
-
I didn't pay that much attention to the orders as they were very basic for us so I don't know who was assigned to what. It would seem there were some problems on both sides.
I was CiC of the Axis side for frame 1. Prior to the frame (anytime I'm CiC), I make sure I print out the event description and objectives and read them thoroughly so that I understand the designer's intent. If I have a question I email the CM for clarification.
In the event description currently on the ahevents.org site it says there is to be a ground battle until T+45. Read the paragraph starting "The general concept of the FSO is this." The battle is generally to be supported with ground attack planes and air superiority fighters. Of course insofar as the planes it does say "The air fight shall consist of either close air support aircraft, or the fighter force assenbled to achieve air superiority over each assigned EA." So its the CO's choice to include attack planes or not. I chose to in frame 1. It was a pain trying to assign appropriate slots to each of the GVs, Jabos and fighters in sufficient numbers required in the objectives. I think I pretty much got that done.
In Frame 2's objectives it says under special information :
"20,000 ft ceiling in effect
Each side must plane to employ a minimum of 15 aircraft per engagement area.
Each side must use at least three (3) different aircraft each frame and plan to emply a minimum of twelve (12) aircraft per type.
It would seem there were some percieved problems on both sides insofar as the number of aircraft types used or the number of those types used. The axis did in fact use three types in sufficient numbers of each to satisfy the rule (89 109G-6, 73 190A-5, and 19 110s). Don't know where the single F-8 came from but that's good balance. I saw plenty of 109s early and plenty of 190s late. The allied side pretty much ignored the numbers of each type rule with only 2 La-5sand 9 IL-2s showing used and the rest in either Yak-9Us or -Ts. All Yaks wouldn't cut it either, although 37 of them were -Ts. Clearly some of those guys should have been in La5s.
The alt limit was largely ignored in my engagements with the axis. Each time my squad was tooling along at just a smidge under the 20K limit we'd be looking up at the bad guys. I heard lots of reports from the other EAs of this too. Almost as if it wasn't passed along. Only the last one, where we were passing A45 otw towards 44 did we see planes only in the 15K range (although the first pair we saw were higher than our 19.9K). Prolly because we were too close to their takeoff field (I assume was 44) to have allowed them time to climb higher. That's pretty much inexcuseable IMO as I'm pretty sure the objectives get passed along to the squad COs. All the squad COs had to be aware of this rule. Climbing to 25K and then diving as soon as you see dots in front of you doesn't cut it. The idea is you aren't going over 20K. I think the CMs might just have to make a wind layer that would make it waaay prohibitive--much more than it is currently--if guys can't adhere to this. If only to keep everybody honest.
If you're a side CO you have to make sure you are following the rules laid out in the setup when making up your orders so you don't cost your side points unnecessarily. Do as much as you can to impress any special rules or conditions so they don't get missed. (Last week I must have put in my orders 5 times the rule about only using certain fields and guys were still asking about it or effing it up.) If you're a squad CO you have to be clear on the rules of engagement for the same reason.
My .02 cents,
BTW I had a most enjoyable frame. I got caught up typing, vectoring in the horde of red air that showed up over by 45. Somebody got a round into my oil cooler while I was doing that. . I almost made it down to A11 in a glide. Stopped rolling a few yards short of the runway.
Drano
-
I admit, I was one of those exceeding alt cap, no excuse on that, just had a brain fart I guess.
I am probably wrong, but I took your posts as where exceeding alt maximums are far worse than other infractions of aircraft type, numbers, people not in uniform at start, etc. (which did occur in this frame)
They all seem equal to me.
-
Speaking as a player and member of a large squad, we saw the orders early in the week and questioned the aircraft usage. Our CiC made adjustments, but we didn't get the updated orders. We asked clarifying questions on command channel at 5 minutes before frame start and were instructed to up 50% 9u, 50% 9t as we were EA ground support so that is what we did. I am wondering if the other allied CO/XOs had a problem with getting the revised orders.
Either way there were violations on both sides that Stoney will need to look at, review and decide how to handle. I'm expecting a lot less issues this week, but there were some. As pointed out the allied didn't follow the rules in regards to plane usage, Axis has reported ceiling violations, and I'm sure if we look rearms at the wrong fields will be found and potentially second life violations. As stated, Stoney will review, assess, and post his response to this frame.
Wish I could fly in the 3rd frame, but business travel has me on the east coast the next couple of weeks.
-
Not at all Kaz. I was saying there were problems on both sides. Problems that could have or should have been avoided.
Funny thing about this event. There aren't any actual hard targets as is the norm for other events with the T+60 rule for attacking those and all the extra planning that goes into routes and timing for the CO. However, it was still more complicated than you'd think. Plugging in enough squads at enough numbers to satisfy the rules requirements at each EA in either GVs or planes and making sure there were assignments for the post T+45 part of the frame is a different sort of challenge.
I didn't think I'd like it at first but you'd have to agree--this setup is pretty cool. There's a lot of different action between the GVs and planes in a lot of different areas and for pretty much the entire frame. I don't think there was a dead spot on the map unlike some past events. It needed a little tweaking after frame 1 with numbers and I think Stoney made the right move as was evidenced by an almost equal number of players from start to finish of last night's frame. That's the mark of a good setup. Good balance, plenty of action for everyone. A thoroughly entertaining 2 hours IMO. I look forward to frame 3.
Drano
-
All's good.........
Agreed there was plenty of action all the way around. Personally for my taste I would rather have more of an objective than along the lines of this particular setup, but thats just me. I get alot of action within the MA, so more of an immersion is a welcome break to that which I get within the 24/7 community MA style.
Not against this FSO or anything, but just seemed more like changing arenas with the somewhat same action. The last AH scenerio, waiting for buffs to enter into the fatherland may have had some being bored, but the immersion made the world of difference for me and I can't remember a more enjoyable scenerio in the past. Speaking for me, this is the type that I look forward to the most and get the most enjoyment out of. So pardon some of my posts and replies, as I tend to come from that type of perspective with them.
Will go along with what ever the setup style is, as all individuals like different things. And as always, I do appreciate those that put in all the effort to keep this event going.
-
Originally posted by AKKaz
Agreed there was plenty of action all the way around. Personally for my taste I would rather have more of an objective than along the lines of this particular setup, but thats just me.
Give me some time to hammer out how an objective based format with GV's will work and it will happen. There were some mechanical challenges that I couldn't work out...for this event. In the future--skies the limit.
Regardless, I appreciate your input...
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Give me some time to hammer out how an objective based format with GV's will work and it will happen.
My .02...
I would like a pure gv fight. No attack planes. A town, small group of buildings or even just a Windmill would be an objective for 2 sides to fight over. A CM using godmode would determine which side had control of the objective or if it was still contested at a specific time. It could be a Attack/Defend scenario or place the objective between the 2 forces and have a meeting engagement.
Place one or more of these 'gv fights' on the map. Aircraft would have seperate objectives (e.g. hit train at A46) like a usual FSO. Maybe the results of the Aircraft objectives would effect the gv fight in some way. Kill train or other side gets 2 tigers next round.. you get the idea.
-
An "All GV event" may happen someday, but I fear a lot of FSO pilots, would not show for that.
-
Kaz,
Speaking from a CM level and from someone who has great respect for you and the AK's, thank you for your input, but more-so the way you deliver it with respect and honesty. I am passionate about this event, as are many MANY other players and CMs. As the event grows to levels not previously seen, the event has seen its fair share of growing pains. These types of discussions are healthy, warranted and great for the community of FSO players and Designers alike. Thank you for your honest input and the respectful manner you deliver it.
Sir.
:aok
-
Originally posted by REP0MAN
Kaz,
Speaking from a CM level and from someone who has great respect for you and the AK's, thank you for your input, but more-so the way you deliver it with respect and honesty. I am passionate about this event, as are many MANY other players and CMs. As the event grows to levels not previously seen, the event has seen its fair share of growing pains. These types of discussions are healthy, warranted and great for the community of FSO players and Designers alike. Thank you for your honest input and the respectful manner you deliver it.
Sir.
:aok
I could not agree more.
:aok
-
Originally posted by SLED
An "All GV event" may happen someday, but I fear a lot of FSO pilots, would not show for that.
I was unclear. I don't mean a 'GV only' FSO. Take a normal FSO with bombers, attack planes and fighters. Then ADD a GV only area somewhere on the map.
Only a few squads on each side would participate. Squads could sign up for tanks like they sign up for rides now.
again just my .02
-
Maybe actually incorporate base captures into the FSO frames? If one side succeeds in capturing the base it's so many points towards the final score?
Say, for Okinawa we could have had the F4U-1Ds providing CAS and F6Fs as escort while LVTs, or in the later frames Shermans and M-3s pushed through to capture the airfields. M8s would sub for Japanese tanks (ok, so US vs. Japanese tanks would be greatly unbalanced in favor of the Americans, but it's just an example of what coulda been. Maybe restricting the number of Shermans and relying more on support vehicles like the M-16 would help).
-
I really don't think a base capture type FSO would be the best. I get enough land grabbing in the MA.
-
It might be interesting to see how it would work with the finite resources of FSO. While there's something of a method to the madness in the Mains, a lot of it boils down to who can keep a constant flow of fresh blood into the fight. However when you only have a set number of lives and attempts to make it happen, there would be a LOT more strategy involved.
And of course, the objectives for the next frame can be determined by whether or not the target was successfully captured or defended.
-
Either way it goes, with or without objectives I just hope we see more GV's in FSO, I had some of the most fun in lastnight GV battle then I've had in awhile in FSO.